Ray Boltz is a heretic and other thoughts from church on Sunday

I'm not sure if anyone else even knows who Ray Boltz is, but he was a Christian pop singer in the early 90's that was quite popular with our parents generation. Ol' Ray had a sweet curly mullet sorta thing going on with a huge 'stache he was the archetype for the mid-life crisis wanna be "rock/pop star" for the Christian worldview. I'm very familiar (as I'm sure my sister is) with Boltzy because my dad became a huge fan during a Promise Keepers crusade back in the day. Our house and somehow our church became a Ray Boltz extravaganza and I'm sure there are many kids from our church (like myself) that could sing almost all of Ray Ray's songs from memory. Although all the above information is greatly important (or not so much) the point of this post is really not to bash Ray, and his sweet moustache, the point it rather to address theological ideal espoused in one of his songs and indeed much of western theology.

The song I want to draw attention to is "One Drop of Blood" (lyrics: here) and to be honest Ray is primarily guilty of mixing metaphors and not necessarily heresy per se. The metaphors he mixes (and I could be wrong so please correct me) is at the beginning he seems to assert "the accuser of the brethren" is demanding the the plea and later in the song he seems to be saying that the one to whom "their righteousness is filthy rags" is demanding the payment. Either way the music video (yes I've seen it) is what caused me to think of this song in church. In it Ray Ray depicts the courtroom where he stands accused by the prosecutor (probably a satanic figure) and it is the judge (set up as the Father) demands payment.

While we may vary on our theologies of atonement let me humbly suggest that the way this penal substitutionary view has worked itself out since St. Anselm is near heretical.

This is where we get to church. The priest at my church was talking about the cross on Sunday and how there is a view of the cross as a divine extraction of justice. When he was describing all this the scenes from Ray's video kept coming to mind. While my priest did not specifically say this view is heretical let me explain the process that caused me to think this.

This divine extraction of justice is often portrayed in a courtroom setting (as Ray does) and depicts the Father as Judge and sometimes even accuser. This image also portrays Christ as defense and substitution. This image often sets the Father up as condemning and the Son as mercifully intervening. This view seems to violate the essential doctrine of the Trinity. The Father and Christ are not opposed and neither do they have contrary wills. We should not allow analogies of atonement in our churches that are contrary to the Trinitarian doctrine of the church. We cannot and must not see the Father as a vengeful judge and Christ as a merciful ambassador. This dichotomy cannot stand! How can we assert that the Trinity is of one essence and yet has three different wills. Correct Christian theology has always taught that the Trinity is united in will because the three persons are united in essence. Three persons and one substance. This implies that it was not the Father mandating the sending of the Son, but rather the Holy Trinity participating in this act willfully unified.

Contrary to my title, I'm not necessarily claiming that Ray Boltz is a heretic, rather I am just using him as an illustration. I also have not read enough of St. Anselm to know if he espoused these ideas or, as with some theological constructs (i.e. Augustinian theology) it just decayed over time. I am also willing to recieve correction if anything that I have said violates the history of Christian orthodox teaching. I am not an expert on the Trinity, but I do think that what I have said is correct.

---------------------

Here is another and possibly even more interesting (read: less nerdy) thing from sunday. Though we practice the same liturgy with a few mild variation every sunday I am continually struck by the beauty and precise articulation of the service. Sometimes I notice phrases or pieces of the liturgy that I have never heard befoer and they sink deep within my soul. Yesterday was one of those occasions.

During one part of the liturgy the priest was offering prayers and he said something similar to: "for those who love us and those who hate us, may you remember in your kingdom always" to which the congregation responds "Amen." I've heard prayers for enemies before (sadly too few) but to have it as a part of the liturgy and to say "remember in your kingdom always" is amazingly beautiful and humble. I ask myself if I could say that about those who have wronged me and to an even greater extent, could I say it about someone if I had been severly wronged. I hope so. It seems to me that it is one thing to pray for those who hate you, but to ask God to remember them in his kingdom is a very bold statement. Hopefully this prayer can resound in all of our hearts. Amen Amen Amen.

Now and even deeper question comes to mind. How does this prayer fit with the above section of my post? If someone is outrightly espousing heresy can we bless them? Is it not our job to refute that heresy and uphold the truth of the faith? I believe that it is, but we must find a way to do it in love and a prayerful spirit. We must have in mind the salvation of the person espousing heresy. Just as Paul says: hand them over to the devil so that their soul maybe saved. Maybe this is an inadequate answer, but it's a start.


May the Lord God remember you all in his Kingdom now and ever,

Ben

More thoughts on W

I intended to post this a while ago, but never got around to it. Shortly after I posted my thoughts on W not being a vowel I noticed a lot of people venturing to my site from the site of David Black. It turns out that David Black happens to be the author of my greek text book and professor at Southeaster Baptist Seminary. I'm not sure how he found my page but nevertheless he posted a link to my page and also included a link to the wikipedia page concerning W as a vowel.

I posted similar comments over on Diercks' blog and Michelle posted a comment that helps illumine the situation.

So here is the clarifying material concerning W as a vowel from David Black and Michelle Mosher.

Dave Black directs us here.

And Michelle writes the following in the comments on Diercks' page:

so W and Y aren't really vowels, but they're not really consonants either. some linguists call them "semi-vowels" because of the way they're sort of in-between.

W is actually a lot like U (and Y is a lot like EE). So if you say "snow" with a "u" at the end instead of a "w" it'll still sound pretty similar. Try saying "snou" (with a normal "oh" sound and a normal "uu" sound.

It's easier to tell with a word like "water". Try replacing the w with u: u-ater. Now say it fast.

so yeah, W and y are kind of vowels, but not really.

So there you have two very knowledgable people helping us understand the notion that W can indeed serve as a vowel.

Maybe they have changed my opinion on the matter (yes I know this contradicts what I said in my earlier post) or maybe not. I guess I still need to think about this some more.

Hopefully some Lent thoughts will be posted soon.

Zeal vs. Love

About a week ago I began going back through my blog affixing labels to each post in hopes of categorizing my thoughts according to the list you see off to the right and I began to realize something. My blog has changed drastically in the past two years. Or rather, I have changed drastically in the past two years and it is exemplified in my blog.

As I read back over the older posts I thought to myself, "wow, I use to be such a 'good' Christian." I thought about how the nature of my posts has changed and how it reflects the nature of my spiritual life. I found myself thinking or rather realizing that the critical turning point seems to be seminary. Yes, it seems I have concluded that I was a 'better' Christian before coming to seminary.

I don't want to get into why this is, or exactly what I mean by this just yet (these posts will be forthcoming...maybe). I also don't want to blog about how I got this way or if I think seminary life had a part to play in it or not.

I just say all this to bring up that over the past weeks since I've had this realization I've prayed every day something similar to: "Lord, bring back my zeal for you."

Tonight as I was laying in bed (I got up to write this) I had a different prayer. "Lord, bring back the love that I once had." In saying this it came to my mind that love can cause zeal and often does, but zeal seldom causes love. Zeal can exist on it's own without causing one to love, but Love shifts one's entire paradigm and causes one to be zealous for that which he or she loves.

So this is my new prayer. "Lord bring back and even increase the love I once had for you, for others, and for your church."



"O Lord and Master of my life, take from me the spirit of sloth, despair, lust of power, and idle talk. But give rather the spirit of chastity, humility, patience, and love to Thy servant. Yea, O Lord and King, grant me to see my own transgressions, and not to judge my brother, for blessed art Thou, unto ages of ages. Amen."
- Lenten Prayer of St. Ephraim the Syrian

Lent I

Today for my devotions I was reading a community reader that our seminary puts out each season and the entry really spoke to me. I would like to share that entry here. I don't want to appear pompous by posting the work I did, but I really liked today's reading. Yes, it has my favorite quote from one of my favorite fathers of the church but God really spoke to me through it today so I thought I would share it. Here is today's (Feb. 22) entry:

Opening Prayer:
Almighty Father, who didst inspire Simon Peter, first among the apostles, to confess Jesus as Messiah and Son of the living God: Keep thy Church steadfast upon the rock of this faith, that in unity and peace we may proclaim the one truth and follow the one Lord, our Savior Jesus Christ; who liveth and reigneth with thee and the Holy Spirit, one God, now and for ever. Amen.
- BCP 187

Luke 9:18-27 NRSV
Once when Jesus was praying alone, with only the disciples near him, he asked them, "Who do the crowds say that I am?" They answered, "John the Baptist; but others, Elijah; and still others, that one of the ancient prophets has arisen." He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?" Peter answered, "The Messiah of God." He sternly ordered and commanded them not to tell anyone, saying, "The Son of Man must undergo great suffering, and be rejected by the elders, chief priests, and scribes, and be killed, and on the third day be raised." Then he said to them all, "If any want to become my followers, let them deny themselves and take up their cross daily and follow me. For those who want to save their life will lose it, and those who lose their life for my sake will save it. What does it profit them if they gain the whole world, but lose or forfeit themselves? Those who are ashamed of me and of my words, of them the Son of Man will be ashamed when he comes in his glory and the glory of the Father and of the holy angels. But truly I tell you, there are some standing here who will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God."

