Lenten Observence

We have officially entered the season of the Church calendar known as Lent. Lent is the forty-day period leading up to Easter. It has historically been practiced as a period of fasting and prayer, a period of penitence and of seeking God in a fuller way than we normally seek Him the rest of the year.

I'll admit to being a bit inconsistent in my practice of Lent. I blame it on my legalistic and Fundamentalistic background (assuming "blame" is the right way to think of it here). As J. I. Packer once used the phrase in a similar context, "a burned child hates the fire," and I still have scars to show from the fire I went through. Nor do I intend to ever go through such a fire again. Fundamentalism, with its series of "handle not's, taste not's, and touch not's" (Col. 2:21), has left American Christianity in shambles. Legalism – that is, the creation and enforcing of laws not supported by God's word – stirs up a licentious and rebellious spirit, and rather than eradicating immorality, encourages it. I have tried to be aware of that tendency in my own life and to keep it under some measure of control, though I'm sure I've failed at times. Nonetheless, whenever anybody says to me, "you have to do thus and such", and they can't support it with Scripture or sound argument, my first response is to say, "Try and make me." I wouldn't purport that this is always a good way to respond. After all, we are to obey those that God has put in authority over us. When it comes, however, to areas more specifically related to the heart of the Christian life, such as one's devotional practices, a man not only shouldn't obey extra-biblical laws, he can't obey those laws, for to do so would be to call God's law insufficient. At that point, there is a clear antithesis between God's law and Man's law – one can't obey one without disobeying the other.

In the Reformed tradition historically, however, we have had a category of practices in the Christian life called "adiaphora", meaning "indifferent". In other words, there are things which the law of God doesn't directly address in such a way as to forbid or condone, and therefore they are permissible or "indifferent". I would personally regard a private observance of Lenten practices in that category, though I remain skeptical of them. The majority of the Reformed tradition, however, has disagreed with me, John Calvin not being the least of them. Calvin addresses fasting in Book 4, Chapter 12 of his Institutes of the Christian Religion. And whereas he recognizes fasting as a good and important thing in its place, he still regards it as a thing indifferent, and he condemns Lent itself as an unbiblical and ungodly practice. Reading his responses to the history of Lent and the abuses that came about in relation to it, one can understand why he was so opposed to it, though I wouldn't go so far as to condemn its practices as he does.

Speaking of the errors that arose in relation to the practice of Lent in the history of the Church, Calvin says, "Worse times then followed, and to the misdirected zeal of the people was added the incompetence and lack of training of the bishops, as well as their lust for mastery and their tyrannical rigor. Wicked laws were passed which bind consciences with deadly chains. The eating of meat was forbidden, as if it would defile a man. Sacrilegious opinions were piled upon one another, until the depth of all errors was reached." (from the Battles – McNeill edition, volume 2, pg. 1247)

The most commonly known Lenten practice is that of abstaining from meat on Wednesdays and Fridays. But from what I've read, no one really knows why this is traditionally a practice in the Church or where it came from. Which brings up a problem. Why bind people with laws when we don't even know what they are for? Those who approve of the practice will say, "It helps take our focus off of ourselves and those material things we rely upon, and helps us to focus upon God Who gives us all these things." Maybe it's a sign of my own lack of sanctification, but it doesn't do that for me. In case anyone wasn't paying attention, it's hard enough to live faithfully to God's word without trying to add to it. Why would anyone want to burden themselves further than what God has asked of them? I think part of the problem lies in the fact that we think way too highly of ourselves. So often we arrogantly think we're doing a really grand job in the Christian life, and in failing to see the greatness of God and the depth of our sin, we don't realize how far short we fall. If we were to gain a deeper understanding of God's word and what He really requires of us, we would spend less time trying to come up with new rules.

And one thing I've found is that people often become incredibly obsessed with what they are and aren't supposed to do in Lent. It is naturally easy for us to talk hours on end about what we should and shouldn't do. But the early Reformers saw this as the difference between Law and Gospel. They spoke of the Law coming natural to us, whereas the Gospel is only manifested in us by a supernatural work of God. It is a sign of our sinfulness that we can talk endlessly about what we are and aren't supposed to do and can't talk nearly as much about the grace manifested to us in Jesus Christ. This is true, I've seen, in Catholic circles just as it is in Fundamentalist circles. Just try getting a conversation going about the Scriptures, the history of redemption, and the person and work of Christ. I've found that generally it's like trying to pull teeth. Jesus brought this tendency in the Pharisees to light when He told them, "You search the Scriptures, because in them you think you find life. But these are they that testify of Me." Jesus Christ is the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and end of all God has revealed to us. If we go to any law apart from Christ, even God's Law, we are participating in idolatry.

One statement I heard made recently by an Anglican priest shows the problem in bold relief. This priest made the statement, "The Rule of St. Benedict says that our lives ought to be a continuous Lent." He was applying it to all Christian people. I found this rather curious, and had to look it up for myself. The actual statement is from chapter 49 of the Rule, and it says, " The life of a monk ought to be a continuous Lent." This is the super-spirituality that the Reformers decried so vociferously. First we begin by setting up a false standard of holiness by denying an enjoyment of the good gifts that God has given so freely for our enjoyment. We set those who pursue this ideal most vigorously apart as a holier class than the rest of professing Christendom. Then we push it further by setting it up as a standard for all people. But Scripture nowhere supports this. In fact, God in His Word invites us over and over again to feasting before Him with joy and gladness, that is, with grateful hearts. This is not to say that there can't be times of fasting – there should be. But this shouldn't be the norm. The normal Christian life isn't one of constant self-deprivation, but of rejoicing over the blessings that God has given us and of sharing freely with others.

This brings up one more point I'd like to mention before I close, and that is the tendency towards selfishness in the Christian life. There can be so much talk about "what I'm giving up for Lent," and the subject of other people and my relationships with them never enters the picture. This is an example of how self-centered we can be in our conception of sanctification. Self-deprivation never has selfish gain as its end in the Biblical doctrine of sanctification. How many people who give meat up on Wednesdays and Fridays during Lent then in turn have a neighbor or someone from church over for a hamburger on one of the other days of the week? If that actually happens (and maybe it does somewhere), I've never heard the suggestion made nor have I ever heard of it being done in those circles that practice Lent.

Having said all these things, I wouldn't seek to condemn Lent wholesale. I think it is good for the church to set aside a time of reflection, a time of mourning over our sins, a time of retracing our steps, a time of recovering what we have lost in failing to follow Christ as we ought, and a time of reflecting on Christ's work on our behalf. And that is how I intend to observe Lent. But I will remain stubborn in my insistence that God's Word is sufficient and Christ's work is complete. Every rule I need is found in the Scriptures, and everything I need to please God is found through my union with His Son. I need nothing else, and that's good, because I have nothing else.

A sonnet for Ash Wednesday

A sonnet by John Donne, for Ash Wednesday.

Thou hast made me, And shall thy worke decay?
Repaire me now, for now mine end doth haste,
I runne to death, and death meets me as fast,
And all my pleasures are like yesterday;
I dare not move my dimme eyes any way,
Despaire behind, and death before doth cast
Such terrour, and my feeble flesh doth waste
By sinne in it, which it t'wards hell doth weigh;
Onely thou art above, and when towards thee
By thy leave I can looke, I rise againe;
But our old subtle foe so tempteth me,
That not one houre my selfe I can sustaine;
Thy Grace may wing me to prevent his art,
And thou like Adamant draw mine iron heart.

