The Tabernacle, the Exodus, the Cross, and the Lord's Prayer

Here is a great video from Joe at the 'Young Anglican' channel in which he does a great job showing the symbolic and typological connections between the Story of Israel, the Architecture of the Tabernacle/Temple, salvation through Christ, and even the Lord's Prayer. 
 Very interesting stuff, some of which I had not even noticed before.  

Scott Hahn on Jesus as the New Moses

 One Roman Catholic theologian that I have enjoyed reading and profited from is Scott Hahn, a former evangelical Presbyterian pastor (having been at one time a Protestant is a common factor in many of the Roman Catholics that I really like).  In this discussion Hahn discusses the "typological" interpretation of Scripture we frequently find among the Early Church Fathers.  He uses the example of how the Gospels present Jesus as a "new Moses" to illustrate this.

 

Why should a church have bishops?

 I believe in bishops.  I've had both really good and really bad experiences of Episcopal oversight, but experience is not what drives my belief system: the Bible interpreted through the historic church is.  That is why I believe in bishops.  

I know that this is an active topic of discussion among Methodists - and the Global Methodist Church in particular will decide later this year about whether to accept bishops at all and, if so, what sort of bishop it will be.

In this video I explain some of the reasons (there are others) why I think bishops are essential for the flourishing and especially for the unity of the whole church, and the congregations within it. 

Doing Apologetics with St. Augustine

 Interesting conversation: 

5 Proofs of the Real Presence of Christ's Body and Blood in Communion

Here is another video from the Rev. Dr. Jordan Cooper, of the Lutheran tradition.  Though the Anglicans and Methodists share in common a view of Christ's Real Presence in Communion that is not 100% identical with the Lutheran view, they are in fact pretty close (close enough that some Lutheran bodies are now in "full communion" agreements with both Methodist and Anglican churches).

What all these traditions do agree on (over against some Baptist and non-denomination traditions) is that, as Scripture clearly affirms, when we receive the consecrated elements of the Lord's Supper by faith, we truly receive the Body and Blood and Presence and Grace of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of our sins and renewal of our souls.  

How this works is understood in different ways, I am comfortable leaving it under the heading of "holy mystery".  I'm also comfortable with members within the same church holding (with humility) different understandings of how it works, so long as we strive not to contradict the teachings of Scripture.  

So, while not a Lutheran myself, I would actually concur with the arguments that Cooper makes in this video to demonstrate that the Real Presence in the Eucharist is, on a careful read of the text, a thoroughly Biblical teaching, and ought to be believed.  And that is to say nothing of this also being the undisputed teaching of the Ancient Church for many centuries after the age of the Apostles.  Who are we - separated by language, culture, and centuries - to know better than the early Church who shared the same language and culture as the New Testament writers themselves?

  

Jordan Cooper on the "Filioque"

 Here is a great video from Lutheran pastor and theologian Rev. Dr. Jordan Cooper defending the Western view of the "filioque."

'What in the world is that?', you may be asking.  In the Nicene Creed (which churches I pastor recite occasionally) we affirm that "We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son..."  

 That phrase "and the Son" is, in Latin, "Filioque" and it was not included in the original form of the Creed that was approved by ecumenical councils representing the whole of the Early Church.  It was added later by the Western Church to emphasize the divinity of the Son.  What is being affirmed is that, from all eternity, the Holy Spirit is proceeding both from the Father and from the Son within the Life of the Holy Trinity forever.

Eastern Orthodox Churches and other Eastern Rites have tended to reject this understanding of the relationship of the Spirit and the Son within the life of the Holy Trinity, and have vociferously rejected the addition of this phrase to the Creed.  

I believe that the "filioque" actually is good theology: it is consistent with the Biblical witness and makes sense of the nature of God, as Cooper explains in the video below.  However, I also agree that an ecumenical creed, authorized by an Ecumenical Council and shared in common by the whole universal/catholic Church of Jesus, ought not be unilaterally changed by only one part of that church without an Ecumenical Council authorizing the change.  

