Eliminating someone who sees and won't forget

Trying to unwind before bed last night called up Netflix and noticed “New Episodes” of Doctor Who. Woohoo! It was the episode about the “Silents” who have been among us for thousands of years but no human can ever remember them. That’s one of their powers.

This is a theme in Doctor Who episodes. There’s some alien or group of aliens up to no good – maybe cannibalize human beings to make themselves immortal – and nobody realizes it. Although often there is a point in the episode when suddenly everyone realizes what’s going on. In fact in many episodes it’s important to the alien/s that no one knows that they’re even there let alone knows what they are doing.

I think the last 3 weeks may have opened my eyes. There is something going on. I guess you could call it a conspiracy. And it’s been going on for a long time. I’ve been vaguely and occasionally aware of it. Again like Doctor Who. “Wait – what was that? Did I see something? Must be my imagination. There’s no aliens who want to suck our brains and enslave us. How silly!” But now I’m pretty sure. Because the ones in on the conspiracy are increasingly out of the shadows and in the open. Why? Because we have reached a point where victory is at hand because no one can stop them. Or because the population is waking up to what’s going on and there’s a real danger they can rise up and resist them and turn the tide. Or both.

What is this conspiracy? And who is on it? And what are they like – the conspirators and their knowing/unknowing agents?

See this is part of why I haven’t really recognized what’s going on. I see one movement over here. A group of people over there. And yet another push somewhere else toward some goal. And there doesn’t appear to be any clear connection between them. And maybe there isn’t. These different people and groups and movements might not be directly related. But I am beginning to recognize that they are connected.

Wright’s First Principle of Epistemology = In any given set of data, the anomalous elements contain the key to understanding the whole.

(In other words, it’s those things that don’t make sense and seem unrelated – they are the key to understanding what’s going on.)

Right now my best effort to describe the conspiracy is the effort to create a socialist utopia. A heaven on earth. Without God.

Let’s rewind a little shall we?

Anomalous element 1 = a podcast by Clark Carlton who is a professor of philosophy at Tennessee Tech University on “Orthodoxy and Progressive Politics”. There’s a lot to summarize but he argues that “progressivism” (around 2:15) is:

The doctrine that humanity is moving ever onward toward some future goal… Ultimately the goal toward which progressivism is moving is equalitarianism… Now this goal of near universal human equality has considerable public policy implications since human beings are quite obviously not equal. This is where the progressive state comes in. Its overriding function is to help make people equal… Even nature herself can be overcome with the right amount of effort and technology.

I define the progressive this way. The progressive believes as a matter of doctrine that humanity is evolving culturally as well as physically. That this progress is an inherent good.    And that the telltale markers of human progress signify our liberation from natural distinctions and limitations. And that given the inherent goodness of progress man is fully justified in using political power to eradicate any and all obstacles blocking his path to utopia.

I think those two paragraphs just might explain the vast majority of what we see happening in the social, cultural, and especially political arenas.

Let me try to summarize the above into a few succinct points:

1. Humanity is progressing toward a goal.
2. That goal is equalitarianism. This means in part no differences or distinctions between human beings – including between male and female.
3. The state will help achieve this goal.
4. Nothing – and I cannot emphasize this point enough – absolutely nothing can be allowed to stand in the way of this goal.

What opened my eyes? What made me connect that shadow with this fleeting image with that strange breeze with this faint sound?

The Health and Human Services mandate to require all businesses and organizations to provide medical insurance plans that include free contraception including abortifacients. And that this applies to religious institutions and organizations for whom paying for contraception especially abortifacients is a violation of their conscience and convictions.

There is nothing else I can think of that the Obama administration has said or done that so openly proclaims what the ultimate goal is. Because this isn’t really about birth control. Birth control just happens to be a key lynch pin in advancing the greater agenda.

More on this anon. I have work to do. And teenagers to pick up from school.

From last night at Louisiana State University. Raw notes. 

- death of Baldur in Beowulf(?) ‘Baldur the beautiful is dead, is dead’

- became her ‘northern star’ guiding her to reexamine LOTR

- LOTR more literary than religious

- Tolkien didn’t approve of explicit message in Lewis’ books

- LOTR is profoundly Christian – many read it but few recognize this

- Anglo-Saxon and Scandinavian sources

- not Celtic – but English

- Beowulf and Finnish legends

- long before appearance of Christ

- Middle Earth = this planet (not some other)

- Ring epic has 2 levels

- surface

- deep

- Tolkien’s letters confirm ‘deep narrative’

- one can read and explore the many themes yet miss the deep narrative

- deep narrative = invisible presence in Middle- Earth at every point to save it from ruin

- works through agents whether they are aware or not

- 3 themes for tonight

- divine agency

- battle of good versus evil

- human freedom and divine purpose

1. divine agency

- single most important theological issue?

- we find God? or God finds us? latter is more accurate

- but we often substitute 1^st pronoun ‘my journey’ ‘I found’ and so on

- we make ourselves center of story

- make story anthropocentric not theocentric

- how we construct sentences (in Tolkien) is important

- who is the agent? divine or demonic?

a. the Ring found Bilbo, eye of Sauron, power of Ring over human will

b. less obvious divine power

- use of passive voice points to invisible transcendant

- ‘Bilbo was meant to find the ring, Frodo meant to have it’

i. passive is not passivity but prevenient working of higher moral agency (?)

- ‘somehow seemed to be drawn’ (Strider?)

- look for passive and ‘somehow’ and so on

ii. Sam Gamgee is hero of story but flawed

- Faramir to Sam (when Sam almost gave away everything) ‘be comfited, it was fated to be so’

- Joseph in Genesis: ‘you meant it for evil but God used it for good’

- ‘it was fated’ = signal of divine power working to overrule evil

2. battle of good versus evil

- Tolkien would have been horrified by appropriation of LOTR after 9/11 (1^st movie came out a few months after)

- in his letters: all created beings are battered, fatally vulnerable to forces of darkness

- even Gandalf would have been corrupted by the Ring

- no one except the Trinity can put up infinite resistance to evil (sin)

- this is not ‘good guys versus bad guys’

- example of dead Haradrim a ‘bad guy’

- Sam sees and wonders ‘if he was really evil, or what lies and threats made him leave his home’

- Tolkien puts “good” in quotes!

- Shakespeare: ‘web of our life a mingled yarn good and ill together’

- Christian gospel founded on divine agency

- God’s attempted to deliver us

- not God watching from a distance while we deliver ourselves

- listen carefully to most preaching = if only we can whip our wills into shape we will do good and everything will be better

3. human freedom and divine purpose

- Augustine vs Pelagius (3^rd-4^th c AD)

- we only know Pelagius through Augustine

- Pelagius = freedom of human will

- Augustine = bondage of human will

- there is no doctrine of free will in Christian tradition!