Light in the Shadowlands

I have been gradually working my way through the C. S. Lewis corpus one book at a time over the past few years. Whereas some people will find an author they like and plow through all their works in a short span, I prefer to take my time and jump from author to author. While I think the other approach has its benefits, I find this way suits me. I gain a sense of balance by constantly feeding on various writers and sources that I wouldn't have by only picking one author. Also, I tend to approach some books in a research-minded way – that is, gathering information. So I'll come up with an issue I want to know more about, and then I'll gather all my books on that issue in a pile. I don't usually work through the pile, but I get at least a start on learning more about that issue. One can't always approach books this way, however, as it can have it's own defeciencies, especially in dealing with certain types of literature, and therefore can be a hinderance to the reader.

Part of the experience in reading Lewis has been trying to just enjoy a book rather than racing to the index to find that piece of information I'm looking for. Lewis's Narnia books are especially good for working against that tendency. They are fiction, and as they were written for children, they are not especially complicated. Nonetheless, they are spiritually and intellectually rich and, as I have found most every time I read one of them, convicting of soul. Because I find them so enjoyable compared to little else, I have taken my time working through the series. I think of them as an especially thick steak or a rich chocolate dessert. Whenever I find myself in a reading rut, I can always go to the next Narnia book and it will get me reading again.

I just started The Voyage of the Dawn Treader last weekend and am halfway through. At the same time I am listening to The Screwtape Letters on audio. Until recently, however, I hadn't picked up any Lewis in awhile, mainly due to studies in other authors.

About three weeks ago I started reading a book not by Lewis, but about Lewis. It is called Light in the Shadowlands: Protecting the Real C. S. Lewis, and was written by Kathryn Lindskoog. A friend had told me about it a couple of years ago, and I picked it up not long after that, though I just read it for the first time. It is an interesting read for anyone desiring to know more about Lewis's legacy. Lindskoog (who died a couple of years ago) was a Lewis scholar and had met Lewis as well as corresponded with him several times. The concern of the book has to do with what has happened to Lewis's estate since the time of his death. In a strange turn of events, the Lewis estate fell into the hands of one Walter Hooper, who, it seems, didn't know Lewis nearly as well as he has portrayed. Since Lewis's death, many writings have come out bearing his name which Lindskoog questions for their authenticity. She questions the integrity of Mr. Hooper (who, sadly, is from nearby Reidsville here in North Carolina) as well as many involved with him and otherwise in Lewis scholarship. She talks about Lewis's various romantic interests through his life and how the circumstances around them are generally portrayed (she would say, inaccurately). She discusses the strange events that took place regarding the Kilns, Lewis's house and property, which he shared with his brother Warnie, after his death. She addresses issues surrounding the production and release of the movie Shadowlands, which chronicled the portion of Lewis's life involving wife Joy Davidman. She even argues against the notion that Lewis was progressing on his way to joining the Roman Catholic Church, an event which many Roman-leaning individuals seem to think would have been inevitable had Lewis not died before it happened.

The book comes with endorsements from many well known authors and scholars, such as Sheldon Vanauken, Ursula K. Le Guin, Martin E. Marty, Tim Powers, Russell Kirk, Richard Wilbur, Gilbert Meilaender, Robery Siegel, Frederick Buechner, Philip Yancey, and Walter Wangerin. I cannot say for sure that her accusations are completely accurate. To do so, I would have to have done all the research she had done for myself. But I can say that I find her case(s) overwhelmingly compelling, and therefore I find myself fully convinced. If nothing else, the list of endorsements should make one stand up and take notice. Sadly, Lindskoog's charges have never, to my knowledge, been answered, a matter she addresses in the book as well.

There is an updated version of this book, called Sleuthing C. S. Lewis: More Light in the Shadowlands, which you can get here. Since this was the last edition published by Lindskoog, I suspect this is the one a person would want to get. I was not aware of its existence until after I read the earlier version.

It isn't an especially enjoyable read in one sense. It is tragic to think of what has been done in Lewis's name since his death. It is an easy read, however, and an indispensable one for anyone seeking to gain a complete understanding of Lewis's works. I highly recommend it.

Federal Vision

For those who visit this blog, and who are familiar with the sorts of controversy that have been going on in Reformed and Presbyterian circles over the past few years, they will immediately know where I stand on some of these issues, based on the links to other websites that I provide here. The particular controversy I have in mind is what is called the “Federal Vision Controversy” or, by some, the “Auburn Avenue Controversy”. I have resisted commenting on this controversy thus far, and for the most part will continue on that track.

The reason I haven’t blogged about it is manifold. For one, I think there has been enough talk about it elsewhere on the web without my getting into it here. Those who want to learn more about it, or even want to debate about it, will do better going somewhere else. Also, when the issue has been discussed, what I have often found on the part of those opposed to the Federal Vision is profound and inexcusable ignorance. There are those who simply don’t have the opportunity to read up on the controversy, and so they can’t be blamed for what they don’t have time to learn (let me add that those people should then remain quiet on the issue). But there are those that I’ve encountered who spend enough time in theological studies that they should know better. And unfortunately, whether in conversation or on the internet, lots of misunderstandings have been propagated. Some people who should know better go so far as to write books, which are then bought by people seeking to know more, and who trust those writers on the basis of their Reformed credentials.

Often what I find on the part of anti-Federal Vision people is an unwillingness to read books or listen to lectures by those of the Federal Vision position. But this baffles me. Let me offer one very important suggestion. Whenever you are seeking to learn a person’s position on something, no matter what the topic (religious or non-religious, orthodox or heretical), the FIRST place you go is to the person you are critiquing. As soon as you go and read the writing of someone critiquing the same person you are seeking to critique, you open the situation up to misunderstanding. This is especially important when the person being critiqued is a brother and a minister. The accusation of heresy is very, very serious – far more serious than we often regard it as being. And yet that is the accusation often being cast at the Federal Vision advocates.

One critic that has had a book published is Guy Waters. Now I haven’t read Waters’s book, so I’m not able to engage it. But some Federal Visionists have. Doug Wilson has answered it on his blog, as has Peter Leithart. All one has to do is go to these men’s weblogs and do a search under “Guy Waters”. But how many people who will buy Waters’s book will also read the responses to it?

Doug Wilson, in response to Waters, stated the following:

To summarize this series of posts, I would conclude by urging the anti-FV forces to reconsider their choice of a champion. Guy Waters is clearly more than capable of reading mountains of material. He can assemble evidence in print that he has read it by using the usual scholarly apparatus. As I have shown repeatedly in this series of posts, what he cannot do is represent that material fairly, or refute it with theological integrity.

But see, all a person has to do to be trusted is to get a book published by P& R. Folks, that doesn’t make the book a sure bet.

For those seeking to hear some of Doug Wilson’s responses to questions and misunderstandings regarding the Federal Vision, I would highly recommend the interview he recently did (free streaming online here) for Covenant Radio. (It was listening to this interview today that pushed me to post this.) In the interview, he states that he has found that the critics don’t understand what he’s been saying, and Waters in particular is singled out.

Let me jump up and down on the point one more time, and then leave it for now. If you want to know what the Federal Visionists are saying, you need to listen to them first and foremost, not their critics. The issue is too important to falsely accuse someone.

Counseling and devotion

I posted the following on my Myspace blog about a week and a half ago, intending to post it here as well. I didn't think it would take me so long, but...well, here it is. In some places, I am simply repeating things I've said here in the past, so I hope the reader will pardon me for that. Nonetheless, I hope you enjoy it.

