How Will They Hear Without a Preacher?

....from here


"The withering of preaching is not uniform in all congregations and denominations. Evangelicals were most enthusiastic about preaching, while others registered less appreciation for the preached Word. Interestingly, Gledhill reports that "Baptists and Catholics were also more enthusiastic about the Bible being mentioned in sermons than were Anglicans and Methodists."

The Anglicans also expressed a desire to be entertained, rather then educated. The Rev. Kate Bruce, Fellow in Preaching and Communication at the CODEC center, said that "in a culture which values entertainment and likes stand-up, over a quarter [of respondents] said they want preaching to be entertaining, too."

Well, they will have to be quick about the entertainment. Many Anglicans indicated that they wanted the sermon to be less than ten minutes long. As Gledhill remarks, they might be willing to allow up to twenty minutes "if there was no 'waffle.'"

Perhaps the biggest question raised by the report is why so many British churchgoers (96.6%) said they "look forward" to the sermon. Ruth Gledhill comments:

In their report the Durham researchers admit to puzzlement that so many people looked forward to the sermons, and confess that more work was needed to find out why.

The report questions whether people look forward to the sermon so much for the content, the engagement, the entertainment, the theology or simply that it gives them time to switch off.

Time to switch off? According to the report, Britain has only 3.6 million "regular churchgoers" out of a population of over 60 million. That is, only about five percent of Britons even attend church services on any regular basis. Evidently, many of those who do attend "look forward" to a very short message from a preacher that entertains them.

England, of course, is the nation that once gave us preachers the likes of Charles Simeon, Charles Spurgeon, and Martyn Lloyd-Jones. Now, with the rare and blessed exception of some faithful evangelical churches, preaching has fallen on desperate times.

Some observers of British life now estimate that in any given week Muslim attendance at mosques outnumbers Christian attendance at churches. That means that there are probably now in Britain more people who listen to imams than to preachers.

This raises an interesting question: Is the marginalization of biblical preaching in so many churches a cause or a result of the nation's retreat from Christianity? In truth, it must be both cause and effect. In any event, there is no hope for a recovery of biblical Christianity without a preceding recovery of biblical preaching. That means preaching that is expository, textual, evangelistic, and doctrinal. In other words, preaching that will take a lot longer than ten minutes and will not masquerade as a form of entertainment"...more

What About Mary?

At the dawn of human history Adam, the representative head of humanity, chose darkness and turned away from his Creator, subjecting himself and his descendants to Satan’s power, sin, and death.

This “original sin” is referred to as "the Fall." Humanity, at that point, "fell" from the holiness and purity with which we were created. From that point, our hearts, minds, and souls ceased to be oriented toward glorifying God and enjoying him.

The Fall twisted every human faculty: body, heart, soul and mind in on itself, toward the darkness rather than the light. While the image of God remains in us, the image is darkened and skewed to the extent that all are, as Paul says in Ephesians 2, “dead” in sin. We cannot turn toward God unless God himself, by a special act of grace, gives us the power to do so (John 6:44).

“Naturally” speaking, all human beings are from the moment of conception (Psalm 51:5), by nature (Eph 2:1-3) “oriented” or turned away from God and toward the self.

So that by the time we are old enough to make moral choices, we invariably follow our father Adam choosing the darkness over the light. Both by nature and by will, we suppress the core truths that God makes known in creation and that he imprints upon conscience; that God exists and that he alone is God (Romans 1:18-21).

And in the space created by this willed suppression, we set ourselves exhaustively to work fashioning little gods to supplant the God we will not face and for whom we have been made and designed to glorify.

We know Adam’s rebellion well because we are all party to it.

But the plain fact of this rebellion is an oddity. That human rebellion exists and continues within the created realm of an omnipotent and just God is an incredible thing.

When Eve, with Adam’s complicity, bit down on the forbidden fruit, human history ought to have come to an abrupt and manifestly just end.

But it did not.

Why?

Paul answers that question in the very same section of Ephesians 2 in which he describes the depths of the human fall from grace. After revealing that we are all "dead in sin" and by nature "objects of wrath" Paul writes:

"4But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, 5made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions—it is by grace you have been saved..."

God loves us. And so, for that reason, in and through his Son Jesus Christ God intervened.

This was not an afterthought on God's part. Jesus was not God's "plan B" after "plan A", Adam, failed. In fact, in the very ruins of the Fall we see not only death and slavery, but a promise.

The Lord God said to the serpent,

“Because you have done this, cursed are you above all livestock and above all beasts of the field; on your belly you shall go, and dust you shall eat all the days of your life. I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel.” (Genesis 3:14-15)

There are two very significant points to make about this passage.

First, you would expect that the text, written from within a patriarchal setting, might have read something like this:

“I will put enmity between you and the man and between your offspring and his offspring…”

Instead, the enmity is between the woman and the serpent, his offspring and hers. Strangely, the woman stands center ring and grapples with the serpent, not the man.

Second, the word here translated as “offspring” is the Hebrew word for “seed” and it is singular. Generally speaking, when the Hebrew Scriptures make use of the word “seed” it is in reference to the generative power of the man. A child comes from his father’s seed.

It must have seemed very odd to ancient scribes of the Old Covenant that in this case the child, the seed, is specifically identified with the woman. The “Seed” comes from the woman without reference to the man.

But for believers in the New Covenant it is not at all odd.

Mary the Virgin conceived and gave birth to a Son without the agency of a human father.

The Seed coming from the woman crushed the serpent’s head. And the serpent struck him.

Through the woman’s Seed, Jesus, God established new family with a new Head whose progeny are no longer subject to Satan, sin, or death.

To do this, God necessarily interrupted the transference of sin from generation to generation.

There are three things that must be upheld with regard to this divine interruption within the womb of Mary.

1. There was never a time when Jesus was not fully God the Son. Through the power of God the Holy Spirit Mary conceived and at the same time, in the very same act, God the Son took on or “assumed” human nature in Mary’s womb. For this reason it is rightly said that Mary is “theotokos” or, the “bearer of God.” This title does not mean that Mary in any way served as the originator or generator of the divinity of Christ. It does mean that God the Son lived in Mary in the person of Jesus’ at the moment of his conception.

As Calvin wrote, “Christ is not said to have been made by a woman, but of a woman…” (Inst 2.13.3) Further, the title “theotokos” guards against the re-emergent heresy of adoptionism: the assertion that God “empowered” or indwelled Jesus at his baptism or at the transfiguration. There was never a time when Jesus was not fully God the Son.

2. Jesus’ full humanity was like Adam’s humanity. God created Jesus’ human nature in much the same way that he created Adam. Adam was not conceived in the normal way. He did not have a human father and his mother was in some sense the dust of the earth. In the same way, Jesus, without a human father, was conceived and formed in the womb of Mary. Mary was the “dust” out of which God formed the New Adam. In this way the transference sin nature from generation to generation was interrupted. Of course, this does not mean that women are any less fallen than men. It simply means that God intervened to the effect that Jesus was conceived without the stain of original sin.

3. Jesus’ humanity was taken from Mary. For Roman Catholics this necessarily means that Mary herself was born without a sin nature. The sanctifying blood of Christ is applied backwards in time so that Mary was conceived “immaculate.” Here is the relevant section from the Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church.

“Through the centuries the Church has become ever more aware that Mary, "full of grace" through God,[134] was redeemed from the moment of her conception. That is what the dogma of the Immaculate Conception confesses, as Pope Pius IX proclaimed in 1854: The most Blessed Virgin Mary was, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God and by virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, Saviour of the human race, preserved immune from all stain of original sin.” (para 490)

Protestants, including most Anglicans (and we at Good Shepherd), disagree. Mary, as a descendant of Adam, was fallen. Jesus was conceived without the taint of original sin because his humanity was made pure at his conception not Mary's. Here is Calvin once more:

“We do not hold Christ to be free from all taint, merely because he was born of a woman unconnected with a man, but because he was sanctified by the Spirit, so that the generation was pure and spotless, such as it would have been before Adam's fall.” (Inst 2.13.4)

Moreover, Mary, in her song following Gabriel's visitation, says, "My spirit rejoices in God my Savior"(Luke 1:47). Sinless people do not need God's salvation. There would be nothing to be saved from or too. In her song of rejoicing, Mary humbly acknowledges her need for God's salvation.

