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.

“Left alone [Melkor/Morgoth] could only have gone raging on till all was levelled again into a formless chaos” – J. R. R. Tolkien (Morgoth’s Ring, 396)

“The spirit in revolt consequently acquires a hatred of being, a frenzy to destroy, a thirst for an impossible nothingness” -Vladimir Lossky (Orthodox Theology, 82)

“Therefore as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned” – Romans 5:12 (Revised Standard Version)

The apostle Paul says it simply and clearly. How did death enter the world? Through sin. And how did sin enter the world? Through Adam.

(Not Eve. Which is interesting. And sheds some light on how Paul uses the Old Testament.)

So is death punishment from God for sin? In my opinion no. Although death puts a limit on human rebellion. It is one thing to have a free personal being in revolt against God. It is entirely another if that free personal being in revolt against God is immortal and/or indestructible. Consider Balor from the Space:1999 episode “End of Eternity”.

Rather the first human beings in Genesis 2-3 were not immortal. At least not yet. Perhaps if Adam and Eve had chosen for God and not against they would have been permitted to eat of the tree of life.

Then the LORD God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil; and now, lest he put forth his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever” — 23 therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from which he was taken. (RSV)

It is only after the man knows good and evil – has arrogated unto himself the authority to decide what is good and evil? – that God decides it is necessary to send the human beings out of the garden so that they cannot eat from the tree of life and live for ever. Death is a response/consequence of the revolt.

There is another way to look at this. Consider the psychology of evil. If God is the source of life and we choose against God there is a sense in which we have chosen death. Sin is inherently a movement toward death. Again not so much in terms of punishment. But (a) result/consequence and (b) direction away from God who is the source of life.

Why is this important? Because lately I have begun to notice more clearly the relationship between sin and death. By which I mean how much of what we recognize as sin somehow a movement toward death? How much of what we recognize as sin is destructive or self-destructive or even both? I am beginning to wonder if we can discern a pattern.

Now here is where I might step on some toes. Including my own. Because I would rather not discuss Christian theology and politics together in the same post.

I have been struggling to understand why generally speaking certain social-political-cultural views and practices seem to cluster. For example why people who reject the Christian faith – notice how I phrased that not merely faithful members of other religions – are so obsessed with sex. By which I mean it seems to terribly important that people not constrain or restrain themselves in any way. Do it when you want with whom you want. And while they are at it who needs that oppressive institution known as marriage?

(Most of my undergraduate and graduate studies focused on ancient West Asian aka Near/Middle Eastern civilizations such as the Sumerians Akkadians Egyptians Hebrews and so on. I have read and/or collated dozens of ancient marriage contracts. My point being that for thousands of years people who were not Christian or Jewish have thought the legal-cultural institution known as marriage is a great thing.)

And on top of that sex without producing children. So everybody needs to use contraception. And when contraception fails – or was never used – legal elective abortion.

Now do not misunderstand me. I acknowledge that some Christians support and some atheists oppose legal elective abortion. And many Christians have no problems with birth control. And I am not saying anything for or against either of these – neither am I judging anyone who supports or has done either of these. But the hard cold biological fact is that the primary function of sexual intercourse is reproduction – or if you will the creation of new life.

So one the one hand we have people who adamantly oppose any – or at least most surely they would draw the line somewhere – restraints on sexual behavior. On an activity whose original primary function is (a) to create new life and/or (b) to overcome death. (On the latter aspect see Orthodox Theology by Vladimir Lossky p ???.)

And on the other hand they want to make sure that this activity never – or rarely – results in the creation of new life. Either by prevention the creation of new life – contraception. Or by destroying the preborn life that this activity creates – elective abortion.

(For the record there is a reason my wife and I have two children. Without going into detail yes we have used different methods of birth control.)

What prompted me to make this mental connection(?) is something Tony Rossi wrote recently about the movie and more importantly the novel Children of Men by P D James:

Recalling the evolution of the infertility problem, Theo says, “We thought that we knew the reasons — that the fall was deliberate, a result of more liberal attitudes to birth control and abortion, the postponement of pregnancy by professional women, the wish of families for a higher standard of living . . . Most of us thought the fall was desirable, even necessary. We were polluting the planet with our numbers . . . When Omega came it came with dramatic suddenness and was received with incredulity.”

Described in these terms, the story seems like an all too plausible scenario. In a society that has largely divorced sex from procreation, no one ever followed that attitude about reproductive choice to its logical if unlikely conclusion. Now, Omega has arrived and the despair is overwhelming.

