From the time I began attending Reformed churches, I realized the lengths that one often has to go to in order to worship with a solid congregation of believers. I was living in New Hampshire and attending a Plymouth Brethren congregation when I really began to wrestle with the key doctrines of the Reformed faith. The congregation where I was attending was lacking in a number of areas, such as depth of teaching and reverence in worship. Through an acquaintance I learned of and visited a Presbyterian congregation some forty minutes away, and soon I was attending on a regular basis. I have been in a number of different congregations and denominations since then. Every time I’ve changed churches it has been a struggle to determine where to attend next, and every time I’ve had to make some sort of sacrifice in order to find a place to worship. My current situation is no different. I am a Presbyterian by conviction, but have chosen to attend and join an Anglican congregation, believing it to be the best choice I can make at this point in my life.
Most of the time when I’ve had to find a new church, I haven’t been entirely sure once I’ve made my choice that it was in fact the best choice. Nonetheless, I have made my choices carefully and prayerfully, always desiring the guidance and the blessing of God. One thing I have often thought of doing but never have is to move close to a congregation that is more in line with what I believe the Scriptures teach regarding the ordering of a church. While I have never done this, I have found numerous people in similar situations to mine that have chosen to do just that. Some people have gone as far as to move from one coast of the U.S. to another just to find a church that conducts itself according to what they perceive as Biblical principles.
Many people, even in Reformed circles, will criticize this, saying that the normal practice of church growth is from within the community, not from people moving into a community from the outside. This may be true in some sense. But one has to ask what “normal” is in a sinful world. As I read the Scriptures, Presbyterian church government is normal. So is paedobaptism, paedocommunion, liturgical worship, weekly communion… well, you get the point. On the negative side, I don’t consider it normal for churches to bring the music of a sentimentalistic and commerce – centered culture into its worship, all along using the excuse that it will bring more people in. Sentimentalistic and commercial music create spineless and covetous people, unworthy of the cross of Christ, and that’s exactly what we are. The leaders of the churches that do this, and in so doing compromise their calls, are the ones who drive the sheep under their care to take such steps as to move or to drive long distances every Sunday.
Along with this, I see no injunction in Scripture against moving to a place where one can worship with one’s family in a community of like-minded believers. Not everyone is called to remain in his community and be a missionary there. A father’s first concern, for instance, is for the spiritual and physical well-being of his family – and in that order, I would say. I think the same can be said of an individual and his own spiritual needs. Sometimes it’s imperative for a person who is unattached to family to move for the well-being of his own soul. Such well-being doesn’t entail perfection, mind you. There are no perfect churches. But I can’t help but think that we far too often settle for far to little. I think we should regard the spiritual lethargy of our country as a testimony to that.
I have been reading J. C. Ryle’s book Holiness with a friend. We recently covered the chapters on Lot and his wife. Ryle talks of how even though Lot was a believer, he took steps of compromise that cost him his wife’s life and his daughters’ holiness. He documents Lot’s gradual movement towards and eventually into the city of Sodom. Ryle then gives some specific considerations to believers that relate Lot’s circumstances to our own. Here are a couple that are worth heeding that apply to our discussion:
(a) Remember this in choosing a dwelling-place, or residence. It is not enough that the house is comfortable, the situation good, the air fine, the neighbourhood pleasant, the rent or price small, the living cheap. There are other things yet to be considered. You must think of your immortal soul. Will the house you think of help you towards heaven or hell? Is the Gospel preached within an easy distance? Is Christ crucified within reach of your door? Is there a real man of God near, who will watch over your soul? I charge you, if you love life, not to overlook this. Beware of Lot’s choice.
(b) Remember this in choosing a calling, a place, or profession in life. It is not enough that the salary is high, the wages good, the work light, the advantages numerous, the prospects of getting on most favourable. Think of your soul, your immortal soul. Will it be fed or starved? Will it be prospered or drawn back? Will you have your Sundays free, and be able to have one day in the week for your spiritual business? I beseech you, by the mercies of God, to take heed what you do. Make no rash decision. Look at the place in every light, the light of God as well as the light of the world. Gold may be bought too dear. Beware of Lot’s choice.
Ryle died in 1900. It is very uncommon to find people who even think along these lines in our day, as it apparently was in his. Every man must decide for himself before God what he must do in making these sorts of decisions. But I think Ryle gives us wisdom, and we should heed it. I think it is also important for us to think carefully before we criticize those that take great steps to honor Christ in their Sunday worship as well as in their daily lives. If we all strove to holiness like this, imagine what great things could be accomplished for Christ and his kingdom in our families, our communities, and our country.
Monday, May 29, 2006
Sunday, May 28, 2006
Follow-up on Covenantal Curses
There were a couple of things I wanted to follow-up from my post below on the covenant.
I was curious to know if anyone else had taken Jesus’ words in Matthew 23:34 in the same way I had. I haven’t done any extensive looking through commentaries, but I did look to see what Matthew Henry had to say about this verse, and here is what he said:
3. Those he sends are called prophets, wise men, and scribes, Old-Testament names for New-Testament officers; to show that the ministers sent to them now should not be inferior to the prophets of the Old Testament, to Solomon the wise, or Ezra the scribe. The extraordinary ministers, who in the first ages were divinely inspired, were as the prophets commissioned immediately from heaven; the ordinary settled ministers, who were then, and continue in the church still, and will do to the end of time, are as the wise men and scribes, to guide and instruct the people in the things of God. Or, we may take the apostles and evangelists for the prophets and wise men, and the pastors and teachers for the scribes, instructed to the kingdom of heaven (ch. xiii. 52); for the office of a scribe was honourable till the men dishonoured it.
I would probably push this a little farther than Henry would, and say that one thing that is indicated here is the continuity of the ministers under the New Covenant with the ministers under the Old Covenant. And it seems to me that in Mt. 13:51-52 that Henry references that Jesus is specifically aligning the disciples (which means here, I assume, the Twelve, as the apostles were called) with the scribes or, as some translations have it, the teachers of the Law (see the NIV, for instance). What the theological significance of this is, I do not entirely know. Nonetheless, I am apparently not the only one to have thought along these lines regarding this passage.
