The Feast of The Annunciation

This is a repost from what I wrote last year on this day.

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 withoutbeginning 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 gnostictendencies 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!

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

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!

What?

My friend JD (here) recently posted a youtube video of a fashion show in Britain for church ministers. I watched the short video and it made me sad. Not only did the whole fashion show deal make me sad, but the comments made by the deaconess interviewed couldn't be any more contrary to what vestments and worship is all about.

If you watch the video (here) listen to the comments that the deaconess makes at the :35 mark and following. If my hearing is correct she says:

"I've always worn bright(?) clothes and I think the clothes I want to wear as a clergy person should really reflect that...should really reflect my personality and should also reflect the glory of God's creation."

In my understanding the goal of vestments is to not only hide the individual, but also to draw one's attention toward the things of God. She is placing herself and her personality at the center of leading worship. Nothing could be further from the goal of worship. Worship is about ascribing glory to a God that is holy and glorious. It is about asking our loving Father to have mercy on us through his Son. Worship is about laying aside all earthly cares so that we may receive the King who comes invisibly - namely Jesus Christ.

If we begin to desire to see ourselves in worship then we begin to become anthropocentric instead of theocentric. We will undoubtedly begin to worship ourselves and our preferences and as such we will surely lose our souls.

Lord Have Mercy!

Text Messaging: My arch-nemisis!

I hate text messaging, and may even go so far as to say it is the bane of my existence. Sure it has it's purposes and if you looked at my cell phone bills (or rather my parent's bills because ashamedly I was still on their plan in seminary) you would see a moderate usage of text messages.

But now I am thrust into the world of youth ministry and for my middle to upper-middle class kids text messaging is the chief means of communication. Apparently e-mail is too cumbersome and to my surprise Facebook and Myspace are even out for most of them. They text like there is no tomorrow and will often have full conversations via text messaging (one of my biggest pet peeves).

So in an effort to actually be able to encourage and communicate with my kids I've decided that I need to descend into the fiery pits of text messaging. As I contemplate this task I feel like the main character from Dante's Inferno, who, as he approaches the entrance into Hell, sees a sign that reads "Abandon All Hope Ye Who Enter Here." I am that dreadful soul descending into the darkest abyss where I am forced to submit to my arch enemy the text message. Lucky for me my new work phone number is an unlimited text plan.

Really the scenario isn't as bad as it sounds since I've found some solutions to my texting incompetence. One solution I found was on the "Simply Youth Ministry" website (here). Here they offer what is brilliantly called "Simply TXT" (you can watch the video here). This neat little subscription program is really the impetus for the post, but I thought I would provide some interesting (and true) back story instead of just calling the post "Simply TXT: Ripping of Youth Ministers One Text at a Time." Though that may be a catchy title.

You see, while I'm not a technical savant like some of my friends, I am educated enough in the ways of technology to know that you can send text messages from an email account for free. I also realized that if I could figure out the same information that this program asks for (number and carrier) then I could create my own groups and send unlimited messages without paying the 10,20,30, or 40 dollars each month. Especially when my budget is already small.

So good job Doug Fields and Simply Youth Ministry, you have created a nice interface so that you can charge youth ministers and churches money so that they can open up another way of communicating to their parishioners. I understand that your websites subtitle is: "simplifying ministry...saving you time" but I doubt your program will save much time in the long run.

I understand that you don't charge much, but your program doesn't do much either and it seems to me that it would have been more beneficial for you to just offer a link to a website like "makeuseof.com" (here) and then told your readers to make a contact list of the various numbers in either outlook, mail, or some other client. Sure you wouldn't be able to fleece youth ministers and churches, and you wouldn't be able to make a quick buck in rough times. But your ministry helps are gobbled up by so many people that it baffles me why you wouldn't point them to a way to achieve the same goal while not costing their ministry a cent. (Ok, It really doesn't baffle me it just makes me sad and a little perturbed).

So Doug Fields and Simply Youth Ministry, I salute you for ripping off the masses of youth leaders who are using your product. Way to be capitalists first and Christians second.

Post Super-Bowl Thoughts

Contrary to what the title may convey, this post is more about theology and popular piety than it is about the Super Bowl.

For the past three years up until I moved to NC I attended an Orthodox church. In this church I've been fed and nourished in the faith. I have come to love Orthodoxy very much (even though I don't have any current plans to convert) and I believe that those of us who belong to the Western Church would greatly benefit from a strong dose of Eastern theology and piety.