There is a marked increase in suicides by middle-aged people who would “bear the brunt of an ageing and decaying society’s humiliating but insistent needs.” Also, every reminder of children (schools, toys, playgrounds) has been removed from the public landscape “except for the dolls, which have become for some half-demented women a substitute for children.”

People’s attitudes toward sex have also changed in an unexpected way. Theo says, “Sex has become among the least important of man’s sensory pleasures. One might have imagined that with the fear of pregnancy permanently removed, and the unerotic paraphernalia of pills, rubber and ovulation arithmetic no longer necessary, sex would be freed for new and imaginative delights. The opposite has happened. Even those men and women who would normally have no wish to breed apparently need the assurance that they could have a child if they wished. Sex totally divorced from procreation has become almost meaninglessly acrobatic.” (emphasis added)

According to P D James in The Children of Men what is the logical conclusion of unrestrained sex without procreation? Death. And despair.

Drugs and other addictions. Consider the misery and destruction caused by people who grow/make and sell drugs. Consider the self-destructive nature of drug use and alcohol addiction. Is that significant aspect of modern life largely an attempt to achieve non-existence?

Violence and oppression. What is Moammar Gadaffi doing right now if not attempting to destroy those he cannot control? Communism – in the Soviet Union in China in Cambodia and elsewhere – has killed more human beings that any religion.

And this is where I might really cross a line or two.

Why does the political-cultural left seem to ally itself with radical Islam? Could it be the movement toward death is something they share in common?

The recent turmoil in Wisconsin. Which of course is only an opening skirmish in the period of soft civil war which the United States may be entering. I understand not wanting to lose money and benefits. Been there done that myself and members of my family. But what we have is an entirely unsustainable trend. Spending/committing more and more money we simply do not and will not have. So why not tax the rich? Well first of all if we appropriate every dollar made by the rich – defined how exactly? – we still would not have enough for the obligations facing us. Second many of the rich would change their behavior and make it more difficult to take their money. Third of all eventually we would run out of money period. Total economic collapse. Anarchy. Chaos. Greece anyone?

There is a sense in which one group that lives off another group – fairly or unfairly or both – may eventually kill its host. Even our current political and economic policies are – when you scratch beneath the surface – taking us inevitably toward death.

I am greatly distressed by the apparent movement toward mob rule in Wisconsin. Do these protesters stop and wonder what would happen if everyone behaved the way they do and took that behavior and rhetoric to their logical conclusions? Can you imagine? Can they imagine?

Well we should care about the poor right? Yes indeed. And keep transferring money to them right? Perhaps it matters how we do that. Because consider the circumstances in which millions of poor African-Americans – and others – live in many of our cities. Are they not surrounded by the threat the fear the reality of death?

Let me conclude with a few qualifying remarks.

First this is a work in progress. I could be wrong. I could be very wrong about some or much or all of the above. But I am attempting to figure out the pattern that unites things I observe that otherwise do not seem to make sense.

Wright’s First Rule of Epistemology.

In any given set of data the anomalous elements are the key to understanding the whole.

Second I want to be careful about how this applies to the conscious motivations of real people. I am sure most people are not consciously trying to destroy themselves or other people. What I suggest is that even when we do not consciously realize it sinful behavior might at some level be an attempt to embrace death/deny life.

Which leads to third I am sure many people who (a) are not Christians and/or (b) are atheists are consciously(?) trying to embrace and nurture life. I am sure many people who are doctors who research new medicines who develop new technologies – or who just plain work to pay the bills and take care of their families you know? – as far as they are aware are trying to live and preserve life.

H/T The Anchoress for the Children of Men article

I have never entirely understood the connection(?) between sin and death.

Let me confess that I am not much of a Satanologist. What do I mean by that? That in my understanding and teaching of the Christian faith do not emphasize the Devil/Satan/Lucifer.

Why? For at least three main reasons. First because it seems to give too much credit to evil. When bad things happen to Christians and they claim they are under attack from Satan I wonder “wow do you really think he has that much power?”

Second because I would rather emphasize the power and goodness of God than the power and activity of his enemies. Prayer is primarily about communion with God rather than praying against Satan.

And third because I was educated primarily by Jewish scholars and a primary focus of my years of graduate study was the Hebrew Bible aka Old Testament. And so my personal understanding of the Christian faith is heavily colored by the Old Testament in which Satan is at most a minor figure who appears quite late.