- Jesus in John to Jewish leaders

- ‘we have never been in bondage’

- ‘anyone who commits sin is a slave to sin, if son sets you free, the truth shall set you free’

- truth not an abstract idea – Jesus is the truth who sets us free

- truth = relationship with living God, serving the right authority

- LOTR about true freedom and true service

- Tolkien thinks(?) Lewis strays into Pelagianism

- LOTR is clearly Augustinian

- role of transcendant realm in overthrowing demonic forces through human agency

- ‘taken up into will and purpose of God’

- Perelandra

- Ransom’s struggle to prevent a Fall on Venus

- ‘suddenly there had arisen certain knowledge you will do the impossible’

- Lewis gives both arguments

- you can say election and freedom are opposite?

- or are they the same thing? (yes)

- Council of Elrond

- divine election of Frodo

- help comes to him from outside himself to make the decision

- movie completely butchers this (and much more – Jackson doesn’t see deep narrative)

- Elrond says Frodo chose freely

- which is primary? we want to say free will, say it’s we who choose!

- LOTR -> true freedom in context of divine election, nowhere else

- Paul: ‘work out your salvation, for God is at work in you’

- Frodo at Black Gate

- ‘an evil choice – both ways lead to death’

- idea that we can make an autonomous decision to choose God/good is a delusion

- LOTR = Tolkien’s 3D narrative of human will made free by divine intervention

- calling and vocation -> different ways of serving

- to serve is to reign as king (?)

- the king serves the humblest (Faramir serves the hobbits in Ithilien)

- denouement of LOTR

- when meaning of everything is made clear and revealed

- every reader of LOTR is expecting a certain resolution

- but Tolkien turns the tables, got angry mail about his denouement

- but Tolkien prepared us for it from very beginning

- 2 levels

- surface (skillful, pleases most readers)

- deep

- Mordor

- forces moving and working to control human souls and control the universe

- yet each of us is a key player (?)

- Frodo: ‘which will show me the way?’

- ambiguity here and in Bible

- providence works in, through, around ambiguity -> the resolution will be most unlikely of all

- Ring can destroy anyone

- yet divine purpose will triumph

- Tolkien gives us worse and better than what we want (in denouement)

- (RW = Rutledge didn’t want to give it away, does she mean Gollum and Frodo at the Crack of Doom?)

- Sam’s final homecoming

- ennoblement of the humble

- unseen agency shapes even our failures to good

- cannot divide world into ‘good and evil’

- God will not allow creation/creatures descend to destruction

I am still pretty busy – see last post. Not much has changed on that front. In fact the parish work has increased.

But “things are heating up” in terms of our social, cultural, and political life. And not in a good way. Although one is reminded of what will be discussed in the next post. Plus I still do have some thoughts and reflections in terms of Christian theology and practice. Maybe not worth much but perhaps a few might be interested.

Here is the struggle. I really do not like mixing theology and politics on this website. That was not my original intent. There is a reason I chose “Live the Trinity” for the title. And paid for the domain. And configured DNS settings so that URL would point here to what is basically a sub-folder of www.ramawright.net. And for the first several months managed to stick to Christian theology, practice, a few sermons that received good feedback, personal stuff, a few book/movie/opera reviews.

And then 2008 came along.

What I am considering is one of two options:

1. create a 2nd blog just for the social-political posts
2. rename this blog to something more inclusive

Yes I know a couple people offered cogent intelligent reasons why “Live the Trinity” can indeed cover society and politics. But I am still uncomfortable with mixing an emphasis on “religion” with an emphasis on “politics”. I have no idea what to call the 2nd blog or how to rename this one. “Two Worlds One” just popped into my head. Hmm. Yeah. That might work. And I can explain it.

One more thing. I think some of the most interesting, dynamic, exciting blogs are those with multiple contributors. This is an open invitation to anyone of similar but not identical mind who might wish to join.

I might have to take a page from the Red Stick Rant book and put this website into temporary(?) hibernation. The last 2 weeks have been working 10-12 hours/day which is fine. Hard work is part of congregational ministry. But has not left me with much extra time or mental/spiritual energy for posting. As for politics the situation is so bad what more is there to say? The health of this nation – by which I mean liberty opportunity responsibility prosperity security and charity – will not improve until the political-cultural left is removed from power by legitimate democratic means.

And now I have been offered the chance to teach Intermediate (Biblical) Hebrew at Louisiana State University as an adjunct starting this semester. Which is fantastic. But also means less than 5 weeks to prepare! So in addition to (1) full time congregational ministry which has become more demanding as our new co-pastors provide new direction and leadership and (2) part time computer/network support – which lately has been unusually time consuming because of the issues involved with getting two Mac computers to play nice with our Small Business Server 2003 network environment – add (3) teaching one course at the university which means both class time and extensive preparation.

Maybe I could just get in one or two posts a week. But cannot promise that.

Before turning off the light – hopefully temporarily – let me list some of the things I was hoping to address. Just so you know what I have been thinking and reading about.

Review of New York Metropolitan Opera performance of “Die Walkuere” by Richard Wagner. Quick summary = One does not normally expect to enjoy 5 1/2 hours of Wagnerian opera! But truly this performance/production will go down in history as one of the great triumphs in the history of opera.

Review of New York Metropolitan Opera performance of “Madame Butterfly” by Gioachino Rossini. Quick summary = Fascinating and excellent performance. An utterly heartbreaking and tragic story that raises cross-cultural issues as well as the (past?) problem of American colonialism.

Review of “Super 8″. Quick summary = Loved it so much paid to see it twice.

Review of “X-Man First Class”. Quick summary = Awesome.

Review of “The University in a Single Atom” by the Dalai Lama. Which I read primarily because it was a gift from my sister. Quick summary = Excellent and illuminating. Christians who are interested in (a) the relationship between science and religion and/or (b) understanding Buddhism do well to read this.

The Southern Baptist Convention’s recent resolutions on immigration and ministry to (illegal) immigrants. Quick summary = Rather surprising and leaves many people in the odd situation of regarding those Southern Baptists as too liberal!

Allen West versus Debbie Wasserman Schultz. Quick summary = There are more effective ways to rebuke the political-cultural left.

Modest proposal for how English language Bibles should translate Hebrew tsdaqa(h) and Greek dikaiosyne.

Terence Fretheim on the book of Exodus and to what extent scholars and pastors and teachers may misunderstand and even misrepresent biblical law and covenant theology.