Reading:
Come fire, cross, battling with wild beasts, wrenching of bones, mangling of limbs, crushing of my whole body, cruel tortures of the devil – only let me get to Jesus Christ! Not the wide bounds of earth nor the kingdoms of this world will avail me anything. I would rather die and get to Jesus Christ, than reign over the ends of the earth, That is whom I am looking for – the One who died for us. That is whom I want – the One who rose for us…What I want is God’s bread, which is the flesh of Christ, who came from David’s line; and for drink I want his blood: an immortal love feast indeed!
- St. Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Romans 5:3-6:2; 7:3


Prayer of Response:
Holy Father, you know our hearts and our desires. You know that often we fail in our pursuit of you. Though we are frail, give us strength. Though we fall, lift us up. Though we fall short all too often, empower us for the journey on which you have called us. Help us to live as those who have gone before us, willing to give our life and our all for the cross of Christ. Help us to bear the holy cross. Amen.

I promise not to continue to post the whole entries from the reader and to share more of my thoughts through this lenten season.


Blessings to you all,

Ben

Ash Wednesday - Lent Begins

"O Lord and Master of my Life, take form me the spirit of sloth, despair, lust of power, and idle talk. But give rather the spirit of Chastity, humility, patience, and love to thy servant. Yea, O Lord and King, grant me to see my own transgressions, and not to judge my brother, for blessed are Thou, unto ages of ages. Amen"

- Lenten Prayer of St. Ephraim the Syrian.

I have the language skills of a third grader!

I know that I joke a lot about my poor writing skills but the other day in my Greek class I found out just how poor a grasp of the English language I have.

I don't know why, but for some reason my professor was talking about the number of vowels in English and he said something like "We all know how many vowels we have in English." I confidently thought to myself: A, E, I, O, U, and sometimes Y. After someone said "five" and someone else said "six" (presumably counting Y) someone from the front of the room said "seven." Five and six I can accept, but when I heard seven I began to mock the student in my mind (which I do with regularity when stupid things are said) until my professor repeated "seven" as if it was correct.

He then reminded us that "W" can serve as a vowel in the English language and the whole class except a couple of us seemed to accept it as gospel truth.

He then went on to explain that in words like "snow" the W serves as a vowel.

How on earth could I have graduated high school and college without ever hearing this? Was my education that poor? Are my Greek prof. and the rest of my class crazy?

I can sort of understand not hearing this in college, maybe they thought it was fundamental and I should have learned it in... oh I don't know...Kindergarten!! But to go through elementary school and high school and not hear this (if it is indeed true) is absurd. I even excelled in elementary school and high school, I seriously don't understand and thus I have come to this conclusion:

I don't believe it. I don't believe that "W" can serve as a vowel. I don't care how many people tell me it can, or how many English professors speak against me, right now I refuse to accept it.

I'm fine with Y, but W I will not tolerate. Am I the only one who has never heard this? I guess either way it doesn't matter because I'm just refusing to accept it. It is simply not true!

So this isn't theological and it's really not that interesting, but I had to vent somewhere and it's my blog so deal with it or else maybe I'll just refuse to accept that you exist.

Ben

St. Valentine'(s) Day

This is not one of those "hey i'm lonely and single so I'll rant against Valentine's Day" posts. I just started wondering who exactly St. Valentine was and so I thought I'd share my research here. Note this is not a defense for or argument against the celebration of St. Valentine's Day, it is merely a short post on who St. Valentine was.

Since most of us follow the western church calendar and most of our holidays are based on this it seems to me that the logical place to start would be New Advent as they are the Catholic online encyclopedia. New Advent seems to assert that traditionally there were three saint Valentines that were venerated on the 14th of February. These saints were:
- a Priest in Rome,
- Bishop of Interamna (modern Terni, in Italy I think)
- one from Africa with not much else known about him.

According to New Advent these three men were all martyrs with the first two suffering for the cross in the third century and the third suffered with friends but we dont' know when.


After pursuing the western tradition I decided to turn my attention to the eastern church. Although the eastern church does not celebrate (to my knowledge) St. Valentine on the 14th of Februrary most of the saints (especially the early ones) are celebrated by both East and West and often just have different dates.

I started my search on the Orthodox Wiki site and then continued my search on the Orthodox Church in America site. Orthodox Wiki turned up next to nothing but the OCA website had quite an interesting take on St. Valentine. The St. Valentine that they reference is the one that was the Bishop of Interammna.

Here is a quick synopsis of his story:

St. Valentine had the gift of healing and cured many "maladies." As St. Valentine's name spread through the city he began to convert many people. One such person was the son of a prefect in the city. Since the city was pagan (as was much of the world) the prefect was angered and demaned that St. Valentine reject his faith and worship idols. Refusing to reject his faith landed St. Valentine in prison where his disciples visited him daily. Upon hearing of these visits the prefect ordered St. Valentine to be beheaded. After the beheading St. Valentine's disciples buried his body in Interammna converting many on their way. Hearing the news of these most recent conversions the prefect ordered the three main disciples of St. Valentine to be beheaded as well. St. Valentine is celebrated on July 30th of the eastern calendar.


I continued to do some research to see if I could find any more about the other Valentines and using Orthodox Search I turned up a result form the Antiochean Orthodox Church website that related the story of St. Valentine a Priest in Rome (our first Valentine).


Here is a synopsis of the story of this St. Valentine:

In the third century Emporer Claudius, thinking that marriage was bad for the armies, decreed that no more marriages should take place. St. Valentine ignored this decree because of it's unjustness and continued to marry people. St. Valentine was caught marrying people and was sentenced to death.


I was unable to find anything on St. Valentine of Africa. But I didn't really spend a ton of time on this short project.


So there you have the matrydom of two St. Valentines. Both of them are cannonized by the Church and both died in love of Christ and love for his people. It seems to me that knowing the saint-story behind two of the three Valentines commemorated today in the western calendar puts a new spin on Valentines Day. I'm not saying that the holiday as now celebrated is a Christian one and I'm not saying that there isn't history in the celebration of February 14th as a pagan holiday. I am, however, asserting that our memory of these men, our forefathers and our brothers in Christ who were martyred should shape our thinking about Valentine's Day. It should at least make us think what it means to be somebody's "Valentine."


Lord, let the memory of these saints of the church encourage us in holy love for You and for Your Church. If you so call us may our blood be spilled like these men for the sake of the faith. Amen.


Blessings to you all in Christ,

Ben


Sources:
New Advent
Antiochian Orthodox Church
Orthodox Church in America Search Valentine in the search box and then click on the "life of the saint" when you see "Hieromartyr Valentine the Bishop of Interamna, Terni in Italy"

Oh my goodness!!

Was my first reaction to this.

Then i came to my senses and realized that if it was a real game it would be awesome. It would be even cooler if it was denominationally based or maybe create your own religion.

I found the link on my friend: Jo's blog.


Fear not a real post should be coming soon.

What a beautiful church....I mean bar?

I've intended to write this post shortly after the event but after procrastinating for a while I decided to save it for a rainy day. And today is that day. Not that this post is extremely interesting and merited anticipation, it just never got posted and is still a slight point of interest to me.

On my way home for Christmas I stopped in Pittsburgh to visit my good friend Gustav. The evening I arrived we decided to go out for dinner and in an effort to avoid popular chains and get some local Pittsburgh food we decided on a place called "The Church Brew Works."

The food was great but even better was the setting. The restaurant is an old Catholic church turned into a microbrewery.

To be honest I didn't know what emotion to feel as I walked in; I didn't know whether to lament or rejoice and in fact I think i felt a little of both.

The lament came from seeing what seemed to be a once beautiful church vacated and left empty until the brewery took over. This seems to be a classic example of the church fleeing the city and leaving huge vacant buildings as signs that seem to indicate God's abandonment. This is such a sad state because in reality it is not God who has abandoned the city and its people but rather God's people who have abandoned the city.

Along with this very basic realization I also grieved when i walked inside. Where a baptismal font once would have stood to remind people of their baptism now stood a small sign that read "Please wait to be seated." To the right where the confessionals would have been now stood a long bar encompassing almost the entire wall. By far the most saddening sight was at the front of the church. There where the altar once stood - where the Eucharist was prepared and the word was proclaimed now stood a huge micro-brewery.

