Vampires, Romance, and Monasticism.

It seems like only in the world of youth ministry could there be a blog post written that encompasses vampires, romance, and monasticism. Or maybe it could only happen in my mind - I'm not sure.

Anyway, I was over on Anna's blog (here) and she posted something about the new Twilight movie coming out. I intended to post a quick comment about an event from breakfast this morning and it ended up being a little mini blog post. I figured I'd repost it here.

Here, with a few edits and additions, is my comment from her blog:

I confess I haven't read the Twilight books but I did experience one of the fall-outs from the books this morning while talking to a member of my youth group. This girl wanted advice on what to do because she has a friend who actually believes that she is a vampire. In fact, she believes it so much that she sucks her boyfriend's blood. Somehow this girl's friend is so caught up into the vampire mythos that she is unable to differentiate from reality.

I'm really not blaming the books for this as much as I'm blaming what seems to be a societal renewal of interest in this narrative over the past 3-5 years (of which Twilight is just cashing in). My beef with twilight (and again I haven't read them) is the same problem I have with most of those dramatized romance books that teenage girls (and sometimes guys) read. These books paint an unreal picture of teenage "love" and affection. Causing students to seek after such intense relationships when most of them are far too emotionally immature to handle such a relationship. I fear that these types of highly dramatized romantic books will heighten the teenage problem of seeking to find fulfillment and identity in a relationship with another person instead of in God. This misplaced fulfillment will likely result in more teenage pregnancies, emotional distress, suicides over broken hearts, and other problems of the same ilk.

Maybe I'm over-reacting because I've not read the books, and to be sure I'm not intending to single them out. I put this issue squarely at the feed of all of Hollywood and book distributors.

The church is also not without blame. As protestants we mostly reject singleness as a blessing and gift from God and have outrightly rejected monasticism. This has resulted in the same problems with relationships existing in the church because we tend to view people as incomplete until they are married.

This is a major problem within Protestant theology. Not only are we refusing to accept the biblical principles, but we are imposing on people a paradigm which may indeed hinder their spiritual growth. I truly believe that some people are called to singleness and/or the monastic life. If we insist, as we often do (albeit through actions and no so often words), that these individuals are incomplete in their singleness we are in essence asserting that they cannot be fully redeemed until married.

Think about what this lie does to our Christology. If a person is incomplete in singleness then we assert that Christ, in his singleness, was not a complete individual and thus there is a part of humanity that he did not fully redeem. Are we implicitly calling Christ's work insufficient by our exhortations and expectations of others?

I'm not really trying to speak ill of the twilight books. I'm sure their well-written pieces of creative fiction. I'm not even discouraging my students from reading them, I just think that we need to be aware of the subtle messages we send our kids.

Things have been super busy here lately, but I fully intend to write part two of my filioque posts pretty soon.

- Ben

Why I Do Not Profess the Filioque: Part 1

I came across this article the other day via my friend Chuck's blog (here).

In this article Ben Myers defends Protestant use of the filioque in the Nicene Creed. Over the next few posts I will attempt to defend my position as to why I do not profess the filioque as a Christian.

Although I'm sure I'll address some of Myers concerns I don't think I'll spend much time picking apart his arguments. Rather, I intend to spend time discussion the development and the potential ramifications of this doctrine and why I find it to be erroneous.

From the outset I should note that much of my thoughts will be adapted from my paper "The Filioque Controversy: An Historical and Theological Analysis" written in 2007. I will try to condense things but will still strive to be true to my sources and cite them when necessary (even though I don't know how to do footnotes on a blog).

To start off the discussion let me just briefly define what is meant by "filioque."

In the 325 the Nicene Creed was birthed as the primary definitive statement of belief for the Christian at the council of Nicea. Since this time, the Nicene Creed (slightly clarified at the council of Constantinople) has remained the chief confession for Christians (even more popular than the apostles creed until the rise of various protestant usage).

In the Nicene Creed is a statement: "I believe in the Holy Spirit...who proceeds from the Father..."

There is however, a much later western tradition (which we will analyze later) that professes the Nicene Creed as follows: "I believe in the Holy Spirit...who proceeds from the Father and the Son..." This phrase "and the Son" is what is meant by "filioque."

While it may seem like this small phrase is something inconsequential we must realize that the theological implications of this phrase are huge. The Great Schism between the Eastern and the Western Church in 1054 was, after all, mostly due to this tiny little phrase.