I also wanted to clarify my statements regarding Jesus’ function in this passage. In the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus is seen fulfilling various Old Testament types such as the New Moses, the True Israel, and the shoot that comes out of the stump of Jesse, the heir of David’s throne, the true King of Israel (Is. 11). Here in Mt. 23, Jesus is (at least, in part) filling the role of prophet. Now, Jesus is more than just a prophet (cf. Mt. 21:33-45, especially vss. 37-39), but he was a prophet nonetheless. David Chilton, in Days of Vengeance, his commentary on the Book of the Revelation, gives a helpful description on the role of the prophet in relation to the Covenant:
The Covenant is the meaning of Biblical history (Biblical history is not primarily adventure stories). The Covenant is the meaning of Biblical law (the Bible is not primarily a political treatise about how to set up a Christian Republic). And the Covenant is the meaning of Biblical prophecy as well (thus, Biblical prophecy is not “prediction” in the occult sense of Nostradamus, Edgar Cayce, and Jean Dixon). To a man, the prophets were God’s legal emissaries to Israel and the nations, acting as prosecuting attorneys bringing what has become known among recent scholars as the “Covenant Lawsuit”. That Biblical prophecy is not simply “prediction” is indicated, for example, by God’s statement through Jeremiah: "At one moment I might speak concerning a nation or concerning a kingdom to uproot, to pull down, or to destroy it; if that nation against which I have spoken turns from its evil, I will relent concerning the calamity I planned to bring on it. Or at another moment I might speak concerning a nation or concerning a kingdom to build up or to plant it; if it does evil in My sight by not obeying My voice, then I will repent of the good with which I had promised to bless it." (Jer. 18:7-10)
The purpose of prophecy is not “prediction”, but evaluation of man’s ethical response to God’s Word of command and promise. This is why Jonah’s prophecy about Nineveh did not “come true”: Nineveh repented of its wickedness, and the calamity was averted. Like the other Biblical writings, the Book of Revelation is a prophecy, with a specific covenantal orientation and reference. When the covenantal context of the prophecy is ignored, the message St. John sought to communicate is lost, and Revelation becomes nothing more than a vehicle for advancing the alleged expositor’s eschatological theories. (pp. 10-11)
This is the role that Jesus was filling in Mt. 23. This also explains the connection he draws between himself and the prophets that came before him.
I was curious to know if anyone else had taken Jesus’ words in Matthew 23:34 in the same way I had. I haven’t done any extensive looking through commentaries, but I did look to see what Matthew Henry had to say about this verse, and here is what he said:
3. Those he sends are called prophets, wise men, and scribes, Old-Testament names for New-Testament officers; to show that the ministers sent to them now should not be inferior to the prophets of the Old Testament, to Solomon the wise, or Ezra the scribe. The extraordinary ministers, who in the first ages were divinely inspired, were as the prophets commissioned immediately from heaven; the ordinary settled ministers, who were then, and continue in the church still, and will do to the end of time, are as the wise men and scribes, to guide and instruct the people in the things of God. Or, we may take the apostles and evangelists for the prophets and wise men, and the pastors and teachers for the scribes, instructed to the kingdom of heaven (ch. xiii. 52); for the office of a scribe was honourable till the men dishonoured it.
I would probably push this a little farther than Henry would, and say that one thing that is indicated here is the continuity of the ministers under the New Covenant with the ministers under the Old Covenant. And it seems to me that in Mt. 13:51-52 that Henry references that Jesus is specifically aligning the disciples (which means here, I assume, the Twelve, as the apostles were called) with the scribes or, as some translations have it, the teachers of the Law (see the NIV, for instance). What the theological significance of this is, I do not entirely know. Nonetheless, I am apparently not the only one to have thought along these lines regarding this passage.
I also wanted to clarify my statements regarding Jesus’ function in this passage. In the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus is seen fulfilling various Old Testament types such as the New Moses, the True Israel, and the shoot that comes out of the stump of Jesse, the heir of David’s throne, the true King of Israel (Is. 11). Here in Mt. 23, Jesus is (at least, in part) filling the role of prophet. Now, Jesus is more than just a prophet (cf. Mt. 21:33-45, especially vss. 37-39), but he was a prophet nonetheless. David Chilton, in Days of Vengeance, his commentary on the Book of the Revelation, gives a helpful description on the role of the prophet in relation to the Covenant:
The Covenant is the meaning of Biblical history (Biblical history is not primarily adventure stories). The Covenant is the meaning of Biblical law (the Bible is not primarily a political treatise about how to set up a Christian Republic). And the Covenant is the meaning of Biblical prophecy as well (thus, Biblical prophecy is not “prediction” in the occult sense of Nostradamus, Edgar Cayce, and Jean Dixon). To a man, the prophets were God’s legal emissaries to Israel and the nations, acting as prosecuting attorneys bringing what has become known among recent scholars as the “Covenant Lawsuit”. That Biblical prophecy is not simply “prediction” is indicated, for example, by God’s statement through Jeremiah: "At one moment I might speak concerning a nation or concerning a kingdom to uproot, to pull down, or to destroy it; if that nation against which I have spoken turns from its evil, I will relent concerning the calamity I planned to bring on it. Or at another moment I might speak concerning a nation or concerning a kingdom to build up or to plant it; if it does evil in My sight by not obeying My voice, then I will repent of the good with which I had promised to bless it." (Jer. 18:7-10)
The purpose of prophecy is not “prediction”, but evaluation of man’s ethical response to God’s Word of command and promise. This is why Jonah’s prophecy about Nineveh did not “come true”: Nineveh repented of its wickedness, and the calamity was averted. Like the other Biblical writings, the Book of Revelation is a prophecy, with a specific covenantal orientation and reference. When the covenantal context of the prophecy is ignored, the message St. John sought to communicate is lost, and Revelation becomes nothing more than a vehicle for advancing the alleged expositor’s eschatological theories. (pp. 10-11)
This is the role that Jesus was filling in Mt. 23. This also explains the connection he draws between himself and the prophets that came before him.
Friday, May 26, 2006
Going to see X-Men 3?
If you're going to see X-Men 3, be sure and stay until the end of the credits. I can't tell you why. And no, my cousin wasn't the Key Grip. You'll just have to trust me on this one. There is a reason.
I'll comment on the film some time later.
I'll comment on the film some time later.
Wednesday, May 17, 2006
Quote of the Day
Modern Evangelicals are fond of saying that Jesus is the answer for what ails America. I believe Modern Evangelicalism is what ails America. I can’t imagine any comparable situation in church history where you had so many millions of people who professed allegiance to Jesus Christ whose presence was so utterly irrelevant culturally to what was going on around them, and I think the key goes back to worship.
- Douglas Wilson, 2003 Ligonier Ministries National Conference
- Douglas Wilson, 2003 Ligonier Ministries National Conference
Tuesday, May 16, 2006
Southern Baptist Convention
Through an email from the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals, I just found out that the Southern Baptist Convention's Annual Meeting will be held here in Greensboro in a few weeks. Apparently, Alliance Council member Mark Dever will be speaking at some of the events surrounding the convention, one of those events being the pre-convention Pastors’ Conference. The Pastors’ Conference features several speakers that would be well known to anyone familiar with Evangelicalism. The two speakers that I was surprised to find are going to be there are Ben Witherington and Rick Warren. I might be wrong, but I didn’t think that Witherington was even a Baptist. And is Saddleback in the SBC? I suppose these things don’t necessarily determine whether or not one is asked to be a speaker. I’d like to get in to hear some of these sessions, though I might not be able to get off of work for it. The website says that there is no registration and no fees. I wonder if one has to prove pastoral status at the door. I’m not a Baptist pastor, and I’m sure my beard would confirm that for them.
We would do well to pray for this convention, and for the SBC in general. For one, we might pray for the hastening of the day when all Baptists will be Presbyterians. Until that comes to pass, we might thank God for the revival of interest in and adherence to the Doctrines of Grace by many Baptists. Though the roster of speakers at the conference might make one question whether or not this is the case, one might remember Dever and Al Mohler, as well as the many Reformed Baptist churches not affiliated with the SBC. Most Presbyterians I’ve known were former Baptists, anyway, so I guess we know what’s happening when Reformed theology begins to take root in individuals. Some other matters that we might pray for among the Baptists are the things that are needed amongst all American Christians, such as an increase in holiness of life, reverence towards God, and true love for God and neighbor. We all need growth in these things.
