Summer thoughts

Before I jump into the heart of the post (which as usual will be an assortment of randomness) allow me to do a quick update on my life. I'm not four weeks into my summer job with Youthworks (www.youthworks.com) in which I am the Site Director for their Duluth, MN site. This means that I manage a site staff of three college students (who are all awesome by the way) and together the four of us facilitate groups of about 60+ junior high kids and chaperones on week long missions trips into Duluth. While I don't get a lot of time to relax my job isn't that hard because my staff is incredible. While in Duluth we are living at a Lutheran Church which has been more than welcoming. They have lavished us with love and hospitality since the first day we stepped in the door. I will finish up with Youthworks on the 14th of August and then will leave MN after spending a couple days with my cousin Tony.

Now to the randomness.

Concerning the Eucharist:

I guess this sort of jumps off my last post. Since I am currently living in a Lutheran Church (ELCA not Missouri Synod) I have had the delight of attending three Lutheran liturgies (two traditional and one contemporary). In all three of these liturgies the Eucharist was served and in each one I noticed that the prayer of epiklesis was not said. For those unfamiliar with this term the prayer of epiklesis is the prayer which is prayed before the elements are recieved in which the Holy Spirit is asked to change the gifts and also us. I'm sure there is a better text book definition but I don't want to take the time to look it up. From what I understand historically concerning the development of liturgies the prayer of epiklesis is pretty much and essential part of any eucharistic liturgy. While the words may be nuanced this prayer is included in the Eastern Orthodox rite, the Catholic rite, the Methodist rite and I'm sure in many others. It appears in some of the earliest eucharistic traditions. Since the Lutheran liturgy has many similar phrases to the Catholic liturgy I assumed that I merely missed this prayer the first Sunday. After it was omitted the second Sunday I though the pastor forgot it and then after the third Sunday I resolved that it must not be part of the liturgy. I thought this to be extremely odd since Lutherans traditionally have a high view of the Eucharist. I didn't get a chance to talk to the pastor of the church in which we are staying, but this past week we did have a Lutheran Pastor come with his group. I asked this pastor and he informed me that the prayer of epiklesis is indeed not part of the Lutheran liturgy.

While I do not know Lutheran theology enough to comment on the inclusion or omission of this part of the liturgy I do think that it is hard for one to have a eucharistic theology of real presence (which I think Lutherans do) without a prayer of epiklesis. I suppose one could still hold this theology without invoking the Holy Spirit to make the change (or bring the presence), but I struggle to comprehend how this would look. I also wonder why it was taken out of the Liturgy during the reformation era.


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

A couple days ago I was asked by my supervisor what God was showing me through devotions. I thought for a second and came up with nothing. I thought some more and then provided some generic answer to avoid any possible shame that may be seen in the lack of an answer to that question. I didn't really think much of this until the other night I was down on the banks of Lake Superior with my staff and I wandered off by myself to think. The above conversation came to mind and I thought about how awful I felt for not having an answer. I felt awful not because God isn't working in my life and not because he hasn't been showing me something, but because I couldn't sufficiently meet the paradigm out of which the question was asked. Let me explain.

Has God been working in my life? YES.
Have I been growing closer to God? YES.
Have I learned to love God more over the past few weeks? YES.
Has God spoken to me in significant ways? YES.

Even with a resounding 'yes' to all of the above questions (which weren't asked in our conversation) I still feel as though I was unable to provide an appropriate answer to the question asked me. Why? Well it seems to me that the question that was asked begs for an answer that is significant. For example I think a good answer to that question is: "well, God has been teaching me that I'm self centered and here are 10 ways for me not to be" or "God has shown me that I need to do X, Y, or Z." These answers (and thus the question), while realistic at points in time, do not seem to do the Christian life justice. Sometime one cannot articulate what they are learning about God or what God is showing them. Sometimes growth happens in such a matter that we know we are growing but we are not sure how to articulate it. This is the process of the Christian life.

It seems to me that so much of protestantism focuses on the cataclysmic moments in one's faith and thus tends to error into heaping shame upon individuals or causing them to feel like no growth is occurring if there is not a moment of crisis. Will moments of crisis happen? Undoubtedly, but it seems that if we only look for crisis moments then we end up being blind to the working of God in all the normal moments of life.

All that to say that in retrospect I didn't like the question I was asked. God has been working in my life, but I'm not sure how to articulate it. I guess mostly I'm just learning obedience through the process and learning how to love him more and to partake in the divine essence.

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

One thing that I've noticed over the past few weeks is that I am slowly losing my longing for Sundays. Over the past few years I have come to love Sundays, not as sabbath, but as the Lord's Day. As a celebration of our Lord's resurrection. I have come to shift my eating and living happens to make Sunday truly a feast day that helps remind me that 'He is Risen.' While I still go to church and while I still celebrate Sunday, much of my Sunday is spend thinking about the group of kids that will arrive at the church at 4:00pm instead of thinking on Christ's Resurrection. Now I must be honest here over the past year some Sundays I just relaxed and didn't do much meditating and others I actually did homework, but on the whole I did at least consider one way or another to mark Sunday off as a celebration - as a mini-Easter. I find that since our Sunday schedule is packed I am not able to either relax or think about ways to celebrate his resurrection other than by attending church. I take joy in going to church but it seems that everyone around me perceives church differently than I do. I just heard one of my staff say that since she went to church tonight she doesn't need to go tomorrow (Sunday). While there is not much of an argument that can be built against that logic it makes me very sad that we have lost the meaning of Sundays. Why do we go to church on Sunday? To celebrate the resurrection with our primary family - the family of faith. Just thinking about Sunday in it's theological context gets me excited and makes me want to go to bed right now just so that when I wake up I can go to church. I'm not sure where I'm going with all this except that I'm sad that I don't get to enjoy Sundays as much anymore and I'm very sad that so much of the church (especially protestantism) has no clue what Sunday is even about or why we even do church or have it on Sunday.

