Last year my wife Christene and I were blessed with the chance to take a pilgrimage to the Holy Land. One of the final places we visited on that journey was the Church of the Visitation where (perhaps) the Virgin Mary came to visit her elderly but pregnant relative Elizabeth (it certainly is the location of the cool statue pictured here). In the Western Church, the Visitation is traditionally celebrated today, May 31.
The Visitation is recorded in Luke chapter 1 and gives us some of the Bible's loftiest language in celebration of the Virgin Mary and her unique place in salvation history: Elizabeth calls Mary by the title "Mother of my Lord" and greets her (by the Holy Spirit's prompting) with the words: "Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb..." (v.42) I might also suggest that when John the Baptist "jumps" in the womb for joy at the presence of Mary and (presumably) of the fetal Jesus as well in this passage (v.41 & 44) we are also given a very profound insight into the sacred humanity of unborn children still in the womb.
While Mariology has often been a dividing point between Roman Catholic (and Orthodox) and Protestant Christians, these verses provide us with the core of a Mariology that is both catholic and reformed: catholic in that we seek to celebrate Mary as the church across the ages has always done (not ignore her as some Protestants have done), and reformed in that we want our celebration of Mary to be in keeping with the Biblical witness so as not to stray into the worship of Mary or exalting her out of proportion - which she herself would flatly reject and abhor.
It is on this occasion that Mary, the Mother of our Lord, speaks the words now known as The Magnificat: "My soul magnifies the Lord..." (see Luke 1:46-55); these words of St. Mary the Virgin have come to be recited and sung all across the ecumenical church as one example of a truly "catholic" and thoroughly Biblical way of honoring Mary. The Visitation is one of two "Marian feasts" (the other being the Anunciation) for which our United Methodist Book of Worship provides liturgical resources, including this prayer:
Almighty God, you inspired the Virgin Mary, mother of your Son, to visit Elizabeth and assist her in her need. Keep us open to the working of your Spirit, and with Mary may we praise you for ever. We ask this through Jesus Christ our Lord, who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God, now and for ever. Amen. (The United Methodist Book of Worship, 257)
In celebration of the Visitation today, there is a video below of the choir at Westminster Abbey singing an arrangement of the "Magnificat" at Evensong (Vespers/Evening Prayer) on the occasion of Pope Benedict's visit to England in 2012. The "Magnificat" is a standard element of the Anglican Evening Prayer service (see The Book of Common Prayer 1979, p. 119 and 113) and also of the United Methodist Order for Evening Praise and Prayer (see The United Methodist Book of Worship, p. 575) because the Methodist service - like most all of our liturgy - flows out of the Anglican liturgical tradition.
What is the Methodist or Wesleyan understanding of Baptism? Why do Methodists (and Anglicans) baptize babies? If salvation comes by faith, where does baptism come in?
Sometimes (as with women's ordination) I fear that United Methodists offer simplistic answers to these deep questions, answers like "because God loves infants too" (yet there is obviously more to it than this since we do not baptize Hindus or Atheists or non-human creatures, all of which God also loves).
Methodists or Wesleyans take many of our theological cues from the writings of 18th Century Anglican priests Charles and particularly John Wesley.
John Wesley's view of baptism seems at times somewhat elusive because it is unclear how statements he makes in some of his writings cohere with statements he makes in others. However, he certainly maintains a high and Anglican view of the efficacy of baptism, even infant baptism, as a means of grace - and place where we meet God's transforming power. Even late in his life and ministry when he edited The Book of Common Prayer for Methodist use, he maintained the traditional language and theology of the Anglican prayerbook in the prayers and liturgy for baptism, though he did make some adjustments.
Yet his most systematic teaching on baptism is his Treatise on Baptism (or click HERE). He tells us in the first sentence what the Treatise covers: CONCERNING baptism I shall inquire, what it is; what benefits we receive by it; whether our Saviour designed it to remain always in his Church; and who are the proper subjects of it.
What is baptism? What does it do (or what does God do through it)? Does the Lord intend the church to continue practicing it (since groups like the Quakers, said he did not)? Should we administer it to believers only, or also to the children of believers?
In the Treatise Wesley lays out the traditional Reformational views on the subject very clearly. I read this text shortly after seminary and remember wondering why it had not been part of the curriculum as it gave such clear answers to some of my lingering questions about baptism that the official United Methodist statement, By Water and the Spirit, had not quite cleared up for me.
Over the years I have developed the habit of setting aside a place - a "prayer closet" or "home altar" for praying the Daily Office in a disciplined way (or attempting to). When I bought a condo a few years ago, I screened off a portion of the (rather long) bedroom as a private chapel for this purpose. Upon moving to my curret ministry setting with its parsonage, I moved my "chapel" out to the large storeroom in the backyard, but ultimately decided that I was not using it much out there, so I squeezed the altar into my study instead.
This contributes to the somewhat quasi-monastic character I'm trying to cultivate at our parsonage: like any good monastic house we have a library, home-grown produce, guest room, a big dinner table for hosting others, and the home altar.
I've more recently discovered that there is quite a tradition of "home oratories" ("orare" is Latin for "to pray" thus an "oratory" is a "prayer room" or chapel) among Anglicans, Roman Catholics, and Lutherans, among other Christians. It should be obvious that setting up an altar, or even having a special place (like a "prayer chair" as Richard Foster recommends) is not at all necessary for maintaining a regular prayer life; but it can indeed be helpful as a physical reminder and symbolic heart a God-centered household (which we are still striving to become). In keeping with the words of Jesus in Matthew 6, I am bit hesitant to post about this but perhaps someone may find this post, or the links, helpful in setting up your own prayer space.
For Methodists (like myself) interested in recapturing John and Charles Wesley's "prayerbook spirituality" - they prayed the daily office each day and the litany each week - having a home altar is certainly a nice way to facilitate the discipline. It is Methodism meets monasticism. Below you can see what mine currently looks like.
Many of the websites I've run across discussing or promoting the home oratory or home altar have suggested books (and other items) of devotion. Of course I have numerous books in my study, but I primarily use:
The Holy Bible (in this case a large King James Version "Family Bible" with full-color facsimiles of 600 year-old illuminations), which naturally remains upon the altar;
The United Methodist Hymnal and TheUnited Methodist Book of Worship are my primary devotion books besides the Bible (they contain the Daily Office and Canticles);
The Book of Common Prayer - occasionally "I mix it up" and use the BCP office or, if I'm pressed for time, use the shorter "Daily Devotions" (p. 136-140 in the 1979 BCP);
Wesley's Sunday Service book, particularly for praying the Litany, but also for the daily office sometimes.
Of course I sometimes feel led to kneel and pray without following any form or book at all. I believe it is important to have the regular rhythm (such as the Daily Office) but also to have the flexibility in the Spirit to deviate from it now and again.
How about you: do you have a set-aside place of prayer in your home? Any devotional material you recommend for that purpose?
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?
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 certaininterpretations 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
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.
----------------------------------------
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.
