Good morning!
Well, it's interesting to me that here on Monday morning THE part of the reading that is still percolating around in my brain is the part that was left OUT of the official lectionary, but that I incorporated yesterday, vs 9 of John chapter 1:
"The true light, which enlightens everyone, was coming into the world."
What does this mean? What does it look like when the True (or genuine) Light enlightens someone? I won't lie....my thoughts on this have been influenced by the prayer-book "Liturgy of the Hours" which has been my devotional book throughout this Advent. This is a very involved devotional resource that specifically directs the reader's attention to the dominant themes of the week. I was therefore not surprised to read today's (Monday of Advent 3) intercessions. Note the talk of "light" and also note how it ends:
"Light that never fades, rise to dispel the mists about us.
--awaken our faith from sleep.
Guard us from all harm today,
--may your glory fill us with joy.
Give us unfailing gentleness at all times,
--toward everyone we meet.
Come to create a new earth for us,
--where there will be justice and peace."
In addition to these prayers, I am also touched by the prophet Amos--the topic of our adult Sunday morning class. Yesterday we read in Amos 5:15: "Hate evil and love good, and establish justice in the gate; it may be that the Lord, the God of hosts, will be gracious to the remnant of Joseph."
One of the things that seems clear to me is that the God of the Universe has a profound interest in justice (and peace). In moments of weak faith, we perhaps wonder why God is so lax in establishing a greater degree of justice in the world. Yet even in moments of great faith--especially in this country--the topic often plays second fiddle to matters of personal piety, by which I mean an extremely narrow focus on our own "personal salvation" to the exclusion of everything else.
One of the things I take from John 1:9 is that when the True Light enlightens us, our eyes are either opened (or should be opened) to the areas crying out for justice in our communities and in our world. For if God is lax in establishing justice, it can only be because the **means** through which God works--those who claim to follow him--are, themselves, being lax.
Being enlightened.....following the one True Light....is about MUCH more than just going to heaven when we die. It's about doing God's work now.
Cheers,
TM
Monday, December 15, 2008
Monday, December 8, 2008
Advent 2 morning after thoughts...
Good morning:
Well, as I ponder Mark 1:1-8 this morning and the things we covered yesterday, about the only thing that sticks in my mind as something worth mentioning is the way the passage begins:
"The beginning of the good news of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. 2 As it is written in the prophet Isaiah..."
In very few words (Greek or English), the Evangelist is communicating something profound to us. On the one hand, we are to sit up and take notice that something new and dramatic has taken place--the evangellion ("good news") of Jesus has begun. Scholars point out that this use of the word evangellion--we could almost say this 'appropriation' of the word--was new for the Church. The word had had more of a political meaning...typically being part of the propaganda machine of the day. An announcement that the emperor was coming to visit; an announcement that a rebel province had been subdued; an announcement that an heir to the throne had been born; THESE were typically phrased in terms of 'evangelion' ("good news"). "GOOD," in other words, was basically in the eye of the beholder, and typically from the perspective of the ruling empire.
But when that word is applied to the coming of Jesus the Messiah, the goodness of the evangelion is NOT subjective. It is truly good news, both from the perspective of God....who longs to save His people, and from the perspective of humanity...who is incapable of saving itself.
The other fascinating thing about this little 1.5 verse section is that Mark wants us to understand that while this evangelion has BEGUN....it's nothing new. For no sooner does he tell us that the good news is off & running than he mentions the prophet Isaiah. The point being that TIME is in the hands of God. The plan of redemption is nothing new. It unfolds throughout human history according to the design of the Creator.
Cheers,
TM
Well, as I ponder Mark 1:1-8 this morning and the things we covered yesterday, about the only thing that sticks in my mind as something worth mentioning is the way the passage begins:
"The beginning of the good news of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. 2 As it is written in the prophet Isaiah..."
In very few words (Greek or English), the Evangelist is communicating something profound to us. On the one hand, we are to sit up and take notice that something new and dramatic has taken place--the evangellion ("good news") of Jesus has begun. Scholars point out that this use of the word evangellion--we could almost say this 'appropriation' of the word--was new for the Church. The word had had more of a political meaning...typically being part of the propaganda machine of the day. An announcement that the emperor was coming to visit; an announcement that a rebel province had been subdued; an announcement that an heir to the throne had been born; THESE were typically phrased in terms of 'evangelion' ("good news"). "GOOD," in other words, was basically in the eye of the beholder, and typically from the perspective of the ruling empire.
But when that word is applied to the coming of Jesus the Messiah, the goodness of the evangelion is NOT subjective. It is truly good news, both from the perspective of God....who longs to save His people, and from the perspective of humanity...who is incapable of saving itself.
The other fascinating thing about this little 1.5 verse section is that Mark wants us to understand that while this evangelion has BEGUN....it's nothing new. For no sooner does he tell us that the good news is off & running than he mentions the prophet Isaiah. The point being that TIME is in the hands of God. The plan of redemption is nothing new. It unfolds throughout human history according to the design of the Creator.
Cheers,
TM
Monday, December 1, 2008
December newsletter article
THINKING ABOUT ADVENT
Stir up your power, O Lord, and come. Protect us by your strength and save us from the threatening dangers of our sins, for you live and reign with the Father and the Holy Spirit, one God, now and forever. Amen. (collect, 1st Sun. of Advent)
By the time this article is printed and the newsletter hits your mailbox (or inbox), Advent will have begun. Advent—a time of wreaths, lighting colored candles, and sweating the few remaining “shopping days” till Christmas. But is that all it’s about? Have you ever wondered what the purpose of Advent is, or why we bother?
As it happens, the season of Advent has meant various things at various times throughout the course of Church history. The scholar Francis X. Weiser, S.J., for instance, tells us that initially it had a penitential nature. He says: “Since it [Christmas] was one of the main feasts of the Christian year, a spiritual preparation soon began to be held. From the Church in Gaul comes the first news about a definite period prescribed for this preparation. Bishop Perpetuus of Tours (490) issued the regulation that a fast should be held on three days of every week from the Feast of St. Martin (Nov 11th) to Christmas. [Handbook of Christian Feasts and Customs]” And while this preparatory period was not yet called Advent, it certainly constitutes something of a ‘proto-Advent’ period in the life of the Church.
Over time, however, the penitential nature of the season has given way to other themes. The Catholic scholar Adrian Nocent concentrates heavily on the theme of “hope” during Advent, saying: “The Church realizes full well how difficult Christian hope is. That is why over the centuries she has fashioned a special liturgy that, beyond other liturgies, is a liturgy of hope, of waiting IN hope [The Liturgical Year].” The Lutheran liturgical scholar Philip Pfatteicher agrees, stating: “The traditional color of Advent is purple…but the preferred color in the LBW is blue. Blue suggests hope, a primary theme of Advent [Manual on the Liturgy].”
The point of these citations has merely been to illustrate that Advent has had various themes and concentrations over time. One lasting theme, however, and the theme I’d like to concentrate on at this point is the theme of the Lord’s coming--as the collect for the 1st Sunday of Advent began: “Stir up your power, O Lord, and come. The theme of the Lord’s coming is also taken up by the traditional Advent hymns. The 10th century office hymn Verbum supernum prodiens is a perfect example. Note that as the hymn progresses through the first three verses, each of the three ‘comings’ of the Lord are highlighted:
Verse 1, The Lord’s coming in history 2,000 years ago:
O heavenly Word of God on high,
Whose love has brought salvation nigh,
And from the Father’s heart didst come
To save a race by sin undone.
Verse 2, The Lord’s coming into our hearts by faith:
Our minds enlighten from above,
And kindle with the fire of love,
That as we hear thy gospel read,
All sinful thoughts may flee in dread.
Verse 3, The Lord’s coming as Judge at the end of time:
So, when thou comest at the last,
And earth’s long history is past,
May we be set at thy right hand,
And with thine own glory stand.
[Translation from New English Hymnal]
In other words, as tempting as it is for each of us to become slightly sentimental during this season, there’s really some pretty deep stuff at work. Those images of baby Jesus in the manger may not be quite as omnipresent as they were thirty, forty or fifty years ago, but they’re still out there. WHEN we see them, our minds should be stirred by the fact that since the Lord has come, there is a call to respond. Each person is called to open the manger of his or her own heart, that the Lord may come to them personally by grace through faith. And this call of response is urgent, pressing, for in confessing that he came once in history, we also confess that he is coming again to judge the living and the dead.
So, as you’re making your list and checking it twice, as you’re hanging the lights on your house and in your shrubs, as you’re noting that the blue paraments are up in church, as you’re trying hard not to become a victim of “parking-lot rage” at the mall, hopefully you’ll also take a little time to concentrate on the wonderful Advent theme of the Lord’s coming.
He who testifies to these things says, "Surely I am coming quickly." Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus! (Rev. 22:20).
In the name of the Father, and of the +Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen. Pastor Manwell
Stir up your power, O Lord, and come. Protect us by your strength and save us from the threatening dangers of our sins, for you live and reign with the Father and the Holy Spirit, one God, now and forever. Amen. (collect, 1st Sun. of Advent)
By the time this article is printed and the newsletter hits your mailbox (or inbox), Advent will have begun. Advent—a time of wreaths, lighting colored candles, and sweating the few remaining “shopping days” till Christmas. But is that all it’s about? Have you ever wondered what the purpose of Advent is, or why we bother?
As it happens, the season of Advent has meant various things at various times throughout the course of Church history. The scholar Francis X. Weiser, S.J., for instance, tells us that initially it had a penitential nature. He says: “Since it [Christmas] was one of the main feasts of the Christian year, a spiritual preparation soon began to be held. From the Church in Gaul comes the first news about a definite period prescribed for this preparation. Bishop Perpetuus of Tours (490) issued the regulation that a fast should be held on three days of every week from the Feast of St. Martin (Nov 11th) to Christmas. [Handbook of Christian Feasts and Customs]” And while this preparatory period was not yet called Advent, it certainly constitutes something of a ‘proto-Advent’ period in the life of the Church.
Over time, however, the penitential nature of the season has given way to other themes. The Catholic scholar Adrian Nocent concentrates heavily on the theme of “hope” during Advent, saying: “The Church realizes full well how difficult Christian hope is. That is why over the centuries she has fashioned a special liturgy that, beyond other liturgies, is a liturgy of hope, of waiting IN hope [The Liturgical Year].” The Lutheran liturgical scholar Philip Pfatteicher agrees, stating: “The traditional color of Advent is purple…but the preferred color in the LBW is blue. Blue suggests hope, a primary theme of Advent [Manual on the Liturgy].”
The point of these citations has merely been to illustrate that Advent has had various themes and concentrations over time. One lasting theme, however, and the theme I’d like to concentrate on at this point is the theme of the Lord’s coming--as the collect for the 1st Sunday of Advent began: “Stir up your power, O Lord, and come. The theme of the Lord’s coming is also taken up by the traditional Advent hymns. The 10th century office hymn Verbum supernum prodiens is a perfect example. Note that as the hymn progresses through the first three verses, each of the three ‘comings’ of the Lord are highlighted:
Verse 1, The Lord’s coming in history 2,000 years ago:
O heavenly Word of God on high,
Whose love has brought salvation nigh,
And from the Father’s heart didst come
To save a race by sin undone.
Verse 2, The Lord’s coming into our hearts by faith:
Our minds enlighten from above,
And kindle with the fire of love,
That as we hear thy gospel read,
All sinful thoughts may flee in dread.
Verse 3, The Lord’s coming as Judge at the end of time:
So, when thou comest at the last,
And earth’s long history is past,
May we be set at thy right hand,
And with thine own glory stand.
[Translation from New English Hymnal]
In other words, as tempting as it is for each of us to become slightly sentimental during this season, there’s really some pretty deep stuff at work. Those images of baby Jesus in the manger may not be quite as omnipresent as they were thirty, forty or fifty years ago, but they’re still out there. WHEN we see them, our minds should be stirred by the fact that since the Lord has come, there is a call to respond. Each person is called to open the manger of his or her own heart, that the Lord may come to them personally by grace through faith. And this call of response is urgent, pressing, for in confessing that he came once in history, we also confess that he is coming again to judge the living and the dead.
So, as you’re making your list and checking it twice, as you’re hanging the lights on your house and in your shrubs, as you’re noting that the blue paraments are up in church, as you’re trying hard not to become a victim of “parking-lot rage” at the mall, hopefully you’ll also take a little time to concentrate on the wonderful Advent theme of the Lord’s coming.
He who testifies to these things says, "Surely I am coming quickly." Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus! (Rev. 22:20).
In the name of the Father, and of the +Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen. Pastor Manwell
More sermons to come...
Ok, I know it's been a while since I've had a sermon to listen to online. That's because we've had 3 weeks in a row of "special" events. November 16th our Bishop, the Rev'd Dr. David Stechholz was guest preacher; last week while I was vacationing, the Rev'd Dr. Roger Pittelko was guest preacher; and finally, in honor of our 50th anniversary our founding pastor the Rev'd Dr. Martin Marty was our guest preacher.
Rest assured, now that vacations & special events are a thing of the past, I'll be back "on the air" regularly posting my Sunday sermons from LCHS.
Cheers,
TM
Rest assured, now that vacations & special events are a thing of the past, I'll be back "on the air" regularly posting my Sunday sermons from LCHS.
Cheers,
TM
Monday, November 17, 2008
Morning after thoughts, 27th Sunday after Pentecost
Well, even though I didn't preach yesterday (Sun the 16th) thanks to the fact that we were visited by our Bishop, I did preach on the Gospel text at the casual service on Thursday and I do have some "morning after" thoughts on the text. One of the things we did Thursday evening was to make a "T-graph" and put down all of the things we liked, and all of the things we did NOT like about the parable of the talents (Matthew 25:14-30). The real "gotch'ya" part of this parable comes in vss 24-26a, & vs 30:
"24 Then the one who had received the one talent also came forward, saying, "Master, I knew that you were a harsh man, reaping where you did not sow, and gathering where you did not scatter seed; 25 so I was afraid, and I went and hid your talent in the ground. Here you have what is yours.' 26 But his master replied, "You wicked and lazy slave! ...30 As for this worthless slave, throw him into the outer darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth."