- Ben

Tactile Inspiration

I was just sitting here watching ESPN's College Gameday and they had a special spot on how most of the high profile college football programs have an inspiration object that they touch for motivation before they run onto the field. This spot chronicled teams such as Notre Dame who has touched their "Play Like a Champion" sign since the Lou Holtz era in 1986 and Texas who touches a pair of long horns before running onto the field.

During this spot the discussion approached near spiritual terms. According to the program, not only do these tactile expressions create motivation, but they also unify the team and create a sense of identity for the players.

As Christians what are we to make of these physical expression of "faith." Should we condemn the practice because these individuals are offering respect and honor to physical objects or should we just play it off as enigmatic of sports and declare that because it is not done in a religious context it has no real spiritual meaning. How do we respond if we realize that we can't dichotomize our spiritual lives from our "regular lives" because all of life is indeed spiritual? I really don't have these answers but this does prove to be an interesting issue. I wrote a bit about the issue of seemingly religious "touching" in conjunction with sports after the Super Bowl in February (here) so you can check those thoughts out if you're interested.

This topic does make me think about our own practices of tactile religious practices. Before relocating to NC I spent about three years attending St. Athanasius Orthodox Church. While I am not Orthodox, I don't think my love for Orthodoxy is any secret and I think there are many ways that we Protestants can learn from our Orthodox brothers and sisters. One of the things that we can learn is that worship, just as much as it is mental and emotional, it is also physical.

Since fully reentering the protestant world there have been many, many times where I have felt my body aching to be involved in the worship of our holy triune God. At times my arms and hands have felt cheated when I was hesitant to make the sign of the cross over my head and chest in holy reverence. My nose has been left out by not being able to smell the incense that symbolizes the prayers of the congregation as they rise to God. My knees have become soft with the lack of bowing and my eyes long to see the beauty of the Father made manifest in the images of his Son and the holy saints. I'm adjusting, and I don't mean this to sound like a complaint against the things we do at my church or against Protestantism in general. But maybe ESPN is right. Maybe we are tactile beings and touching things does inspire us and motivate us. Maybe looking upon a sign and touching a common object can create unity amongst us. And maybe this is part of the reason that the iconoclastic heresy was so detrimental to the faith and was rightfully condemned at the 7th ecumenical council.

Surely our worship practices do more than these sports practices. We do things for more reasons than to inspire, motivate, and create unity amongst ourselves. We are not "spiritual beings having a temporary physical experience" as I once read on a "Christian" bumper sticker. For if that were true then why would Christ our God become truly human and physical in order that we might be fully redeemed. Indeed we are both spiritual and physical and as such our worship must be both physical and spiritual or else by our practice we deny the truth of the incarnation and become no better than the Arian heretics of the First Council of Nicea.

May we all worship Father, Son, and Holy Spirit with body, mind, and soul.

- Ben

EDIT: Here is the link to the original video from College Gameday.

Gameday: Pregame Touch Traditions

More Football

I'm not sure why I've written so many posts on football and sports lately but here is another short one. I promise I'll get back to posts about theology and ministry soon.

While I opposed the Vikings' signing of Brett Favre on many, many levels there was one reason that seemed to rise to the top of the list. I knew that if Favre signed with the Vikings it would no longer be the team that was credited with the victory but Favre. I knew that if the Vikings make it to the Super Bowl and win it'll be Brett Favre who took them there and he will be the one upon who's shoulders the team will carried all season long.

When Favre signed I hoped that my fears would be disproved, that maybe the media would realize that the Vikings are built around Adrian Peterson, or that they would credit the defense with the marvelous work that they do. Well, I found out yesterday that my fears were correct.

I spent my weekend on a retreat with my Sr. High students and got back into town just in time for me to run home, shower, change and head back to youth group. After youth I remembered that I had a church council meeting. As I struggled to stay awake in our meeting I came to the wonderful realization that our meeting space had wireless internet and thus I could check football scores. To my dismay the first two headlines (from the ESPN and the CBS Sports applications...i think) gave headlines similar to "Favre carries Vikings in win." or "Favre and Peterson help Vikings roll over Browns."

After reading these headlines I clicked on the stats page and expected to see monster stats from both Favre and Peterson. As it was indicated Peterson ran all over the Browns gathering 180 yards and 3 TDs. Favre, however, was less than stellar throwing for 110 yards and 1 TD (stats from www.nfl.com).

Now, I didn't watch the game, but to me it seems like Favre was fairly average or slightly below average. So how in the world, with stats like that, does Favre get credit for carrying the Vikings to a win? Sure, he didn't throw any picks, but there is nothing in his stat line that indicates he carried the team to the win.