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

Well I think that's it for now. I hope I'll be able to blog a bit more this summer, but I can't promise anything.

May God bless you all,

Ben

One for the Road

I don't' know when I'll get the chance to post again and since it's 1:20am and I leave for the airport at 3:45am I thought that I would write a post instead of getting some sleep. As is usually the case with my longer posts, you'll have to forgive a lack of structure as I just string together a bunch of things I've been thinking about lately.

-----------

Today in church we sang a hymn that said "As many as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ." That is really apropos of nothing, except for the fact that it was really cool. I may have been going somewhere with that, but I'm not sure now so we'll move on.

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

A while ago I attended a training seminar for my summer job and they constantly emphasized that they do what they do because they "love the church." While I support their foundation of love for the church (because I do love the church) it started me thinking about what it means to really be the church. This is an issue I've been wrestling with for a while. I think I started to think about this during my time at Houghton and then it really started to take off since I started going to St. Athanasius. I know that many of my Orthodox friends will have ready answers for these questions as their tradition has a well developed ecclesiology, but I'm sure I'm not the only protestant who lays awake at night and thinks these thoughts (don't laugh because I really do lay awake and think stuff like this).

So here are some of the thoughts I jotted down while in my seminar.

1. Is the church primarily institutional?
   
   
2. If the church is institutional is that institution contingent on a constant line of Apostolic Authority (i.e. The apostle Peter lays hands on Jim, who lays hand on Bob, who lays hands on Jeffy, etc.) or is it primarily tied to the apostolic tradition and teaching?
   
   
3. How big of a role to authority play into where the church is? If Apostolic succession and authority are necessary for one to be in the church then are all of us in the west outside of the church because of the rebellious act of inserting the Filioque ('and the Son') clause into the Nicene Creed?
   
   
4. To be part of the visible church does one need to celebrate the sacraments? If so then are we forced to eliminate the Salvation Army and other non-sacramental groups from "church" status?
   
   
5. Does one need to affirm all 7 ecumenical councils to be part of the church? If so what about the groups that are ignorant of the councils or don't accept one or more of them, but are still orthodox in their teaching?
   
   
6. Is the church primarily visible or invisible? If it is invisible then what is the point of visible sign acts like the Eucharist and baptism?
   
   
7. Does one need to be baptized in order to be accepted into the church? (Necessary for salvation? - Talk amongst yourselves).
   
   
8. If we assert that celebrating the sacraments are a necessary action for the visible church (and I think they are) does authority then also become essential? (cf. St. Ignatius of Antioch [ca. 150AD] - "Do nothing without the Bishop")
   
   
9. If the sacraments are given to the visible church can they be celebrated and acted outside of the church? (i.e. can they be separated from the Liturgical and Authoritative acts of the Church proper?)
   
   
10. What doctrines are essential for one to be the church? Is Trinity (I think yes)? What view on predestination or other disputed theological matters?
    
    
11. If correct doctrine is essential then is correct action essential? Can action and doctrine (orthopraxy and orthodoxy) even be separated? (I doubt they really can.)

One may ask how we can truly love the church if we have so many "if" statements. I content that even if we're not sure (as I'm still working through this) we can still love the church by loving the people of God, or rather, loving those who call upon God in Trinity and profess to be the "church."

So there are some thoughts on the church. I hope this doesn't cause anyone to have an ecclesiological crisis but these are some things to think on for sure. I'm sure we could even add more to the list, but we'll let that simmer for a while.

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


Laying aside my questioning I will not turn to some asserting. But first...a back-story.

When I went home for my Grandpa's funeral a few weeks back I was outside with my 10 yr. old cousin and we were talking away. He asked me if I was seriously going to be a Catholic priest like I had told him I was a day or two prior (I like to mess with him like that). I told him no, but asked him why he cared. Oh and I should note that he's a fairly smart 10 yr. old. He proceeded to tell me that all the problems with the Catholic church and how they didn't believe like "we" (i.e. protestants) believed and thus they probably weren't Christians.

Now, I don't want to pick on my little cousin, because he is after all only 10 and that's not really a fair fight (he'd probably own men). But I am fairly certain that these thoughts didn't originate within himself. In fact, to be honest, I had many of the same thoughts in myself before I went to Houghton.

I tried to tell him that Catholics really don't believe some of the things that he claimed, but the big question that came to my mind is why protestants have such a beef with Catholics. I'm sure they'd have beef with Orthodox too, if they actually knew what they were. As I thought about this I came to a few conclusions. I think that many of the protestants who rail against catholics have had very minimal interaction with catholics, catholic services, and catholic writings. I also think that protestants have unfairly characterized catholics. I believe this characterization stems from not knowing what they believe, but also from being intimidated by the authority structure that is in place within Catholicism. I am willing to contend (and to be fair I would need to do much more research) that much of the negative reaction to Catholics by protestants is not really concerning beliefs (because most protestants don't really know what Catholics believe) but because they don't understand authority and have been taught that to have any priest other than oneself is of the devil.

I say this because one of the most common critiques of Catholicism that I hear is against confession. I am absolutely befuddled by the number of protestants who will go to their small group meetings and share that they are struggling with "sin A, B or C" and ask for prayer to help them, and then turn around and condemn Catholics for seeing a priest and confessing to him. What an absurd hypocrisy.