We would do well to pray for this convention, and for the SBC in general. For one, we might pray for the hastening of the day when all Baptists will be Presbyterians. Until that comes to pass, we might thank God for the revival of interest in and adherence to the Doctrines of Grace by many Baptists. Though the roster of speakers at the conference might make one question whether or not this is the case, one might remember Dever and Al Mohler, as well as the many Reformed Baptist churches not affiliated with the SBC. Most Presbyterians I’ve known were former Baptists, anyway, so I guess we know what’s happening when Reformed theology begins to take root in individuals. Some other matters that we might pray for among the Baptists are the things that are needed amongst all American Christians, such as an increase in holiness of life, reverence towards God, and true love for God and neighbor. We all need growth in these things.
Monday, May 08, 2006
Love Offering for Anne Rice
So I was doing a search on Amazon when I ran across the profile page of best-selling author Anne Rice. I found it especially interesting that the only item on her wishlist is a book edited by Scott Hahn.
What I still can't figure out is why she has a wishlist. Do you reckon she's having to save up to buy that book?
What I still can't figure out is why she has a wishlist. Do you reckon she's having to save up to buy that book?
It's Called "Imbalance"
Maybe somebody can help me out here.
Banner of Truth publishes some great stuff. But how can they publish two single-volume commentaries on the book of Romans, D. Martin Lloyd-Jones' fourteen volume set on Romans, and a 392 page commentary on only the first four verses of Romans chapter eight, and not a single commentary on Ruth or Esther?
I guess it's because Ruth and Esther have absolutely nothing to do with salvation or God's sovereignty...
(Sarcasm alert.)
Banner of Truth publishes some great stuff. But how can they publish two single-volume commentaries on the book of Romans, D. Martin Lloyd-Jones' fourteen volume set on Romans, and a 392 page commentary on only the first four verses of Romans chapter eight, and not a single commentary on Ruth or Esther?
I guess it's because Ruth and Esther have absolutely nothing to do with salvation or God's sovereignty...
(Sarcasm alert.)
Sunday, May 07, 2006
The Covenantal Curses
I was reading The Covenantal Gospel by Cornelis van der Waal this afternoon – or at least attempting to read. I was struggling to keep my eyes open as my body was telling me it was Sunday. So I suppose you might say I was dozing with a book in my hand - when I was snapped from my Sabbath slumbers by the following passage, taken from the section on the covenant with Levi and the priests (3.10). Van der Waal has been speaking of how the Levites were a zealous people for the covenant, which God praised them for, and then he says the following:
The opposite is mentioned in Mal. 2:8, where the priests are rebuked: “You have corrupted the covenant of Levi,” therefore “I will curse your blessings” (vs. 2). The structure of the covenant of peace appears to be the same as that of all other covenants in that its violation is threatened with a curse. This is nothing new. What happened to Shiloh in the time of Eli (Jer. 7:12, 14)? And recall how the prophets fulminated against the priesthood and threatened the destruction of the temple (Jer. 6:13; 7; 8:10; 23:11; Zeph.3:4)!
The categorical promise of the covenant with Levi (Jer. 33:17-26) does not preclude judgment. No one would believe that the enemy would enter the gates of Jerusalem, it says in Lam. 4:12, 13. “This was for the sins of her prophets and the iniquities of her priests, who shed in the midst of her the blood of the righteous” (compare Neh. 9:17).
In the framework of the covenant with Levi we can see the action of the priesthood against Jesus Christ correctly, as well as Christ’s threats against city and temple. It is because the LORD maintained His covenant with Levi, that Jer. 7 would be realized once more (Matt. 21:13 – Jer. 7:11; Matt. 24:2 – Jer 7:14, 15; 1 Kings 9:6-9; Micah 3:11, 12).
The covenant with Levi, too, had its conditions and threats. (pp. 39-40, emphasis in the original)
There is a lot of good stuff in here to consider. But what struck me was the statement about the prophets having threatened the destruction of the temple. I am what is usually called a partial preterist in my view of eschatology, meaning that while I believe in a future return of Christ, I hold much of Biblical prophecy to have been fulfilled in the destruction of the Jerusalem in 70 A.D. I had recognized this as part of Jesus’s prophecy in Matt. 24. But due to my ignorance of the Old Testament, I didn’t realize how this was part of the covenant curses as given by Yahweh and that the threat of the destruction of the temple was so clearly stated. The contrast of Jerusalem with the removal of the presence of Yahweh from Shiloh (Jer 7:12-14; cf. 1 Sam. 4) is amazing as well, signaling the continuity of the covenants, including the curses. It is interesting to note that the judgment brought through Shiloh involved the death of the high priest as well. I’ll leave it to the real scholars to expound on that particular point.
What else should be noted in this are Jesus’s comments about tearing down the temple. Jesus said he would tear down the temple and raise it up in three days (John 2:19), the one statement mentioned specifically by Scripture as brought out against him in his so-called trial (Matt. 26:60-61; Mark 14:58). Scripture says he was speaking of his body. It is amazing that his disciples actually made the connection to this after his resurrection, considering how dense they seemed when it came to so many of the other metaphors Jesus used. And yet this is in contrast to the average Joe unrepentant Jew who didn’t get it. When one considers Jesus’s statement along with his actions in cleansing the temple (I am assuming that he did it twice, once at the beginning of his ministry – John 2 – and once at the end of his ministry – Matt. 21:12-17; Mark 11:15-19; Lk. 19:45-46) one wonders at how this doesn’t seem to be connected by anybody that he encounters with the curses of the covenant, especially considering how clearly stated it is in the OT. One might simply mark this up to ignorance. But one would think the teachers of the Law would know the prophecy. Then again, Jesus’s point in Matthew 23 was that those who knew the Law didn’t really know the Law, wasn’t it? Or, at least, they didn’t live it. Jesus’s list of woes in Matt. 23 was in fact a declaration of the arrival of the covenantal curses upon Israel through her leaders(cf. Deut. 27-28). Jesus concluded this declaration by referencing the prophets, drawing a connection they shouldn’t have missed. He then practically invites them to kill him and his disciples, prophesying of what they will do to them (Matt. 23:32-36). One might also suggest that Jesus is here telling of his establishing of his own leaders in the New Israel, replacing the Old Israel and her leaders and inviting the faithful into the New Israel (vss. 34, 1-12). But that’s just some speculation off the top of my head – don’t take it as orthodox truth.
The opposite is mentioned in Mal. 2:8, where the priests are rebuked: “You have corrupted the covenant of Levi,” therefore “I will curse your blessings” (vs. 2). The structure of the covenant of peace appears to be the same as that of all other covenants in that its violation is threatened with a curse. This is nothing new. What happened to Shiloh in the time of Eli (Jer. 7:12, 14)? And recall how the prophets fulminated against the priesthood and threatened the destruction of the temple (Jer. 6:13; 7; 8:10; 23:11; Zeph.3:4)!