This is going to be one long season with this over-rated QB starting every week!

My Fantasy Football Team

Ok, here is my fantasy football team for our 12 team keeper league.

QB

Kurt Warner

Chad Pennington

RB

Maurice Jones-Drew

Derrick Ward

Reggie Bush

Felix Jones

WR

Bernard Berrian (you know I had to go with a Viking)

Marques Colston

Donald Driver

Earl Bennett

Patrick Crayton

Domenik Hixon

Bryant Johnson

Robert Meachem

K

Ryan Longwell

DST

Chargers

My keeper from last year was Michael Turner (RB) and I had the 10th pick in a serpentine draft format. I traded Turner and my 10th overall pick for Maurice Jones-Drew and the 5th overall pick. This would have worked out great except that, like I said in my last post, I over-thought the situation and ended up picking Warner 5th overall. Let me note that following people were off the board by the time I picked:

Peyton Manning

Tom Brady

Drew Brees

Steve Slaton

Matt Forte

L. Tomlison

Brian Westbrook

Michael Turner

Ronnie Brown

Clinton Portis

Deangelo Williams

Adrian Peterson

Chris Johnson

and 2 other people I can't remember

Novelty

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

~ C. S. Lewis

The above quote by C. S. Lewis was introduced to me during seminary by my friend JD Walt. Although Lewis wasn't around to observe the contemporary mess that is protestant worship he hits the nail right on the head. I do believe that Novelty is the destroyer of meaningful worship services. As long as worship leaders and planners seek first creativity, uniqueness, and that which is novel, protestant worship services will continue to leave masses of Christian unfulfilled and longing for something deeper...something divine. My friend JD has been having this conversation over at his blog for as long as I've known him so if you're interested in this Protestant dialogue I'd encourage you to take a look over there because I want to take a step out of the world of worship and apply this quote to something completely different - Fantasy Football.

Just as novelty is the killer of liturgy and worship so it is also the destroyer of fantasy football drafts. In preparing for fantasy football one can find himself or herself wrapped up in an endless maze of stats and strategies. In this maze one can quickly lose sight of the practicality of it all and end up over-thinking every draft move. Sure there is advantage in having a well thought out strategy and plan for your draft but when these plans turn to trying to be sneaky, creative, and novel then one's team will quickly turn into a bag of sleeper picks that never materialize.

I speak these words from experience. About a week ago our HAG fantasy football league had our draft and at some points I succumbed to the draft death that is novelty. The desire to outthink everyone lead to me using my first round pick on a QB instead of taking a solid RB or WR. In an attempt to defend myself a little bit let me state a few things. First you should know that our league is a 12 team keeper league so all of top RBs were off the board by the time I got my first pick (#5 via trade). Secondly because of our scoring system QBs far outscore every other position in our league. For example the top QB in our league last year scored 452 fantasy points while the top RB only scored 335. Despite the difference in value the perceived value of RBs is much greater in our league and thus it was my attempt to outthink everyone that caused me to overvalue a QB and destroy my draft with novel thinking.

There is one thing that I neglected to take into account on draft day that would have saved me from succumbing to this novelty - ADP. ADP or average draft position helps people like me, who arrogantly think they can outwit everyone in their league, stay grounded and know when they should draft certain players according to the general consensus value. Sure you'll always have that person who doesn't follow the plan and takes a Defense or Kicker in the 6th round, but if I would have utilized ADP I think it would have checked my novel thinking and enabled me to get a better second string RB (aside from my keeper) and still have a great starting QB. All in all my team isn't totally destroyed but it's surely not as good as it could have been.

So there you have my thoughts on why novelty is not only a killer of worship but also a plague upon fantasy football drafts. Hopefully if you haven't drafted yet you can learn from my mistakes and use average draft position states to help you truly out-draft your opponents.

- Ben

Going Old School - an ode to krispy Kreme

Sitting here in our church lobby surrounded by the "great cloud of witnesses" that is 1,908 Krispy Kreme doughnuts for our youth group fundraiser (a very easy and profitable fundraiser, by the way) I was just reminded by a friend on facebook of the poem I wrote in college about these wonderful cake and glaze objects.

Irresistible Grease

- by Ben Howard

I

Krispy Kremes

Drenched in Grease

Clogging my arteries as I feast

II

My mouth is watering

My heart is beating

Krispy Kremes come for my eating

III

Thinking of you,

You wonderful cake

I dream of you until I wake

IV

Manna from Heaven

Sweet cake and glaze

I wish to devour you until the world becomes a haze

V

Oh Krispy Kremes

My greasy joy

I'm so glad that you're not made of soy

VI

Calvinists are wrong

Arminians are right

Krispy Kremes come to me in the night!