The more I think about it, the more I believe that much of protestantism has a sever problem with submitting to authority. It's sort of appropriate considering we still define ourselves as "protest-ant" (i.e. one's who are protesting against something - namely authority). Yes, authority can be taken too far. Yes, there have been some bad Popes, Bishops, and Priests. But there have also been some very godly and saintly Popes, Bishops, and Priests. In fact, one of the most saintly men that I have ever had the chance to meet was Fr. Raniero Cantalamessa. Fr. Cantalamessa visited Asbury in the fall and is the preacher to the Papal Household. Yes, that means he preaches to the Pope. Granted my interaction was limited, but I could tell from my limited interaction that this was a Saintly man who loved and served the Lord with great zeal. It was my delight to receive a blessing from him before he left.

So all that to say that I hope my cousin and most of protestantism will come around and appreciate the good that Catholicism (and Orthodoxy) has to offer. I think that this move has begun, but let us hope that it continues as good dialogue with Christian traditions and doesn't move into dialogue with non-Christian religions such as Mormonism and Jehovah Witnesses.

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

Book Review:

I finished St. Cyril of Jerusalem's Lectures on the Christian Sacraments a few weeks ago and it was great. The lectures are relatively short and one could easily read them all in one setting. Cyril writes his lectures around 348AD and so these lectures are a great insight into early sacramental thought. Cyril writes on beginning Catechism, The Eucharist, Baptism, and Holy Unction (not in that order).

There were so many good things allow me to just quote a few passages:

Speaking to catechumens concerning preparation for Baptism:

And what Solomon spoke of others will suit you also; for he said, There is a time to bear and a time to die; but to you, on the contrary, the time to die is also the time to be born; and one and the same season brings about both of these, and your birth went hand in hand with your death.
O strange and inconceivable thing! We did not really die, we were not really buried, we were not really crucified and raised again, but our imitation was but in a figure, while our salvation is in reality.

Concerning the Eucharist:

Since then He Himself has declared and said of the Bread, 'This is My Body,' who shall dare to doubt any longer? And since He has affirmed and said, 'This is My Blood,' who shall ever hesitate, saying, that it is not His blood?
He once turned water into wine, in Cana of Galilee, at His own will, and is it incredible that He should have turned wine into blood?...
Therefore with fullest assurance let us partake as of the Body and the Blood of Christ: for in the figure of Bread is given to thee His Body, and in the figure of Win His Blood; that thou by partaking of the Body and Blood of Christ, mightest be made of the same body and the same blood with Him. For thus we come to bear Christ in us, because His Body and Blood are diffused through our members, thus it is that, according to the blessed Peter, 'we become partakers of the divine nature.'...
Contemplate therefore the Bread and Wine not as bare elements, for they are, according to the Lord's declaration, the Body and the Blood of Christ; for though sense suggests this to thee, let faith stablish thee. Judge not the matter from taste, but from faith be fully assured without misgiving, that though has been vouchsafed the Body and Blood of Christ.

I'm not sure what else to say concerning the book, except that it is a good read and sheds some very good light on early liturgical practice and belief in the early church in Jerusalem.

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

St. Cyril serves as a nice transition into the next (and likely the last) topic: the Eucharist.

Since my senior and maybe junior year at Houghton I have been rethinking and reforming my sacramentology. Much of this formation has occurred in my view of the Eucharist since it is one of the most important things the church does. Since Houghton my view of the Eucharist moved from a strictly Zwinglian/memorialist view of Communion that holds that it is just a time where I remember Christ, to a more Lutheran/Methodist view of 'real presence' meaning that God is truly present in Spirit and imparts some sort of grace during the act.

I have continued to think on this over the past year and have pursued the issue in my research into early Church history. Although I am not sure if I am 100% committed, I do believe that I am leaning toward a sacramentology that posits not only real presence, but also real Body and real Blood. You may be asking why I believe I am coming to this conclusion. Here are a few reasons:

• As Luther wrote on the table when arguing with Zwingly: "hoc est corpus meum" or "It is my body." Jesus Christ said in the Gospel accounts that it was his body. While this could be metaphoric it seems to me that the evidence points that it is not.
• The evidence in the earlier sources suggests a very high eucharistic view and probably that of literal body and blood. We saw above that this view is fully articulated in St. Cyril in 348AD, but I believe we can see traces of this in St. Ignatius, and other second century saints.
• There is no biblical argument against it.
• There is no reason why we should not accept it. A paradigm that rejects the transformation of bread and wine into body and blood is likely entrenched in modernism and in the enlightenment emphasis on the scientific method. This worldview leaves no room for miracles and thus one might as well reject the resurrection if one rejects the miracle that is the transformation of the elements in the Eucharist.
• The emphasis in the earliest liturgies is that the Holy Spirit is the agent of change within the elements. This places the emphasis off of humans and back onto the gracious action of God for his people.
• Receiving grace in the eucharist is not juridical grace (i.e. salvific) but rather the grace of God's presence. A view that posits all grace as juridical is highly Anselmic and is not founded in the biblical worldview of grace.
• Even though it doesn't taste like it, as St. Cyril says, we must believe in faith. To help address this 'problem' one of my Orthodox friends says that it is more of a revealing than a changing. That is: Is it still bread - Yes. Is it still Wine - Yes. Is it real body - Yes. Is it real blood - Yes. It seems that this view posits that it is body and bread, and blood and wine all at the same time.

The reasons given above are why I am very close to believing that it is literal body and literal blood. I say 'very close' because it is a big move to change a whole paradigm and changing my mind to this is quite a task.