One of my favorite examples of ancient art

This Thursday evening my children and I will fly to upstate New York to spend a week visiting with my mom as well as my sisters and brother and his family who all live in Minnesota. My mom lives on a farm outside a village in rural upstate New York and internet access means driving into town and hanging out at a coffee shop. *ahem means probably not gonna update this for a couple weeks*

Simply put the state of New York has legalized gay marriage. Much more importantly has done this (a) through the legislative process and (b) with a Republican dominated state Senate. To put it bluntly that is how it should be done. Rather than by judicial fiat that often presumes to override the collective will of the citizenry even when they have amended their state constitution. The executive branch does not make law. The judicial branch should not make law although one can understand why some argue in a way it does. That is the job of the legislative branch. As Gay Patriot comments:

Elected state legislatures, I have always contended, are the appropriate fora to decide such issues.

The process was often messy, the rhetoric regularly exaggerated, the understanding of marriage generally at odds with the history of the institution, but at least those who made the final decision were elected by the people of the various jurisdictions of the Empire State and thus answerable to them at the ballot box.

We may not have had (and indeed did not have) the type of civil discussion of the importance and meaning of marriage that would have helped strengthen the institution (and not just in New York), but the branch of government responsible for deciding whether the state should privilege same-sex unions as it has long privileged different-sex monogamous unions resolved the issue.

And Instapundit earlier notes:

I think it’s good that it was passed by the legislature rather than imposed by a court.

Let me pause for a moment and lay out some of my thoughts on this issue:

I am a traditionalist and am convinced the Bible is the primary authority for Christian teaching and practice. The Bible is pretty clear that (a) marriage is supposed to be between a man and woman and (b) same-sex intercourse – along with a whole bunch of other things – is not compatible with the way of life in Christ. Some Christians who have no objections to same-sex attraction/relations/intercourse openly concede this. One cannot interpret the Bible in such a way to make it somehow endorse or tolerate same-sex intercourse. The only option for Christians who disagree is to say the Bible is just plain wrong on the matter.

Ah but how does that play out in the public square? That is where traditionalist Christians must recognize the issue is more complicated. There are many things that are not compatible with the way of life in Christ. But are we arguing that all of things should be prohibited by the government and said prohibitions enforced by the power of the state?

I have a great deal of respect for The Other McCain and by extension those they quote. But I cannot agree with the blanket statement that marriage is a religious institution and therefore our only options are (i) recognizing it even the point of amending the United States Constitution or (ii) have it removed from the government entirely because of church-state separation and have the government then enforce legal contracts between two or more adults.

Is marriage a religious institution? You betcha. But so is the church no? So what does the government have to do with that?

My undergraduate and graduate studies focused mostly on the history and culture and languages and literature of Ancient West Asia aka the Ancient Near East. I have some familiarity with how marriage worked in the Ancient East Mediterranean around 3200-400 B.C.E. They had it. I have read some marriage contracts in the original languages. Even plaster casts of the original cuneiform tablets. They were not Christians. Most of them were not Hebrews/Israelites/Jews. (Strictly speaking one should not use the terms Jewish or Judaism until after the Babylonian Exile.) Most of them were not trying to follow the teachings of God in the Bible. The point is that marriage is a very widespread very ancient legal-social institution that does not appear to be linked to any one specific religion. Marriage was not so much divinely ordained committed relationship between man and woman as it was a legal contract. This is not to say that is all it was. That there was never love or affection or any sense that this was somehow endorsed by the gods. We have interesting examples of how husbands and wives in the ancient world were bound together by love and affection.

Now I will confess that ancient marriage is not my area of expertise. I know what I have seen read and studied. There may be scholars who focus on this that have more to say on the subject. Particularly with regard to marriage as religious not just legal. Indeed one might argue that religious versus legal is an artificial distinction when talking about ancient societies. But I have reason to believe that most ancient societies did not necessarily regard social-legal institutions as expressions of relationship with the gods. Consider the distinctive character of the Book of the Covenant in the book of Exodus 21-24.

Where is all the above going? That we have the remarkable situation in the United States (and elsewhere) where clergy (of whatever religion) act as agents of the government when they perform marriages. If I perform a wedding and sign the certificate then those two people are legally married even if they never appear before a judge or justice of the peace. I have to say – well maybe I don’t but I say it anyway – “with the authority I have as a minister of the gospel of Jesus Christ and from the state of Louisiana“. Do you see that? I have the power to enact(?) a significant legal contract/relationship between two people that must be recognized by the state.

My tentative point of view at this time is that the issue of gay marriage is so sticky partly because the Christian church along with other religious communities have allowed marriage as a religious institution to become confused and entangled with marriage as a social-legal institution.

I vaguely recall a couple years ago when Gay Patriot – along with others – argued that perhaps the Christian church needs to pull out of the legal marriage business. Allow marriage to be a social-legal institution. License then civil ceremony then certificate and so on. And then there can be a religious ceremony that enacts this new relationship as a recognized institution within that religious community. I could be wrong. But that is where I lean right now.

This may help clarify some of the controversy surrounding so-called gay marriage. And clarify some of the true motives of those who advocate or oppose gay marriage. So many Christians object to it. Therefore they think it should not be allowed by the state. Do you see the leap/jump there?

Now that does not mean there is no reason for that leap/jump. Some might reason “God – revealing himself and his will through Scripture – would have marriage be between a man and woman for life (except for certain unusual/extreme circumstances). God – ditto – would also warn us to eschew same-sex relations/intercourse. We understand that this is not (necessarily) a Christian society. We understand not everyone is Christian. Therefore why should we expect everyone to obey what we are convinced reflects the revealed purposes of God for humanity? Well there are plenty of other things God endorses or condemns that are allowed/permitted in our society. Nobody complains about those laws we already have that happen to agree with biblical law. Nobody complains well the Bible says do not steal so we can’t have any laws against theft. Nobody says well the Bible tells us to show compassion to the poor so we better stop that because separate of church and state ya know. So the revealed purposes of God alert us to what leads to a peaceful just society and those things that lead to disorder and injustice. That being so we may be able to articulate we these things are good for society and those things are not in ways that people of other religions or not religion can understand and support. One is reminded of the less well known but vitally important Socratic dialogue Euthyphro. Perhaps we can say these things are not good not just because God says they aren’t. God says these things are not good because they aren’t. Or in the language of Socrates that which is holy is loved by the gods because it is holy (Euthyphro 12). And thus so-called secular society for its own good reasons may decide that there should be such a legal institution called marriage and that these are its limits and requirements. Because that is what so-called secular society regards as the best most stable most healthy way to order and structure itself. In other words no to gay marriage – not because of God allegedly says but because we just don’t think it’s a good idea. How many examples of gay marriage do we find in the ancient world? Why did ancient societies – most of whom were not Christian/Jewish – do marriage this way and not that way?”