I have been listening on and off for the past couple of months to the audio version of a book entitled Addictions: A Banquet in the Grave (also subtitled Finding Hope in the Power of the Gospel), written by Edward T. Welch. I have also been listening to the same material as presented by Dr. Welch in seminar form. While the two follow basically the same pattern, with the seminars being more compacted in their presentation, I have found listening to both to be very helpful. For those not familiar with Dr. Welch, he is associated with the Christian Counseling and Education Foundation, a parachurch organization that serves to aid the church in its effort to effectively counsel those under its care. Dr. Welch has written several books, of which this is one of the more recent ones.

The book is written mainly for those seeking to help those trapped in a cycle of addiction, particularly those struggling with drug and alcohol addiction, though it is useful for those dealing with people dealing with other addictions as well. Those who are interested in a Christian response to Alcoholics Anonymous will find Dr. Welch's comments in relation to A.A. at least thought provoking if not helpful. The book is also helpful to those actually dealing with addictions, which, if we were all honest enough about our sin, we would all acknowledge to include ourselves.

At one point earlier in my life, I thought that the field of Christian counseling was one I wanted to pursue, though I have since abandoned that wish. I have also, through the years, developed an antipathy to anything communicated in the language of psychology/psychiatry. Though I still find myself resorting to them from time to time, words like "baggage", "issues", and "codependency" tend to turn my stomach. I'm not entirely sure why this is. Nonetheless, my "issues" with these words have been a bit of a hindrance while listening to Dr. Welch. I often think that clinical psychological terminology serves to masquerade the truth about a person, or to divert the guilt of sin from the addict (or, more accurately, the habitual sinner). One of the bright sides of Dr. Welch's teaching is that he tries to redirect the person who tends to think and speak this way such that they began to view the addict's situation from a more Biblical perspective – a perspective that speaks in terms of sin rather than disease, the latter term being one that communicates the idea of a passive, helpless victim, as opposed to the former term, which communicates the idea of responsibility for one's behaviour.

I don't doubt that someone reading this will immediately begin to question the validity of this distinction, and I readily admit that the reality of sin's working in individuals as well as in the history of the world is far more complicated than this. We are born guilty and corrupt, and this was decided for us before we were born. Nonetheless, for the Christian there is opportunity to conquer sin, and when we fail to do that we are guilty. Therefore, understanding where Dr. Welch is coming from on this, I would agree with him. I won't attempt any deeper explanation of the condition of the individual than that right now.

One of the more helpful insights that Dr. Welch offers comes from his desire to ground his teaching firmly on the Gospel. He expresses this insight this way – "For every one look that the addict takes at himself, he needs to take ten looks at Jesus Christ." Welch teaches very clearly that the addict, just like anyone else, can never be acceptable before God on the basis of his own works, but on the basis of the work of Jesus Christ alone. And because of this, it is in looking to Jesus Christ alone that one finds hope. If the addict isn't a Christian, then the first task (in terms of importance) is to lead the person to place their faith in Christ. But when dealing with a Christian who is an addict, the way for them to deal with their addiction isn't to focus excessively on themselves and what they do. The hope for the addict is in the work of Christ, and that hope includes any amount of victory over their sin they might achieve. Incomparable freedom comes in recognizing that they don't have to earn God's favour by their behaviour, and that God doesn't cast them out when they sin. We all need to be repeatedly reminded that God is far more merciful than we at any moment might tend to be ourselves.

At this point I'd like to depart from talking about Dr. Welch's book, however. So often the way this is handled in counseling or discipling situations is in encouraging the counselee/disciplee to pray, read Scripture, and worship God every day in private – what has been variously called "private worship", "private devotions", or "quiet time". I will admit that this can be a wise thing to do. I try to read at least a Psalm every day, if not more Scripture, and I try to find at least a little bit of time for prayer, though the attention I'm able to give to these things varies from day to day. However, I don't find a single verse in Scripture that requires that these things be done on a daily basis, and so I personally think that to bind anyone to that is legalism. Not only has the average believer throughout the history of the world (including both Old Testament and New Testament believers) not had a personal copy of the Scriptures to read whenever he wanted to (even once a day), the average believer hasn't even been able to read. One might immediately run (as the average Evangelical believer has been taught) to certain verses in I & II Timothy to counter this statement. The first verse that usually comes up is II Timothy 2:15 (from the English Standard Version): "Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth." But to take this and to apply this to every believer is to misunderstand the nature of Paul's two letters to Timothy. These are, along with Paul's Epistle to Titus, classically called "Pastoral Epistles", because the men they are written to, being Timothy and Titus, were pastors. While there are things in these letters that apply more broadly to every believer, much in these three letters uniquely apply to the ordained Christian minister. This being understood, one can see that Timothy is a minister (indicated by the word "worker"), and his right handling of the Scripture relates to his rightly teaching and preaching the Scripture to the Christian congregation. This is further verified when one doesn't rip the verse out of its context, but rather reads vs. 14 through at least the end of vs. 15 (if not further).

I think that a Christian will, generally speaking, want to pray. But I don't think Scripture requires a certain period of time set apart every day for prayer. One example in defense of this practice that is often pointed to is Daniel, who we are told prayed three times a day facing Jerusalem (Daniel 6:10). But while this can certainly be a good practice, Scripture nowhere requires it. And we once again need to understand the context of Daniel's practice. Living in captivity in Babylon, the Israelites were unable to practice the temple worship commanded by God. Daniel's action was a substitute for the corporate worship that God commanded and which wasn't available to him. Also, his action was appropriate to what was expected of the Israelite who longed for the repentance of his fellow Israelites, who sought God's returned favour to Israel, and who longed for the restoration of Israel to the land God had given and therefore the worship He commanded (I Kings 8:46-53; II Chronicles 7:12-16). There are appropriate New Testament applications of this (which I don't have time to get into now), but to lift this wholesale from Daniel's situation and to apply it broadly to the believer today is improper.

This tendency to center the believer's piety on his own personal devotional practices has a long and varied heritage, it seems to me. It ranges from Medieval mysticism (St. John of the Cross, St. Theresa of Avila, St. Bernard of Clairvaux, etc.) to monasticism in general (reaching back to the Desert Fathers) to the atomism of the Late Medieval Nominalists to the abuse of the idea of the Priesthood of All Believers attributed to Martin Luther to the individualistic rationalism of Rene Descartes. Descartes' ideas have been what has most affected us in regard to individualistic piety in recent centuries, though I hope the above sentence demonstrates the complexity of the history of "ideas" (for lack of a better term).

Let me address some things I'm not saying by what I've written above. I'm not saying that it's a bad thing for a person who isn't a minister to read the Bible for themselves. I think one proper outworking of the Biblical doctrine of the Priesthood of All Believers is that the non-ordained may approach God on their own with the aid of the Scriptures. Of course, this will mean "interpretation", since interpretation simply means the act of coming to a correct understanding of a text. But the person reading the Scriptures needs to do their best to come to the Scriptures with some understanding of the history of Biblical interpretation so as to prevent misunderstanding. I see it as the role of the pastor to properly educate his congregation on the right method of interpretation, whether that be only through teaching and preaching, or through providing books that will aid the individual in the process. Ultimately, then, the responsibility falls back on the pastors. The important thing here, especially in our age, is that the layperson approaches the Scripture with humility and in consideration of all the great teachers that have come and gone before us. We have two thousand years of Biblical interpretation behind us. We need to not only take advantage of the wisdom there available to us, but to give credit to those who have left us such a great treasure of knowledge. At the same time, no man is infallible (no apologies to my Catholic friends), and so we need to recognize the possibility of longstanding false interpretations.