Now I say all this as lament not because I am a staunchly opposed to alcohol. Yes, I have never had a drink of alcohol, but I am not opposed to it's use in moderation. I lament these replacements because it seems to indicate a larger problem - namely the church fleeing the city, this signs of grace leaving the life of the city in favor of something else. Now, to be sure, it could merely indicate the church outgrew it's building and build another one 3 or 4 blocks over or maybe as people left the city the church was left with no congregants (but I highly doubt these scenarios). I am saddened by the replacement of grace-filled things for that which (though can be used by God) are not necessarily designed for that purpose. Although I was saddened by these things, I was also happy for a few reasons.

It was good to see a once abandoned building being used for some purpose and helping the economy of Pittsburgh. It was also great to see the beauty of the architecture of the building still intact and what seemed to be pointing to God. I was blown away to see that the Latin above the altar was still intact and that our waitress knew what it meant (something similar to: "By faith in Jesus Christ the Son of God we are saved."). Apparently they have been asked enough that they tell their servers what the saying means (that or we got a waitress who knows Latin...that would be awesome!) Oh and the food was great!

All that to say that The Church Brew Works is a very cool place. Yes it's sad that a church has been left behind, but maybe God is using this place as a small means of grace to help reach to people of Pittsburgh. Maybe the Latin causes curiosity, maybe the architecture points to the transcendence and maybe just being there makes people long for home and rest in Christ. Maybe none of this happens and it's just sad and depressing. I'm not passing judgment I'm just relaying my experience.

So I guess my post ends there..."and it was cool."

Short thoughts on Christmas music

I know the time has passed when this post would be appropriate but I'm going to write some short thoughts anyway... it is my blog after all.

In the days following Christmas I listened to the standard Christmas songs and as I listened I began to think that many of them are border-line heretical. This caused me to wonder if it was just me seeing heresy in everything (which some would say I do) or if they are genuinely quasi-heretical. I've continued to reflect on this and came to the conclusion that my descriptor of "many" might be a little bit of an over generalization. I haven't taken the time to sit down and analyze a great deal of them so I feel that 'many' is too strong of a word, but I do believe there are some songs that are seemingly heretical as well as, so I would argue, our larger conceptions of Christmas.

Let me explain.

Christmas is about the incarnation - God becoming human in the truest sense of humanity yet without sin. It is about Jesus Christ being truly human and truly God; 100% of both at the same time. Many of the heresies throughout Church history have been condemned because of errant thinking on the incarnation. Many of these heretics erred by over-emphasizing Christ's humanity at the expense of his divinity and it seems that an equal number of heretics erred by over-emphasizing his divinity at the expense of his humanity.

In protestant theology we seem to see both of these errant trends come to the surface. The arch-liberals deny the divinity of Christ while it seems (and here lies the point of the post) that many of the more conservative Protestants deny Christ's humanity (or at least minimize it) to emphasize his Divinity.

For example let us look at the song "Away in a Manger." I choose this song for a few reasons: 1) It supports my point - it's good to pick an example that supports your argument (or so I've been told). 2) It seems to me that although this isn't a song of vast theological content it encapsulates the themes of contemporary Christmas theology. 3) It's the only one that I can remember the words to off hand.

Now to the "heresy:" I don't think this is a horribly blatant heretical treatise against Christ's full humanity but I do think that traces of heresy are evident. Think with me how the infant Messiah is portrayed in this song (remember that this seems to be an archetype for most of our Christmas thinking). Jesus is viewed as peaceful and serene little child that doesn't cry, fuss or cause his parents any loss of sleep. Oh that cute little baby Jesus "no crying he makes." I am willing to grant that maybe Jesus was one of the babies that don't seem to cry at all when they are younger, but (and I am, for sure, no expert in babydom) isn't that the exception more than the rule. Isn't the rule for babies that they cry, they keep their parents up and they fuss. Maybe I'm grasping at strings for an example from a song but I think the assertions that baby Jesus never cried, never fussed, and never acted like a NORMAL BABY are all too prominent in our little Christian Christmas subculture.

I think it's good that we're saying Jesus was set apart from birth. Yes he was different, yes he was the fullness of God even while he was an infant, (emptied himself of "all but love" saith Wesley) but the nuance of our assertions of his divinity seem to make his humanity minuscule... is this not the beginning of heresy? It seems that we have characterized this first Christmas night into an image barren of any true humanity. Mary and Joseph are content and happy giving birth in a stable, and Jesus is cute, adorable, and doesn't act like any other baby.

I'm not trying to be a downer on Christmas but it just seems that the way we tend to think about and portray the first Christmas minimizes the humanity of it all. Our Christmas songs, our nativity scenes, and all the other trappings of the holiday seem to make Christmas more a time of myth and fantasy rather than the in-breaking of the divine into the real world.

Yes Jesus was a baby, one may argue that all babies are cute and thus was Jesus, one may also argue that Jesus was one of those peaceful babies, but to characterize Jesus' infancy so that resembles nothing like real infancy borders on heresy. This does not mean that I am willing to assert that Jesus sinned as a child or anything of the like. I am merely trying to assert that he was indeed FULLY HUMAN and FULLY GOD. He was incarnate without sin and suffered and died for us and for our salvation. Maybe our Christmas songs are fine, maybe they don't say anything heretical enough for us to kick them out of our hymnals, but this is not just a passing matter. We must strive to think rightly about the incarnation and the divine Godhead. For it is our thinking of this that shapes all of our other thoughts. Our moral lives, our social lives and the rest will be shaped by what we think of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Our obedience to the Holy Scriptures is directly corollary to our view of the God who speaks in and through those scriptures. This is why this isn't just a passing issue.

Christmas is over, but let us think hard next year (and at all times) about incarnation. Maybe we just need to readjust the lens through which we sing the Christmas songs, maybe we need to get rid of them, maybe we need a solution that is more outside of the box, who knows. All I know is that thinking correctly about the incarnation is paramount!!

Advent III: The final night

And now for the final installment of my advent musings.

I know I've missed a week and for anyone who actually reads and was disappointed I apologize. To be honest I've been very bad at my advent plans. I was absolutly dreadful at keeping my advent reading schedule, both in scripture and in devotionals, but I did continue the advent fasting and tried to focus my volitional 'christmas' music listening to only those songs that were adventy. Despite some consitency my advent planning and thinking came to a great hypocritical head today - I skipped church. Not only did I skip church, but I skipped it to attend a Buffalo Bills game.

No chastizement is necessary. Although I greatly looked forward to spending time with a good friend at the game (who obtained freakin sweet free tickets) I was almost sick to my stomach the whole day before (and of) the game at the thought of missing church on the last Sunday of Advent - especially when it falls on Christmas Eve. Despite my thoughts to the contrary I went to the game because I thought it would be wrong to bail on a close friend but I'm glad I went. Not only did I have a great time at the game but missing church gave me even greater zeal to attend our church's Christmas Eve service.

The way our church structures the Christmas Eve service is fairly unique (though individualistic) the sanctuary is dimmly lit and you can come and go as you please between the given times. There is music playing through the system quietly and you are encouraged to come, pray, read scripture, and meditate as a family or individual until you want to stop and then you can come forward to the front and the Pastor will serve you the Eucharist. Maybe it's not too individualistic, maybe I only conceive of it that way because I'm the only one in my family who goes... but alas I digress.

So in this time at the service I was able to finish my advent reading of Lamentations, through which the Lord spoke to me greatly. I don't really know how to recap it except to say that it is worth sitting down and reading in one sitting especially when read through the advent lens of expectation, longing, waiting, and promise of the second coming. God spoke mightily and it really strengthened and uplifted me. After reading Lamentations I spent some time in prayer, yet another thing that I have been dreadful at, and then read through the earliest creeds of the church - those found throughout the NT (in books like: Philipians, Hebrews, Ephesians, etc). I then capped this time off by reading the Nicene Creed and meditating on the incarnation, the Trinity, and the promised second coming in which he will come to judge the quick and the dead. My heart was so blessed. This may be one of the most focused and powerful Advent seasons I've ever had.

As far as what I've been thinking about posting for the last week before today's happening it would simply be: Maran atha. "Our Lord Come!"

I compiled a cd for myself of Advent songs and worship songs that are themed similar to Advent and listening to it just makes my heart cry out 'Come Lord Jesus!'

Other than that I don't really have profound to share. This little Advent experiment has been fantastic. Although I sucked at being disciplined through most of it, the fact that I tried to focus my thoughts even when I wasn't doing the readings helped to put Advent and Christmas in persepective. It was very good.