Speaking of the Old Testament. In the Old Testament there are forces that are opposed to God. It is not always clear however if these forces are personal or impersonal. The impersonal forces are the forces of chaos in various forms. Tehom. Leviathan. Behemoth. The sea(s). Creation in the Old Testament is not only calling something into existence. Creation includes bringing order – more specifically a just and compassionate order – out of chaos. See especially Creation and the Persistence of Evil: The Drama of Divine Omnipotence by Jon Levenson.

But surely those forces opposed to the purposes of God are also personal. There are occasional references to other deities – however these are understood – such as Baal. The plague narratives in Exodus are partly about the victory of Yahweh over the gods(?) of Egypt. And the best example is pharaoh in the book of Exodus – oddly unnamed perhaps because he represents more than a single historical figure. See the commentary on Exodus by Terence Freitheim in the Interpretation series.

What I am still trying to figure out – and here I speak more as a scholar of the Old Testament than as a Christian pastor – is the relationship between chaos and what we might call (moral) evil. Is Satan simply the personification – dare we say hypostatization? hey that’s pretty good – of the primordial watery chaos which God restrains in Genesis 1 and later Genesis 7-8?

Or is chaos a symptom or manifestation of (moral) evil – understood as free beings (angelic or human) who choose against God?

Perhaps we can phrase the question as which came first – chaos or evil?

I would suggest that the Hebrew Bible seems to say chaos. But Christian theology would say evil – here understood as free personal beings acting in revolt against God.

Enter the Orthodox theologian Vladimir Lossky in his 137 summa theologicae entitled Orthodox Theology. He writes:

Evil originated therefore in the spiritual sin of the angel. And the attitude of Lucifer reveals to us the root of every sin: pride as revolt against God. He who was first called to deification by grace wishes to be God by himself. The root of sin is thus the third for self-deification, the hatred of grace. Remaining dependent on God in his very being, since his being was created by God, the spirit in revolt consequently acquires a hatred of being, a frenzy to destroy, a thirst for an impossible nothingness. (emphasis added) [ibid. 81-82]

This is a remarkable paragraph. For my purposes what is striking is not what Lossky says regarding the origin of evil so much as how he describes the psychology of evil.

A hatred of being. A frenzy to destroy. A thirst for an impossible nothingness.

Hold that thought because we will come back to it.

What Lossky wrote reminds me of another remarkable paragraph by J. R. R. Tolkien in Morgoth’s Ring The History of Middle Earth volume 10 edited by Christopher Tolkien. No serious student of Tolkien can afford to be without this book.

In an obscure discussion on the differences between Sauron and Melkor/Morgoth we find the following description of the psychology of Melkor/Morgoth who is the closest analogue to Satan/Lucifer.

Thus, as ‘Morgoth’, when Melkor was confronted by the existence of other inhabitants of Arda, with other wills and intelligences, he was enraged by the mere fact of their existence, and his only notion of dealing with them was by physical force, or the fear of it. His sole ultimate object was their destruction….

Hence his endeavor always to break wills and subordinate them to o absorb them into his own will and being, before destroying their bodies. This was sheer nihilism, and negation its one ultimate object: Morgoth would no doubt, if he had been victorious, have ultimately destroyed even his own ‘creatures’, such as the Orcs….

Melkor’s final impotence and despair lay in this: … Melkor could do nothing with Arda, which was no from his own mind and was interwoven with the work and thoughts of others: even left alone he could only have gone raging on till all was levelled again into a formless chaos. And yet even so he would have been defeated, because it would still have ‘existed’. (emphasis added) [ibid. 395, 396]

Sauron was merely a control freak. Melkor/Morgoth on the other hand was a nihilist consumed with a hatred of being. Moral evil – here revolt against Eru Iluvatar. Its ultimate goal to reduce creation unto formless chaos.

The psychology of evil. And its relationship to (no longer so primordial?) chaos.

(To be continued)

I admit not looking forward to hearing/reading the President’s speech at the memorial service in Arizona. Ace of Spades HQ had mixed reactions. My excellent friend Jonathan called it the “best speech of his life”. So grit my teeth and read the transcript.

Here’s how it starts.

To the families of those we’ve lost; to all who called them friends; to the students of this university, the public servants gathered tonight, and the people of Tucson and Arizona:  I have come here tonight as an American who, like all Americans, kneels to pray with you today, and will stand by you tomorrow.

There is nothing I can say that will fill the sudden hole torn in your hearts.  But know this: the hopes of a nation are here tonight.  We mourn with you for the fallen.  We join you in your grief.  And we add our faith to yours that Representative Gabrielle Giffords and the other living victims of this tragedy pull through.

