Joseph R. Odell's Blog, page 2

The Story of Cyrus

“Don’t allow your desire for comfort to assuage you from living radically for Jesus in this world...if you feel a little fear, that’s a good sign you are on the right track.”

Cyrus, Sep. 2017

This comforting quote was in my devotional this week. This process has been faith-building for me. I used to believe that if I didn’t feel a “peace” about something right away, it must not be the right decision. This lack of peace caused months of anxiety looking at the files of dozens of children hoping one had less severe needs than Cyrus’. I didn’t think we could do a wheelchair-bound child. A child who would never walk or talk was not on my radar. Changing diapers for the rest of my life did not sound appealing. But the longer we prayed about it, the more we felt this was the direction we were supposed to go, regardless of feeling “peace” and quite frankly, being scared to death of the idea of it all. It was only after saying a feeble “yes” to adopting Cyrus that peace began to come. I no longer believe that having fear or a lack of peace about something means it isn’t the right thing to do. After all, being brave does not mean being unafraid- it means doing it anyway! So, we’re doing it anyway. 

Cyrus, Sep 2017

In just about 2-3 weeks, we’ll be “meeting” Cyrus for the first time. Bulgaria is typically a 2 trip country to complete an adoption, but due to Covid, they have made the first “bonding trip” virtual. We’re preparing our list of questions and our hearts for what we might see, and we have no idea what to really expect. The most recent photo we have of him was from 18 months ago, so we don’t even know what he looks like now.  Since we have the official approval to adopt him, we have been able to find out where he’s been living the past 5 years, here:

Cyrus, September 2017

in a town on the border of Turkey and Greece that is one of the oldest settlements in all of Bulgaria. Some of the orphanages in Bulgaria are trying to shut down and put the children into more of a “group home” setting and even foster care to give them a more family-like atmosphere.  Even these group homes, however, are no substitute for the love of a family, as this short film demonstrates:

The documentary series I shared in the last post revealed the appalling conditions of many of the orphanages across the country and some reforms were made because of it. Cyrus’s orphanage is one that is trying to shut down. It is a huge, old dilapidated building that once housed many children...but only 13 of them remain. The healthier children were moved out into group homes and foster care, and the children with more severe medical needs were left there, sadly because there was nowhere else to put them. There are only two rooms of the orphanage now in operation, and a few rotating staff members. The children left are mostly crib-bound. It’s not a stretch to say that Cyrus hasn’t been outside much, and he hasn’t ever seen the sunshine or felt the fresh air on his face except for the few times he’s been to the hospital for tests and treatment. He’s led a solitary life of mostly staring at white walls and playing with his hands. We received a recent medical update that Cyrus was hospitalized for 4 days in July for weight loss and vomiting, and his weight was already only 23 pounds at the age of 5, so he had no weight to lose. 

Cyrus, April 2019

Cyrus’s main diagnosis is cerebral palsy. This is a general diagnosis given to many of the children when the minimal testing done has not revealed any other obvious reason for their delays and medical problems. It’s likely this is accurate for him, however, as he has some clear markers for this condition. We paid for the services of an International Adoption Clinic specialist in Seattle to review his file and discuss with us what to expect, what tests he will need, and what much of his confusing medical diagnoses mean. He has an undiagnosed genetic syndrome that we will need to investigate at some point which may explain a lot of his symptoms and other conditions. Many of the children from this country also have Fetal Alcohol Syndrome, though we don’t believe he has this judging from his facial characteristics and file. We are most concerned about the fact that he has a “profound” mental delay, and frequent “neurogenic vomiting” and lack of any weight gain since April of 2019. We are expecting that he will initially need a feeding tube to help him catch up and meet the nutritional deficit he’s suffered. We have had both doctors who’ve reviewed his file support a medical expedite to get him home quickly due to his failure to thrive there. Typically there are about 4-6 months in between “trip 1” and “trip 2” to pick them up, but nothing about this year has been typical, so all we can do is hope he will be home by April, since we are set to move this summer!

Cyrus, April 2019

And the good news is that we are fully funded! We had a $3,000 matching grant, and the goal was very quickly met by just a few faithful friends. One friend blessed us beyond belief and allowed us to not have to do months of fundraising. We are so thankful to have this burden lifted! It’s one thing about this adoption that we do not have to worry about now. Thank you for helping us meet this goal in less than a week of fundraising! 

Racism sucks

Several months ago, I had the honor and privilege of sitting down with Tuskeegee Airman LTC Alexander Jefferson. This man experienced countless instances of personal, structural, and institutional racism. After listening to his stories of courage and endurance, as well as his accounts of racism, one of my fellow service members asked if he thought America was still racist. He said, “of course America’s a racist country! But, it’s the best damn country on the face of the earth!”

I’ve been thinking about that ever since.

I used to post on social media a lot more about racial issues (and political issues), but I cut back on my social media interactions, mostly sticking to theological articles, family craziness, and dank memes. For one thing, it was taking up a lot of time from my family and profession that I didn’t have to give.  I was staying up at night thinking about what I needed to say to people.  I wasn’t present in my children’s lives like I am supposed to be.  I wasn’t prayerful about my church like I am supposed to be.  But, also, I questioned why I was doing it. Were there actually people on my feed who were racists and disagreed with me, and I would actually be changing their minds and hearts? Were there people who were unaware of the nationally publicized events of racial animus whose “awareness” would be raised by my three-line emotive posts? Is the reality that I just made myself feel good by saying the things that were, generally, agreed upon by everyone? What did I think I was actually accomplishing by social media outrage?

Probably, very little.  As I wrote in my sermon for this upcoming Pentecost Sunday, “It is time for God’s people to be Spirit-living people, whose words and deeds are those of truth and reconciliation.  I don’t know what that looks like for you, but social media outrage isn’t enough.  In fact, that can make it worse when done in a fashion that just generates self-righteousness and hatred toward other groups.”

Of course, the problem remains.

As basically everyone knows, Ahmaud Arbery was murdered by two men in Georgia, essentially because the men thought he looked like someone who had stolen some items from a construction site. The men claimed to be attempting a “citizens arrest”, which is only legal if a felony has been observed. They stopped him while he was jogging. In the video of the murder, nothing Arbery does is any different from what anyone would have done if two men attempted to kidnap you - and because guns were out already, he was killed. Arbery himself was unarmed.

What would be seen as a wildly, tragically stupid act of Southern machismo - if the guns weren’t out for a suspected “burglar”, there would have been no struggle over a weapon and no one would have died - is seen instead as a racist murder. Do we have evidence that the two men decided that day that they were gonna go kill a black man? No. But this didn’t happen in a historical and cultural vacuum.

LeBron James tweeted “We’re literally hunted EVERYDAY/EVERYTIME we step foot outside the comfort of our homes!” At first glance, the claim looks ridiculous, especially coming from someone who has the resources and privilege of an NBA star. If he had experienced any kind of racist threat of violence in the last 20 years, it would have been on the front page. Furthermore, the statistics are clear that black men are not significantly more likely to be killed by cops than white men. But this didn’t happen in a historical and cultural vacuum.