As friends and family visited me and attended church with me one of the major points of questioning, curiosity, and ridicule (though very rare) was that things (in particular holy things) were venerated through kissing. For example: icons, the chalice, and other things of theological and liturgical significance are kissed as a sign of reverence.

As I watched the Super Bowl Trophy presentation the other day I couldn't help but notice that almost every player and coach anxiously awaited his chance to not only touch the trophy but to kiss it as well. As I watched these grown men kissing this small metallic trophy I recounted sport event after sport event where this same scenario has played itself out. Whether it be the World Series, the Stanley Cup, the NBA Finals, or the Super Bowl, each year I see grown men kiss a trophy and I have never heard a single individual remark how odd, weird, or creepy it is.

I'm not mentioning all this to condemn anyone, but rather just as an observation. It's interesting how some actions can cause us distress in one setting while in a completely different setting they seem perfectly normal. I especially think this whole concept is odd when you consider it from a Protestant perspective.

Conservative Protestants are typically the first group of people to criticize Catholics and Orthodox for their ritual movements and posturing. They criticize when they cross themselves, when they kiss holy objects, when they repeat written prayers, and when they kneel repeatedly during services. Yet these same conservative protestants are the first ones to salute the American flag, put their hand over their heart during the national anthem, say the pledge of allegiance, and kiss super bowl trophies and the like.

I find it very interesting that we can support and accept a set of actions when they are directed toward a nation-state or a championship trophy, but yet utterly reject them when they are directed toward the holy things of God.

I'm sure there are many more reasons for this disparity but I thought I'd begin the discussion here.

A Small Bit of Humor From the Job Search

I was looking for jobs today and I came across something that made me laugh a little bit. I saw a posting for a "Spanish speaking pastor" and the mildly humorous part was that it was for a pentecostal church in California. My first thought was "huh? Don't Pentecostals believe in speaking in tongues anymore?"

I'm not intending to belittle Pentecostals or the gift of speaking in tongues. All I'm saying is that this job posting made me chuckle a little bit.

Ok, maybe it's only funny if you're a theology nerd like me... but I laughed. =)

More thoughts on the Celebration of All Saints Day

As I continued to think about my previous post on All Saints Day and why I think Protestants need to celebrate it, I started thinking through possible resistance to this idea that I assume many low-church/fundamentalist Protestants would have. What I'm speaking about is not those who are merely ignorant of the Christian practice of All Saints Day, but those who would oppose it as irreligious, unchristian, Catholic, or for various other reasons.

One thought in particular that I had in regard to this and the current political fervor surrounding almost everyone right now was that many of these same Protestants who object to celebrating All Saints Day are some of the very same Christians who will be the first to remember the fallen who gave their lives for this country on Memorial Day and Independence Day.

On Memorial Day and Independence Day many Americans will proudly remember the long heritage of this Country. They will tell stories of the fallen who have show themselves to be heroic in face of the enemy. These same fallen men and women will be celebrated because it is on their dream and dedication that America now stands. In essence these two American holidays (holy days) are nothing more than despiritualized political versions of All Saints Day for our nation-state.

So to those Christians who strongly object to celebrating All Saints Day and yet proudly celebrate Memorial Day and Independence day I ask you where your citizenship lies. Are we Christians and then Americans or are we Americans and then Christians? How dare we celebrate the heritage of this nation and celebrate the lives and deaths of the fallen for this country and yet neglect heritage of the Church and those who have been killed for Christ by the governments of this world. How dare we seek to follow the example of those who fell for this country and yet allow the example of the Martyrs to be void from our churches? In my opinion it is indefensible for us to claim citizenship in heaven and yet act as though we are Americans first and Christians second.

Before I get labeled Anti-American let me say that I'm not arguing that we shouldn't celebrate Memorial Day and Independence Day as Christians, but I am arguing that those who call themselves Christians and chose to celebrate these holidays while refusing to celebrate All Saints Day show by their actions that they consider themselves citizens of the world first and citizens of heaven second.

To those who proclaim Christ while refusing to remember his Church, his martyrs, and the saints before us and yet celebrate this nation's heritage I challenge you to start celebrating the heritage of your true home (the people of God) or cease celebrating the rising of this nation. There is no other Christian option.

Nations and political causes rise and fall but those who lived and died for Christ will reign with him in glory forever.