On the DON'T LIKE side of the T-graph was the point that this poor scared servant was so mistreated by the Master--who in the parable is an obvious picture of Christ. We want always to tell our kids, and indeed believer OURSELVES, that God is a God of second chances. That idea is core to the Gospel message. Our past, our shortcomings, our failures, our weaknesses, the times we've let others down, in short OUR SINS....are not something that God holds against us; that, indeed, the Gospel message is that God for Christ's sake overlooks those things. God embraces sinners as His own children, and joint heirs with Christ. This is called "grace"....God's undeserved favor toward sinful humanity.
So where's the grace for this poor scared servant in the parable of the talents?
There are only so many optional answers to that question. One option would be to say that the parable isn't about grace, so we shouldn't try to find any there. But since the central message of the Gospel is about grace, it seems strange that we shouldn't expect to find it somewhere. Another option would be to say that in the end this "wicked & lazy" servant didn't deserve any grace because, unlike the other two servants, he didn't do anything to deserve it. Again, however, this explanation causes some serious problems. If grace is "deserved," then God's "undeserved favor toward sinful humanity" turns out not to be a very good definition of grace. Put another way, if sinful humanity has to *earn* God's grace, how do any of us know whether we're in the group of the first two servants, or in the group of the last one?
Spiritually speaking--which is to say that the original point of the parable may have had a more specific, more narrow application--the end of the parable only makes sense if viewed a certain way. What if the "talents" that were given out by the Master, were in fact, measures of grace? No two individuals are identical. We all stand before God's lawcourt as condemned in terms our status against His perfect Law. But in terms of particular infractions, of course this will vary from individual to individual. St. Paul said, concerning this, that where sin abounded, grace abounded much more (Rom. 5:20). In other words, grace is an endless supply of second chances. But there is no grace for one who rejects grace. Put another way, there is no gospel behind door #2. What if the first two servants represent those who willingly accept and live in this relationship of grace with the Lord, but the last servant represents one who spurns this grace? Given that the return of the Master and the "settling of accounts" in the parable is metaphorical for the Last Judgment, the wicked/lazy third servant has indeed run out of second chances.
The parable serves both as good news and as a warning. God is gracious in His dealings with us. He gives us His grace freely and in turn anticipates that we will lovingly live in that relationship of grace, producing the signs of that relationship (more talents, in the parable). But there is also a warning. Failure to "use" God's grace, failure to appropriate it into our lives is rejection--a conscious decision to claim it as un-needed. May we never do this.
peace,
Pastor Manwell
"24 Then the one who had received the one talent also came forward, saying, "Master, I knew that you were a harsh man, reaping where you did not sow, and gathering where you did not scatter seed; 25 so I was afraid, and I went and hid your talent in the ground. Here you have what is yours.' 26 But his master replied, "You wicked and lazy slave! ...30 As for this worthless slave, throw him into the outer darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth."
On the DON'T LIKE side of the T-graph was the point that this poor scared servant was so mistreated by the Master--who in the parable is an obvious picture of Christ. We want always to tell our kids, and indeed believer OURSELVES, that God is a God of second chances. That idea is core to the Gospel message. Our past, our shortcomings, our failures, our weaknesses, the times we've let others down, in short OUR SINS....are not something that God holds against us; that, indeed, the Gospel message is that God for Christ's sake overlooks those things. God embraces sinners as His own children, and joint heirs with Christ. This is called "grace"....God's undeserved favor toward sinful humanity.
So where's the grace for this poor scared servant in the parable of the talents?
There are only so many optional answers to that question. One option would be to say that the parable isn't about grace, so we shouldn't try to find any there. But since the central message of the Gospel is about grace, it seems strange that we shouldn't expect to find it somewhere. Another option would be to say that in the end this "wicked & lazy" servant didn't deserve any grace because, unlike the other two servants, he didn't do anything to deserve it. Again, however, this explanation causes some serious problems. If grace is "deserved," then God's "undeserved favor toward sinful humanity" turns out not to be a very good definition of grace. Put another way, if sinful humanity has to *earn* God's grace, how do any of us know whether we're in the group of the first two servants, or in the group of the last one?
Spiritually speaking--which is to say that the original point of the parable may have had a more specific, more narrow application--the end of the parable only makes sense if viewed a certain way. What if the "talents" that were given out by the Master, were in fact, measures of grace? No two individuals are identical. We all stand before God's lawcourt as condemned in terms our status against His perfect Law. But in terms of particular infractions, of course this will vary from individual to individual. St. Paul said, concerning this, that where sin abounded, grace abounded much more (Rom. 5:20). In other words, grace is an endless supply of second chances. But there is no grace for one who rejects grace. Put another way, there is no gospel behind door #2. What if the first two servants represent those who willingly accept and live in this relationship of grace with the Lord, but the last servant represents one who spurns this grace? Given that the return of the Master and the "settling of accounts" in the parable is metaphorical for the Last Judgment, the wicked/lazy third servant has indeed run out of second chances.
The parable serves both as good news and as a warning. God is gracious in His dealings with us. He gives us His grace freely and in turn anticipates that we will lovingly live in that relationship of grace, producing the signs of that relationship (more talents, in the parable). But there is also a warning. Failure to "use" God's grace, failure to appropriate it into our lives is rejection--a conscious decision to claim it as un-needed. May we never do this.
peace,
Pastor Manwell
Monday, October 20, 2008
Morning after thoughts, 23rd Sun. after pentecost
Well, it's been a long time since I've posted morning after thoughts. Seems like since school started back up my Monday mornings have been a little more hectic. But, I'll try to get back up on that horse...
Probably the biggest thought I have about that Matt 22:15-22 text this morning is that even though I think & hope we had a good time yesterday exploring that whole idea of "image"....."whose image" & where is it, and all of that....SOME questions about actual TAXES may be percolating in the back of your minds.
After all, the original question to the teacher from Nazareth was, "is it Lawful [ok with Torah] to pay taxes to the Emperor?"
The relevant point of that question is that the Emperor is someone who is perceived as awful; evil; himself, opposed to Torah.
It's difficult to draw an exact parallel, culturally speaking, from that day to ours. Israel was a conquered people ruled by heartless outsiders. We have a representative democracy. Your party may not be in power at present, but you get to vote. Still, now and then a Christian's conscience will be troubled by something his/her nation is doing with their tax dollars. The most immediate thing that comes to mind is the current war and other acts of aggression. One may very easily find one's self wishing that we could STIPULATE that our tax dollars not be used for such enterprises. There are, no doubt, other issues as well that enflame the hearts of conscientious people. And so perhaps the question is asked again, "is it lawful to pay taxes?" "Is there any way I can get out of this for the sake of my conscience?"
The Bible has never been very helpful on this front. Jesus says in Matthew 22 that the Emperor (or the US Government) seems to have a right to expect a monetary support from the people. St. Paul in Romans 13 talks a great deal about the civil authorities and the fact that we are to submit ourselves to them.
Compared to the bulk of human history, we in our day live in a pretty unique culture. If you disagree with the way your government is using your tax dollars, you actually have *some* choices. You can vote for a different person or a different party, perhaps even run for office yourself! But one thing you really can't do is use your religion as an 'excuse' for not paying your taxes.
cheers,
TM
Probably the biggest thought I have about that Matt 22:15-22 text this morning is that even though I think & hope we had a good time yesterday exploring that whole idea of "image"....."whose image" & where is it, and all of that....SOME questions about actual TAXES may be percolating in the back of your minds.
After all, the original question to the teacher from Nazareth was, "is it Lawful [ok with Torah] to pay taxes to the Emperor?"
The relevant point of that question is that the Emperor is someone who is perceived as awful; evil; himself, opposed to Torah.
It's difficult to draw an exact parallel, culturally speaking, from that day to ours. Israel was a conquered people ruled by heartless outsiders. We have a representative democracy. Your party may not be in power at present, but you get to vote. Still, now and then a Christian's conscience will be troubled by something his/her nation is doing with their tax dollars. The most immediate thing that comes to mind is the current war and other acts of aggression. One may very easily find one's self wishing that we could STIPULATE that our tax dollars not be used for such enterprises. There are, no doubt, other issues as well that enflame the hearts of conscientious people. And so perhaps the question is asked again, "is it lawful to pay taxes?" "Is there any way I can get out of this for the sake of my conscience?"
The Bible has never been very helpful on this front. Jesus says in Matthew 22 that the Emperor (or the US Government) seems to have a right to expect a monetary support from the people. St. Paul in Romans 13 talks a great deal about the civil authorities and the fact that we are to submit ourselves to them.
Compared to the bulk of human history, we in our day live in a pretty unique culture. If you disagree with the way your government is using your tax dollars, you actually have *some* choices. You can vote for a different person or a different party, perhaps even run for office yourself! But one thing you really can't do is use your religion as an 'excuse' for not paying your taxes.
cheers,
TM
Tuesday, August 12, 2008
This is where we went!
Several people have asked **where** in Michigan do we go for summer vacation. Well, here it is--the town of Gaylord. It's about 45 minutes south of the Mackinaw Bridge. When I was 4yrs old my grandparents moved up here. From that time on, "summer vacation" always meant, at the very least, a trip to Gaylord. The prime attraction is Otsego Lake State Park. Otsego Lake is one of the many wonderful inland lakes found in northern Michigan. The only thing to remember is that they are UP NORTH, and hence the water temperature doesn't get truly comfortable until late July or August. Even then if it's breezy out it may still seem like a cool dip!
Check out the neat slideshow of pics from the cabin and at the lake. It should be playing in the upper right corner of the blog.
Cheers,
TM
Monday, August 11, 2008
Pentecost +13 morning after thoughts
Ok, I admit it, I've fallen behind on my 'morning after' thoughts.
How's that jingle go about the 'best laid plans?' Well, anyway, I thought I'd pick back up with these thoughts especially this week following what seems to me to be a VERY interesting text from Romans 10.
First of all, there's the verse that the lectionary omitted, vs 4: "For Christ is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes." (nrsv) A **LOT** can and should be said about this verse. For instance, if "end" means nullification, then what Paul is saying is that the Torah is now done & over with and should be tossed in the nearest trash can. The problem with that idea--regardless of what one may think Paul's view of Torah was--is that it doesn't square very well with Jesus own words: "For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one letter, not one stroke of a letter, will pass from the law (Torah) until all is accomplished." (Mt 5:18, nrsv). Romans 10:4 makes much more sense when we see that in the Greek the word we translate 'end' is 'telos'.....a word which means completion or even culmination. In other words, what Paul is saying is that Messiah is the culmination of the Torah. What, in the final analysis is the Torah all about? Is it about rules to live by, is it about working your way to heaven? NO. It's about the Messiah. Everything in Torah was supposed to point and lead one to the Messiah.
Now, on to the verses in the text, 5-15.
Of course as I said in my sermon the thing that really stands out is how Paul dons his Jewish Rabbi hat to martial huge chunks of the Old Testament to his argument. Again, tho, we miss a very important point in most of the English translations. It all boils down to the translation of the Greek conjunction "de." Most of the English translations of Romans assume that Paul is setting up an adversative scenario between what Moses says vs. what he (Paul) is saying. One classic, but very wrong, way of spinning this would be to say that Moses preached a righteousness according to the law, **but** Paul proclaims a righteousness according to the Gospel. Here's the nrsv version of vss 5-6:
5 Moses writes concerning the righteousness that comes from the law, that "the person who does these things will live by them." 6 ***But*** (Greek "de") the righteousness that comes from faith says, "Do not say in your heart, "Who will ascend into heaven?' " (that is, to bring Christ down) etc.
The problem is that in the context of these verses the English word "but" is too strong. Besides, it makes no sense for Paul to say that Moses was dead wrong about something (righteousness according to the law), and then go on directly quoting from Moses (Deut 30). The key is to see that the Greek word "de" should be translated softer.....something along the lines of "and moreover." In this way, what Paul is doing is offering his midrash (commentary) on what Moses is talking about. In other words, Paul would say that Moses would say that "living according to the Torah" is **not** about the rules or "works salvation," but rather living by grace believing in the God of the Torah and His Messiah that is to come; a totally grace-based, faith-based perspective. Paul's point all through Romans is that **this** is the true perspective of the ancient Jewish faith, the Patriarchs and Prophets, but not the current leadership of Judaism who've rejected their own Messiah.
Cheers,
TM
How's that jingle go about the 'best laid plans?' Well, anyway, I thought I'd pick back up with these thoughts especially this week following what seems to me to be a VERY interesting text from Romans 10.
First of all, there's the verse that the lectionary omitted, vs 4: "For Christ is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes." (nrsv) A **LOT** can and should be said about this verse. For instance, if "end" means nullification, then what Paul is saying is that the Torah is now done & over with and should be tossed in the nearest trash can. The problem with that idea--regardless of what one may think Paul's view of Torah was--is that it doesn't square very well with Jesus own words: "For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one letter, not one stroke of a letter, will pass from the law (Torah) until all is accomplished." (Mt 5:18, nrsv). Romans 10:4 makes much more sense when we see that in the Greek the word we translate 'end' is 'telos'.....a word which means completion or even culmination. In other words, what Paul is saying is that Messiah is the culmination of the Torah. What, in the final analysis is the Torah all about? Is it about rules to live by, is it about working your way to heaven? NO. It's about the Messiah. Everything in Torah was supposed to point and lead one to the Messiah.
Now, on to the verses in the text, 5-15.