As Scripture tells us:

There is a river whose streams make glad the city of God,
the holy place where the Most High dwells.
God is within her, she will not fall;
God will help her at break of day.

And it only gets stronger.

There is a certain hubris – please note the word – in daring to evaluate critique dissect any speech given at such a solemn occasion. I would like to come back and emphasize certain elements of it – positively – but for now let me simply say thank you sir.

I have criticized this president and his administration quite harshly. For this I do not repent.

But it was reverent. Genuinely reverent in the sense that Paul Woodruff describes in his book Reverence.

Could we sift through it with a fine comb and quibble with this or that? Could we ask cynical questions about who wrote it and whether he will live up to his own rhetoric? Could we critique elements of the memorial service that resembled a political rally?

Yeah.

But I also believe that when there is an opportunity to praise and encourage something that is genuinely good we should seize it.* That among other things is what true reverence is all about.

*In our public schools this is called Positive Behavior Reinforcement. Unfortunately as some of the comments at Ace of Spades HQ and National Review Online indicate some erstwhile conservatives fail to grasp this simple point. If we disagree with 98% of what someone says and does should we not praise that person when he says or does something with which we agree?!?

The excellent Opinionated Catholic – your one stop portal for Catholic and Football news – recently had an interesting post about Pittsburgh Steelers player Troy Polamalu and his Orthodox Christian faith.

I wanted to follow up by focusing on a couple interesting things Polamalu said in his interview with Ann Rodgers of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.

Liturgy of the heart

Polamalu says in this interview:

Before he became Orthodox, he said, songs in church sometimes moved him to tears. He now distrusts those passing feelings.

“I’d start crying and feel ‘This is awesome.’ If I’d had a Red Bull, I’d feel it even more. If I’d had breakfast, I’d feel good. If I didn’t have breakfast, I didn’t feel anything, I was grumpy,” he said.

“It was a very superficial experience. I was thinking, ‘God, why did I not feel you today?’ because I wasn’t feeling the music today. Orthodoxy is very sensitive to that, to take the emotion out of it, to really go after the heart.” (emphasis added)

Several weeks ago I addressed this very issue in “Beyond worship as emotivism or rationality – liturgy of the heart”. My observation is that sometimes in Protestant Christianity the goal of worship – especially more evangelical/contemporary forms – appears to be generating a particular emotional response.

What struck me in particular was what one might call emotivism. The worship and reports and prayers – especially the sermon – seemed largely oriented toward evoking an emotional response. We need to care! We need to cry! We need to repent! We need to get stuff done for the kingdom of God! An intense emotional response that would lead to renewed commitment and thence to renewed action.

Now it would be dishonest to imply I never judge and evaluate experiences that way. And how exactly does one distinguish worship that stirs up emotions versus worship that engages the heart? Nevertheless I appreciate what Polamalu says and agree that worship that engages the heart – not emotions or rationality – is the goal.

It’s not just about winning

Polamalu also says during the interview:

He doesn’t claim that practicing the faith improves athletics. The player known for crossing himself on the field has seen his faith grow more from his injuries than his interceptions.

“When I got injured, I learned so much from it spiritually, just thanking God for the health that I had when I was healthy,” he said.

“People have this idea that the more pious and devout I am, the more successful I am. Which is very dangerous. If you look at faith in that way, you’re bound to fail at both — spiritually and in your career.”

This also got my attention. I could be wrong but it seems that sometimes Christians in almost any vocation/profession focus on how God helps us be successful. Believe in Jesus so that you can have a happier healthier more successful life.

Polamalu doesn’t go there. One is reminded of the apostle Paul when he wrote:

But [the Lord] said to me, “My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.” Therefore I will boast all the more gladly about my weaknesses, so that Christ’s power may rest on me. 10 That is why, for Christ’s sake, I delight in weaknesses, in insults, in hardships, in persecutions, in difficulties. For when I am weak, then I am strong.
- 2 Corinthians 12:9-10 (New International Version)

Good words and testimony.

H/T Opinionated Catholic

Luke 20 is one of the lections for this Sunday the 24th Sunday of Pentecost year C.

Bet you didn’t buy a greeting card for that.

The famous and in fact only exchange between Jesus and the Sadducees in the book of Luke.

I will be preaching on this text again this Sunday. And will emphasize that the Christian faith does not teach what we often call immortality of the soul. It teaches resurrection of the dead.

