Misappropriating the Incarnation?

I'm not really in the mood to blog right now, so this post (as have so many others) may be lacking in coherence and a well formulated argument, but I will post it nevertheless because it helps me to process things verbally (or in this case through typing).

We recently had Kingdom Conference on campus which is basically the Seminary's attempt at a four day mission conference nestled in the "church season" they like to call KingdomTide. (We'll avoid my soapbox diatribe against KingdomTide for now).

The topic of this conference was rethinking short-term missions and how we can do them well. I think this is a very important topic because so often short-term mission trips turn into vacations with just enough 'ministry' to ease the guilt of taking a vacation. We also want to avoid what my friend Eric Iverson from Youthworks calls "pimping poor people," or in some cases 'pimping the nationals' we go to work with. We want to make sure we do some good and we want to make sure that we are not only sticking a band-aid on the infection, but that we're treating the cause as well. We want to make lasting changes and almost work ourselves and our missionary friends out of a job. I'm not sure if I explained that well, but either way it's more of an aside and not the topic I wanted to discuss. (Don't you just love my flow of consciousness writing style?)

Given the topic we had a speaker in chapel that lectured on improving short-term missions. Our speaker was Dr. Miriam Adeney, a professor at Seattle Pacific, who was a fairly good speaker. I liked most of her points but during one of her lectures she said something that I remember thinking was a very poor analogy at best. In her effort to emphasize making long-term connections through short-term missions she said "What if Jesus had dropped in on earth for only two weeks?" This seemed to me to be an odd analogy and I remember taking some issue with it when she said it. I didn't really get too worked up over her comment until I saw it listed as the "Heard Around Campus" quote of the week from last week. I guess it seems that someone (and since they put it in there, I'm assuming multiple someones) thought that it was a very profound statement.

While it is a good point in that Jesus didn't just "drop in" and we should cherish that because the incarnation is absolutely essential to our salvation and for knowing the mind and the heart of God. It seems to me that she is just citing an extreme case to make a small point about missions. Maybe this is just a type of logical fallacy (and as I type this I think it is, but I can't remember it) or maybe this could be a form of Godwin's Law. To be sure, I have been guilty of such errors (regrettably too often in conversation) but this analogy just seems wrong to me and I'm having trouble articulating it. Maybe I'm not making sense but it just seems to me that placing relationship building in short-term missions (or in any sense) on the same level with the Holy Incarnation is just too extreme of an analogy. It bothers me even more that students (or at least one student) thinks this to be worthy of the quote of the week. Doesn't it bother anyone else that we just use the incarnation as a means to justify almost anything. The incarnation is one of the most glorious things and we treat it as though it were just an example that we should draw from when we want to make our argument fool-proof.

I'm not saying that I disagree with Dr. Adeney's points, I'm just disagree with her argument style/example. Maybe I wouldn't be so quick to point this out if I didn't think that we deified community here at Asbury. Maybe you're thinking that that last statement may indeed be the exact same fallacy that I'm arguing against, but I don't think it is, because I've heard some discussions (many of which come out of the chapel office) that make it seem (and I really think it is the case) that the seminary is more concerned with making sure our students value community than it is that they value and rightly think on the incarnation, the Trinity, or a plethora of other essential doctrines of the Church.

Maybe I'm making a bid deal out of nothing, but maybe these comments by Dr. Adeney and their glorification by the student(s) is just the tip of a bigger problem that is well entrenched in Western Christendom.


- Ben

Cynical?

Given my (and a few of my housemate's) cynical attitude toward the seminary one of them posed the question.

"Is it cynicism if we're right?"

So that's the question I offer up to you. If our percieved cynical attitude is right are we really cynics or just the only ones that can see reality?

I'd love to read your thoughts in the comments. Have at it.

Christ Our God?!?

Over the past few weeks there has been one phrase from church that has been constantly on my mind - the phrase "Christ our God." This phrase is repeated numerous times during the Divine Liturgy and is very clear in it's meaning - namely that Christ is our God and we worship him.