Of course as I said in my sermon the thing that really stands out is how Paul dons his Jewish Rabbi hat to martial huge chunks of the Old Testament to his argument. Again, tho, we miss a very important point in most of the English translations. It all boils down to the translation of the Greek conjunction "de." Most of the English translations of Romans assume that Paul is setting up an adversative scenario between what Moses says vs. what he (Paul) is saying. One classic, but very wrong, way of spinning this would be to say that Moses preached a righteousness according to the law, **but** Paul proclaims a righteousness according to the Gospel. Here's the nrsv version of vss 5-6:
5 Moses writes concerning the righteousness that comes from the law, that "the person who does these things will live by them." 6 ***But*** (Greek "de") the righteousness that comes from faith says, "Do not say in your heart, "Who will ascend into heaven?' " (that is, to bring Christ down) etc.
The problem is that in the context of these verses the English word "but" is too strong. Besides, it makes no sense for Paul to say that Moses was dead wrong about something (righteousness according to the law), and then go on directly quoting from Moses (Deut 30). The key is to see that the Greek word "de" should be translated softer.....something along the lines of "and moreover." In this way, what Paul is doing is offering his midrash (commentary) on what Moses is talking about. In other words, Paul would say that Moses would say that "living according to the Torah" is **not** about the rules or "works salvation," but rather living by grace believing in the God of the Torah and His Messiah that is to come; a totally grace-based, faith-based perspective. Paul's point all through Romans is that **this** is the true perspective of the ancient Jewish faith, the Patriarchs and Prophets, but not the current leadership of Judaism who've rejected their own Messiah.
Cheers,
TM
Monday, June 2, 2008
Pentecost +3 morning after thoughts
Good morning!
Well, yesterday was week #2 of our new series in the book of Romans. The thing that sticks in my mind about this passage is how radically EQUAL St. Paul sees things. The "no distinction" he mentions in vs 22b means that in his thinking there is no distinction between Jew & Gentile in their standing before God, and in terms of Paul's all-important issue of justification. Two things come blasting into my mind almost simultaneously on this topic.......(1) how radical of a notion this must've been--indeed, I'm not at all sure that Paul's view was supported by ANY OTHER APOSTLE at the time......and (2) how almost entirely irrelevant it is in today's church.
Not that I'm trying to dis St. Paul or a passage from the Bible, but the whole issue of the status of Jewish believers vs Gentile believers is almost completely absent from our radar screens. As a matter of fact, there is a HUGE issue of interpretation when it comes to this & other such passages of the Bible. The writer *clearly* had a particular group of people in mind at the time of his writing. IF that particular set of circumstances is no longer active......or at least actively brewing in the church, does that mean that we should seek to re-interpret and in some ways re-apply the author's point? In other words, our own local congregation here at LCHS (to the best of my knowledge) has no such mixture of Jewish and Gentile followers of Jesus. We are all Gentile. So then should I re-interpret/re-apply any of Paul's Jewish/Gentile dialog to mean something more along the lines of older generation/younger generation believers.....or maybe long-time believers vs newer converts.....or maybe those who seem stuck on tradition vs those who are more free-wheeling?
The reason I pose the rhetorical question is that this is PRECISELY the way that huge sections of Paul's writings have been interpreted and applied in the all-Gentile church for hundreds of years. Since the Jewish/Gentile dynamic of Paul's setting doesn't apply to our own, we seek to draw parallels to situations that we do have.
I struggle with this, however, as I'm not sure that ANY parallel we could possibly come up with equates to the Jewish experience.
In our own faith tradition, we need look no further than Luther himself when it comes to mistaken parallels. When Luther, for instance, looked at Romans 3:28 and read: "Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law," his heavily conditioned medieval thought process interpreted that to mean that our standing before God's law-court was entirely conditioned upon FAITH, not our GOOD WORKS....especially, not the system of Indulgences, fasts, Purgatory, Masses for the dead, etc. etc. In our modern lingo, we might say that our standing before God is entirely based on our faith, not on how much money we drop in the Salvation Army Santa Klaus bucket, or how many little old ladies we help across the street, etc.
But this is a case of an entirely **true** conclusion coming from a faulty understanding of the verse. Paul wasn't talking about "good works" or "good actions" etc. when he mentioned "deeds of the law." In this particular case the modern translation known as the Complete Jewish Bible is more accurate: "Therefore, we hold the view that a person comes to be considered righteous by God on the ground of trusting, which has nothing to do with legalistic observance of Torah commands." In other words, the "deeds of the law" that Paul is talking about are things prescribed by TORAH (dietary rules, circumcision, Sabbath requirements, etc. etc.), NOT what we would simply call good deeds.
What practical difference does this make? Well, the first is interpretive. As followers of Jesus it is IMPORTANT to us that we strive to understand the word of God properly even if the thing its saying doesn't touch our lives in particular. If nothing else, this will help us from being led astray by charlatans and hucksters. Secondly and more importantly, once we begin to re-evaluate Paul's "deeds of the law" statements from books such as Romans and Galatians--seeing those statements in terms of Torah & keeping Kosher etc.--we in particular in our Protestant faith tradition can come to a happier understanding of the place of good deeds within our Christian life. Sadly, after nearly 500 years of Protestantism's ideal that we are "justified by faith alone" there are many Christians who have the quite mistaken understanding that saving faith *is* alone......and is rarely, if ever, accompanied by any fruit. Not so. Faith alone saves, but saving faith is never alone.
Cheers,
TM
Well, yesterday was week #2 of our new series in the book of Romans. The thing that sticks in my mind about this passage is how radically EQUAL St. Paul sees things. The "no distinction" he mentions in vs 22b means that in his thinking there is no distinction between Jew & Gentile in their standing before God, and in terms of Paul's all-important issue of justification. Two things come blasting into my mind almost simultaneously on this topic.......(1) how radical of a notion this must've been--indeed, I'm not at all sure that Paul's view was supported by ANY OTHER APOSTLE at the time......and (2) how almost entirely irrelevant it is in today's church.
Not that I'm trying to dis St. Paul or a passage from the Bible, but the whole issue of the status of Jewish believers vs Gentile believers is almost completely absent from our radar screens. As a matter of fact, there is a HUGE issue of interpretation when it comes to this & other such passages of the Bible. The writer *clearly* had a particular group of people in mind at the time of his writing. IF that particular set of circumstances is no longer active......or at least actively brewing in the church, does that mean that we should seek to re-interpret and in some ways re-apply the author's point? In other words, our own local congregation here at LCHS (to the best of my knowledge) has no such mixture of Jewish and Gentile followers of Jesus. We are all Gentile. So then should I re-interpret/re-apply any of Paul's Jewish/Gentile dialog to mean something more along the lines of older generation/younger generation believers.....or maybe long-time believers vs newer converts.....or maybe those who seem stuck on tradition vs those who are more free-wheeling?
The reason I pose the rhetorical question is that this is PRECISELY the way that huge sections of Paul's writings have been interpreted and applied in the all-Gentile church for hundreds of years. Since the Jewish/Gentile dynamic of Paul's setting doesn't apply to our own, we seek to draw parallels to situations that we do have.
I struggle with this, however, as I'm not sure that ANY parallel we could possibly come up with equates to the Jewish experience.
In our own faith tradition, we need look no further than Luther himself when it comes to mistaken parallels. When Luther, for instance, looked at Romans 3:28 and read: "Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law," his heavily conditioned medieval thought process interpreted that to mean that our standing before God's law-court was entirely conditioned upon FAITH, not our GOOD WORKS....especially, not the system of Indulgences, fasts, Purgatory, Masses for the dead, etc. etc. In our modern lingo, we might say that our standing before God is entirely based on our faith, not on how much money we drop in the Salvation Army Santa Klaus bucket, or how many little old ladies we help across the street, etc.
But this is a case of an entirely **true** conclusion coming from a faulty understanding of the verse. Paul wasn't talking about "good works" or "good actions" etc. when he mentioned "deeds of the law." In this particular case the modern translation known as the Complete Jewish Bible is more accurate: "Therefore, we hold the view that a person comes to be considered righteous by God on the ground of trusting, which has nothing to do with legalistic observance of Torah commands." In other words, the "deeds of the law" that Paul is talking about are things prescribed by TORAH (dietary rules, circumcision, Sabbath requirements, etc. etc.), NOT what we would simply call good deeds.
What practical difference does this make? Well, the first is interpretive. As followers of Jesus it is IMPORTANT to us that we strive to understand the word of God properly even if the thing its saying doesn't touch our lives in particular. If nothing else, this will help us from being led astray by charlatans and hucksters. Secondly and more importantly, once we begin to re-evaluate Paul's "deeds of the law" statements from books such as Romans and Galatians--seeing those statements in terms of Torah & keeping Kosher etc.--we in particular in our Protestant faith tradition can come to a happier understanding of the place of good deeds within our Christian life. Sadly, after nearly 500 years of Protestantism's ideal that we are "justified by faith alone" there are many Christians who have the quite mistaken understanding that saving faith *is* alone......and is rarely, if ever, accompanied by any fruit. Not so. Faith alone saves, but saving faith is never alone.
Cheers,
TM
Monday, May 19, 2008
Holy Trinity, morning after thoughts
Top of the morning to you!
So, if you're still pondering the mystery of the Holy Trinity this morning, perhaps you're wondering WHY it has to be that way? Why not simply remove ourselves from the realm of mystery and simply come down on one side or another--either God is ONE and that's that, or there are three Gods.
Well, in short, this is a classic example of living with paradox. The Scriptures have always presented God as one. The ancient 'Shema' (creed/confession) of Israel says as much: "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD" (Deut 6:4). Yet the Apostle Paul, one of the most zealous Jews who ever lived, states in Col 2:9: "For in Him [Jesus] all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form..." Hence the paradox. Either the Bible is inconsistent and incapable of being trusted, or it presents a truth/picture of God that is beyond our ability to comprehend fully. I prefer the latter. I'm always ok with it when there's more God than what will fit in my box.
On the other hand, maybe you're wondering why my egg example used with the kids was less than perfect. Well, it gets the message across nicely that there is one-in-three and three-in-one (one egg=shell/yolk/white). The example breaks down, however, when one just looks at the PARTS. In looking at just the yolk, one is not viewing the entire 'eggness'.....one is just viewing the yolk. Ditto that with the white & the shell. In order to see the entire 'eggness' one needs all 3 together. This is not true of the Holy Trinity. In looking at Jesus of Nazareth, even tho he is the Son, the Second Person of the Trinity, one is nonetheless looking at 100% of God (as opposed to 33.3%). The Father is likewise 100% God; the Spirit is likewise 100% God; and yet, to paraphrase the Athanasian Creed, God is not 300%, etc. Now we're back to the realm of mystery.
All of which supports my contention that while it is necessary that we are to KNOW what it is that we're supposed to believe, there's really no way we can COMPREHEND it........and in the end, the more important thing is that we've been touched by this God who is mysteriously one-in-three, than it is that we merely say the right things about this God.
cheers,
TM
So, if you're still pondering the mystery of the Holy Trinity this morning, perhaps you're wondering WHY it has to be that way? Why not simply remove ourselves from the realm of mystery and simply come down on one side or another--either God is ONE and that's that, or there are three Gods.
Well, in short, this is a classic example of living with paradox. The Scriptures have always presented God as one. The ancient 'Shema' (creed/confession) of Israel says as much: "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD" (Deut 6:4). Yet the Apostle Paul, one of the most zealous Jews who ever lived, states in Col 2:9: "For in Him [Jesus] all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form..." Hence the paradox. Either the Bible is inconsistent and incapable of being trusted, or it presents a truth/picture of God that is beyond our ability to comprehend fully. I prefer the latter. I'm always ok with it when there's more God than what will fit in my box.
On the other hand, maybe you're wondering why my egg example used with the kids was less than perfect. Well, it gets the message across nicely that there is one-in-three and three-in-one (one egg=shell/yolk/white). The example breaks down, however, when one just looks at the PARTS. In looking at just the yolk, one is not viewing the entire 'eggness'.....one is just viewing the yolk. Ditto that with the white & the shell. In order to see the entire 'eggness' one needs all 3 together. This is not true of the Holy Trinity. In looking at Jesus of Nazareth, even tho he is the Son, the Second Person of the Trinity, one is nonetheless looking at 100% of God (as opposed to 33.3%). The Father is likewise 100% God; the Spirit is likewise 100% God; and yet, to paraphrase the Athanasian Creed, God is not 300%, etc. Now we're back to the realm of mystery.
All of which supports my contention that while it is necessary that we are to KNOW what it is that we're supposed to believe, there's really no way we can COMPREHEND it........and in the end, the more important thing is that we've been touched by this God who is mysteriously one-in-three, than it is that we merely say the right things about this God.
cheers,
TM
Monday, May 12, 2008
Pentecost, morning after thoughts
Good morning!
Well, in a way I think that we did a pretty good job of wringing out that text from Acts 2 yesterday, so my thoughts this morning are more along the lines of the BROAD picture of the gift of the Spirit. Indeed some of the standout verses in my mind right now are from the SECOND reading, and how they could apply to Acts 2 & also to us today. For instance 1Cor 12:4 "Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit;" and vs 11 "all of these are activated by one and the same Spirit..."
In other words, the point St. Paul is making in that passage is that the DIVERSITY of gifts/talents that we encounter in the Body of Christ (aka the Church), is a result of the working of a single entity, the Holy Spirit of God.
Now let's apply that thinking to yesterday's text in Acts 2. There were roughly 15 major geographic areas mentioned in Acts 2, but given the plethora of individual dialects etc., it is impossible to say how ALL-ENCOMPASSING this miracle of languages was. This is especially true if, as I've maintained, ALL [roughly] 120 members of the Jesus group received this blessing. Yet, however many different languages/dialects it may have been, it's interesting to note that what Paul says in 1Cor about the diversity of the gifts and the unity of the purpose still applies. Even if there were 120 different languages or dialects being spoken during this miraculous event, Acts 2:11b stands out: "in our own languages we hear them speaking ABOUT GOD'S DEEDS OF POWER."