In any case, both Protestant and Roman Catholic insist that that Jesus’ full humanity was “of” or “from” Mary.

The Virgin Mary by the power of the Holy Spirit conceived brought forth Jesus the Christ, the New Adam and God the Son, fully Man and fully God.

What Adam failed to do, this New Adam has done. Whereas Adam rebelled and became subject to death, the New Adam obediently subjected himself to death so that all might live.

I’ll say more about how the manner of Christ’s conception and birth presaged his purpose and mission in the last and final installment of this series which should be completed tomorrow.

Was Jesus Really Born of a Virgin?

The Virgin Birth is one of the biblical claims most often mocked by secular skeptics, radical scholars, and even many who purport to be Christian pastors and teachers. The reasons for their skepticism are many and varied. Were this article to focus on the critics rather than the Virgin, it would need to be far longer, not because their skepticism is in any way warranted but because it is as voluminous as it is vociferous.

The ferocity with which critics, especially those on the theological left, attack the Virgin Birth can, I think, often be explained both by a desire to justify the acceptance extra-marital sexual behavior and/or their political interest in presenting Mary as a victim of male sexual violence.

If, as one critic suggests, Mary was not "overshadowed" by the Holy Spirit but rather raped by a Roman soldie, then she becomes a victim of 1. western military occupation and 2. patriarchy. In other words, Mary becomes a political symbol for both feminism and those who oppose American intervention in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Moreover, if Mary was not a Virgin when she was found to be “with child” then, many critics believe, one more granite block is removed from the foundation of Christian arguments for sexual purity.

In any case, before proceeding to ground the Virgin Birth in the scriptures and tradition, let’s deal with the actual substance of the criticism from a biblical stand-point.

In his book “Rescuing the Bible From Fundamentalism” John Spong (a bishop in the Episcopal Church) writes:

“When I became aware that neither the word “virgin” nor the concept of virginity appears in the Hebrew text of Isaiah that Matthew quoted to undergird his account of Jesus’ virgin birth, I became newly aware of the fragile nature of biblical fundamentalism. The understanding of “virgin” is present only in the Greek word “parthenos,” used to translate the Hebrew word “almah” in a Greek version of the Hebrew Scriptures. The Hebrew word for virgin is “betulah.” “Almah” never means “virgin” in Hebrew. I had to face early on in my priestly career the startling possibility that the virgin tradition so deep in Christianity may well rest on something as fragile as the week reed of a mistranslation.” (pg 16)

There are two primary manuscript sources for the Old Testament. The first is the Masoretic Text (MT) which is the Old Testament written in the Hebrew language. The second is the “Septuagint” (LXX) which is the Old Testament in Greek.

When translating the Old Testament into English or another language you might naturally think that the Hebrew translation (the MT) ought to serve as the foundation for translation rather than the Greek vesrsion (the LXX) since Hebrew was the language in which the texts were originally written.

The problem is that generally speaking the Greek manuscripts that we have discovered are more numerous and more ancient than the existing Hebrew manuscripts.

For that reason, again generally speaking, translators will use both the Greek and the Hebrew in their translations, comparing and contrasting the two texts to come up with the most accurate representation of the original possible.

But the text of Isaiah is something of a unique story. The Great Isaiah Scroll found in the caves at Qumran in 1948 dates to the first century. When compared to the second earliest Hebrew manuscript of Isaiah (about 1000 years later), there are amazingly few textual discrepancies.

This lends a great deal of weight and credibility to the current Hebrew manuscripts because it testifies to the extreme care taken by Hebrew scribes in the process of transmission.

At the same time the Greek version of Isaiah still predates the Great Scroll by some 200 years at least.

That means that the use of the word “Almah” found in Hebrew text of Isaiah 7:14 does not necessarily trump the use of the Greek word “parthenos” in the Greek version.

Why?

Because the Greek manuscript was, apparently, based on an even older (now lost) Hebrew manuscript that may well have used the Hebrew word “betula” or “virgin.”

However, even if the Hebrew word “almah” is taken as primary the word is not mutually exclusive of and rather quite congenial to the concept of virginity because in Genesis 24:43 the word is used to refer to a young woman “about to be married,” a maiden.

Young Hebrew women about to be married were, as a matter of law, economics, and cultural necessity, virgins.

And if you actually look at the word, whether “virgin” or “young woman” in the context of Isaiah 14, you will see that it really makes little difference.

Isaiah may not have known that his words in Isaiah 7:14 pointed forward to the Virgin birth of the messiah. In context, Isaiah may have been using his own virgin betrothed, as a sign and a portent for King Ahaz of Judah who was afraid of being attacked by an alliance of surrounding kingdoms. King Ahaz was told to ask God for a sign but he refused, not wanting to put God to the test. But God, Isaiah says, gives the House of David a sign through the "almah" to whom he is pledged in marriage, “Before the young woman to whom I am pledged to be married (necessarily a virgin at the time the sign is given) has a child, the enemies you fear will be laid waste...”

But whether the Hebrew or Greek is preferred, the concept of virginity is almost certainly assumed in Isa 7:14 especially if Isaiah is refering directly to his own betrothed.

Isaiah, again, may or may not have known that his prophetic sign was also a foreshadowing of the virgin conception of Jesus of Nazareth, but the Holy Spirit who inspired Isaiah revealed this truth through the apostle Matthew who applied Isaiah's sign directly to Mary the mother of Jesus.

Why did Matthew do this?

The skeptics' answer puts the cart before the horse. They assume that Matthew superimposed Isaiah 7:14 over the true story of Jesus’ natural (if violent) conception because of the use of parthenos in the Greek Septuigent (the version of the Scriptures with which he was most familiar).

But this makes no sense. It was not expected or necessary (at least by Jews of the first century) for the Jewish messiah to be born of a Virgin. In fact, it would complicate matters somewhat as the coming King was supposed to be a direct descendant of David. There was, therefore, no motive to take Isaiah 7:14 out of context and impose it on the birth narrative.

Other skeptics suggest that Isaiah 7:14 was employed in Matthew’s gospel to point to Jesus’ “divinity.” A virgin birth, they suggest, would put Jesus’ on par with members of the Greek pantheon of gods.

But that Matthew, whose gospel was obviously written from within a Jewish context for the benefit of Jewish readers, would feel the need to import a pagan concept like the pairing of a god and a human female into his text and defend it by taking Isaiah 7:14 out of context, is inexplicable unless facts on the ground forced him to rethink the text.

This is, in fact, NT Wright’s argument in his article God’s Way of Acting. It is far more likely that the fact of the virgin birth drove Matthew, inspired by the Holy Spirit, to reassess Isaiah 7:14 than that the text of Isaiah 7:14 compelled him to falsify his birth narrative.

“No one used Isaiah 7:14 this way before Matthew did. Even assuming that Matthew or Luke regularly invented material to fit Jesus into earlier templates, why would they have invented something like this? The only conceivable parallels are pagan ones, and these fiercely Jewish stories have certainly not been modeled on them. Luke at least must have known that telling this story ran the risk of making Jesus out to be a pagan demigod. Why, for the sake of an exalted metaphor, would they take this risk-unless they at least believed the stories to he literally true?"

It is important at this point to note that the claim found in Matthew and the claim found in Luke are generally thought to represent two distinct traditions rather than one.

In general scholars tend to think that Mark was the first gospel and that both Luke and Matthew used Mark as the foundation of their own narratives. However, they did so separately. Matthew and Luke share the Markan material but little else. The rest of their gospels represent relatively independent narrative strands.

That means that together the virgin birth narrative in Luke and that in Matthew provide “multiple attestation.” They represent two distinct and/or independent witnesses to a single event.

In strictly historical terms, all things being equal, this ought to lend both birth narratives a great deal of weight and credibility. That two distinct contemporary witnesses from two distinct narrative traditions publicly testify with one voice to a single event within 70 to 80 years of its occurrence and that one witness (Matthew) likely published within the very region and among the very people who would have been able to falsify the account, would, under normal circumstances, provide more than enough substantiation.

