All posts in Theology

  • Lent 2014

    It is time to change the mood.Ash Wednesday 2014

    It is time to pull back.

    It is time to rethink, restart, repent.

    It is the season of Lent.

    I am preparing myself for Lent now for the seventh time. I have been practicing Lent since 2008,  when I was growing increasing tired of Christian fads and gimmicks and I was longing for something to connect me to my Christian heritage, something I couldn’t buy for $99.99; I had been looking for a well-trodden path of spiritual formation. I found it in the age-old practice of Lent.

    I blogged on why I practice Lent two years ago. No need to rehash all the details of the great benefits of Lent. It may be sufficient enough to say that Lent is a way to enter into, and connect with, the sufferings of Jesus.

    “I calculate everything as a loss, because knowing King Jesus as my Lord is worth far more than everything else put together!…This means knowing him, knowing the power of his resurrection, and knowing the partnership of his sufferings. It means sharing the form and pattern of his death, so that somehow I may arrive at the final resurrection from the dead.” – Philippians 3:8,10-11 (Kingdom New Testament)

    Any talk of suffering sends waves of rebellion down my spine. I, like most people, resist suffering, choosing the path of comfort and ease if it is up to me. Lent is a particular focus on suffering. You certainly cannot package Lent and sell it in a Christian bookstore. The beauty of the practice of Lent is found in its lack of marketability and it is not up to me! The practice of this season is what the church has done since the early Middle Ages. It is a handed-down tradition. (Well…I do have some say in how I choose to fast during Lent, but the times and season have been set by the church.) The fact is without the historic practice of Lent, I would not fast as often as I should. Lent has helped me form good habits of fasting and repentance.

    Paul and the Faithfulness of God by N.T. Wright

    This year I am fasting on Wednesdays and Fridays, which has been traditional fasting days for the church. My plan is not to eat solid food on those days. (I will break my fast after church on Fridays.) In addition to fasting solid food I am taking a break from Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram. I’m breaking away from social media to devote time to prayer, Scripture, and spiritual reading. I am finishing THE BIG PAUL BOOK (otherwise known as Paul & the Faithfulness of God by N.T. Wright). This two-volume book will be my primary reading during Lent. I started this 1,700-page-reading-marathon on the first Sunday of Advent last December. It been a long process working through both volumes, but it is seriously the most important thing I have read in the last 15 years. In order to devote my time to reading, I will spend less time on social media. I hate to lose contact with people through Facebook and Twitter. I guess I will have to go old-school and depend on email. I will not be checking my Facebook or Twitter accounts during Lent, so if you need me, email me, or contact me through the church website.

    I will blog during Lent.

    A couple of exciting things are happening over the next seven weeks. I will have the chance to meet N.T. Wright in person later this month. He is speaking in Overland Park on March 27 and I feel like a 12 year-old girl getting ready to go to a One Direction concert. No joke. I am beside myself with excitement. I will blog on that event….with pictures….pictures of me and Tom ya know!

    I will also be going on one or two shakedown hikes to test out my gear for the upcoming Georgia section hike on the Appalachian Trail in June. I am equally excited about the hike this summer. After Easter, I will be seven weeks away from the hike. So if you think I am obsessing over hiking now…just wait. I will blog a bit about my Spring hikes with pictures and video.

    I am ready for Lent this year. I have my fasting plan. I have my reading plan. Next up: ashes.

     

    If you are in the St. Joe area, I would invite you to join us for one of our four Ash Wednesday services in the Upper Room at 7AM, noon, 5:30PM, & 7PM. These are identical services, so I encourage you to join us for one of them. 

  • So what do I tell a new Christian to do? (Cyprian’s 120 Instructions)

    “The grace of God ought to be gratuitous.”
    – Cyprian
     (third-century Christian bishop)

    I am a Discipleship Pastor, which means I am a Pastor Pastor, because the entire pastoral vocation consists in guiding people in the way of faithful Christian discipleship. I have often wondered what other churches do. I have talked to other church leaders in other churches and other denominations about how they do discipleship (which they may call “adult education,” “spiritual formation,” or “catechesis.”) I enjoy learning from other Christians.

    But I wonder how they did discipleship in the early church, that is, in the first couple hundred years of the church? Surely pastors living in the 200s and 300s had similar questions to mine. We know we are called to make disciples, but how do we go about doing it? What am I, as as a disciple-making pastor, supposed to tell a new Christian to do?

    Cyprian, third-century bishop of Carthage

    A few weeks ago I had the privilege of meeting, and listening to a few lectures from, Alan Kreider, a retired Professor of Church History and Mission from Associated Mennonite Biblical Seminary. He introduced me to an interesting, and often overlooked, bit of church history from Cyprian, a third-century North African bishop (think local church pastor) in Carthage. During his life as a bishop Cyprian wrote a number of essays and letters instructing people in the way of Jesus. One of these essay/letters was written to a man named Quirinus, a man Cyprian was mentoring in the faith. The letter (formally called  Ad Quirinum Book Three) was written to Quirinus in request for a summary of the main instructions and teachings of the Christian faith. Kreider said this letter was an example of how the church in one area of the world carried out discipleship (what Kreider calls “habitus formation,” forming people in Christian habits).

    Cyprian organized his remarks into 120 instructions, or precepts, concerning what to embrace and what to forsake in following Jesus. He counseled his young disciple to memorize and follow this in order to live as a Christian. Each instruction was followed by a few verses of Scripture, which were to be memorized as well. The 120 instructions are not necessarily organized by exact topics, but I agree with Andy Alexis-Baker, there is “some discernible order” in what Cyprian has to say. I have created general subheadings to make it easier to read through the list. (See the complete list below.)

    The value in listening to voices from the past, like Cyprian, is first and foremost to learn. What were the points of emphasis in this church, at this time in history, in this geographical location? What am I missing in how I teach and train new disciples in my day? What issues were Christians then facing 1700 years ago? How is it similar or different to what we are facing now? Learning from the ancients is an acknowledgment that we living in the present day do not have it all figured out. I was surprised to note how many of these instructions (precepts) seemed so applicable today. Here, for example, are some that stood out to me:

    # 26 That it is of small account to be baptized and to receive the Eucharist, unless one profits by it both in deeds and works.
    (It seems like their church struggled with people “going through the motions” of worship and not necessarily living it out just like ours.)

    # 32 Of the benefit of virginity and of sexual restraint.
    (I continue to say sexual ethics may be the most difficult part of Christian discipleship in our generation. Maybe we are not alone in the struggle of leading people to rethink/reform their sexuality in the light of Christ.)