And there you have it.....the DIVERSITY of the Spirit's gifts being used for a UNITY of purpose. ALL of those languages being spoken were for ONE purpose.
Last week we talked about the chronic problem of disunity in the church.
Where this is exacerbated, I would venture to say that people are ignoring the leading of the Holy Spirit.
Diversity within the church is nothing new. It's that way by design. That includes diversity of opinion. With all of those 1Cor 12 gifts floating around, one must expect a diversity of opinion on how to use them. This is fine....even healthy....so long as we always keep in mind our UNITY of purpose. This too is of the Spirit!
Later!
TM
Well, in a way I think that we did a pretty good job of wringing out that text from Acts 2 yesterday, so my thoughts this morning are more along the lines of the BROAD picture of the gift of the Spirit. Indeed some of the standout verses in my mind right now are from the SECOND reading, and how they could apply to Acts 2 & also to us today. For instance 1Cor 12:4 "Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit;" and vs 11 "all of these are activated by one and the same Spirit..."
In other words, the point St. Paul is making in that passage is that the DIVERSITY of gifts/talents that we encounter in the Body of Christ (aka the Church), is a result of the working of a single entity, the Holy Spirit of God.
Now let's apply that thinking to yesterday's text in Acts 2. There were roughly 15 major geographic areas mentioned in Acts 2, but given the plethora of individual dialects etc., it is impossible to say how ALL-ENCOMPASSING this miracle of languages was. This is especially true if, as I've maintained, ALL [roughly] 120 members of the Jesus group received this blessing. Yet, however many different languages/dialects it may have been, it's interesting to note that what Paul says in 1Cor about the diversity of the gifts and the unity of the purpose still applies. Even if there were 120 different languages or dialects being spoken during this miraculous event, Acts 2:11b stands out: "in our own languages we hear them speaking ABOUT GOD'S DEEDS OF POWER."
And there you have it.....the DIVERSITY of the Spirit's gifts being used for a UNITY of purpose. ALL of those languages being spoken were for ONE purpose.
Last week we talked about the chronic problem of disunity in the church.
Where this is exacerbated, I would venture to say that people are ignoring the leading of the Holy Spirit.
Diversity within the church is nothing new. It's that way by design. That includes diversity of opinion. With all of those 1Cor 12 gifts floating around, one must expect a diversity of opinion on how to use them. This is fine....even healthy....so long as we always keep in mind our UNITY of purpose. This too is of the Spirit!
Later!
TM
Monday, April 21, 2008
Easter 5, Morning after thoughts...
Good morning!
Well, like I mentioned yesterday, this passage from 1Peter 2 was something that Luther made a pretty big deal about during the Reformation era. I chose not to concentrate so much on that angle, as much as I did on the textual angle of being both "living stones" in a new temple *and* offering "priestly sacrifices" as holy people.
But, maybe you're wondering just what is the current thinking in the Church of Rome regarding something as "Protestant" as the "Priesthood of all believers." And before I attempt to answer that question I should include the caveat that whenever we try to answer the question what does Rome believe about this or that...the same pitfalls exist as when others try to answer the question "what do Lutherans believe about this or that?" For example: What do Lutherans believe about ordaining women? What do Lutherans believe about praying with other Christians? What do Lutherans believe about who can preach or celebrate the Lord's Supper? Bottom line: IT DEPENDS! It depends on which Lutherans you ask. Well, something of the same issue exists even in the Church of Rome. His Holiness the Pope just visited the USA. If we could've asked him what he thought of the priesthood of all believers, we would've received an 'up-to-the-minute' ruling on the matter, as--after all--the Pope IS the voice of what the Roman Church believes.
Since we weren't able to ask him, though, I would like instead to turn to a volume in the "Days of the Lord" series. This series is put out by Liturgical Press, a Roman Catholic publisher, and was introduced in the early 90s, so would qualify as basically recent. Specifically, these books are commentaries on the Sunday readings, designed to aid in sermon preparation & development. Here's what the appropriate volume has to say about this passage of 1Peter:
"The appellation "holy priesthood," "royal priesthood," has sometimes been taken to mean that every baptized person is in fact a priest, in our common understanding of the term. Certainly, for some centuries, the Catholic Church has avoided insisting on the priestly character of all the baptized. Today, with certain controversies being toned down, the "common priesthood of the faithful" has once again taken its rightful place in the Church's doctrine. There is a real participation in the priesthood of Christ. This has important consequences for participation in the sacraments, particularly the Eucharist, for prayer, and for the duties of the laity in the apostolate. Distinct from that of ordained priests, the "common priesthood of the faithful" allows for a better understanding of the nature and function of the ministerial priesthood within the priestly people, as well as the indispensable complementarity of both. Peter is clearly speaking of the proclamation of the gospel that falls to all. Actually, today perhaps more than ever, the spreading of the good news demands that all believers take on responsibility for it, according to individual vocations and charisms. It is just as great a mistake, for the same reasons, to ignore the evangelizing ministry of the laity as of the priesthood."
All in all, I'm not sure that Martin Luther could've expressed the idea better himself!
Does that mean that the Catholic Church is now Protestant? No, of course not.....but if anything it shows that it is important to read & listen to what the various church bodies are saying **today**. If there's a lesson in here, it's that too often we tend to refer to the polemical documents of the reformation era--documents that were crafted in the heat of battle. It's amazing to note that after a few hundred years when everyone has calmed down, at least some of the differences that do exist no longer appear to be light years apart.
Cheers!
TM
Well, like I mentioned yesterday, this passage from 1Peter 2 was something that Luther made a pretty big deal about during the Reformation era. I chose not to concentrate so much on that angle, as much as I did on the textual angle of being both "living stones" in a new temple *and* offering "priestly sacrifices" as holy people.
But, maybe you're wondering just what is the current thinking in the Church of Rome regarding something as "Protestant" as the "Priesthood of all believers." And before I attempt to answer that question I should include the caveat that whenever we try to answer the question what does Rome believe about this or that...the same pitfalls exist as when others try to answer the question "what do Lutherans believe about this or that?" For example: What do Lutherans believe about ordaining women? What do Lutherans believe about praying with other Christians? What do Lutherans believe about who can preach or celebrate the Lord's Supper? Bottom line: IT DEPENDS! It depends on which Lutherans you ask. Well, something of the same issue exists even in the Church of Rome. His Holiness the Pope just visited the USA. If we could've asked him what he thought of the priesthood of all believers, we would've received an 'up-to-the-minute' ruling on the matter, as--after all--the Pope IS the voice of what the Roman Church believes.
Since we weren't able to ask him, though, I would like instead to turn to a volume in the "Days of the Lord" series. This series is put out by Liturgical Press, a Roman Catholic publisher, and was introduced in the early 90s, so would qualify as basically recent. Specifically, these books are commentaries on the Sunday readings, designed to aid in sermon preparation & development. Here's what the appropriate volume has to say about this passage of 1Peter:
"The appellation "holy priesthood," "royal priesthood," has sometimes been taken to mean that every baptized person is in fact a priest, in our common understanding of the term. Certainly, for some centuries, the Catholic Church has avoided insisting on the priestly character of all the baptized. Today, with certain controversies being toned down, the "common priesthood of the faithful" has once again taken its rightful place in the Church's doctrine. There is a real participation in the priesthood of Christ. This has important consequences for participation in the sacraments, particularly the Eucharist, for prayer, and for the duties of the laity in the apostolate. Distinct from that of ordained priests, the "common priesthood of the faithful" allows for a better understanding of the nature and function of the ministerial priesthood within the priestly people, as well as the indispensable complementarity of both. Peter is clearly speaking of the proclamation of the gospel that falls to all. Actually, today perhaps more than ever, the spreading of the good news demands that all believers take on responsibility for it, according to individual vocations and charisms. It is just as great a mistake, for the same reasons, to ignore the evangelizing ministry of the laity as of the priesthood."
All in all, I'm not sure that Martin Luther could've expressed the idea better himself!
Does that mean that the Catholic Church is now Protestant? No, of course not.....but if anything it shows that it is important to read & listen to what the various church bodies are saying **today**. If there's a lesson in here, it's that too often we tend to refer to the polemical documents of the reformation era--documents that were crafted in the heat of battle. It's amazing to note that after a few hundred years when everyone has calmed down, at least some of the differences that do exist no longer appear to be light years apart.
Cheers!
TM
Monday, April 14, 2008
Easter 4, Morning after thoughts...
So, how's it going??
Well....I enjoyed unpacking the 23rd Psalm in church yesterday morning. As I said then, it seems to me that this beautiful psalm that we generally reserve for the dark times of our lives, is--in reality--a wonderful psalm for our WHOLE life. If you were here, you probably recall the big question I asked at the end......what is there that is distinctively "Christian" about this psalm....and the answer was that it becomes distinctively Christian FOR US when we see that the "LORD who is our shepherd" is none other than Jesus our Savior.
And yet, combining several thoughts.....a Christian perspective on the psalm....as well as the idea that it is a psalm for all of life, it probably bears pointing out that the ancient church had a neat spin on this psalm. They saw it as a psalm of initiation. The "still waters" that we're led to are none other than the waters of holy baptism. The "table" that is set before us" in the sight of our enemies is none other than the table of holy communion where our Lord sustains us with his very body and blood.
It's not that we have to give this psalm up in terms of its great comfort as a "valley of the shadow of death" psalm....but as we saw yesterday, there's so much MORE to it than just that. It truly can be our psalm for LIFE.
cheers,
TM
Well....I enjoyed unpacking the 23rd Psalm in church yesterday morning. As I said then, it seems to me that this beautiful psalm that we generally reserve for the dark times of our lives, is--in reality--a wonderful psalm for our WHOLE life. If you were here, you probably recall the big question I asked at the end......what is there that is distinctively "Christian" about this psalm....and the answer was that it becomes distinctively Christian FOR US when we see that the "LORD who is our shepherd" is none other than Jesus our Savior.
And yet, combining several thoughts.....a Christian perspective on the psalm....as well as the idea that it is a psalm for all of life, it probably bears pointing out that the ancient church had a neat spin on this psalm. They saw it as a psalm of initiation. The "still waters" that we're led to are none other than the waters of holy baptism. The "table" that is set before us" in the sight of our enemies is none other than the table of holy communion where our Lord sustains us with his very body and blood.
It's not that we have to give this psalm up in terms of its great comfort as a "valley of the shadow of death" psalm....but as we saw yesterday, there's so much MORE to it than just that. It truly can be our psalm for LIFE.
cheers,
TM
Manwells host Pineview Mennonite Group
Well, we had some excitement at our place over the last couple of days. We were privileged to host a group of teens from the Pineview Mennonite Church in Vassar, MI, where Stacey's nephew Nick Seney is the Youth Minister. The group was in town to attend the "Dare2share Survive Tour." This is a distinctively Christian, non-denominational event consisting of highly motivational youth speakers and concerts. This year's Chicago event featured Speakers: Greg Stier, Derwin Gray, and Zane Black; as well as musical artists Hawk Nelson and Washington Projects. Unfortunately, we didn't have enough lead time on this to be able to involve the youth here at LCHS, however my own sons were able to take part and have given the event a ringing endorsement. That being the case, we're looking forward to the Dare2share Invincible Tour in April of 2009, and who knows, maybe we'll be hosting the Pineview group again! In the meantime, here's some more info about Dare2share, taken from their website Dare2share.org.----
The Mission:
Energizing and equipping teenagers to know, live, share and own their faith in Jesus!
The Need:
Did you know 2 out of 3 Christian teens will, according to George Barna, participate in a "graduation evacuation" from the body of Christ once they graduate high school? The problem of teenagers fleeing the church upon graduation has spiraled into a crisis.
Dare 2 Share is convinced that the answer to this crisis in Christianity lies in an aggressive initiative to transform youth ministry from reactive and entertainment-based to Great Commission-driven and Scripture-based.
Youth ministry needs to become increasingly purposeful and call students to something more.
Dare 2 Share's Answer:
We at Dare 2 Share Ministries are fully convinced that the answer lies in raising the bar spiritually for teenagers, calling them to make a difference by taking Jesus Christ and the Great Commission seriously.
The result? According to Philemon 6 when we are actively sharing our faith, we know by personal experience every good thing we have in Christ Jesus. In other words, when students begin to share their faith they begin to own their faith, instead of borrowing it from their parents and their pastors.
The driving concept behind this movement is a "calling," much like the calling Jesus gave to his disciples...a dare to share. Teens who accept the call at our events are committed to transforming their youth ministries through an aggressive and relational evangelistic thrust. These core teens become the initiators of an invitational strategy of evangelism. These students pray for their unreached friends, pursue their friends on a deeper spiritual level by bringing up God conversations with them, and persuade their friends to attend youth group consistently, believe in Jesus, connect to a tribe/clique, develop spiritually and evangelize others. We call this Deep and Wide Youth Ministry.
Dare 2 Share conferences are held each school year in key metropolitan cities across the United States that motivate and train students to reach out to those around them by living and giving the life-changing message of the gospel in a contagious epidemic of love and truth.
Why are youth ministry conferences effective?
Youth ministry conferences are an extremely effective venue for motivating and equipping students. There are at least four different reasons for this:
It is a neutral ground.
Youth ministry leaders who teach the same things in the same youth room to the same kids week after week can testify to the importance of getting their kids to some neutral ground to learn spiritual truth. There is something about getting students out of the same building and into a new climate that opens the doors to their hearts to hear and receive.
It is an electrifying atmosphere.