Oh dear I may have neatly refuted myself. Well maybe not. But you get the idea. In a nutshell those who oppose gay marriage for religious reasons might want to find ways to articular their case that do not depend solely or primarily on divine revelation. And we might need to separate marriage as legal institution from marriage as religious institution. I could be wrong. Neither is a hill for me to die on. I am not firmly convinced of either. But this is where I stand tentatively at this time.

And if any of those excellent friends at Gay Patriot stop by (c) they have articulated reasonable and principled arguments in favor of committed same-sex marriage and (d) the above paragraphs imply the possibility of non-religious arguments in favor of same-sex marriage do they not?

Our excellent friend Opinionated Catholic does however express grave concerns about the religious exemption language in the New York State law. This should not be overlooked. Because what good is it to say “okay hey separation of church and state and all that so let’s separate marriage as religious from marriage as legal institution” – perhaps in order to disarm and neutralize people who object chiefly on religious grounds – and then turn around and force religious communities to endorse/celebrate/tolerate/enact gay marriage because of the law? That’s a neat trick. Rather like how this administration disarms Americans by saying “it’s not a tax” and then argues “this is a tax” before federal courts. “It’s not a religious matter” in order to get gay marriage and then the government turns around and makes it a religious matter.

By the way in 16(?) years of ordained ministry not once have I preached a sermon about same-sex relations or abortion or stem-cell research. On only a few occasions have I expressed my views on these subjects in private conversation/correspondence. So who really focuses on these issues hmm?

And also by the way would commend to you an excellent post “Stray Thoughts on Gay Marriage” at Ace of Spades HQ. Which outlines how to a large extent gay marriage has been achieved by dishonest (and inconsistent even contradictory) arguments. That’s not to say Ace has any particular beef with gay rights as such. But like Ace I happen to believe that the means to a just end must also be just. I don’t like it when people deceive and manipulate to get what they want. Even if I happen to agree with that goal.

Back to New York because this is really the main point I would like to make.

James Taranto makes some particularly brilliant points in his recently piece “Dire Straits”. He reminds us that one year ago New York State became the last state to enact no fault divorce. Think about that. And then think about what gay marriage advocates think they just won. But this is not really or primarily about gay marriage. Therein lies his brilliant point.

Deroy Murdock made a good point some years back when he observed, in a column posted at NRO, that “social conservatives who blow their stacks over homosexual matrimony’s supposed threat to traditional marriage tomorrow should focus on the far greater damage that heterosexuals are wreaking on that venerable institution today.”

Murdock should have written “have wreaked for decades,” because the developments we note all long predate any serious consideration of the idea of same-sex marriage. …

Thus for the foreseeable future, civil marriage is likely to retain its character as little more than a financial arrangement. To be sure, many individual marriages are deeply committed relationships. But under a regime that permits either spouse to opt out of the commitment at will, the legal recognition of marriage is mere symbolism.

Boom. It’s like getting upset that water is getting into your house when for decades you haven’t done anything to maintain the roof and walls. People are upset about gay marriage when they should have been paying more attention to marriage.

What is marriage? Why bother getting married instead of living together? And – this is where many Christian friends will disagree with me – it’s not enough to say “this is what God ordained”. One would like to think even God ordains things for a good reason. Can we articulate those reasons? And articulate those reasons in ways that both people within and people outside our religious communities can understand and appreciate? We/some/they say gay marriage is such a terrible thing that will result in the collapse of healthy stable social order. Well maybe. But have we explained why we should have marriage to begin with?

Christians have not failed to make the case against gay marriage. They failed to make the case for marriage.

Note – These are my notes from Evensong last night. I apologize that all this is in note form. I will add the text of the quotes – which are important – later.

Was planning to talk about ecclesiology/church in 1 Peter
But Genesis 22 – might be one of most important
repeat some of this morning but expand

Difficult challenging story
David Regenspan in Muhammad and Rise of Early Islam
“Don’t preach this text. Stay away. Too dangerous”

But we must not avoid/stay away
What it shows about (a) faith (b) God (c) way of relationship w God

Context
life of Abraham – basically Genesis 12-22 (technically 11-25 = prologue/postlogue)
lek-lka in Genesis 12 and 22
what Genesis 12 begins Genesis 22 finishes
powerful impossible promises
struggle and wait for 25 years
finally Isaac is born!
and now God wants A to offer him as sacrifice?!?
threatens(?) to destroy and undo past(?) and future

Pause
if we only have Genesis 12-21 what is faith? way of relationship with God?

Why does the story disturb and bother us?
because of context – will God undo everything so far?
only place God asks for human sacrifice?

How can we unpack story to understand what is happening / what it teaches?

“Through Isaac the child of the impossible promise. And now God tells Abraham to offer this child as a sacrifice. What will happen to everything that God has promised and everything God has done?

Perhaps that is the point. Perhaps that is the first thing we learn from the story.”

Cannot remember what is point / thing we learn

Literary structure
Walter Brueggemann
3 times call-answer-statement
God-Abraham-command
Isaac-Abraham-question-statement “The Lord will see to it”
angel-Abraham-command
(in every case Abraham is the focus – the one who answers)
what stands out? what is extra / does not fit pattern
verse 8 is key – “The Lord will see to it”

Beginnings and endings
The Lord tests… “Now I know”
“Take your only son whom you love” … “Have not kept back your only son whom you love”
both cases – what is in the middle? what holds the beginning and ending together?
no matter how we approach the story verse 8 is the center – “The Lord will see to it”
what does this mean? why is it important?