For some reason over the past few weeks this phrase has stuck out to me more than usual and thus I have been forced to wrestle with it's profundity and simplicity. I have been forced to realize what it means to truly say that Christ is our God. To say that in a seemingly nonsensical sense that we worship a man, but not just a man, we worship a person who is both fully God and fully man.

God of the substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and man of substance of His mother, born in the world. Perfect God and perfect man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting. Equal to the Father as touching His Godhead, and inferior to the Father as touching His manhood. Who, although He is God and man, yet He is not two, but one Christ. One, not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by taking of that manhood into God. One altogether, not by confusion of substance, but by unity of person.

- Athanasian Creed

This truth is something I will die for and yet it is something that although I try, I cannot fully understand and so I am forced to stand in the paradox of confident humility.

While this is indeed is a good meditation, it was not where I had planned to go with this post, so let me get back on track.

As I have thought and have been forced to meditate on this phrase I have been equally dismayed by it's absence from Protestant services. I think I first noticed this because when I first started to think on this phrase I felt slightly uncomfortable and began to analyze why. I then realized that I don't usually hear the phrase Christ our God in worship. As I thought I realized that while I may have conversations about Christ's divinity and would defend it in a theological debate any day, I never have really experienced protestant worship that verbalized Christ as God and the object of worship in a doxological sense.

Now, I realize that I am opening up myself for a great critique here as I'm sure one could find a few counterexamples and will believe that to suffice for a refutation of my assertion, but I disagree. Think about our worship services, for you Asburians think about our Chapel services (which, though they should be the exception are likely to fail even more than our churches) when was the last time that the service was thoroughly Trinitarian? When was the last time that a service was Christo-centric in the sense that it drew your worship toward Christ and caused you to bless, worship and affirm Christ as both God and man? Are our services Trinitarian - rarely. Are they Christo-centric - mostly, but this Christo-centrism seems to be a thin veil in front of bland and vague affirmations about God, rather than a specificity that is uniquely Christian and prayerfully meditative of Christ as the object of our worship - the fully divine, fully human , God-man.

Now, I am not fully opposed to songs of worship that are very concerned with the intimacy to be had between the Christian and Christ (love songs with Jesus, if you will), but these are not a proper starting place. We must start with the foundational faith and then allow room for mystical expression and intimate experiences.

We must do a better job at teaching our people the faith and for most this will not effectively happen in the classroom or the pulpit, but my making these truths essential parts or our worship both in song and prayer. If we continue on the path of only emphasizing the essential truths of the faith in classrooms and teaching them only to pastors then the faith will cease to be passed down to the coming generations.

The early fathers closely linked godliness with correct theology and action. We wonder why our people don't live righteously- could it not be that it is because they are not grounded in the Truth?

Unitarian Universalists

I went to a Unitarian Universalist Church the other day and it was an interesting experience. No, I am not converting, I had to go to another religious movement/cult for a class and they were the easiest to figure out when they met. I would write a total review, but I'm kinda lazy so I won't. I did however run into my friend Ed at the church (surprising because he goes to St. Athanasius as well) and Ed wrote a good review of the church on his blog.

I think Ed does a great job describing the UU church. His thoughts almost exactly echo mine especially when he mentions the service being boring. Oh my goodness, it was the most boring thing I've ever been to - even more boring than a Dr. Gould greek class.

The only thing I would add onto his post is that I agree that it looked much like the protestant/emergent services. In fact I would argue that it is a lot like so much of protestantism. A great deal of the service reminded me of seeker churches and even a bunch like the chapel services here at the Seminary. This, however, is not a good thing. I'm not making this point to say: "yay, look how close they are to the truth." rather it is surprising how far so much of weak protestantism (including so many of our chapel services here at the seminary) have strayed from boldly proclaiming the truth with any amount of urgency. This service really reminded me a lot of Quest Community Church which I have recently blogged about. That may be a cheap shot, but I really think(from what little I've seen) that Quest is a far cry from proclaiming the gospel and is so afraid at alienating people that they might as well be Unitarian Universalists.