This history of the treatment of people with African ancestry in our country is shameful and despicable. If you haven’t read or heard accounts of the horrific treatment of slaves on slave ships, or in slavery, then go do it (Alex Haley’s Roots is a good start). Free blacks could be kidnapped and sold into slavery, and there were many in the North who may not have supported slavery but did not view black men and women as equals. Following the Civil War, African-Americans still suffered cruelty, injustice, and oppression across the country. Lynchings and state laws restricting their freedom were part of the culture in the South until 55 years ago, in my parents’ lifetimes, in the lifetime of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. While those practices became formally banned, a culture that cheered for George Wallace’s “segregation forever” speech wasn’t simply going to warmly embrace their fellow citizens as true equals. Because the history of personal and economic oppression continued for those centuries, a large proportion of African-Americans lived in lower-income and impoverished areas, where crime is more prevalent. Thus, big city cops became accustomed to seeing crime perpetrated by black citizens, and media portrayals of “Boyz in the Hood” and “Menace to Society” cemented that impression in Americans who didn’t live in the cities.

Furthermore, racist attitudes continued. With redlining and peonage policies continuing to keep the black family and community under the heel of wider American society, it was much more difficult for individuals to work their way out of their economic condition. Individual acts of racist violence, while becoming less common after the late 60’s, were regular reminders of the culture, history, heritage, and still-broken state of race relations. In 1981, two KKK members abducted and killed a black man in Alabama, simply because another black man had been acquitted of a murder. In 1998, in Texas, three white men murdered a black man who had accepted a ride from them, then dumped his body and went to a BBQ. And, while most Americans of all colors were horrified by these acts, non-state approved and non-higher culture approved racism was still alive and well.

I had never been in a majority-white school as a kid, having spent most of my childhood just outside NYC and DC - but I still remember vividly when some kids in my high school thought they were clever by using the word “sreggin” to try to thinly veil their racist language and attitudes. I actually was on the wrong end of poor race relations in a six-month stint at East High School in Memphis, where I was one of three white kids in a school of about 1000. I had to fight there more than the rest of my high school career combined, because not only was I white, I was also small. Racism always targets those with less power, and I know what’s it’s like to anticipate racist behavior from those around me and to live in a tension of expecting physical violence against me just because of the color of my skin - even though the vast majority of my fellow students were of no threat to me whatsoever, and some of them were my friends. But, of course, once I left school each day, I didn’t carry that fear and anxiety. I was in the majority in my neighborhood, and the cops weren’t patrolling my neighborhood looking for perps. On the one hand, I have been on the receiving end of more actual racist physical violence than Ta Nahisi Coates.  True, my experience at East HS may have given me a glimpse into what it is like to be a minority, but because I was no longer a minority after I left, I never had to deal with the kind of character and personality formation that comes from living that all day, every day, with a history and family narrative of generation after generation of racial prejudice, discrimination, violence, and oppression. I may have been the target of more physical racist violence than LeBron James, but no one will ever put a racial slur on my house. To be African-American is to live a life in which you expect racism to impact you because even if you’ve never been attacked, denied a job, or called a n*****, those things have happened to your family members, friends, and people in your community. To be African-American is to know that, while every white person isn’t a racist, there are white racists, and you don’t know who they are until they reveal themselves. So, when you are denied a job, and a white person gets it, you are never really sure if you didn’t get it because you are black.

Thus, because of the significant racist history of our country, even though the emancipation of slaves, suffrage, civil rights progress, and cultural progress has all been achieved with (and, honestly, considering of the power differential at the time, largely because of) white allies, the problem of racism is much, much larger than racists being racist. The problem of racism in America is that it has left a cultural legacy where some groups know for certain that racism has impacted them and their families, and they expect it to continue to impact them and their families. True racist acts are rare - that’s why many white people seem perplexed that so many blacks seem to see racism everywhere. Those white people aren’t racists, have no sympathy for racists, and treat their fellow citizens as equals. They don’t see anything racist “happening” in their immediate sphere, so it isn’t a real problem. Because our country has made so much progress in its treatment of minorities in the past 60 years, it is socially unacceptable to express racist sentiments, in person, with someone you don’t know shares that idea. That’s why I haven’t heard a racist comment since high school! The availability heuristic leads most whites to believe that racism is a thing of the past because it hasn’t affected them and they don’t see it.

If you are not white, on the other hand, you only need to experience one or two expressions of racist thought or speech (a la Ta Nahisi Coates) to have it cemented in your mind that the oppression faced by your forbears is only being held back by some combination of policy and culture, and those things aren’t always going to be in place or be effective. When you have inherited the legacy of racist oppression, and experienced just enough racist behavior to reinforce that people would still be outwardly racist is they thought they could get away with it, then you will see racism everywhere that it might be. Two white men, one a former “lawman”, in Georgia, take out their guns and try to accost a black man because he “fits the description”, and in the ensuing struggle, they kill him. It’s possible that the men aren’t racists, and not unreasonable to suggest that they didn’t do anything differently because Arbery was black than if he was white. But, given the history and culture of Georgia, we cannot expect our African-American brothers and sisters to see this as anything but an act of racist violence - “he is dead because he’s black” - and the classic good-old-boy cover-up makes it look even worse. LeBron may not have EVER been hunted, nor may have the vast majority of black Americans. But, given the history and culture, he is not lying about how he feels, and neither should we expect him to feel otherwise.

And now, George Floyd is killed in an act of criminal negligence by a Minneapolis police officer. It’s still very early in the discovery phase as I write this, but we have yet to see a video that shows how Mr. Floyd goes from walking in handcuffs in front of the cops to pinned down by three of them, one on his neck, on a curb next to the cop car - a physical situation that surely caused his death. I have the somewhat rare circumstance of having close family members who are or were cops, and some who have been on the wrong end of over-physical police behavior. I can tell you that “I can’t breathe” is a common “perp” claim to get more lenient restraints so they can get a chance to escape. I can tell you that if Mr. Floyd, who was a BIG dude, did actually resist the officers in the time we don’t have video for, then getting thrown down on the concrete and held down by three cops is an expected consequence for any person of his size. That doesn’t mean he deserved his death, or that the one cop was justified in kneeling on Mr. Floyd’s neck for over eight minutes. It does mean that there is nothing racist about what happened on its face. He passed a counterfeit $20, the cops arrested the right person, there was some kind of physical altercation, and he was forcibly restrained by the cops. They weren’t obstructing his windpipe or trying to choke him, but the one cop, at least, did not care if Mr. Floyd was suffering. Why not? Was it because he is a racist and trying to do racist things? Was it because he’s a sadist, and just likes causing people pain? Or, was it because the work of a cop can, if they aren’t careful, make one hardened to the complaints of those who are causing trouble in the community, and disregard genuine complaints? We’ll never know, but to be African-American in our country today is to know that racism is real, that it has impacted families and communities in awful ways, that it has contributed to the deaths of people who look like you, and to be expectant that situations like this require a kind of proof of “non-racism” that we’re all unlikely to get. This didn’t happen in a historical and cultural vacuum, and on the heels of Arbery’s murder, it looks even worse. That cop may not have a racist bone in his body, but it is reasonable and should be expected, that the African-American community sees it as racist police violence.

That’s why racism is so terrible. The power of lynching, especially with the number who were lynched based upon false accusations, wasn’t so much in causing the death of the individual, but in causing fear among the black community to get them to “behave”. African-Americans have been, as a whole, far more victimized by redlining and peonage than by racist violence, but the collective impact of institutional and individual racism has left a level of damage to race relations that looks, sadly like it will never heal properly. If, going forward from right now, every single white person had no racist thoughts, words, or deeds, and every policy and institution operated in a perfectly equitable fashion, the legacy of racism would still continue for generations. African-Americans would still see racism in people’s behavior because it has been part of our culture for so long. Who will believe when the leopard has truly changed his spots? And, of course, racism will never go away, though thankfully we continue to repress it as a society.