I'm glad to see that, beginning with the Lambeth Conference of 1978, churches of the Anglican Communion have begun to allow the original form of the Creed to be used - but without denying the truth that the "filioque" teaches.  Thus the 2019 Book of Common Prayer allows the phrase "and the Son" to be omitted with the Nicene Creed is recited (see page 768).  The brand new Methodist hymnal, Our Great Redeemer's Praise, follows the 2019 BCP and puts this phrase in [brackets] to indicate that it may be omitted.  Perhaps this approach will become more widespread within the Western Church and may contribute to warmer relations with the Eastern Church as well.

Are the Old Testament and the New Testament contradictory?

 An issue that many Christians (and explorers of Christian faith) have struggled with is the apparent disparity between God as described in the Old Testament - who is (at times) a God of war and wrath - and the Lord as he reveals himself in the New Testament.  

I like Holdsworth's approach to this question, though it is by no means a "final" or complete "answer" to all of the difficulties.  I have often pointed out to people that, because the Bible is a progressive or unfolding revelation, you know more about the character and purposes of God by the end of the story than you knew at the beginning.  In other words, St. Peter knows more of the character of God than Abraham did - though Abraham really did know the real God.  

If you think of it like this, we don't get to the later, more complete revelation, without taking those earlier steps in the process: You don't get Jesus, the New Covenant, and the Moral Teachings of the Sermon on the Mount without first getting Moses and the Law.  And so it then is a bit self-contradictory to use Jesus and his teachings as a reason to reject the Old Covenant as being truly from God.  

That still doesn't solve the real difficulties of God who is depicted as commanding what we would call "crimes against humanity" when he tells the Israelites to wipe out the Canaanites completely, (and there are more complications in all of that than is often appreciated - including questions around our attempt to judge ancient & pre-Christian methods of warfare by modern standards, which are very influenced by Christianity), but it does make "space" to look again at the Old Testament as genuine revelation of God. 

Another aspect of how the Tradition has dealt with this question that Holdsworth doesn't get into here is the fact that many of those troublesome passages that horrify us today, were read allegorically by the Early Church Fathers.  They would say to think of the Canaanites as symbols of the sin and idolatry that reside in our hearts and must be completely rooted out.  This tradition of reading much of the Old Testament and the Psalms opens a new possibility of hearing a "word" in these passages despite our concerns.

Are churches confusing "Relevant" and "Trendy"?

 

Why I am not a Pacifist (from C.S. Lewis)

I love these CS Lewis Doodles. 

 Here is one on a topic that I addressed in one of my videos a while back. 

This has application not only for Lewis' immediate situation (his country was at war, but some were electing not to serve because they were Pacifists), but also to the more general question of the use of violent force to defend justice, or to defend the weak and the helpless from the ravages of wicked actors. 

Scripturally, we see that both in his heavenly court (Ps. 82:4) and in his ordaining of human authorities (Rom. 13), God calls upon the strong to use their strength to restrain evil and protect the weak.  As Lewis mentions, this has been the consensus understanding of the universal church for many centuries.

CS Lewis: "Why I am not a pacifist"

Pt. 1:

   

 Pt. 2:

 

The faith and spirituality of the Creeds

Important Books: Upper Room Spiritual Classics

 

The "Senses of Scripture"

One of the many things I did not learn much about in seminary was how virtually all Christian clergy were taught to interpret the Bible before about the year 1800.

My seminary education focused upon the approach to Scriptural interpretation called the Historical-Critical method, which attempts to reconstruct the original historical context, the purpose in writing, the original author and audience, and so on to give insight into the meaning of specific books of the Bible.

Historical-Critical method is, in fact, very valuable to understand the original meanings of a Scripture passage, and I still read good Historical-Critical Bible scholarship to this day.