What is faith / way of relationship w God in Genesis 12-21?
conversation with member of University Baptist
faith and prayer
faith makes a difference
“your faith has saved you”
“help my unbelief”
faith has something to do w God answers our prayer (does/gives)
something to do w what we see / experience / understand

Whole new understand of faith in Genesis 22
stretches / challenges -> deeper understanding of biblical faith
Abraham does not understand (a) command (b) how will God keep his impossible promises?
(some will debate #b – does Abraham know? does he know how?)
be careful not to bring in Hebrews 11 – not yet
try to understand text on its own terms

does not know / does not understand

Faith beyond God answers / does / gives
faith beyond see / experience / understand
can we have faith / do we have faith when we see no reason to believe?
no job / no healing / no change
all we see if failure / defeat / loss / death
we do not understand – but we trust you
(earthquake/tsunamis in Japan)
God test and provides
God is mysterious but reliable
(some Christians avoid one or the other)
often mistake of either/or not both/and

Two ways to shed light on this new understanding of faith

1) Tolkien

conversation between elven king Finrod Felagund and wise woman Andreth (Morgoth’s Ring)
“have yet then no hope?” amdir = looking up <-> estel = trust
perhaps biblical faith ~ estel = deep radical trust beyond ways of world / experience
common theme in Tolkien
quote Dickerson, Following Gandalf, 138
(people continue to choose good even when they see no way they can win)
quote Ralph Wood, Gospel According to Tolkien, 101-102, also 105

2) Related words/concepts that shed light on each other
faith (or trust in sense of lean upon) – H ‘aman
hope – qawa(h) (not in Genesis 22)
fear – if this story is about faith why mention fear?
trust – rather set confidence – not common and unclear relationship to faith/trust

Note – I am not entirely happy with this sermon as sermon. In other words it need more work and the central idea/point needs to be developed much better. But I share it because of the central idea/point which is challenging.

“A Whole New Understanding of Faith/Estel (or) The Unavoidable Story”
Genesis 22
Richard M. Wright
Church of the Nations
2nd Sunday of Pentecost (A) or 13th Sunday in Ordinary Time

Stay away from this story. Because it is too dangerous.

Cornell University. Two thousand and two. Graduate seminar on Muhammad and the Rise of Early Islam with Professor David Powers. Each student must choose and topic and give a presentation and write a research paper. My friend and classmate David Regenspan – who is also a Jewish rabbi – says that he is going to focus on the story of when Abraham will sacrifice his son. In the Bible his son Isaac. But in the Qur’an his son Ishmael.  He wants to focus on this topic – how the Qur’an takes our Bible story for today and tells it in a different way – because when he is in graduate school preparing to become a rabbi his teachers tell them never preach this story. Stay away from it. Because it is too dangerous.

Our Bible reading for today from the book of Genesis chapter twenty two is dangerous. But we cannot stay away. Because this story is so difficult and challenges how we understand faith and how we understand God and how we understand the way of relationship with God.

And after these things God tests Abraham.

After these things. Our Bible reading for this morning from the book of Genesis chapter twenty two is part of a larger story that begins in chapter twelve. One of the most important chapters in the Bible. When God says to Abraham, Leave your land / your relatives / the house of your father and go to a land I will show you. And the Lord gives to Abraham powerful and important promises. I will give you descendants. I will make you a great nation. I will make your name famous. And through you all the families of the earth will be blessed.

This is what God promises to an old man and woman who have no children and no land of their own. They begin a long difficult journey with God. Ten years twenty years. Abraham and Sarah both struggle with worry and fear. Will God keep / how will God keep / when will God keep his promises? Sometimes they try to make the promises come true on their own and it does not work very well. Sometimes God appears to Abraham and repeats the promises / even holds himself to them.

And then finally after waiting for twenty five years Abraham and Sarah have a child of their own. And Isaac is born in chapter twenty one. God keeps his first impossible promise. Abraham will have descendants through Isaac. Through Isaac Abraham will become a great nation. His name will be famous. Through this family all the families of the earth will be blessed.

And now chapter twenty two. After these things… God says to him, Abraham! Here I am. Take your son your only son whom you love Isaac and go to the land of Moriah and offer him there as a a sacrifice/offering on one of the mountains that I will tell you.

Chapter twelve. God says lekh-lkha go from… to a land I will show you. Chapter twenty two. Qah-na take. Lekh-lkha go to a mountain that I will show you. Almost the same. In a way our story repeats the command of God and completes the journey with God that begins in chapter twelve. Both times Abraham does what God says and he goes.

Already we struggle to understand what this story is about. God makes impossible promises to Abraham. For twenty five years Abraham goes and trusts and waits. Finally everything that God promises to Abraham is going to come true. Through Isaac the child of the impossible promise. And now God tells Abraham to offer this child as a sacrifice. What will happen to everything that God has promised and everything God has done?

Perhaps that is the point. Perhaps that is the first thing we learn from the story.

To understand this story better we need to look at how it is shaped. Walter Brueggemann is very important scholar of the Old Testament. He describes how three times there is call / command / response.

The first one. God calls Abraham / Abraham responds, Here I am / God commands. The second one. Isaac calls Abraham / Abraham responds / Isaac asks a question / Abraham answers. The third one. The angel calls Abraham / Abraham answers / the angel commands. What does not fit the pattern? What is different? When Abraham answers Isaac, The Lord will see to it (the lamb for the sacrifice).

{{Look at how the story begins and ends. The Lord tests Abraham… God says, Now I know that you fear God and have not kept back your only son from me. God tests / now God knows. Or take your only son whom you love – a command that we do not understand makes no sense that will destroy everything that God has promised and done. But at the end you have not kept back your only son from me – the danger of this strange command is over. }} (skipped this paragraph – not necessary or clear)

The Bible – especially the New Testament – presents Abraham as the model of faith. Abraham believed God. This is what faith looks like. So what do we learn about faith? Learn about God? Learn about the way of relationship with God?

I do not completely understand this story. I do not have all the answers. But there is at least one thing I think I understand. This story invites us to discover a whole new understanding of faith.

Abraham has faith in God. Another we to say that is he trusts God. He believes that God is good and will do what he says. He believes that God will give him and his wife a child who will become a great nation and all the families of the earth will be blessed. He sees God do this.

And now God asks Abraham to do something he does not understand. He does not know how God will keep the promises / does not understand how his family will have a future if he does what God says and offers his only son whom he loves. There is no reason to believe. Abraham does not understand. But he still has faith in God. He still trusts that somehow God will see to it.

Not just, I have faith that God will answer my prayer / do what I ask / give what I need. Not just, I trust God because I see / experience / understand. But a whole new understanding of faith that is beyond what we see / what we experience / what we understand / beyond God answers / does / gives.

Faith that says, I do not understand. But still I trust you. No matter what.

I cannot explain how but starting about five years ago in two thousand and six began to include works of art in our worship guides. So if one of the Bible readings for that day 1 Samuel 3 would include “Samuel and Eli” by Gerrit Dou (1613-1675) just to pick one example. I think this was partly because pictures can help prompt us to think in different ways about biblical texts. Because some people are primarily visual learners/thinkers. And because sometimes the artwork is from non-Western nations and cultures. For example the work of Chinese Christian artist He Qi. Or the stories of Jesus in an African setting/context at Vie de Jesus Mafa. Part of my ministry is to look for ways to communicate effectively across cultures. But more than that to celebrate other cultures which God creates – and that is one of my theological convictions – and the ways biblical stories can be expressed in the artistic conventions of these other cultures.