In case your wondering this was written as a joke after consecutive all-nighters in which my friends and I survived on Krispy Kremes, chicken wings, and caffeine. Also, if you can believe it, this was actually published in our college's poetry publication. I still can't believe this fact...they must have really been hurting for some submissions that year.

Big hat tip to Gustav and Moeller for the all-nighters and their help on this.

Morality and Sports Part II: The Part where Morality is Thrown Out of the Window

First off I want to thank many of your for your kind words and your condolences. Yesterday was indeed a dark, dark day in my life as Brett Favre signed a contract with the Minnesota Vikings. Honestly even typing those words makes my heart sink a little.

Since this has happened I've gone through a couple stages of grief (denial and anger) but I think I might stop there. It is at this point that all of my moral reasoning within sports flies out the window. Even though I know in my heart this is reality, I still want nothing more for him than to have his arms fall off and be eaten by wolves. I want his partially torn rotator cuff to finish itself off with his first pass and his "enjoying the game so much smile" to be ground into the dirt by a fat defensive lineman. I hope when he plays GB that they destroy him and leave him crumpled up beneath a pile of behemoth defensive lineman. This list could continue, I'm sure with a bit of time this wound will heal, but Brett Favre has now destroyed part of my early adulthood like Jeffrey Maier destroyed parts of my childhood.

Now obviously as a Christian I don't really desire these things for Favre. We are, after all, called to love our enemies. But my sports angst knows no limits in a situation like this. I have grown up having great sports disdain for Favre and his overrated quarterback play. I've argued for years that he's not as good as everyone thinks and that he really is a detriment to a team. I've rejoiced in his failure on the field (and regrettably sometimes off the field) and now I'm told that I, as a die-hard Minnesota Vikings fan since the beginning of my life, am supposed throw all of that aside and support the man 100%. There is no way in the world this is happening.

I'm not sure what my course of action will be. I've mulled over just ignoring the fact that the Vikings are even playing this season (like my friend Fous did last year when Favre was traded to the Jets). I've thought about just watching the games and hoping he keeps building upon his all-time interception record (the one bright spot in his continued play) but I'm not certain what I'll do. All I know is that the football season just became a whole lot less enjoyable. I probably won't watch as many games and my desire to go see the Vikings when they come to Charlotte to play the Panthers just went from "I need to find the money" to "meh, maybe if someone gave me a ticket and paid for my gas I'd go."

So there you have it. I feel a little bit better having ranted about this but I still feel that sick vomit inducing reaction every single time I think about Favre donning a purple helmet and jersey. If you want some real logical commentary on this scenario then you need to go elsewhere because you won't find it here. I am biased and I will never cease to be a Favre hater when it comes to football.

If you're interested in more of this check out what Joe Fischer has to say about the logic of signing Favre over at Pacifist Viking. Some of his particularly good insights are:

Against Favre

Favre Does not Push the Vikings Over the Edge

The Risk of Favre

On Cheering for Favre

Brett Favre: Pros

My Stages of Grief

Morality and Sports

One of my favorite blogs on the net is a blog called Pacifist Viking. Not only is this blog incredibly well written (the author is a college English prof) and full of solid logic, but it also combines a love for the football (especially the Minnesota Vikings - a love I share) with interesting philosophical discussions. The reason I bring this up is that I just finished reading an interesting article in which Joe Fischer (the author) discusses the relationship between morality and sport especially in light of the recent signing of Michael Vick.

You can find the article here

One reason I find this article particularly interesting is that the topic of morality and sports was one of the many reoccurring topics of discussion in our house during seminary. While our seminary discussions were mainly concerning moral actions on the playing field (i.e. is sliding hard into the second baseman to prevent him from turning a double play a morally acceptable action?) and not discussion the morality of sports personalities like this article I still think almost all intersections between sport and morality are interesting.

Youth Ministry 101

Some things they just don't teach you in seminary and, I suppose, to be fair most of those things you just have to learn on your own. Last week I encountered one of those moments.

Our youth group had planned a trip to the local water park a few weeks ago and before we went I was thinking through a list of things to bring while walking around Wal-Mart when I came to sunscreen. As I thought about it I realized that it was very obvious that I couldn't ask a student to apply sunscreen to my back and it would be very awkward to ask one of the adult counselors to do it as well. (I suppose this is part of the curse of being single in youth ministry - you don't have anyone to apply sunscreen to your back during the summer).