The lady in Central Park, screeching like she was about to be raped or murdered to the police while she stood ten feet from her supposed threat, shows that even people with “approved” progressive cred (I voted for Barack twice, I have black friends!) will use the racism inherent in the system to benefit themselves.  Yeah, he was wrong for threatening to poison her dog – but the man is right.  She knew when she told the cops that an African-American man was threatening her (which he didn’t), a white lady, that the cops would come in a hurry prepared to deal with a threat.  She knew that, and he knew that.

And, Minneapolis riots.  And then many cities riot.  People aren’t aware that “race riots” actually began with white people rioting in black neighborhoods.  White people didn’t approve of POC’s uppity behavior, thinking they were just as good as whites, and they would riot and destroy black property and murder black people. Cops did nothing.  Over time the African-American community reacted, and now we associate race riots with minorities rioting.  But in Minneapolis, the riots are fairly race-neutral.  People want to sin, want to be violent, want to steal, and so they do – because the media has given them reason enough.

And that’s part of the problem.  Take some time to read some local news reports.  At least in my area, if the race of the perpetrator is non-white, the race is not mentioned.  If a black cop kills an unarmed white woman, as happened in Minneapolis two years ago, the races are not mentioned in the headline.  But, if a white cop or person is involved in the death of a black American, it is part of the headline.  This isn’t an accident.

We have to wake up.  Racism is real, even if you don’t see it, white people.  There IS a media and political agenda for fomenting racial animus.  There are people and organizations that provide leadership and money for these riots.  Emoting your feelings on social media – about something everyone is already aware of and agrees is awful - isn’t bringing change or awareness.  It mostly makes you feel good about yourself and provides an outlet for your emotions…and emoting anger about a group encourages anger on the part of one group while leading the out-group to be likely to ignore the problem because they can condemn the bad behavior and move on. 

Consider, for example, the different versions of the meme I used for the title picture for this post.  This one, shared by LeBron, is effective and communicates clearly.  It reminds us what many had forgotten in the flag/kneeling hubbub, that Kap made his protest about police violence in America against African-Americans.  Few people remember that Kap initially was sitting for the anthem, but a veteran convinced him to change it to kneeling.  That message became twisted and lost when people began  kneeling during the anthem, “because Trump.”  However, the more common version of this meme said “if you care more about this kneeling than this kneeling, you’re part of the problem!”   Who honestly believes that such a message does anything to move people in the right direction?

In an age and social media environment where everything must be for, against, or about Trump, it’s mostly just shouting past each other and generating emotion for my side and against their side. So, don’t be surprised that you see little social media reaction from me about these events, whether it is individuals behaving badly or groups behaving badly.  I’ve been told enough times already that defending any policy that happens to be associated with Trump, or even voting for him (which I didn’t) makes me a racist or a contributor to continuing race issues. It’s clear that there are not many people who really listen.

There is one thing I do hope a certain group of people hear: to my African-American brothers and sisters, I understand your anger and fear – and I also understand your hope, because it is a hope I share.  I feel sick to my stomach when I see those viral examples of police brutality and racism, and do again when I see communities shattered by people who are rioting because they have been manipulated into believing that an act which will only harden opposition against racial reconciliation will do any good.  You have an ally in advocating for genuinely helpful conversations and public policies, even if I’m not dropping a two-sentence outrage post.  I work at influencing people I know or lead in person, the organizations I’m connected to, and civic leaders who represent me.  That doesn’t mean I don’t say anything in public online, but I see other methods as more effective ways to work for change. 

Most of all, I pray for a peace that is not the absence of conflict but is the shalom that only comes from the Spirit of Christ moving in this world, the same spirit that brought together thousands on that first Pentecost after the ascension.  That is the only true hope, a hope in the One who is making all things new.

Beth Moore and Blind Spots

Even though it’s supposed to be my thing, I still find I have blind spots.  One of them was Beth Moore.

I was introduced to Beth Moore while serving in an SBC church between 2005 and 2009.  Her studies were a regular part of the women’s ministry offerings, and I flipped through a couple while helping with the discipleship program.  They were clearly woman-oriented, using language and emotive emphases that didn’t really appeal to me.  But, they seemed to be pretty solid. 

Over time, I heard some rumbles.  First, it was that she was not only leading women’s studies but teaching couples.  In the SBC and other conservative Christian circles, this raised some eyebrows.  After all, the historic understanding of Scriptures such as 1 Timothy 2 indicate that a woman was not to teach or be in authority over a man.  How exactly that applied varied.  For some, it meant they shouldn’t have a pastoral title.  For others, it meant that women should be restricted to teaching only women and children.  Often the fulcrum of the debate was the “authority” part – was the “authority” connected to the teaching, and thus teaching implied the prohibited authority, or was the authority separate, and one could teach without “authority” have more liberty to teach?

I didn’t give it much thought.  I just decided that she was mostly teaching women, that anyone could give couples marriage or parenting advice, and that since she didn’t claim a pastoral title, that it was not an issue. Her influence continued to grow.

As the #metoo movement grew, Beth Moore chimed in – but in a way that was not easy to nail down.  She wrote a letter describing what she considered misogynist behavior from church leaders, https://tinyurl.com/yagahl3m.  I was empathetic toward her expressions of disappointment, particularly some of her examples of church leaders acting inappropriately toward her.  But some didn’t see it quite that way.  I also read, at the time, the reaction of the Pulpit and Pen, a “discernment blog”. 

I hate “discernment blogs”.  The church is the discernment blog, not some self-appointed policers of orthodoxy based upon their own opinions.  https://tinyurl.com/y3nglbkb  If you click on the link, you will find out quickly why I can’t stand these guys – their writing drips with condescension and self-righteousness.  They go out of their way to come across as aggressive jerks, no matter the subject.

But something caught my attention – his claim that Beth Moore wasn’t actually a good Bible teacher.  I realized that I had no idea if she was or not. I had let my vague familiarity in a positive place be the foundation of my perspective.  But, I have to admit, I didn’t click the links that supposedly showed her bad teaching or the testimonies of those women who had “broken free” of her teaching.  After all, Moore wasn’t leading a cult, so even the idea of “breaking free” of her teaching seemed alarmist. I just moved on, since the ladies in my church of the time didn’t do Beth Moore studies, anyway. 

But, a couple of months ago, my ability to ignore my blind spot was removed by Moore’s response to an SBC professor who expressed that to be orthodox was to agree that women did not preach from the pulpit on Sunday to the church.  Even with the range of disagreement among conservative churches on how exactly the role of women teachers should look, that seemed reasonable for that group.  But Beth was having none of it.  https://tinyurl.com/y46kbx8o

She is not longer hiding her position.  She believes that the historic, orthodox position that prohibits women from being the Sunday morning preacher is terrifying, that anyone who holds to the historic position – including the millions of women who do – are motivated by fear, power, and misogyny.  https://tinyurl.com/yxbp4g89 

Those jerks were right.  Gosh, I hate saying that. I was wrong.  Beth Moore has not, for a long time, held to the historic biblical position on roles in the church (which has some wiggle room), and cannot be a faithful Bible teacher if she just chooses to ignore elements she doesn’t like.  She makes up stuff, telling people that a good idea or feeling she has is “God speaking to her.” She has seemingly kept the full package on the down low, creeping outwardly toward the position she is now holding – where the orthodox are the oppressors…which is, of course, exactly what the current cultural attitude is toward much of biblical ethics.  But, I wasn’t willing to see, or even question her, because of an initial impression I received several years ago.

What do I believe?  Why do I believe it?  Where did that belief come from before me?  And, are the answers to those questions good enough?  Those are the four questions I challenge others to ask of themselves – but, clearly, I need to keep asking them of myself.