As I mentioned above, I believe that a Christian will generally have a natural desire to talk to God. But if there's one area that I think we all have a tendency to fall apart doctrinally, it's in the area of prayer. Growing up in an Evangelical church, I heard all sorts of prayers – some not so bad, many not so good. In attempting to be "authentic", Evangelical churches reject any notion of written prayer or liturgical prayer. The result of this has been a heritage (over the past century or so) of the most banal prayers one can imagine. Part of the problem here, I think, is that Evangelicals tend to approach Scripture with the belief that all Scripture can do is deliver information to them. If this is the case, though, why did God give us His word not only in the form of straight teaching, but also, at times, in the form of prayers, poetry, and songs? When I take, for instance, the prayers of the Apostle Paul and compare them to the prayers I heard growing up, they pale in comparison. I look at the Psalms as well and find the same. In large part, I think herein lies the solution. I think if we approach the Scriptures with a mind to allow it to shape us not only intellectually, but also aesthetically, we will find (over time) a transformation in the way we not only pray, but also in the way we view the world overall. In the Presbyterian tradition I have found this to be the case. In those ministers who I admired as having a deep understanding of the Scripture, I have often found prayers far grander than anything I ever heard growing up.

Also, we have a grand tradition of prayer in the history of the church that we should take advantage of. There are prayer books, liturgies, and books of compiled prayers from many great Christians that are available to us if we will only look for them. Just as it is wise to look to these godly men to teach us how to understand God's word, it is also wise to look to them to teach us how to pray. This is part of the reason that I am currently a member of an Anglican parish. The Anglican tradition has done a great job in maintaining and making use of these prayers.

While this approach will inevitably improve the prayers of those who pray publicly, it will also improve the prayers of the Christian who prays in private. Now certainly, private prayer can be quite different than public prayer. Private prayer is more personal. There are things we will say to God in private that we should never say in a group setting. Too often, though, without any sort of structure to an individual's private prayer, their prayer can degenerate to the same banal level as the public prayers I was talking about above. "But," someone may ask, "do you think God really minds?" My immediate answer is, "Yes! I do think He minds." Too often we approach these kinds of questions in too static a fashion. God loves the prayer of a five year old when she prays for Grandma and Grandpa and her babydoll. But if the girl were still praying for the babydoll when she was twelve, we would take this as an indicator that something wasn't right. God desires us to grow, to mature. If an immature Christian is praying in a more immature fashion, God loves and honors that prayer. But we should aim to grow in our prayer lives, just as we seek to grow in other areas of our lives.

Nothing I've written here is intended to give the impression that I'm someone to be emulated in this. I have a long way to go when it comes to both prayer and reading Scripture. Nonetheless, I've found these things to be helpful, and I consider them to be wise.

I say all these things, however, by way of addressing the idea of the absolute necessity of daily private worship. And I still maintain that, while it may be a wise thing to do (if a person is able to do it), it isn't required by Scripture and, therefore, I would say, not absolutely necessary for one to rightly follow Christ.

What is necessary, then? Well, this post is extremely long already, so I'll have to save that for another time. For now, let me simply say that the answer lies in the corporate worship of the local church.

Priesthood of All Believers

This is a helpful piece by Rev. Jeff Meyers dealing with the question of the priesthood of all believers. Growing up Plymouth Brethren, I witnessed first hand the benefits and dangers (more the latter, I’m afraid) that can result from majoring on this idea. As a result, I tend to cringe every time I find someone wanting to place a lot of emphasis on this doctrine.

Jeff’s piece also reminded me of this, taken from the book Why Catholics Can’t Sing: The Culture of Catholicism and the Triumph of Bad Taste, written by Thomas Day (there is profanity in this excerpt which I opted not to edit – just thought I’d warn you):

In the early 1970’s a friend of mine attended Mass in one of Philadelphia’s grand old parishes, an immense pile of stone built to last for eternity. In the same pew, right next to him, was an elderly lady who energetically fingered her rosary beads all during Mass. She stood, sat, and knelt with everyone else, but her thoughts seemed to be far removed from the activity around her.

The time came for the Handshake of Peace, one of those “new things” which made everyone feel a bit silly. My friend turned to the elderly lady at this point and, holding out his hand in friendship, said, “May the peace of the Lord be with you.” The old lady scowled. She looked at the proffered had as if it were diseased. “I don’t believe in that shit,” she replied and, without missing a breath, went back to the quiet mumbling of her rosary.

Before we start imagining that the old lady must have been some charming fossil from another eon, let us remember that as late as 1963 nearly every Roman Catholic bishop in the United States would have agreed with her. They did not believe in “that shit,” and neither did the majority of the faithful.

This piece shows the real nature of the situation that has existed in Catholicism for centuries. The book was first published in 1990, so I’m sure there have been significant changes in Roman Catholicism in the past 17 years as many of the older Catholics pass away and as those who remain adjust to the changes brought by Vatican II. Nevertheless, the historical situation was what it was. I also know there is still some pining for a return to the Latin Mass within Roman circles, particularly from those who long for a sense of mystery that they feel was lost in the changes made.

I hope Jeff’s posts will be effective in clearing up these misunderstandings among many. This is apparently the first of several posts in which Jeff will be talking about this, so keep checking his blog for the rest.

Wright at Calvin College

N. T. Wright spoke today at Calvin College, and the lecture was broadcast live. His talk was basically a walk through one of his most recent books, entitled Simply Christian. I came in about half an hour late to the lecture, but what I heard was fantastic. I don’t know when the lecture will be available in the archives for you to listen, but keep an eye out for it here. Equally as appealing is the upcoming performance by Gloriae Dei Cantores (on the 11th), as well as the upcoming lecture by Miroslav Volf (on the 18th).

Wow...

I just re-read my last post. Boy, talk about cynical! Apparently I need some serious prayer. But I'm leaving the post up anyway. I am what I am, though I trust that God will in His time make me better than I am currently.

Birthdays

We are now past Christmas Day, and for the majority of people in our society that means a respite from any notion of present buying. No doubt, this is a welcome break for most.

Then there are those of us who immediately have to start thinking of birthdays.

I’m thirty-three years old, and you would think by now I would have gotten used to it. In my immediate family (being my mother, father, sister, plus yours truly) there are three February birthdays. I’ll give you four guesses as to who has the one non-February birthday. I don’t know how it happened (never asked, don’t want to know) but somehow I wound up being born in September. As a child, I considered it a much better time than being born in February – just too close to Christmas, you know, which means less stuff received. In grade school there was always that one kid in class that had a December birthday, for whom I lamented upon every remembrance of his misfortune. I was much better off with my September birthday.

But I was the birthday oddball. The rest of my family was born in February, my late father even managing (as if it were a matter of his own skill and effort) to be born on St. Valentine’s Day. As a child, this was of little import to me. Birthdays mean that Mom and/or Dad will be taking you shopping to buy something for “you” to give to whoever is having the birthday. They will pay for it, they pretty much pick it out for you, and they wrap it. Your participation in the whole event is one of symbolism, or one of training for adulthood, which, though it will eventually flower into reality, at that point looks and feels like an empty ritual.

For me, since becoming an adult, birthdays have somehow failed to move into the realm of the upper ether where grand and unspeakable things transpire, as it seems to for some people. It could be that, though my family always gave presents and had a cake, we really didn’t celebrate birthdays in a very big way. I think my parents might have had a party for my birthday once when I was very young (I don’t remember for sure), but other than that, I’ve never had a birthday party. I don’t say that to criticize my parents - it’s just the way things were. It meant a lot to me this past September when my co-workers, knowing that I would be spending my birthday alone, threw a mini-celebration at work for me. They bought my lunch, they had a cake, and candy, and a balloon, etc. For some people getting a balloon might not mean much. But when your birthday is shaping up to be a lonely day, and when you’ve never had anybody give you a balloon before, it means a lot.