As I thought about the issue and walked by the sunscreen aisle I realized that they now has sunscreen that sprayed on from an aerosol can. I grabbed a a can of and walked away reveling in the fact that I had the foresight to see this as a problem and was able to find a solution.

Our trip to the water park came and went and I escaped the sizzling North Carolina sun unscathed. A few weeks later I was getting ready to embark on a beach retreat with a few seniors who will be going off to college in the fall. As I set my bag down on the sand during our first full morning at the beach I asked one of my seniors to spray my back down with aerosol sunscreen. She obliged and gave my back a good spray and then I took the can and sprayed my chest and arms. After a full day at the beach in the blazing sun I got back to the beach house, and wast getting ready to hop in the shower when I looked in the mirror.

What they don't teach you in seminary is that aerosol sunscreen doesn't really mix with a strong ocean breeze and it's also hard to see in the bright sun. Basically it looks like Zoro attacked my back with a can of red spray paint and my chest and arms are spotted red from where the wind blew the sunscreen away from my body. Seminary Fail!

In case you're interested my friend Luke and I have started another blog where we will post random experiences like this that "they don't teach you in seminary." I'm not sure if it'll take off or not, since I hope for our sake we don't have too many more of these experiences (even though I'm sure we will). You can find the site here.

Debaptism?

In a moment of distraction today I stumbled upon this article in the USA Today religion section. The article is about the atheist mock rite of debaptism. If you were wondering debaptism is exactly what it sounds like - a rite where former Christians forsake their baptism.

This is truly saddening indeed.

Quote for the 4th

For some reason a quote came to my find today and figured that it was worth re-posting here, especially given that this one of the most patriotic weekends of the year.

This quote is from the Epistle of Diognetus which is a very early christian apology (probably 2nd century). I first heard this quote in a sermon at Asbury given by Dr. Bauer and then later found it in Raniero Cantalamessa's book The Eucharist Our Sanctification.

The quote:

[the Christian is one who] lives as an alien in a homeland, who participates in everything like a citizen but bears with everything like a pilgrim; one for whom every foreign land is a homeland and every homeland a foreign land.

Take that for what you will.


- Ben

The Ark, the Ethiopians, and the Monophysites

I just read an article from WND again and it goes into more elaborate explanation and actually talks about some "experts" in the field. It's worth a read. You can find it here.

Honestly I feel like I'm one of those trashy newspapers you see at the grocery store check-out because I keep posting all of this. In fact, until it hits real news I think I'm gonna lay off of it. It's great and interesting, but when this last article started quoting bible prophecy "experts" from TBN and the like I decided that I'm not going to pass anything else along.

However, I should address the questions I raised about the Ethiopian Orthodox Church. One of my good Orthodox friends pointed me a page I missed on the Ethiopian Church website. In these pages (here and here) it explains how and why the Ethiopian Orthodox Church is not in communion with either the Roman Catholic Church or the Orthodox Church. I would suggest reading both the articles, but the first is much more explanatory.

To give you a quick summary (for those of you who don't want to read the articles) the Ethiopians are non-Chalcedonian in their creedal heritage. What this means is that while all of Christianity embraces the 7 major ecumenical councils the Ethiopian Orthodox do not embrace the council of Chalcedon.

The council of Chalcedon (451 and the 4th council) declared that Christ had two distinct natures (Divine and Human) united in one person (hypostasis). Traditionally the Ethiopians would be referred to as monophysites which were condemned as heretics at the council. The monophysites taught that Christ had only one nature (divine and human combined together like a milkshake) and one person. If you read the article you will realize that the Ethiopians really don't like to be called monophysites and prefer the term "miaphysite." While their description is much closer to the orthodox Christian description given at the council and they are correct in rejecting monophysite teaching they are still, as a result of this disagreement still not in full communion with the Christian churches that hold to the 7 ecumenical councils.

I hope that brief description helps and doesn't confuse anyone. This discussion is heavy and sometimes I confuse myself. So if any of you all are more educated in this than I am please feel free to provide input.

All that to say that the Ethiopians are not in communion with the Orthodox and the Catholics and as such it is a huge step that the Ethiopian patriarch is talking to Rome and is willing to show the pope what the Ethiopians believe to be the true Ark of the Covenant.

The Ark of the Covenant!

If you grew up in the church, read the Old Testament, or even seen the Indiana Jones movie Raiders of the Ark you know about the Ark of the Covenant. The container of Aaron's staff, the Ten Commandments (not the movie), and some manna is said to have disappeared a long long time ago.