Let us take joy in the fact that we are Americans, but let us never forget that we are Christians first and everything is secondary to that. So celebrate and remember those fallen for our country if you feel so compelled, but as a Christian remember St. Stephen the first martyr, remember Sts. Peter and Paul who were killed by the Romans . Think also of those Christians who were imprisoned in the Gulag during the Soviet regime in Russia or those who die as I type in China at the hand of the Communists or the Philippines at the hand of militant Muslims. Follow Christ as Polycarp and Ignatius of Antioch followed him even to their deaths and allow Maximus the Confessor who had his tongue cut out and his right hand cut off for confessing the truth of Christ to be your role model. Remember them and the cloud of witnesses that surround them for it is their blood that is the seed of the Church by the power of the good and live-giving Holy Spirit!

Why Protestants Should Celebrate All Saints Day

This may be a day or two late, but I figured it was probably still something worth posting. Many protestant churches have their harvest parties, chili cook-offs, and other fun gatherings this time of year and yet ignore the explicitly Christian feast of All Saints Day. The reason for ignoring this holiday probably has many reasons including the extremes of mere ignorance and anti-Catholic bias. It is my contention that even within a Protestant theological structure All Saints can and should serve as a life-giving feast of the Church that edifies believes and draws them closer to God.

Here are a few reason why I think Protestants should celebrate All Saints Day.

- The great cloud of witnesses listed in Hebrews does not end with the closing of the Canon. There have been holy men and women through the centuries that are examples of how one can and should live in faith, holiness, and love for God. In fact All Saints Day is a celebration of the Saints of Scripture as well as those that have lived after.

- The Faith is passed from one generation of faithful Christians to another generation of faithful Christians. While we Protestants may think that we are a "bible only" people, we are not. Without the faithful witness of the Church preserving the teaching and the scriptures we would be lost.

- God has chosen to reveal himself and to pass down the Faith through these faithful witnesses and it is surely good that we remember them and thank him for the faithful that have lived before us.

- Many Protestant congregations and individuals act like the Christian calendar consists of Christmas and Easter while a few others would include Advent and Lent. The Christian calendar provides a life-giving standard of living for the whole year and Protestantism needs to grab a hold of this. We desperately need to orient our lives to God and we need to approach this holistically. In order to orient ourselves in both body and soul we need to take upon ourselves the practice of fasting and feasting with the Church. We need to allow the church to dictate our calendars, meals, and practices. Recapturing All Saints Day is just a part of this larger issue.

- Just as Paul exhorts his readers to imitate him as he imitates Christ (1 Corinthians 11:1) so we too should be imitators of the holy saints that have gone before us, for in their martyrdom and testimony they have shown us how to imitate Christ.

- It's part of the tradition of the Church. Yes, I know this statement strikes at the very heart of Protestantism, but it is nevertheless true. The faithful of the church saw it fitting to include the remembrance of the saints through a feast for our spiritual edification. We cannot be so arrogant to ignore this exhortation. I realize that this sounds odd coming from a Protestant but as Christians we cannot believe whatever we want. We must remember that Christ said the gates of hell would not overcome the Church and as such we must believe what the Church hands to us. We are separated by ages and Holy Spirit has chosen to use the Church as his method for handing the faith from generation to generation.



Those are just a few reasons why we as Protestants must celebrate All Saints Day. We need to remember the Saints, Martyrs, and Ascetics that have gone before us. We should celebrate the feast of All Saints and thank the Father for faithfully handing down the gospel of his Son through these faithful men and women by the power of the Spirit. We should allow their holy lives to inspire us and as we celebrate this feast we should beg the Father to help us live in such a way that all of our life we will inspire future generations into holiness.

Singleness and Ministry

The first time it happened I shrugged it off, the second posting I saw I ignored, but the trend that I've noticed while browsing pastoral job postings online came to a head the other day when I called about a position and was told not to apply because I was single.

I can understand if these churches were looking seeking a pastor only for unwed mothers or for some other small microcosm of the church like that. But most of these positions have been for your average run-of-the-mill pastor. The most recent one was for a UM church in Covington, Indiana looking for an Associate Pastor who's "ministry areas would focus on youth and children's ministry." The posting for this job said that they were looking for a "couple with elementary kids" and so I decided to call to see if this was just a preference or if it was a definitive restriction. When I asked the question to the Pastor he said "that's what we need to have" and as soon as I got the words "I was wondering because I'm a recent seminary graduate and I'm single" out of my mouth he make a quick move to close the conversation and pretty much hung up on me.