However, this method does have significant shortcomings.  It is (sometimes) great for gaining insight into a single letter, or single book, or single piece of writing, but it does not usually give much attention to the place of these writings within the canon as a whole; and while it is good at treating Gospels as Gospels and Letters as Letters and Poetry as Poetry, it does not always give much attention to treating any of them as Scripture.  The focus is generally on the original purpose of these writings, without attention to their subsequent, canonical use within the life of the church.  The preacher is (hopefully) attuned to scholarship, but also more than a scholar, using the Bible for pastoral purposes.

Another short-coming of Historical-Critical method is that, like so many fields in the humanities, it purports to be a "scientific" endeavor in some respects, but where 2 or 3 Historical-Critical scholars are gathered, you can be sure there are multiple contradictory approaches and conclusions on nearly everything in the field of Scripture study.  There is a great deal of confusion within the field itself at the moment, which lends a degree of uncertainty to almost every assertion about what "modern scholarship has revealed."


I did, however, eventually discover that before the rise of this, distinctively Modern, approach there was another, richer, approach to interpreting Scripture.  Early Church Fathers and Medieval theologians happily spoke of the various different "senses" of Scripture: a single passage could, and did, have more than one meaning.  The most typical approach (but not the only one) spoke of 4 different "senses" of Scripture.

Consider these words of Saint Augustine (pictured):
"In all Sacred Books we should consider eternal truths that are taught, the facts that are narrated, the future events that are predicted, and the precepts or counsels that are given." (from De Genesi Ad Litteram 1:1)

The different 'senses' of Scripture have been neglected in Protestant seminaries in part because of the Reformers' reactions to the abuse of non-literal interpretations and in part because of the desire by modern Biblical scholars to present themselves as "scientific" (read: "legitimate") within the modern academic guild.
In fact - despite not being formally taught in Protestant seminaries - these approaches to Bible interpretation have persisted in our churches because they are, for the serious Bible-reader, almost intuitive.  They have now been smuggled back into the seminaries through the Spiritual Formation movement and the rediscovery among Protestants of Lectio Divina.  These other, non-literal, approaches also allow passages of Scripture that would otherwise be obscure or irrelevant to continue to "speak to us" today.

To get a sense of how the different "senses" work, consider the story of David and Goliath in 1 Samuel.

Historical-Critical exegetes (interpreters) look at the story in historical terms of "the facts that are narrated": an Israelite boy entered into single combat with a Philistine warrior to defend the honor of YHWH.  The Historical-Critical exegete then asks historical questions: what do we know about single-combat in the warfare of the Ancient Near East?  Who were the Philistines and what historical evidence do we have about them or their culture?  What does this story say about the development of kingship in Israel's history?  Is the story we have the original form?  How does the author/editor(s) of this story want us to view David's dynasty, and why (that is, what is the "agenda" behind the text)?
And the always-popular among (modern) Historical-critical exegetes, "did this event actually happen as an historical event?"

In Early Church and Medieval terms, this approach comes closest to what is meant by the "literal" sense of Scripture: as Augustine says above, "the facts as they are narrated."

The literal sense is important, and is the first and most obvious starting point in understanding any passage of Scripture.  But there are other ways to read the story of David and Goliath, other "senses" of the Scripture.  There are, what might loosely be termed, "spiritual readings" of the text.

One is the allegorical sense.  Goliath represents temptation or opposition which we all, in our different ways, face.  David represents faith and reliance upon the God of Israel to bring us victory.  The story is now about "facing the giants" in our own lives.  There are eternal truths here.

Another, closely related, sense is the Typological reading.  Some classify this as a form of allegory, while others treat it separately.  Typology is frequently used and mentioned in the New Testament.  "Type" here is related to our concepts of "prototype" or "archetype."
David is a "type" or a "sign-post" pointing to Christ, who is the "antitype."  David defeats the pagan Goliath and becomes enthroned as king over Israel.  Jesus defeats Satan and Sin in "single combat" and becomes enthroned over Israel and, therefore, over all the world.  As with the allegorical reading above, this is not what the David and Goliath story is "literally and historically" about in the mind of the original audience, but it is one way that this story has been read as the Living and Active Word of God since the days of the Earliest Church (see, for example, 1 Peter 3:20-21 where the flood story of Noah is said to represent Holy Baptism).