I suppose that's it for now since my cults class is almost over. I had an idea for a post in class today but it may take some time to develop as I feel I should attend some services at Quest before I try to use our class paradigm to qualify them as a cult. But it should be a fun try.

- Ben

When paradigms collide

As most of you know I spent the summer living in Duluth, MN working for an organization called Youthworks. While you probably know from a previous post that I spent the summer facilitating short-term missions for Jr. High students, I do believe that I forgot to mention that every Tuesday we would take the groups that came to our site to a 'soup kitchen' to dine and fellowship with the people who ate there. While not everyone was homeless (though some were) most were among the poor of the city. This was a great stretch for me this summer. It made me uncomfortable and it pulled me out of my comfort zone (just like so much of the summer) but by the time the summer ended I looked forward to Tuesday nights and the people that I would meet.

Last week, about 3-5 weeks after my meals at the Mission had come to an end, I found myself working on the sound crew for an very prestigious show here in Lexington. The artist was Aretha Franklin, but the event was the TOBA (Thoroughbred Owners and Breeders Association) annual award ceremony. So while I'm use to seeing a ton of money dropped on concerts I don't know if I've ever seen money like this before. The event was in a large tent on a beautiful horse farm here in KY. The tent, however, was floored, carpeted and air-conditioned. Aside from the regular light trussing for the concert there was a light truss that ran the entire length of the tent on which hung three giant chandeliers (maybe about 7' tall x 3' around). I also heard rumors, which I wasn't able to verify, that the event was about $3,000 a plate.

I was both awed and disgusted by the money put into this event. To make matters worse the event was opened with an invocation which was prefaced by the reading of Jeremiah 29:11 "'For I know the plans I have for you,' declares the LORD, 'plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future.'" I love it when bible passages are taken out of context to justify gross amounts of wealth and self-indulgence (this is not to say that I'm 100% innocent of this).

As the awards went on I began to think that just a few weeks before this event I was eating dinner with the poor and neglected and now I was sitting in the background amongst the wealthy, powerful, and oppressive. As I sat in the disbelief of this realization one of the presenters gave an impassioned speech about how everyone in attendance needs to be aware of the sad reality that the thoroughbred industry is not considered agricultural by the US government and thus they still have to do horrible things like pay taxes on horse food and whatnot. I just sat in disbelief, could this person even be arguing that thoroughbred breeding and racing should be a tax-exempt industry?!

I pretty much just sat in the numb and saddening reality of the smash-up of my two worlds until Aretha came on stage and I had to do work.


After tearing down from the concert and getting a solid 4 hours of sleep I woke up the next morning (Sunday) to go run sound for Questapalooza an event held by one of the Lexington churches (a C&MA church I might add) where Toby Mac was the headliner. I knew from working this show last year, that the day would be full of chaos, poor event management, and very bad theology, but I was still saddened and angered by what I saw.

Not only did I see the huge stage, sound equipment and lighting that my company provides, but I also saw carnival rides, a motocross jump, carnival food vendors, and swimming pools for baptism. While things such as the fake-ness, the foundational concepts that church is built on, the re-baptizing, the 'worship' music, and many other things bothered me greatly I would like to focus on one small part of the larger whole that I think will tie into the discussion above - namely the theme of the event.

The theme for Questapalooza as best as I could understand was "Loving our city through Questapalooza!" It seemed to me that what they meant by this is that they were giving the city a party so they could relax and enjoy (at about a $20 entry fee mind you), but also that they were going to give away things to people such as a Wii, an iphone, and a new car. To be honest I think they may have also collected food or raised money for some shelters or organization in Lexington but this was only mentioned once (very briefly) compared to the party terminology and the give-aways being mentioned a countless number of times. In fact the point was hammered home by the senior pastor (who was, to my shame, both a Houghton College and Asbury Seminary graduate) that Quest likes to give gifts because God likes to give us gifts. After giving away the car the pastor also said: "Just know that that's Jesus, that car is from Jesus." While this oozes with heretical prosperity theology tendencies, I am not going to rule out that God does provide for our physical needs. He may have indeed prompted this person to buy a raffle ticket and guided the pastor's hand to that ticket so she could win a car. What, however, I will react definitively against is a church and a concept of God that ties love so closely to material things and goods.