The atmosphere of an arena or auditorium crammed with thousands of teenagers surges and pulsates with excitement and anticipation. Before the first session ever starts students are already excited, screaming, yelling and pumped. This electrifying atmosphere prepares the way for spiritual impact.
It builds a reaffirming climate.
Over the course of a conference weekend, students build strong bonds with those in their youth ministry group(s). But they also are building an invisible bond with every student in the auditorium. They are together experiencing God and the mission he has called them to. This reaffirming climate insures positive reinforcement for teenagers when they stand to give their testimonies on the Saturday night portion of the youth ministry conference weekend. Student after student is applauded and affirmed by the teens that hear their stories.
It produces a "movement" mentality in youth ministry.
Students need to feel a part of something bigger. It is the way that God has wired them. Being a part of a conference where thousands of students gather for a common mission, many of these teenagers know for the first time in their lives that they are not alone. There is an army of students from across their city with the same passion, purpose and cause. The more students there are, the more this feeling is punctuated. The more it is punctuated, the stronger the likelihood that students on the fence will choose to be more than a spectator in the coming student awakening.
Description
A student weekend youth ministry conference that features a full-production drama, powerful worship, Biblical sessions, hands-on evangelism training, interactive games, and an afternoon outreach experience, as well as a celebration concert with a nationally recognized Christian recording artist.
----
Well, so much for what they say about themselves. Now, of course, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to point out that "this ain't a Lutheran" youth event. True. But the thrust of Dare2share isn't on denominational specifics, but rather on those doctrines shared by all Christian faith groups--specifically the life-changing evangelical message of the saving work of Jesus Christ on the cross, and the difference this makes in our lives. We COULD wait around for something Lutheran to come our way, OR we could take advantage of something like this when it comes to our own back yard and celebrate the wonderful diversity of the Body of Christ. Here's looking forward to the 2009 Dare2share Invincible Tour!
Monday, April 7, 2008
Easter 3, Morning after thoughts
Good morning!
Well, my coffee cup is full & I'm ready to go.
Probably the biggest "leftover" sticking in my mind from yesterdays text is the following verses:
Luke 24:25 He said to them, "How foolish you are, and how slow to believe all that the prophets have spoken! 26 Did not the Messiah have to suffer these things and then enter his glory?" 27 And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself.
"Moses & the Prophets," of course, being something of a technical or 'code' name for the Scriptures; what we would call the Old Testament, but what constituted the Bible of Jesus' day. We, however, live in a very interesting day. On every side, it seems, we are beset by new ideas and old arguments as to what we can glean from the Old Testament. Is it a book of science? Does it accurately tell Creation's story to the satisfaction of 21st century minds, or does it do so couched in the terms and story of an ancient culture? Arguments, debates and accusations abound. To another extreme, there seem to be many who are actively engaged in finding all manner of "hidden treasures" for living in these pages--ranging from God's infallible plans for running a successful business to God's perfect diet and weight loss plan.
Perhaps an alternative to these considerations would be to at least begin with how first century Jewish people of faith saw their holy writings. First and foremost Torah (and by extension the writings of the Prophets) were seen as that which gives LIFE. The Torah gave life, because it revealed the one true God and His ways; those who worshipped Him were *alive*. Conversely, those who did not, were considered "dead," and without Torah, they had no chance of life. When Jesus of Nazareth opens Torah and the writings of the Prophets and finds **HIMSELF** there, a very subtle change takes place. Torah can still be seen as that which gives life--but now it is precisely so because it reveals JESUS and his blessed work as Messiah.
First generation Jewish believers in Jesus would never consider giving up "Moses and the Prophets" NOT because they were ethnically attached to old fashioned ways, and not because they were slow to jettison the remnants of the "old" religion in favor of the "new," but because they firmly believed that these writings revealed JESUS.
Cheers!
TM
Well, my coffee cup is full & I'm ready to go.
Probably the biggest "leftover" sticking in my mind from yesterdays text is the following verses:
Luke 24:25 He said to them, "How foolish you are, and how slow to believe all that the prophets have spoken! 26 Did not the Messiah have to suffer these things and then enter his glory?" 27 And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself.
"Moses & the Prophets," of course, being something of a technical or 'code' name for the Scriptures; what we would call the Old Testament, but what constituted the Bible of Jesus' day. We, however, live in a very interesting day. On every side, it seems, we are beset by new ideas and old arguments as to what we can glean from the Old Testament. Is it a book of science? Does it accurately tell Creation's story to the satisfaction of 21st century minds, or does it do so couched in the terms and story of an ancient culture? Arguments, debates and accusations abound. To another extreme, there seem to be many who are actively engaged in finding all manner of "hidden treasures" for living in these pages--ranging from God's infallible plans for running a successful business to God's perfect diet and weight loss plan.
Perhaps an alternative to these considerations would be to at least begin with how first century Jewish people of faith saw their holy writings. First and foremost Torah (and by extension the writings of the Prophets) were seen as that which gives LIFE. The Torah gave life, because it revealed the one true God and His ways; those who worshipped Him were *alive*. Conversely, those who did not, were considered "dead," and without Torah, they had no chance of life. When Jesus of Nazareth opens Torah and the writings of the Prophets and finds **HIMSELF** there, a very subtle change takes place. Torah can still be seen as that which gives life--but now it is precisely so because it reveals JESUS and his blessed work as Messiah.
First generation Jewish believers in Jesus would never consider giving up "Moses and the Prophets" NOT because they were ethnically attached to old fashioned ways, and not because they were slow to jettison the remnants of the "old" religion in favor of the "new," but because they firmly believed that these writings revealed JESUS.
Cheers!
TM
Monday, March 31, 2008
Easter 2, Morning after thoughts
Good Morning!
One of the things that we didn't really hit from Jn 20 yesterday was the giving of the Spirit.
vs 22-23: When he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained."
This is a very interesting passage that, as you can imagine, has received a lot of comment over the years. Some people see John's version of "Pentecost" here. After all, the Book of Acts may appear like its own stand-alone document in our Bible, but that isn't the case. It is really Vol. 2 of Luke's Gospel. So it is argued that John the evangelist had no access to the story of Pentecost (and it is likewise assumed that he, the writer, wasn't one of the ones present that day).....yet he wanted somehow to get the story of the giving of the Holy Spirit out there, so this is how he did it.
Um.....yeah. Well, I suppose that's one way of looking at it. Lutheran theology sees this episode as a very specific and necessary part of the life of the church--not just that church of that day, but rather The Church of all days. This is where Jesus authorized human representatives to do God "things."
Before I went to seminary we had some delightful neighbors who lived across the street from us; good people; Christian people. They went to the Baptist church. But one sunday they showed up at our church. I don't recall the circumstances. But some time afterward I was talking to my neighbor and I asked him what he thought of it. He said it was fine, & that he had actually been there before, but that his ONLY problem was the way it started with "confession & forgiveness." It really kinda bothered him that, "The Pastor said *he* forgave our sins.....when in reality, only *God* can forgive sins."
It's interesting to note that these were the same charges leveled against Jesus in Luke 5 when he heals the paralytic. The Pharisees grumble that only God can forgive sins. One counter to bringing Luke 5 into the discussion is that Jesus is "God in the flesh" (certainly true) and hence he's right & the Pharisees are wrong. But that still leaves John 20 unaccounted for.
In the end, most of the non-sacramental faith traditions ignore the implications of John 20. It is truer to say that only God has the *power* or *authority* to forgive sins, but that God is not stingy. In His grace He has given this gift out--first to His own blessed Son during his earthly ministry, and then through His Son to the Apostles, the first Church, and the Church of all time. The grace of God comes among us through ordinary 'means,' such as bread & wine, water, and the human voice.
Cheers!
TM
One of the things that we didn't really hit from Jn 20 yesterday was the giving of the Spirit.
vs 22-23: When he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained."
This is a very interesting passage that, as you can imagine, has received a lot of comment over the years. Some people see John's version of "Pentecost" here. After all, the Book of Acts may appear like its own stand-alone document in our Bible, but that isn't the case. It is really Vol. 2 of Luke's Gospel. So it is argued that John the evangelist had no access to the story of Pentecost (and it is likewise assumed that he, the writer, wasn't one of the ones present that day).....yet he wanted somehow to get the story of the giving of the Holy Spirit out there, so this is how he did it.
Um.....yeah. Well, I suppose that's one way of looking at it. Lutheran theology sees this episode as a very specific and necessary part of the life of the church--not just that church of that day, but rather The Church of all days. This is where Jesus authorized human representatives to do God "things."
Before I went to seminary we had some delightful neighbors who lived across the street from us; good people; Christian people. They went to the Baptist church. But one sunday they showed up at our church. I don't recall the circumstances. But some time afterward I was talking to my neighbor and I asked him what he thought of it. He said it was fine, & that he had actually been there before, but that his ONLY problem was the way it started with "confession & forgiveness." It really kinda bothered him that, "The Pastor said *he* forgave our sins.....when in reality, only *God* can forgive sins."
It's interesting to note that these were the same charges leveled against Jesus in Luke 5 when he heals the paralytic. The Pharisees grumble that only God can forgive sins. One counter to bringing Luke 5 into the discussion is that Jesus is "God in the flesh" (certainly true) and hence he's right & the Pharisees are wrong. But that still leaves John 20 unaccounted for.
In the end, most of the non-sacramental faith traditions ignore the implications of John 20. It is truer to say that only God has the *power* or *authority* to forgive sins, but that God is not stingy. In His grace He has given this gift out--first to His own blessed Son during his earthly ministry, and then through His Son to the Apostles, the first Church, and the Church of all time. The grace of God comes among us through ordinary 'means,' such as bread & wine, water, and the human voice.
Cheers!
TM
Monday, March 24, 2008
Easter Sunday, morning after thoughts
Good Morning!
Well, the main thought I have leftover bouncing around in my head from yesterday's readings is a minor variation in some of the manuscripts used to construct the New Testament.
In the passage we read yesterday, Matthew 28:5 & 6 say: "But the angel said to the women, "Do not be afraid; I know that you are looking for Jesus who was crucified. 6 He is not here; for he has been raised, as he said. Come, see the place where he lay." But some other manuscripts have vs 6: reading: "come, see the place where _The Lord_ lay." This, for instance, is how the KJV & NKJV translations read.
Without getting into a deep quagmire on textual criticism and how the new testament is constructed, I'll simply say that the older manuscripts don't have the word "Lord," but merely say "he"......thus it is considered that a zealous scribe somewhere along the way ADDED that word--and copies from his text from that point on contained the word.
While I am generally ok with accepting that Matthew's original Gospel probably didn't say "come, see the place where _The Lord_ lay," I can certainly sympathize and even agree (on a theological level) with the nameless, zealous scribe who made the addition. His point is a very valid one.......that even in DEATH, even in that cold dank tomb, Jesus remains Lord of the situation.
Moving into the realm of super-speculation, perhaps this had even been part of the scribe's personal experience in faith. Perhaps he too had recognized that even in his darkest hour, even at a time his world had come unraveled, Jesus had not deserted him, but remained Lord of his life. It's a neat concept to think about....
Cheers,
TM
Well, the main thought I have leftover bouncing around in my head from yesterday's readings is a minor variation in some of the manuscripts used to construct the New Testament.
In the passage we read yesterday, Matthew 28:5 & 6 say: "But the angel said to the women, "Do not be afraid; I know that you are looking for Jesus who was crucified. 6 He is not here; for he has been raised, as he said. Come, see the place where he lay." But some other manuscripts have vs 6: reading: "come, see the place where _The Lord_ lay." This, for instance, is how the KJV & NKJV translations read.
Without getting into a deep quagmire on textual criticism and how the new testament is constructed, I'll simply say that the older manuscripts don't have the word "Lord," but merely say "he"......thus it is considered that a zealous scribe somewhere along the way ADDED that word--and copies from his text from that point on contained the word.
While I am generally ok with accepting that Matthew's original Gospel probably didn't say "come, see the place where _The Lord_ lay," I can certainly sympathize and even agree (on a theological level) with the nameless, zealous scribe who made the addition. His point is a very valid one.......that even in DEATH, even in that cold dank tomb, Jesus remains Lord of the situation.
Moving into the realm of super-speculation, perhaps this had even been part of the scribe's personal experience in faith. Perhaps he too had recognized that even in his darkest hour, even at a time his world had come unraveled, Jesus had not deserted him, but remained Lord of his life. It's a neat concept to think about....
Cheers,
TM
Monday, March 17, 2008
Passion Sunday, morning after thoughts
Good morning!
Well, I have to confess that even my 'morning after thoughts' are still hung up on the irony & interplay between the 2 men standing before Pilate in Matthew 27.......Yeshua Bar-Abbas.....and Yeshua of Nazareth. So many similarities. As I mentioned yesterday, Bar-Abbas literally means "son of the father," and we know that Jesus revealed himself as *the* Son of the Father. It's so thick with irony that I'm sure the evangelist wants us to notice.
But beyond that, have you ever thought further about who it was that Jesus was crucified with? We commonly call them the "two thieves".....but this is misleading. In our minds, a thief is someone who breaks in & steals our television while we're not home. That's not who these guys were. These guys were the same type of person that Bar-Abbas was. They were BANDITS. Historians tell us that banditry was common in these days, due to oppressive economic conditions. Cut-throat lending practices would often, if not always, refuse to assign interest on a loan--usually out of pious-sounding dedication to the Torah. But then if the borrower couldn't pay the loan back, the lender would confiscate whatever meager piece of land the borrower had to his name--turning the borrower into a serf. Some eventually refused to travel the road of increasing serfdom and slavery, and instead turned to the innumerable caves that dotted the Palestinian countryside and took up a life of banditry. When Jesus overturns the tables of the money changers in Matthew 21, he says in vs 13: "you have made my Father's house a cave/den of thieves/bandits," he was talking about the sort of place & life that Bar-Abbas would call "home."