    #35 That God is patient for this end, that we may repent of our sin and be reformed.
    (The patience of God, the necessity of repentance, and the centrality of Christian formation…all dominate themes in how I do discipleship.)

    #39 That the example of living is given to us in Christ.
    (The essence of Christian discipleship is we follow Jesus by doing what he does. We find our life in his life. The Spirit is at work reforming us so our life looks like his life.)

    #49 That even our enemies are to be loved.
    (“Enemy-love” which is the cornerstone of Christian nonviolence was carried on in the church two centuries after Christ. Jesus loved his enemies from the cross, choosing not to retaliate. We are to do the same.)

    # 58 That no one should be made sad by death, since in living is labor and peril, in dying peace and the certainty of resurrection.
    (No reference to “going to heaven” and “avoiding hell” anywhere in Cyprian’s instructions. The great hope after death is the expectation of bodily resurrection.)

    #84 That the beard must not be plucked.
    (Ok, so some of the instructions seem rather cultural than deeply theological…although I am pro-beard!)

    #94 That the Eucharist is to be received with fear and honor.
    (The only worship-related or sacramental elements mentioned by Cyprian are baptism and communion. Here holy communion was held in high esteem.)

    # 100 That the grace of God ought to be gratuitous.
    (We cannot say enough about grace. This line would make a great T-shirt by the way.)

    Some of the instructions touch on controversial issue today like the necessity of baptism and the born again experience (#25), losing the grace of salvation (#27), women’s fashion (#36), free will (#27), baptismal regeneration (#65), church discipline (#77), church splits (#86), the Holy Spirit’s fire (#101), and the antichrist (#118).

    Below is the complete list. I have added the subheadings to help you navigate through the text. This list is based on the English translation by Ernest Wallis, Ph.D. I have changed some of the English text for fluency. I also added a few parenthetical statements to make some of the statements more clear. Read over this list and ask yourself:

    What can I learn about the Jesus way by reading this list of 120 instructions?  

    What confirms what I already believe about Christian discipleship?

    What challenges me?

    What have I been missing as I attempt to faithfully follow Jesus?

    Cyprian’s 120 Instructions
    from Ad Quirinum Book Three

    Giving to Those in Need
    1. Of the benefit of good works and mercy.

    2. In works and alms, even if by smallness of powerless be done, that the will itself is enough.

    3. That charity and brotherly love must be religiously and steadfastly practiced.

    4. That we must boast in nothing, since nothing is our own.

    Nonviolence
    5. That humility and quietness is to be maintained in all things.

    6. That all good and righteous men suffer more, but ought to endure because they are proved.

    7. That we must not grieve the Holy Spirit whom we have received.

    8. That anger must be overcome, lest it constrain us to sin.

    Community Life
    9. That brethren ought to sustain one another.

    10. That we must trust in God only, and in Him we must glory.

    11. That he who has attained to faith, having put off the former man, ought to regard only celestial and spiritual things, and to give no heed to the world which he has already renounced.

    12. That we must not swear.

    13. That we are not to curse.

    14. That we must never murmur, but bless God concerning all things that happen.

    15. That men are tried by God for this purpose, that they may be proved.

    Martyrdom, Suffering, & Nonviolence (Revisisted)
    16. Of the benefit of martyrdom.

    17. That what we suffer in this world is of less account than is the reward which is promised.

    18. That nothing must be preferred to the love of God and of Christ.

    19. That we must not obey our own will, but that of God.

    20. That the foundation and strength of hope and faith is fear.

    21. That we must not rashly judge of another.

    22. That when we have received a wrong, we must remit and forgive it.

    23. That evil is not to be returned for evil.

    Salvation through Jesus
    24. That it is impossible to attain to the Father but by Christ.

    25. That unless a man have been baptized and born again, he cannot attain to the kingdom of God.

    26. That it is of small account to be baptized and to receive the Eucharist, unless one profits by it both in deeds and works.

    27. That even a baptized person loses the grace which he has attained, unless he keep innocence.

    28. That remission cannot in the Church be granted unto him who has sinned against God (i.e. God the Holy Spirit).

    29. That it was before predicted concerning the hatred of the Name.

    Judgment & Christian Morality
    30. That what any one has vowed to God, he must quickly pay.

    31. That he who does not believe is judged already.

    32. Of the benefit of virginity and of sexual restraint.

    33. That the Father judges nothing, but the Son; and the Father is not honored by him by whom the Son is not honored.

    34. That the believer ought not to live like the Gentiles.

    35. That God is patient for this end, that we may repent of our sin and be reformed.

    36. That a woman ought not to be adorned in a worldly manner.

    37. That the believer ought not to be punished for other offences but for the name he bears only.

    38. That the servant of God ought to be innocent, lest he fall into secular punishment.

    39. That the example of living is given to us in Christ.

    40. That we must not labor boastfully or noisily.

    41. That we must not speak foolishly and offensively.

    Faith
    42. That faith is of advantage altogether, and that we can do as much as we believe.

    43. That he who truly believes can immediately obtain (e.g. obtain pardon and peace).

    44. That the believers who differ among themselves ought not to refer to a Gentile judge.

    45. That hope is of future things, and therefore that faith concerning those things which are promised ought to be patient.

    Not-Really-Sure-How-to-Categorize-This-One
    46. That a woman ought to be silent in the church.

    Sin & Christian Morality (Revisited)
    47. That (sin) arises from our fault and our desert that we suffer, and do not perceive God’s help in everything.

    48. That we must not take usury (i.e. exorbitant interest on money loaned to another).

    49. That even our enemies are to be loved.

    50. That the sacrament of the faith must not be profaned.

    51. That no one should be uplifted in his doing.

    Human Responsibility & Hope
    52. That the liberty of believing or of not believing is placed in free choice.

    53. That the secrets of God cannot be seen through, and therefore that our faith ought to be simple.

    54. That none is without filth and without sin.

    55. That we must not please men, but God.

    56. That nothing that is done is hidden from God.

    57. That the believer is amended (i.e. punished for sin) and reserved (i.e. preserved in mercy).

    58. That no one should be made sad by death, since in living is labor and peril, in dying peace and the certainty of resurrection.

    Idolatry & Sin (Revisited)
    59. Of the idols which the Gentiles think are gods (turn from them).

    60. That too great lust of food is not to be desired.

    61. That the lust of possessing, and money, are not to be desired.

    62. That marriage is not to be contracted with Gentiles.

    63. That the sin of fornication is grievous.

    64. What are those carnal things which beget death, and what are the spiritual things which lead to life.

    65. That all sins are put away in baptism.

    Discipline
    66. That the discipline of God is to be observed in Church precepts.