The Spirit and the Word

What you think the Bible says…probably isn’t what it says.

In understanding what we believe and why we believe it, we have to take a hard look at how we interpret the Bible.  Most of us use the “What Strikes Me” (WSM)* model of Bible reading, understanding, interpreting, and application.  We read a passage, and whatever it makes us think, that’s what we believe it is supposed to mean.  We ignore the context of the passage – that it was written by a specific person, at a specific time, in a specific place, to a particular person or group of people, with deliberate purposes in mind.  We put ourselves in the passage, instead of understanding what it should mean, and then figuring out how that should work in our lives.  We then ascribe divine authority to our interpretation of the passage, because the Holy Spirit exists. 

Never mind the Holy Spirit exists in other believers who disagree with me.  Never mind even more that the Holy Spirit has indwelt his people for a few thousand years, and most of them disagree with you, too.  The Spirit exists, I read the Bible, and so what I think it means MUST be what it means.  We often get away with this because the meaning we apply to the verses is one that is already generally true (though not a true understanding of the passage in question), and thus most people wouldn’t give it a second though.

Speaking of that Spirit, a friend posted a passage from 1 Corinthians 2 recently that is an example of the type of verse we misinterpret.

“…For the Spirit searches everything, even the depths of God. 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. 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. And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who are spiritual.

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. The spiritual person judges all things, but is himself to be judged by no one. “For who has understood the mind of the Lord so as to instruct him?” But we have the mind of Christ.” (1 Co 2:10–16)

A common understanding of this passage is that Christians have the Holy Spirit, so they understand what others can’t.  Furthermore, “the spiritual person judges all things, but himself is judged by no one” implies the very idea I mention above – that I can judge the truth of a doctrine or interpretation, because I am a “spiritual” Christian.

But, what does this passage actually mean?  What was Paul’s point in writing it to the Corinthian believers in the first century?  Was he writing to tell them they don’t have to listen to anyone? If so, why does he spend time writing at least two letters to this congregation, telling them EXACTLY what to believe and how to act?  Do we honestly think that a letter meant to instruct new believers includes instructions not to accept instruction if they don’t agree with it…because the Holy Spirit?

A commenter on the post expressed this very idea. “The past few days I have been thinking about the importance of being filled with the Holy Spirit. In Acts 1:4,8 Jesus commanded the disciples to be filled with the Holy Spirit. John 14:26 Jesus said, But the Comforter which is the Holy Ghost, the Father will send in my name, He shall TEACH you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said to you. Romans 8:14 Paul writes , there is therefore no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh but after the Spirit. 4. That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. So if we're not dependent on the Spirit to lead us in His Word we could be deceived. Ephesians 6:13-18 Tells us to put on the whole armour of God. v17b Take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the Word of God; 18 Praying always with all.prayer and supplication in the Spirit.......Many other scriptures telling of the importance of being filled with the Spirit.”

This commenter, sweetly expressing her love for God and his activity in her life, quotes scripture and says true things.  But, almost none of it has anything to do with what those passages actually mean, and none of them relate to the passage quoted in the original post…except the mention of the Holy Spirit in those passages.

So, let’s look at the original quote from 1 Corinthians and understand its context.  The letter is written to address divisions within the church and immoral behavior. The first four chapters are the foundation for refuting wrong doctrines and wrong behavior in the remainder of the letter.  Paul both emphasizes his primacy in establishing the faith of the Corinthian church as an apostle, and contrasts, at length, the foolishness of the gospel message with the wisdom of the world.  In each of the “we” and “us” pronouns, Paul is not including his hearers, but his co-laborers Apollos and Cephas, bearers of the gospel message to the Corinthians.  When Paul says, “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. And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who are spiritual,” do we really think that in the midst of his proof of his authority, that he is suddenly telling the Corinthians that THEY impart and interpret to those who are spiritual?  Of course not.  But, because we know it is true that the Holy Spirit indwells believers, we make this jump all on our own, and we do not question our understanding. 

If we read the entire section (the beginning of the letter to the end of chapter 4) in the unity of its purpose, we can more easily avoid this misunderstanding.  We see Paul differentiating himself and his co-laborers from the Corinthians (“for WE are God’s fellow workers. YOU are God’s field, God’s building”).  We see Paul express how the Corinthians are NOT the “spiritual” that no one can judge, because they could not be addressed as spiritual people, but as people of the flesh.  We see Paul tell how the truth of our thinking and living will be revealed at the last day.  Such context SHOULD tell us that 1 Corinthians 2:10-16 has nothing to do with the Spirit indwelling a believer and giving him or her correct judgment in all things, but instead is about contrasting the truth of God’s word and the gospel with the fallen nature of the wisdom of the flesh. 

My friend’s commenter was 100% right – we need to seek the guidance of the Holy Spirit of God in understanding, believing, and living the Word of God, for the flesh will mislead us.  We just need to remember that…our flesh will mislead us – into thinking that my good idea is a God idea.

 

*WSM is taken from Jonathan Pennington's "Reading the Gospels Wisely"

Did Judas Have a Choice?

Judas, Responsibility, and the Sovereignty of God

A friend asked me recently, “Was Judas a bad guy and true betrayer for betraying Jesus, or was he really the one who allowed his name to be cursed in order to be the instrument in something that God needed to have done? The Bible pretty much admits that this needed to happen for God to allow Jesus to die for our sins, but seems also to condemn the person who made it happen. Were he and Pontius Pilate just pawns in God’s plan and not actually the villains history makes them out to be? Perhaps Judas had even been asked by God, and that was not made part of the Bible because none of the others were aware?”

When it was evening, he reclined at table with the twelve. And as they were eating, he said, “Truly, I say to you, one of you will betray me.” And they were very sorrowful and began to say to him one after another, “Is it I, Lord?” He answered, “He who has dipped his hand in the dish with me will betray me. The Son of Man goes as it is written of him, but woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It would have been better for that man if he had not been born.” Judas, who would betray him, answered, “Is it I, Rabbi?” He said to him, “You have said so.” (Matthew 26:20-25)

…

When we begin to take seriously the Scriptural idea that God is active in history, we run into a problem.  A God who actually does things, and isn’t just sitting up there, hoping it all works out (or, worse, knows how it all works out and is unable to do anything about it), is uncomfortable.  At least the other two ideas give me some comfort that I am in control, that we can say with William Ernest Hensley, “It matters not how strait the gate, how charged with punishments the scroll, I am the master of my fate, I am the captain of my soul.” 

But, when our best efforts fall short, the idea that we are in control is not of any comfort.  Sure, it helps for learning, growing, and future decisions.  But, when injustice occurs, when others do wrong, when we are betrayed over and over again, then the idea of a passive or helpless God who must stand by while we suffer only brings me self-criticism.  Things are bad because I wasn’t good enough, strong enough, smart enough.  I did my best, and the best wasn’t good enough.  I must be a loser.

Of course, the idea that we have no choice can rapidly draw us into fatalism in similar circumstances.  If fate drives the train, I must be fated to be a loser, a victim, and a failure.  My efforts don’t matter.  I did my best, and my best wasn’t good enough.  I am fated to be a loser.

But the Scriptures don’t depict reality this way.  They show a God who runs the show, and a humanity that is entirely responsible for what they do.  How can this paradox be true?

We can see glimmers of the answer in three biblical narratives – the interactions of Moses, God, and Pharaoh in Exodus chapters 7-12, in the verdict against the king of Assyria in Isaiah 10, and in Judas’s betrayal.