There's a further element to banditry, though. Some bandits, it's true, were simple pirates.....merely trying to survive and even thrive at a life that was preferable to the life they could have inside the law. But others were more like folk heroes; striking out at the pagan Roman occupiers, and the despised Jewish social elite that collaborated with them. Such men were wanted outlaws not simply due to their thievery, but also because they were insurrectionists. Their actions were INTENDED to disrupt the political status quo, and even, perhaps lead to open rebellion. This is why Pilate is so curious about Jesus' title "King of the Jews," and in the end, this is why Jesus is executed as an enemy to the Roman state. The sign above his head, listing the charges, is clear......if you're going to set yourself up as an alternative "king"......if you're going to go against Rome.....this is the fate that awaits you.
I wonder if the 2 guys crucified with Jesus were part of Bar-Abbas's gang? I guess this is just one of millions of questions we'll never really know the answer to.
Cheers,
TM
Well, I have to confess that even my 'morning after thoughts' are still hung up on the irony & interplay between the 2 men standing before Pilate in Matthew 27.......Yeshua Bar-Abbas.....and Yeshua of Nazareth. So many similarities. As I mentioned yesterday, Bar-Abbas literally means "son of the father," and we know that Jesus revealed himself as *the* Son of the Father. It's so thick with irony that I'm sure the evangelist wants us to notice.
But beyond that, have you ever thought further about who it was that Jesus was crucified with? We commonly call them the "two thieves".....but this is misleading. In our minds, a thief is someone who breaks in & steals our television while we're not home. That's not who these guys were. These guys were the same type of person that Bar-Abbas was. They were BANDITS. Historians tell us that banditry was common in these days, due to oppressive economic conditions. Cut-throat lending practices would often, if not always, refuse to assign interest on a loan--usually out of pious-sounding dedication to the Torah. But then if the borrower couldn't pay the loan back, the lender would confiscate whatever meager piece of land the borrower had to his name--turning the borrower into a serf. Some eventually refused to travel the road of increasing serfdom and slavery, and instead turned to the innumerable caves that dotted the Palestinian countryside and took up a life of banditry. When Jesus overturns the tables of the money changers in Matthew 21, he says in vs 13: "you have made my Father's house a cave/den of thieves/bandits," he was talking about the sort of place & life that Bar-Abbas would call "home."
There's a further element to banditry, though. Some bandits, it's true, were simple pirates.....merely trying to survive and even thrive at a life that was preferable to the life they could have inside the law. But others were more like folk heroes; striking out at the pagan Roman occupiers, and the despised Jewish social elite that collaborated with them. Such men were wanted outlaws not simply due to their thievery, but also because they were insurrectionists. Their actions were INTENDED to disrupt the political status quo, and even, perhaps lead to open rebellion. This is why Pilate is so curious about Jesus' title "King of the Jews," and in the end, this is why Jesus is executed as an enemy to the Roman state. The sign above his head, listing the charges, is clear......if you're going to set yourself up as an alternative "king"......if you're going to go against Rome.....this is the fate that awaits you.
I wonder if the 2 guys crucified with Jesus were part of Bar-Abbas's gang? I guess this is just one of millions of questions we'll never really know the answer to.
Cheers,
TM
Monday, March 10, 2008
Former religious right folks...
Here's a link to a VERY interesting story...
If you're a "religious right" watcher as I am, it's always interesting to keep tabs on who's bailing out of the movement & why. This story does just that. Highly recommended.
http://www.alternet.org/stories/78818/
TM
If you're a "religious right" watcher as I am, it's always interesting to keep tabs on who's bailing out of the movement & why. This story does just that. Highly recommended.
http://www.alternet.org/stories/78818/
TM
Lent 5, Morning after thoughts
Good morning:
I've got my mug of hot black coffee here, & in fact, I'm on my 2nd cup now.....so ready to dig in to some "morning after" thoughts on yesterday's reading.
Although, I think I'm going to cheat just a little bit. You see, one of the main things bouncing around in my head about that text from yesterday was--strictly speaking--not really part of the text, cuz the bulletin inserts we used chopped the reading off before the end of the chapter. Here's the missing verses in the TNIV translation, starting with vs 45:
[After Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead]
45 Therefore many of the Jews who had come to visit Mary, and had seen what Jesus did, put their faith in him. 46 But some of them went to the Pharisees and told them what Jesus had done. 47 Then the chief priests and the Pharisees called a meeting of the Sanhedrin. "What are we accomplishing?" they asked. "Here is this man performing many signs. 48 If we let him go on like this, everyone will believe in him, and then the Romans will come and take away both our temple and our nation." 49 Then one of them, named Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, spoke up, "You know nothing at all! 50 You do not realize that it is better for you that one man die for the people than that the whole nation perish." 51 He did not say this on his own, but as high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus would die for the Jewish nation, 52 and not only for that nation but also for the scattered children of God, to bring them together and make them one. 53 So from that day on they plotted to take his life.
There are several interesting things about this passage. First of all, not that many years down the road, in 70AD the Romans did *indeed* come and take away their Temple. Herod's magnificent structure was more or less leveled, leaving only what is today known as the "Wailing Wall." And in 135 AD the second great Jewish rebellion (commonly called the Bar Kochba Revolt) ended in defeat, with the old city of Jerusalem being completely leveled, and Jews being banned from the new settlement--a pagan center dubbed Aelia Capitolina by Emperor Hadrian. In other words, the ironic part of Jn 11:48 is that not everyone put their faith in Jesus, not everyone began following him, and yet the thing(s) they feared most happened ANYWAY.
The second thing that stands out to me about this passage is that one of the most wonderful events of human history--the raising of a man LONG DEAD--is greated with the overwhelming urge to KILL the holy man who performed the miracle. This seems ludicrous on the one hand, yet on the other it's understandable. Isn't that just like human nature? If Jesus had "played nice" with the religious authorities of Jerusalem, this probably wouldn't have been the case. But he was such a THREAT to them that they couldn't tolerate him--and this last act, raising Lazarus from the dead, was the straw that broke the camel's back for them. Preservation of THEIR status quo--what they deluded themselves into thinking was for the "good of the people"....was more important to them than this man's life. But in the irony of ironies, the Father used their attitudes to accomplish something even greater--and on behalf of ALL PEOPLE OF ALL TIME.
Cheers!
TM
I've got my mug of hot black coffee here, & in fact, I'm on my 2nd cup now.....so ready to dig in to some "morning after" thoughts on yesterday's reading.
Although, I think I'm going to cheat just a little bit. You see, one of the main things bouncing around in my head about that text from yesterday was--strictly speaking--not really part of the text, cuz the bulletin inserts we used chopped the reading off before the end of the chapter. Here's the missing verses in the TNIV translation, starting with vs 45:
[After Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead]
45 Therefore many of the Jews who had come to visit Mary, and had seen what Jesus did, put their faith in him. 46 But some of them went to the Pharisees and told them what Jesus had done. 47 Then the chief priests and the Pharisees called a meeting of the Sanhedrin. "What are we accomplishing?" they asked. "Here is this man performing many signs. 48 If we let him go on like this, everyone will believe in him, and then the Romans will come and take away both our temple and our nation." 49 Then one of them, named Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, spoke up, "You know nothing at all! 50 You do not realize that it is better for you that one man die for the people than that the whole nation perish." 51 He did not say this on his own, but as high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus would die for the Jewish nation, 52 and not only for that nation but also for the scattered children of God, to bring them together and make them one. 53 So from that day on they plotted to take his life.
There are several interesting things about this passage. First of all, not that many years down the road, in 70AD the Romans did *indeed* come and take away their Temple. Herod's magnificent structure was more or less leveled, leaving only what is today known as the "Wailing Wall." And in 135 AD the second great Jewish rebellion (commonly called the Bar Kochba Revolt) ended in defeat, with the old city of Jerusalem being completely leveled, and Jews being banned from the new settlement--a pagan center dubbed Aelia Capitolina by Emperor Hadrian. In other words, the ironic part of Jn 11:48 is that not everyone put their faith in Jesus, not everyone began following him, and yet the thing(s) they feared most happened ANYWAY.
The second thing that stands out to me about this passage is that one of the most wonderful events of human history--the raising of a man LONG DEAD--is greated with the overwhelming urge to KILL the holy man who performed the miracle. This seems ludicrous on the one hand, yet on the other it's understandable. Isn't that just like human nature? If Jesus had "played nice" with the religious authorities of Jerusalem, this probably wouldn't have been the case. But he was such a THREAT to them that they couldn't tolerate him--and this last act, raising Lazarus from the dead, was the straw that broke the camel's back for them. Preservation of THEIR status quo--what they deluded themselves into thinking was for the "good of the people"....was more important to them than this man's life. But in the irony of ironies, the Father used their attitudes to accomplish something even greater--and on behalf of ALL PEOPLE OF ALL TIME.
Cheers!
TM
Monday, March 3, 2008
Lent 4, Morning after thoughts
Good morning!
Well, I guess one of the things that's still rattling around in my head this morning is the reaction of the Pharisees. Earlier in John's gospel, it says that after Jesus turned the water into wine, the Disciples saw the sign "and they believed." In fact, much of the story of John's gospel has to do with people seeing the signs and believing. One can't help but wonder, WHY ....after seeing as many signs as the Pharisees saw....did they remain in unbelief?
I guess the first answer is that NOT ALL of them did remain in unbelief. As I said in an earlier post, Acts 15:5 is one of the most intriguing verses in the whole Bible. I wish it were a whole chapter and not just one verse, but it clearly indicates that the infant Jerusalem church--comprised of Jewish believers in Jesus the Messiah--**INCLUDES** members of the Pharisee sect. So not all remain in unbelief--tho it seems fair to say that believing Pharisees are in the minority.
...Which brings us back to the question, why do the signs not convince the majority of Pharisees? When I was a kid, oh 8yrs old or so, I remember one Christmas morning I was the first one up. I tip-toed out to the living room to check out the haul under the tree. It was difficult to see much cuz I didn't want to turn on the light, but off to the side of the tree was something BIG and it had a white sheet over it! When I first noticed it, I JUMPED! It was so out of place. I don't know *what* I thought it was, maybe a ghost? All the cartoons always depicted ghosts as having sheets over their heads. I don't remember much else, I think I just went back to bed and waited for everyone else to get up. Well, turns out that the thing under the sheet was just a really big present. My folks had bought a chord organ for me, and my Dad had taken it out of the box & put it all together. The finished product was too big to fit under the tree & too big to wrap, so they threw a sheet over it. Bottom line: I didn't recognize the thing as a Christmas present because it didn't come to me in the form I *EXPECTED*.
I can't help but think that this was a basic hangup for the Pharisees. They of all people had greater faith that Messiah would come, but when Messiah came, he came wrapped in a form other than what they expected. Rather than conquering hero & judge, he came in meekness and humility--he came with a mission, but that mission was to die.
Cheers,
TM
Well, I guess one of the things that's still rattling around in my head this morning is the reaction of the Pharisees. Earlier in John's gospel, it says that after Jesus turned the water into wine, the Disciples saw the sign "and they believed." In fact, much of the story of John's gospel has to do with people seeing the signs and believing. One can't help but wonder, WHY ....after seeing as many signs as the Pharisees saw....did they remain in unbelief?
I guess the first answer is that NOT ALL of them did remain in unbelief. As I said in an earlier post, Acts 15:5 is one of the most intriguing verses in the whole Bible. I wish it were a whole chapter and not just one verse, but it clearly indicates that the infant Jerusalem church--comprised of Jewish believers in Jesus the Messiah--**INCLUDES** members of the Pharisee sect. So not all remain in unbelief--tho it seems fair to say that believing Pharisees are in the minority.
...Which brings us back to the question, why do the signs not convince the majority of Pharisees? When I was a kid, oh 8yrs old or so, I remember one Christmas morning I was the first one up. I tip-toed out to the living room to check out the haul under the tree. It was difficult to see much cuz I didn't want to turn on the light, but off to the side of the tree was something BIG and it had a white sheet over it! When I first noticed it, I JUMPED! It was so out of place. I don't know *what* I thought it was, maybe a ghost? All the cartoons always depicted ghosts as having sheets over their heads. I don't remember much else, I think I just went back to bed and waited for everyone else to get up. Well, turns out that the thing under the sheet was just a really big present. My folks had bought a chord organ for me, and my Dad had taken it out of the box & put it all together. The finished product was too big to fit under the tree & too big to wrap, so they threw a sheet over it. Bottom line: I didn't recognize the thing as a Christmas present because it didn't come to me in the form I *EXPECTED*.
I can't help but think that this was a basic hangup for the Pharisees. They of all people had greater faith that Messiah would come, but when Messiah came, he came wrapped in a form other than what they expected. Rather than conquering hero & judge, he came in meekness and humility--he came with a mission, but that mission was to die.
Cheers,
TM
Monday, February 25, 2008
Lent 3, Morning after thoughts
Good Morning!
Well my coffee cup is full & I'm ready to share some ruminations about yesterday's text & topic. I guess the biggest thing that's floating around in my mind still is the topic of Justification & its technicalities. I did read something this past week that was interesting. This is from:
http://liturgy.slu.edu/3LentA022408/theword_indepth.html
"In a course of lectures on justification delivered in his Anglican days and reissued many years later after he had become a Roman Catholic, John Henry Newman sought to find a via media between the Reformation and the Council of Trent on the doctrine of justification, a way that would do justice to the legitimate concerns of both sides and yet transcend the antithesis.
The interesting thing for us is that he sought it precisely in this understanding of justification as the gift of the indwelling Spirit.
On the one hand, this avoided the notion suggested by much Reformation theology that justification is no more than the external imputation of righteousness, leaving a person just as much a sinner as before, and, on the other hand, the Tridentine suggestion that justification means what it means etymologically, namely, to make just, implying that the justified person has already become righteous in a moral sense.