I think another reason that birthdays are less than grand for me involves the whole shopping event. When Christmas is over every year, there’s a little guy in my head that wipes the sweat from his brow and starts settling down in a recliner with a bag of Fritos, and it takes no small effort to keep him from drifting into a long winter’s nap, crumbs in his beard and all. The pressure of going shopping and finding the right thing for someone is, for me, akin to getting a term paper in on time. I have a feeling that there is a sin that needs to be confessed in there somewhere, but I’ll save that one for my priest.

As far as significant birthday events go, however, nothing can top what happened to me last year about this time as I was shopping for my sister’s present.

I was in one of those mega-bookstores, the kind with about everything you could want and a bunch of stuff that no one should want. I had a list in my hand of some of the things she was wanting, and had spent a fair bit of time wandering from the shelves to the computer trying to track down the things she asked for, all the while doing the math in my head to determine the combination of items that would suit my wallet. I had noticed people walking around me only slightly, as I was in too deep of a thought to pay much attention.

As I was walking from one part of the store to another, a young woman stepped out from around a corner and began walking a few feet directly behind me, keeping step with me. This lasted for only a second, and she soon turned just as quickly and walked back to where she had been. From the other side of the shelf which now separated us I heard a male voice say, “Just chase him, why don’t you?” This was a little odd, to say the least, which caused the matter to become locked in my mind. But I was too preoccupied with my shopping to think much of it.

After I finished gathering the things I was going to buy, I went to place where I was to stand and wait for a cashier to call me to the register. I was standing there a few seconds when I felt someone walk up behind me and stand very close to me.

“Hello!” came a female voice behind me.

I turned and found myself looking into the face of a young woman a few inches taller than me. It was the same woman who had walked behind me earlier. I had noticed her walking around the store with a guy, who I presumed was the voice I had heard.

I stared at her, more than a little bewildered, and tried to determine if this was someone I knew. As I stood there, her guy friend walked up behind her and, being taller than her, looked over her shoulder at me. They both had grins on their faces.

It was when the smell of recently consumed alcohol wafted from the young lady’s breath into my nostrils that I realized what was going on. I had missed the glazed-over look in her eyes at first.

“Hey,” I replied, and turned around to wait to check out.

The cashier called me up almost immediately and began ringing up my purchase. I paid him, and as he handed me my receipt, he said, “And here’s a thirty-percent off coupon for your trouble today.”

Trouble…trouble…I couldn’t quite figure out what the “trouble” was that he was referring to. The only thing I could figure was that they kept a close eye on the customers, and that they had noticed that I had been wandering around a lot and had looked up several things on the computer before coming to the checkout. But it was several days later that this occurred to me. At the time, I thought the “trouble” he was talking about was getting hit on by a drunk girl. Some trouble, I thought. For a ninety percent off coupon, I would have let two other drunk girls hit on me.

White Christmas

My sister sent this link to me the other day. Pretty funny.

BTW...I've been posting some things here, but also some things over at my other blog.

Some things I've posted both places. But some things seem to fit better in one blog or the other, so I don't replicate every post in both places. Just thought I'd mention it for any who might want to check both out.

Exclusive Brethren - Elders an Impossibility?

I was doing some surfing on the BrethrenPedia website, when I ran across this piece of information (in the boldface print) that I had never heard before:

"As the name implies the Exclusives are so named for their practice of serving the Lord's Supper exclusively to those who are part of their own particular group, agreeing with them on various doctrinal positions.

Most exclusive groups believe the church to have been in ruins between the death of the apostles and their own time. Since no truly apostolic authority exists to appoint elders the church has none. Instead they recognize leading brothers who demonstrate maturity and leadership ability."

For a few years I've thought it would be interesting to do a study of Darby (from whom the Exclusives, moreso than the Open Brethren, trace their roots) and to consider what things might have carried over from Darby's Church of Ireland (Episcopal) background into the Plymouth Brethren. And here's one example. The doctrine of the Apostolic Succession of ministers is not exactly the type of thing most who are familiar with the Brethren would expect to find taught among them. And it seems that this would contradict their concept of there being no distinction between clergy and laity, as expressed in the same article:

"The most defining element of these churches is the total rejection of the concept of clergy. Rather, in keeping with the doctrine of the Priesthood of the Believer, they view all Christians as being ordained by God to serve and are therefore ministers. Leadership is by example and by the recognition of their abilities by those they lead."

I wonder what they believe would have been necessary in order for the succession to have been continued. I was taught among the Open Brethren that while there were certainly believers through the years since the time of the apostles, the church was still in a ruinous state. But it's hard to figure out exactly what they thought would have had to be in place for the church to not have entered that state. The impression I got was that the church would have had to maintain the "Assembly Distinctions", which included things like no clergy/laity distinction, no salaried ministry, women wearing headcoverings during assembly meetings, a specific approach to worship, no women leading in worship or otherwise teaching men, local church autonomy, etc. But why would doctrinal and practical purity have been necessary to maintain the lineage? There seems to be a strong concept of Perfectionism here, which would explain why the Brethren began separating from each other almost as soon as they met and began fellowshipping together.

One other thing that the average Assembly person probably doesn't know is that Darby never rejected infant baptism, unlike most of the other founding Brethren. This has continued among the Exclusive Brethren to some extent. Here's what it says in the BrethrenPedia article on Baptism:

"Since their beginning, the Assemblies have practiced two modes of baptism: Believer's Baptism and Household Baptism. Believer's Baptism is the baptizing of believing adults, and is always performed by immersion. All Open Assemblies and some Exclusive Assemblies (in the USA) practice Believer's Baptism. Household Baptism is generally baptism by immersion; it includes infant baptism either by immersion or sprinkling. Some Exclusive Assemblies practice Household Baptism."

Interesting.

Christmas in the Olden Time

Christmas in the Olden Time by Sir Walter Scott

Heap on more wood! — the wind is chill;
But let it whistle as it will,
We'll keep our Christmas merry still.
Each age has deemed the new born year
The fittest time for festal cheer.
And well our Christian sires of old.
Loved when the year its course had rolled,
And brought blithe Christmas back again,
With all his hospitable train.
Domestic and religious rite
Gave honour to the holy night:
On Christmas eve the bells were rung;
On Christmas eve the mass was sung;
That only night, in all the year,
Saw the stoled priest the chalice rear.
The damsel donned her kirtle sheen;
The hail was dressed with holly green;
Forth to the wood did merry men go,
To gather in the mistletoe,
Then opened wide the baron's hail
To vassal, tenant, serf, and all;
Power laid his rod of rule aside,
And Ceremony doff'd his pride.
The heir, with roses in his shoes,
That night might village partner choose.
The lord, underogating, share
The vulgar game of "post and pair!'
All hailed with uncontroll'd delight
And general voice, the happy night
That to the cottage, as the crown,
Brought tidings of salvation down.

The fire with well dried logs supplied,
Went roaring up the chimney wide;
The huge hail table's oaken face,
Scrubb'd till it shone, the day to grace,
Bore then upon: its massive board
No mark to part the squire and lord.
Then was brought in the lusty brawn,
By old, blue-coated serving-man;
Then the grim boar's head frowned on high,
Crested with bays and rosemary.
Well can the green-garbed ranger tell,
How, when, and where, the monster fell;
What dogs before his death he tore,
And all the baiting of the boar.
The wassail round in good brown bowls,
Garnished with ribbon, blithely trowls.
There the huge sirloin reeked: hard by
Plum-porridge stood, and Christmas pie;
Nor failed old Scotland to produce
At such high tide her savoury goose.