But, of course, we are not operating under normal circumstances. The attack against the doctrine of the Virgin Birth has much more to do with a general attack on classical theism than it does the historical veracity of the biblical text.

Let’s face it, if God exists and his character is consistent with theistic claims, then the Virgin Birth, Miracles, and Bodily Resurrection, attested as they are in the text of the New Testament, are not only possible, but, given the NT witnesses, are highly likely. And if these are true, then the arguments against the verbal inspiration of the text itself begin to crumble. That would mean that the actual words of scripture represent the actual Word of God. And, in turn, that means that mainline liberal Protestantism in general is all wet.

So, you see the stakes.

Ultimately Bishop Spong et al want to do away with the idea of a Creator God who intervenes in human history. Or, similarly, at least do away with the idea that human beings can adequately perceive a Creator God intervening in human history. With Theism out of the way, we human beings will be free to reimage the divine in a way more conducive to and compatible with social/political fashion.

Spong, at least, comes to text with his mind made up that God is toothless; that if he exists, he cannot act and we cannot see him. Thus, regardless of the testimony of text itself, virgins can’t get pregnant and dead men don’t rise.

In any case as I hope you can see, the revisionist attack against the Virgin Birth is as toothless as Spong’s god.

And now that this pre-apology is complete I see that it is very long, much longer than I intended and so my three part series must, necessarily, with your indulgence, be a 4 part series.

My next article will go on to describe in basic terms the Virgin Birth as it is positively presented in the text of Scripture and explain why such an odd thing would be necessary in the first place.

Thank you for bearing with me

The Leadership Structure of an Anglican Congregation

The leadership structure or “governance” of an Anglican congregation can be very confusing for those who are new to Anglicanism. Its hard to know who is in charge of what and why. If you are either a new member of Good Shepherd or considering becoming a new member, I thought it might help to explain some of the basics. This article is part of our “new member” series of articles, podcast and videos designed to ease your transition into Good Shepherd.

Definitions:
Here are three terms and definitions for three distinct leadership roles at Good Shepherd (and most Anglican congregations). You have almost certainly heard one or more of these if you have attended on a Sunday.

Rector: The word "rector" comes from the Latin word "regere" which can mean ruler or teacher. The office of “rector” is roughly equivalent to that of “Senior Pastor” in evangelical churches. In New Testament terms, the rector is the ordained “presbyter” or elder who holds chief spiritual authority in a given parish. He is the spiritual head of the congregation who is ultimately responsible for all worship, music, and staff decisions as well as everything taught, preached, and published by any minister or teacher in the congregation.

Wardens: The word warden comes from the middle-English word "wardein" which means to "guard". The wardens are the elected lay-guardians of the parish. There are two wardens at Good Shepherd and this is generally the case in most Anglican congregations. Wardens hold the highest non-ordained elected authority in the congregation. They serve for a term of 2 years. The Senior Warden is the warden who has served the longest amount of time in the capacity of warden. The Senior Warden is sometimes called “the Rector's Warden” because one of his chief duties is to advise and support the Rector. Should the rector become incapacitated, leadership in the eyes of the law would fall directly to the Senior Warden. The Junior Warden is the warden who has served the shortest amount of time in the office of warden. The Junior Warden is the warden responsible for the care and oversight of church property. He organizes and shepherds changes, repairs, maintenance, etc...to the property of the church.

Vestry: The vestry is a group of elected members of the congregation roughly equivalent to a board of non-ordained elders in an evangelical church. Vestrymembers serve for terms of 3 years. The term “vestry” refers to the room where clergy “vest” or put on their robes before the service. Centuries ago, a group of lay-leaders held parish meetings in the vestry room of their church, probably somewhere in England. Over time the name of the room became the name of the group. The name stuck and spread. The vestry is responsible for all financial decisions of the parish. All expenditures, acquisitions, property sales, etc...must be approved by a majority vote of the vestry.

The rector and wardens are members of the vestry along with anywhere from 10 to 6 regular vestrymembers. Each vestry member including the rector and wardens is permitted one vote. The rector has the right to vote but generally only exercises that right in order to break a tie.

How the structure works:
Anglican parishes in the United States are governed through a very careful system of checks and balances. These checks and balances serve to ensure that 1. the rector has the authority necessary to lead effectively as spiritual head of the congregation without becoming a tyrant and 2. the vestry can exercise fiduciary responsibility over the parish without running over the rector.

Balance is achieved by giving vestry authority over the way all money is spent while giving the rector authority over the spiritual life of the congregation including preaching, teaching, music, and all other aspects of church leadership including staff.

This does not mean that the vestry is uninterested or uninvolved in staff and spiritual decisions. It does mean that the rector has the authority to make final decisions about these matters.

In the same way, this does not mean that the rector does not pay attention to money--he is after all a member of the vestry. It does mean that the vestry, not the rector, has final say with regard to how money is spent.

Functioning properly as, by God's grace, it does at Good Shepherd, this system encourages and produces a deep bond of trust and cooperation between rector and vestry as each party finds it necessary to think through the ramifications of decisions from the others' perspective. A rector must consider the budget consequences of any mission and/or ministry plan, keeping in mind that he must craft a strategy that the vestry will be able to fund. Smart rectors will work with vestrymembers and wardens before setting goals and creating programs. The vestry on the other hand cannot simply think like a business and focus on the bottom line. Vestrymembers have to consider the consequences, both spiritual and financial, to the rector, the congregation they have been elected to serve, and the community they are called to reach when voting to fund or cut funding for any program.

When this balance is disrupted there can be big problems.

In one Episcopal Church a rector simply called up and organ company and ordered a $50,000.00 pipe organ for the parish without bothering to consult the vestry. She informed them after the fact. They were, rightly, furious and her tenure ended very soon afterward when the vestry, by majority vote, called in the bishop. In this case, rector had overstepped, by far, her authority in the church.

In extreme cases such as this, when the rector acts in ways that significantly undermine the financial and/or spiritual health of the congregation, the vestry, by majority vote, may call in the bishop who, having been called by the vestry, has the authority to remove the rector from office or mediate the conflict.

Another example. There is a non-Anglican church in the region that has gone through about 4 different pastors in the last 6 years. Why? Well, in that particular denomination the board of Deacons and/or Elders holds authority not only over financial expenditures, but also over the spiritual and staffing decisions of the congregation. When a new pastor preaches or teaches something the board does not like or, perhaps, wants to change aspects of the congregation's common life or worship (and the church is dwindling fast and must change or it will soon die), he is told in no uncertain terms that he can do nothing at all apart from the board's approval. And the board never approves. This particular congregation has lost some excellent pastors in the last few years who simply could not stay because the board did not allow any room to actually lead.

In some congregations that follow this model, the board even seeks to control what the pastor can or cannot say from the pulpit. In an Anglican church, should the vestry seriously overstep its bounds and attempt to dictate decisions or policies in the spiritual realm, the rector too may call in the bishop who, having been called, has the authority to replace the entire vestry or mediate the conflict.

In both cases, the necessary boundaries, the checks and balances, between rector and vestry/board authority were ignored and in both cases, the congregations involved are faced with serious problems.

What does this mean for you?
I hope that this will help you understand how decisions are made in the church. I also hope it will help you understand who to approach with any questions and/or problems.

If you are needing spiritual guidance or care, have a question about theology or scripture, want to know what Good Shepherd believes about a given topic, want to talk about music selection, have an inquiry or concern about a teacher, leader or minister, wish to serve as reader, acolyte, Lay Eucharistic Minister, teacher, etc...then you would come to the rector or a minister/leader/staff person appointed by the rector to serve in that particular field.

If you have questions about the way money is spent and why, the upkeep of property, what happens to your offerings and pledges, how the budget is created, how much the church is paying staff and clergy, the total amount of your tax deductible contributions for the year, how much money has been budgeted and or collected for a given program or ministry or any question related to the financial health and life of the congregation...then you would want to ask a vestrymember or warden.


Some random but somewhat important notes:
1. Any baptized member of Good Shepherd who meets the requirements for elders in Titus 1:6-8, regularly attends Sunday services, regularly attends a bible study or class during the week or on Sunday morning, tithes or is working toward a tithe, and who is willing to sign Good Shepherd's statement of faith may run for vestry.