The categorical promise of the covenant with Levi (Jer. 33:17-26) does not preclude judgment. No one would believe that the enemy would enter the gates of Jerusalem, it says in Lam. 4:12, 13. “This was for the sins of her prophets and the iniquities of her priests, who shed in the midst of her the blood of the righteous” (compare Neh. 9:17).
In the framework of the covenant with Levi we can see the action of the priesthood against Jesus Christ correctly, as well as Christ’s threats against city and temple. It is because the LORD maintained His covenant with Levi, that Jer. 7 would be realized once more (Matt. 21:13 – Jer. 7:11; Matt. 24:2 – Jer 7:14, 15; 1 Kings 9:6-9; Micah 3:11, 12).
The covenant with Levi, too, had its conditions and threats. (pp. 39-40, emphasis in the original)
There is a lot of good stuff in here to consider. But what struck me was the statement about the prophets having threatened the destruction of the temple. I am what is usually called a partial preterist in my view of eschatology, meaning that while I believe in a future return of Christ, I hold much of Biblical prophecy to have been fulfilled in the destruction of the Jerusalem in 70 A.D. I had recognized this as part of Jesus’s prophecy in Matt. 24. But due to my ignorance of the Old Testament, I didn’t realize how this was part of the covenant curses as given by Yahweh and that the threat of the destruction of the temple was so clearly stated. The contrast of Jerusalem with the removal of the presence of Yahweh from Shiloh (Jer 7:12-14; cf. 1 Sam. 4) is amazing as well, signaling the continuity of the covenants, including the curses. It is interesting to note that the judgment brought through Shiloh involved the death of the high priest as well. I’ll leave it to the real scholars to expound on that particular point.
What else should be noted in this are Jesus’s comments about tearing down the temple. Jesus said he would tear down the temple and raise it up in three days (John 2:19), the one statement mentioned specifically by Scripture as brought out against him in his so-called trial (Matt. 26:60-61; Mark 14:58). Scripture says he was speaking of his body. It is amazing that his disciples actually made the connection to this after his resurrection, considering how dense they seemed when it came to so many of the other metaphors Jesus used. And yet this is in contrast to the average Joe unrepentant Jew who didn’t get it. When one considers Jesus’s statement along with his actions in cleansing the temple (I am assuming that he did it twice, once at the beginning of his ministry – John 2 – and once at the end of his ministry – Matt. 21:12-17; Mark 11:15-19; Lk. 19:45-46) one wonders at how this doesn’t seem to be connected by anybody that he encounters with the curses of the covenant, especially considering how clearly stated it is in the OT. One might simply mark this up to ignorance. But one would think the teachers of the Law would know the prophecy. Then again, Jesus’s point in Matthew 23 was that those who knew the Law didn’t really know the Law, wasn’t it? Or, at least, they didn’t live it. Jesus’s list of woes in Matt. 23 was in fact a declaration of the arrival of the covenantal curses upon Israel through her leaders(cf. Deut. 27-28). Jesus concluded this declaration by referencing the prophets, drawing a connection they shouldn’t have missed. He then practically invites them to kill him and his disciples, prophesying of what they will do to them (Matt. 23:32-36). One might also suggest that Jesus is here telling of his establishing of his own leaders in the New Israel, replacing the Old Israel and her leaders and inviting the faithful into the New Israel (vss. 34, 1-12). But that’s just some speculation off the top of my head – don’t take it as orthodox truth.
Monday, April 24, 2006
William Cowper (b. 1731 - d. 1800)
April 25th is the anniversary of the death of William Cowper. The following was written by Elizabeth Barrett Browning.
COWPER’S GRAVE
I.
It is a place where poets crowned may feel the heart's decaying;
It is a place where happy saints may weep amid their praying;
Yet let the grief and humbleness as low as silence languish:
Earth surely now may give her calm to whom she gave her anguish.
II.
O poets, from a maniac's tongue was poured the deathless singing!
O Christians, at your cross of hope a hopeless hand was clinging!
O men, this man in brotherhood your weary paths beguiling,
Groaned inly while he taught you peace, and died while ye were smiling!
III.
And now, what time ye all may read through dimming tears his story,
How discord on the music fell and darkness on the glory,
And how when, one by one, sweet sounds and wandering lights departed,
He wore no less a loving face because so broken-hearted,
IV.
He shall be strong to sanctify the poet's high vocation,
And bow the meekest Christian down in meeker adoration;
Nor ever shall he be, in praise, by wise or good forsaken,
Named softly as the household name of one whom God hath taken.
V.
With quiet sadness and no gloom I learn to think upon him,
With meekness that is gratefulness to God whose heaven hath won him,
Who suffered once the madness-cloud to His own love to blind him,
But gently led the blind along where breath and bird could find him;
VI.
And wrought within his shattered brain such quick poetic senses
As hills have language for, and stars, harmonious influences:
The pulse of dew upon the grass kept his within its number,
And silent shadows from the trees refreshed him like a slumber.
VII.
Wild timid hares were drawn from woods to share his home-caresses,
Uplooking to his human eyes with sylvan tendernesses:
The very world, by God's constraint, from falsehood's ways removing,
Its women and its men became, beside him, true and loving.
VIII.
And though, in blindness, he remained unconscious of that guiding,
And things provided came without the sweet sense of providing,
He testified this solemn truth, while phrenzy desolated,
—Nor man nor nature satisfies whom only God created.
IX.
Like a sick child that knoweth not his mother while she blesses
And drops upon his burning brow the coolness of her kisses,—
That turns his fevered eyes around—“My mother! where's my mother?”—
As if such tender words and deeds could come from any other!—
X.
The fever gone, with leaps of heart he sees her bending o'er him,
Her face all pale from watchful love, the unweary love she bore him!
Thus woke the poet from the dream his life's long fever gave him,
Beneath those deep pathetic Eyes which closed in death to save him.
XI.
Thus? oh, not thus! no type of earth can image that awaking,
Wherein he scarcely heard the chant of seraphs, round him breaking,
Or felt the new immortal throb of soul from body parted,
But felt those eyes alone, and knew—“My Saviour! not deserted!”
XII.
Deserted! Who hath dreamt that when the cross in darkness rested,
Upon the Victim's hidden face no love was manifested?
What frantic hands outstretched have e'er the atoning drops averted?
What tears have washed them from the soul, that one should be deserted?
XIII.
Deserted! God could separate from His own essence rather;
And Adam's sins have swept between the righteous Son and Father:
Yea, once, Immanuel's orphaned cry His universe hath shaken—
It went up single, echoless, “My God, I am forsaken!”
XIV.
It went up from the Holy's lips amid His lost creation,
That, of the lost, no son should use those words of desolation!
That earth's worst phrenzies, marring hope, should mar not hope's fruition,
And I, on Cowper's grave, should see his rapture in a vision.
COWPER’S GRAVE
I.
It is a place where poets crowned may feel the heart's decaying;
It is a place where happy saints may weep amid their praying;
Yet let the grief and humbleness as low as silence languish:
Earth surely now may give her calm to whom she gave her anguish.