Then came the merry masquers in,
And carols roar'd with blithesome din;
If unmelodious was the song,
It was a hearty note, and strong.
Who lists may in their mumming see
Traces of ancient mystery;
White shirts supplied the masquerade,
And smutted cheeks the visor made
But oh! what masquers, richly dight,
Can boast of bosoms half so light!
England was merry England when
Old Christmas brought his sports again.
'Twas Christmas broached the mightiest ale,
'Twas Christmas told the merriest tale;
A Christmas gambol oft would cheer
A poor man's heart through half the year.


You will find other carols, hymns, and poems here.

More on The Children of Men

I. The liberty which Christ has purchased for believers under the Gospel consists in their freedom from the guilt of sin, and condemning wrath of God, the curse of the moral law; and, in their being delivered from this present evil world, bondage to Satan, and dominion of sin; from the evil of afflictions, the sting of death, the victory of the grace, and everlasting damnation; as also, in their free access to God, and their yielding obedience unto Him, not out of slavish fear, but a child-like love and willing mind. All which were common also to believers under the law. But, under the New Testament, the liberty of Christians is further enlarged, in their freedom from the yoke of the ceremonial law, to which the Jewish Church was subjected; and in greater boldness of access to the throne of grace, and in fuller communications of the free Spirit of God, than believers under the law did ordinarily partake of.

II. God alone is Lord of the conscience, and has left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men, which are, in any thing, contrary to His Word; or beside it, if matters of faith, or worship. So that, to believe such doctrines, or to obey such commands, out of conscience, is to betray true liberty of conscience: and the requiring of an implicit faith, and an absolute and blind obedience, is to destroy liberty of conscience, and reason also.

III. They who, upon pretence of Christian liberty, do practice any sin, or cherish any lust, do thereby destroy the end of Christian liberty, which is, that being delivered out of the hands of our enemies, we might serve the Lord without fear, in holiness and righteousness before Him, all the days of our life.

IV. And because the powers which God has ordained, and the liberty which Christ has purchased are not intended by God to destroy, but mutually to uphold and preserve one another, they who, upon pretence of Christian liberty, shall oppose any lawful power, or the lawful exercise of it, whether it be civil or ecclesiastical, resist the ordinance of God. And, for their publishing of such opinions, or maintaining of such practices, as are contrary to the light of nature, or to the known principles of Christianity (whether concerning faith, worship, or conversation), or to the power of godliness; or, such erroneous opinions or practices, as either in their own nature, or in the manner of publishing or maintaining them, are destructive to the external peace and order which Christ has established in the Church, they may lawfully be called to account, and proceeded against, by the censures of the Church. and by the power of the civil magistrate.

- Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter 20

A friend asked me today what knew about the movie The Children of Men, since he had seen me mention it on my blog. I’ve just recently begun reading the book, so my knowledge is little at this point. I had heard an interview with Ralph Wood (who some of you might know for his work on J. R. R. Tolkien, Walker Percy, or Flannery O’Connor) with Ken Myers on Myers’ Mars Hill Audio Journal a few years ago in which they talked about P. D. James and this book in general (the journal edition was no. 54, Jan./Feb. ’02). I had heard of James prior to this, but knew nothing about her. Since hearing the interview I’ve been intrigued, but her works have remained on the back burner, and this is the first time they’ve moved up front.

Here is what I do know: the book is set in the year 2021. The prose takes the form of a journal written by one Theodore Faron, an Oxford historian. The crisis point of the book is that no children have been born anywhere throughout the world since 1995. In spite of the attempts of science to rectify the problem, it has proven impotent in all its efforts (pardon the pun). I know that by the nature of the story there is a sort of pro-life and anti-naturalist bent to the book. I just finished chapter four today, so that’s about all I know about the book itself. I know that James herself is a Christian, a member of the Church of England.

I wanted, though, to buffer what might be viewed as an unconditioned recommendation of the movie. I mentioned it here because of the interest that James’s writings have conjured in the Christian community, especially among those who tend to engage more or less frequently in the so-called “culture wars”, or, in a less militant way, for those who simply see the place of enjoying the fruits of God’s creation in culture formed by the hands of men.

But I cannot wholly endorse the film. For one thing, I haven’t seen the movie, so it could be either a bad adaptation of the book (change of storyline, or something of the like), or for one reason or another just a poor film.

But secondly, I wanted to add a caveat based on the rating of the film. It is rated R, and the website follows this up with “strong violence” and “some drug use and brief nudity”. On the basis of this, I probably won’t go see the film myself. My big concern isn’t the violence, though I don’t personally enjoy a lot of violence in films. And the drug use is of no concern. But the nudity is a concern.

It’s hard sometimes to know exactly what is okay and what isn’t okay to view in the media. I think the average Christian knows that to view anything that might be labeled as pornography is a grave sin. The problem is in knowing what should and shouldn’t be labeled as pornography. “Let marriage be held in honor among all, and let the marriage bed be undefiled, for God will judge the sexually immoral and adulterous” (Hebrews 13:4). There have been those from within the Christian community throughout the history of the West that have argued in favor of nudity in art as legitimate, and I can’t fully argue against it. Nor would I seek to bind the conscience of any, hence the inclusion of Chapter 20 of the Westminster Confession of Faith above. And if one goes strictly by what is mentioned in connection with the rating, we may assume that what takes place in the film is just nudity, entirely apart from any hint of actual sexual conduct. I’m not sure that’s a safe assumption, but it’s the best one can do given the information provided.

I guess when it comes down to it, the question I have to ask myself is this: would I want my daughter, my sister, my wife, or my mother to be the one up on the screen and unclothed? The answer is an unequivocal “no!” It may actually be male nudity in the film. But since female nudity is far more common in movies today, I think it’s safe to expect that to be the case here.

One of the things that has gradually eroded in our society today is any concept of the reality of a woman’s honor. Women are meant to be honored, and where that has been erased from the consensus understanding of a community it is first and foremost the fault of the men of that community. This is not to say that women aren’t sinners too, or that they can’t do anything to cause or contribute to their dishonor. But where there is a failure in a community, it is a failure on the part of men to lead, and in this case, a failure on the part of men to hold up women as something to be treasured.

I think also of the general absence of shame in our society. Think, for instance: when was the last time you saw some one blush? Shame in a sinful world is a beautiful thing. It says that a person has a sense of purity of life and of mind. It is a sign of one’s consciousness of his or her own limitedness - a sense of humility. It is dismissed by the cynical and proud of the world, who deep down inside know they have lost their purity and who think there is no hope of recovering any of it. But God says otherwise.

The issue here isn’t really even my own purity as the one who will or will not see the film. The issue here is as it always is. I am to love the Lord my God with all my heart, soul, mind, and strength, and to love my neighbor as myself. I am to give myself away in sacrifice where it is called for, as my Saviour did. I don’t think I can do that and go see this film, as much as I might like to. I leave it to you to decide whether or not you can.

The Children of Men

I just discovered that P. D. James's book The Children of Men has been made into a film, which is being released on Christmas Day. You can see the official movie website here.

Obligatory Blogging

Say that three times real fast.

Yes, I continue to be the slackest of bloggers. Ten lashes with a wet noodle for me. I’m sure I’ll get more inspired some time soon. Blogging has just had to take a back seat to other events in my life here recently.

Concerning recent events…I was confirmed in the Anglican Province of America about six weeks ago. I had never seen a confirmation ceremony before, so I fumbled and bumbled my way through it, kneeling, standing, and reciting when I was directed to. I’m pretty certain the thing took in spite of my foibles. Therefore I am now officially and fully a part of the Church, by Anglican standards. And so to all my non-Catholic friends: I’m in Apostolic Succession, and you aren’t. Na-na-na-na-na-na.