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

Today was Pentecost Sunday. How many of your churches celebrated that instead of memorial day? Probably not many. That makes me sad. Just FYI.

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

Well I think that is it. I can't think of anything else to write. I am leaving for Minnesota tomorrow to work for Youthworks for the summer. I will be living in Duluth, Minnesota and will return back to KY on August 17th. I will try to blog throughout the summer, but I'm not sure how much time I'll have. If you need to get a hold of me just call my cell (if you have it) or post a comment and I'll get it when I check my email.

Concerning the reading list: Kung, Dostoyevsky, JND Kelly, and Witherington aren't going to make the flight because the first three are too big and the last one is low on the priority list. Maybe I'll get at these during the time between the end of youthworks and the beginning of school.


Blessings to you all in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit!,


Ben

Summer Reading List

I've got a couple of things I want to post about but I'm not sure if I'll have time to put them up until after finals are over. But it is time for me to start developing a summer reading list. Just like last year I would love input from you all. Below is a list of a few books I want to get through please add some suggestions in the comments section. It seems like I always create a huge list and only get through two or three of the books, but I think that it's better to have a big list and loft goals that to only pick one or two. So please help me prioritize and please offer other suggestions. Here's what I'm thinking in no specific order:

The hold-overs from last summer:

• The Brothers Karamazov - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
• On Being a Christian - Hans Kung

Currently reading but not yet finished:

• The Brothers Karamazov - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
• Three Treatises on the Divine Images - St. John of Damascus
• Knowledge of the Holy - A.W. Tozer
• Whose Bible is it? - Jaroslav Pelikan

New additions:

• On the Holy Spirit - St. Basil the Great
• The Orthodox Way - Bishop Kallistos Ware
• Worship in the Early Church - Ralph P. Martin
• For the Life of the World - Fr. Alexander Schmemann (I was supposed to read this for class but never got to it)
• Early Christian Doctrines - J.N.D. Kelly
• The Problem with Evangelical Theology - Ben Witherington III
• The Last Days of Socrates - Plato
• The Eucharist: Our Sanctification - Fr. Raniero Cantalamessa, O.F.M. Cap.
• Sober Intoxication of the Spirit: Filled with the Fullness of God - Fr. Raniero Cantalamessa, O.F.M. Cap.
  

Where, O Death, is thy sting??

I found out this morning before chapel (4/26) that my Grandpa Howard (C. Dean Howard) passed away either last night or this morning (prayers for my family are much appreciated). I'm sure a lot of different thoughts ran through my mind. I thought about my grandpa and as a good protestant I thought about his salvific state. I knew my grandpa well, but he was a very quiet person. He didn't talk about matters of faith much and so while I knew him to be a genuinely good man (with faults like us all), a man who attended church, and a man who cared for people but expressed it in a stoic fashion, I am also somewhat unsure about his "spiritual state." I say that because in spite of this one my of first reflections was thinking on his death in light of Easter.

We are still living in the days between Easter and the Ascension and my thoughts are constantly on the resurrection of Christ. Even though I mourn my Grandpa's passing I shout even louder in my soul: "Where, O Death, is your sting!" Christ has indeed trampled down death by death and is Risen indeed. In spite of this death and even though I mourn I am reminded and rejoice because:

"Death has been swallowed up in victory."
"Where, O death, is your victory?
Where, O death, is your sting?"
The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law. But thanks be to God! He gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.

- 1 Corinthians 15:54-57

I'm baffled by this reaction. Yes, I'm sad and I weep, but truly death reminds me of the triumph of Christ. In the face of our enemies (sin, death, and the devil) we proclaim triumph. Praise the Lord. My heart proclaims the scriptures. They take on new meaning for me now. I am learning to breath them. The exhortations from the fathers are also becoming much more meaningful. My thoughts also drift to the Paschal homily of St. Chrysostom:

Let no one fear death, for the Death of our Savior has set us free.
He has destroyed it by enduring it.

He destroyed Hades when He descended into it.
He put it into an uproar even as it tasted of His flesh.
Isaiah foretold this when he said,
"You, O Hell, have been troubled by encountering Him below."

Hell was in an uproar because it was done away with.
It was in an uproar because it is mocked.
It was in an uproar, for it is destroyed.
It is in an uproar, for it is annihilated.
It is in an uproar, for it is now made captive.
Hell took a body, and discovered God.
It took earth, and encountered Heaven.
It took what it saw, and was overcome by what it did not see.
O death, where is thy sting?
O Hades, where is thy victory?

Christ is Risen, and you, o death, are annihilated!
Christ is Risen, and the evil ones are cast down!
Christ is Risen, and the angels rejoice!
Christ is Risen, and life is liberated!
Christ is Risen, and the tomb is emptied of its dead;
for Christ having risen from the dead,
is become the first-fruits of those who have fallen asleep.

To Him be Glory and Power forever and ever. Amen!

- Paschal Homily of St. John Chrysostom

Pleas don't misunderstand me. I do not rejoice in death, but rather death in it's crippled state reminds me of the triumph of our God!! I do not rejoice that my Grandfather is dead, on the contrary, I miss him and will undoubtedly grieve this more fully when i go home for his funeral. I mourn and I weep, I am sad and am broken, and although I'm unsure about my grandpa's salvific state, I am still hopeful for, as Paul says:

Brothers, we do not want you to be ignorant about those who fall asleep, or to grieve like the rest of men, who have no hope. We believe that Jesus died and rose again and so we believe that God will bring with Jesus those who have fallen asleep in him.

- 1 Thess 4:13-14.