The response was tremendous. Since then people have frequently expressed how beautiful and interesting is the artwork we include. University Baptist Church – the American church of which Church of the Nations is a ministry – also began to adopt this practice on occasion.

Anyways wanted to share a couple new artists I have discovered. One is Bhanu Dudhat who appears to be an artist in(? from?) Gujarat in north India. He and his wife – also an artist – have an excellent website where one can see many paintings of stories from the Bible but done in an Indian cultural style.

The other is Yoram Raanan who is a Jewish Israeli artist born in the United States and moved to Israel in 1977. He works largely with oils and acrylics but also does collages and paintings on unusual media such as used book covers. He has several paintings of biblical subjects some of which are quite interesting. I commend to you his painting of the Aqedah aka Binding of Isaac in Genesis 22. That is one of the lections for his Sunday and the focus of the sermon I am preparing which is how I came across Raanan in the first place.

Whether it be Bible study or catechism or worship – how can we include all the human senses in the life of the church? What are the many ways we can incorporate visual art?

An old friend/classmate from Great Britain posted a link to a recent article by Jonathan Dudley entitled “My Take: Bible condemns a lot, so why focus on homosexuality?”.

I thought “ho hum another article/piece/post on the subject” and made the mistake of reading it.

My friend should put on his English teacher hat and evaluate the article as a piece of writing. Can one identify a thesis? crux? clear conclusion? What exactly is the position Dudley is attempting to defend? Do his arguments support his conclusion insofar as one can identify it? What other conclusions would his arguments support? How relevant is the evidence he brings to bear on the discussion? Even if you agree with him this is not a very good article.

Let me put it this way. Let us assume for the sake of argument that same-sex relations are entirely compatible with the Christian way of life. If so the piece by Dudley is a poor attempt to defend that conclusion.

An aside. Did a search to see who has rebutted and/or responded to Dudley. Surprisingly the only people who take note of his work are those who already agree with him. And it’s not like there’s a shortage of more traditional Christian scholars who are afraid to take on the position(s) he takes. This suggests (a) that this recent piece simply has not attracted much attention yet and/or (b) that those who normally would respond do not think this piece is worth their while.

Also found it odd that Dudley is often described as a Bible expert or scholar. Compared to the average American sure. But compared to thousands of people who would disagree with him and who have studied and taught and published more? In fairness to Dudley he is probably not running around touting himself as a Bible expert/scholar as much as those who wish to use his writing to bolster their own views.

He’s been to seminary and apparently did very well. Meaning no disrespect at all to his real accomplishments as a student and a writer so what? Been there done bought the t-shirt.

One of harsher criticisms of his article is the reductionism. He only focuses on explicit condemnations of same-sex relations. In one place – Romans 1. And characterizes the nature of Paul’s argument in the most simplistic terms. “Argument from nature”. That’s it? No attempt to delve into the entire biblical and theological background to Romans 1? No attempt to analyze possible differences between (his characterization of) Romans 1 and 1 Corinthians 11? To what extent does Dudley engage the small libraries of scholarship on (1) Romans (2) sexual ethics in the New Testament (3) the issue of same-sex relations in the Bible and in Christian tradition let alone (4) the theological-anthropological framework in which Christian tradition addresses same-sex relations? To what extent has Dudley attempted to wrestle with the work of scholars like Robert Gagnon?

In fairness to Jonathan Dudley perhaps he has done so at length elsewhere. Just not here. Often when one writes an article/post there are time and space limitations. “I wrote a 50 page paper refuting 12 books on the subject. But I’ve got an anatomy exam next week and this article can’t be more than 500 words so this’ll have to do”.

(Added 2011/06/22 - Found another couple pieces/interviews and unfortunately so far it looks like variations of the “shellfish argument”. The Bible condemns x and it also condemns eating crawfish. No one worries about eating crawfish so why should we worry about x? A bright 7 year old might point out that x includes such things as bestiality or incest or defrauding the poor of their wages and so on and so on. This is why the title of the recent piece “The Bible condemns a lot of things why focus on?” is amazingly stupid. In fairness someone else such as an editor almost certainly assigned that title.)

One thing that strikes me as just a bit odd is how he conflates the issue of same-sex relations with the issue of gay marriage. I know that plenty of people do that but one must be careful to distinguish issues that are related but distinct. I dare suggest that one can favor gay marriage and think same-sex relations are incompatible with the Christian way of life. And one can oppose gay marriage and have no problem with same-sex relations. One must distinguish between how is a disciple of Jesus Christ the son of God supposed to live? and what kinds of family structures should society – which includes people who are not Christian – permit or encourage? In case dear readers are curious I lean towards the former position. There are plenty of things that are not compatible with the Christian way of life that perhaps society and government should not attempt to regulate.

Okay so the Christian church has had varying attitudes toward marriage and celibacy during its first 1500 years. What does that have to do with the specific issue at hand today? Was the Christian church against marriage during that time? No? So how is that piece of evidence (which we will take at face value for the moment) relevant to the issue at hand? This is another serious flaw with Dudley’s argumentation. Not “that is wrong” but “even if that’s correct so what?”

Let us also assume that modern evangelical Christians take many stances that would have been considered heresy a few hundred years ago.

Yale New Testament professor Dale B. Martin has noted that today’s “pro-family” activism, despite its pretense to be representing traditional Christian values, would have been considered “heresy” for most of the church’s history.

Dare we ask how well so-called progressive Christianity would have been regarded for most of the church’s history? Is Dudley arguing that what evangelical Christians promote is just as much “heresy” as what modern liberal-progressive Christians promote? If x is flawed how does that help y?

I think Dudley reveals his larger agenda when he brings in abortion. Wait a second. Are we talking about same-sex relations? and/or same-sex marriage? and/or abortion?

Again Dudley muddles the issue. He argues that the church has not historically and traditionally supported the idea that life begins at conception. Okay. Without doing further research am inclined to agree with that. I mean gee whiz how long have we known about conception? But that’s not the same as saying the church has always thought elective abortion is just fine. The church historically and traditionally has opposed elective abortion – am unaware of any evidence to the contrary – but not because of some particular view about human conception. So Augustine had some doubts about when the body has a soul. Does that mean he favored terminating pregnancies? Evidence x does not lead to conclusion y.