The Reformers were right in protesting that the justified person is still a sinner, and the Tridentine doctrine was right in asserting that justification makes a real difference.
The way out of this dilemma is suggested by Rom 5:2: Justification is the gift of the indwelling Spirit, which initiates a transformation into the risen state.
Justification and the gift of the Spirit are the outcome of God’s love. That love is not an abstract idea but something that happened—on the cross.
The love of God in Christ on the cross was pure love, love not caused by the attractiveness of its object: while we were yet sinners and while we were yet helpless, Christ died for us.
Through the cross God accepts sinners, and his acceptance of them is manifested by sending his Spirit to dwell in them and *gradually* transform them, so that eventually they will become in reality what they are in theory, (I would've said what they have been "declared") namely, righteous.
The points mentioned here are interesting, namely, the emphasis on the giving of the Holy Spirit. I think it may also be helpful to look at this matter from the standpoint of CHANGE. What/who's changed as a result of Justification?
1. God's attitude toward the sinner is changed. God looks at the sinner & sees not sin, but rather the righteousness of Christ. This righteousness is not a "work in progress," but rather is PERFECT because it is the righteousness of the only begotten Son of the Father. In that sense, God looks at the sinner & sees a completely finished product.
2. The sinner's heart is changed. It is now the abode of the Holy Spirit. This is the point Newman (& St. Paul) made.
Beyond this is where traditional Catholic & Protestant thought diverge. Protestant thought sees the *result* of this changed heart as the beginning of Sanctification--the process of the Holy Spirit TRULY changing the sinner into what it is that the Father sees--namely, a RIGHTEOUS person.
Heady stuff!
Cheers,
TM
Well my coffee cup is full & I'm ready to share some ruminations about yesterday's text & topic. I guess the biggest thing that's floating around in my mind still is the topic of Justification & its technicalities. I did read something this past week that was interesting. This is from:
http://liturgy.slu.edu/3LentA022408/theword_indepth.html
"In a course of lectures on justification delivered in his Anglican days and reissued many years later after he had become a Roman Catholic, John Henry Newman sought to find a via media between the Reformation and the Council of Trent on the doctrine of justification, a way that would do justice to the legitimate concerns of both sides and yet transcend the antithesis.
The interesting thing for us is that he sought it precisely in this understanding of justification as the gift of the indwelling Spirit.
On the one hand, this avoided the notion suggested by much Reformation theology that justification is no more than the external imputation of righteousness, leaving a person just as much a sinner as before, and, on the other hand, the Tridentine suggestion that justification means what it means etymologically, namely, to make just, implying that the justified person has already become righteous in a moral sense.
The Reformers were right in protesting that the justified person is still a sinner, and the Tridentine doctrine was right in asserting that justification makes a real difference.
The way out of this dilemma is suggested by Rom 5:2: Justification is the gift of the indwelling Spirit, which initiates a transformation into the risen state.
Justification and the gift of the Spirit are the outcome of God’s love. That love is not an abstract idea but something that happened—on the cross.
The love of God in Christ on the cross was pure love, love not caused by the attractiveness of its object: while we were yet sinners and while we were yet helpless, Christ died for us.
Through the cross God accepts sinners, and his acceptance of them is manifested by sending his Spirit to dwell in them and *gradually* transform them, so that eventually they will become in reality what they are in theory, (I would've said what they have been "declared") namely, righteous.
The points mentioned here are interesting, namely, the emphasis on the giving of the Holy Spirit. I think it may also be helpful to look at this matter from the standpoint of CHANGE. What/who's changed as a result of Justification?
1. God's attitude toward the sinner is changed. God looks at the sinner & sees not sin, but rather the righteousness of Christ. This righteousness is not a "work in progress," but rather is PERFECT because it is the righteousness of the only begotten Son of the Father. In that sense, God looks at the sinner & sees a completely finished product.
2. The sinner's heart is changed. It is now the abode of the Holy Spirit. This is the point Newman (& St. Paul) made.
Beyond this is where traditional Catholic & Protestant thought diverge. Protestant thought sees the *result* of this changed heart as the beginning of Sanctification--the process of the Holy Spirit TRULY changing the sinner into what it is that the Father sees--namely, a RIGHTEOUS person.
Heady stuff!
Cheers,
TM
Monday, February 18, 2008
Lent 2, Morning after thoughts...
Good morning!
Well, it was interesting to have a little bit of a look at Nicodemus yesterday. I think I mentioned, or at least I should've, that he appears *only* in John's Gospel. We get another brief look at him in chapter 7 when there is a failed attempt to arrest Jesus. In this passage (7:50), Nicodemus appears at least fair-minded, if not partially sympathetic to the cause of Jesus, stating: "Our law does not judge people without first giving them a hearing to find out what they are doing, does it?" Then the last we see of him is in Jn 19, when Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus claim the body of Christ following the crucifixion and anoint it for burial.
After John 19:39, Nicodemus--at least by name--disappears from history. What we do find in the book of Acts, however, is that the very first generation of Jewish followers of Jesus also includes some of the Pharisee sect (Acts 15:5). Typically, St. Paul is the only Pharisee-follower of Jesus that comes to our mind, but evidently in the "mother church" at Jerusalem there were others as well. Having said that, it appears--at least early on--that there was some debate (especially among the Pharisees) as to the pre-conditions that must be met by Gentile followers of Jesus.
One of the lessons we should learn from history is that our day & age of Denominationalism.......and the "fractured voice" sounding forth from groups that claim the same name but speak out of opposing viewpoints...is that this is nothing new. In the earliest years of the "Jesus movement" things were no different. And right at the top of the list of things that people disagreed about was WHAT exactly was the status of non-Jewish followers of the Jewish Messiah. There appears to have been at least 3 possible viewpoints: (1) non-Jewish followers of the Messiah must become Jewish proselytes (Acts 15:5). I find this viewpoint to be extra rigid given the fact that the Judaism of the day allowed for a sort of 'partial membership.' Gentile followers of the true God called "God-fearers" were allowed in the Synagogue--though not the Temple-- and admittedly, the hope was probably fostered that one day said God-fearers would become full converts. Still, they were at least allowed limited access to the community of faith even as Gentiles. (2) non-Jewish followers of the Messiah are considered members of the Church and are granted fellowship with Jewish believers--tho their status is something of a "second-class citizen." Again, the template for this viewpoint would be the "God-fearers" of the Jewish Synagogue. Many scholars think that this was the view held by St. James of Jerusalem, the brother of our Lord. (3) The most radical viewpoint was that expressed by St. Paul--the view that by faith in the Jewish Messiah, ANYONE was a child of Abraham (a true Jew) in God's sight. This is the point he makes in Gal 3:29 (among other places) "And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to the promise." It is debatable as to whether or not this view of Paul--which became part of the Scriptures of the Church--was ever fully adopted by the Jerusalem Church prior to the late second century and the expulsion of all Jews from Jerusalem by the Roman Empire.
One of the million dollar questions that the Bible never addresses is where does Nicodemus--a Pharisee & Teacher of Israel--fall on the above question? Was he, for instance, one of the ones in the Jerusalem church in Acts 15:5? This side of heaven, we'll likely never know.
Cheers,
TM
Well, it was interesting to have a little bit of a look at Nicodemus yesterday. I think I mentioned, or at least I should've, that he appears *only* in John's Gospel. We get another brief look at him in chapter 7 when there is a failed attempt to arrest Jesus. In this passage (7:50), Nicodemus appears at least fair-minded, if not partially sympathetic to the cause of Jesus, stating: "Our law does not judge people without first giving them a hearing to find out what they are doing, does it?" Then the last we see of him is in Jn 19, when Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus claim the body of Christ following the crucifixion and anoint it for burial.
After John 19:39, Nicodemus--at least by name--disappears from history. What we do find in the book of Acts, however, is that the very first generation of Jewish followers of Jesus also includes some of the Pharisee sect (Acts 15:5). Typically, St. Paul is the only Pharisee-follower of Jesus that comes to our mind, but evidently in the "mother church" at Jerusalem there were others as well. Having said that, it appears--at least early on--that there was some debate (especially among the Pharisees) as to the pre-conditions that must be met by Gentile followers of Jesus.
One of the lessons we should learn from history is that our day & age of Denominationalism.......and the "fractured voice" sounding forth from groups that claim the same name but speak out of opposing viewpoints...is that this is nothing new. In the earliest years of the "Jesus movement" things were no different. And right at the top of the list of things that people disagreed about was WHAT exactly was the status of non-Jewish followers of the Jewish Messiah. There appears to have been at least 3 possible viewpoints: (1) non-Jewish followers of the Messiah must become Jewish proselytes (Acts 15:5). I find this viewpoint to be extra rigid given the fact that the Judaism of the day allowed for a sort of 'partial membership.' Gentile followers of the true God called "God-fearers" were allowed in the Synagogue--though not the Temple-- and admittedly, the hope was probably fostered that one day said God-fearers would become full converts. Still, they were at least allowed limited access to the community of faith even as Gentiles. (2) non-Jewish followers of the Messiah are considered members of the Church and are granted fellowship with Jewish believers--tho their status is something of a "second-class citizen." Again, the template for this viewpoint would be the "God-fearers" of the Jewish Synagogue. Many scholars think that this was the view held by St. James of Jerusalem, the brother of our Lord. (3) The most radical viewpoint was that expressed by St. Paul--the view that by faith in the Jewish Messiah, ANYONE was a child of Abraham (a true Jew) in God's sight. This is the point he makes in Gal 3:29 (among other places) "And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to the promise." It is debatable as to whether or not this view of Paul--which became part of the Scriptures of the Church--was ever fully adopted by the Jerusalem Church prior to the late second century and the expulsion of all Jews from Jerusalem by the Roman Empire.
One of the million dollar questions that the Bible never addresses is where does Nicodemus--a Pharisee & Teacher of Israel--fall on the above question? Was he, for instance, one of the ones in the Jerusalem church in Acts 15:5? This side of heaven, we'll likely never know.
Cheers,
TM
Monday, February 11, 2008
Lent 1, Morning After Thoughts...
Hello...
One of the little things I tried to get across yesterday was the sense that St. Paul--with other Jewish Rabbis of his day--felt that following the one true God meant that one was alive/had life, whereas not following or being Pagan meant death/ being dead. In other words, to convert from Paganism to the one true God meant converting from death to life. This is the typical Jewish "2-ways" approach. Shades of this can be found all through the scriptures. Take for example Proverbs 14:12: "There is a way that appears to be right, but in the end it leads to death." Or consider Psalm 115: 2 Why do the nations say, "Where is their God?" 3 Our God is in heaven; he does whatever pleases him. 4 But their idols are silver and gold, made by human hands. 5 They have mouths, but cannot speak, eyes, but cannot see. 6 They have ears, but cannot hear, noses, but cannot smell. 7 They have hands, but cannot feel, feet, but cannot walk, nor can they utter a sound with their throats. 8 Those who make them are like them, and so will all who trust in them.17 It is not the dead who praise the Lord, those who go down to the place of silence; 18 it is we who extol the Lord, both now and forevermore."
After stating that idols have no characteristics of living, he states that those who make them & trust in them are just like the dead idol they worship.
With all of that in mind, now consider 1John 5:12: "Whoever has the Son has life; whoever does not have the Son of God does not have life.". This verse was the backbone of a Praise tune we used to sing in the church I grew up in. I always thought "life" meant "everlasting life".....as in going to heaven when I die. And I think that's true too.....but I don't think that's what the author was saying. I think that author, as well as St. Paul in his context was doing something very Jewish......but transferring all of the meaning to Jesus Christ. NOW....whoever has the Son has the God of Abraham Isaac & Jacob; whoever has the Son has left Paganism behind; whoever has the Son has the *fulfillment* of Torah; whoever has the Son has crossed over from being a walking/talking/breathing corpse into FINALLY......living......to being in relationship with LIFE itself.
Cheers!
TM
One of the little things I tried to get across yesterday was the sense that St. Paul--with other Jewish Rabbis of his day--felt that following the one true God meant that one was alive/had life, whereas not following or being Pagan meant death/ being dead. In other words, to convert from Paganism to the one true God meant converting from death to life. This is the typical Jewish "2-ways" approach. Shades of this can be found all through the scriptures. Take for example Proverbs 14:12: "There is a way that appears to be right, but in the end it leads to death." Or consider Psalm 115: 2 Why do the nations say, "Where is their God?" 3 Our God is in heaven; he does whatever pleases him. 4 But their idols are silver and gold, made by human hands. 5 They have mouths, but cannot speak, eyes, but cannot see. 6 They have ears, but cannot hear, noses, but cannot smell. 7 They have hands, but cannot feel, feet, but cannot walk, nor can they utter a sound with their throats. 8 Those who make them are like them, and so will all who trust in them.17 It is not the dead who praise the Lord, those who go down to the place of silence; 18 it is we who extol the Lord, both now and forevermore."
After stating that idols have no characteristics of living, he states that those who make them & trust in them are just like the dead idol they worship.
With all of that in mind, now consider 1John 5:12: "Whoever has the Son has life; whoever does not have the Son of God does not have life.". This verse was the backbone of a Praise tune we used to sing in the church I grew up in. I always thought "life" meant "everlasting life".....as in going to heaven when I die. And I think that's true too.....but I don't think that's what the author was saying. I think that author, as well as St. Paul in his context was doing something very Jewish......but transferring all of the meaning to Jesus Christ. NOW....whoever has the Son has the God of Abraham Isaac & Jacob; whoever has the Son has left Paganism behind; whoever has the Son has the *fulfillment* of Torah; whoever has the Son has crossed over from being a walking/talking/breathing corpse into FINALLY......living......to being in relationship with LIFE itself.