While I am very frustrated at this paradigm I can't fault the pastor for openly stating that a married couple with children is what his congregation needs. I have to respect that he has the needs of his parish in mind while looking for an Associate Pastor, but I do have to fundamentally disagree with his assessment that his congregation NEEDS a married couple WITH children.

Maybe he is right that his congregation does need that sort of couple. But it really seems to me that this case and the many others are indicative of the lie that Protestantism has largely embraced, namely, that being married is better and more edifying than being single.

This view, which dominates Protestant Christianity, is not Christian in either a biblical or historical sense. While I don't want to spend the time laying out an exhaustive case let me lay a little bit of a foundation.

In 1st Corinthians Paul makes an argument to the unmarried that thy should remain unmarried as he is. If this wasn't enough we also can remember that our Lord himself was single. These seem to present a solid enough case but one might be tempted to raise the passages in which it lists one of the qualifications of an Elder as having a spouse. I think it is significant that the verse uses "of one" or "only one." Thus implying that marriage itself isn't a requirement but that not having more than one spouse is.

Historically Christians have always valued singleness and celibacy. This is evidenced by the vibrant monastic life through the church and the many saints who were unwed (both male and female). One can also see extremes in this; such as the push for continent marriage among some of the later fathers. While we would recognize this extreme as ridiculous I also think that we have gone just as far in our thinking that singleness makes one not able to fully minister.

I personally think that this misconstrual by the Protestant church has done more damage than good. Besides the obvious problems that this may bring; such as problem marriages, high divorce rates and the like, I think the biggest problem with this mindset is that it prohibits Protestantism from having monks and nuns.

Granted there are other factors (historical and ecclesial) that contribute to the complete absence of protestant monasteries. But with this diminished view of the single person and the single person in ministry Protestantism shoots itself in the foot by implicitly setting a stance that is contrary to the monastery.

You may be asking why the monastery is so important. It is my contention that monasteries are absolutely vital to the health of the Church. In fact, I would argue that one of the reasons why protestant theology is in such a mess right now is because we have not had a monastic presence to norm theological development. Not only do monasteries provide a place for spiritual retreats and pilgrimages with individuals who have committed themselves to be dead to the world, focus solely on God, and live by a strict rule of discipline. But they act as a vital place of piety and theology for the church and the individuals. Through history as the church has started to deviate from the apostolic faith one of the major factors that has kept the church on course has been the voice and call of the monastics. These men and women spend their lives breathing, praying, and living the faith out in its fullness and as such the Church in the trenches must rely on their holy advice in times of trial.

To come full circle, it seems to me that the attitudes exemplified by this pastor in Indiana and the countless others that I have seen that require a potential minister to be married are very dangerous to the Church as a whole. We, as Protestant Christians, need to learn from our Orthodox and Catholic brothers and sisters that have a strong theology of singleness and marriage. I'm not sure if or how one could develop a Protestant monastery for as I said the roadblocks are numerous, but we need to realize that singleness is not a plague and that single people may have more to offer the Church that just inexperience.

As an addendum it may be helpful in-case anyone stumbles across this post to know that while I am not married I don't feel that my call in life is to remain unmarried. And for my friends who read this: yes, I am still with Kristy.

On Tradition

As you should know by now I'm a huge baseball fan and as such I found myself spending my Sunday afternoon watching the Pirates vs. Reds game on tv and watching the Orioles game via mlb.com gamecast. During the telecast on FSN one of the announcers began to discuss baseball tradition and the important role it plays in helping teams and the game. The announcer also made the point that it is becoming necessary for the teams to bring in the players of older championship teams (i.e. the '79 Pirates) to help create some sense of belonging and connectedness to the organization with the younger players.

As I thought about this it seemed like a good idea to me, I long for the winning ways of the older Oriole teams, the days of the Oriole Way with Weaver, Palmer, Powell, the days of legend that I don't remember but that I've heard about time and time again. I also thought about football, of course I would love the Vikings to rise again and become the Purple People Eaters of yore.