Another approach to reading Scripture is the "moral" sense (called the "tropological" sense).  Look at the great virtues exhibited by David who is faithful, courageous, and humble.  Look at the vices of Saul and Goliath and the other characters, and learn from their examples, there is counsel here for how to live a good life, if we pay attention.

Yet another "sense" of Scripture approaches it in eschatological terms: What does this say about the final destiny of the world and humanity?  This approach is classically called the "anagogic sense."  In this reading, David's defeat of Goliath can symbolize and predict the final victory of God's Kingdom over the forces of idolatry that currently enslave so much of his good creation.

These various other "senses" of Scripture, alongside the historical/literal sense, are quite frequently of great importance for the work of a preacher or Bible-teacher as a spiritual shepherd within the living community of the Church, and deserve more attention than they currently get in our seminary training.

HERE is a nice article from a Roman Catholic theologian named Pauline Viviano examining the different "senses" (including the Historical-Critical sense) that have been applied to Bible-interpretation.  It serves as a great introduction to this topic.

The Benedict Option?

A few years ago, some of my friends told me that I was a "Crunchy-Con."  I had no idea what they meant and they explained that I was one of those socially conservative, nature-loving, environmentally friendly, peace-loving, gun-rights and green-energy-supporting, big-government and big-business-skeptical, thoughtfully traditionalist Christians that a new book had labelled "Crunchy-Con".  I was clearly a conservative in many ways, they told me, but I also clearly did not fit the standard mold of the Republican party (in those days dominated by free-market worshiping "Neo-Cons").

The book was written by Rod Dreher, in whom I have taken an interest recently because he has roots in the church I now pastor, though Mr. Dreher has transitioned over to Eastern Orthodoxy.

My friends introduced the idea of "Crunchy Con" to me back in 2006.  Another book that I encountered around the same time was MacIntyre's influential book called After Virtue, that proposed that our culture, having lost sight of the value of the classical virtues in favor of an individualistic self-indulgence that we mistakenly call "happiness", was no longer capable of moral reasoning in any cohesive and broadly accepted way.  MacIntyre heralds the dawn of a new "dark age" for the Western nations, and hopes to see a new Saint Benedict appear to keep the lamp of faith and learning and virtue burning through the dark night, just as happened in the monasteries after the collapse of the Roman Empire in the 5th century.

Below is a video of Rod Dreher talking about this same idea, what he calls - following MacIntyre - "The Benedict Option" (which is also the title of Dreher's newest book).

This idea of a new dark-age, or a neo-barbarism as some have called it, has weighed on my mind for several years now.  It is a very dark topic (no pun intended), and not one that I enjoy thinking about, and yet I haven't quite been able shake the sense - the haunting feeling - that it may just be true.

As much as I hate to admit it (for I really don't want to sound like one of those "alarmists" who seem to rank only a step or two above "conspiracy theorists"), I must say that, after the cultural upheavals of the last couple of years (Dreher mentions the all-out assault on the very idea of preserving religious liberty for conservatives in Indiana; I might add to that almost every aspect of the 2016 election cycle as exemplary of cultural upheaval) I find myself more and more convinced that American culture and American civilization are in steep intellectual, moral, and spiritual decline.

What would James Madison, the principle author of the Bill of Rights who put "Free exercise of Religion" as the very first thing on the list (before free speech; before the right to bear arms) think of faithful Christian bakers being sued out of business, even prosecuted under the law, for refusing to participate in a gay wedding?  What would he think about a Fire Chief in a major US city being fired for writing a book about his faith in which he affirmed his belief in traditional Christian sexual morals?  What would he think about the online campaign to get Chip and Joanna Gaines and their hit TV show "Fixer-Upper" thrown off the air not even for anything that they have said but simply because the Gaines dare to attend a church whose pastor affirms the traditional Christian definition of marriage that Jesus himself gives in Matthew 19?