    67. That it was foretold that men would despise sound discipline.

    68. That we must depart from him who lives irregularly and contrary to discipline.

    69. That the kingdom of God is not in the wisdom of the world, nor in eloquence, but in the faith of the cross and in virtue of conversation.

    Family & Work Life
    70. That we must obey parents.

    71. And that fathers ought not to be bitter against their children.

    72. That servants, when they believe, ought the more to be obedient to their fleshly masters.

    73. Likewise that masters ought to be more gentle.

    74. That every widow that is approved ought to be honored.

    75. That every person ought to have care rather of his own people, and especially of believers.

    76. That one who is older must not rashly be accused.

    Social Relationships
    77. That the sinner is to be publicly reproved.

    78. That we must not speak with heretics.

    79. That innocence asks with confidence, and obtains (from God).

    80. That the devil has no power against man unless God have allowed it.

    81. That wages be quickly paid to the hireling.

    82. That divination must not be used.

    Moral Codes Regarding Men’s Hair
    83. That a tuft of hair is not to be worn on the head.

    84. That the beard must not be plucked.

    Church Life
    85. That we must rise when a bishop or a presbyter comes.

    86. That a schism must not be made, even although he who withdraws should remain in one faith and in the same tradition.

    87. That believers ought to be simple with prudence.

    88. That a brother must not be deceived.

    Eschatology
    89. That the end of the world comes suddenly.

    More Moral Codes
    90. That a wife must not depart from her husband; or if she departs, she must remain unmarried.

    91. That every one is tempted so much as he is able to bear.

    92. That not everything is to be done which is lawful.

    93. That it was foretold that heresies would arise.

    94. That the Eucharist is to be received with fear and honor.

    95. That we are to live with the good, but to avoid the evil.

    96. That we must labor with deeds, not with words.

    97. That we must hasten to faith and to attainment.

    98. That the catechumen (i.e. the one preparing for baptism) ought to sin no more.

    99. That judgment will be in accordance with the terms, before the law, of equity; after Moses, of the law.

    Grace!
    100. That the grace of God ought to be gratuitous.

    Strange Fire?
    101. That the Holy Spirit has often appeared in fire.

    Serving, Correcting, Building Up One Another
    102. That all good men ought willingly to hear rebuke.

    103. That we must abstain from much speaking.

    104. That we must not lie.

    105. That they (i.e. children) are frequently to be corrected who do wrong in domestic service.

    106. That when a wrong is received, patience is to be maintained, and that vengeance is to be left to God.

    107. That we must not use detraction (i.e. in our love for one another).

    108. That we must not lay snares against our neighbor.

    109. That the sick are to be visited.

    110. That tale-bearers are accursed.

    111. That the sacrifices of evil men are not acceptable.

    112. That those are more severely judged who in this world have more power.

    113. That widows and orphans ought to be protected.

    114. That while one is in the flesh, he ought to make confession.

    115. That flattery is pernicious.

    Love for God
    116. That God is more loved by him who has had many sins forgiven in baptism.

    Conquering the devil
    117. That there is a strong conflict to be waged against the devil, and that therefore we ought to stand bravely, that we may be able to conquer.

    Eschatology (Revisited)
    118. Of Antichrist, that he will come as a man.

    Following Jesus & Prayer
    119. That the yoke of the law was heavy, which is cast off by us; and that the Lord’s yoke is light, which is taken up by us.

    120. That we are to be urgent in prayers.

  • Reflections on the Prince of Peace

    We are coming to the end of the second week of Advent in 2013 and the theme for this week is peace. So my thoughts this week, as we prepare ourselves for Christmas, has been upon one of the titles given to Jesus, the title “Prince of Peace.” The title comes from Isaiah’s prophecy, one of the many we evoke during the Advent/Christmas season:

    For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder, and his name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace (Isaiah 9:6).

    How are we to interpret the peace of which Jesus is prince? More often than not it seems like we tend to interpret this word in a sentimental way, peace as inner peace, emotional peace, or “spiritual” peace. Certainly I would not argue against the claim that Jesus reigns over his people whereby inner peace is made possible by the Holy Spirit; but maybe there is more to the peace mentioned here in Isaiah 9:6.

    If we look at the context of this reference by looking at the previous verse, we see a larger definition of the peace provided by the son who was given. The context for “Prince of Peace” is:

    for every boot of the tramping warrior in battle tumult and every garment rolled in blood will be burned as fuel for the fire (Isaiah 9:5).

    The Prince of Peace comes to rule not only over a kingdom of inner peace, but of a real, physical, nonviolent kingdom. The kingdom of the Prince of Peace is a peaceable kingdom where war, conflict, fighting, violence, force, and harm comes to an end. In other words, peace means “nonviolence.”

    Why such an emphasis on nonviolence?

    I have heard this murmured-complaint more than once. Christians understand there are other topics within the scope of Christian ethics beyond nonviolence. I agree. The Jesus Way is paved with other things to do (and not do) than rejecting the assumption of violence as a means to conduct ourselves in a fallen world, but we do live in a world of violence. Even as a write this blog post, I am listening to reports of another school shooting. This shooting has happened just today at Arapahoe High School in Centennial, Colorado in the same school district as the tragic Columbine High School shooting fourteen years ago. Another school shooting and this one on the eve of the one-year anniversary of the horrific Newtwon school shooting.  May God have mercy on us.

    Elevating the value of Christian nonviolence as a way to reduce violence in our world is noble, but my embrace of Christian nonviolence has not occurred as a knee-jerk reaction to violent shooting sprees.For me, the virtue of nonviolence has grown brighter as I have become much more serious about being gospel-driven and cross-centered. The heart of the gospel is the proclamation that Jesus has become the world’s true Lord, and indeed the Prince of Peace, by his death upon the cross. Isaiah paints the picture of his death in the vilest of terms:

    He was DESPISED and REJECTED by men; a man of SORROWS, and acquainted with GRIEF; and as one from whom men HIDE THEIR FACES he was DESPISED, and we esteemed him not. Surely he has borne our GRIEFS and carried our SORROWS; yet we esteemed him STRICKEN, SMITTEN by God, and AFFLICTED. But he was PIERCED for our transgressions; he was CRUSHED for our iniquities; upon him was the CHASTISEMENT that brought us peace, and with his WOUNDS we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned—every one—to his own way; and the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all. He was OPPRESSED, and he was AFFLICTED, yet he opened not his mouth; like a lamb that is led to the SLAUGHTER, and like a sheep that before its shearers is silent, so he opened not his mouth. By OPPRESSION and judgment he was taken away; and as for his generation, who considered that he was CUT OFF out of the land of the living, STRICKEN for the transgression of my people? (Isaiah 53:3-8)

    We are jumping from Advent to the end of Lent by looking toward the cross, but it will be helpful as we attempt to make sense of this peace Jesus is prince over. His throne was a cross and his inaugural celebration was a violent pain death and yet, Isaiah writes: they made his grave with the wicked and with a rich man in his death, although he had done no violence, and there was no deceit in his mouth (Isaiah 9:8). Jesus committed no violent acts to deserve the death he received and he remained nonviolent in his death. At the cross, at the cross, where I first saw the light…the way of nonviolence is the way of peace.