--------

Oh, I just rememebred something I was going to post earlier. The other day I was driving and turned on the radio and the first thing I heard on the Christian station up here was a song (albeit intended to be humorous) lamenting the fact that all the signs in the Mall are "Happy Holidays" and not "Merry Christmas." I promptly turned the radio off for the rest of the day while driving around delivering flowers and began to think about this. I came to the conclusion and I could be wrong, so feel free to add your two cents, that Christians have no right to lament the loss of Christmas phrasology.

We have no right when we do nothing different than the secular world. If we as Christian choose to ignore the Christian calendar, of which Christmas is a part, then we have no business decrying society. If we are going to ignore advent with which comes fasting, penitence, and prayerful longing, then what context do we have in which to place Christmas? Yes Christmas is a feast day (as are the days following it) but that does not give us the excuse to partake in cosumeristic whoremongering and party like its 1999 (to quote Prince). We are a people not of this world, and we are a people who are called to live and place oursevles in a world that longs for the Bridegroom. If we party the year away with the heathens then how can we have any context to truly and adequately celebrate any of the prescribed feasts of the Church Year. We cannot fully partake in Christmas unless we fully partake in advent. Likewise we cannot fully partake in Easter unless we prepare ourselves with Lent. And while these are man-made suggested and edifying, though not required seasons, how can we really ever fully partake in the second coming of our Lord and Savior if we have not become aquainted with the longing, unfulfillment, and brokeness that comes from being part of a world that is not our own?

I would write more but I have to get ready for the midnight service at the local UMC. I hope to write in the next few days concerning Christmas music and just some general things.

Remember Our Lord is Coming!! Come Lord Jesus!! Amen.

Peace and blessings,

Ben

Advent II

Ok this is going to be quick because I have finals to study for.

I have to confess that I'm behind on all of my readings for lent. I allowed frantic paper writing to dominate my life for the past few days and thus I don't have a lot to reflect on as far as the readings go.

I've been thinking about something concerning advent since I made the last post and then it was reemphasized by a conversation I had with my friend Tony. How do we find the right balance in the tension between focusing on the parts of history where we long for the Messiah to come (cf. my last post) and the fact that we are a people living in the light of the ressurection. Is it appropriate for us to sing "O Come Emmanual" and "Christ the Lord is Risen Today" on a sunday in advent? Each Sunday is indeed a ressurectional day is it not?

Is the tension resolved if we strictly focus on the second coming of our Messiah? I think part of it is resolved but not fully.

Maybe I should just learn to be content with the whole of the church year being paradoxical. In Advent we have the above tension. In lent we think of ourselves in a pre-easter tense while living in the post-Easter light, and in eastertide we remember before Pentecost yet we still practice the charisms bestowed upon us by the Holy Spirit who came in power on Pentecost.

So maybe the whole church year is paradoxical, maybe that's fine, that still doesn't negate the edification that comes with emphasizing the appropriate things for each season.

On a side note: I put all my christmas music on my computer and separated it into two playlists, one for advent and one for Christmas. I currently have 10 songs in my advent list and about 40 in my Christmas one. This includes having "O Come Emmanual" in there about 3 times by different artists. So when I get a chance I'm going to go through my worship songs and see which ones I can add to my advent list - songs like "Sing to the King," and "These are the days of Elijah." Although these aren't advent songs persay at a casual glance they might fit the theological themes and thus can be effectively used for advent. We'll see how it goes.

Blessings,

Ben

Some thoughts on Advent: Part I

I will try over the next few weeks to make at least a weekly post about Advent, and since Advent officially started yesterday - I thought today would be a good day to start.

I ran sound yesterday at an "Advent Vespers" choir concert put on by our "Singing Seminarians" (yes it is a lame name but that's what they call themselves) and after the concert JD (our Dean of the Chapel) made the comment to me that it was very Christmasy. I agree, we sang all the good Christmas songs: Joy to the World, the Hallelujah Chorus, O Holy Night, etc. But the point JD was trying, was not that it was Christmasy but rather that it wasn't adventy. Now this was certainly true - the only advent song that we sang was O Come Emmanuelle.

I'm not trying to criticize the Singing Sems. but I do think that their concert is indicative of the general praxis of the Church. We rush to Christmas, we ignore Advent, and for all practical purposes the child is already born. To be sure, Christ was born, suffered, died, was buried, rose from the dead, and now sits at the right hand of the Father, but in the sense of the Christmas season - the Church Year in which we place ourselves - he is not born of a virgin... yet. In the context of placing ourselves in the narrative of Christian history the Child is not born and the messiah has not come into the world. We are still longing, we are still in the dark, as opposed to the light - an image heralded during Advent.

This concept of rushing to Advent got me thinking. Wouldn't be more appropriate if we waited till after Christmas to turn on our lights or plug in our Christmas tree? How about music, wouldn't it me more theologically significant to only sing songs like " O come O Come Emmanuel," or "let All Mortal Flesh Keep Silence" until Christmas and then break into songs such as: Joyful Joyful, O Holy Night and the like. Wouldn't it be telling if we stripped our churches instead of decorating them and then usher in the decorations on Christmas morning as a family of faith and truly Deck the Halls? It seems to me that a resounding answer to these questions is YES.

It's these thoughts that have helped me focus my scripture reading for advent. I'm reading through the book of Lamentations during this period. I know that lamentations may be typically associated with Lent, but I also think it may be appropriate for advent - especially if we read it with the thoughts that the Messiah has not yet come. Not only do we read Lamentations as work from the exile period where the people of God are displaced and not beholding the chief signifier of the promise, but they are also without the promised prophet like Moses and Messiah. The longing/morning is chief in this text and I think it may help us (read: me) focus on the absence of Messiah (read: Christ) and then truly experience the Joy on Christmas day.

Usually I'm burned out on Christmas music by Christmas day and don't want to listen to it anymore. I know it's mostlly unavoidable but I'm trying to use these thoughts to spur me on to not listening to Christmas music that is non-advent before Christmas. I think if I compiled the songs that are theologically advent orient from the 5 Christmas albums that I own I may be able to get 5 or 6 songs so I guess that will have to suffice. I may get sick of them, but I think this little experiment into advent will nourish my soul and prove to be life-giving.

If you want to read along with me I'm reading 5 verses of Lamentations a day and also reading two readers: Watch for the Light and Welcoming the Giver of All Good Gofts. Reflections for Advent. Excerpts from the Works of Fr. R. Cantalamessa. (note the second link is all I could find and it is on page 16 of the catalogue).

Well that's it for now, Like I said I'll try to post some advent thoughts on some of my readings or just random thoughts.

Blessings,

Ben

It's coming...Advent is almost here!

A couple weeks ago in church I found out a little something I didn't know about Advent. Advent is actually a time of the year for preparation and fasting. I bet most of you are just as surprised as I was when I found this out. How can advent be a time for fasting when we have fun music, great ammounts of cookies and desserts, lights, candles, and all the other wonderful things? It is now more certain than ever that our pre-Christmas celebrations look like and emphasize nothing like the church seasons ought to.

That brings us to the reason for this post: I think that I want to participate in a fast during this season of advent in order to help focus myself on the true nature of the season but I'm not sure. I think part of me being not sure is that I haven't had time to gear up for viewing the season this way. I have come to love the Great Fast (Lent) and I look forward to it all year so I'm not ignorant of the Christian practice of seasonal fasting but for some reason I'm having trouble parting with my regular advent ways.

Maybe it's because so much more is made of Christmas season in our society. Maybe it's because I haven't had time to ponder it or maybe it's another reason. Either way I'm still thinking hard about what to fast for Advent. This decision is both the joy and the curse of being a traditionally low-church protestant. The joy is that I can set my own boundries for the fast so that it is meaningful and allows me to take incremental steps toward greater sacrafices and the curse is that I have to make this deicision. Inhereting this low-church ecclesiology puts me at the center of the fast rather than us. It also causes me to find the delicate balance between being too strict in my fast and being too lenient. So this is the dilema. Do I set out on a path from which I cannot return and begin to place advent in a more historically celebrated context or do I allow my celebration of advent to be merely reflected in the knowledge of what it is about without allowing my body to partake in that knowledge. If I do fast what do I fast from?

On a side note I am really inspired by the Orthodox approach to this. Their fasting period is longer than our advent and it actually started a week or two ago. During this fast they fast from all meats and a few other things. I find this inspiring in that they fast from all meat during a time that overlaps with Thanksgiving. Talk about a challenge. It seems to me that the real challenge isn't so much the fasting, but rather the implicit message that fasting through a national and often familial holiday sends. The message is simply that the primary community unit is the church and that the true holidays are those that focus our hearts and minds on Christ our God.