It seems to me that Sports fans constantly talk about and long for tradition lived out in their teams. It seems that this desire is part of the torture of having a team relocate from one city to another. If a team moves then in a sense the tradition dies, the character seems to be ontologically changed and thus it just isn't the same. Think about when the Cleveland Browns moved to Baltimore and became the Ravens. Why did they change their name? In part is was because the city filed a suit against the NFL to retain the name and the records. Thus when a new team came back into Cleveland the name and records were in place and the tradition of the Browns could pick right back up where is left off with the dog-pound intact and everything.

It seems that it's not just sports fans that long for tradition either. Towns and communities seek to keep various traditions alive, our nation has traditions like the 4th of July and all the local customs that are entailed with that. Tradition is everywhere and is commonly held as a good thing to sustain within our culture, but the question I must as is, "Why is the church an anomaly to this?"

You may have though that this post was going to just be about baseball and football but really the aforementioned baseball commentator started getting me thinking about why if society (via sports and other things) values tradition so much then why does so much of the American church seek to rid itself of any sort of Christian tradition?

Why over the past 20+ years has American Christianity (especially Protestant Christianity) pushed to rid itself of the life-giving traditions of the Church? Why have we stopped following the Christian calendar? Why have we stopped fasting? Why have we left the songs of the faith and tried to push all forms of tradition out of our churches?

Granted the Emergent movement is trying to remedy this, but the problem with them is that they see tradition as merely something ascetic and enjoyable rather than an authoritative life practice. The problem with the Emergents is that they can embrace the traditions but they appropriate them in such a matter that they continue in their heresies and blasphemies just like the Nestorians and Arians of old.

I have heard the Jaroslav Pelikan once said that "traditionalism is the dead faith of the living, tradition is the living faith of the dead." I would add to that that the true faith of the Church is found in her traditions as they live and breathe among us. In fact our Holy Scriptures are very much a product of the tradition of the faith and we have them in part because holy men and women saw fit to preserve these letters and gospels and pass them on as authoritative texts.

Yes, there is a danger that the life-giving traditions can become dry and stale examples of nothing more than traditionalism, but it is our job to remember these things, to live them and to allow them to be authoritative to us so that we may be able to live in the heritage of the Christian faith.

Just as the FNS announcer saw it as a good thing for the Pirates and Reds to bring in their "cloud of witnesses" to attest to the younger generations the heritage of their organization so we must never forget our ways and embrace the traditions of the faith or else we risk forgetting the faith altogether. Why evangelicals see it as necessary to abandon tradition in hope of winning converts is beyond me. We do these hypothetical converts a disservice when we initiate them into a tradition-less faith that is devoid of the truth and the power of the gospel. Obviously we want to remove hindrances but in order to be of any salvific good we must live and breath the language of faith and then explain that language of faith with peace, patience and love to those who see the fullness of truth that is found in Christianity.

Glorious Feastday!!

In case you were wondering I didn't miss Easter. My church follows a different calendar than most in the west and so our Easter will take place in a little over a month. Today is, however, a very important holy-day no matter which calendar you use.

Today is March 25, and it is on this day that we remember that the angel visited Mary and announced to her that she would bear with child, to which she replied "may it be to me as you have said." Today is the Feast of Annunciation.

Today is the day that we realized that in 9 months we will celebrate the birth of Jesus Christ our God. And so we realize that Jesus, even in the fetal stages was God of God, light of light, begotten and not made, of one essence with the Father. We remember that the divine Word himself took the initiative to bring redemption to humanity because of his great love for us. Today the church feast teaches us that our God did not just take on flesh at birth or later in life at baptism as the heretical adoptionists assert, but that he indeed was united in one person from the very conception - when Mary the Mother of God said "yes" to God.

This is such a beautiful and amazing realization. Our God who cannot be contained was contained in a womb. Today the Son of God becomes the Son of a virgin. Today the creator of all makes his throne in the womb of his creation in order to redeem creation.

Glory to God in the Highest!

I wonder if so much of the "christian" pro-choice people would have been silenced long ago if the protestant church had continued to celebrate this feast. For Christ has taken flesh in the form of an unborn babe with all the risk and possible complications that are entailed therein.

Today is truly a glorious feastday! Glory to God!

"Liturgical" Dancing

Today in chapel there was what people like to call "liturgical dancing." By this I mean 4 people wearing white went on stage and danced to a song with the intention of conveying theological meaning.

As we were gearing up for chapel my friend Chad and I were wondering about the development of dance in the liturgy. I confess that I haven't really researched it but it seems to me that this must (save for probably some isolated instances) be a very very late development in the worshiping life of the Church.