    Nonviolence is not merely a good idea in response to a violent world.

    Nonviolence is an essential Christian virtue because of the cross of Jesus Christ.

    I first began to see this a few years ago. While living and pastoring in South Georgia, I began to read and listen to “America’s best theologian,” Stanley Hauerwas. (When Time magazine named him “America’s best theologian,” he responded that “best” is not a theological category! Perfect response.) I was listening to a lecture he gave at the 2007 Convocation & Pastor’s School at Duke University entitled, “Call for the Abolition of War.” I was listening to Hauerwas via podcast while driving to a birthday party and as I drew near to the house hosting the party, I heard Hauerwas say “We call for the abolition of war, because, at the cross, God in Christ has abolished war.” This statement stunned me. My eyes were beginning to see a hint of a great truth.

    My vision of Christian nonviolence has grown from reading Hauerwas and others. My understanding of Christian nonviolence has continued to develop from my ongoing conversations with my pastor, Brian Zahnd. He has been on quite a journey himself from being pro-war to embracing Christian nonviolence. He has preached on this subject and we have talked at length about it. I just finished reading a manuscript copy of his latest book where he tell his story. (The book is entitled A Farewell to Mars: An Evangelical Pastor’s Journey Toward the Biblical Gospel of Peace. It will be released in June 2014.) His insight has been helpful.

    We who call ourselves “Christian” believe Jesus is our savior, the savior of the world. His saving act was to die a violent death upon a cross so we may see fully and most assuredly what God is like. We see God as the benevolent King who dies for us even while were yet sinners. We see God who would rather suffer and die than respond in violent retaliation. We see the suffering God; the nonviolent God. And in suffering for us, Jesus has left for us an example “that you (all) might follow in his steps” (1 Peter 2:21).

    I understand the message of Christian nonviolence comes with a whole host of questions:
    What about self-defense?
    What about an intruder in my home?
    What about law enforcement? Police? The military?
    What about protecting my family?
    What about gun ownership?
    What about gun laws?
    What about Word War II?

    We all have our questions (I have mine too!), but before we begin to answer these questions we need to let our imaginations be shaped by Isaiah and his picture of a Prince of Peace who will reign over a peaceable kingdom, where he invites all the nations to the mountain of the LORD where “they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war anymore” (Isaiah 2:4); where “the wolf shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the young goat, and the calf and the lion and the fattened calf together” (Isaiah 11:6); where “they shall not hurt or destroy in all my holy mountain; for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord as the waters cover the sea.” (Isaiah 11:9)

    Once our minds have been thoroughly renewed, then we are ready to work towards answering some of our questions. Finding solutions will be difficult, because we live at a time when the kingdom of God has come, but it is also still coming. During this in-between time we can talk about moments when force is necessary, but as faithful followers of Jesus, we must begin at the place of nonviolence. If we start from a place where violence is always an option, then we will lack the imagination to come up with nonviolent solutions. By centering our discussion around nonviolence, any act of violence would be deemed an unpleasant anomaly.

    I hope such discussions will make our world less violent, but maybe not. As Stanley Hauerwas has often said, “Christians are not nonviolent because we believe our nonviolence is a strategy to rid the world of war. Indeed our nonviolence may make the world more violent. But rather because as faithful followers of Christ in a world of war we cannot imagine being anything else than nonviolent” (paraphrase). I do not have all the answers, but one thing I do know. Jesus is Lord. He is the reigning Prince of Peace and in him do I put my trust.

  • Jesus and Nonviolence: A Response to Mark Driscoll

    I appreciate Mark Driscoll, maybe even more than my friends do. I first stumbled upon Driscoll in the late 1990s when I was in seminary and wrestling with postmodernity and the mission of the church. Mars Hill was in its infancy and some around the country were pointed to Driscoll and Mars Hill as an example of a church plant responding effectively to a shifting culture. I began listening to Driscoll via podcast in 2006. I appreciate his emphasis on theology. I enjoyed his weaving together of humor and theological themes in his preaching. He gave me a greater respect for the Reformed tradition. I find him less offensive than others, I suppose. I for one chuckled at his appearance at the Strange Fire conference last week. Most of all I appreciate Driscoll’s devotion to Jesus Christ. “It’s all about Jesus. It’s always about Jesus. It’s only about Jesus,” is one of his mottoes. Driscoll loves Jesus, and so we are brothers in Christ.
    Driscoll’s devotion to Jesus is without question, but I do question his view of Jesus related to the issue of violence. In a recent blog entitled, “Is God a Pacifist?” describes a Jesus who is “coming to slaughter his enemies and usher in his kingdom.” According to Driscoll, Jesus is neither a “pacifist” or a “pansy,” but rather a patient King burning with anger waiting to kill his enemies.

    In all humility, I would like to ask: “Pastor Mark, is it possible you misunderstand Jesus?

    We agree the kingdom of God is a peaceable kingdom. Many of the descriptions we see in Isaiah of the coming kingdom of messiah are clothed with metaphors of peace: swords beaten into plowshares and lambs laying down with wolves, etc. Where Driscoll and I disagree is the way in which the kingdom comes. Driscoll believes the coming of the kingdom is only possible through the violent vanquish of the enemies of God. I would argue the kingdom has come (and is coming) through the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus. We agree Jesus is the way, but in what way is Jesus the way? The way of Jesus is the way of nonviolence. He became the point in which the kingdom broke through into human history not by slaying his enemies, but by being slain. The kingdom has come through the death, burial, and resurrection Jesus. Through his ascension, Jesus is ruling over this kingdom. And at his return, the kingdom will come in fullness. This kingdom was, is, and shall be a peaceable kingdom.