II.
O poets, from a maniac's tongue was poured the deathless singing!
O Christians, at your cross of hope a hopeless hand was clinging!
O men, this man in brotherhood your weary paths beguiling,
Groaned inly while he taught you peace, and died while ye were smiling!
III.
And now, what time ye all may read through dimming tears his story,
How discord on the music fell and darkness on the glory,
And how when, one by one, sweet sounds and wandering lights departed,
He wore no less a loving face because so broken-hearted,
IV.
He shall be strong to sanctify the poet's high vocation,
And bow the meekest Christian down in meeker adoration;
Nor ever shall he be, in praise, by wise or good forsaken,
Named softly as the household name of one whom God hath taken.
V.
With quiet sadness and no gloom I learn to think upon him,
With meekness that is gratefulness to God whose heaven hath won him,
Who suffered once the madness-cloud to His own love to blind him,
But gently led the blind along where breath and bird could find him;
VI.
And wrought within his shattered brain such quick poetic senses
As hills have language for, and stars, harmonious influences:
The pulse of dew upon the grass kept his within its number,
And silent shadows from the trees refreshed him like a slumber.
VII.
Wild timid hares were drawn from woods to share his home-caresses,
Uplooking to his human eyes with sylvan tendernesses:
The very world, by God's constraint, from falsehood's ways removing,
Its women and its men became, beside him, true and loving.
VIII.
And though, in blindness, he remained unconscious of that guiding,
And things provided came without the sweet sense of providing,
He testified this solemn truth, while phrenzy desolated,
—Nor man nor nature satisfies whom only God created.
IX.
Like a sick child that knoweth not his mother while she blesses
And drops upon his burning brow the coolness of her kisses,—
That turns his fevered eyes around—“My mother! where's my mother?”—
As if such tender words and deeds could come from any other!—
X.
The fever gone, with leaps of heart he sees her bending o'er him,
Her face all pale from watchful love, the unweary love she bore him!
Thus woke the poet from the dream his life's long fever gave him,
Beneath those deep pathetic Eyes which closed in death to save him.
XI.
Thus? oh, not thus! no type of earth can image that awaking,
Wherein he scarcely heard the chant of seraphs, round him breaking,
Or felt the new immortal throb of soul from body parted,
But felt those eyes alone, and knew—“My Saviour! not deserted!”
XII.
Deserted! Who hath dreamt that when the cross in darkness rested,
Upon the Victim's hidden face no love was manifested?
What frantic hands outstretched have e'er the atoning drops averted?
What tears have washed them from the soul, that one should be deserted?
XIII.
Deserted! God could separate from His own essence rather;
And Adam's sins have swept between the righteous Son and Father:
Yea, once, Immanuel's orphaned cry His universe hath shaken—
It went up single, echoless, “My God, I am forsaken!”
XIV.
It went up from the Holy's lips amid His lost creation,
That, of the lost, no son should use those words of desolation!
That earth's worst phrenzies, marring hope, should mar not hope's fruition,
And I, on Cowper's grave, should see his rapture in a vision.
Saturday, April 15, 2006
Music for Lent
We are now reaching the end of Lent, and though this is a little late, I thought I would give some recommendations for music to listen to during Lent and especially Holy Week. If nothing else, you could purchase them in preparation for next year.
St. Matthew Passion by Johann Sebastian Bach - J. S. Bach is the master, and every music library should include his works. As the title says, this is Bach’s work based on Matthew’s account of our Lord’s death. I wish I could recommend a particular version, but I only have a DVD of the work. You might want to visit amazon and read through some of the recommendations of various versions. Or you could just do what I normally do, and that is buy whatever version is cheapest.
Passio by Arvo Pärt - Arvo Pärt is a modern composer from Estonia. His style is a little unusual, but his works are very rewarding if you take time to orient yourself to them. This is his work based on the account of Christ’s death in the Gospel of John. This work, like much of his work, is very melancholic, often echoing the Eastern Orthodox tradition of his homeland.
The Gates of Repentance: Byzantine Hymns of Great Lent by Fr. Apostolos Hill – The title says exactly what it is: a cycle of hymns taken from the Byzantine rites of the Eastern Orthodox tradition, flowing from the beginning to the end of the “Great Lent” (as opposed to the Little Pascha or Lent, which the Western Tradition calls “Advent”). The hymns are sung in Byzantine chant style, but are unusual in that they are sung in English. This cd is only available at liturgica.com, so far as I know. They have apparently re-done the cd since I purchased it about three years ago, adding some new hymns. Once again, the work will be unusual to those not used to the Byzantine chant style, but is nonetheless very beautiful.
Music for Holy Week by the Choir of King’s College, Cambridge – Many are familiar with the choir’s Festival of Nine Lessons and Carols, performed every Christmas and broadcast on NPR and worldwide, and which many churches have taken to imitating. But they have recorded many other wonderful cd’s and dvd’s, of which this is one. There is a diversity of pieces here in English and Latin, including the familiar “When I Survey the Wondrous Cross” and a well-known piece by Thomas Tallis, “If Ye Love Me”.
The Loving Kind by Cindy Morgan – This is one for you Contemporary Christian Music fans. I listen to very little CCM anymore, but among the cd’s I still pop in every once in a while, the music of Cindy Morgan is among my favorites. Her first two cd’s were too dance and R&B-ish for my tastes, but her music began improving with the third cd. I usually listen to this one at least once during Holy Week every year. This is the height of her musical achievements in my opinion, with Listen coming in a close second (she just released a new cd, which I haven’t heard). Those who listen to CCM radio might be familiar with a couple of the tunes, but the entire album is a conceptual album based on the last eight days of Christ’s life. The highlight of the cd is a duet with Wes King based on the Last Supper, with Wes playing classical guitar as well as singing.
If you are a CCM person, and have no interest in my first four recommendations, let me encourage you to take a brave step and purchase one of those first four cd’s. It might not be what you are normally drawn to, but I think it can only do us good to spend time experiencing the great classical music of the world. Put them in the cd player, turn down the lights, get a nice glass of red wine, and allow the music to lead you in meditating upon our Lord’s bitter suffering and death.
St. Matthew Passion by Johann Sebastian Bach - J. S. Bach is the master, and every music library should include his works. As the title says, this is Bach’s work based on Matthew’s account of our Lord’s death. I wish I could recommend a particular version, but I only have a DVD of the work. You might want to visit amazon and read through some of the recommendations of various versions. Or you could just do what I normally do, and that is buy whatever version is cheapest.
Passio by Arvo Pärt - Arvo Pärt is a modern composer from Estonia. His style is a little unusual, but his works are very rewarding if you take time to orient yourself to them. This is his work based on the account of Christ’s death in the Gospel of John. This work, like much of his work, is very melancholic, often echoing the Eastern Orthodox tradition of his homeland.