I suppose one could argue that I have yet to go through the full grieving process yet and thus these thoughts should not indicative of how I am suppose to feel and how I am suppose to think. One could also say that my thoughts will most assuredly change as I go through the prescribed process. To this my response is that we will see. Maybe those assertions are correct and maybe not. For right now, in my mourning and grieving I am sad and yet hopeful, broken and yet not destroyed, and emotionally crushed but not abandoned. For Christ is Risen and all things look new in that light! And so, I commit my Grandfather unto Christ our God and his boundless mercy.

Glory to the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, both now and forever! Amen.

- Ben


P.S. Please know that I didn't post this to create a sense of pity. I know you are all busy so please do not feel the need to call or anything. I know I am loved and supported by you all. But do pray for my family and for safe travel for me as I travel home and back for the funeral and then again in a couple weeks for my sister's graduation.

Did Easter really happen?

I believe so, but if you attended a recent chapel at Asbury Seminary you wouldn't be able to tell. I've never been to services that are more void of joy in the weeks following Easter in my life. I'm not sure what the problem is but the services are dry and joyless. There is no excitement when the leader says "Christ is risen" and there seems to be even less excitement when the people respond "He is risen indeed." When we sing song proclaiming the resurrection they are listless and flat. We celebrate the resurrection with our words but our physical expressions and our emotions don't attest to the fact that Christ is truly risen.

Could it be that the end of the year rush has gotten students down? Well if it is the case that school work can rob you of the joy of Christ being risen from the dead then I would wondering if you have any business being a pastor.

I'm not sure if this is the case but I wonder if the problem is with the chapel services themselves. I don't want to say this is definitive problem, but I would like to offer it as a possibility. It seems to me that lately in chapel we have misplaced our focus. Instead of focusing on the major things (i.e. CHRIST'S RESURRECTION) we decide to focus on music, call to worship creativity, and other things. It seems to me that we may be allowing ourselves to become blinded by things that should just be natural expressions.

Allow me to offer one example.

During lent I suggested, using the Orthodox Church as my example, that we not only proclaim "Christ is Risen" in English, but that we also proclaim it in other languages (ideally those that are represented in our seminary community). It seemed good to the group that this was a good idea and thus we decided to press forward with it and even got a banner made with all the languages. The problem is that somewhere between idea and praxis this small expression has blinded us. It seems that we are striving so hard to "make this work" and "get enough mileage our of it" that we are forcing the issue. It's almost as if it is a showcase and we're trying so hard to be intercultural that we are allowing it to be our focus rather than the joy of the resurrection which indeed allows us to proclaim that there is "no longer Jew nor Greek."

I think this idea is great but it seems that it only works when the the focus is absolutely on the Resurrection and not on the means to convey the truth of it. It seems that this problem of focusing on the means rather than the truth to be conveyed has been a protestant problem for such a long time, but I digress.

This is just one example. I am completely befuddled as to how a SEMINARY community to be so lackluster and joyless in the weeks following Easter. I shudder to think that many in this community are merely semester away from leading churches in the celebration of our Lord's resurrection.

Maybe I'm wrong, maybe I'm completely out of my mind but this is what I observe. Maybe I'm not observing correctly because I sit in the balcony running sound or maybe I'm just comparing this to the amazing joy and celebration that was had during the Pascha Vigil at my church. I'm not sure, but if what I am observing is correct then I am scared to death for the western protestant church.

May the Lord rekindle his people and fill them with joy for truly Christ is risen from the dead, trampling down death by death!!

Christ is Risen...Indeed He is Risen

Hallelujah! I attended my first Orthodox Pascha (Easter) service last night from 11:30pm-3:30am and it was amazing. The beauty of sight, sound and smell, combined with the somber tone moving to extreme joy brought me almost to tears. I don't know if I've ever celebrated Easter this fully at any other church.

From one of the Paschal Songs:

Christ is Risen from the Dead, Trampling down death by death and upon those in the tomb bestowing life!

This is the Paschal homily of St. John Chrysostom. Apparently it is read every year in Orthodox Churches. I have read it before, but having it preached to us by Father Justin was amazing. I wanted to put it in the reader but I thought it was a little much to include that and Wesley and according to the higher-ups Wesley is the trump card. (Text copy and pasted from here.)

Is there anyone who is a devout lover of God?
Let them enjoy this beautiful bright festival!
Is there anyone who is a grateful servant?
Let them rejoice and enter into the joy of their Lord!

Are there any weary with fasting?
Let them now receive their wages!
If any have toiled from the first hour,
let them receive their due reward;
If any have come after the third hour,
let him with gratitude join in the Feast!
And he that arrived after the sixth hour,
let him not doubt; for he too shall sustain no loss.
And if any delayed until the ninth hour,
let him not hesitate; but let him come too.
And he who arrived only at the eleventh hour,
let him not be afraid by reason of his delay.

For the Lord is gracious and receives the last even as the first.
He gives rest to him that comes at the eleventh hour,
as well as to him that toiled from the first.
To this one He gives, and upon another He bestows.
He accepts the works as He greets the endeavor.
The deed He honors and the intention He commends.

Let us all enter into the joy of the Lord!
First and last alike receive your reward;
rich and poor, rejoice together!
Sober and slothful, celebrate the day!

You that have kept the fast, and you that have not,
rejoice today for the Table is richly laden!
Feast royally on it, the calf is a fatted one.
Let no one go away hungry. Partake, all, of the cup of faith.
Enjoy all the riches of His goodness!

Let no one grieve at his poverty,
for the universal kingdom has been revealed.
Let no one mourn that he has fallen again and again;
for forgiveness has risen from the grave.
Let no one fear death, for the Death of our Savior has set us free.
He has destroyed it by enduring it.