2. All vestry meetings are open to every member of the parish.

3. Vestry and warden elections are held every year at the Annual Meeting.

4. Committees of parishioners are sometimes appointed by the vestry to study the feasibility of certain plans or to think through the problems associated with various programs or decisions and report back to the vestry.

5. The rector presides over vestry meetings but usually does not vote.

6. In the rector's absence, the Senior Warden runs the vestry meetings.

7. Wardens must be confirmed as well as baptized.

8. Youth ministers, music directors, secretaries, assistant priests and other clergy all serve under the leadership of the rector who is responsible for all that they do and say.

9. The rector serves in obedience to a bishop who serves as the head of a number of congregations.

10. The rector, wardens and vestry of Good Shepherd are equally bound to believe, obey, proclaim, and teach the word of God as it is revealed in the inerrant scriptures of the Old and New Testaments and, by our lives and ministries, to model Christ as he is revealed therein. All believers who attend Good Shepherd have both the right and responsibility to test our words and lives against the measure of the bible and to question us when/if you believe that we may have strayed from it.

An old Mother's Day sermon

Sermon by The Rev. Matt Kennedy
Mother’s Day 2007
The Church of the Good Shepherd

I was born when men weren’t permitted in the delivery room. But now it’s standard for dads to be there the whole time. I remember, before Emma was born, how much I dreaded the idea of the delivery room. And still, we’re on our 4th kid, I’m not the kind of guy who wants to video-tape the event. I wish a doctor would come along and say, “Mr. Kennedy, its time for you to go smoke cigars with your friends and watch TV in the waiting room” because it takes a lot of pain and suffering to bring a baby into the world. Anne has a tough time of it too. Rowan was born in July of last year and we were planning to use whatever drugs were necessary during the delivery. But by the third baby, things go faster than they do the first time around and there’s a much smaller window to get an epidural if you want one. The nurse missed the window. I remember how horrified I was that Anne was going to have to give birth naturally, but she was calm. Her face was set. She was ready to do what needed to be done. And she did. I almost didn’t make it. She was fine.

Now that I’ve been through it a few times, I can see that it’s a good thing to be there. Men need to see what women go through to bring babies into the world. We can talk a big talk about how much we sweat to provide and protect, and we do, but while we’re sticking out our chests we can overlook what a mother does and what a mother goes through during pregnancy, birth, and throughout the process of raising kids. We don’t really have to deal with things until the baby comes out and even then, well, I don’t think my dad changed a diaper in his life. But even before the suffering of birth, a mom has already carried her baby in her body for 9 months and then for at least the first year or years, she’s the primary caretaker and there’s a bond that is formed in this period that we, as men, can observe but never really understand. And that bond continues throughout the life of the child even to adulthood. The mother in some sense always bears her children. It’s not just a one time event.

In the Update this week I mentioned the way Anne responds a lot differently to Rowan crying than I do. Sometimes at night we let him cry it out so that he’ll learn to soothe himself, they say to do this at about 6 months, but often I have to hold Anne back. It’s easy for me to ignore the crying and go back to sleep. Anne can’t do that. Her mom and mine can’t either. When we have the grandparents over, both grandpas sleep right through the screams but the grandmas are up and in the nursery sometimes before Anne can get there. I read this week that Cornell funded a study of male and female responses to crying babies. Women, they found, mothers or not, responded almost immediately to a crying infant and with far more demonstrable concern than the males. Men were uniformly slower. Some didn’t even respond at all and pretended not to hear.

I don’t want to draw any grand conclusions from this study or from my own observations. There are mothers who are less nurturing and fathers who are more so, but I think in general we can say that there’s something unique about the love of a mother for her children and I think that uniqueness has a purpose. God designed the human family, bringing male and female together in an intimate way and created the reproductive system in such a way that a human mom has a 9 month period with a little baby in her womb and then afterwards, before there was formula, babies needed years of direct nourishment from their mom before making on their own. God did this for a reason. He could have done it another way but he didn’t.

In fact, I heard an evolutionary biologist argue against the existence of God on the grounds that the way we human beings reproduce and raise our young is utterly inefficient; all of this time and effort and energy wasted on nurturing babies could be used in finding food and this inefficiency calls into question the “intelligence” of the design. The argument assumes that God is like an engineer interested in efficiency and mechanics. But the bible reveals a Personal God who loves his creatures and is concerned with making his love manifest. God went out of his way to design family relationships and he specifically designed mothers to be the physical or bodily bearer and nurturer of children and made it so that this bearing would create a bond that everyone would notice because we all have moms. When we see things like this in nature, as Christians we should always ask. Why is it there? We believe in an intelligent Creator. These things are not accidents. There’s a reason for mother-child relationships. And turning to scripture we find the answer.

The bible is full of mother imagery when it describes the love God has for his people. Take this passage from Isaiah.

“But Zion said, ‘the Lord has forsaken me, the Lord has forgotten me.’ Can a mother forget the baby at her breast and have no compassion on the child she has borne? Though she may forget, I will not forget you! See I have engraved you on the palms of my hands; your walls are ever before me…” (Isaiah 49:15-16)

The care and nurture and concern that that God has for you and for me, in whatever circumstance, is like that of a nursing mother for her child. You may feel alone and abandoned by God, but that feeling never reflects the truth. He could no more forget you than a mother can forget her child.

The bible also uses mother-love to describe the way God comforts. When you’re hurt or afraid or worried, the bible says to cry out to God just as you once cried out to your mother. And God promises in Isaiah 66:13 “As a mother comforts her child, so I will comfort you.”

When the kids get hurt they don’t run to me. My response to Aedan is “man up.” Stop crying. He goes to Anne. When I was a kid and got a bruised knee or bloody nose, I went to my mom. She’d pick me up and hug me and make things better. As I grew and went through getting dumped by girlfriends or failing in sports or losing friends my mom was there to comfort me. It’s still that way. I’ll tell her about something that’s bothering me and two weeks later I’ll find out that she’s been fretting over and praying for me. That’s what moms do. They fret over you. They hover over you. They can’t help it. Your mom loved you before you were born. She loved you and nurtured you from the moment you were conceived. Nothing can separate you from her love.

There’s nothing that you can do, nowhere you can go, no amount of disappointment or sin or rebellion or sadness or despair or pain or suffering can ever separate you from the love of your mother and in that way your mom is a living picture of Christ. Listen to Paul in Romans chapter 8:

“Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall trouble or hardship or persecution or famine or nakedness or danger or sword?..No…neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord.”

When Jesus comes to Jerusalem and stands looking over the city full people who will reject him and kill him, he says:

“O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing.” (Luke 13:34)

Jesus longs to gather us together as a mother hen does her chicks.

When adult children rebel and wreck their lives with drugs or alcohol or immorality, the mothers I know long to gather them up and bring them home. That longing is not weak or wimpy. It’s based on, reflects, and flows out of the longing that Jesus has for believers, his children, who fall away and reject him and sin against him. It’s a sacrificial longing, forged in the delivery room and steely enough to bear to the cross.

Mothers were created and formed to reflect or make manifest God’s love for his children. For mothers and for women in general, your capacity to bear and nurture children makes you a living picture of Christ’s sacrificial love to your kids and to the world. The question to ask yourself daily is: Am I a true picture of Christ’s love or a distorted one?

The most common way women can distort the image of Christ’s love not through any failure to love but by manifesting that love in a harmful way. Mother-love is powerful. Sometimes women confuse love with indulgence, fail to establish boundaries, and let children get away with anything and everything. Love without boundaries isn’t love. Kids need rules and boundaries. They need discipline. Children without discipline learn no one has authority over them. They get an attitude they carry with them throughout life and this attitude does them great harm. They lose jobs, friends, and often lack self-control. Children need loving discipline. This is one reason God set mothers within the context of families headed by fathers and when it comes to discipline, moms generally need to listen to dads in the same way that dads need to listen to moms when it comes to nurture and love. Love without discipline spoils. Discipline without love hardens. Mothers need fathers and fathers need mothers. Children need both.