The Gates of Repentance: Byzantine Hymns of Great Lent by Fr. Apostolos Hill – The title says exactly what it is: a cycle of hymns taken from the Byzantine rites of the Eastern Orthodox tradition, flowing from the beginning to the end of the “Great Lent” (as opposed to the Little Pascha or Lent, which the Western Tradition calls “Advent”). The hymns are sung in Byzantine chant style, but are unusual in that they are sung in English. This cd is only available at liturgica.com, so far as I know. They have apparently re-done the cd since I purchased it about three years ago, adding some new hymns. Once again, the work will be unusual to those not used to the Byzantine chant style, but is nonetheless very beautiful.
Music for Holy Week by the Choir of King’s College, Cambridge – Many are familiar with the choir’s Festival of Nine Lessons and Carols, performed every Christmas and broadcast on NPR and worldwide, and which many churches have taken to imitating. But they have recorded many other wonderful cd’s and dvd’s, of which this is one. There is a diversity of pieces here in English and Latin, including the familiar “When I Survey the Wondrous Cross” and a well-known piece by Thomas Tallis, “If Ye Love Me”.
The Loving Kind by Cindy Morgan – This is one for you Contemporary Christian Music fans. I listen to very little CCM anymore, but among the cd’s I still pop in every once in a while, the music of Cindy Morgan is among my favorites. Her first two cd’s were too dance and R&B-ish for my tastes, but her music began improving with the third cd. I usually listen to this one at least once during Holy Week every year. This is the height of her musical achievements in my opinion, with Listen coming in a close second (she just released a new cd, which I haven’t heard). Those who listen to CCM radio might be familiar with a couple of the tunes, but the entire album is a conceptual album based on the last eight days of Christ’s life. The highlight of the cd is a duet with Wes King based on the Last Supper, with Wes playing classical guitar as well as singing.
If you are a CCM person, and have no interest in my first four recommendations, let me encourage you to take a brave step and purchase one of those first four cd’s. It might not be what you are normally drawn to, but I think it can only do us good to spend time experiencing the great classical music of the world. Put them in the cd player, turn down the lights, get a nice glass of red wine, and allow the music to lead you in meditating upon our Lord’s bitter suffering and death.
Tuesday, March 28, 2006
A Psalm for Lent
Psalm 80 in metre. To be sung to the tune Bryn Calfaria.
Hear, O hear us, Is-rael’s Shepherd,
Who drives forth Joseph like a flock!
From the cherubim, O shine forth!
Rise in valor that we be saved!
So arise in sight of Ephr’im,
And Manasseh and Benjamin!
God, we pray, O turn us! Bring us back!
Make Your face shine, and we are saved!
O how long, LORD God of Armies,
Burns your wrath at your people’s prayer!
With the bread of tears You feed them,
And full measure of tears they drink!
Strife you make us to our neighbors,
And our foes laugh at us in scorn!
God of Armies, turn us! Bring us back!
Make Your face shine, and we are saved!
You brought forth a vine from Egypt,
And to plant it drove nations out.
You made room to root it deeply,
And it flourished and filled the land.
Then its shadow wrapped the mountains,
And its boughs hid the cedars tall!
To the sea it thrust great branches forth.
And young shoots to the mighty stream!
Why have You torn down its fences?
It is plucked by each passing hand!
Forest bears have gnawed upon it,
And wild creatures have pastured there!
Turn again, O God of Armies!
Look from heav’n! Visit this Your vine!
So uphold what Your right hand did plant,
And the son You raised up in strength!
It is burned and hewn in pieces
By Your frown will they be destroyed!
Lay Your hand on him You favored,
Son of man that You raised in strength!
Then from You we will not wander;
Make us live! We will call Your name!
O LORD God of Armies, turn us back!
Make Your face shine, and we are saved!
Hear, O hear us, Is-rael’s Shepherd,
Who drives forth Joseph like a flock!
From the cherubim, O shine forth!
Rise in valor that we be saved!
So arise in sight of Ephr’im,
And Manasseh and Benjamin!
God, we pray, O turn us! Bring us back!
Make Your face shine, and we are saved!
O how long, LORD God of Armies,
Burns your wrath at your people’s prayer!
With the bread of tears You feed them,
And full measure of tears they drink!
Strife you make us to our neighbors,
And our foes laugh at us in scorn!
God of Armies, turn us! Bring us back!
Make Your face shine, and we are saved!
You brought forth a vine from Egypt,
And to plant it drove nations out.
You made room to root it deeply,
And it flourished and filled the land.
Then its shadow wrapped the mountains,
And its boughs hid the cedars tall!
To the sea it thrust great branches forth.
And young shoots to the mighty stream!
Why have You torn down its fences?
It is plucked by each passing hand!
Forest bears have gnawed upon it,
And wild creatures have pastured there!
Turn again, O God of Armies!
Look from heav’n! Visit this Your vine!
So uphold what Your right hand did plant,
And the son You raised up in strength!
It is burned and hewn in pieces
By Your frown will they be destroyed!
Lay Your hand on him You favored,
Son of man that You raised in strength!
Then from You we will not wander;
Make us live! We will call Your name!
O LORD God of Armies, turn us back!
Make Your face shine, and we are saved!
Tuesday, March 14, 2006
The Dangers of Meteorology
LOCAL WEATHERMAN MENTIONS “SNOW” IN FORECAST, NEARLY BEATEN TO DEATH WITH FISHING POLE
GREENSBORO, NC (AR NEWSWIRE) Skip Schlopfenheimer, weatherman for local news affiliate WUSS, nearly died after being beaten hundreds of times with a fishing pole, police reported Sunday evening. The suspect, Joe Bob Wilson of Randleman, allegedly attacked Schlopfenheimer in the parking lot of WUSS Sunday afternoon. Wilson, who was caught in the act, has pled “no contest” to the charge.
“I was just crossing the parking lot, when he pulled in front of me in his pickup. He pulled his fishing rod off of the gun rack, jumped out of the truck, and started cursing at me and flogging me,” said Schlopfenheimer.
“Damn weatherman had it coming,” said Wilson. “I speak for all the people ‘round here. We’re sick of these people making promises. Skippy’s a pansy anyhows. He needed a good whipping.”
“I only mentioned “snow” once,” said Schlopfenheimer. “It was a slip. I swear it was.”
Police report that Schlopfenheimer would be dead, if his co-worker Sandy Hoffman hadn’t pulled into the parking lot a few minutes later. “Sandy’s a strong woman. She held Wilson down on the icy asphalt until we could get there.”
“All I heard when I got out of my SUV was, ‘Snow, huh, WUSS boy? Does this feel like snow to you?’”, reported Hoffman. “I knew immediately what was happening. I’ve been expecting something like this to happen for years now. Other weathermen have been smart enough to move away, to Phoenix or Chicago or something. Somewhere where the weather’s more predictable. Not Skip, though.”
Police say they have impounded Wilson’s truck, which had a snow shovel and a brand new sled in the back. The receipt was found in the glove box. “We think we know now why he was so upset,” said police.
“I would have spent that money on ice melt if I knew we were going to get this crap,” said Wilson.
After recovering, Schlopfenheimer is planning on taking a vacation, he says. “I’ll probably go to Hawaii. Volcanos are much safer than a Piedmont native’s temper.”