With a theme like "Loving our city through Questapalooza!" I can only assume that the people of the church and maybe even the pastor are being deceived. I can think of so many more worthy places to spend what was likely over $100,000. Just so you don't think I'm totally making this figure up let me explain how I get it. Last summer our mobile stage usually rented out for $10,000 a show not including audio and lighting (maybe another 10 grand or so?). When I was in college I inquired about booking Third Day ($70,000 at the time) and since Toby isn't as big as Third Day I'd estimate about $30,000. So at a rough estimate we're talking about $50,000 (with very conservative estimates) which doesn't include the two opening bands, food for all the volunteers, the carnival rides, the moto-cross riders (and building their jump), renting port-a-johns, hotel for the bands, and the fireworks amongst other expenses.

On top of the expense of the event it was also interesting to note that when I stood on stage and looked out I primarily saw the green volunteer t-shirts. So i'm baffled as to how Questapalooza is an example of love to the city of Lexington. It seems to me that at the very least a church shows love to a city by discipling believers to live lives full of God and at the most by serving the poor and needy of that city. I thought loving a city was doing things like I did this summer: meeting people, loving on them, eating with them, serving them and not throwing them a concert that many of them don't have interest in and don't want to spend $20 to go to. $100,000 could do a lot of things and help a lot of people and I am truly ashamed that a church in the denomination I grew up in is the force behind Questapalooza.

With that said let me make it clear that the people I met at quest were very kind even if they did have some sort of cultish affection for Quest. I also know that many other churches do this on both larger and smaller scales. Yes, they do it, but that does not make Quest any more right and these churches any more shameful.

So there is my story as to how my paradigms collided last weekend. I still have a hard time believe that just a few weeks ago I was eating with some homeless people and teaching kids about being part of a church that serves in love and last week I was sitting at a $3,000/plate dinner and part of a church event that somehow implicitly teaches (heretically so) that the love of God is best displayed by throwing cash around and having a big party.

May all of us better learn how to love God and love our neighbor as ourselves.


- Ben

Final thoughts from a great summer

Let me start this post by saying that the summer I had in Duluth working for Youthworks was wonderful. I loved the work that we did and even more I loved the 3 people that I worked with every day. If I was guaranteed having a staff like the one I had this summer I would sign up for Youthworks again in an instant.

With that in mind I've been wanting to post for a while what I think is the most significant thing I feel I've learned this summer. As I talked to my staff at the end of the summer they expressed that this was a summer of growth for them. While I think that I grew this summer, I realize that my growth was less traditional than I would have anticipated. I think that my growth was through a few realizations I had this summer about my personality and about ministry in general.

The most profound thing that I realized was something that I already knew in part but nevertheless something that became part of a fuller realization. Throughout the summer I struggled a lot with feelings of loneliness and thus times of depression. While my staff was wonderful there were still countless times that I didn't quite feel that I fit in for various reasons but the most significant being merely the fact that I was the Site Director and thus I was, for lack of better description, "their boss."

Being the introspective person that I am, I thought about this for the summer and realized that this loneliness is, and will ever be, part of my life. While I have great friends and will likely make friends wherever I go, I will never fit in entirely. If I continue to pursue the calling that God has placed on my life (which I fully intend to do) I will perpetually be "Pastor Ben" and will never just be "Ben," just as during the summer it was not possible for me not to always live as "Site Director Ben." There will always be this sort of not fitting in as part of my life. Given this knowledge and my personality I also can infer that there will always be some form of loneliness in my life.

While I don't want to make the case that this is a part of ministry for all people, I do believe that this is the case for me. Does it suck? Yes! But, in my opinion, it's part of what I'm called to. While I don't believe that I'm called to loneliness and depression, I do believe that I am called into full-time ministry and for me and my personality it may just entail perpetual times of loneliness and hints of depression. And with this realization I still gladly say, "so be it, Lord have mercy."