There have always been rumors that the Ark made its way to Africa in the time of King Solomon and the queen of Sheba and then somehow (the rumors aren't too clear) found its way into an Ethiopian church much later in history. The legends and even some discovery channel specials have alluded that the Ethiopian church has closely guarded and kept secret the official place of the ark. Over the years the Ethiopian church has refused to allow anyone except for a few choice monks and patriarchs to see the ark but has confirmed reports that they are in possession of it. Well, apparently all of this is about to change.

According to "World Net Daily" (here: hat-tip to Laura Hubel via facebook) the Patriarch of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church is going to allow the bishop of Rome (read: Pope) and the rest of the world to view the Ark of the Covenant.

Now, I'm not sure how reputable "World Net Daily" is. For all I know this could be a fake news site like the Onion, but it doesn't seem to read like one. I will continue to search for info on this and pass it along as I find it. But if this is indeed a credible story think about how amazing it is that the Ark, if this is the true Ark, is finally being allowed to be seen. Making this even more awesome is that the unveiling of this will be an ecumenical event and will help to mend the strains dividing the Catholic and Orthodox churches (providing the Ethiopian church is not in schism... could one of my Orthodox friends help me with this?).

While this is a great event and I rejoice in it, it also raises some pretty big questions, especially if this really is the true Ark of the Covenant.

• Given the New Covenant given to us by Jesus does the Ark still need to be handled in the same manner as the OT prescribed and if so who will fulfill this priestly duty?
• If the Ark does need to still be handled with in the same manner does the fact that the Ethiopian church can transport it validate their claim on being the true apostolic church?
• Will they allow anyone who is not special Ethiopian clergy to touch the Ark thus testing to see if if it validates their church?
• Will the church allow the Ark to be tested and historically dated?
• What will be the Jewish reaction to this claim? (I'm guessing complete rejection of the validity)
• Will they open the Ark?
  
• Will this produce a multitude of converts? To Christianity in general? To Orthodoxy? To Catholicism?

The questions are really endless and my mind is consumed by the multiple scenarios that this has to offer and thus my productivity at work has screeched to a halt even though I'm not 100% certain of the validity of this story. But think about it, either this is the true Ark of the covenant or it isn't.

I just found another story online that provides the report from INN (I think that stands for Israeli National News). Click Here.

Hopefully I'm not just posting a bogus story, but I was too excited by this not to put it on here. I'll post updates as I find them.

Blessings,

- Ben

Political Sainthood?

I was just reading my friend Paul's blog (here) where he mentions that the canonization process is in place for Julius Kambarage Nyerere the African ruler who brought about the creation of Tanzania.

Paul links to an article from the Sunday Monitor which provides some details. Click here for that article.

I find this potential canonization very interesting. While I do not know a whole lot about Africa or the political happenings there, I do find it interesting that the church would consider canonization of a person who rose to political power via a military coup and who seems to be just a political figure.

I guess I don't have as many thoughts regarding this as I do questions:

- Is this the work of liberation theologians that are striving to carry their legacy through the Catholic church via the remembrance of political saints?

- Does this political figure truly represent sainthood? We have other political saints such as Constantine in the east and the many political/religious popes in the west, but these individuals were not just political ideologues they also served as guardians of the faith.

- Is political achievement enough to merit sainthood? How does this fit with the way that the early Fathers viewed the Christian's role in government?


This is surely and interesting case and it will be interesting to see if the process is completed. If I hear any more information on this I will pass it on, especially if I am able to find anything about this person's spiritual qualification for canonization.

Thoughts from a Friend

My friend Ed is an Orthodox Christian who is currently writing a series of bulletin inserts for his congregation. While I love almost everything Ed writes on his blog I thought his latest bulletin insert was especially noteworthy. It is evident by this post that Ed shares many of my thoughts on Christian martyrdom. It seems the difference between us is that Ed explains his thoughts in a tactful and eloquent way rather than just claiming he desires to be martyred like I have done.

Click here to be directed to Ed's post.

Blessings,

- Ben

Have Faith!

That was the charge of many of the graduation speakers, salutatorians, valedictorians that I have heard speak at the three graduation ceremonies I attended over the past week or two. If this wasn't the specific charge it was nevertheless an essential piece of almost every speech that was given. The students were exhorted to keep the faith, have faith, and reminded that it was by faith that they had made it to this glorious point in their lives. Everywhere I turned faith was being mentioned in one way or another. But what kind of faith? Faith in what?