He destroyed Hades when He descended into it.
He put it into an uproar even as it tasted of His flesh.
Isaiah foretold this when he said,
"You, O Hell, have been troubled by encountering Him below."

Hell was in an uproar because it was done away with.
It was in an uproar because it is mocked.
It was in an uproar, for it is destroyed.
It is in an uproar, for it is annihilated.
It is in an uproar, for it is now made captive.
Hell took a body, and discovered God.
It took earth, and encountered Heaven.
It took what it saw, and was overcome by what it did not see.
O death, where is thy sting?
O Hades, where is thy victory?

Christ is Risen, and you, o death, are annihilated!
Christ is Risen, and the evil ones are cast down!
Christ is Risen, and the angels rejoice!
Christ is Risen, and life is liberated!
Christ is Risen, and the tomb is emptied of its dead;
for Christ having risen from the dead,
is become the first-fruits of those who have fallen asleep.

To Him be Glory and Power forever and ever. Amen!

Happy Easter!! Happy Pascha!! Christ is Risen!! Death has been destroyed by death!! Glory to the Father and to the Son and to the Holy Spirit, now and ever and unto ages of ages!!

- Ben

Thoughts After a Shane and Shane Concert

On Saturday I ventured up to Cedarville, OH primarily to hang out with my friend Becca and also to see Shane and Shane in concert. Here are a few thoughts from the trip:

1. Sugar-free Red Bull works as well and tastes just as good as regular Red Bull.
Even though Red Bull is an essential part of my routine when I run sound at concerts, it was needed for this one as well. I ended up staying in Cedarville until after 1:00am talking and then decided to drive the 3 hours back to Wilmore so I could make it back for Church in the Morning. I had a hard time deciding on the sugar-free variety but I am now sold on it. It does lack just a little in the "liquid Smartie" taste as Nate Jacoby coined it. But it's hardly noticeable and if you don't think about it the difference is non-existent.

2. Shane and Shane seem like the type of people I would want to run sound for.
I have not always had the greatest experience running sound for artists. Some are great people to work with and some are just jerks. Sadly this includes worship leaders as I've worked with more than my share of difficult worship leaders. While you can't always tell what an artist is like from on stage you can notice a few things. The first thing I noticed was how laid back they were. There were a few minor sound glitches and things didn't sound "fantastic" but they (and their openers) were incredibly laid back and just rolled with it. We found out halfway through the show that Shane Everett was actually the one running sound for the openers and doing the 'check' for he and Shane Barnard. This is amazing. Most bands tour with a front of house tech (at a minimum) and usually a monitor tech, and are completely anal about everything, this was assuredly not the case here. They approached the show as if they were just spending an evening with friends and weren't worried if everything was going to be "performed" correctly. They didn't seem to present themselves as stars and appeared really down to earth. It could be argued that all this is a facade, but from my experience (although limited) it seems that they are the real thing. I came away from the show thinking that these are the type of people that I would enjoy running sound for and would even do it for free if given the chance. That is much more than I can say about most artists and as sad as it may be this includes a good number of Christian artists and worship leaders.

3. Shane and Shane's newer songs seem to lack the lyrical "zip" or depth that the older ones have. I'm not quite sure what it is that I'm referring to here, but there is a noticeably difference in the lyrical content of the older songs and the newer ones. The newer songs are still good, but they seem to be lacking in power and the ability to pierce to the heart when compared to the old ones. Maybe this is because many of the older songs were actually modified Psalms or other pieces of scripture. One could argue that I am just biased because the new songs are obviously new and I haven't had time to emotionally and experientially associate feelings with them. Although this is a valid point I don't think it's necessarily the correct one. I think the new music is good but it seems that they are trying to be more lyrically creative and while not bad it is bringing a slight shift to the scriptural weight and deep yearning that has come to define their music.

4. I can't think of a sentence which describes this point.
At the concert Shane and Shane played the song "Yearn" which includes these lyrics:

Holy design
this place in time
that i might seek and find my God
my God

Lord i want to yearn for You
i want to burn with passion
over You and only You
Lord i want to yearn

I think this song is fantastic and it is one of my favorites. As they were singing I had a few thoughts concerning the phrase "that I might seek and find my God." While the thoughts in the song convey a sense of yearning and longing for God and also convey a Scriptural anticipation they also sounded to me in that moment to convey a sense of not having found God yet. While this is a beautiful perspective on the 'already but not yet' nature of the Kingdom and our lives with God I also thought of this phrase in juxtaposition with a phrase from the Divine Liturgy of St. Chrysostom. The phrase I'm referring to in the Divine Liturgy reads:

We have seen the true light; we have received the heavenly Spirit; we have found the true faith, worshiping the undivided Trinity, for the Trinity has saved us

To be fair I don't really see these phrases as juxtaposed but it was entertaining this thought of apparent juxtaposition that started the following thoughts. While the lyrics of the song are meant to convey a longing for God it seems to me that if taken out of context they could be used to convey a sense of postmodern agnosticism. It seems to me that one of things that typifies postmodernism is an unwillingness to definitively claim truth. This tendency may also be creeping into some of the more 'emergent' circles of Christianity in their attempts to be relevant. While postmodernism says that we can't know truth or, maybe more aptly, that all truth is relative, the postmodern church may be tempted to work within that paradigm and thus claim that there is truth and we think it is in Christ. This leads to a sense of 'we know, but we really can't be sure.' Thus, for the postmodern individual, we are still hoping that we can somehow, if it were at all possible, "seek and find our God," as the song says.