    Jesus embodied this peaceable kingdom. Jesus practiced non-violence and it cost him his life. It seems like Driscoll implies that pacifism (or the term I prefer is “non-violence”) and healthy masculinity are incompatible. While Driscoll did not state this explicitly, it seems to me that, for Driscoll, masculinity includes violence in some form and non-violence is to be associated with a “pansy” or less masculine man. Am I reading Driscoll wrong at this point? If to be non-violent is to be weak and less-than-masculine, then Jesus upon the cross is the worst example of masculinity. I do not think Driscoll would want to say, “Jesus was a pansy because he died on the cross instead of killing his enemies,” but it seems like this statement in the logical conclusion to Driscoll’s implications regarding masculinity and violence. I appreciate his desire to rescue Jesus from the feminine caricature he has become in the eyes of some. In the past I even used Driscoll’s “ultimate fighter Jesus” motif, but I was wrong. Proving the masculinity of Jesus by arguing for a violent Christ is not the way to go.

    The text Driscoll quotes in making his point about Jesus, violence, and masculinity is Revelation 14:14-20. From this text, Driscoll concludes that at his return, Jesus will kill his enemies. I struggle to sum up my thoughts on Driscoll’s eschatology here; words like: abhorrent, mistaken, ridiculous, sickening, erroneous come to mind. Driscoll’s conclusion is faulty and it is built on some theological miscues. First, Revelation is highly speculative and not the place where we get the clearest picture of Jesus Christ. Yes the book of Revelation is the revelation of Jesus Christ, but it is a revealing Jesus to us through symbol and metaphor. If you believe the son of man in Revelation is literally going to shed blood and that literally blood will flow for 184 miles, then you must literally believe this son of man will be conducting his warfare with a sickle. Why is the bloodshed to be interpreted literally, but the sickle is a metaphor? The book of Revelation does reveal Jesus Christ to us, but because of the highly symbolic nature of the book we interpret the symbols through the Jesus we see in the gospels and in the rest of the New Testament. A standard method of biblical interpretation is we interpret unclear passages by clear passages. Where do we ever clearly see Jesus killing his enemies or advocating the killing of his enemies?

    In attempting to harmonize the God of the Old Testament with the God of the New Testament, Driscoll has put at odds the Jesus of the Gospels with the Jesus of Revelation. If the Jesus of Revelation is coming to kill his enemies, then the Jesus of the Gospels who taught enemy love was wrong. I too struggle with understanding the violent texts in the Old Testament associated with the commands of Yahweh, the God of Israel and the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. What we cannot do is attempt to harmonize the violent texts of the Old Testament with the non-violent texts of the New Testament by marginalize the teachings and actions of a nonviolent Jesus. If we must prioritize the texts, let’s put the Gospels at the top and allow the Jesus of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John to interpret all the other texts.

    Jesus calls us to make disciples of all the nations, baptizing, and teaching them to obey all he commanded. If we begin to teach an eschatological violent Jesus, we nullify his teachings of enemy love. I understand the call to nonviolence is complex, but I would rather work through the hardship of the complexities of enemy-love, than disobey the commands of Jesus. I agree “Jesus is no one to mess with,” but he is not to be messed with because he is the benevolent Lord not the violent warrior.

  • A Eucharistic People

    The heart of Christian worship is the celebration of communion, otherwise known as “the Lord’s Supper” or “the Eucharist.” All other elements of Christian worship are tangential to eating the bread and drinking from the cup in a proclamation of Jesus’ death. Jesus’ body was broken and his blood was shed for the salvation of the world. He did rise from the dead and ascend to the right hand of the Father. Jesus will come again, but before his return, ascension, and resurrection…there was a death, a redemptive death, the death of God’s Son. While I did not grow up in a church that emphasized the importance of the Eucharist, I am happy to be serving today in a church where communion is the highlight of our Sunday morning worship service. We find the eucharistic template in the Upper Room with Jesus celebrating the Passover with his disciples:

    Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and after blessing it broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, “Take, eat; this is my body.” – Matthew 26:26 ESV

    “Eucharist,” from the Greek word meaning “to give thanks,” is the oldest title for this event at the heart of Christian worship. Nearly all Christian denominations practice some form of the Eucharist and there are differing opinions on how exactly the bread and wine are the body and blood of Christ. I have been most satisfied with viewing the practice of the Eucharist as a way to connect with the “real presence of Christ.” I believe Jesus is present, by the Holy Spirit, at the communion table. The Eucharist is therefore more than a symbol, but it is not less than that. The bread and the wine certainly represent, in the form of a living metaphor, the body and blood of Jesus, but I see more. I see another symbol. In the broken bread, I see not only his body broken for the world, but I also see the church, the people of God.

    We are a eucharistic people.
    We are blessed.
    We are broken.
    We are given.

    We are blessed. We experience God’s blessing (even through hardship) and give him thanks for taking care of us. We have been invited by him to be his people, his alternative society on the earth, demonstrating and proclaiming the Kingdom of God. We are blessed, no doubt.

    We are broken. We are broken by sin and corruption; we admit this fact. We are also broken in that we choose to “break” ourselves open to one another. In other words, we choose vulnerability as the pathway of love. We are broken, at least we strive towards brokenness.

    We are given. As God’s covenant people we are not blessed and broken ultimately for our well-being. We are blessing and broken that we may be given to the world. Jesus isn’t building his church simply to declare his own superiority over other ways of doing life. He is building his church to be given to the world, for the sake of the world, so that the world may be saved. We are given, at least we work towards being given.

    At the center of this three-part eucharistic action is brokenness, or as I have described above, vulnerability. If we are ultimately to be given to the world, and I would argue that this missional identity is perhaps the most difficult part of church life, then we first have to be broken. We do have to admit we have been broken by a world drunk on the ways and means of death, but we have to also break ourselves open, allowing our true selves to break out of the shell of our false selves. We ultimately cannot love and be loved if we are not vulnerable.

    It works like this:

    To love and to be loved is to trust.
    To trust is to know.
    To know is to be vulnerable.

    I cannot love you and allow you to love me if I do not trust you. I could choose to love you, expecting nothing in return with or without trust, but I cannot enter in a relationship with you whereby I love and am loved unless I can trust you. If I think you mean to do me harm or exploit me, then I cannot allow myself to be loved by you.

    I cannot trust you until I know you, until I really know you. In order to trust you I need to know more than facts about you, I need to have first hand experiences with you whereby trust is built. Once I have gotten to know you over time, then I am ready to trust you.

    And finally, I cannot know you, and you cannot know me, until we both bust through our false selves and reveal who we really are. This is difficult.