That is exactly the problem. The faith that was being exhorted and remembered was not a specific faith but merely some abstract notion and vague concept. These salutatorians, class presidents, and valedictorians freely mentioned church and God because most were good church-going people. But their concept of faith was surely less than a Christian understanding of the term.

Let me be clear, I am not laying the fault at these young kids because that is exactly what they are. They are students, they are doing nothing more than putting together a speech based on what they've learned through their lives at school, church, and from society. These kids did an admirable job with what they've been given, but sadly they have not been given enough substantial teaching in the Church to really know what faith is. I lay the blame on the churches for these students having unqualified abstract notions of faith that do not match with what the Christian church has taught through the ages. I also do not leave my church without blame because one of these speakers (though she was one of the best ones) was a student from my church.

As these students and graduation speakers spoke of having faith they mentioned faith in self on par with faith in God. They spoke about being able to overcome adversity and one even mentioned a scriptural reference of "faith the size of a mustard seed." It was when this quote was given that it all hit me like a load of bricks. This student (not the one from my church) and all the rest before her are products of an age of protestantism where faith is a commodity. Faith is something akin to positive self-talk. Sadly faith has become a form of positive God-talk that aids the individual in achieving his or her dreams and goals. The years of therapeutic and anthropocentric Christianity have left us with a shallow faith that amounts to nothing. This is what we are passing on to the next generation.

Sure, as protestants we champion the reformation cry "sola gratia" based on Paul's expression "salvation by grace through faith" but practically this works itself out to pulling oneself up by his or her bootstraps because faith is nothing more than positive thinking and self-motivation. If this is the case we are nothing more than pelagian heretics masquerading as believers of the truth. Surely faith is essential to the gospel call, but the substance of our faith does not lie in us but in our relationship with the triune God.

We have lost the sense that "faith the size of the mustard seed" isn't pointing to "faith" in the abstract or faith as a commodity but it necessitates that faith is something had via a relationship with the divine. To speak of faith in the abstract is absurd and it digs right at the root of the Christian Faith that we hold and are charged to pass along to younger generations.

In order for Protestantism to be true to the call of the gospel we must realize that faith is more than positive God-talk, that faith is based in the work of Christ - his incarnation, death, resurrection, and ascension; for divorce faith from the Christ event is to own a faith that is as unchristian as pagan worship. We must also realize that faith by nature changes the very substance of our being. One cannot have faith in God and remain unchanged. Faith is more than a mental ascent it requires a change of our whole being. The Christian faith does not belong in the realm of the abstract but is firmly planted in the person of Jesus Christ, the incarnate Son of the Father who brought about our redemption.

Really I'm not angry at these students, I'm sad for them. Their professions merely indicate that we as a church have not done a good job passing on the truth of the Christian message. Lord have mercy on us as we seek to proclaim and pass along the true faith. Amen.

- Ben

Passion Narratives with Ehrman

This post is long overdue but that's never stopped me before.

I had the chance a couple of weeks ago to see arch-heretic and blasphemer Bart Ehrman's appearance on the Colbert Report. For those of you who don't read much in the field of biblical studies Ehrman is a New Testament scholar who has turned away from the faith and has been publishing books about the Bible is unreliable and is full of mistakes and whatnot. Ehrman continues to go well beyond just technical criticism by attacking the fundamental teachings of Christianity and opting for a form of gnostic belief.

During his interview with Ehrman, Colbert asked him for examples about concerning his view that the gospels just don't fit together. Ehrman cited the passion narratives as a prime example of contradictory textual evidence. He claimed that Jesus' countenance is drastically different in all four narratives and thus they are incompatible and should be jettisoned from belief.

A day or two after seeing this interview I decided to drive to Greensboro to go to an Orthodox church for the vespers of Good Friday with the 12 passion gospels. As I participated 2+ hr evening service I found great delight that not only were we reading the passion narrative of one gospel or two of them but we were reading all the passion narratives interspersed among each other. In this service we slowly walked through the events leading up to the crucifixion, recounting each word, deed, and action portrayed in the readings.

As we slowly read each of the 12 segments from the gospels I couldn't help but think of the interview I saw just days prior. Ehrman looks at the passion narratives and sees contradiction, he sees a mythos about the person of Jesus and because he looks this way he falls deeply into heresy, blasphemy, and life without the living God. The church on the other hand is called to live within the scriptures. We are called to read the scriptures through the lens of faith. We were passed down a tradition from the apostles and it is within that tradition that we read the gospels. We start knowing that Jesus is divine and human and as such we read the scriptures that way. Ehrman on the other hand, starts with the assumption that Jesus is not divine (because scientifically humans can't be divine) and thus the scriptures are wrong and are full of lies and contradictions.