As Chad and i pondered this we thought that maybe there was some use of dance, though not in the liturgy proper, in some of the early Christian meetings as sort of a hold-over from Judaism. But we figured that the current form of dancing probably comes from late, post-reformation roots - maybe around German pietism or later Celtic Christianity. If this is a correct assertion (which has yet to be proven) I wonder if this use of interpretive dance comes from syncretism with Druidic (which is was today's dance looked like) and other folk groups in those areas.

All wondering about development aside, what purpose does "liturgical" dance serve? First off the name is a complete misnomer. Sure it may be technically part of the "work of the people" and whatnot, but it seems to me that it really doesn't fit with the liturgical history of the Church as a whole.

It almost seems that the Protestant church is trying to harness dance and the other arts but that they really have no foundation for how to use art and/or convey theology through art because when they reacted against Rome they stripped the church of art, thus throwing the proverbial baby out with the bath-water.

I'm not really sure what point I'm making here. In fact, I find this post to be very scattered and incoherent. My excuse is that I'm tired and that I'm trying to read through David Bradshaw's book Aristotle East and West: Metaphysics and the Division of Christendom today.

All that to say that I struggled with liturgical dance when I first encountered it in high school, I mildly accepted it out of a generous attitude in college and now that I understand the development and purpose of liturgy and the church service I find that it doesn't really fit. I would appreciate some thoughts and some suggestions on this issue. Maybe I'm narrow-minded, or maybe I'm just overlooking something. Shoot, maybe I'm right and you can help me articulate why.

- Ben

On the Untenable Nature of Calvinist/Predestinarian Theology

As I've mentioned before I'm taking an independent study in the historical and theological development of Eastern Christianity. I find that as I read through books like Jaroslav Pelikan's The Spirit of Eastern Christendom that I am learning not merely about Eastern Christian thought and theology, but that I am finding a much deeper grounding in the holy orthodox doctrines of the entire Church.

In my recent reading I came across a deep discussion by Pelikan concerning the council of Chalcedon and the discussion regarding the dual natures of Christ. Without getting into the depth of this issue and trying to articulate the issues concerning hypostatis, ousia, and the like, I'll try to cover the highlights in a more understandable way.

Coming out of the third ecumenical council held in Constantinople (680-681AD) the Christian Church reaffirmed that Christ was/is a unified being in his divinity and humanity and thus had two natures as the council at Chalcedon had decreed (451AD), and also that he did indeed have TWO wills. One can easily assess this by glancing through scripture at the passages where Jesus says he is here to do not his will but his Father's will, those where he acts out of divine foreknowledge, and various other passages.

If we hold this creedal assertion to be revealed dogma to the church, which we should, it raises some interesting questions. While Protestants may balk at the idea of asserting this creed as authoritative, it should be recognized that not until very recent times did any Christian anywhere question the authority of the creeds. Even Luther, Calvin, and Wesley, fully embraced them. Historically adherence to the 7 ecumenical creeds, of which Nicea (325AD) was the first, was one of the primary, if not the primary, markers to determine if one was in line with the teaching of the Church. These creeds were not viewed as new doctrinal assertions, but rather recapitulations of what the Holy Scriptures, the Apostles and the earliest Fathers had always taught though not necessarily in clarity for which the times called.

So if we hold to this creedal assertion of Christ having both a divine and a human will we can make some interesting observations - one of which I find to be very problematic for those who would like to hold a Calvinistic/predestinarian point of view. It would be interesting to see how Calvin himself treated this creed.

As the Fathers clarified the doctrine of the two wills of Christ (technically: dyotheletism) and thus ruled the notion that Christ has one will (technically: monotheletism) as heresy, the idea of free will rose near the forefront of the discussion. As a document from that time, entitled The Doctrine of the Fathers states: "his power to make choices shared in our being"

Thus part of the ontology of Christ's human will was the freedom of choice. As Maximus the Confessor, a deep defender of dyotheletism, states:

He was endowed not only with a will in accordance with his being god and homoousios [of the same substance] with the Father, but also [with a will] in accordance with his being man and homoousios with us.