On the other end of the political spectrum, what would the noble George Washington think of a vulgar, reckless, "reality TV" star, who once graced the cover of Playboy magazine, ascending to the high and solemn office of President of the United States?  What would he think of such a man, who throws temper tantrums on twitter, having access to the nuclear codes?

Not too much, I expect.

As an aside, that one man should have authority to launch our nuclear weapons without any legal checks and balances is itself an affront to our constitutional heritage - a compromise of our political values, a deal we made with the devil, for the sake of winning the Cold War.  That is something Congress should address.

If there is a word that comes to mind to describe both the motivations of those on the left and on the right that word is fear.  And fear makes it hard for us to be charitable to one another.  On the other hand, perfect love casts out fear.
Part of the fear stems from the fact that all levels of the government, through the endless proliferation of laws and regulations, presume to dictate more and more of the most intimate parts of our lives: what should I do when I get sick?  Who can I marry or consider "family"?  What sorts of religious or political convictions can I express?  The government grasps for the power to answer these questions; I know of no philosophical or constitutional reason why that grasping should be accepted as legitimate.
As long as it is possible that people whose views are hostile to one's own values might come to power in such a system (as is always possible in our elected system), it is only natural for people to feel continuously under threat.  That is why our politics keep getting uglier.  Social media has, I think, exacerbated this sense of fear because it is no longer only the polished professional politicians whom we all hear as the voice of "the other side" but also the more thoughtless and rancorous voices shrieking across the web.

At the end of the 2016 election cycle, when more and more people seem to agree that our political system is broken - so enthralled to the interests of political parties and big donors and special interest groups that it is no longer responsive to the will of the people or the traditions of our American heritage; at a time when our culture seems locked into conflict, confusion, and turmoil, one wonders what to do.

It is at such a moment that what might be called  "The Benedict Option" looks more and more appealing to me.  What would it look like to do in our times the sorts of things Benedict did and monks have been doing since ancient days?  Build deep social connections right on your local level; meet your neighbors; spend less time online.  Pray and worship with your family and your neighbors - regularly and frequently in a local church.  Read the Bible, hold the grand Scriptural Story before you, and continually celebrate your faith in Christ.  Practice the Spiritual Disciplines.  Get back to the earth - grow some of your own food.  Work toward a more self-sufficient and sustainable community.  Get involved with children and youth in your community.  Read the classics and the great books of Western culture.  Share these spiritual and cultural riches with  your children and the children in your community.  Endure hardships - perhaps even persecutions - with a joyful spirit, and welcome others (even strangers) with open arms as if they were Christ himself.  Look out for the needs of the weak, the unborn and the aged, the orphan and the widow, the poor and the minority, the foreigner and the refugee.  Seek to be people of confident, gracious, self-giving love in a world of grasping fear.

The are the sort of things that went on in monasteries (and still do in many places), but as general principles and practices they need not be confined to monastic communities alone.

Another book I read in seminary, The Celtic Way of Evangelism, suggests that, far from being an anti-evangelical retreat from the world, the cultivation of intentionally Christian and (for that reason) intentionally welcoming and open-armed communities on the local level will be the key to relationship-based evangelism in a Post-modern world that is starving for 'rootedness' and deep community.

Being "pastoral"

When I was in seminary, people often used the world "pastoral" when they meant "comforting."
People would say "I'm not doing systematic theology right now, I am doing pastoral theology" which roughly translated as:
"What I'm saying may not fit with our church's theology, or correspond with what the Bible actually says, but it is comforting to those who hear."

When I was preparing to transition to my second appointment - to pastor my first conventional church (my first appointment was as a college campus pastor) - I read St. Gregory the Great's Book of Pastoral Rule.  I wanted to learn more how to be a pastor from the Early Church Fathers, and Gregory is known as "the Great" for a reason - he was a potent leader and pastor in the ancient church.