I realize I'm not doing justice nor adding to the conversation of "how to read scripture" but I did want to share this delightful juxtaposition that I experienced.

You can see the Ehrman interview here via Ben Witherinton's blog.

You can also see Witherington's critique of Ehrman's books via his blog if you click here.

I haven't read Witherinton's critiques, but from my experience he does a good job refuting the heretical beliefs of individuals like Ehrman.

Christos Anesti!!

Christ is Risen! Indeed he is Risen! Amen!

I feel a little bad posting this a couple days after the great Feast of the Resurrection, but I guess late is better than never and my excuse is that I was too busy celebrating the feast to blog. Glory to Christ, he is Risen indeed!

I know that if I write too much of my own thoughts on this it would be shamefully disjointed and wouldn't do this glorious celebration justice and so I leave you with the words of the great preacher and bishop of Constantinople: John Chrysostom. I've posted this before, but it continues to bear repeating so here is John's Paschal (Easter) homily.

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!

Christ is Risen! Glorify Him!

Glorious Feast!

Today the church exhorts us to join in a great paradox of feasting even in the midst of our Lenten fasting since today is the feast of the Annunciation. Today is the day that we celebrate and remember that glorious day when the Angel Gabriel came to the Virgin and proclaimed:

Greetings, favored one! The Lord is with you...Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. And now you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you will name him Jesus. He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High, and the Lord God will give to him the throne of the his ancestor David. He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end....The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be holy; he will be called Son of God....For nothing will be impossible with God. (Luke 1:30-33,35,37 NRSV)

Today is the day when we can see the full spectrum of our salvation. We look ahead to Good Friday when we remember our Lord's death, and we even glance beyond Good Friday longingly looking toward Easter Sunday, the feast of feasts, when we celebrate our Lords glorious resurrection. We look ahead like this today as we think of the angel's visitation to the Virgin. We recognize today, maybe more fully than at any other point, that our Lord came as a child to die and rise again for us and for our salvation.

The Lord and maker of the heavens, he who is uncontainable humbled himself so much that he allowed himself to take on flesh and to be contained in a womb. He who knows the expanse of the universe and who spoke to the darkness at creation is the same incarnate word that came and took on flesh as a fetus (if such an impersonal word can be used). We celebrate this day the incorporeal Son, the second person of the Trinity, taking on flesh so that humanity may be united to God. We rejoice in the fact that Christ our God took on every part of what it means to be human and yet was without sin. Our Lord took upon himself not only our flesh, but also our will - assuming everything that is intrinsic to us, for as St. Basil states: "that which was not assumed cannot be redeemed."

Today we also remember Mary's response to the Angel: "Here am I, the servant of the Lord; let it be with me according to your word" (Luke 1:38). We remember that her response was a free choice and that it was not forced upon her. In this same way we remember that we are called to emulate her and to respond to God daily with the same words. Theotokos, the God-bearer, that is the title given to Mary by the early church, not as a sign of her exultation but to proclaim the mystery we celebrate today that God himself, in the person of the Son chose to be born. The uncreated one who is without beginning chose to unite himself to humanity so thoroughly that we can say with confidence that Mary bore God in her womb. To say this statement is hard and absurd is true, and yet it is also beautiful in the truth it proclaims. Christ is the fullness of God, and yet also the fullness of humanity and today we proclaim his love. We can see this love clearly as we remember his incarnation and look toward the cross and resurrection.

Glory to God in the Highest! Our redemption is at hand, for Christ our God is conceived in the womb of the virgin so that he may cleanse us from our sin.


Sadly this holy-day is forgotten in most of Protestantism probably due to a number of reasons, chief of which may be (and I'm just offering a hypothesis here) connected to the staunch rejection of anything having to do with the Virgin Mary at the time of Luther's reformation. I believe it would do us well to remember this day with our Catholic and Orthodox brothers and sisters. I believe this feast helps us to think more accurately about the incarnation of our Lord. It helps us to avoid the heresy of adoptionism and some gnostic tendencies that run deep in some of our traditions.

So let us today join with our Catholic and Orthodox friends and boldly sing the praises of God. For today we can see both the incarnation and the crucifixion/resurrection clearly. Let us praise God for his redemption of humanity for today we celebrate the coming of grace as the Son of God becomes the Son of the Virgin!