My dear Plymouth Brethren mother attended the service at my request, though her attendance was more than a little reluctant. When a parishioner asked her what she thought of the service, she just smiled and nodded her head. Bless her heart, as we say here in the south. I trust one day she will understand her son’s strange ecclesial journey, though that understanding may not come this side of glory.

And yet in my personal beliefs, I remain mostly a Presbyterian.

I have no idea who is reading my blog (though I can tell someone is by the hit counter), so I don’t know how this bit of information will strike the reader. Some of you may be more traditionally Western Catholic in your beliefs, in which case you’re saying to yourself something like “All the oil and holy water in the world won’t help this guy.” And some of you may be more Reformational or Evangelical in your beliefs, in which case you have written me off as a crypto-papist at worst or as just confused at best.

But most of you probably could care less, which may be the best position to be in.

The fact that I am a Presbyterian is one that I made sure of discussing with my priest before joining the church. I am something of a jack-of-all-trades, master-of-none when it comes to theology. That includes the endless variety of denominational distinctives. I wanted to make sure that I could transfer my membership to another denomination (specifically, Presbyterian) sometime later after being confirmed. I know some Anglican communions wouldn’t allow that. I was assured that in the APA I could do that. Plus, I am not one to enter into a church situation under false pretenses. I wanted my pastor to know clearly where I was coming from. While the APA is generally more Anglo-Catholic in its practice, I am a Protestant down to my toenails. I am appreciative of the immense good that has come out of Catholicism and Orthodoxy. But I have numerous fundamental disagreements with both groups. Nor do I have any intention of changing. I go wherever the truth leads me, and so if I were to become convinced of Anglo-Catholicism, then my views would change. But I believe I’ve looked at the issues sufficiently to know that such a change won’t be happening. The APA seems broad enough to hold Protestants and Catholics, though I’m sure if disagreements haven’t already taken place, eventually they will. Protestants and Catholics can only tolerate each other in the same communion for so long. Then again, I am neither a prophet nor the son of a prophet. That question to the side, as long as the APA keeps using the 1928 Prayer Book of the Protestant Episcopal Church, and allows for diversity in private devotion without forcing the more Catholic practices into public devotion, I can be content where I am.

Our culture today has taught us to view the church the way it has taught us to view everything else (everything, that is, not claimed by the State). We begin with the grid of free will and filter everything through that grid. One shape the free will grid takes is the shape of consumerism. We go out shopping for religion and choose whatever strikes our fancy. There have been other factors in the history of America that have bourne upon our ideas of church. What we have ended up with is what R. J. Rushdoony called “The Voluntaristic Church”. We can buy whatever religion we want, or we can vote it into being, or we can just make it up as it suits us. We determine our own destiny. There is no transcendent standard. Most people aren’t so brazen as this, though this mentality directs their decisions to some degree anyway.

I’ve tried to take a more Biblically intelligent approach to finding a church than that. I don’t think I can go just wherever suits me. I have to examine Scripture, determine what is the most Biblically shaped church available to me, and join that church. It isn’t always easy to make that choice, or even to determine what is most important in a church. But one has to follow Scripture as best he can.

If I’m mostly a Presbyterian (you may be wondering), why did I join an Anglican church? I can’t fully answer the question now. But here are a couple of brief reasons.

Since leaving the Plymouth Brethren about seven years ago, I’ve spent a lot of time surveying the church landscape, both in my community and in the broader world. I’ve spent a lot of time as well studying the Scriptures, and reading books by various Christian theologians of various persuasions on all sorts of topics. And while I don’t have everything figured out, I’m in a pretty settled position regarding what I believe the Scriptures to teach on just about every major topic.

One topic I’m pretty settled on is worship. Not on every aspect of worship, mind you. I have plenty more to learn when it comes to the details. But I’m convinced of certain things nonetheless. For one thing, I’m convinced that worship should be reverent. There should be no running around chit-chatting in the worship room right before the service. That kind of behaviour immediately betrays what people think they are there for and what they think of God. The music should communicate the greatness of God’s character and of His salvation of us. With so many churches abandoning traditional hymnody for modern sappy effeminate pop songs, any sort of notion of these things is being lost. And those leading worship should behave in a way that demonstrates for the people that they are entering into God’s presence when they gather for corporate worship. The pastor needs to save his jokes for some other time. The sad thing is that what I’ve just described characterizes most of the Presbyterian churches I’ve attended. So that eliminated about ninety percent of the Presbyterian churches in my area.

I also believe worship should be more liturgical in nature. This is just building off of my previous point. And once again, I’m still working out the details of this one. But here’s one thing to consider. In the Old Covenant, God gave the people of Israel a very detailed pattern of worship. This pattern was very structured in its order and execution. If once in history God Himself saw fit to give us a pattern, shouldn’t we consider that pattern and its context as we shape New Covenant worship? Now we know that the exact shape of Old Covenant worship was done away with in the ending of the Old Covenant. The Book of Hebrews makes that quite clear. But the Israelites were people, and so are we. And they didn’t just invent their own worship – God gave it to them. Those two elements alone make me believe that we should consider the orderliness of worship as a vital element.

But there is more to liturgy than just being orderly, just like there is more to being liturgical than just having alot of different elements to your worship service. Many Presbyterian churches have order, as well as some of the classic elements of a liturgical service, such as the Creed and the Lord’s Prayer. But a classical liturgical service conveys the idea that we are there to corporately engage in dialogue with God. If a pastor ad libs between every element of worship, even if it is Scripture-related ad libbing, he gives off the impression that the congregation is in fact dialoguing with him, not God. That is what I have often seen in Presbyterian churches that would say they have a “liturgy”. And so I say to any Presbyterian ministers that may read this: if you really want to communicate the greatness of God to your parishioners as you say you do, then you will follow a set liturgy and get out of the way. If, however, you want it to be your show, then talk as much as possible – during the elements of worship as well as in between them. Have at least two preaching services on Sunday, and maybe a mid-week service. Meet your parishioners for meals, and instruct them then, too. Visit them in their homes, and use the opportunity for more instruction. And don’t let them talk much, because God ordained you to talk, not them. They don’t have anything important to say anyway. And don’t worry about burning your people out. If they can’t handle all the instruction, then they probably aren’t truly converted anyway.

Those last few sentences were sarcastic, as I trust you can tell. I wish I could say that they are fictitious, but they are based on my own personal experiences with Reformed ministers (except for the last sentence – for the most part, anyway). Then again, I’ve blogged about this before, so the reader already knew about my frustration with this sort of thing. Nonetheless, this is another example of the problems that have kept me out of the other Presbyterian churches in my community.

Liturgy is the main reason I’m in the Anglican church rather than in a Presbyterian church. If I’m so Protestant, you might wonder, why didn’t I just join an Evangelical congregation? I tried going it in non-liturgical Evangelical churches before this. But I just couldn’t stand the casualness of the congregation’s behaviour in worship. I couldn’t stand the contemporary music. I longed for weekly communion. I missed the full-orbed observance of the Church Calendar. And I wanted to be with people who were conscious that they were part of a community two thousand years old (or, truly, older), and who weren’t afraid to draw off of the wisdom of that ancient community. I hope one day to find myself a member of a Reformed congregation that has all of these things. But for now, until the Lord directs me otherwise, I am where I am.

Bah

-rum-pah-pum-pum.

Adblock

I recently created a page on MySpace.com (my profile page is here, for those who are interested). Since I was registered as a single male, I soon found myself assaulted with ads for a certain dating service featuring many scantily-clad young ladies. I don't know what shows up for those of you who are registered as married or as single women, but I would suspect you're faced with ads you'd rather not see as well.