(Added 2011/06/22 - Have often noticed that progressive/liberal Christians group these stances together. Let me put it this way. My views on same-sex relations and abortion are pretty traditional. But I have no problems with evolutionary theory and many evangelicals would be horrified by my views on hell or the “security of the believer” or atonement theory. Am not “all or nothing” when it comes to these issues. And yet nearly every time I see progressive/liberal Christians defend elective abortion in the same breath as same-sex-relations-are-just-fine. As if they go together. Indeed are inseparable. Still struggling to understand quite why this is so. Can anyone anywhere point to an example of someone who says “elective abortion is unjust but same-sex relations are perfectly fine for Christians”?)

Dudley points out that evangelical Christians take stances against same-sex marriage and elective abortion – claiming that the Bible supports them in this – but can be pretty loose about other issues that the Bible clearly addresses such as divorce.

Okay. Fair enough. The church is arguably inconsistent. Although it is odd that when discussing divorces Dudley focuses on what Jesus teaches and ignores what Paul says. Whereas when discussing same-sex relations focuses solely on Paul. There is an apparent inconsistency in his methodology.

But this is where Dudley’s conclusion? position? thesis? is clearest and strongest. If there is any worthwhile value to be found in his writing it is this:

Evangelical Christians need to come to terms with two problems with positions they commonly take on moral-social issues. First – they claim that the position they take is “traditional/historical” when it might not be. [Rw - Okay this one is weaker and more debatable.] Second – they oppose these things that they think the Bible condemns but they are very tolerant of those things that others claim the Bible also condemns.

Evangelical Christians need (1) to improve how they understand and articulate the positions they take and (2) to be more consistent(?) with regard to what issues they care about.

Now this is not to get into the issue of just whether they are truly inconsistent or not. It depends on how one interprets Scripture does it not? Oh man there’s that common liberal refrain. Progressive/liberal Christians would say “you are wrong with regard to what the Bible says about sex and marriage and abortion and wrong with regard to what the Bible says about money and war and justice”. Dudley accuses evangelicals of explaining away Scriptures that deal with divorce. Dare we ask if progressives/liberals explain away Scriptures that deal with sex and procreation and marriage?

I would say yup. See my critique of Wright Knust:

These two examples illustrate what may be a problem with Wright Knust’s methodology. Which is what I call Heads I win, Tales you lose. Yes the Bible is often ambiguous and not entirely consistent. But what we see is when the text is ambiguous Wright Knust consistently chooses the reading that most undermines traditional Christian teaching on sexuality and marriage. If there is the remotest chance that a text could be read in such a way as to endorse something other than sexual-relations-within-heterosexual-marriage then that is how we choose to read it. And if there is a remote chance that a text can be read in such as way that it does not warn against sexual-relations-outside-heterosexual-marriage then that is how we choose to read it. Clear texts are no longer clear. And ambiguous texts are no longer ambiguous.

Dudley raises a good point about consistency and hermeneutics. But that point cuts both ways.

Gee whiz maybe evangelical Christians should heed Dudley and start opposing liberalization of divorce.

By the way this raises the question of exactly what Dudley is attempting to accomplish. Okay let us assume that evangelical Christians are inconsistent. They oppose x y and z but are lenient on p d and q which the Bible also condemns. What then? Is the goal to help the Christian church be more consistent? more faithful to what the Bible teaches? What exactly does Dudley want Christians to do? It would seem consistency and better understanding of tradition/history are not his true or ultimate concerns. Speaking of charades and honesty.

One last thing. Jonathan Dudley needs a mirror.

Whether the topic is hair length, celibacy, when life begins, or divorce, time and again, the leaders most opposed to gay marriage have demonstrated an incredible willingness to consider nuances and complicating considerations when their own interests are at stake.

See he actually makes a good point. How often are we just advancing our interests rather than what the Bible and/or Christian faith and tradition really teach? We need to ask ourselves that question. But what about progressive/liberal Christians?

Let me wax harsh for a moment. This was the part that struck me as downright offensive.

On the other hand, it’s not at all difficult for a community of Christian leaders, who are almost exclusively white, heterosexual men, to advocate interpretations that can be very impractical for a historically oppressed minority to which they do not belong – homosexuals.

Where to start? Dudley ignores and dismisses how many Christians who are neither white nor male? And he better not respond “yeah but those women and non-white Christians are just repeating what others tell them” which to be perfectly blunt is sexist and racist. As if women are not capable of forming their own opinions regardless of what men tell them. As if Christians of color are not capable. (That last sentence is exactly what many liberal Episcopalians often argue. I have seen it and have had people say it to my face.)

But let us think about this for a moment. It is somehow in the interest of white male heterosexuals to interpret Scripture and Christian tradition this way. Really? How? I have yet to hear a persuasive explanation. How exactly does a white male heterosexual benefit if he says “the Bible says no same-sex relations”? or for that matter “the Bible says no sleeping around with gorgeous women you are not married to”? or for that matter “no destroying an unborn child because you do not want her to be born”? or for that matter a host of other things?

Probably Dudley and/or others would offer some deconstructionist/theory-based scholarship or the like to demonstrate that yeah somehow such people do benefit. But I do not see it. Never have. Would it not be easier to say “well heck have sex with whomever or whatever you want”? Would it not be easier to say “child with Down’s Syndrome? abort it and don’t feel any guilt about it”?

If I embraced the whole progressive/liberal Christian panoply in many ways life would be easier. If nothing else would receive more approval and praise from the surrounding culture. The opposite of 1 Peter. But so far as I can tell the ones who truly benefit(?!?) are those who say “no no no the Bible and Christian tradition do not really restrain us so much from doing whatever we feel like doing”.

Dudley talks about “own interests” (see below). But how are more restrictive interpretations in our “own interests”? The opposite – that progressive/liberal Christians have their own desires in mind – appears more likely to be the case.

Dudley concludes his piece:

The [evangelical] community gave me many fond memories and sound values but it also taught me to take the very human perspectives of its leaders and attribute them to God.

So let’s stop the charade and be honest.

Opponents of gay marriage aren’t defending the Bible’s values. They’re using the Bible to defend their own.

He makes a leap here in these last paragraphs. I don’t think he has truly proven that opposition to same-sex relations or gay marriage or abortion are the very human perspectives of its leaders or not the Bible’s values. He might be right. But he has not really proven this. All he has done so far is raise good questions – good and fair questions – about tradition and consistency.

Set that aside for the moment. Dare we ask about the very human perspectives of the leaders of progressive-liberal Christianity? Do they never attribute those to God? Do they never engage in charade? Are they always honest with themselves and others? Are they always defending the Bible’s values? Do they never use the Bible to defend their own?

Based on a quick and dirty internet search Jonathan Dudley is a fine young man who is now studying medicine and already doing some wonderful things for people with regard to medical care. Glory to God for this. (And of course evangelical Christians do many of the exact same things and more.) I would respectfully ask the good doctor(-in-training) to examine himself as well.