This implicit message is truly the message that the gospel calls us all to embrace for our lives. Our allegiance is to God and his kingdom alone. While we may not need to forsake thanksgiving to show this; the mere fact that the members of this tradition align themselves with the historic church calendar and its fasts rather than the national, social, and familial one peaks loudly that the God is the object of obedience.

Please don't misunderstand me I am not calling all to an advent fast or even a lenten one. Although i think these seasonal disciplines are important I do not believe they are mandatory for all. Yes they are helpful insofar as we allow them to reveal to us the mysteries of the Godhead revealed through the church, and her year of services.

I'll take Potporri for 300, Alex

I'm striving to be a little more consistent with my blogging. I don't know how that will work itself out in the coming weeks as the due dates for papers seems to approach at light speed, but nevertheless I will try. In an attempt to not fail in this right after my quite long winded return (see "about time eh?" below) I offer up a short mess of random and somewhat unconnected topics.

Topic #1: Sexist language in sports.

As you all should know (and if you don't I'm wondering how well you really know me) I'm a huge Minnesota Vikings fan (that's an American Football team for those of you not in the US). Part of my rabid fandom consists of spending my free time (or time I spend procrastinating) surfing the internet for any sort of Vikings comments. In my recent internet travels I came across a Vikings blog entitled "Pacifist Viking" - how crazy of a title is that, since vikings are known for raping, pilaging, and burning.

All that to say that while I was on this site the other day I read an interesting take on sexist language in sports. I think that Pacifist Viking (I don't know his name) makes some good points. Although I don't remember using the phrase "man up" in recent years (specifically analagous to "suck it up") he causes me to think about sports cliches. This example made me think of the common basketball phrase "man up" as in play "man to man" coverage (I'm not a basketball expert and except for the Houghton Globetrotters, I loathe the sport - so if i'm using the phrasing wrong I aplogize). Thinking on this I am wondering how we proceed. I am all about gender inclusive language (unless it messes with God language) but it wasn't until now that I realized my double standard when using sports terminology. Does this mean that I have to start using comberson phrases like playing a "person defense" or he's in "person to person coverage"? Can I use man when the sports participants are only men, but must I use woman if the sport consists of women? Although, I doubt I'll really run into the latter case as I don't know if I've watched an all women's sporting event since high school. How does this practically work itself out?

One thing that I thought was very interesting was the experiment that he offers at the end of his post. Thinking about the TAG commercials in this light makes me dislike the product even more than I already do.

Either way I pass this site's article on to you for a short intersting take on sports language. There is also another post here that I found to be an amusing take on sports, total depravity and the prosperity gospel.

In fact, I just realized that I refered to the author of the blog as "he" throughout my whole post. I have no reason to believe it is a he aside from typical gender stereotypes and so I confess I am still working on my gender reconciliation.

Part 2: On Ted Haggard

By now I assume you all have heard about the scandal concerning Ted Haggard, and if you haven't then I feel truly honored that you are visiting my blog prior to visiting the websites of CNN, BBC, or Fox News.

Earlier tonight I was informed about this by a friend over IM and we were talking about it for a bit and here are some of my thoughts.

Sadly I don't know what my first reaction was. It was one of two things. 1) Poor Ted Haggard - Lord be with him. or 2) Oh no, now look at the black eye for christendom. I am truly ashamed that I don't know which was my reaction and am even more ashamed that it may very well have been the second. How heartless and unchristlike can I be?

I want to yell and scream and condem the pastor who allows herself or himself to be in this kind of mess, but then I realize the clique holds true: "there, but for the grace of God, go I" now to be fair I mean that in the general way - not the gay sex or meth way. But seriously I realize my weaknesses and I feel great pain for Haggard despite that fact that I undoubtedly dissagree with him on various theological things like ecclesioloyg, missiology, and sacrametology.

In fact from what little I do know I probably would have listed this man as representing a Christian paradigm that was the complete antithesis of mine. He pastored a large church and was a quasi-church growth guy (if not completley church growth), he was a vocal and popular Christian media voice, and he represented the religious right and was hyper-conservative political in its agenda. Despite all this I feel for Haggard, and pray that he finds healing in the Lord through this situation, whether he did anything or not, and I pray that the christians that looked strongly to him would refocus their faith from leadership to the Christ who leads.

While my heart and prayers go out I cannot help but to look at this situation as an observer and offer some thoughts.

1.) This is obviously not the first time a person in the church has fallen and regretably it will not be the last, however, it is clear that these fallouts become more and more problematic for the church in society as ministers feel the increasing need to become well known in the media. Yes, there will be fallout when ministers fail, but this fallout grows exponentially when are ministers and leaders are media icons. As my friend Greg Sigountos aptly said:

---------------------
"[this scenario is] a great case study. See what happens when you intertwine yourselves too closely with the world? Bang, you're ripe for being picked off, and we have a hypocrite bonfire. This is why pastors need to avoid celebrity at all costs... If there wasn't enough evidence against the celebrity pastor already, and how few, if any, can pull it off, maybe this adds one extra bit of incentive. Stay out of the spotlight- the Spirit worked just fine before the TV cameras existed."
---------------------

or as St. John Chrysostom says in his treatise On the Priesthood

---------------------
if a preacher "is a slave to the sound of applause, again an equal damage threatens both him and the people, because through his passion for praise he aims to speak more for the pleasure than the proft of his hearers...The man who is carried away with the desire for eulogies may have the ability to improve the people, but chooses instead to provide nothing but entertainment. That is the price he pays for thunders of applause....For in fact, if he has already been overtaken by the desire for unmerited praise, neither his great efforts nor his powers of speech will be any use....So a preacher must train himself above all else to despise praise...But if if he has not shaken himself free of it [love of esteem], he involves his soul in an intricate struggle, in unrelieved turmoil, and in the hurly-burly of desperation and every other passion."
---------------------

I quote Chyrsostom here not to make accusations against Haggard, as if he was quilty of violating Chrysostom's exhortations, but because these comments seem to apply to the problem of christian leaders becoming media whores. Ministers may indeed fall as has happened throughout church history. This is not the ideal, nor is it desireable, and the issues that arise around a fallen ministry should primarily be reconciliation, forgiveness, and restoration. As American ecclesiology has shifted from small local bodies to large mega-churches so has the focus shifted from quiet locally known pastors to massive media darling pastors. In fact I think one could make a case that the rise of the media star pastor is directly proportional to the number and growth of mega-churches. Now, because of our media-driven or at best media-recognized pastors our primariy concerns as a church is no longer reconciliation, forgiveness, and restoration, but rather how do we deal with the PR nightmare which this causes. Yes try to focus on the others, but we cannot help but deal with and be consumed with the PR fiasco that arises. Chrysostom's quote is just as aplicable to the churches of today as it is to the ministers of yesterday and today. To the church this quote speaks caution of seeking the approval of the masses. Should we be concerned with how they view us? Only insofar as they see our love for God, them and each other. Our hyper concern with putting a good face forward and offering solid entertainment is unbiblical and certainly uncharacteristic of true church for any age. We will never be able to fully ministry to the world if we are overly concerned with getting the right publicity or being seen in a favorably light. Churches as well as ministers should avoid the the rank of celebrity at all costs so that the message and the witness of the people of God can remain uncomprimised.

2.) One of the articles I read concerning this made the comment that Haggard has confessed his sins to the "overseers" of his church. I have to give Haggard tons of credit for this. He is following the biblical model and submitting himself to the biblical authorities. The question this raises has to do with confidentiality. What happens if for some reason this goes to court and his "overseers" are called into court to testify? We are all aware of Patient-Doctor confidentiality and Patient-Counselor, but what about Clergy-laity? Are his overseers obligated to divulge information that he shared to them in a confessional manner? What about if this was in a high church tradition like Catholic, Orthodox, or Anglican? Would the confidentiality issue be different if the confession was done in a confessional, or by ordained members? It seems to me that the possible legal precedent that may be set concerning ecclesial confession has huge ramifications. If they allow these "overseers" to claim a specific confidentiality then what is to stop someone from confessing to any generic religious figure and claiming confessor confidentiality. Let us suppose that these overseers are not officiallly ordained and thus they force them to testify, what does this do for the low church independent church down the street - can the pastor of this church not hear confessions or do counseling without knowing he will have a legal obligation to testify? Does this mean that only ordained people can have this special relationship? If so what about those denomination that ordain elders - do they get this privelage? I dont think these thoughts are too clear, but it seems to me that this Haggard situation has huge legal ramifications if it goes to court for the confessional and counseling ministry of the church - especially in low-ecclesiological protestant churches.