    To be vulnerable mean I reveal not only my strengths, but also my fears, hurts, insecurity, anxiety, weakness, struggle, doubt, confusion, ignorance, failure, mistakes, regrets, and pain. Loving begins with vulnerability, but becoming vulnerable is a slow process. I do not reveal all of my true self to you all at once. As I break myself open and expose a part of my true self, I allow you to know me and then after trust is built, I feel free to reveal more. Vulnerability grows over time, but it begins with one crack of the crust.

    As we are broken, then we are given as a eucharistic people.

  • I Believe in Hell

    I recently responded to a member of my church who was asking questions about hell. I sent him a 750-word email in response to his questions about hell, who goes there, and how long it lasts. This response was not my first, nor will it be my last, to questions about hell. People want to know which raises the first of many questions in my mind: Why are some pockets of the Christian community obsessed with hell? Of course, I propose that question with my tongue well-planted in my cheek. I have a lot of thoughts as to why people really want to understand the nature of hell, but I ask because Christianity (and Judaism) is not primarily an afterlife religion. The setting of the story of Israel, Jesus’ life and ministry, and the mission of the church is here, the earth.

    Jesus, who was working within a Jewish context, was focused, as he taught us to pray, on God’s kingdom coming from heaven to earth. The Old Testament spoke sparsely of what is popularly imagined as “heaven” and “hell.” In the Old Testament “hell” was a reference to the place of the dead (Hebrew: sheol), but the Old Testament writers do not describe this reality with much or any depth. Jesus did speak of hell (Greek: hades or gehenna), but he spoke little about “heaven.” And to the surprise of many, he never talked about “going to heaven when you die,” at least not in those terms.

    Nevertheless, I do believe in hell.

    I believe whatever Jesus believes about hell. I am just not sure we always understand him quite right. For example in the story of the rich man and Lazarus, many people focus on the rich man in hell (Greek word: hades) assuming Jesus was telling a story about how to avoid hell, when the rhetorical climax of the story focuses our attention on the rich man’s desire for his brother’s to repent. The point of the story is not to give us an accurate description of hell, but to challenge us to think about how we treat the poor.

    In that story in Luke 16, the word for “hell” is hades, but the more common word translated “hell” in the teachings of Jesus is gehenna. Jesus uses this term, much like Jeremiah does in the Old Testament, to describe earthly destruction, which is a judgment of sorts. Brad Jersak notes, “ Gehenna is judgment to be sure—and may even point secondarily to final judgment—but the picture is first of all about the destructive wake left behind by our sin here and now, not an afterlife of eternal, conscious torment. It is quite literally ‘the way of death’” (Her Gates Shall Never Be Shut 61). (BTW I recommend Brad Jersak’s book as a way to explore the various biblical and historical readings of hell. Brad does a good job of exploring the key texts in Scripture and highlights some of the key historical contributions to this topic. Brad helped me see there a number of interpretations of hell that fit within Christian orthodoxy.) So here are my thoughts today on hell. I offer these in humility as a follow of Jesus trying to make sense of these weighty subjects.

    1) I believe in hell, not only here and now, but I believe in a hell that is an eternal death. What the experience of hell is like is a bit of mystery, but we have metaphors of torment, flames, fire unquenched, weeping, utter darkness, and the like that draws a pretty grim picture. I reject the doctrines of Christian universalism and universal reconciliation (apocatastasis), while I do respect the reasoning that has led some Christians to those conclusions.

    2) I believe hell is rooted in the love of God. God does not send people to hell. We choose hell when we choose to reject God. When we say “no” to God, he allows us go into eternity separated and isolated from him and his grace. God is not going to force anyone to live under his rule and reign. If we want to remain stiff-necked, self-reliant, stubborn, and rebellious, God will allow us, but we will find it to be hell. Furthermore hell as a form of judgment is rooted in God’s love, because we cannot call God good or loving if we were to assume he merely turns a blind eye to evil and injustice. For God to be love, he must not only love that which is good, he must also reject and condemn that which destroys the good. (Side note: The Eastern Orthodox of view of hell would challenge the Western idea of hell as separation. I am allow that thought work on me.)

    3) I do not know with absolute certainty who will experience hell. I do not know the heart of person. I do not know the faith of a person. I do know God is good, merciful, holy, and just. I also believe God can save who he wants. Anyone who is saved is saved by Jesus and through Jesus. And I trust Jesus to do what is right concerning people in his acts of judgment. I do know that all those who call on the Lord, and turn to him in faith and repentance, shall be saved. I have given up on the game of saying who is “in” and who is “out;” that’s God’s job not mine. My job is to love God and love people, follow Jesus and proclaim the Gospel, make disciples and serve the church.

    4) I don’t want anybody to go to hell. If there is somebody I think is outside of the grace and mercy of God, and I secretly desire for them to go to hell and suffer, then I should really check my heart. I don’t want anyone to perish but to come to repentance. If I start wishing for people to go to hell so they can “get what they deserve,” I have just stepped off the Jesus way and I need repentance. In talking to people about hell, I have asked, “So who do you really want to go to hell?” The answer to that question says a lot about our hearts. It is also one of the quickest ways to expose self-righteousness.

    5) Is it possible for people to choose salvation after death and be rescued out of hell? I don’t know. The Scripture and teachings of the historic church are not clear on this matter. Some would say definitively, “no, once a person dies that is it…they go to hell forever.” My question is when (or where) do we get the indication in Scripture that human choice ends at death? I do not know if people can repent and choose to turn in faith to Jesus from hell, but I hope so. What if mercy does finally triumph over judgment? What if his love does endure forever? What if human choice does indeed continue after death? I cannot answer these questions with certainty so I invite people to choose Jesus now, choose life now, repent now and make no plans to experience eternal death.

  • Substance and Evidence

    Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. (Hebrews 11:1 KJV)

    Faith is a human attribute. Faith is an essential human attribute. God has no need of faith because nothing is unseen for him, but we earth-bound creatures live with many things out of sight. We exercise faith as a part of our human nature. We all exercise faith and we do so all time. Eating in a restaurant requires faith. I trust the people preparing my food have done so with the highest standards of sanitation. I have heard of the “5 second rule,” but I hope it is not true. You know the rule that says if a cook drops your food on the floor they have five seconds to pick it up! Driving down the road requires faith. I trust nobody will intentionally run a red light and crash into me. I understand that accidents happen and so I wear a seat belt, but I trust the other drivers on the road to obey the traffic laws. Every friendship requires faith. I trust my friends will do me no harm. Friendships cannot exist without faith which is why betrayal, gossip, lying, rumors hurt so bad. Trust is assumed and when it is violated, we experience pain.