Father’s there’s a real challenge here for you. It’s easy for kids to manipulate and disrespect their mom because she always wants to see the best. They know that. When they get away with it, Christ’s love reflected in the mother, comes off as cheap or weak. That’s not her fault. It’s yours. She has the mother bond and can be blinded by it. That’s one reason you’re there. There should be zero tolerance for disrespect or manipulation. And that means not only enforcing respect for mom but modeling it. If your kids, especially your sons, see you mistreating, manipulating, disrespecting their mom, don’t be surprised when they do the same. If you honor your wife and show her love and respect and give no tolerance for anyone doing otherwise, they’ll follow your example.

The 5th commandment still stands. Honor your mother and your father. Today especially we honor moms and in doing so we bring glory and honor to God who has given moms to the world in order to show us what his love is like....

Application/prayer

Here is the link to this week's Update

Why Christians should care about secular marriage laws?

Some have asked about the current push to legally recognize homosexual unions as "marriages" in New York State. I addressed question recently on Stand Firm in the following article:

Governor Patterson recently threw his influence behind the movement to expand the definition of marriage in New York State to include same sex relationships.

I've had a number of conversations with Christians who are deeply committed to defending the doctrine of marriage within the church but who are hesitant to take a similar stands when it comes to secular legislation.

The reasons cited for this hesitancy range from worry about the social cost which inevitably results from such a stand—identification with the “religious right” and political conservatism—to fear that outspokenness about “gay marriage” legislation might make gay “seekers” less eager to “seek”.

One of the most common and curious reasons I've heard expressed centers on the perceived separation between church and state. The state is “secular”, meaning, it is assumed, that it is not subject to what are after-all, “religious,” principles. The church, on the other hand, is obliged to remain faithful to her own “religious” claims. To oppose gay marriage legislation is to cross the two streams, to muddy the clear distinction between religion and government, to expect the government—to expect the world to look like the Church. How can Christians expect people who do not believe in Jesus Christ to conform their laws and culture to him?

Some suggest that support for this passive position can be found in the writings of St. Paul who, in the context of church discipline, writes in 1st Corinthians 5:12-13

“ For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? God judges those outside. “Purge the evil person from among you.”

Paul points to a distinction between the standards to which Christians must be held accountable and those we expect to find in the world. Because believers are indwelt by the Holy Spirit, Christians are to seek personal holiness and the holiness of the Church through the Spirit's sanctifying power. But those who do not believe in Jesus Christ, do not have the Holy Spirit, have not committed to follow and obey Jesus as Lord, and thus cannot and ought not be expected to live as if they have.

It's an important principle, guarding against hypocrisy. Its easy, and a lot more fun, to point out the evils of the world and a lot more difficult to identify our own personal sins and the sins of our congregations church.

And it is also true that the Church is charged with tasks that “secular” governments ought not to perform. The church makes disciples of all nations, teaches the bible, proclaims the gospel, celebrates the sacraments, provides conviction, comfort, and nourishment to believers in Jesus Christ. These are all tasks God has given uniquely to his Church.

But to agree that the church has been given a unique mission that cannot be co-opted by the state and to agree that those who are not “in Christ” are not subject to the discipline of the church or the moral standards expected of Christians is not to agree that the state is utterly godless—that it bears no responsibility under heaven...that there are no common, universal standards or principles which the government, by dint of being “created” and “instituted” is obligated to observe and protect.

The question here is not so much that of the distinction between “Church” and “State” but between God and his Creation. What responsibilities, if any, have human governments been given by the Creator?. Are there principles and practices that all human governments are called to establish, protect and observe?

In his Epistle to the Romans St. Paul writes that “government” is a gracious gift from God.

“Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer.” (Romans 13:1-4)

The divinely given purpose of government according to Paul is to reward and protect the good and punish evil—to be the vehicle of God's wrath against injustice. God graciously gives the “sword” to human governments and governors as a check on human sin, as a safeguard to keep humanity from Hobbs' nightmarish “nasty brutish and short” type of existence into which, given our nature, we would otherwise necessarily fall.

But what does it mean to “reward the good” and “punish evil”, how are good and evil defined?

The “good” is fully revealed and defined in Jesus Christ but this is not to say that those outside of Christ do not know, intellectually speaking, what is “good”. Paul's indictment of humanity in Romans 1:18-3:20 in fact assumes that everyone, Jew and Gentile, knows of God's existence and what is owed to him; that human beings universally grasp God's law—to the extent that there can be no pleading ignorance—because it is written on the tablet of every heart. The problem, according to Paul, is not that we do not know God or his law—God himself has set these things in our hearts and before our eyes—but that we willfully suppress and reject what know to be good.

And yet, despite humanity's failure to observe it, preserving and defending this generally revealed “good” is, according to St. Paul, the purpose for which God created and instituted human government, vesting it with the power of the sword.

The question then becomes, how do we know those universal principles governments are to protect and preserve? There are, as we all know, basic “goods” grasped and held universally—human life, property ownership, care for babies and the elderly, etc. But because the apprehension of these values and their application in various cultural contexts is varied and inconsistent, it's probably not a good idea to ground our understanding of the goods governments must protect in principles discovered through the study of laws and norms around the world.

There were, however, certain goods or ordinances established by God at creation that have been revealed to humanity in scripture—in particular those ordinances revealed in Genesis 1 and 2 that existed prior to the fall. Creation ordinances are not specific to Christians or limited to those who believe that the bible is authoritative—they are common goods all human beings, as created beings, are responsible to observe.

Among those creation ordinances we find the institution of marriage.

“The man gave names to all livestock and to the birds of the heavens and to every beast of the field. But for Adam there was not found a helper fit for him. 21 So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh. 22 And the rib that the Lord God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man. 23 Then the man said,
“This at last is bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called Woman,
because she was taken out of Man.”
24 Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. 25 And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed.” (Genesis 2:20-25)

God “brought the woman” to the man. God “joined” them together. Marriage is not an institution that grew out of civilization—it is not a social “development” or a “construct”. Marriage was instituted by God as the first human community and it subsequently became the ground and basis for all others. The first marriage was also, in some sense, the first human government with Adam serving as the federal head.

Given all of this, it is no small thing for a government to determine to “redefine” marriage. Such a redefinition is not simply an act of defiance against the Creator, it undermines the God-established heart and core of human community.

It is true that the Church cannot be the state and the state cannot be the Church but when a government turns against the principles of her own founding—when it quits its God-given responsibility to uphold and protect the good, then the Church, necessarily, must take up the office of prophet. Not to call the government to follow ecclesial rules or fill the ecclesial role but because the government has stopped being and doing what the government was established by God to be and do. The church does not expect the state to be the church but it must call the state to be the state.

Carolyn Arends: Hiding What They Seek

posted at Christianity Today

A friend was involved for years in a weekly service intended to reach out to inner-city kids, the majority of whom had little church experience and no acknowledged relationship with Jesus.

If it had been up to me, I would have made those events "seeker-friendly." I'd have focused on building relationships, avoiding anything too religious or high pressure. But my friend went a different way. Every week, he led worship, one song after another, always unabashedly about—or to—Jesus.

I'm sure some of the kids walked away and never looked back. But hundreds stayed. Many made decisions to follow Christ.

Some ministry leaders were concerned that teens who didn't know Jesus were being asked to participate in worship. My friend would reply, "How else are they supposed to get to know him?"

It's a good question. People come to the Christian faith via many different highways, but the eventual crossroad is always an encounter with Jesus. I wonder if my attempts to keep my witness nonthreatening and accessible sometimes end up shielding the unchurched people around me from their own crossroad. Jesus can certainly meet them without my assistance.

...read more

Casting Lots and Knowing God's Will

I posted this at Stand Firm, but I thought it might be helpful here too:

Very recently a parishioner asked about the practice of casting lots. It seems that a good friend was planning to make a relatively major life-decision by lot casting (after all, the friend said, "there are many examples of casting lots in the bible"). My parishioner, wisely, was concerned that this might not be the best way to determine God's will. I answered his question in the email posted below (with permission) and thought little of it until recently when I learned that a number of orthodox Anglican groups and apparently even congregations have also cast lots to make very significant corporate decisions. This practice is most prevalent, oddly--and you will see why I say that in a moment--among a few (not all) of those Christians who consider themselves "Spirit filled."