Part 3: Book Excerpt

In preparation for one of my mid-term exams the other day I decided to do some reading. One of our books is: Religion and American Culture by George M. Marsden. I'm not done with the book yet because we only had to read half of it for the exam, but so far I would recommend it. The book is a good outlook on the development of religion in America. It reads much better than a dry account of facts which is most likely due to Marsden's asides that describe how the topic at hand has lead to a current phenomenon or other asides that seem a little preachy in nature. Below is one of the asides that I really liked and found to be the most though provoking.
------------------------
"The United States was the first modern nation systematically to shift public veneration of the government from veneration of persons to veneration of the nation and its principles. Soon the United States developed a set of rituals and symbols that bore a striking resemblance to traditional Christian rites and symbols but in which the nation itself was the object of worship. The flag, like the cross in Catholic churches, was a sacred object. Elaborate rules developed as to when and how it could be handled. Pledges to the flag arguably played the role of crossing oneself in a church. One pledged to a creed. The nation developed holidays (holy days) and its own brand of saints. George Washington, for instance, soon took on mythical qualities. National architecture and shrines provied centers for pilgrimages and worship. Some people have pointed out that three of the most popular shrines in Washington D.C. - those to Washington, Lincoln, and Kennedy - have designs that would be appropriate symbols for each of the three members of the Christian Trinity (the transcendent obelisk for the father, the personal presence of the martyred champion of national reconciliation and charity, and the eternal flame, for the spirit of service to country).... The United States, like all modern nations, demands unswerving allegiance from its citizens. It is to the nation in which one is expected to make the supreme sacrifice. Therefore in American wars, national loyalty has always been demanded above church loyalty." (pg 53)

and one that seems to relate to our celebrity ministers as metioned above

"[George] Whitefield's triumphant journey up and down the East Coast, preaching to large gatherings wherever he went, was one of teh first truly intercolonial events. Whitefield was the first "media star" in Ameican history. His medium was the pulpit, and he had immense skill with the spoken word. His tour anticipated a patter in American culture: Lacking long-established traditions and rituals, American have been susceptible to waves of popular enthusiasm for 'stars.' This pattern had its beginings in revivalism and remains a prominent dimension of American cultural and religious life." (pg 32)
--------------------------