If your browser is Mozilla Firefox, then there is a way for you to get rid of the ads. Go here and download Adblock Plus. It blocks most of the ads, and in turn speeds up the download time.

Ah, Holy Jesus

Listen to it here.

Ah, holy Jesus, how hast Thou offended,
That man to judge Thee hath in hate pretended?
By foes derided, by Thine own rejected,
O most afflicted.

Who was the guilty? Who brought this upon Thee?
Alas, my treason, Jesus, hath undone Thee.
’Twas I, Lord, Jesus, I it was denied Thee!
I crucified Thee.

Lo, the Good Shepherd for the sheep is offered;
The slave hath sinned, and the Son hath suffered;
For man’s atonement, while he nothing heedeth,
God intercedeth.

For me, kind Jesus, was Thy incarnation,
Thy mortal sorrow, and Thy life’s oblation;
Thy death of anguish and Thy bitter passion,
For my salvation.

Therefore, kind Jesus, since I cannot pay Thee,
I do adore Thee, and will ever pray Thee,
Think on Thy pity and Thy love unswerving,
Not my deserving.

Holy Days, Batman!

A happy All Saints’ season to you all. Or to be more technical, a happy fifth day in the octave of All Saints’. I hope it is proving to be a good season for you.

At St. John’s Anglican Church in Greensboro where I attend we celebrated All Saints’ Day through a Holy Communion service. The Rt. Rev. C. Peter Brewer, who has been our parish priest since May (and who is also Suffragan Bishop in our denomination, the Anglican Province of America), has done a great service to us in providing extra opportunities for corporate worship. In addition to Communion services on feast days other than the standard Sunday service, Fr. Brewer has been holding a weekly Communion service on Thursdays at noon. He has also been having Evening Prayer services on Wednesday nights, after which he has been holding an introductory course on Anglicanism. As one who believes strongly in the importance of the local church as central to the life of the community, I am glad to see these sorts of things going on and have enjoyed participating in them. I have often wished and prayed that there would be more frequent worship services in our area that I could participate in, particularly of a classical liturgical nature. And in the past, my options have generally been Fundamentalist churches, Liberal mainline churches, Seeker worship services, or the Roman Catholic mass. Other than the last option, I have at times attended some of these, finding myself leaving those services less than satisfied. So, having been limited to these others in the past, I have found the extra services at St. John’s to be a blessing.

We just passed Reformation Day, which was Tuesday. In honor of the day, I flipped through a biography of Luther that I picked up not so long ago that I haven’t read. It is called Martin Luther: The Christian Between God and Death, and was written by Richard Marius. I looked in particular at the section about Luther’s posting of the Ninety-Five Theses (which you can read here). I rather quickly ran across a piece of information that was new to me. Apparently some scholars in recent years have questioned whether or not Luther actually ever posted the Theses on the Wittenberg church door. It seems that Luther himself never made any reference to the event in his writings. Our record of the posting comes from Philipp Melanchthon’s brief account of Luther’s life, which was written some thirty years after the alleged event. But Melanchthon himself was not in Wittenberg at the time, not arriving until August 1518, whereas the posting of the Theses supposedly took place on October 31, 1517, some ten months before. Marius himself doesn’t appear to believe that Luther actually posted the Theses, but instead attempts a reconstruction of what might have actually happened in the development of the theses. The reconstruction is fairly detailed, so I won’t attempt to repeat it here. If you’re interested, you might want to try and get a hold of the book. I haven’t read the rest of the book, though, so for all I know it might be garbage. I thought I would mention it here anyway, since I imagine some readers would be interested in the simple fact that the debate exists. I don’t find the proposal convincing myself.

In more news related to All Saints’ Day, for my birthday my friend Chad recently gave me For All the Saints?: Remembering the Christian Departed by N. T. Wright. I just finished it yesterday. It is an outstanding book. If you have no familiarity with or interest in matters related to the Church Calendar, much of the book will be foreign territory to you. At the same time, Wright also deals with issues related to Purgatory and the cult of the saints, which should interest most Reformed folks and Evangelicals. And an especially interesting aspect of the book is that Wright really shows his Reformed and Evangelical leanings here, taking after the Catholic doctrines of Purgatory and Sainthood. I can’t say I agree with every jot and tittle of the book. At times in Wright’s writings and lectures one can sniff out a hint of religious liberalism that Wright doesn’t appear to realize he has. And if this were (American) football, and I were a referee, I would penalize Wright a combined total of thirty yards for a favorable citing of Process theologian John Polkinghorne and for an unnecessary use of the vomit-inducing phrase “househusband”. These things to the side, the book is shot through with the brilliant sort of insights one typically hears from Wright. It’s definitely worth the read. It’s also an easy read, and a short seventy-six pages. Mark Horne has commented about the book some on his blog, but I haven’t read the comments yet.

With Halloween safely out of the way, I was greeted on Nov. 1 by a flyer in my mailbox from Lifeway Christian Stores. The flyer was decked out from cover to cover with Christmas images and products. For those who don’t know, Lifeway is the former Baptist Bookstore, still run (so far as I know) by the Southern Baptist Convention Sunday School Board. There wasn’t a hint in the flyer that there might be a holiday called Thanksgiving wedged somewhere between Halloween and Christmas. Apparently, the Baptists are more interested in the more traditionally Catholic holiday of Christmas(s) than they are the more Protestant holiday of Thanksgiving. But let’s be honest. Far more money can be and is made off of Christmas. I’ll leave the implications of this for you to figure out yourself.

Opening to the second page of the flyer, I read the following:

Jesus Loves The Little Children – It’s never too early to begin teaching your child that Jesus loves them. Even if they can’t read the words, they’ll one day realized you were already teaching them about Jesus from their very first steps.

Wow. I’m figuring that this must have been written by one of three different types of people: 1) a universalist; 2) a consistent Presbyterian; or 3) a Baptist who really doesn’t understand the implications of his theology. I suspect it’s actually the last type of person. If that’s the case, then may all Baptists be as inconsistent in their theology as this. One way or another, someone was obviously asleep at the wheel in the ad department at Lifeway when this one came through.

And Christmas approaches rapidly. Most people technically celebrate it as one day, rushing through Advent (which most have never heard of) like a flash of light. We’ve allowed the consumer culture to push its version of Christmas on us, in some cases, beginning as early as August. Some of this is easier to take. Some people like to shop early, so it’s a bit understandable when the stores have their Christmas products on display a couple of months early.

But some of it makes no sense. I was riding in the car yesterday and flipping through the commercial radio stations when I ran across a version of “Do You Hear What I Hear?” being performed, I think, by Martina McBride. I wasn’t familiar with the radio station, so I just figured it was a country station and that the DJ had a little mix-up. But then the announcer came on, stated that it was “your station for the holidays” or some such thing, and proceeded to play some Christmas song by Andy Williams.

I couldn’t believe my ears. So this radio station will be playing Christmas music (or rather, the ambiguous “holiday music”, overlooking the root words “holy day” and their accompanying meanings) for the next two months. In case anyone has forgotten, we only have twelve months in a year. That makes one-sixth of a year, for those of you who are mathematically challenged, that “holiday music” will be played on this station. Is this how you spell the word “insanity”?

I had some computer problems recently (and have been very busy in general anyway), hence the lack of postings. Among other things, I’ll be getting back to those music postings soon – I hope. Thanks to those of you who keep checking back.

Cheers

At the grocery store last night, I rediscovered another benefit of excessively early Christmas marketing.

Egg nog.