Dear_______

Thanks for your note. Casting lots is mentioned quite a bit in the Old Testament. In fact, the High Priest--with divine sanction--regularly used the "Umin and Thumin"(Exodus 28:30 etc...) to determine God's will which may have involved a form of lot casting (Some suggest that the "Umin and Thumin" were two stones of different colors--presumably one representing a "yes" and the other a "no")

In the New Testament casting lots is mentioned as well...but there is a little less clarity. The practice is mentioned most in the gospels. It is not, however, mentioned in a positive way. "The soldiers cast lots for his clothing...." I'm not so sure that your friend would want to emulate that example. This is, by the way, why it's so important to actually read the bible for yourself rather than taking someone else's word for what it says--that a practice is "mentioned" however many times in scripture does not mean necessarily that it is a "biblical" practice. I know you know that...but you might want to mention that in a gentle way to your friend.

The last New Testament mention of casting lots is found in Acts 1. Following the Ascension, the disciples met to decide who would take Judas Iscariot's place among the disciples. Matthias was selected by lot. There is no reason to assume that God did not act in and through lot casting in that instance.

But (I'll bet you knew that was coming) I think it telling that the very last mention of lot casting comes in Acts1...what happens in Acts 2? Pentecost. The Holy Spirit indwells the church in Acts 2 and from that moment on all those who believe receive the Spirit of God.

In the remainder of Acts, God directs the apostles directly through the Holy Spirit and the various prophetic "gifts" he brings--not through lots. In fact, the passage in Acts in which one would most expect, on the basis of the Acts 1 model, to find lot-casting--Acts 6: the choosing of the seven deacons--a passage that closely parallels the choosing of Matthias by lot--the practice is noticeably absent. Lots, it seems, are no longer necessary for a community indwelled by the Holy Spirit.

The possibility of casting lots to discern God's will is also absent from the epistles...particularly in those sections you would think it would be mentioned. For example, in 1 Cor 12-14 when Paul discusses the "gifts of the Spirit" (see also Romans 12) there are a number of gifts that are given precisely for the purpose of helping the church discern the will of God...prophesy, the interpretation of tongues, the word of knowledge..."lot casting" is never mentioned, discussed or considered.

In addition to its absence among the NT gifts explicitly mentioned in 1st Corinthians and Romans 12, there are some key texts that give us insight the ways God expected early believers (and by extension, present day believers) to be "led" by the Holy Spirit.

Look in particular at 1 Cor 2:11-15:

For who knows a person's thoughts except the spirit of that person, which is in him? So also no one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. 12 Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might understand the things freely given us by God. 13 And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who are spiritual.

14 The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned. 15 The spiritual person judges all things, but is himself to be judged by no one. 16 “For who has understood the mind of the Lord so as to instruct him?” But we have the mind of Christ.

Believers are indwelled by the Spirit and have, therefore, the "mind of Christ." We do not need to cast lots to determine the mind of Christ, we are indwelled by the Spirit of the Living God--we have his "mind" already. This fact undergirds Paul's constant prayer for the Philippians... "asking that you may be filled with the knowledge of his will in all spiritual wisdom and understanding..." (Phil 1:9). Paul assumes that the discernment of the will of God is a spiritual...not a mechanical matter.

You see a very similar assumption underlying Paul's exhortation in 1st Corinthians 6:1-5.

When one of you has a grievance against another, does he dare go to law before the unrighteous instead of the saints? Or do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world is to be judged by you, are you incompetent to try trivial cases? Do you not know that we are to judge angels? How much more, then, matters pertaining to this life! So if you have such cases, why do you lay them before those who have no standing in the church? I say this to your shame. Can it be that there is no one among you wise enough to settle a dispute between the brothers,

Here Paul tells the Corinthians not to take disputes to secular courts because even believers of "little account" have been equipped by virtue of their standing or status "in Christ" with the capacity, the wisdom, to "judge" between believers.

Does this mean that a Christian or a Christian community, with the "mind of Christ" earnestly employing the natural and spiritual gifts God provides to determine a future course will always make good decisions? Of course not but there seems to be, and I am less certain about this, an understanding on Paul's part that the decision of a community--and I think this would apply individual as well--may be "blessed" by God in so far as the "resolve" is "good"...in other words in so far as the decision represents a good faith attempt employing divinely given natural and spiritual resources to discern God's will and follow it. Here's Paul's prayer for the Thessalonians: "To this end we always pray for you, that our God may make you worthy of his calling and may fulfill every resolve for good and every work of faith by his power, so that the name of our Lord Jesus may be glorified in you, and you in him, according to the grace of our God and the Lord Jesus Christ." (2 Thessalonians 1:11-12)

I don't think you have to be a cessationist (and I am not one) to come to a relatively solid conclusion that believers indwelt by the Holy Spirit are not to "cast lots" to determine God's will. We have the mind of Christ.

The import of all of these considerations leads me to believe that in circumstances not governed by a biblical injunction or instruction, believers are (no shocker here) to use both their natural wisdom and spiritual gifts to make decisions. And in so far as we have sought to be consistent with God's purposes and to bring him glory, it is reasonable to assume that God can and will work through and bless even our mistakes.

Here are a few questions I think believers should ask themselves before making a decision.

1. Is there a biblical principle or instruction implied or expressed that governs this circumstance...if so, well, follow it.

2. Has the believing community to which I belong (in this case_____) committed to a corporate mission, decision, or direction? If so, is my personal decision consistent or inconsistent with it? God speaks through the Body of Christ

3. Have I prayed consistently about this decision?

4. Does one way seem more reasonable than the other...remember God gave us minds as well as spirits. Many Christians, far too often, hold plain reason suspect--indeed some seem to purposefully make decisions contrary to it in order to demonstrate that they are "walking in the Spirit"...which is simply foolishness.

5. Are circumstances narrowing the decision-making process...has God closed or opened any doors in one direction or another?

6. Will this decision hurt or harm or in any way negatively effect my Christian witness, my ability to contribute to the mission of the community of which I am a member, or any brother or sister who may hear about it?

7. Do I sense in my prayers that God is guiding me in a certain direction? This "sense" is, of course, quite subjective...which is why I have put it last...but there is often a strong sense of God's leading one way or the other. Two caveats: 1. God never leads us to act in ways contrary to scripture...2. Unless the believing community to which we belong is waaay off base, he rarely calls us to act in ways that conflict with its mission and call.

Hope this helps...please feel free to follow up with any questions, objections etc...

Matt

The Gift of Emotions

Weekly Article
by Matt Kennedy

We've been hitting “feelings” pretty hard lately in sermons and in the adult ed class...and for good reason. In so many ways ours is a culture that lives, dies, thrives and decides on the basis of how we feel at any given moment. The “I'm not 'in love' with my spouse anymore so I'm filing for divorce” syndrome is widespread. Work commitments, promises, friendships, and marriages end because people no longer “feel happy” doing the work these things require. Carried over into the Christian context the “I'm not 'in love' with my spouse anymore so I'm filing for divorce” syndrome easily becomes, “I'm not 'getting anything out of' church anymore so I'm leaving” or “Christianity isn't 'working for me' like it used to so I'm looking for something else” or “My God wouldn't want me to stay in a relationship that makes me unhappy”

Following Jesus often means not following our hearts. The prophet Jeremiah warned, “the heart is deceitful above all things”. We often feel pretty good about things we should be ashamed of and ashamed of things we should feel good about. So we can't rely on feelings to guide us in our decision making. That is as true for believers as it is for non-believers because even as God transforms believer's minds and hearts by the power of the Holy Spirit, we're often drawn toward things that displease him. Sin crouches at the door.

All of this being true, emotions are not bad things. God created feelings. The feeling of being “in love” is a good thing. The experience of God's presence in worship is to be relished and treasured. Satisfaction at a job well done is to be savored. Anger at injustice, sadness at the loss of a loved one, jealousy in marriage—all of these emotions, when they are rightly ordered, serve good and necessary purposes and often add beauty and poignancy to life.

Feelings are not to be killed off—Christians are not stoics—but rather channeled properly and enjoyed. They are not ends in themselves—we should not strive to evoke or generate a given emotion—but they are natural byproducts of a full and wholesome life rightly lived.