I don't agree with the first quote 100% and I think the thought of the triune nature of the American monuments is a little bit of a stretch but nevertheless it does illustrate a good point. This is a good example of how Marsden gets a little preachy in his book, but I think his assertions are right on target. Personally I have not been able to say the pledge of allegiance for about 4 or 5 years. Once I really began to think of what I was doing I couldn't in good conscience continue to swear my allegiace to a country. My loyalty alone belongs to Christ and to his kingdom. I belong to the US insofar as I live here and they do not forcably violate my religious beliefs. I will not fight for them in a war and I will not pledge my allegiance to any earthly kingdom until the new heavens and the new earth appear and the Kingdom of God is revealed in its fullness on the earth.

~~~~~~~~~~~~

Well, I think that's all that I have to write. I guess the post wasn't as short as I wanted it to be...oh well. Like I said I'll try to be more consistent in posting, but with the impending papers I may have to allow blogging to take a back seat for a month or two. Just incase you were wondering I am writing two major research papers for this semester. The topics for these papers are:

1. Sacramentology in the 1st and 2nd Great Awakenings
2. The eternal subordination of Christ - looking through the lens of the early church fathers.

Blessings to you all and as usual thanks for bearing with my incoherent rambling.

~ Ben

About time eh?

Fear not, I have returned! After over a two month long hiatus I am back and wondering how I will ever begin to put all that is running through my head into a coherent blog. I will try to group it in sections so it's a little easier to follow, but who knows how that will go. With that said, dont' forget to check out my last post. I posted it yesterday and am particularly proud of it.

Part One: Ending the Summer - Learning to understand the development of heresy.

[note I have edited this section from the original post and have placed the restructured text in italics. Much is missing from the original and it is for the better.]

As I sit and reflect about the summer it really feels like it never had an end. I feel like it slammed right into the school year like a runaway train. I feel like I didn't really get a chance to catch my breath before the school year started, but I am still grateful for the summer. The job I worked was loads of fun even despite the countless sleepless nights and weary weeks and I met a bunch of great people and had some interesting experiences that I feel will form how I view people and ministry for years to come. On top of all that I learned a lot more about audio reinforcement and feel like I am a much better sound tech than I was at the beginning of the summer.

As I mentioned I feel like the summer ran right into the school year without a break. I think the reason for this is because I worked a gig the first two weekends I was back to school.

One of these gigs stands out because while I was there I had some interesting thoughts concerning the development of heresy in the early church. It seems to me that heresy could have developed by the bringing of the gospel to a place where it subsequently took root.

Over time - because the area was so isolated and was not connected to the global church- teaching began to develop in a heretical manner and thus that area became a breeding ground for heresy. Now we must be honest and say that this is just a hypothesis and surely not all heresies formed this way, but could it not be that is why all the early church fathers and mothers emphasized the importance of the bishop? They emphasized structure because it was the unity inherent in the structure that kept them connected in the bond they already shared - namely Christ's blood. It was this unity that allowed them to maintain the orthodox faith and determine what heresy was. If the church was to survive and to proclaim Christ for who he was the fathers knew that it couldn't hole itself up in a small geographic location, rather it must commune with believers the world over.

I fear that we, as the American church are in grave danger of doing this to ourselves. We neglect the worldwide church, we are ignorant of the defenders of the faith of ages past and when confronted with our neglect and ignorance we shrug and apathetic shoulder and continue on in our self-absorbed way of "Christianity." This is the travesty in the American church. This is why much of Western Christendom is bankrupt, and this is why we have scarcely a clue what true orthodoxy is in our churches.

Part Two: On the Incarnation

"Oh holy father Athanasius, like a pillar of orthoxy, you supported the church with your teaching, refuting the hertical nonsense of Arius - by asserting that the Father and Son are equal in essence."

Those are the opening lines of one the Athanasian hymn that is sung occasionally in my church. I'm not going to get into the issue of hymns to saints right now (for it would surely consume pages) but I write this to say that it is very true. Athanasius is deserving of sainthood. Even though he was mere scribe at the Council of Nicea and didn't really defend the co-substantial nature of the Father and Son at the council (contrary to popular belief), he truly proved to be a champion of the council's (and true Christian) teaching in his bishopric for years to come. One of his defences of this is his book On the Incarnation, which I finished at the end of the summer but will try to give a brief review here.

Let me say that the book itself is worth the read just for the introduction by C.S. Lewis in the St. Vladimir's Seminary publication. Lewis does an excellent job setting the framework - especially if one is reading this book as a protestant who has no clue what church history is, or what function church tradition should serve.

Aside form teh intro the book is absolutly amazing! I believe it to be a must read. Athanasius starts out discussing our problem as humans (namely the fall) and thus proceeds to describe God's solution to the problem - which is the glorious incarnation. He then describes the death and resurrection of Christ and why it must occur. After discussing and giving thorough explanations and defenses of the above he turns to the refutation of hypothetical objections by both Jews and Gentiles. My personal favorite passage of the book is found in his discourse on the resurrection.

If I could type it all out I would but I'm afraid that wouldn't be within copyright law so I will direct you to a link that you can find the whole section. Click here to find this passage.

In this section Athanasius defends the notion that death is completly and utterly destroyed by the resurrection. His defense of this includes the fact that "All the disciples of Christ despised death; they take the offensive against it and, instead of fearing it, by the sign of the cross and by faith in Christ trample on it as on something dead." Athanasius continues saying that before Christ's death and resurrection even the holy men feared death, but now death has no merit and should not be feared, stating that "all those who believe in Christ tread it [death] underfoot as nothing, and prefer to die rather than to deny their faith in Christ..." The holy saint continues in his defense of Christ's blessed triumph over death in what I find to be the most beautiful example: (let it be known that this example is a little sexist, but if we look at it from a patristic culture point of view then it truly is beautfil - I don't share the Saint's cultural sexism but do share his excitement that death is trampled.)

"...for men who, before they believed in Christ, think death horrible adn are afraid of it, once they are converted despise it so competely that they go eagerly to meet it, and themselves become witnesses of the Savior's resurrection from it. Even children hasten thus to die, and not men only, but women train themselves by bodily discipline to meet it. So weak has death become that even women, who used to be taken in by it, mock at it now as a dead thing robbed of all its strength. Death has become like a tyrant who has been completely conqured by the legitimate monarch; bound hand and foot as he now is, the passers-by jerr at him, hitting him and abusing him, no longer afraid of his cruelty and rage, because of the king who has conquered him. So has death been conqured and branded for what it is by the Savior on the cross."

Wow!! I can't believe that. I about fall out of my chair every time I think of this passage. Amen and Amen is all I can say.

This isn't the only part of the book I enjoyed but it is the part that brings me to tears of joy and sorrow at the same time (and it is one that allows me to launch into a rant). If you know me well, as most of you who read this do, then you can probably anticipate why I love this passage. My longing and expectance of martydom is no secret to many of you (as it has been a constant in my mind for the past 3 years) and this passage is encouraging as it makes me seem not so crazy for having no fear of death and even as the saint says running "eagerly to meet it. But more than that I find it so uplifting to know that the message of Christ's conquering of death is so essential and so connected to the incarnation and act of our Savior that we can scarcely meditate on Christ without thinking of it. Yes I long for martrydom, not as a mad man, but as one who has no fear of death. And this is where the rant begins.

It seems to me that this theology has left our churches. In general the protestant church as a whole fears death. In fact, we don't just fear death we fear almost everything. I can barely look at the western church today without seeing a group that is drenched in fear. If you doubt this take a look at the popular theological (or rather psuedo-theological) works that are popular among many christians. Look at the rise and expectancy of the pre-tribulation rapture and the numerous books and shows that propegate a theology that declares Christ's return in the next few years. Even examin at a distance the plethora of books (both fictional and non) about the evil powers that prevail against us and provide us with gimicks on how to overcome. The church today is drenched and filled with fear!!! We are afraid of the evil one, we are afraid of the powers, we are afraid of the government, and we are especially afraid of death. The question I ask is why?!?

Why on earth are our churches living in such states of fear? I propose that it is because we have no concept of the power of the cross. If Christ truly has conquered the power of death, and thus we should have no fear of it, then why in the world should we fear anything. It is by the power of the cross and ressurection that we are saved and thus are given authority and power as children of God. If we need not fear death then we also need not fear anything. All is in submission to the cross and if we bear that cross then we have nothing to fear... not even, as the cliche says, 'fear itself'. I suggest that the church reclaim this teaching, and walk in this boldness. Embrace the fact that we died and were raised with Christ in our baptism and run to our death. It may be a scary thought but we need not fear it. Out death may be immenant or it may be far off. My thought is who cares, pursue the cross and it matters not when death comes - for it truly comes in vain!!

Part Three: Solo (and not the DC Talk album)

Since sophomore year in college I have been under the opinion, which as with all of my opinions I do not hold to lightly, that solos (i.e. a guitar solo - though it could be any instrument or voice) are completely out of place in the worship of the church.

I came about to this thinking as a result of the mentorship of Troy Mcknight and Brian Emerson in Koinonia and continued to teach this idea as a leader in that ministry in undergrad and as a pastoral intern without giving much thought to an opposing view point. I say all this not because I'm questioning my thinking, because I would firmly argue that solos don't belong in the worship of the church for various reasons, but because I have met with some resitance to this thinking and am looking to clarify it. First let me lay out a few reasons why I think solos have no place.

1. They draw attention to one individual and are a novelty that takes the worship away form the Triune God and places it on the individual performing the solo.

2. As if 1 wasn't reason enough, they serve no theological purpose in ushering the community into the presence of God.

3. The spontaneous nature of the solo in the context of corporate worship, specificaly because it lacks introduction and explanation via the structure of the service or audible explanation, disengages the congregation and inturupts their participation in the worship of God.

4. The solo is inherently self-focused and being performed rather than serving as an integral part of the liturgy that allows the "work of the people" (literal meaning of liturgy) to continue.

Let me be clear on one of these points. In number 3 I am in no means rejecting any spontinaity in worship. Worship can and should have degress of spontinaity but, that spontinaity is often placed within the structure of the church's worship so that it is contextualized by the service, and thus explained, or is prefaced by an explanation of some sort that explains what the spontanious time is meant to do. Performing a solo without liturgical context or verbal explanation seems to be quite analogous to speaking in tongues without an interpretor in a corporate setting - and as we know, St. Paul tells us that this is right out.

Just incase it hasn't been clear so far I am mostly referring to an instrumental (and also a vocal) solo during a worship team lead liturgy as this is the most common venue for this occurance. The reason I write all this is because as I think about this I am at a struggle to precisely define what the difference is between a solo and such things as an interlude, a fill, or an anthem.

I think my above number 3 seems to set a solo off from an anthem but I am still interested in what you all are thinking - especially my friends from undergrad who have music degrees. What are the musical differences, how about theological ones? Do you think I'm right in my assertion or am I am off base? I would appreciate help in thinking through this. So let me know. As always comments are good but you are all my friends (unless your some stranger) and you probably have my phone number so calls are welcome as well.

Part Four: Community vs. the Trinity

Both at Houghton and at Asbury over the past few years there has been much discussion as to the great importance of community in the church. This has been brought to our attention through things such as postmodernism, the vast lack of a sense of community in the church, and the emergent movement. As a member of the worship design (aka Chapel Intern) at Asbury I have been examining and listening to our chapel speakers to see what is being emphasized in our chapels. I have noticed that quite often community is stressed, the practice of it is implored and the abandonment of it has been chastized. One other thing that I have noticed is that Community is mentioned 10:1 over the Trinity. And while the argument can be made that we frame our discussion of community trinitarianly I would argue that "framing" is not enough. If we hold to the Trinity as the ultimate truth of the Godhead revealed, which I do, then we must do more than use it to frame our thinking. Why on earth are we talking about community more than the Triune God? Has community become our new idol along with relevance? (see my earlier post entitled "Current??")