The Hebrews are in oppressive bondage as Exodus begins.  God, in accordance with his promise to Abraham in Genesis 15, calls Moses and tells him how he will rescue his people and humble Pharaoh.  “And the Lord said to Moses…“You shall speak all that I command you, and your brother Aaron shall tell Pharaoh to let the people of Israel go out of his land. 3 But I will harden Pharaoh’s heart, and though I multiply my signs and wonders in the land of Egypt, 4 Pharaoh will not listen to you. Then I will lay my hand on Egypt and bring my hosts, my people the children of Israel, out of the land of Egypt by great acts of judgment. 5 The Egyptians shall know that I am the Lord, when I stretch out my hand against Egypt and bring out the people of Israel from among them.” (Ex 7:1-5)

The rest of the chapters describe the details of how it plays out.  Moses tells Pharaoh that God demands the Hebrews be released to worship him.  Pharaoh says no.  In some cases, we read that “Pharaoh hardened his heart.”  In some cases, we see that “Pharaoh’s hard was hardened”.  In other cases, we see that “The Lord hardened Pharaoh’s heart.”

In one case, in chapter 9 verse 34, we see why Pharaoh and the people are condemned:  “ But when Pharaoh saw that the rain and the hail and the thunder had ceased, he sinned yet again and hardened his heart, he and his servants.”

The sin or Pharaoh is not merely that he doesn’t let the people go – it’s that he doesn’t WANT to let the people go.  He doesn’t want to submit to the God who created all things.  He imagines himself a God, and his pride does not allow him to submit.  In those cases where the Lord hardens Pharaoh’s heart, no one imagines that Pharaoh was suddenly changed by God from a willing servant of the Most High God to a snarling enemy.  In all likelihood, “Prince of Egypt” style, the hardening of his heart was just a whisper – “don’t be the weak link”, or, “you are the most powerful god”.  Even when Pharaoh finally allows the children of Israel to leave, he does so in an effort to remove the destruction from himself, not from any real desire to obey God -as shown when he pursues them to the Red Sea.

Thus, Pharaoh’s decision to refuse to obey wasn’t the sin he was punished for.  It was his sinful, prideful desire that manifested itself in the refusal, a refusal that was exactly what God wanted him to do.

In Isaiah 10, Assyria is called “the rod of My anger; the staff in their hands is my fury! Against a godless nation I send him, and against the people of my wrath I command him, to take spoil and seize plunder, and to tread them down like the mire of the streets.”

Assyria punishing the Northern Tribes at God’s behest, to punish them for decades of sinfulness.  Yet, Assyria is also told “Woe!”, for Assyria will be punished…for punishing Israel?  Why is God punishing them for something he wants them to do?  Isaiah tells us that it is not because Assyria is punishing Israel for its sins, but because Assyria seeks to do no such thing:

But he does not so intend, and his heart does not so think; but it is in his heart to destroy, and to cut off nations not a few…

When the Lord has finished all his work on Mount Zion and on Jerusalem, he will punish the speech of the arrogant heart of the king of Assyria and the boastful look in his eyes…

Shall the axe boast over him who hews with it, or the saw magnify itself against him who wields it? As if a rod should wield him who lifts it, or as if a staff should lift him who is not wood! Therefore the Lord God of hosts will send wasting sickness among his stout warriors, and under his glory a burning will be kindled, like the burning of fire.

Again, Assyria isn’t punished merely for its actions, but for its intent.  Yes, their deeds are evil and intended to be evil, so they are punished for them.  But, their deeds are exactly what God is using to punish the Northern Tribes.

In Judas, we don’t have as clear of a description of that paradox.  We know Judas will do it before he does – much like Pharaoh and Assyria.  We see Judas do it, and we never really get a clear perspective on why.  However, while it may be more Andrew Lloyd Weber than St. Matthew, we can consider the possibility that he wasn’t seeking the torture and death of Jesus, but, in line with what most of the apostles sought, for Jesus to inaugurate the kingdom immediately (Acts 1:6), “Then when Judas, his betrayer, saw that Jesus was condemned, he changed his mind and brought back the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and the elders, saying, “I have sinned by betraying innocent blood.” They said, “What is that to us? See to it yourself.” And throwing down the pieces of silver into the temple, he departed, and he went and hanged himself.”

If Judas’ intent was to have Jesus condemned and tortured to death, he wouldn’t have been remorseful.  His intent, we can surmise, was to force Jesus to begin the revolution that would bring his kingdom to earth. (Of course, in a sense, it does that, but not in the way anyone imagined nor because Judas’ decision forces it). When he realizes that he has not forced his master to act, but condemned him to die a horrible death, he realizes the depth of his betrayal.  His betrayal was exactly what God wanted, but it didn’t play out like Judas wanted. That God intends our actions to produce those consequences is cold comfort. God is in control, but we are responsible for our actions.

So, on the one hand, we might want to defend Judas’ intent – he wasn’t intending to have Jesus killed.  But what do we know he intended for sure?  We know he knew Jesus was innocent.  We know he knew Jesus was his master.  So, we know he intended to betray the only truly innocent man, who was his own master, into the hands of those with the power to kill him.  Even an intent we want to absolve – the intend to force Jesus to act – is an intent to reject the authority of the Son of God in favor of his own will.  As Judas’s line in the play “The Living Last Supper” states, “My heart is not as black as you may think…nor yours as white.” Judas’s sin of pride and rebellion is our own.

Like Judas, we seek to supplant the will of God with our own, every day.  We do not care how narrow the gate, nor the punishment on the scroll. We aim to smash down the gates of heaven with our will, our desires, our lusts, our greed, our jealousy, our sloth, our gluttony.  Like Judas, we justify ourselves that our intentions are good. And, like Judas, we so often regret the decisions we make and the consequences we reap.

But, unlike Judas today, we have a hope – the hope of earth, the person and work of Jesus Christ, who died so that his people would not be condemned for their sin, but so they could be redeemed from their sin debt and made a part of the kingdom of God on earth as it is in heaven.  May we embrace that amazing grace today and forever.

 

 

 

Why Men* Should Sing

“Sing, sing, sing, sing
Sing it out as hard as you can
Make 'em hear from L.A. to japan
Don't let 'em bring you down
This is how we do it now
Go and roll them windows down and
Sing, sing, sing, sing
Sing it with your hands in the sky
Light it up like it's the 4th of July
Don't let 'em bring you down
You know what I'm talking 'bout
A little bit louder now”

~ Pentatonix, “Sing”

When I was in Afghanistan with the Infantry, men sang.  The most popular song was, of course, Lady Gaga’s “Telephone”, because a video of scantily clad women in prison, involving Beyonce, is an automatic win for US infantrymen.  Carly Rae Jepsen’s “Call Me Maybe” was popular, in no small part because a group of operators made a hilarious parody video of the Miami Dolphins’ Cheerleaders video of the same song.  When riding into a suspected battle, Disturbed’ s “Indestructible” led the way.  These manly men sang.

Why?  Well, aside from the visuals of those first two videos, they sang to reflect or bolster their emotions in the appropriate way.  4-chord pop music with a rapid beat generally makes you happy, or is an expression of happiness.  Heavy metal, metal core, hard core music increases aggression, which is not only why I heard it all the time at war, but why you often hear it in the kinds of gyms that are also full of chalk, grunts, clanging metal and little, if any, mirrors.  Music carries emotion, and singing reflects how we feel and impacts how we feel. 