One of the things that most resonated with me about this book is Gregory's basic approach: the role of the Pastor is to be a shepherd of souls.  Our job is to help people grow closer to Christ, to help them turn away from sin, to help them walk on the Way, embrace the Truth, and cling to that "Life which really is life."

Another thing that Gregory did well was to emphasize moderation: that a pastor should neither be too severe nor too indulgent in addressing the spiritual needs or spiritual brokenness of the church members (this section reminded me of the "Golden Mean" of Aristotle in his Ethics).  A pastor should remember his own failings in dealing with others (and so, live according to the Golden Rule in Matthew 7:12).

What people sometimes need from a pastor is a word of comfort.  But sometimes what is truly needed for the health of the soul is a word of challenge, a word of confrontation with the truth.  As most of us pastors by nature like people and want to 'get on well' with others, I suspect our temptation will often be to offer soft comfort and cheap grace when piercing truth and transforming grace is needed (though I've heard some pastors who seem to delight in shocking and upsetting others, and they may need to learn from Gregory to moderate in the other direction; or simply to love their flock).

I was thinking of this tendency to reduce "being pastoral" to "tickling men's ears" when I read these words from 19th-Century Scottish pastor (and author) George MacDonald:

"To make a man happy as a lark might be to do him grievous wrong; to make a man wake, rise, look up, and turn, is worth the life and death of the Son of the Eternal."
               - From Consuming Fire, April 9th

Lecture: Ben Myers on the Patristic model of Atonement

Here is another lecture, this time from Ben Myers, on the atonement: addressing the logic of just how the death of Christ saves us.  It comes as a surprise to many evangelical Protestants (at least it did to me) that the way the Early Church Fathers most often talked about how Jesus' death and Resurrection save us was rather different than what you find in most evangelical preaching and hymnody.  I actually believe that the Bible gives several complimentary perspectives on that question that are all valid (so don't take my sharing of this video to mean I am dismissing other views of the cross and the atonement, for I frequently use other ways - including some 'substitutionary' models - of talking about it myself).

The way that the Fathers often (though not exclusively) talked about the atonement of Christ has come to be known as "Christus Victor."  Basically, through the cross Christ gave himself over to death [the consequence (Rom. 3:23) of sin] which he could do as a real man; but because he was also God, very Life Himself, his very presence overwhelmed and destroyed death.  The clearest Biblical reference you can find to this idea is Acts 2:24-28 where we are told "it was impossible for death to hold Christ" precisely because of his unique relationship to God the Father.  This idea is behind other passages too that talk about Christ "defeating" death by his own Life (such at 1 Cor. 15).

It also clarifies the phrase of the Apostles' Creed (much neglected by Methodists) that Christ descended into Hades, which means (among other things) that he fully entered into death precisely in order to overwhelm it by his life.

The Fathers worked out the implications of that basic idea in detail, and that is what this lecture from Ben Myers is all about.  It is a very good lecture laying out the inner logic of this theory of the atonement.  I think during the Q & A afterwards there are a couple of things that - to my Wesleyan way of thinking - he could have said to better clarify some of the "difficulties" that are mentioned regarding this (and any) theory of the atonement.  But maybe he thought of what he could have said on his way home.  That how it usually goes with me.  

Happy St. Patrick's Day 2015!

St. Patrick is known for introducing the Trinitarian faith and the Lordship of Christ to the ancient people of Ireland. In tribute to the Feast Day of St. Patrick, here is an hilarious video that actually does explain the orthodox faith of the Christian Church.