Cheers!
TM
Monday, February 4, 2008
Transfiguration Sun., morning after thoughts...
Good morning!
One of the things I mentioned in passing yesterday is that the Transfiguration is mentioned in all 3 of the "Synoptic" Gospels (Matthew, Mark & Luke). One very interesting exercise is to compare the *differences* in the accounts, especially this year, between Matthew & Mark. I say "this year" because this is Year A on the lectionary (the year of Matthew) and I mention the comparison between Matthew & Mark because I accept the current scholarly opinions that Mark was the first Gospel & Matthew had access to it when he wrote his.
With that theory in mind, Matthew's account has some subtle variation from Marks:
1. Matthew mentions Jesus "face" shining....as well as his garments
2. Moses is listed before Elijah in Matthew
3. Jesus is referred to as Lord ("Kyrios") as opposed to Mark's "Rabbi"
4. Peter suggests he alone can build the 3 shelters ("I will make") in Matthew, where as it's a team effort in Mark.
5. In Mark, fear grips the disciples before they're enveloped in the cloud & hear the voice. In Matthew it's afterward
6. Jesus' remarkable touch & words "don't be afraid" only happen in Matthew
7. This event is specifically called a "vision" in Matthew.
Generally, I see these details as the typical Matthean "expansion" of Mark. That, in other words, in comparing Mark's version against his own sources, Matthew under the direction of the Holy Spirit is guided to flesh out more detail. For the purpose of my sermon this year, I am happy that Matthew included the comforting words of Jesus, for it was in these words "don't be afraid" that I saw & heard so much GOSPEL coming through!
Cheers.
TM
One of the things I mentioned in passing yesterday is that the Transfiguration is mentioned in all 3 of the "Synoptic" Gospels (Matthew, Mark & Luke). One very interesting exercise is to compare the *differences* in the accounts, especially this year, between Matthew & Mark. I say "this year" because this is Year A on the lectionary (the year of Matthew) and I mention the comparison between Matthew & Mark because I accept the current scholarly opinions that Mark was the first Gospel & Matthew had access to it when he wrote his.
With that theory in mind, Matthew's account has some subtle variation from Marks:
1. Matthew mentions Jesus "face" shining....as well as his garments
2. Moses is listed before Elijah in Matthew
3. Jesus is referred to as Lord ("Kyrios") as opposed to Mark's "Rabbi"
4. Peter suggests he alone can build the 3 shelters ("I will make") in Matthew, where as it's a team effort in Mark.
5. In Mark, fear grips the disciples before they're enveloped in the cloud & hear the voice. In Matthew it's afterward
6. Jesus' remarkable touch & words "don't be afraid" only happen in Matthew
7. This event is specifically called a "vision" in Matthew.
Generally, I see these details as the typical Matthean "expansion" of Mark. That, in other words, in comparing Mark's version against his own sources, Matthew under the direction of the Holy Spirit is guided to flesh out more detail. For the purpose of my sermon this year, I am happy that Matthew included the comforting words of Jesus, for it was in these words "don't be afraid" that I saw & heard so much GOSPEL coming through!
Cheers.
TM
Monday, January 28, 2008
3rd after Epiphany Morning After thoughts...
Greetings!
There are a couple of things still rattling around in my mind from yesterday's Gospel in Matthew chapter 4. First, did you notice that in Matthew's gospel, Simon is **already** called "Peter" when Jesus calls him? That's what it says in 4:18.....whereas in John's gospel Jesus is the one who gives him this title (Jn 1:42).
Another thing .....commentators often point out that this call of Jesus that is **immediately** responded to is not an _accurate_ portrayal of how things went historically. That, in order to understand a likelier flow of events, one must refer to John's gospel. Using the 2 gospels together, one gets a sense that Jesus has a relatively "low key" first year of ministry in which an inner circle of followers (Peter, Andrew, James, & John) know him & follow him as much as their work will allow, but that in Matthew chapter 4, his ministry jumps to a higher level and he calls these acquaintances to full-time committed service.
This is as likely of an explanation as any, regarding the way it went. HOWEVER, it is just as equally important to realize that Matthew doesn't say a word about any "prior knowledge" these disciples may have had. In at least one sense, it is important to let EACH GOSPEL STAND ALONE as a discreet document, with its own agenda. When looked at in this sense, Matthew wishes to highlight the **power** of the divine call, & its efficacy. Look how it causes lives to change immediately; look how it leads to new life immediately; look how it leads to following Jesus & building the new community of grace immediately.......etc. etc.
Finally, it's worth mentioning that even tho Jesus is referred to as "Rabbi" all the time (tho again, this is found much more in John's gospel, than Matthew's).......Jesus does something very non-rabbinic in Matthew chapter 4. In the world of the rabbis, prospective students would approach the rabbi for permission to become disciples. Jesus, however, turns the process upside down when he approaches individuals & bids them to a life of discipleship. This too resonates with us theologically, as we did not seek him, he sought us, etc.
Cheers,
TM
There are a couple of things still rattling around in my mind from yesterday's Gospel in Matthew chapter 4. First, did you notice that in Matthew's gospel, Simon is **already** called "Peter" when Jesus calls him? That's what it says in 4:18.....whereas in John's gospel Jesus is the one who gives him this title (Jn 1:42).
Another thing .....commentators often point out that this call of Jesus that is **immediately** responded to is not an _accurate_ portrayal of how things went historically. That, in order to understand a likelier flow of events, one must refer to John's gospel. Using the 2 gospels together, one gets a sense that Jesus has a relatively "low key" first year of ministry in which an inner circle of followers (Peter, Andrew, James, & John) know him & follow him as much as their work will allow, but that in Matthew chapter 4, his ministry jumps to a higher level and he calls these acquaintances to full-time committed service.
This is as likely of an explanation as any, regarding the way it went. HOWEVER, it is just as equally important to realize that Matthew doesn't say a word about any "prior knowledge" these disciples may have had. In at least one sense, it is important to let EACH GOSPEL STAND ALONE as a discreet document, with its own agenda. When looked at in this sense, Matthew wishes to highlight the **power** of the divine call, & its efficacy. Look how it causes lives to change immediately; look how it leads to new life immediately; look how it leads to following Jesus & building the new community of grace immediately.......etc. etc.
Finally, it's worth mentioning that even tho Jesus is referred to as "Rabbi" all the time (tho again, this is found much more in John's gospel, than Matthew's).......Jesus does something very non-rabbinic in Matthew chapter 4. In the world of the rabbis, prospective students would approach the rabbi for permission to become disciples. Jesus, however, turns the process upside down when he approaches individuals & bids them to a life of discipleship. This too resonates with us theologically, as we did not seek him, he sought us, etc.
Cheers,
TM
2nd after Epiphany Morning After thoughts...
Unfortunately this is a week late in getting posted, but I wanted to get it up here anyway.
Every time I read that passage from John’s gospel about Jesus being the “Lamb of God,” I can’t help but think of the “Agnus Dei” (Latin, for “Lamb of God”) in our liturgy. This formula, whether spoken or chanted, has a long and varied use in the liturgies of both East and West. In our Lutheran usage, it is important to note its location in the liturgy—it comes after the Words of Institution. In that sense, when we sing the Agnus Dei, we’re not simply singing a short hymn to Christ our Savior, more importantly, we’re singing a short hymn to Christ our Savior as we now understand him to be really, and truly present in the consecrated bread and wine.
What makes this detail interesting is that the Lutheran faith tradition is a Reformation faith tradition—and one detail of the ancient faith that is lost in so many Reformation faith traditions is any sacramental understanding that Jesus comes to his people in ordinary elements like water, bread and wine. In addition, it became very important to churches of the various Reformation traditions that their church orders and liturgies reflect the beliefs that marked them as different from Rome.
Take the Church of England for instance. In the first Book of Common Prayer of 1549, the liturgy was Reformed in the early (Lutheran-ish) sense of the word. One can easily detect a sacramental, real presence, understanding within the liturgy. In the case of the Agnus Dei, it is appointed to be sung as a distribution hymn during the communion.
This was not to be the case in the second Book of Common Prayer, 1552. The Reformation in England was developing along more ‘symbolic’ lines when it came to the question of sacraments—a point clearly seen in the difference of the new distribution formula. Where the old 1549 formula—with Agnus Dei being sung in the background had said:
"The body of our Lorde Jesus Christe whiche was geven for thee, preserve thy bodye and soule unto everlasting lyfe….The bloud of our Lorde Jesus Christe which was shed for thee, preserve thy bodye and soule unto everlastyng lyfe."
The new formula (don’t you love the ‘olde English’) now said:
"Take and eate this, in remembraunce that Christ dyed for thee, and feede on him in thy hearte by faythe, with thankesgeving…..Drinke this in remembraunce that Christ's bloude was shed for thee, and be thankefull."
…and the Agnus Dei is GONE! It seemed very intentional that whereas the first prayer book emphasized a real sacramental presence, the second prayer book emphasized a symbolic remembrance.
The Agnus Dei remains absent from the Book of Common Prayer of the Church of England to this day. Having said that, there is one or two interesting details with which to close out this story. In the mid 1800s that church experienced a strong movement, at least in some quarters, to restore a more ancient understanding of the religion. Ceremony and ritual were very important, as was a strong sacramental understanding of the Holy Communion. On occasion Priests or Bishops would land in hot water for doing things that were not allowed—or were expressly forbidden in the Prayer Book—which, after all, was the law of the land. One example of this concerned the case of the Bishop of Lincoln, Edward King. It seems that in his cathedral during a communion service in 1887, the Bishop, among other things, used the Agnus Dei in his liturgy. An ecclesiastical suit was brought against him and he stood trial. In 1980 the Agnus Dei appeared in an authorized service book known as the ASB, and it is also found in the Church of England’s current service book “Common Worship.”
So, the next time you sing the Agnus Dei in our communion liturgy, bring to mind that this is more than just “bumper music” to sing while people are communing. This is an intentional confession of our belief that Jesus is really, and truly present in the bread and wine……FOR US!
Every time I read that passage from John’s gospel about Jesus being the “Lamb of God,” I can’t help but think of the “Agnus Dei” (Latin, for “Lamb of God”) in our liturgy. This formula, whether spoken or chanted, has a long and varied use in the liturgies of both East and West. In our Lutheran usage, it is important to note its location in the liturgy—it comes after the Words of Institution. In that sense, when we sing the Agnus Dei, we’re not simply singing a short hymn to Christ our Savior, more importantly, we’re singing a short hymn to Christ our Savior as we now understand him to be really, and truly present in the consecrated bread and wine.
What makes this detail interesting is that the Lutheran faith tradition is a Reformation faith tradition—and one detail of the ancient faith that is lost in so many Reformation faith traditions is any sacramental understanding that Jesus comes to his people in ordinary elements like water, bread and wine. In addition, it became very important to churches of the various Reformation traditions that their church orders and liturgies reflect the beliefs that marked them as different from Rome.
Take the Church of England for instance. In the first Book of Common Prayer of 1549, the liturgy was Reformed in the early (Lutheran-ish) sense of the word. One can easily detect a sacramental, real presence, understanding within the liturgy. In the case of the Agnus Dei, it is appointed to be sung as a distribution hymn during the communion.
This was not to be the case in the second Book of Common Prayer, 1552. The Reformation in England was developing along more ‘symbolic’ lines when it came to the question of sacraments—a point clearly seen in the difference of the new distribution formula. Where the old 1549 formula—with Agnus Dei being sung in the background had said:
"The body of our Lorde Jesus Christe whiche was geven for thee, preserve thy bodye and soule unto everlasting lyfe….The bloud of our Lorde Jesus Christe which was shed for thee, preserve thy bodye and soule unto everlastyng lyfe."
The new formula (don’t you love the ‘olde English’) now said:
"Take and eate this, in remembraunce that Christ dyed for thee, and feede on him in thy hearte by faythe, with thankesgeving…..Drinke this in remembraunce that Christ's bloude was shed for thee, and be thankefull."
…and the Agnus Dei is GONE! It seemed very intentional that whereas the first prayer book emphasized a real sacramental presence, the second prayer book emphasized a symbolic remembrance.
The Agnus Dei remains absent from the Book of Common Prayer of the Church of England to this day. Having said that, there is one or two interesting details with which to close out this story. In the mid 1800s that church experienced a strong movement, at least in some quarters, to restore a more ancient understanding of the religion. Ceremony and ritual were very important, as was a strong sacramental understanding of the Holy Communion. On occasion Priests or Bishops would land in hot water for doing things that were not allowed—or were expressly forbidden in the Prayer Book—which, after all, was the law of the land. One example of this concerned the case of the Bishop of Lincoln, Edward King. It seems that in his cathedral during a communion service in 1887, the Bishop, among other things, used the Agnus Dei in his liturgy. An ecclesiastical suit was brought against him and he stood trial. In 1980 the Agnus Dei appeared in an authorized service book known as the ASB, and it is also found in the Church of England’s current service book “Common Worship.”
So, the next time you sing the Agnus Dei in our communion liturgy, bring to mind that this is more than just “bumper music” to sing while people are communing. This is an intentional confession of our belief that Jesus is really, and truly present in the bread and wine……FOR US!
"morning after" thoughts...
For some time now it has been my intention to do some regular "Monday morning" coffee blogging. Usually this is cuz there are still some sermon type thoughts rattling around in my brain that I never got a chance to mention in either the Thursday or Sunday services. I was going to start this last week (second Sun after Epiphany), but that 'thought' ran a little long & turned out to be more of an article. Oh well. A blog, if nothing else, is casual!
So, this morning I'll be posting both this week & last week's "morning after" thoughts......& we'll see how long I can keep this up!
Cheers!
TM
So, this morning I'll be posting both this week & last week's "morning after" thoughts......& we'll see how long I can keep this up!
Cheers!
TM
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