In his early 18th-century book that impacted a nation, “A Serious Call to a Devout and Holy Life,” Anglican William Law writes:

“As singing is a natural effect of joy in the heart, so it has also a natural power of rendering the heart joyful. The soul and body are so united, that they have each of them power over one another in their actions. Certain thoughts and sentiments in the soul produce such and such motions and actions in the body; and, on the other hand, certain motions and actions of the body have the same power of raising such and such thoughts and sentiments in the soul. So that, as singing is the natural effect of joy in the mind, so it is as truly a natural cause of raising joy in the mind. As devotion of the heart naturally breaks out into outward acts of prayer; so outward acts of prayer are natural means of raising the devotion of the heart.”

Law knew well before modern neuroscience that behavior impacts thinking, just as thinking impacts behavior.

In my morning prayer routine, I have a number of songs (canticles) that can be read or sung.  For while I simply silently read the entirety of the scheduled morning prayer.  After some time, I went to saying them out loud.  For the past few months, I have taken to singing the canticles (along with a recorded professional singer, but quietly.

I would have to say that Law is right.  Singing (and saying aloud) your devotions makes your heart and mind turn toward Christ in a way that is exactly what we need.  I am better postured to be faithful, positive, disciplined, and charitable than I was before.  I look forward to the simple songs, and saying the scripture readings aloud helps me to remember them through the day, better than the silent reading. 

So, let me encourage you to sing with your devotions, in family worship, and in corporate worship.  I recommend the Daily Office, but even if you aren’t using it, find a way to include singing in your time of preparation.  It doesn’t matter if you can carry a tune, and you can whisper-sing (which I typically have to do anyway, because no one is awake at my morning-prayer time).  You’ll be glad you did.

 

*Men is used here in that historic “mankind” way, but also in recognition that, in our culture, men are less likely to sing at church than are women.

There is No Formula

Why are there so many strains of *Christianity?  Consider the list of the larger **Christian groups represented in the United States - there are 22 denominations with membership of over 100,000 (when you list independent Baptist and non-denominational as denominations) considered Protestant, the Roman Catholic church and its splinter groups, the Eastern Orthodox Church and its splinter groups, the Mormons and their splinters, the Jehovah's Witnesses, the Quakers...it's mind boggling.

Of course, many people are a part of their respective faith group because that is all they have ever known.  They were either born into it, or they were converted into it from a non-religious background.  They have never given much thought to considering anything else.

However, for the many others (including myself) who have changed their Christian affiliation, why do they change?

There is a great book called "Journeys of Faith", co-written by four men who made the change from and to Evangelical Christianity, Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy and ***Anglicanism.  I've read books about conversions and de-conversions, listened to interviews by people who made those changes, and enjoyed online exchanges with others who have made similar decisions for themselves and their families.  

Why do people choose one way or another?  A recent Jocko Podcast involved questions from listeners, and one asked Jocko, "What is your workout routine, including jujitsu?"  Jocko's response was that "everyone is looking for a formula", and that, aside from basic principles of nutrition, fitness, and discipline, there really isn't one.  You figure out what you want, then you figure out what you need to do to get there, and then you have to follow through.

That flies in the face of what we think we do with matters of faith.  We believe we dispassionately examine the arguments for and against a faith group or belief, than we choose the one that seems most logical to us.  But, it not only isn't the case with fitness goals, it's the case with all of our choices.  As Rev. Ashley Null summarized Archbishop Thomas Cranmer in the 1500's, "according to Cranmer's anthropology, what the heart loves, the will chooses, and the mind justifies. The mind doesn't direct the will. The mind is actually captive to what the will wants, and the will itself, in turn, is captive to what the heart wants." Jonathan Haidt, in his book “The Righteous Mind” explains the same thing - we are driven in a direction by our impulses, and guided carefully in that chosen direction by our intellect.

This is clearly the case with the story of conversions and de-conversions.  Many de-conversions are about up-close and personal morality - the individual, or people close to them, are involved in behavior that is considered immoral by their current faith tribe.  So, they find a faith tribe that justifies it (including no faith at all).  It's never put quite that way, but you can see it in the narratives.  "How could I say my sweet friend was condemned to hell" or "there must be a way to accept gays and still support marriage".  

Conversions between faith groups with similar moral precepts, but different theological justifications for getting them, are less centered on moral desires and more about personality desires.   The convert to Pentecostalism was "tired of dead worship".  The Eastern Orthodox convert was "looking for something timeless".  The Roman Catholic and the Presbyterian desire clear authority, but one is comfortable placing that authority in a group of people with seemingly impeccable historical cred, while the other looks to a Confessional statement that is unchanging.  The Calvinists latch onto TULIP for certainty, and the Baptist doesn't want any authority but the Bible (according to their own personal understanding, of course).  The KJV-Only fundamentalist, like the Presbyterian, also wants an unchanging authority, but theirs is more explicitly tied to a cultural conservatism than even a document.  The ****Non-denominationalist likes the authority of self, where they can define their religion as "relationship" and not worry so much about creeds, confessions, culture, or history.  The liberal Christian is looking for justification to promote the present culture they prefer (which is why liberal Christianity gets so few converts from secularism).  Anglicans like a worship that is rooted in history, though they appreciate being able to choose what part of history that worship is tied to.

In one of my theology FB groups, a man told his story: he was a Baptist but eventually became a Presbyterian.  He admitted that it wasn't really the overwhelming evidence of the Presbyterian position (on baptism particularly) that convinced him to make a change.  What put him on the road to the change was the church he wanted his family to join.  He went to the church because he knew there were doctrinal similarities to his Reformed Baptist preference, and he fell in love with the church, its people, its culture.  It wasn't an overnight switch (it almost never is), but he admitted the most compelling part was not the logic, but the desire.

An RC friend recently said, "I desperately wanted RC to be wrong, but found out it wasn't."  Perhaps she wanted it to be wrong, but what she really wanted happened to be exactly what RC was offering - a formula, a certainty; perhaps a historical foundation far beyond what she had experienced in her previous faith culture, combined with an authority structure that made sense to the western mind.  The RC doctrine of papal & magisterial supremacy, allegedly unchanging over time, is very comforting in particular to those dissatisfied with experiences in Anabaptist-style churches (most Baptist, Pentecostal/charismatic, and non-denominational or independent churches).  What the heart wants, the will chooses, and the mind justifies.

Christianity doesn't have a formula.  Sure, it has the basics of the gospel message that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures, rose on the third day, and ascended to heaven, one day to return.  It requires assent to the Bible as the preserved word of God, and the creeds of the early church give shape to the basics of a Trinitarian faith which, in itself, is incomprehensible.  But those are the unquestionable principles, with so much more of life and worship a little uncertain…to ambiguous.  "By what authority", when pitched to the historic Christian faith, is "the Scriptures, authored by God, as generally understood by the church in all places, at all times, by all cultures".  That is frustratingly insufficient for many.  So, we latch onto Roman Catholic structure, or Presbyterian confessions, or the liberty of the authority of self.  We don't like uncertainty.  We are looking for a formula that satisfies what we want.

NT Wright is so frustrating to all of these groups, because he insists upon some obvious Biblical elements and is also vague about so many other, seemingly important, aspects of Christianity.  What we may fail to consider is that each of those desires and structures have value, but none are essential elements of the faith that should lead to battles over who is the "true" church.  Could it be that the uncertainty is meant to be a reminder of our frailty?  Could it be that a God who is somehow three-in-one and became, somehow, fully God and fully man that first Christmas, has more than just himself that is left without clear explanation?  Could it be, that the God whose thoughts are not our thoughts, and whose ways are not our ways, who justifies the ungodly, has reserved certainty in all things - even some important things - to himself?