Pelikan, in an attempt at clarity states that for the Fathers who finalized the creed at Constantinople

Every rational soul had to possess a decision-making capacity that was free of coercion. Even an unsympathetic interpreter of this Christology is obliged to admit that 'there is noticeable in dyotheletism [the doctrine of two wills]....a reaction against the overriding power of the divine nature in favor of a true and free humanity in Christ.' The freedom of the human will of Christ was not to be overwhelmed by his divinity, so that even such a patristic notion as "the deified will" was not permitted to obliterate this freedom.

If this is the way of Christ our God, even in his deified human will, then how can we begin to assert that our wills are coerced and ultimately predestined? The more I read church history the more I see that the predesitnary strain of theology is very small until it explodes with Calvin and Zwingly. I find this particular theology to be untenable and in light of this Holy orthodox doctrine of the church I find it nigh heretical. I am not willing to assert that it is indeed heretical, but I would really like to know how a good Calvinist theologian deals with this creedal doctrine of the Church, without merely dismissing the creed itself. I find the dismissing of the creed to not be a Christian option.

I'm sure more thoughts will come as I continue to dig deeper into the Faith and particularly the development of Eastern Christian thought. The reading for this independent study is absolutely amazing even though it makes my head want to explode because of its depth. I find it shameful that it took great initiative on my part and a very gracious professor for me to learn in depth these doctrines of the Church and their life-giving power.

Blessings to you all,


- Ben

Great Minds Think Alike

Apparently I'm not the only one with thoughts along the line of my last post. Check out my friend Isaac's blog post (here). He takes a slightly different approach in that he's more calm and probably nicer about it, but either way here is a slightly different perspective on the same issue.

And I don't think he read my post before he wrote his.

Enjoy.

- Ben

Why I don't Like Protestant Worship Music

I'm trying to catch up on some reading for classes so I can't write a long post, but I wanted to jot down this thought before I got distracted.

For my independent study I've been reading the second volume of Jaroslav Pelikan's wonderful church history set entitled The Rise of Eastern Christendom. Since Pelikan's work chronicles the history of theology and thoughts I am finding that it's a moderately heavy read, especially given that even at seminary many of these historical concepts have not been taught to me.

Today I was reading about the Nestorian, Jacobite, and Monophysite heresies and on the hypostatis of Christ. Since Pelikan quotes from so many primary sources (something that is often missing in many church histories) I found myself getting a little confused concerning the hypostasis of Christ and what orthodox doctrine taught. Instead of turning to wikipedia or another source that would of taken a lot more time to find some resolution I remembered that there is an ancient hymn of pascha that briefly discusses the hypostasis of Christ. Since I had my ipod on me I decided to turn to the music of the church to teach me the orthodox way and bring about clarity of thought.

Granted the hymn isn't a treatise, but I wasn't looking for a treatise, I was merely looking for a quick answer as to how many hypostates Christ has. This is when I realized that I was able to articulate one of the many reasons I don't like Protestant worship music - namely, that I don't like to guess and check when it comes to the doctrine conveyed within my church music.

Due to the plethora of music in protestantism and the constant desire to update the music I find that one cannot trust the theology that is conveyed in much of it. In strict juxtaposition to this is the music that is sung at the Orthodox church I currently attend. When I hear the hymns of the Orthodox church I am sure that what is being taught is theologically in-line with the 7 ecumenical creeds of the church. I don't have to guess if I'm being taught something heretical because the songs have been tried by church and found fitting to be used in the worship of the Holy Trinity.

Sure, there may be some great assets to protestant music, but as a whole it is theologically vapid and emotive to a fault. While it is always good to asses and think about what is being sung in worship, I think that having to constantly analyze and wonder if the music is teaching correct doctrine is counterproductive to the church service. The music of the church should be filled with dogmatically correct theology and should be able to be used as a basis for the lay person to refute or accept notions of the divine. One can very easily argue that our theology in protestantism is weak because we do not sing it and we do not sing it because it is weak. This cycle is a disastrous one that is hurting the church and leading people into ignorance of the divine. How can we, expect to truly become partakers of the Divine essence (2Pet 1.4) if we do not even know God as he has revealed himself to us?

I fear I'm approaching a tangent so I will conclude now. If the reason I set out to articulate wasn't clear above let me sum up. Part of my aversion to Protestant worship music is that it has no substance and that which it tries to pass as substance is often near heretical if not blatantly so. The songs of the church should be those which have been tried by years of reflection and should be able to be used as concise creedal statements of belief that will plant the deep truths of the faith into the hearts of clergy and lay persons alike.