    At first glance it does not look like we could tag substance and evidence to our faith. “Substance” and “evidence” are words from here, from earth. They speak of things that are tangible and certain. “Faith,” particularly Christian faith, is a word from heaven. It speaks of things hoped for in the future, things unseen. Our faith is forward-looking. Our faith has always been looking into the future.

    • Abraham was looking for a city.
    • Moses was looking for a promised land.
    • David was looking for a kingdom.
    • Israel was looking for a Messiah.
    • The Church is looking for a resurrection & new creation when Jesus returns.

    Our faith is connected with the future, but words like “substance” and “evidence” are connected to the present so how exactly is faith substance and evidence?

    Let’s start by answering this question with some of the ways faith is NOT substance and evidence.

    First, faith is not a spiritual substance. Some define faith as spiritual power. They speak of the “force of faith,” something we possess and can use, but as a substance, faith cannot be reduced to a power under our control. Faith as spiritual substance is much closer to what you see in science fiction movies like Star Wars were people have superhuman powers. This view is not how we see faith at work in Scripture or in the history of the church. We see ourselves as powerless, dependent beings. Jesus says, “I am the vine; you are the branches. Whoever abides in me and I in him he it is that bears much fruit, for apart from me you can do nothing” (John 15:5 ESV). Faith is not all-powerful, but it is the medium that connects us to the all-powerful One.

    Second, faith is not empirical evidence. The word “empirical” means evidence that has come by clear observation and experimentation. Empirical evidence has its place in the medical community, but not so much in the community of faith. There are reasons behind our faith and you can explore those reasons, but if you are looking for air-tight empirical evidence that will answer every question you will be disappointed. Faith doesn’t work that way. You cannot discover God with a microscope or a telescope. Empiricism sets the rules defining what evidence is and God defies their rules! Faith is evidence, but it is not evidence according to empirical standards, because faith is a matter of the heart and not the five physical senses.

    So how exactly is faith substance and evidence? Faith is substance and evidence as it is confessed and lived out in the life of the Church.

    Faith is communal. It is not my faith, but our faith. This shared nature of faith is why Hebrews 11 goes on to list men and woman of faith who did things by this communal faith. It is not one person doing something great by faith. Hebrews could have just mentioned Abraham, but it provides a list of Israel’s hero who did thing by faith. So Hebrews 11 is not a record of an isolated individual doing something by faith, it is a record of a community of faith doing things by this communal faith.  “Now faith is the assurance (substance) of things hoped for, the conviction (evidence) of things not seen. For by it the people of old received their commendation (Hebrews 11:1-2 ESV). Our faith is not subjective. It is not just something we merely experience in our hearts. The writer of Hebrews says faith is that which is shared by “the people of old,” people like Abel, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Sarah, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, the people of Israel, Rahab, and on the list goes. They are the substance and evidence of our faith. When we exercise personal faith (and we should), we are tapping into a shared faith that is so much bigger than ourselves. It is our shared faith, and not our own personal faith, that is substance and evidence.

    Personal faith happens when we as individuals confess and live out the faith. Our faith is not internal and private. It is by nature external and public. So we confess both our sins and our faith. Confession in the Christian faith means to “say the same thing.” When we confess our faith we are saying the same thing the Church says about the matters of faith. It is not enough to simple think about the faith. It must be confessed and vocalized. We confess: Jesus is Lord. Jesus is God’s son and our Lord. Jesus died. Buried. Descended. Raised. Ascended and coming again. The substance and evidence in our confession is not in the words we speak. The substance and evidence is in act of saying the same thing the church has said for 2,000. Our heritage is the substance and evidence.

    It is not enough merely to confess our faith. We must live it out, because faith without corresponding activity is dead (See James 2:17-18). You know the old adage: easier said than done? That applies to our faith. My oldest son Wesley and I just had a conversation about that phrase. We were asking ourselves, “Isn’t everything easier said than done? Why do we say things like that?” Faith is substance and evidence when we can point to people living it. We believe in Jesus because people have been following Jesus for 2,000. When our faith gets week we look to the Church and find substance for our faith to grow from the confession and lifestyle of others living by faith.

    After Hebrews 11 lists all the people of faith. It goes on to encourage us with these words: “Therefore, since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses, let us also lay aside every weight, and sin which clings so closely, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us, looking to Jesus, the founder and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is seated at the right hand of the throne of God” (Hebrews 12:1-2 ESV).

    We run with endurance sustained by, and receiving evidence from, this great cloud of witnesses, the community of faith, who are cheering us on. Not only do we receive substance and evidence by others, but when we are confessing and living out our faith we become the substance and evidence for others. We are the substance of faith. We are the evidence of faith. The degree by which we confess and life out or faith is the degree by which we will be substance and evidence.

    Listen to the sermon version of this blog post here.

  • The Peace Prayer of St. Francis

    This prayer was not written by St. Francis of Assisi. It was not written by Pope Francis. It first began to circulate during World War I. The author is unknown, but early copies of it were on a card in honor of St. Francis, so it has been known as the Peace Prayer of St. Francis.

    This prayer was too long to tweet. (Even too long for a Facebook post.)

    It is short enough to memorize.

    It is deep enough to live in for a while.

    It is Christ-like enough to be prayed.

    The Peace Prayer of St. Francis

    Lord make me an instrument of your peace
    Where there is hatred,
    Let me sow love;
    Where there is injury, pardon;
    Where there is error, truth;
    Where there is doubt, faith;
    Where there is despair, hope;
    Where there is darkness, light;
    And where there is sadness, Joy.

    O Divine Master grant that I may not so much seek to be consoled
    As to console;
    To be understood,as to understand;
    To be loved, as to love.
    For it is in giving that we receive,
    It is in pardoning that we are pardoned,
    And it is in dying that we are born to eternal life.

  • N.T. Wright on the Ordination of Practicing Homosexuals

    The acceptability of homosexuality is becoming one of the defining issues of our day. Gay marriage has become a polarizing cultural issue  with current trends showing a rise in the support for the legalization of same-sex unions. A recent ABC News/Washington Post survey showed 58% of those polls are in favor of gay and lesbian couples legally being allowed to get married. The cultural issue has stirred the conversation with the Church regarding the ordination of practicing homosexual clergy. In 2009 the House of Bishops of the Episcopal Church in the US broke from the tradition of the Anglican communion by allowing those in same-sex relationships to receive ordination without condition. This action was followed by an op-ed piece in the London Times, written by N.T. (Tom) Wright.