Joey+

* If you learn about the other major faiths, they are similarly fractured
** By self-designation
*** Other Anglican "conversion" books include "Evangelical is Not Enough" and "Evangelicals on the Canterbury Trail"
**** We all like the authority of self, but some like it more than others

Anglicans and Roman Catholics – Salvation & Sacraments Introduction

A Roman Catholic friend asked me recently, “What do Anglicans believe about Salvation and the Sacraments”?  So, here’s a brief explanation.

 …

Anglicanism was begun by the Protestant Reformation in England**, and while its shape differs from Lutheran or Continental Reformed Protestant doctrine and practice, it is much closer to them in understanding than it is to either Roman Catholicism or Anabaptism.  That’s part of the challenge when I talk to RC friends who come from backgrounds largely formed by Anabaptist doctrine (most Baptists, Pentecostals/Charismatics, and non-denominationalists).   They know little, if anything, of Continental Reformed Protestantism, so they don’t understand us, either.  They just know The Episcopal Church in America is WHACK, and the Church of England looks very similar, so they can neither make heads nor tails of Anglicans.  Pretty much they think Henry VIII wanted a new wife and made the Church of England, and then we all became fancy dressed Baptists.  That isn’t the case at all.  Also, since the 19th century an increasing number of Anglicans are rather embarrassed by the Calvinist-ish views of the early Anglicans, and might seek to nuance these answers away from that perspective.  So, while there are many who call themselves Anglicans (and rightly are), my answers will not satisfy some of them. 

Since Anglicanism is not hierarchical in the same was as Roman Catholicism, there is a range of answers.  Anglicanism doesn’t have the same broad range of official doctrine, but the formularies (The 39 Articles of 1571, the Ordinal of 1604, and the 1662 Book of Common Prayer) and the Books of Homilies, combined with the worship guided by the prayer book, give boundaries to genuine Anglican belief. 

http://www.anglicanchurch.net/index.php/main/Theology/

"The Anglican Communion," Archbishop Geoffrey Fisher wrote, "has no peculiar thought, practice, creed or confession of its own. It has only the Catholic Faith of the ancient Catholic Church, as preserved in the Catholic Creeds and maintained in the Catholic and Apostolic constitution of Christ's Church from the beginning." It may licitly teach as necessary for salvation nothing but what is read in the Holy Scriptures as God's Word written or may be proved thereby. It therefore embraces and affirms such teachings of the ancient Fathers and Councils of the Church as are agreeable to the Scriptures, and thus to be counted apostolic. The Church has no authority to innovate: it is obliged continually, and particularly in times of renewal or reformation, to return to "the faith once delivered to the saints."

To be an Anglican, then, is not to embrace a distinct version of Christianity, but a distinct way of being a "Mere Christian," at the same time evangelical, apostolic, catholic, reformed, and Spirit-filled.

Finally, before I start, we acknowledge that God may do as he chooses, and the statements below are what is normative, not exclusive.   Also, it reflects current doctrine, not the doctrine of previous time, although both would claim to still have the same dogma as the early church.

…

Salvation – RC: occurs at baptism “by grace”.  Baptism saves the individual and removes the account of their prior sins, as well as the curse and condemnation of original sin.  (CCC 1254) From that point forward, salvation – meaning, eternal right relationship with God and protection from the second death, is contingent upon faith and works. (Catholics call the state of the person’s relationship to God after baptism justification, not salvation).  Both faith and works are described as a result of the grace of God, but failure to maintain the right balance of works – such as avoiding mortal sin – make the “salvation” of baptism not effectual (CCC 1274, 1861).  Thus, “salvation” is an historical event in the life of a person with no guaranteed result.

Salvation – Anglican:

Salvation is by grace, through faith.  It is supernatural, in that it cannot be merited either before or after conversion and/or baptism.  Because it is supernatural, it effects a change in the recipient of God’s grace, in that they then have justifying faith which they could not have prior to receiving God’s grace.  Also, because it is supernatural, grace and faith generate good works.  So, while both RCs and Anglicans would say we are saved by grace, Anglicans are not speaking of a temporary salvation from eternal judgment, but a permanent change of condition from a child of the devil to a child of God, who lives as if they are what they are.   While it’s true that Anglicans believe that works are necessary evidences of justifying faith, they are not necessary components to receiving justification, since we are justified by faith.  Since salvation is a gift granted by God by grace without merit, nothing merits its continued effect but that same grace.

So, the often heard challenge – “you say you can have faith without works” – is a canard when deployed against Reformed Protestants.  It’s true - in that it is theoretically true, in the “thief on the cross” example.  But, Anglicans, and historic Protestantism (and, we would say, historical Catholicism of the early church), deny that such a faith is possible.  As St. James says, we will “show our faith by our works”.  A faith that doesn’t produce works is no faith at all – there is no grace of God present to produce either (for further explanation, see the Book of Homilies on justification).  We are justified by faith, and works are necessary.

Sacraments: RC

In the Roman Catholic expression of Christianity, the sacraments are effectual because of their authority as sacraments, not because of the faith of the receiver nor because of the status of the giver.  Their grace is accomplished “ex opere operato”, or, “it is done in the doing”.  An unbeliever who eats the sacrament is still eating the flesh and blood of Jesus, and a believer with unconfessed sin does as well.  The sacrament remains effectual.  Extreme Unction is effectual, no matter the belief and behavior of the priest or the dying person. 

Furthermore, the Roman Catholic church claims that all seven sacraments were instituted by Christ (CCC 1210).  The permanence of baptism (in its removal of prior and effects of original sin) is mirrored by the permanence of holy orders, or matrimony, or penance – they are effectual in the performance of them, and their effects cannot be negated (CCC 1582, 1640) – this is why matrimony requires an annulment, which is a declaration that the marriage was never valid, not valid and broken.

Sacraments: Anglican –A sacrament is an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace. God gives us the sign as a means whereby we receive that grace, and as a tangible assurance that we do in fact receive it.  We do not believe that unbelievers receive the sacraments as similar signs of grace, as Augustine says, “although they do carnally and visibly press with their teeth the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ; yet in no wise are they partakers of Christ: but rather, to their condemnation, do eat and drink the sign or Sacrament of so great a thing.”  That said, we have no reason to doubt the sacraments of baptism and Holy Communion are effectual when we take them in faith, or we see others taking them whose hearts we do not know. 

 The Anglican Way does not believe that the other sacraments of the church are the same type or effect as the two sacraments of the gospel (baptism and communion).  They are not commanded by Christ as necessary for salvation, but arise from the practice of the apostles and the early Church, or are states of life blessed by God from creation. God clearly uses them as means of grace.

 Questions?  Corrections?  Let me know. 

Grace and Peace,

Joey+

** The Church in England existed long before the Church of England, but for brevity’s sake I begin at the Reformation.

( I have quoted extensively from the Anglican Catechism, “To Be A Christian” and the Catechism of the Catholic Church)

Honesty is the Best Medicine

Honesty is the Best Medicine

 

Back in the early 2000’s, one of my best friend’s sister-in-law rejected the Christianity of her youth publicly on the internet.  Her sister, my friend’s wife, told her in response, “That’s very brave.  I wish more people had your courage.” 

 

I was shocked.  I had (and have) incredible respect for the faith and life of this family, and hearing her say that she wished *more* people had the courage to publicly reject the faith of their youth was horrifying.  Rarely at a loss for words, I actually had no idea how to respond.  Why did she want more people to leave the faith?  I was troubled by the idea for years.