Even in this the Lord has given me peace and still know without a doubt that I am called into ministry and it is good. This is what the Lord was speaking into me through the summer. He was allowing me to realize bits and pieces of the ramifications of the service into which I'm being called. Maybe this won't be the case my whole life but it seems to be part of who I am and how my personality deals with being in ministry.

I penned this in my journal this summer:

...I will always be "Pastor" and not just friend, just like now I am perpetually Site Director and not Ben. I have lost my identity...Is this the loneliness to which I am condemned? or rather not condemned, but called to rejoice in.

It seems to me that this was an essential realization of part of the cost for me of the ministry to which I am called into. While I learned a lot through these thoughts one of the best things was being able to end my time as Site Director and just relate to my staff as their friend. I can't wait until I can see them again and be able to just be friends and not have to be their Director. True, I will never be able to fully lay aside my heart for their spiritual growth as I saw myself as a Pastor to them this summer, but it will still be nice to have some of the baggage removed.

So I'm not sure if any of this makes sense. Maybe it's just hard to articulate since it's been a while since I was in Duluth, but either way it makes sense in my mind.

I dialogged a lot with Ryals on this issue over the summer. He has a few posts concerning foreseeable Pastoral loneliness on his blog. There are a few posts specifically about this issue and then some thoughts weave through his other posts.

Blessings,

Ben

The Crucifixion

I've been meditating on the cross of Christ a lot lately, especially in light of leading weekly short-term mission trips that are primarily social action initiatives. I think upon the cross because I believe it is in the cross that Christian servanthood is defined. As the Holy Apostle Paul says in Philippians:

do nothing from selfishness or empty conceit, but with humility of mind regard one another as more important than yourselves; do not merely look out for you own personal interests, but also for the interests of others. Have this attitude in yourselves, which was also in Christ Jesus.

Paul then particularizes this exhortation by quoting an early Christian hymn that describes the 'actions' of Jesus and thus shows what he means by having the attitude that was in Christ. This attitude Paul says, is exemplified in Christ who:

although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. Being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.

It is this attitude and action of Christ that I believe shows us what true humility and true service looks like. It is this action of Christ that opens for us the door so that we may truly love God and love our neighbor as ourselves. With Christ as our archetype and his Spirit as our empowerment we are enabled to live the selfless live that Christ did. Thus it seems to me that it is in the Cross where we see what real service looks like, and it is in the cross that we see what real humility looks like.

With this in mind I was sharing a devotion with my adult leaders a while ago in which I explained my thoughts that the cross is the center for a Christian understanding of service. I also shared that my hope for the week is that the kids and all of us (staff and adults) would be shaped in the cross for as St. Paul says in his first letter to the Corinthians, “For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and him crucified.”

I also shared Paul’s thoughts on the cross immediately preceding this verse in 1 Corinthians where Paul says:

For the message about the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the discernment of the discerning I will thwart.” Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, God decided, through the foolishness of our proclamation, to save those who believe. For Jews demand signs and Greeks desire wisdom, but we proclaim Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For God’s foolishness is wider than human wisdom, and God’s weakness is stronger than human strength.

After sharing these verses I exhorted the adult leaders to realize that service is truly cruciform, and that our goal here this week is that the kids may indeed know Christ and him crucified so that they can more fully love God and thus more fully love their neighbor as themselves.

After the meeting one of the adult leaders came to me and gave me a comment card with the following written on it.

If we focus on the death on the cross, rather than on Jesus’ life of loving and afterlife of the community of Jesus followers, we keep people away from Christianity rather than draw them in. The majority of students in my classroom, new arrivals to USA, are Muslims. I try to show God’s love to them each and every day. My impression of Allah is not of a loving, forgiving God, but of an angry, rule-bound God. The God of Jesus is the big difference for us to show. Jesus, the crucified, is very awful to a non-Christian (“God would kill his own son! I could never love this God!”) So to me the most important thing to me about Jesus is not his crucifixion, but his life and the things he taught all of us while he was here.