As I thought about this postmodern agnosticism I thought that the church does not need to commiserate with the postmodern as many of the emergents do. Rather, the church needs to boldly shout as the Orthodox Church does that "We have seen the true light; we have received the heavenly Spirit; we have found the true faith," and this truth is in "worshiping the undivided Trinity," because "the Trinity has saved us." Maybe this sounds elitist or arrogant, but in an age of uncertainty where all truth is perceived as relative we do not need to fall into the trap of claiming we don't know. It seems to me that if we truly wanted to be relevant (I shudder at the use of the word) then then best thing we can do is boldly proclaim what we know to be true and hold to that truth no matter how much the culture claims that we can't be certain. For it truly is a mystery that "Christ has died, Christ is risen and Christ will come again." But just because it's a mystery doesn't make it any less true. It seems that now more than ever we should be embracing the historic creeds of the Church, not because they're ascetically pleasing (like the emergents use them) but because they indicate the truth that has been handed down to us through the ages of faith.

Bureaucratic Gnosticism

Lately I've been thinking on and off about leadership and I coined the term "bureaucratic gnosticism" while conversing with a couple people on campus. While reflecting on leadership in general and on some current and past situations in which I've been involved I began to see a sort of pattern emerging from those that I would describe as "bad leaders" or at least "bad leadership." I'm not seeking to be the next John Maxwell (heaven forbid!!) and I'm really not even trying to pontificate on leadership, or so I think. The reason I'm writing this is twofold. The first reason is that I think the phrase "bureaucratic gnosticism" is nifty and since I made it up (to my knowledge) I thought I would share it. The second reason is because I am fearful that this form of leadership, although effective, is not healthy and is creeping into the church. Before I go any further let me explain what I mean by this phrase.

Gnosticism was an early heresy refuted by the church which had many forms and thus it is almost impossible to completely define it in a short blog post. With that said, one of the most common ways to describe the most basic tenet of gnosticism is to say that it was a religious sect that hinged on secret knowledge (gnosis = the Greek for knowledge). It was by possessing this secret knowledge (supposedly handed down from Christ in some gnostic circles) that one could partake in eternity. Now there are many more forms of gnosticism which emphasize different things, but we will allow this definition to suffice because it is primarily the concept of secret knowledge on which my phrase hinges.

I'm not 100% sure if I'm using bureaucratic according to its strict dictionary definition, but for our purposes we will allow it to mean: pertaining to authority, leadership or political influence. On a side note, it took me about 10 minutes to figure out how to spell bureaucratic. This is why i sucked at spelling bees.

By now you might have guessed where I'm going with this, but if not let me explain. I made up this phrase in reference to a particular style of leadership that, intentionally or not, keeps 90% of the knowledge within a small group of individuals. This does not mean that the information is confidential, on the contrary, the information (or knowledge) could easily be passed on to all involved without any harm or complexity. Why is the knowledge not shared? It seems to me that the reason is power. We are taught from a young age (and to a degree, rightly so) that knowledge is power. However, to use knowledge or information to create an artificial barrier between you (the leader) and everyone else so that you can control the power is absurd. It seems that it is this kind of barrier that leads to distrust, power trips, and dictatorial rule. Now I am not saying that there should be no division between a leader and those he or she leads, but what I am saying is that for a leader to keep such a tight reign on information leads to a form of gnosticism and micromanaging. Obviously if no one else knows all the details then they must rely on the leader for all guidance, instruction and facilitation. This keeps the leader firmly rooted in importance and power even when there is no real threat to his or her headship anyways. Just to be clear, I'm not saying that this is always done consciously. This may just be a learned leadership trait that people perform without realization. Now, this form of leadership may be effective in allowing the leader to guide his or her followers (for lack of a better term) the way that he or she wants, but it does drastically cut down on creativity, freedom, and ownership by the group under the leader. As I said, I'm not seeking to decry business practices, but I do fear that this is sneaking into the management styles of the church.

It seems that often a Pastor will unnecessarily keep information secret so that he or she may guide a board, congregation, or committee the way that they want. This approach keeps the church under the authority of the Pastor not because he or she is the pastor and has been put in place by the bishop, district superintendent, or vote, but rather because they are keeping the congregation in the dark. It seems to me that it is this bureaucratic gnosticism that perpetuates the 'god-complex' among pastors and encourages them to take hard nosed, 'It's my way or the highway,' stances with their congregants.

Really when it boils down to it this form of leadership seems unnecessary and even unchristian. We must respect those in authority but it is also an obligation for leaders not to abuse their power and create a form of gnosticism that allows them to hold the knowledge and thus the power with a closed fist. I admit that there are many times when information cannot and should not be shared and I also admit that this is not a black and white issue, but it seems to me that when the information can be shared it does no harm to share it. It seems to me that if an individual, or even a group of two or three, keeps such a tight reign on non-confidential information then they may indeed be falling into the trap that is bureaucratic gnosticism. This gnostic approach to leaders may be intentional or it may just be subconscious but either way it seems to me that it is an unsatisfactory and undesirable form of leadership.

Does this make sense? Have I described this phenomena well? Please give me your feedback as this is something that I'm just starting to think through as I see it more and more.

Baseball starts in 8 days!!

I know that I've tried to keep this blog primarily about faith, theology, and things of that sort but I would like to make a quick post about baseball so if you don't like sports then feel free to ignore this one.


I know it's still spring training and I know that opening day is 8 days away but I am really excited about baseball this season. More specifically I am really fired up about the prospect that the Orioles might finish over .500 for the first time in 9 years. Yes, that is right the last time the Orioles had a winning season i was 14!!