GREENSBORO, NC (AR NEWSWIRE) Skip Schlopfenheimer, weatherman for local news affiliate WUSS, nearly died after being beaten hundreds of times with a fishing pole, police reported Sunday evening. The suspect, Joe Bob Wilson of Randleman, allegedly attacked Schlopfenheimer in the parking lot of WUSS Sunday afternoon. Wilson, who was caught in the act, has pled “no contest” to the charge.
“I was just crossing the parking lot, when he pulled in front of me in his pickup. He pulled his fishing rod off of the gun rack, jumped out of the truck, and started cursing at me and flogging me,” said Schlopfenheimer.
“Damn weatherman had it coming,” said Wilson. “I speak for all the people ‘round here. We’re sick of these people making promises. Skippy’s a pansy anyhows. He needed a good whipping.”
“I only mentioned “snow” once,” said Schlopfenheimer. “It was a slip. I swear it was.”
Police report that Schlopfenheimer would be dead, if his co-worker Sandy Hoffman hadn’t pulled into the parking lot a few minutes later. “Sandy’s a strong woman. She held Wilson down on the icy asphalt until we could get there.”
“All I heard when I got out of my SUV was, ‘Snow, huh, WUSS boy? Does this feel like snow to you?’”, reported Hoffman. “I knew immediately what was happening. I’ve been expecting something like this to happen for years now. Other weathermen have been smart enough to move away, to Phoenix or Chicago or something. Somewhere where the weather’s more predictable. Not Skip, though.”
Police say they have impounded Wilson’s truck, which had a snow shovel and a brand new sled in the back. The receipt was found in the glove box. “We think we know now why he was so upset,” said police.
“I would have spent that money on ice melt if I knew we were going to get this crap,” said Wilson.
After recovering, Schlopfenheimer is planning on taking a vacation, he says. “I’ll probably go to Hawaii. Volcanos are much safer than a Piedmont native’s temper.”
Sunday, March 12, 2006
Long vacation
My apologies for such a delayed absence from blogging, especially to those of you who are just dying to read what I might put on here next. Seriously though, I have been doing a little study that has kept me away from blogging. Some of this study may eventually manifest itself here. But until I have more time to write, let me recommend another website:
http://logreshall.com/
This is the website of my friend William Chad Newsom, author of Polycarp: The Crown of Fire and Talking of Dragons. Buy his books, and read stuff on his website. He also has a weblog, which you will find a link to on his website. And while I’m talking about him, thanks to Chad for linking to my blog on his website.
http://logreshall.com/
This is the website of my friend William Chad Newsom, author of Polycarp: The Crown of Fire and Talking of Dragons. Buy his books, and read stuff on his website. He also has a weblog, which you will find a link to on his website. And while I’m talking about him, thanks to Chad for linking to my blog on his website.
Tuesday, February 28, 2006
Sunday, February 26, 2006
Hymn of the week
BEFORE THE THRONE OF GOD ABOVE
Before the throne of God above
I have a strong, a perfect plea,
A great high Priest, whose name is Love,
Who ever lives and pleads for me.
When Satan tempts me to despair,
Telling of evil yet within,
Upward I look, and see Him there
Who made an end of all my sin.
Because the sinless Savior died
My sinful soul is counted free.
For God, the Just, is satisfied
To look on Him and pardon me.
Behold Him there! the once slain Lamb!
My perfect, spotless Righteousness,
The great unchangeable I AM,
The King of glory and of grace.
One with Himself, I cannot die:
My soul is purchased by His blood;
My life is hid with Christ on high,
With Christ, my Savior and my God.
Before the throne of God above
I have a strong, a perfect plea,
A great high Priest, whose name is Love,
Who ever lives and pleads for me.
When Satan tempts me to despair,
Telling of evil yet within,
Upward I look, and see Him there
Who made an end of all my sin.
Because the sinless Savior died
My sinful soul is counted free.
For God, the Just, is satisfied
To look on Him and pardon me.
Behold Him there! the once slain Lamb!
My perfect, spotless Righteousness,
The great unchangeable I AM,
The King of glory and of grace.
One with Himself, I cannot die:
My soul is purchased by His blood;
My life is hid with Christ on high,
With Christ, my Savior and my God.
Community
Many thanks to Dave Clark and Jim Jenkins for several of the ideas that have gone into this post.
We have, it seems to me, grown far too comfortable with present arrangements.
A friend told me years ago that we in America today tend to view life as a TV dinner. Life is this neatly divided tray – one section holds work, one section holds home, one section holds recreation, one section holds church or “religion”, and so on. The Biblical worldview, he taught, views life as a pot pie – every element is mixed together. He was attempting to emphasize the fact that my relationship with Christ isn’t contained merely in the “church” area of my life, but that it has to do with every area of life. This is a common theme among Evangelical teachers nowadays. Biblical Worldview is sort of the hot topic, with innumerable books and study programs to go with it.
“And he said to him, ‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And the second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two depend all the Law and the Prophets.’” (Matt. 22:37-40). One area where this recent approach to understanding the Scripture has seemed to fail thus far (in my limited experience) is that it, like what was being taught in Evangelicalism prior, fails to address, among other things, the huge problem of Western Individualism. In the pot pie scheme, I have the different areas of my life neatly divided, with no crisscrossing of the various areas. That includes no crisscrossing of the individuals in each area, for the most part. Everybody knows where the lines are drawn, except for the few individuals who don’t get it for whatever reason and sort of struggle to deal with it. In the new Worldview setup, my relationship to Christ affects everything. So my business ethics are shaped by the Scriptures, my recreational time is shaped by the Scriptures, my home life is shaped by the Scriptures, and so on. But the various areas of my life still remain divided. This is most evident in the relationships I have. I have people I work with. Then I have my family. I have my friends I hang out with, some of which don’t even know each other exist. Then there are the people at church, with whom I have the common refrain, “See you next Sunday.”
At this point, let me head a more personal direction. Does this strike anyone else as a bit odd? I recognize that an element of this is inevitable. If I were married, I would rather not have a situation where anyone could just come in and jump in the bed while my wife and I were sleeping at night. And I’m glad that I don’t have to worry about walking out of the bathroom after taking a shower in the morning to find half a dozen of my friends have let themselves into my house and are watching TV in my den.
Nonetheless, I do think what we are missing is a genuine sense of community. The Church should be the first to take the steps in correcting this. The Scriptures, after all, are full of admonitions to love one another, and they give us concrete examples and straightforward directions on the ways this should take place. What I see instead in the Church is that Christians are continuing their love affair with all the things that separate us. A good analogy here is C. S. Lewis’s statements about people being so used to making mud pies in the slum that they can’t imagine what it would be like to have a holiday by the sea. A similar analogy would be that a person who has only ever had a cheeseburger couldn’t imagine what a filet mignon tastes like. People who don’t have community have something they’re missing, but they might not even know they’re missing it. It’s something you have to experience to understand.
I’ve become aware that in some corners of the Church there has been an attempt to emphasize community. The attempts I’ve seen, however, have usually carried with it cult-like elements, such as the uber-leader who seems to have a direct connection to God that no one else has, or else clearly contains heretical teachings, such as the denial of penal substitution among the Amish. These sorts of things are common knowledge, to the point that if you told somebody you were moving someplace to live with a group of people, most people would look at you wide eyed and wonder when you fell off your rocker.