It worries me that the western protestant church is spending so much time worrying about community and not talking about the fullest revelation of truth. Are we or are we not a people who claim to worship a Triune God? If we are then I suggest we do it - with our "framing" with our words and with our actions. I believe that becasue the Trinity is in community then community will flow out of our worship of the Trinity, but I seriously doubt that true trinitarian worship can ever flow strictly out of the practice of community.

This emphasis on community is particularly emphasized in many of the self proclaimed "emergent churches," which as many of you already know I consider nothing more than a great basterdization of the church, but nonetheless they serve as another great example of the wrong direction the church is taking.

Many of these emergent churches have decided to meet in the "round" (cf. Doug Pagit "Re-imagining Spiritual Formation) which basically means that they design their seating so as to face each other in a circle. They do this so as not to elevate one person (ie the pastor) over the rest of the congregation and also to emphasize that everyone is important.

Now compare this seating design to that of the high-church Orthodox Church. In the Orthodox church the congregation always faces east to symbolize the direction in which Christ ascended and will return. An Icon of Christ is always placed at the front to focus the worship of the congregation on Christ our God. The priest, instead of facing the congregation for the whole service (as in western traditions) faces the icon to symbolize the priestly mediation of the prayers of the people ascending toward God.

Now tell me the implicit theological focus of each one of these seating designs. Who is the object, center and focus for the Orthodoxy - well the seating as well as the liturgy declare that it is Christ our God who recieves all Glory with the Father and the all Holy, Good, and Life Creating Spirit, now and ever and unto ages of ages. While the design of the emergent gathering focuses on one another, on the "community" and thus places us as the object of worship.

This is a perfect example of how we are slowly elevating "us" to the center of worship. All this is is classic theological liberalism at it's best and paganism at it's worst. We can never get Triune theology out of community, but we can and will get community out of Trinity. The question posed to us as Christians is which do we want to emphasize.

Part Five: Regularity and Novelty

This one should be pretty short. I've been asked a few times (mainly by my parents) but also by a few other people how I can get anything out of church. To be fair this question is based on the fact that I go to an Orthodox Church which practices the same liturgy every Sunday. So the question is very fair and very appropriate.

There really isn't an easy answer. I do know that God reveals himself to me in the liturgy every Sunday. I know that as I recite the liturgy over and over I am begining to learn scripture and theology and allowing it to embed in my being deeper and deeper.

I don't want to assert that variety in worship is bad, but I do think there is much value to consitency and repetition. Our priest gave a great example of this the other day in church. He was expounding on the Orthodox practice of saying "Lord have mercy" repeatedly and pointed out that there are some prayers in which that line is said almost 50 times in a row. When questioned explaining how it could have meaning the 50th time he said that we really only understand what were saying the last 3 times. The first 47 times are preparing us and shaping our hearts to really understand and mean "Lord have mercy." I thought this was a beautiful illustration.

Another great explanation as to how repeated liturgy can be beneficial is offered by the great protestant theologian C.S. Lewis. Lewis says the following:

“A worship service works best when, through long familiarity, we don’t have to think about it… The perfect church service would be the one we were almost unaware of; our attention would have been on God. But every novelty prevents this. It fixes our attention on the service itself; and thinking about worship is a different thing from worshipping… Tis mad idolatry that makes the service greater than the god. A still worse thing may happen. Novelty may fix our attention not even on the service but on the celebrant…There is really some excuse for the man who said, ‘I wish they’d remember that the chart to Peter was ‘Feed my sheep’; not ‘Try experiments on my rats’, or even ‘Teach my performing dogs new tricks.’”

To Lewis' statement all I have to say is Amen. I do feel that there is so much novelty in so many of our church services that we lose sight of the true importance. We reject the great affirmations of the faith because we recited them every Sunday as kids, or we throw out theologically packed hymns because they're old and boring.

The problem, my friends, is not with the liturgy, the hymns, the creeds, no it is with us. We have allowed our entertainment cravings for something new to drive our worship of God. We have ceased to see ceased to see God in the ordinary things of the liturgy not because we they're too often said and thus God is not speaking through them, but because we've hardened our hearts to them because we're bored. As Ben Witherington once said "Boredom is the state of mind for those who lack imagination" and to be sure we have become theologically bored with the great traditions of the faith not because they are rote, but because we lack an imagination that is holy and constantly renewed by God.

Am I allowed to write a creed?

Either way I wrote one. I think this has been a long time coming, but I was sitting in class tonight and a friend charged me to write a creed so I did.

I know it's not the right time in teh Christian Year for this creed as it is surely one that fits into a church season, but nonetheless I shall post it now. I wrote it tonight (10/19) so it's fresh - it still may go through some revisions but here it is.


The Symbol of our Faith as affirmed by the holy bishops in the 1st Ecumenical Council in Wilmore, KY.

I believe in one team, the Yankees, evil upon evil, destroyer of all good in baseball both visible and invisible.

And in George Steinbrenner, the progenitor of evil. Begotten of evil before he came to power. Yankee of Yankee, evil of evil, begotten and not made evil, of once essence with the Yankees, by whom all disaster to baseball is made. Who for us baseball fans and our angst came to power from hell and was made the owner, not by virgin birth, but by dispensation of dirty cash and became owner. And he was caused to flourish under Bud Selig and enacted his power in free agency and won championships. And the fourth year he lost the series, according to the choking of Rivera, and thus descended to playoff abyss and now sits right in the middle of the AL, and lo, he shall rise again with evil to rule the AL: whose reign may have no end.

And in the evil Derek Jeter, the shortstop, the poser of clutch, who proceeds from the Yankees; who with the Yankees, and the Steinbrenner is to be loathed and hated, who plays in New York.

In one Unholy, Catholic and Sinister Fan base. I acknowledge one Nathan’s Hot Dogs for the partaking of evil. I look for the destruction of the empire and the hope of the MLB to come. Amen

Yes, I know....

I'm a bad person. I haven't posted in forever. The semester has been long and very busy. I do actually have a post started (I started it about a month ago).

I will try to finish it this weekend and make some sort of a post. I think I should be able to make it happen. If not it's because i'm a huge slacker, or maybe I'm catching up on all my school work. - bust most likely because i'm a big slacker.

So stick around you know you all are gonna want to read this. It's gonna blow your mind!!

- Ben

Summer Ramblings II

My declaration that I would try to post more often seems to be in vain, as I haven't found the time to post because I've been so busy with work. Here are some random thoughts that go back as far as the weekend around July 4th.

-------Thoughts from the Road------

I found myself in Dayton, OH on the days immediately preceding the 4th of July and had and interesting conversation with one of the guys that works occasional weekends with our company. He found out I was studying to be a pastor and was trying to strike up conversation with me when he asked "What do you think about those new churches people are going to now?" I replied that I didn't know what he meant, to which he replied: "You know, those new churches like Quest and [another large church in our area]. I realized that both of these churches were well known for being "seeker churches" in fact the people at Quest define themselves solely as a "seeker church". I tried to control myself and not launch into a long lecture on the evils of seeker churches and how they are destroying the very fabric of the church, so I told him something ot the effect of "I guess they're ok, I personally don't enjoy them, but you know..."

His response (the reason for retelling this story) was: "Yeah, I don't like them, I really don't get much from them. They're no real message to em." When he said that I about fell off of the case I was sitting on. It just blew me away that this guy who wouldn't call himself a Christian who doesn't claim to live the Christian life or anything along those lines, is repulsed by the seeker churches in the area. It seems that he would rather have the church be the church instead of trying to mask itself and pretend that it is something it's not (entertainment). I just find it amazing that the people these seeker churches are trying to reach aren't interested in them because they're not Christian enough. Crazy!!

I'll avoid getting on my soap box again and allow the above comments to suffice. I just thought it was a cool story.

----- Thoughts on the 4th of July----
Yes, I know it was a while ago, but it still burns me up. It it wasn't for the super-cool combination of fireworks and BBQs I'm very sure I would hate the 4th of July. I don't hate it because I hate America or anything like that. My biggest problem with Independence day is the reaction the protestant church in America has to it. I firmly believe that the Sunday closest to the 4th of July is the most syncretistic day in all of Protestantism. It is a day when we mesh our worship of a Holy and Triune God with our worship for our nation-state. We, as a church, take this Sunday as an opportunity to jump on the "hooray America" bandwagon and become idolators of our nation.

Frankly this syncretism makes me want to vomit. I am not opposed to being patriotic and I am not opposed to supporting our nation's leaders and things of that nature. But there is absolutly no way that the people of God should be so enamoured with a nation-state, whether it be the USA, England, Iraq, or even the political nation of Israel. To be completely supportive of a nation-state is to lose sight of the kingdom of which we are true citizens - namely the Kingdom of God.

There is also absolutly no way that the work of the people of God (the truest sense of liturgy) should be bastardized with hymning any nation! Yes, it is meet and right to thank God for our freedoms and it is good that we should praise him for the blessing of a stable govermental system surrounding us, but we cannot allow that to be the focal point of our liturgy on the Sunday of Independence day, or on any Sunday. I would even go so far as to argue that to sing patriotic songs in the church is a corruption of the purpose for the gathering of the church.

This problem is not isolated to merely the 4th of July, no, this syncretism runs deep within American Christianity and we must begin to uproot it and rid ourselves of it. We must always remember that our hearts and our homes are not of this or any nation-state, we are citizens of the Kingdom of God. Our citizenship is sealed by partaking of our Lord's death. No one and no nation can lay claim upon us except the one into who's death we have been baptized - our glorious bridegroom Jesus Christ.

------- Topics from the list --------

On my last post I put a list of things I was thinking about at the bottom. Here is one of them.

My church history musings:

A while back I got into a discussion about the start of the papacy with some friends and the issue has been nagging me ever since. Most protestant historians date the start of the papacy with Leo the Great (approx. 450ad) some scholars date this earlier and some a little later, but this seems to be the time of general concensus.

My contention is that there could not have been a "Pope" in the way most would understand it until after the Great Schism (1054). I think that any assertion of a papacy before this date is due to anachronistic and westernly biased reading of the early church documents. Although the common arguments for the papacy first originated with Leo the Great it is very clear from reading church history that he is not taken as the supreme bishop. His word does not sway all the other bishops and he does not have the power to control all the other regions of the church. It is my thought that protestant scholars have read church history through a western lens for so long that they fail to understand the eastern idea of "order of primacy." Order of primacy simly means that one is the highest among equals. In other words if the Roman bishop (Leo) had the highest order of primacy he would not have more power than the other bishops, but his opinion would have been held with a little (note little) more weight than some of the others. This does not imply that he has more power, it is just an issue of respect.

I may have not explained that clear enough, but this is what I think we have in the case of Leo and the other early bishops of Rome that the protestant scholars like to refer to as popes. To be clear it is obviously absurd to think that the Great Schism happened and "poof" we have a pope. Yes, this was a growing political force which finally came to a head when the Bishop of Rome acted upon the power he thought he had and inserted a phrase into the Nicene Creed.

I argue that the Bishop of Rome could not have been a true Pope at the point of the Schism because if he was then the rest of the Bishops would have naturally followed his lead by adding this phrase into the creed because he would have been the theological supreme. However, not a single bishop followed this move and thus the Bishop of Rome did not have the power he believed himself to have (and the power which protestant historians credit to him).

I am not intentionally trying to take an Eastern line on this subject, this is just what makes the most sense to me. I think that our historians are reading church history ignoring the concept of "order of primacy" and are thus misconstruing our perception of church history. Yes, I admit I could be wrong, these scholars have much more training than I, but somehow this seems to make the most sense, especially after growing up seeing church history with western eyes and now trying to view it with eastern eyes.

----------

Well I think that's all I'm going to post for now. I'm tired and need to go to bed. Hopefully I'll post a little more frequently.


Blessings,


Ben