 

St. Justin on Pre-determinism

For me, one great attraction of the theology of the Wesleys (and indeed other Anglicans like C.S. Lewis) is their strong assertion that we humans really are responsible agents, who make real choices with real consequences.  Some Christians (who occasionally call themselves Calvinists, though I'm uncertain that John Calvin himself would willingly own their ideas) have taught that God controls everything so completely that we humans have no free choices at all but, like puppets on strings, do only what he has determined that we should do (which would lead to the strange assertion that God has predetermined that I should write this blog post rejecting such predeterminism...which would be a very odd thing for God to do).

The rejection of Predeterminism did not begin with the Wesleys or with Jacob Arminius (a Reformation-era theologian who influenced them); rather the belief in the genuineness of human choices and responsibility goes all the way back to the earliest Christians.

One of the Early Fathers to address this issue with remarkable clarity is St. Justin the Martyr (so named because he was killed for his faith in Christ).  Justin Martyr was born around the year A.D. 100, only a few years after St. John the Apostle died.  When Justin when to church, he was part of a community that had a living memory of the Apostles themselves who were taught and ordained by Christ.  Even at this very early and pure stage the Church rejected the kind of determinism that denies real human choices.  Here is how Justin puts it in his First Apology, Chapter XLIII:

Chapter XLIII.—Responsibility asserted.

But lest some suppose, from what has been said by us, that we say that whatever happens, happens by a fatal necessity, because it is foretold as known beforehand, this too we explain. We have learned from the prophets, and we hold it to be true, that punishments, and chastisements, and good rewards, are rendered according to the merit of each man’s actions. Since if it be not so, but all things happen by fate, neither is anything at all in our own power. For if it be fated that this man, e.g., be good, and this other evil, neither is the former meritorious nor the latter to be blamed. And again, unless the human race have the power of avoiding evil and choosing good by free choice, they are not accountable for their actions, of whatever kind they be. But that it is by free choice they both walk uprightly and stumble, we thus demonstrate. We see the same man making a transition to opposite things. Now, if it had been fated that he were to be either good or bad, he could never have been capable of both the opposites, nor of so many transitions. But not even would some be good and others bad, since we thus make fate the cause of evil, and exhibit her as acting in opposition to herself; or that which has been already stated would seem to be true, that neither virtue nor vice is anything, but that things are only reckoned good or evil by opinion; which, as the true word shows, is the greatest impiety and wickedness. But this we assert is inevitable fate, that they who choose the good have worthy rewards, and they who choose the opposite have their merited awards. For not like other things, as trees and quadrupeds, which cannot act by choice, did God make man: for neither would he be worthy of reward or praise did he not of himself choose the good, but were created for this end;1855 nor, if he were evil, would he be worthy of punishment, not being evil of himself, but being able to be nothing else than what he was made.

Lenten discipline: Reading the Fathers or the New Testament

Some of you may have seen this going around Facebook - a reading plan for reading some of the major writings of the Early Church Fathers throughout the season of Lent.  This is a great chance to go deeper in your understanding of the Church's tradition and theological heritage, which is an important guide for rightly interpreting Scripture (see last week's post for an example of why this is so important).

Or, getting even more foundational, you may want a deeper familiarity with the Scripture itself.  How about reading the New Testament through the season of Lent?  There is a 40-day New Testament reading plan here.

In either case, Lent begins today and goes until Easter, but these reading plans do not count Sundays.

Reading the Fathers through Lent:

2014 Date	Day in Lenten Season	Reading
3/5	1	Didache: complete
3/6	2	Epistle to Diognetus: 1-6
3/7	3	Epistle to Diognetus: 7-12
3/8	4	Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians: complete
3/10	5	St. Ignatius of Antioch: Letter to the Ephesians: complete
3/11	6	St. Ignatius of Antioch: Letter to the Magnesians: complete
3/12	7	St. Ignatius of Antioch: Letter to the Trallians: complete
3/13	8	St. Ignatius of Antioch: Letter to the Romans: complete
3/14	9	St. Ignatius of Antioch: Letter to the Philadelphians: complete
3/15	10	St. Ignatius of Antioch: Letter to the Smyrneans: complete
3/17	11	St. Ignatius of Antioch: Letter to Polycarp: complete
3/18	12	St. Justin Martyr: First Apology: 1-11
3/19	13	St. Justin Martyr: First Apology: 12-23
3/20	14	St. Justin Martyr: First Apology: 24-35
3/21	15	St. Justin Martyr: First Apology: 36-47
3/22	16	St. Justin Martyr: First Apology: 48-59
3/24	17	St. Justin Martyr: First Apology: 60-68
3/25	18	St. Cyprian: On the Unity of the Church (Treatise I): 1-9
3/26	19	St. Cyprian: On the Unity of the Church (Treatise I): Secs. 10-18
3/27	20	St. Cyprian: On the Unity of the Church (Treatise I): Secs. 19-21
3/28	21	St. Athanasius: Life of Anthony: Chaps. 1-10
3/29	22	St. Athanasius: Life of Anthony: Chaps. 11-20
3/31	23	St. Athanasius: Life of Anthony: Chaps. 21-30
4/1	24	St. Athanasius: Life of Anthony: Chaps. 31-40
4/2	25	St. Athanasius: Life of Anthony: Chaps. 41-50
4/3	26	St. Athanasius: Life of Anthony: Chaps. 51-60
4/4	27	St. Athanasius: Life of Anthony: Chaps. 61-70
4/5	28	St. Athanasius: Life of Anthony: Chaps. 71-80
4/7	29	St. Athanasius: Life of Anthony: Chaps. 81-94
4/8	30	St. Cyril of Jerusalem: Catechetical Lectures: Lecture XIX
4/9	31	St. Cyril of Jerusalem: Catechetical Lectures: Lecture XX
4/10	32	St. Cyril of Jerusalem: Catechetical Lectures: Lecture XX1
4/11	33	St. Cyril of Jerusalem: Catechetical Lectures: Lecture XXII
4/12	34	St. Cyril of Jerusalem: Catechetical Lectures: Lecture XXIII
4/14	35	St. Ambrose of Milan: Concerning the Mysteries: 1-4
4/15	36	St. Ambrose of Milan: Concerning the Mysteries: 5-9
4/16	37	St. Leo the Great: Letter XXVIII (called the "Tome"): complete
4/17	38	St. Leo the Great: Sermon XXI (On the Feast of the Nativity I): complete
4/18	39	St. Leo the Great: Sermon XLIX (On Lent XI): complete
4/19	40	St. Leo the Great: Sermon LXXII (On the Lord's Resurrection): complete

If you don't own a set of the Early Church Fathers' writings, you can find them online here or here, or you can web-search individual titles (note the first reading, The Didache, is an anonymous document, and may be further down some lists, even though it is extremely early - probably composed not long after St. John the Apostle died).

Doing theology with Wesley

"Scripture and indubitable antiquity are the authority we appeal to; thither we refer our cause; and can heartily conclude with that [saying] of Vincent of Lerins, 'That is to be held, which hath been believed everywhere, always, and by all.'"

- Rev. John Wesley; final line of his "Reply to the Roman Catechism" (Works v. X, p. 128)

Methodist theologian Thomas Oden, following the example of John Wesley here, has made this saying of Vincent of Lerins something of a rallying cry for what is being called "paleo-orthodoxy" (or just plain "orthodoxy").  There really is a great historic and ecumenical consensus of the faith that is shared across denominational lines and cultural boundaries and across the ages.  You can find this faith expressed in the creeds and hymns, the liturgical practices and teachers which have been most widely embraced across the whole church across time.  It is in holding to this faith, this "Mere Christianity," that Christians find unity with one another and with the great communion of saints across time. 

Oden is quick to point out that he fears 'theological revisionism' leads us away from this great consensus of faith, and so his ongoing project to call fellow Methodists and Christians of all stripes back to the consensus of the early church (what Wesley above calls "indubitable antiquity" - that which was held without doubt by the ancient church) to help us rightly interpret sacred Scripture. 

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.