May the faith grow deep within you all

- Ben

Reading the Fathers

There has been a lot of talk lately about protestants embracing their roots and turning to the Fathers of the Church for wisdom and guidance. If you need some evidence of this pick up the latest issue of Christianity Today or any one of magazines/journals that deal with the theological trends within protestantism. This marked interest in patristic reading (reading of the Fathers) is especially obvious when one looks around Asbury. There are a good number of students here that continue to express interest in patristic studies. Maybe I'm more aware of these individuals because this is my pet area of interest, maybe part of the trend on campus is fueled by the recent readers, or maybe it is just a part of this macrocosmic event happening in protestantism. Either way, the reason for this trend is unimportant to this post.

The reason I bring up this trend is because I find it disconcerting. This is something I've been thinking about for the past few weeks, but I recently was given some words to describe it by talking with my friend Nathaniel. I guess it's odd that I find this trend concerning because I'm such a lover of patristic studies and reading the Fathers has fed my soul for the past four years, so let me explain myself.

I find this trend concerning because of the way in which many people, especially at Asbury, approach the Fathers. This new found resurgence of the patristic witness at Asbury, in the Emergent communities, and in protestantism in general tends to approach the Fathers as nothing more than another source from which to feed personal agendas.

What I mean is that a plethora of individuals are reading the Fathers and Mothers of the faith, but that they approach them as if they were just another contemporary theologian that can be easily discarded if one disagrees with them. I would say these new readers treat the Fathers as just another Rob Bell, but fearfully Rob Bell is given much more respect and is more highly valued than any of the saints of old. These saints, who have died for the faith, who have lived through imperial exiles, who have loved the church even unto their last breaths are being treated as if they were peers, as Nathaniel aptly assessed.

In my opinion it is criminally prideful and nigh heretical for one to consider the Fathers and Mothers of the church as peers that can easily be used to profit one's theological agenda and then discarded like an old sweater when they disagree with how we want to live or think. As I have said these men and women are the ones who have preserved the Faith for us. They have fought, bled and died for that which they have passed on to us. They are not our peers! They are worthy of respect and honor and deserve to be considered our mentors and spiritual fathers and mothers.

Granted not all of the early church sources agreed on everything, of course there are matters of holy opinion, but we cannot be so willing to disagree with these men and women. They are the continuation of the cloud of witnesses talked about in Hebrews, they are those who preserved the faith that is the foundation on which the church was built, and it is their blood that serves as the seed of the church.

My argument is that we cannot claim the heritage of these Fathers and Mothers without accepting them as authoritative for our lives. We must give them the right to speak into our lives and allow them to have the authority to dictate how we must conform our lives to the Faith.

Granted my beloved Orthodox friends would likely agree with me and then argue that I am guilty of the problem that I lay out since I have not become Orthodox. I don't want to get into that issue right now, but nevertheless my point stands and protestant scholars, students, and lay people cannot continue to pretend that they are embracing the Fathers when they treat them as peers and do not allow them to speak authoritatively into their lives.

Without getting into a mess of tangential issues I think this goes to one of the roots of the Protestant problem. One of the beauties that I have seen in the time spent with my Orthodox friends is that the Orthodox church approaches the Faith as something handed down to which individuals and the Church itself must conform. The Faith is alive and exists in its fullness within Orthodoxy, but it is authoritative and something to which we must conform. Protestantism, on the other hand, seems to view the Faith as something fluid that must conform to personal belief. Thus there is no standard of authority save one's own belief system which dictates what the substance of the Faith is. I believe this is part of Protestantism's biggest problem and the reason why the Faith continues to be torn apart within Protestantism. And part of the reason why individuals think they can critique the Holy Fathers as if they were peers.

Yes, protestants are beginning to discover a great wealth of spiritual wisdom. This must be a good thing, but it saddens me beyond belief that these Holy saints of the church are treated with so much disrespect.

I often get chided for the fact that almost all of my deepest spiritual fathers and mothers have been dead for hundreds of years. But I must argue what better father and mother can one have than those that have been affirmed and validated by the church for hundreds and hundreds of years. They can dictate how I should live in holy pursuit of God any day because they are the ones who's writings have survived the test of time and the test of the Church and as such I will think long, hard, and prayerfully before I dare disagree with these holy saints.

May we all have such mentors that will encourage us to pursue God even unto death!

- Ben

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?