Are you kidding me?! It seems to me that this statement encapsulates what is wrong with so much of western protestant Christendom. How have we ever differentiated the cross from the love of God?? This is absurd. It seems to me that the failure to comprehend that the crucifixion is one of the most wonderful acts of love stems from the lax teaching on the Trinity within much of Protestantism. If our churches were teaching their congregations the deep doctrines of the faith rather than fluffy nonsensical story-time sermons we would never be able to conceive of the death of our Lord and an atrocious act committed by the Father. If we truly taught about the Trinity so that our parishioners understood it, we would quickly realize that there is no room for any concept of a disjuncted Godhead in which the Father cruelly condemns his son to suffer.

If we taught more doctrine in our churches, not as stale dogma but as life-giving water, we would also realize that the life and teachings of Jesus cannot realistically be separated from who Jesus is – namely – true God of true God. It is who Jesus is that separates him from the Ghandis, the Martin Luther King Jrs. and the other great moral teachers of the world. Jesus is God and that is what gives his teachings and life weight. It is also his being fully God that makes the crucifixion and selfless act of giving and love rather than a reluctantly followed harsh command from a cruel father.

Yes, this may be hard to conceive, but if we decide (as this adult leader has) that the cross to mean or disturbing, then what have we to gain? We have just thrown our faith away by trying to cater to our pluralistic ‘let’s love everyone’ society. Does this person not realize what the cross accomplished? Does she not realize by his death our Lord made life possible? Does she not comprehend that because of our Lord’s death and resurrection the curse has be overturned and new life has been given in the new Adam? How can one look at the crucifixion and say ‘what a horrendous act’? How can one even begin to think about not talking about the crucifixion because it doesn’t have to do with love? The crucifixion changes everything!! Love is now free to reign because Christ has died and risen.

What kind of gospel are people accepting if they are not embracing one of Christ and his death and resurrection. To proclaim a gospel that does not include the crucifixion is paramount to condemning these people. It is as if we are turning and trying to proclaim another gospel. We cannot tolerate this breakdown of the gospel. Just as Paul says to the Galatians: “But even if we or an angel from heaven should proclaim to you a gospel contrary to what we proclaimed to you, let that one be accursed! As we have said before, so now I repeat, if anyone proclaims to you a gospel contrary to what you received, let that one be accursed!”

So with all this as the foundation I still wonder why I am questioned when I tell people that we need to have Trinitarian worship services and that we need to speak about the Trinity in our churches. If we neglect the doctrine of the Trinity then we are bound to develop faulty views of the working of the Godhead and thus we will come up with kooky and zany ideas of how the Father relates to the son and will end up with proposed scenarios, such as we have here, where the Cross is a mean, viscous, and evil rather than what it truly is – life-giving, wonderful, and the epitome of love and service.

I know this post didn’t have much coherence, but this has been brewing for a few weeks and I needed to get it out. I am still awestruck by how easily this woman discarded the cross in the name of ‘evangelism.’ I can’t believe it!!

Summer Thoughts part II

For church on Sunday I decided to go visit the Greek Orthodox Church of the 12 Holy Apostles across town. While I love the church I'm staying at and will attend there most of the time during the summer I wanted to check out this Orthodox Church across town. Although some of the service was different from what I'm use to (a lot more Greek) it was pretty much the same liturgy. Despite saying and singing the same thing every Sunday for over a year I am still amazed every time God shows me another aspect of beauty in the liturgy. This Sunday was one of those occasions.

As we were going through the Liturgy we came to a line that I know I have sung many times, but this time it struck me as so profound and beautiful. The line simply says:

Let us love one another, so that with one mind we can confess: Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

It's amazing how this small phrase ties together correct confession and worship with loving one another. It almost seems to be saying that if we do not love one another then we are indeed unable to truly confess the essential belief of the Christian faith - The Trinity: Father, Son and Holy Spirit, one in essence undivided.

How often have love and doctrine been divided? How long have we thought that we can correct affirm believe without living in love? This seems like a perennial issue for much of the Church and yet we have been confessing since the earliest times that without love we cannot truly make the Christian confession.

Praise the Lord and let us live in love having the mind of Christ who considered equality with God not something to be grasped but he humbled himself even to death on a cross!


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

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.