If I were to remain logical I would have to admit that the O's probably won't win the world series. They have a weak hitting lineup and a young and untested pitching staff and that probably isn't a good combination. In fact everything has to be perfect in order for them to win it all, but I don't care. I am a fan. I am a Baltimore Orioles fan and I have been one since the first grade. There is no bandwagoning here and thus I can confidently take my Kierkegaardian leap of faith and boldly declare that the Orioles WILL win the World Series.

To be fair I don't think our buddy Soren would think this is a true leap of faith because I'm not willing to die for this, but he can just be quiet. How on earth did I start talking philosophy. Back to baseball.

One of the reasons (probably the biggest reason) that I'm so excited this year is Erik Bedard. Here is his line from today's game:
5IP 1H 1R 1ER 2BB 8SO 1HR

Oh and this RAISED his preseason ERA to 0.95.

I predicting that if Bedard stays healthy he'll be a 20 game winner.

I'm also looking forward to seeing Brian Roberts get back into his game now that he's fully healthy. And Nick Markakis is going to have a huge year!!

Can you tell that I'm excited about baseball? The only down part to this season is that my cousin, Josh Kinney, is out for the year. Josh helped the Cardinals win the Series last year and then tore a tendon in his elbow this spring and had to have Tommy John surgery.

Enough of this march madness basketball crap. Bring on Baseball!!! Oh and I'm also taking another leap of faith and fully believing that the Yankees will suck this year. Oh how I hate the Yankees.

Lent: Feasting During the Fast

This lent has been interesting for me. Though I've not had a great many Lenten epiphanies to blog about I think that God is still teaching me good things. Probably the most significant thing I'm learning is how to feast on him while I'm fasting.

The past week or two I've been fighting diligently against a constant bad/angry mood. It's all that I can do to keep from saying or doing something in my angst - something I will likely regret later. My frustration and my "pissyness" (for lack of a better term) seems to be perpetual. I don't want to get into all the reasons for this now, but let us suffice it to say that it is not caused by the Lenten fasting (though a burger would be great right now).

Despite this "funk" the Lord has been my constant help and comfort. The Holy Spirit has sustained me through a few significant things. It seems as if I must constantly feed myself or else I will break. Here is what is sustaining me.

Psalm 103: Bless the Lord, Oh my soul and all that is within me bless his holy name. Bless the Lord, Oh my soul and forget not all his benefits. He forgives all your iniquities and heals all your diseases... The Lord, is compassionate and merciful, long suffering and of great goodness. Bless the Lord Oh my soul.

Though this is not verbatim with the text we sing this Psalm every Sunday in church and is has been my friend and food during this season. My mind and my soul sing it when things are quiet and it is the first thing that I force myself to utter when I feel this angst building.

Psalm 146: Praise the Lord, Oh my soul. I will praise the Lord as long as I live; I will sing praises to my God while I have being. Put not your trust in princes and sons of men, in whom there is no salvation. When his breath departs he returns to his earth. On that very day his plans perish. The Lord, will reign for ever, They God oh Zion to all generations. Now and ever and unto ages of ages Amen.

This psalm is much like the first. although not word for word with the text we sing it every Sunday. It like Psalm 103 often springs forth from within me and sometimes I make is a forced prayer and cry to the Lord.

The Nicene Creed: I won't recap the whole creed here. This is also sung every Sunday at my church and it encourages me and fills my spirit with joy.

Colossians 3:1-4 Since, then, you have been raised with Christ, set your hearts on things above, where Christ is seated at the right hand of god. Set your minds on things above, not on earthly things. For you died, and your life is now hidden with Christ in God. When Christ who is your life, appears then you also will appear with him in glory.

We have been memorizing this passage as a chapel team and it has truly sustained me during these periods. This is incredibly ironic because most (if not all) of my frustration and angst comes during times that I'm doing chapel things. I'm not sure if that means anything except that it's interesting.

The Lord's Prayer: Lord teach me how to pray! This is often my cry and then I dive deep into the prayer our savior taught us to pray. This has become a form of strength and spiritual food.

Various prayers: I also find myself scrambling at night when I'm reflecting on the day or even throughout the day for the Lent Reader that Asbury put out. I find myself flipping through the pages and frantically prayer every prayer from every page. I ask the Lord to teach me how to pray some of the prayer and others just gush out from my being. These prayer are from a variety of places: the book of common prayer, various saints (St. Anselm, St. Ephraim), other Christian figures (Mary Fletcher) and I even wrote a few of them for the reader.



These are the things that are sustaining me. These are the things that the Holy Spirit has placed in my life to feed me and has allowed me to feast on during this great and holy fast. Looking back over this post it seems so rigid and dry. Believe me when I say this is anything but dry. These wells are full of living water which the Lord pours out to me. I drink to partake of the Lord and distance myself from the flesh. I drink often and deep. I feel as though I must drink or I will die! I have to sing the songs of Zion. I have to pray the prayers of God's people. I must recite the symbol of the faith!! The Lord has given us these good gifts to bring life and health and freedom to our souls. This they have brought to my soul. If it wasn't for these gifts of grace I shudder to think how much more offensive and mean I would be. Yes, I am still frustrated and angry but these gifts feed me in this desert. I'm looking at making changes to help eliminate some of this angst but until the Lord leads in those decisions I must rest in these gifts. I must grab them and not let go. I don't care if I am charged with using them as a crutch because it seems as if that's what they are for now.


May our God - the Giver of good gifts grant you all things on which to feast during this holy fast!!

- Ben

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!!