    I understand some of the complexity of the issue both in the Church and in the wider community. I understand that LGBT people have found themselves at the other end of the hostility and acrimony of professing and practicing followers of Jesus. For that I am deeply sorry. I am a huge advocate for dialogue between homosexual and heterosexual people, so we can begin to understand each other. I am an equally huge advocate for understanding the teachings of Jesus and the Church regarding sexual ethics. In following Jesus, I hear him call us to “lose ourselves” and “die to ourselves,” that is, die to our agendas, dreams, and desires, so we may find ourselves and live in him. As a follower of Jesus, I embrace the Way of Jesus and desire to understand all moral and ethical issues an interpreted by the light of Christ.

    In attempting to understand Jesus and the Jesus Way, I have found N.T. Wright to be helpful and compelling  His op-ed piece in response to the Episcopal Church in the US entitled “The Americans Know this will End in Schism” was particularly helpful in the conversation about homosexuality in the confines of the Church. I believe this article has implications for the larger conversation about same-sex unions in the wider culture, but the context of Wright’s comments are about the issue within the Church.

    I understand that N.T. Wright will not be popular in what he has to say here, but I think he gets to the heart of the teachings of Jesus and the Church on this issue.

    Here is what Wright had to say:

    In the slow-moving train crash of international Anglicanism, a decision taken in California has finally brought a large coach off the rails altogether. The House of Bishops of the Episcopal Church (TEC) in the United States has voted decisively to allow in principle the appointment, to all orders of ministry, of persons in active same-sex relationships. This marks a clear break with the rest of the Anglican Communion.

    Both the bishops and deputies (lay and clergy) of TEC knew exactly what they were doing. They were telling the Archbishop of Canterbury and the other “instruments of communion” that they were ignoring their plea for a moratorium on consecrating practising homosexuals as bishops. They were rejecting the two things the Archbishop of Canterbury has named as the pathway to the future — the Windsor Report (2004) and the proposed Covenant (whose aim is to provide a modus operandi for the Anglican Communion). They were formalising the schism they initiated six years ago when they consecrated as bishop a divorced man in an active same-sex relationship, against the Primates’ unanimous statement that this would “tear the fabric of the Communion at its deepest level”. In Windsor’s language, they have chosen to “walk apart”.

    Granted, the TEC resolution indicates a strong willingness to remain within the Anglican Communion. But saying “we want to stay in, but we insist on rewriting the rules” is cynical double-think. We should not be fooled.

    Of course, matters didn’t begin with the consecration of Gene Robinson. The floodgates opened several years before, particularly in 1996 when a church court acquitted a bishop who had ordained active homosexuals. Many in TEC have long embraced a theology in which chastity, as universally understood by the wider Christian tradition, has been optional.

    That wider tradition always was counter-cultural as well as counter-intuitive. Our supposedly selfish genes crave a variety of sexual possibilities. But Jewish, Christian and Muslim teachers have always insisted that lifelong man-plus-woman marriage is the proper context for sexual intercourse. This is not (as is frequently suggested) an arbitrary rule, dualistic in overtone and killjoy in intention. It is a deep structural reflection of the belief in a creator God who has entered into covenant both with his creation and with his people (who carry forward his purposes for that creation).

    Paganism ancient and modern has always found this ethic, and this belief, ridiculous and incredible. But the biblical witness is scarcely confined, as the shrill leader in yesterday’s Times suggests, to a few verses in St Paul. Jesus’s own stern denunciation of sexual immorality would certainly have carried, to his hearers, a clear implied rejection of all sexual behaviour outside heterosexual monogamy. This isn’t a matter of “private response to Scripture” but of the uniform teaching of the whole Bible, of Jesus himself, and of the entire Christian tradition.

    The appeal to justice as a way of cutting the ethical knot in favour of including active homosexuals in Christian ministry simply begs the question. Nobody has a right to be ordained: it is always a gift of sheer and unmerited grace. The appeal also seriously misrepresents the notion of justice itself, not just in the Christian tradition of Augustine, Aquinas and others, but in the wider philosophical discussion from Aristotle to John Rawls. Justice never means “treating everybody the same way”, but “treating people appropriately”, which involves making distinctions between different people and situations. Justice has never meant “the right to give active expression to any and every sexual desire”.

    Such a novel usage would also raise the further question of identity. It is a very recent innovation to consider sexual preferences as a marker of “identity” parallel to, say, being male or female, English or African, rich or poor. Within the “gay community” much postmodern reflection has turned away from “identity” as a modernist fiction. We simply “construct” ourselves from day to day.

    We must insist, too, on the distinction between inclination and desire on the one hand and activity on the other — a distinction regularly obscured by references to “homosexual clergy” and so on. We all have all kinds of deep-rooted inclinations and desires. The question is, what shall we do with them? One of the great Prayer Book collects asks God that we may “love the thing which thou commandest, and desire that which thou dost promise”. That is always tough, for all of us. Much easier to ask God to command what we already love, and promise what we already desire. But much less like the challenge of the Gospel.

    The question then presses: who, in the US, is now in communion with the great majority of the Anglican world? It would be too hasty to answer, the newly formed “province” of the “Anglican Church in North America”. One can sympathise with some of the motivations of these breakaway Episcopalians. But we should not forget the Episcopalian bishops, who, doggedly loyal to their own Church, and to the expressed mind of the wider Communion, voted against the current resolution. Nor should we forget the many parishes and worshippers who take the same stance. There are many American Episcopalians, inside and outside the present TEC, who are eager to sign the proposed Covenant. That aspiration must be honoured.

    Contrary to some who have recently adopted the phrase, there is already a “fellowship of confessing Anglicans”. It is called the Anglican Communion. The Episcopal Church is now distancing itself from that fellowship. Ways must be found for all in America who want to be loyal to it, and to scripture, tradition and Jesus, to have that loyalty recognised and affirmed at the highest level.

    Tom Wright in The Times 
    July 14th, 2009

  • The Jesus Life

    John, the beloved disciple of Jesus, makes things simple for us. He writes:

    Whoever has the Son has life; whoever does not have the Son of God does not have life.
    (1 John 5:12)

    The logic here is indeed simple. Jesus equals life. No Jesus, no life. While the logic is not hard to follow, the challenging question is this: what is this life John talks about? Jesus himself said he is “the way, the truth, and the life” (John 14:6). What is this life we have in Jesus? What is this life Jesus embodies? This eternal life, everlasting life, abundant life, resurrection of life, bread of life, Spirit-giving life, light of life, self-giving life, what is it? There are obviously those around us who do not “have the Son,” they do not acknowledge Jesus in any form, and yet they have some form of life. They at least have biological life, intellectual life, a social life, etc. So what is this life Jesus talks about?

    Read more