Addendum:

Where are Roman Catholic and Orthodox Christianity in this discussion? It’s all very well to pick on evangelical Christians and their flaws. But traditional Christianity is much more than evangelical Christians in America. How might Roman Catholic or Orthodox Christians contribute to this discussion? Dare we find out?

Update 2011/06/22 - Our excellent friend Opinionated Catholic kindly links here but more importantly offers a few excellent points of his own. Note especially the problems with how Dudley deals with history/tradition particularly with regard to the Jovian controversy. Hate to say it but it looks like Dudley just mangles if not downright misrepresents the historical record. This is a serious problem that forces me to re-evaluate my estimation of Dudley as a student/scholar/writer. I often disagree with what someone writes but can respect the quality of their thinking/scholarship. But poor scholarship is just not acceptable even in defense of a position with which one happens to agree.

This raises the issue of why are progressives/liberals promoting this young man’s work when it does not hold up well to scrutiny? The question almost answers itself. “Look! A Christian and Bible scholar who agrees with us!” One is reminded of 1 Kings 22.

Update 07/12/2011:

I chose not to respond any further to the comments offered because (a) my policy has always been there is a point at which one needs to just let people have their say otherwise the back-and-forth will continue forever and (b) although some decent points were raised (seriously) they were buried in so much {could not think of a diplomatic way to say it} I decided they did not merit any further response.

Therefore I commend both the post and the replies-to-objections made by Josh Gelatt. He clearly has more familiarity with (a) history of philosophy and theology and (b) some of the biblical/textual issues than I and his response to Dudley (and his would-be defenders) is much better than the poor offering above. Which recommendation calls into question the rhetorically clever but empty claim that my post is “best but still bad”.

Where Gelatt writes from a Reformed Baptist point of view let me also mention “A Critique of Jonathan Dudley’s ‘Take’” by Joe Hargrave at Non Nobis. He writes from a firmly Catholic point of view. Like the Opinionated Catholic – who *ahem* is not a Louisiana Tech undergraduate – he also suggests that the article by Dudley (along with Protestant replies thereto) demonstrates a serious problem with Protestantism and its emphasis on sola scriptura. In other words the debate over same-sex relations is a very Protestant debate. I am inclined to agree. Although I would argue that one does not have to be a Roman Catholic to see problems with the piece by Dudley.

Another Protestant response is “A Response to Jonathan Dudley” at Know It’s True.

Update 2011/08/21:

Despite (1) let people have their say and (2) some comments might not merit response – I was curious about the comment that Robert Gagnon recognizes the problem of argument from nature in Romans 1 regarding same-sex relations but regarding long hair for women in 1 Corinthians 11. Not exactly. Yes Gagnon recognizes the similarity between Paul’s argumentation in both pericopes (the relevant pages are 373-384) but does not conclude it represents a problem the way Jonathan Dudley presents. One can disagree with Gagnon’s analysis and conclusions but it is not accurate to imply Gagnon agrees with Dudley on this point.

Notes from Evensong talk on Emmaus narrative from Luke 24 last night May 15 2011. Newly called co-pastors Mike Massar and Griff Martin were present. Got a lot of strong positive feedback on this.

Paradigmatic texts of the Bible – those that summarize or frame life in relationship with God

microcosms – deep rich inexhaustible stories of the Bible
Isaiah 6
Romans 8(?)
Luke 24

Microcosms -> astronomy
color picture = 3 pictures in 3 different colors
not one color picture but 3 combined

Luke 24
3 post-resurrection stories of transformation
3 women :: empty tomb and angels (no Jesus)
2 of them :: recognize Jesus in breaking of bread
11 :: direct encounter of risen Christ

So we can read Walk to Emmaus as one of a series of three stories

3-4 years ago staff meeting
Jay and plan to share vision over 6 months
focusing on Luke 24
his read of the story
my read of the story – not against his but different
cannot remember what I said

If in astronomy take 3+ pictures in 3+ different wavelengths -> what are 3+ ways to look at Luke 24?

1) Relationship

2) Presence

3) Knowledge/Understanding

1) Relationship

2 of them – deliberate ambiguity (men? married couple?)

Jesus is the stranger = paroikos = lives somewhere not their home
2 disciples welcome the stranger
talk with him = questions and listening and answers

note – not we go there but they come here
the paroikoi come to us – what do we do when they come here?

consider Acts and Passover and Pentecost
nations come to Jerusalem
then Jerusalem to the nations
centripetal and centrifugal movements in Christian mission (David Bosch)

conversation
hospitality
welcome to our home
share a meal together
(separation?)

2) Presence

Where is Jesus? -> Where is God present? (main issue of post-resurrection narratives)

dualities of divine presence in Luke 24

1. individual and communal

Jesus and me
Jesus and us – we overlook?

2. Bible and sacrament

word and ritual
is Jesus somehow present in communion?

3. memory and experience

recognize presence in the moment
but also in memory -> now I see how God was there!

3) Knowledge/Understanding

Movement from not knowing/understanding/recognizing -> recognize/understand/know/proclaim

not know – where is Jesus? what now?
not recognize
not understand – here the Scriptures

conversation with questions – although Jesus asks first

kerygma – basic story of Jesus who he is what he did
not theology and not Bible – just telling the basic story
summary of Christian faith ~ Apostles Creed?
for Baptists :: hymnal?

Scripture

Eucharist/Communion/Lord’s Supper -> ritual worship

then they recognize // understand // (memory) // know

the Lord is risen indeed!

testimony -> share what they know (experienced) with others

(Still room for mystery -> Jesus disappears from their sight)

Is there a way to put these 3 pictures together and form one? one pictures that represents the life of the Christian community centered around liturgy (word and ritual)? the story of Emmaus is our story – story of this church family?

We are on a journey. Sometimes a journey to Baton Rouge / always within Baton Rouge / sometimes from Baton Rouge. We have questions. About the news. About life. About God. This is a place where people can ask questions. Where someone listens to us. Is interested in who we are where we are from and what are we doing here. Where we share the basic message about Jesus Christ the Son of God. Where we study the Bible together. Where we worship together. Practice hospitality together. You come to my house. You invite us to your apartment. We share meals together. Friend chicken / beans and spinach / tea eggs and bigos / fufu and Kigali and grapefruit jello. We experience the love and presence of God together. We share our stories with each other. We discover and learn things together. And although it breaks my heart sometimes we get up and return to where we came from. And always we hear and carry with us and share the paschal proclamation It is true! Christ is risen! The Lord is risen indeed! (from sermon on Luke 24 to Church of the Nations in May 2011)