Marriage is a great illustration of this principle. We often marry someone because we fall in love. Being in love is deeply enjoyable emotion. But when you stand at the altar and make your vows, you do not promise to be “in love” with your spouse till death do you part. You promise, rather, to “agape” your spouse...to act with sacrificial, self-giving love in your marriage. It is certain that the feeling of “in love-ness” will fade but so long as you are committed to “agape” your spouse, it will not fade forever. It comes and goes, ebbs and flows over the course of your relationship. It is not a feeling that you can seek out or gin up. It's something that comes naturally in your relationship as you live out your commitment. Enjoy passion when it rises but don't chase after it. Let it come and let it go. Love—or “agape”--your husband or your wife and the feeling of being “in love” will follow.

The same could be said of your relationship with Jesus Christ. Agape Christ. Serve him and sacrifice yourself for his sake, study and pray and participate in his body and the feelings of rapture, love, zeal, exhilaration, will come naturally and go naturally. You will go through “dry periods” and you will experience emotional highs. Don't seek either one. When the “feeling” is gone it's not time to find another church, another retreat center, another motivational speaker to gin it up again. Seek Christ, agape the Lord, and your emotions will order themselves.

People often ask me how they can know God's will or purpose for their lives. Often this question is expressed with a great deal of frustration and confusion. The first question I'll ask in response is: have you been reading and studying your bible? Usually, the answer is no. Then I'll ask “How consistently do you pray?” And most often the person has not been praying daily. Finally, knowing the answer, I'll ask, “Do you consistently participate in the worship life of the Body of Christ?” and the answer, usually, is no. How can anyone expect to know God's will or purpose while consistently neglecting the means through which and by which he has promised to reveal himself? The more you know God as he reveals himself through scripture, prayer and the church, the easier it is to know his will not simply in a general sense but in a very specific and personal way.

I think the same principle is true for Christian “experience”. How can you expect to feel the “love” of Christ and the “joy” of being an adopted son or daughter of the Father if you ignore the very means through which and by which God has promised to breathe his life and grace and love into you? When you “love” or agape the Lord by daily spending time in his Word, daily spending time in prayer, and weekly worshiping him in the fellowship of other believers, then you've opened yourself to feelings of wonder, awe, devotion, and peace. Commitment and covenant keeping precede and set the foundation for the experience of God. If you chase religious experience apart from disciplined commitment, you will find yourself increasingly frustrated.

But if you seek Christ, serve Christ, agape Christ, all of these things will be added to you.

end

Read the rest of the Weekly Update here

The Bible and Revelation part 1

I gave the following talk to the Binghamton University Intervarsity Fellowship last Friday night. It's the second time I've spoken there. I was asked to speak on the topic of "scripture"...and keep it to 30 minutes (hah).

Before I got married I penned a list of qualities that my future wife should posses. She'd be blond, between 5'5” and 5'2”, Texan, know how to and love to cook, clean, and take care of children. She should be educated but not in theology so she would not compete with me, and she had to feel a deep desire to be a pastor's wife. That list was the measure of all females in my life for some time.

Then I met Anne. Anne is not blond. She's shorter than 5'2”. She's not from Texas. She has a seminary degree and never wanted to be a pastor's wife. She does cook and clean—but has this strange idea that I ought to share in these tasks—and she does do incredibly well with our increasingly large and noisy mass of children. Anne is not the the woman of my list.

The woman of my “list” doesn't really exist. She was a fabrication...In many ways the woman of my list was really just a projection of my own issues. But Anne is real. I can't shape her into my list woman and she can't shape me. And that is the beauty our marriage...the beauty of all good marriages I think. Anne is who she is. She tells me about herself in what she says, does, and does not do. I cannot change her. I don’t want to.

Scripture uses marriage to illustrate the relationship between the Church and Christ. The Church is called to know and love God as he is. I emphasize that because I think, call me crazy, that sometimes we prefer another sort of god—a god who meets our expectations and felt needs, a god who conforms himself to our personal “lists” rather than a God who reveals himself and to whom we must be conformed.

Revelation:
The American Heritage Dictionary defines the word “revelation” as “a dramatic disclosure of something not previously known or realized...”and I think that is a fine definition as far as it goes. What I like about it and what I think is helpful about it for our purposes is that it catches the sense of “being shown” something that we would not otherwise see. Often when we speak of God we use terms of “discovery”. I “found” God. I “came to believe” that God exists. But scripture assumes that we would not “come to know God” with his first “revealing” himself to us.

God reveals himself to humanity in two ways.

First, through creation which is called “general revelation.” It is called “general” revelation because everyone, generally, has access to it. When you walk outside and see the stars this evening you'll be looking at God's general revelation. Psalm 19 tells us: “The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork. Day to day pours out speech, and night to night reveals knowledge.” (1-3)

In Romans 1, Paul writes this about the effect or power of God's general revelation on humanity: “The wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived...in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse." (Romans 1:18-21) Though God reveals himself perfectly and beautifully in nature, general revelation does not effect faith, it does not produce true knowledge of God--not because general revelation fails but because humans suppress or reject what general revelation succeeds in revealing. There are, according to Paul, no true atheists. Everyone knows God exists and that he is to be worshiped and served because God has “shown” it to everyone through general revelation but everyone willingly suppresses that knowledge. General revelation is then ineffectual.

Psalm 19, however, points to the second way God reveals himself to humanity. “The law of the Lord is perfect, reviving the soul; the testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple; the precepts of the Lord are right, rejoicing the heart; the commandment of the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes...the rules of the Lord are true, and righteous altogether. More to be desired are they than gold, even much fine gold; sweeter also than honey and drippings of the honeycomb.” (Psalm 19:7-10).

God's “perfect” law, the Psalmist says, has effectual power. It revives the soul, makes wise the simple, causes the heart to “rejoice” and to “enlightens” the eyes or the mind. Scripture, special revelation, has power to effect change...to effect a real and true sort of “knowing” in those who receive it.

In the 19th century an atheist philosopher named Ludwig Feuerbach asserted that when humans speak of God, they're really speaking of unmet needs...and ultimately of themselves (admittedly I am summarizing and generalizing here). All human beings have unmet desires, physiological necessities, frustrated wants...these are what Feuerbach called “wish images”. What we call God, said Feuerbach, is merely a composite wish image, a pretend deity who is really nothing more than a personification of human desires...think back to my “list” woman. She was merely a representation of my own issues. The same is true, according to Feuerbach, when it comes to human “knowledge” of God

In some ways I think he is correct. And think that's precisely what Paul was getting at in the text from Romans 1 I quoted a moment ago. Left to our own devices, we reject God as he reveals himself and create little gods, personifications of our desires, interact with them and call ourselves “spiritual”.

People do all sorts of things with the approval of these gods. They start wars, end marriages, cheat on their wives, cheat on tests, disobey their parents, sleep with their girlfriends...often with the rationale “But I prayed about it first and God said it was okay” tacked on. I can't tell you how many times I heard that last one as a youth minister.

This problem of “god-making” is precisely what makes special revelation, scripture, so powerful. In scripture God does not leave us “to our own devices.” He makes himself known, he unsettles us, he overturns our imaginations and perceptions and wish images and in their place he gives a true living self-portrait. It can be disturbing picture. It doesn't leave us feeling easy. But that's because it is real and because he's real. God is not and will not be a god of our “lists”. He is not tame. He is not concerned to conform to our cultural perceptions of right and wrong or what is appropriate or inappropriate. He is who he is. And when you find yourself regularly walking away from the bible settled and at peace and affirmed...you've most likely misread it altogether.

...to be continued

How do we know what is Essential?

This is the most recent article (published today) from my ongoing series on the 39 Articles of Religion (the Anglican Confession of Faith) Read the first two parts of my discussion of Article 6 here and here

The next phrase in Article 6 will require some parsing:

..so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation.

The battle over the proper expression of human sexuality in the Church has brought with it controversy with regard to the question of what constitutes “essential” doctrine. Which doctrines must be believed, which commands must be obeyed, and what behaviors must be avoided and, conversely, which doctrines and disciplines are appropriately categorized as “disputable”?