 

Years later, I began to understand.  There are many people who have abandoned the faith of their youth.  Some, like a few of my current FB friends, have been public about it.  Others, like a few of my FB friends, are not public about it, but privately they admit it.  And yet others, like many more of my FB friends, do not even cognitively admit to themselves that they don’t really believe all of the basics of Christianity (the most commonly discounted are the virgin birth, Jesus’ bodily resurrection, eternal judgment, and the reliability of the Bible).

 

The courage of the lady wasn’t her rejection of her faith – it was her potentially emotionally and relationally painful honesty with herself and others.  That is a courageous step, even in an increasingly post-Christian age.  I, also, wish more people had her courage.

 

This courage isn’t just helpful for real relationships – we want to know each other for who we are, not for who we pretend to be.  It’s helpful for honest discourse.  If I’m discussing the Bible and its application on a subject with someone, and they secretly don’t actually believe the Bible is reliable or authoritative, we are both wasting our time.  Their objections will be couched in a false framework, and we will both be frustrated, and maybe not even know why.

 

But, this need for honestly in relationships and in intelligent conversation isn’t limited to issues about Christianity. 

 

On November 24th, the New York Times printed an opinion article by a transgendered person, Andrea Long Chu, who is about to have a surgery to make that person look more physically female.  But, “Ms. Chu” admits what statistics already tell us – that so-called “sex reassignment surgery” will likely not make her any happier.  The message of the article is simple – Chu should be able to have the surgery, not because it will likely improve her health in any way, but simply because of desire.  She wants it, so she should receive it.

 

I applaud her courage.  I wish others were so honest.

 

The abortion debate also has so much dishonesty.  “Safe, legal, and rare.”  Why rare?  If it is not a moral problem, why should it be rare?  What else is morally good that we wish we had less of?  Answer – nothing.  “It’s between a woman and her doctor”.  How many abortion providers are refusing to provide abortions to women who want them?  Answer – none.

The truth is, while few politicians and advocates are willing to say they are supporters of “unrestricted abortion”, that is their real positon.  A woman wants an abortion, so she should be able to get it.  It doesn’t matter what the biological father thinks, it doesn’t matter how old the baby is, it doesn’t matter if she can pay.  She wants it, so she should receive it.

 

Once again, there is no limitation to this philosophy in progressive ideology to “secular” thought.  Nadia Bolz-Weber, a prominent progressive Lutheran leader, is planning to make a vagina sculpture out of “purity rings”.  Never mind the other obvious issues with this plan from an allegedly Christian leader - her sexual ethic is the mirror of Andrea Long Chu’s.  “This part of me is mine and I get to determine what is good for it and if it’s beautiful and how I use it in the world.”  She wants it, so she should receive it.

 

For anyone familiar with historic, orthodox Christianity, grounded in humility and gratitude, it would be harder to get farther from the “faith once for all delivered to the saints” than this perspective on human life.

 

Unfortunately, it’s easy to think that this self-centered worldview is a problem of secularists or progressives.  Yet, if we are truly honest with ourselves, even conservative evangelical Christians suffer from this same current cultural ethic. We, who claim to follow an unchanging God, disregard the commands for marital fidelity and abandon our families to lifelong trauma. And, we don’t stop with the sexual ethic - we take this attitude right into the sanctuary.

 

How do you worship God?  “I want to do it this way, so my church should do it that way.”  So we search for church that does it the way I like, that “best fits me and my family.”

 

How do you interpret the Bible? “I want it to mean this, so I my church should teach it that way.”  So we search for another church that does it the way I like and “best fits me and my family”.

 

How do you understand the mission of the church? “I want these elements to be important, so I should receive support for those priorities.”  So we search for another church that does it the way I like, and “best fits me and my family.”

 

Yet, we claim to follow Jesus, who when faced with a far greater burden than any of us will ever face, prayed, “not my will, but thine be done.”  We pray, “Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven”, but we actually believe, “my kingdom come, my will be done, on earth, and in heaven.”

 

Lord, have mercy upon us, miserable offenders.

 

Real Friendship Evangelism

One of the benefits of biography is that it takes us out of ourselves and motivates us to greater faith and works as we are inspired by the life of the person we are reading about.  Enjoy and be encouraged by the account of George Whitefield as he rode across the Atlantic in a boat full of men who had no desire to know Jesus:

“On his first morning on board Whitefield declared his intention “to know nothing among them, save Jesus Christ and Him crucified.”  This brought ridicule from the soldiers and sailors and their captains. 

‘The first Lord’s Day,’ he wrote, ‘nothing was to be seen but cards and little to be heard but cursing and swearing.  I could do no more than, whilst I was writing, now and then turn my head by way of reproof to a lieutenant who swore as though he was born of a swearing constitution.  Now and then he would take my hint, return my nod with a “Doctor, I ask your pardon,” and then return to his swearing and cards again.’

In the face of this unpromising situation, Whitefield began his attempt to reach all on board with the gospel. His tact and zeal are well-expressed in the statement, “Oh, that I may catch them with a holy guile!”

The living conditions on such a vessel were undoubtedly wretched.  Whitefield had brought with him many tasty items of food and several medicines, and since there was much sickness among the passengers, he went among them every day dispensing of his supply and giving encouragement.  Each morning and evening he read prayers on the open deck, although for the time he did not attempt to preach, lest he deter the people from attending.

After only four days, however, he began a catechism class for the soldiers.  Only six or seven were present on the first morning, but the number steadily increased until in a week’s time the attendance amounted to twenty, and he added to the study and exposition of Lord’s Prayer.  Then, finding this was accepted, he began to preach whenever he read prayers. 

To these public efforts Whitefield added personal associations.  “He breakfasted with some of the gentlemen” and reported an hour’s conversation with another “on our fall in Adam and the necessity of the new birth.”  He walked at night on the deck in order to talk to the chief mate, and on another occasion, “About eleven at night [he] sat down with the sailors in the steerage, and reasoned with them about righteousness, temperance, and the judgement to come.” 

Steadily gaining the goodwill of all on board, Whitefield began a daily catechism class for the women and soon added a Bible study.  He also had James Hbersham, a man he had brought with him, give instruction in elementary education for the children, and he invited any soldiers or sailors who wished to learn to read to attend.

While having a “dish of coffee” with the captain of the soldiers, Whitefield suggested that he would like to bring a short message to the captain and the other gentlemen in the great cabin.  The captain shortly agreed and “expressed his appreciation of the good [he] was doing” among his men.  Then the captain of the sailors ordered that chairs be set out on the deck and planks laid across them, this making the deck of the Whitaker into a sort of floating chapel.  Whitefield had also arranged “to meet any soldiers who could sing by not, to join in Divine Psalmody every day,” thereby undoubtedly supplying his meeting with a male choir. And daily he preached to almost all on board.

The ship docked first at Gibraltar, and the change on board was widely noticeable. Although but seven weeks earlier the men had been a scornful, cursing company, they now “stood forth like little children to say their Catechism,” many read their Bibles regularly, and almost all attended services both morning and evening.  Such were the fruits of Whitefield’s labor in that short period of time.  And when he left Gibraltar, “many came to him, weeping, telling him what God had done for their souls,” and bringing him gifts.

~ from Arthur Dallimore’s ‘George Whitefield, God’s Anointed Servant in the Great Revival of the Eighteenth Century, 1990, published by Crossway

…

May our “friendship evangelism” look more like George Whitefield’s, who was a friendly person from whom the love of Christ was demonstrated in all of his words and deed.  He let them know up front who he was, instead of trying to be friendly apart from Jesus – and the results were supernatural.