In the orthodox churches attempts have been made to correct this through home groups, cell groups, and other local church involvement. While these things can bring some semblance of community, they are destined to be a big failure unless they can morph into something more like real community. Being involved in programs at church is the exact opposite of true community. When the program is over, you and I go back to our “normal lives” (that is, in fact, what we call them). And our normal lives don’t involve one another. And while the Bible may be studied in these groups, real relationships can’t be based only on studying the Bible. Community is about living life together.
Church leaders may seek to take care of single people by getting them busy doing things. But this philosophy is the same thinking that says if I fill my stomach with enough vitamin supplements, I won’t be hungry for real food. I think we all know that wouldn’t work. And in my experience, this only lasts until the person either burns out and leaves the church all together (bars are far more fun and have more community) or gets married. In the marrying case, that of course ends all church involvement altogether, except for Sunday morning attendance (well, most Sundays, anyway). It is no doubt different being married, with the added responsibilities of caring for your spouse and children. But I’m convinced that married people need community with people outside of their family too, though it may not be immediately evident to them.
I don’t know all the answers to these problems. I know the segregation of people according to age and marital status is a huge part of this. I know that the influence of commercialism on the church is a big problem. But you can’t make people be a community. You can’t make people do anything, for that matter. I do know my calling is to obey the “two commandments”, though working this out in practice is often hard. And I find in my own life a growing used to things to the point that I have given up on much of what I once hoped for in these matters. That being said, I will no doubt raise the question of community on a regular basis on this blog anyway. May the Lord have mercy on us all and guide us in understanding and applying His word.
We have, it seems to me, grown far too comfortable with present arrangements.
A friend told me years ago that we in America today tend to view life as a TV dinner. Life is this neatly divided tray – one section holds work, one section holds home, one section holds recreation, one section holds church or “religion”, and so on. The Biblical worldview, he taught, views life as a pot pie – every element is mixed together. He was attempting to emphasize the fact that my relationship with Christ isn’t contained merely in the “church” area of my life, but that it has to do with every area of life. This is a common theme among Evangelical teachers nowadays. Biblical Worldview is sort of the hot topic, with innumerable books and study programs to go with it.
“And he said to him, ‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And the second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two depend all the Law and the Prophets.’” (Matt. 22:37-40). One area where this recent approach to understanding the Scripture has seemed to fail thus far (in my limited experience) is that it, like what was being taught in Evangelicalism prior, fails to address, among other things, the huge problem of Western Individualism. In the pot pie scheme, I have the different areas of my life neatly divided, with no crisscrossing of the various areas. That includes no crisscrossing of the individuals in each area, for the most part. Everybody knows where the lines are drawn, except for the few individuals who don’t get it for whatever reason and sort of struggle to deal with it. In the new Worldview setup, my relationship to Christ affects everything. So my business ethics are shaped by the Scriptures, my recreational time is shaped by the Scriptures, my home life is shaped by the Scriptures, and so on. But the various areas of my life still remain divided. This is most evident in the relationships I have. I have people I work with. Then I have my family. I have my friends I hang out with, some of which don’t even know each other exist. Then there are the people at church, with whom I have the common refrain, “See you next Sunday.”
At this point, let me head a more personal direction. Does this strike anyone else as a bit odd? I recognize that an element of this is inevitable. If I were married, I would rather not have a situation where anyone could just come in and jump in the bed while my wife and I were sleeping at night. And I’m glad that I don’t have to worry about walking out of the bathroom after taking a shower in the morning to find half a dozen of my friends have let themselves into my house and are watching TV in my den.
Nonetheless, I do think what we are missing is a genuine sense of community. The Church should be the first to take the steps in correcting this. The Scriptures, after all, are full of admonitions to love one another, and they give us concrete examples and straightforward directions on the ways this should take place. What I see instead in the Church is that Christians are continuing their love affair with all the things that separate us. A good analogy here is C. S. Lewis’s statements about people being so used to making mud pies in the slum that they can’t imagine what it would be like to have a holiday by the sea. A similar analogy would be that a person who has only ever had a cheeseburger couldn’t imagine what a filet mignon tastes like. People who don’t have community have something they’re missing, but they might not even know they’re missing it. It’s something you have to experience to understand.
I’ve become aware that in some corners of the Church there has been an attempt to emphasize community. The attempts I’ve seen, however, have usually carried with it cult-like elements, such as the uber-leader who seems to have a direct connection to God that no one else has, or else clearly contains heretical teachings, such as the denial of penal substitution among the Amish. These sorts of things are common knowledge, to the point that if you told somebody you were moving someplace to live with a group of people, most people would look at you wide eyed and wonder when you fell off your rocker.
In the orthodox churches attempts have been made to correct this through home groups, cell groups, and other local church involvement. While these things can bring some semblance of community, they are destined to be a big failure unless they can morph into something more like real community. Being involved in programs at church is the exact opposite of true community. When the program is over, you and I go back to our “normal lives” (that is, in fact, what we call them). And our normal lives don’t involve one another. And while the Bible may be studied in these groups, real relationships can’t be based only on studying the Bible. Community is about living life together.
Church leaders may seek to take care of single people by getting them busy doing things. But this philosophy is the same thinking that says if I fill my stomach with enough vitamin supplements, I won’t be hungry for real food. I think we all know that wouldn’t work. And in my experience, this only lasts until the person either burns out and leaves the church all together (bars are far more fun and have more community) or gets married. In the marrying case, that of course ends all church involvement altogether, except for Sunday morning attendance (well, most Sundays, anyway). It is no doubt different being married, with the added responsibilities of caring for your spouse and children. But I’m convinced that married people need community with people outside of their family too, though it may not be immediately evident to them.
I don’t know all the answers to these problems. I know the segregation of people according to age and marital status is a huge part of this. I know that the influence of commercialism on the church is a big problem. But you can’t make people be a community. You can’t make people do anything, for that matter. I do know my calling is to obey the “two commandments”, though working this out in practice is often hard. And I find in my own life a growing used to things to the point that I have given up on much of what I once hoped for in these matters. That being said, I will no doubt raise the question of community on a regular basis on this blog anyway. May the Lord have mercy on us all and guide us in understanding and applying His word.
Wednesday, February 22, 2006
Occasional Riddle #3
Why do churches in the South always hold revival services in the summer? Does the Holy Spirit winter in Aspen or something?
Occasional Riddle #2
According to the Fordham University website, the Jesuit school conferred 4,030 degrees in the 2003-2004 year. Can you imagine what it would be like to spend the rest of your life telling people that your alma mater is good ol’ F. U.?
Occasional Riddle #1
What if Five For Fighting were to fight the Foo Fighters? Who would win? What is a foo, anyway? Are Five For Fighting foos? If they aren’t foos, would the Foo Fighters still fight them, or do the Foo Fighters exclusively fight foos? And who would referee? Fred Flintstone?
Occasional Riddles: Introduction
They're Occasional, because I post them only occasionally. They're Riddles because, well, they're riddles. Sort of. Hence, they're Occasional Riddles.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)