That there are “disputable” matters within the scope of orthodox Christianity is indisputable. St. Paul articulates the principle in Romans 14.

As for the one who is weak in faith, welcome him, but not to quarrel over opinions. One person believes he may eat anything, while the weak person eats only vegetables. Let not the one who eats despise the one who abstains, and let not the one who abstains pass judgment on the one who eats, for God has welcomed him. Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master] that he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make him stand. One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind.(Romans 14:1-5)

There are three things we should note for our purposes here.

First, Paul recognizes that there will be a wide variety of disciplines practiced and principles held by believers within the Church. Some of these will conflict with others.

Second. In so far as these principles and practices are matters of “opinion” we ought not, he exhorts, “pass judgment”. We may disagree on “matters of opinion” but we need not divide.

Third: Paul thinks “matters of opinion” are important. “Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind.” To categorize something as disputable is not to say that it is inconsequential. Christians ought to be “fully convinced,” that our “opinions” are consistent with the revealed will of God.

Taken together, Paul says that believers must arrive at their opinions soberly and with care and yet mere opinions cannot be forced on another person.

But how do we know which principles and practices are mere “matters of opinion” and which are something more? What criteria do we employ to discern the difference between what must be believed and what is disputable?

This is a particularly troubling question in light of current controversies in the Anglican Communion and beyond. Some on the left, for example, argue that homosexuality falls under the category of “opinion”. The Rev. Susan Russell, the president of Integrity USA, the Episcopalian organization promoting the blessing of non-celibate homosexual relationships appeals to Romans 14 as if it self-evidently applies to sexual relationships. Others do the same with regard to divorce and remarriage, the ordination of women, and the use of birth control.

The answer, according to Article 6, depends upon whether a given doctrine, discipline, or practice can be established or “proven” in scripture.

If it can be shown that a practice is plainly prohibited or a discipline clearly commanded or a doctrine unambiguously taught in scripture, then, by implication, conformity to it may be “required.” Such practices, disciplines, and doctrines are not “disputable”, they are not matters of “opinion”, they are absolute or “essential.”

For this reason orthodox Christians consider doctrines like the divinity of Christ, the Virgin birth and the bodily resurrection “essential” and the standing condemnation of certain practices like incest or homosexual behavior beyond dispute. There is, most agree, scriptural clarity about these matters.

But when Christians appeal to the plain teaching of scripture as the ground of doctrine and discipline the question arises: does scripture reveal anything plainly and to whose satisfaction?

This question lies at the root of perhaps the most popular epistemological objection to biblical arguments: the voluminous mass of conflicting interpretations prove that there is no way to know the true meaning of any biblical text.

There are, indeed, wildly conflicting, confusing, and contrived interpretations not only of obscure and difficult scriptural texts but of the crucial passages--the apparently “plain” passages--that lie at the core of what most churches consider essential doctrine.

How do we maintain the criterion of clarity for determining essential doctrine when so very few passages remain free of controversy? How do we uphold the principle articulated by Article 6 that “what cannot be proven cannot be required” if, in fact, nothing can be proven?

We must, I think, begin by pointing out that controversy or dispute over the meaning of a given text does not necessarily mean that the proper interpretation text is “disputable”.Often the source of controversy is rooted not in the actual text but in an inadequate philosophy of interpretation or “hermeneutic”.

In his book, Truth and Power: the Place of Scripture in the Christian Life, JI Packer writes:

“Faultless formulas about biblical inspiration and authority do us no good while we misunderstand the Bible for whose supremacy we fight. The major differences between historic Protestants and Roman Catholics — papal authority, the presence and sacrifice of Christ in the mass, the form and credentials of the ordained ministry, the way of salvation by grace through faith — are rooted in differences of interpretation. So are the major cleavages between Christians of all persuasions and Jehovah's Witnesses, with their antitrinitarianism, their anticipations of Armageddon and their legalistic doctrine of salvation. Yet these groups have historically maintained the inerrancy of Scripture (some Roman Catholics are slipping these days, but that is a detail) and have claimed that all their distinctives are Bible-based. You see, then, how important the issue of interpretation is.” (p105)

Using the proper hermeneutic, Dr. Packer writes, is key to arriving at a correct understanding of scripture. In this way the bible is not unique. The same principle holds for any work of literature, art, or media.

HG Wells' “War of the Worlds” was broadcast over the radio to thousands of Americans in the 1930's. Many if not most failed to correctly interpret what they heard. Panic ensued. Some Americans loaded into their vehicles and ran for the hills, others locked themselves in their basements and cellars, still others loaded their hunting rifles and prepared to fight off Martian invaders. False reports of alien spacecraft landings flooded local police and military installations. What happened? Listeners employed a faulty hermeneutic. They perceived HG Wells' fanciful story as fact rather than fiction because they tuned in too late to hear the introduction.

Books, movies, and television programs can easily be misunderstood. That does not mean that they have no objective meaning nor does it mean that their meaning is unclear and/or beyond discovery. Like any other task interpretation requires diligence and the correct tools.

The same is true of scripture. Though divinely inspired and inerrant, the bible is also work of human literature and must be interpreted using the same tools and methodologies employed in understanding any other piece of literature. Proper hermeneutics, of course, is not the focus of this essay. Much has been written about it elsewhere. The point is that the principle of scriptural clarity or perspicuity rests on the assumption that the bible, on the human level, is a book like any other book and as such it is at least as accessible and understandable.

In discussing the clarity of scripture Kevin J. Vanhoozer writes:

It [scriptural clarity] does not mean, first of all, that interpretation is unnecessary - the biblical meaning will be delivered up by some mystical process of hermeneutical osmosis. Nor does it mean that an autonomous individual can, by employing critical techniques alone, wrest the meaning from the text. Rather, clarity means that the Bible is sufficiently unambiguous in the main for any well-intentioned person with Christian faith to interpret each part with relative adequacy. In the context of the Reformation, the perspicuity of Scripture was the chief weapon for combating the authority of the dominant interpretive community: Rome...The idea that the Bible is clear does not obviate the need for interpretation but, on the contrary, makes the work of interpretation even more important. The clarity of Scripture means that understanding is possible, not that it is easy. (Is There a Meaning in This Text: pp315-317)

The principle of scriptural clarity is rooted in the fact that the bible originated with God; that it is inspired by his Spirit; that its composition was divinely superintended; that its purpose is revelation; and that its intended recipients are human beings. If we believe these propositions then the basic intelligibility of the bible must be assumed. If God intended to communicate and reveal his truth to human beings through the vehicle of scripture, then scripture must be perspicuous especially with regard to those matters that are essential to faith and salvation.

Since, moreover, the Holy Spirit selected and inspired human writers to communicate in human language to human readers we ought to assume that in so far as we, fellow human beings, understand human communication that we have the capacity to understand scripture not simply in a relative personal manner, but in keeping with the message the human author intended to convey.

To suggest otherwise comes close to denying the possibility of communication in general. Why set scripture apart? If one decides a priori, at the outset, that it is impossible for human beings to grasp the meaning intended by the human author of a given biblical text then he ought not restrict his pessimism to the bible. His assertion cuts to the heart of social interaction; it calls into question the very possibility of human communication in a broad sense.

Apart from postmodern literary deconstructionists, few go there. Though many decide, before the fact, that scripture is indecipherable few carry that assumption into their reading of other types of literature. No one who takes the trouble to read the newspaper in the morning or a book or this article believes communicated meaning to be beyond discovery. Because we are social creatures we human beings assume, as a practical necessity, that we can communicate intelligibly with one another.

That reasonable assumption extends--it must extend--to the bible because while it's origin is divine and its truth divinely superintended, scripture was written by human beings for human beings. The bible, therefore, despite the well known vexing difficulties that attend to specific texts and passages, is at the very least as perspicuous as purely human forms of communication. It is able to be understood in an objective way.

On the assumed grounds of perspicuity, then, Article 6 maintains that what doctrines and disciplines cannot be proven by or are not grounded in scripture cannot be required of any man or woman in the Church.

This, of course, leads to the next question: which scriptures?

Next week...Article Six and the Deuterocanonical books.