First a point of self-correction. Although the Sadducees ask a question about the resurrection in the future the response Jesus gives is not primarily a defense of resurrection in the future so much as a demonstration of life with God in the present.

Joseph Kommanchak marvelously compares comments by N T Wright with commentary by Thomas Aquinas.

Aquinas quotes the Orthodox(?) bishop Theophylact with reference to Luke 20:

If the patriarchs had returned to nothing so as not to live with God in the hope of a resurrection, He would not have said, ‘I am,” but “I was,” which is the way we usually speak of things dead and gone, e.g., ‘I was the lord or master of that thing.’ But since he said, “I am,” He shows that He is the God and Lord of the living. This is what follows: ‘But he is not a God of the dead, but of the living, for all live unto him.’ For although they have departed from life, yet they live with Him in the hope of a resurrection.”

Compare Wright:

Jesus’ answer to the Sadducees, in fact, does point towards the refocusing of the resurrection hope which was to take place later, not least through the work of Paul. It speaks of a different quality of life, a life which death can no longer touch, and hence a life in which the normal parameters of mortal (i.e. deathbound) life, including procreative marriage, are no longer relevant. It speaks of an intermediate state in which all the righteous dead are held in some kind of ongoing life while waiting for the resurrection which everyone, Pharisees and Sadducee alike, knew perfectly well had not happened yet. It speaks about YHWH’s past word to Moses, in order to indicate a present reality (the patriarchs are still alive), in order thereby to affirm the future hope (they will be raised to a newly embodied life). [emphasis added]

How delightful to see this confluence of Orthodox with Catholic with Anglican commentary!

So when my excellent teacher in seminary Isam Ballenger emphasized “Christianity does not teach immortality of the soul it teaches resurrection” that is mostly but not entirely correct. There is a kind of continuation of the soul beyond death. But without resurrection of the body this continuation is an incomplete form of immortality(?). Komanchak quotes Aquinas on 1 Corinthians 15:

Two answers may be given. First, if the resurrection of the body is denied, it is not easy, in fact it is difficult, to maintain the immortality of the soul. For the soul is naturally united to the body, and for it to be separated from it is against its nature and per accidens; soul stripped of its body is imperfect for as long as it is without its body. Now it is impossible that what is natural and per se be finite and almost nothing, while what is against nature and per accidens is infinite, [which is what would be the case] if the soul were to perdure without its body. That is why Platonists, positing immortality, also posited reincarnation, even though this is heretical. Therefore, if the dead do not rise, it is only in this life that we have hope.

Second, man naturally desires the salvation of himself. But the soul, although it is a part of the human body, is not the whole man, and my soul is not me [anima mea non est ego]. Hence, although the soul attains salvation in another life, I do not, nor does anyone else. Besides, since man naturally desires salvation of his body also, that natural desire would be frustrated [without the resurrection of the body].

This may by the way represent a definitive answer to my earlier post “Those who ‘sleep’ (or) Moebius syllogism?”

Let me confess that on the one hand my conviction that the teaching of the resurrection is one of the essential teachings of the Christian faith but on the other hand is the teaching I find most difficult to believe.

God? Okay. Trinity? You bet. Jesus the God-man? Sure why not?

Resurrection of the dead? Oh man that’s hard. Hard to conceive. Hard to imagine. Hard to believe. So far removed from our normal day to day existence that this is where the scientific(?) rational(?) side of me says are you kidding me?!?

Do not misunderstand. I believe it. Teach it. Proclaim it. Base my life upon it. But where I too cry out “I believe Lord help my unbelief!”

One of funnier moments in Introduction to Christian Mission was when Isam Ballenger then wondered aloud:

How much does God need to resurrect? And what happens if I lose part of my body during life? What if I cut my fingernail or lose an arm? Will I get that nail or arm back? My my my! (very paraphrased from rough memory)

Yeah we had a short laugh at that. But what he said has haunted me since. His questions raise a serious issue. How exactly will we be raised?

Let me put it this way. What if we cut our nails – how long will they be at the resurrection? What if we lose an arm – will we get it back?

Let us raise the stakes. What if we never had an arm – will our resurrected bodies now have arms? What if we have extra digits or limbs – will we have the usual number? What if we are deaf or blind – will our resurrected bodies be able to hear or see? What if we are hermaphroditic – will we be one clear distinct sex? What if we have Down’s Syndrome – will we have a complete set of chromosomes? What if we have dwarfism – will we be normal size? What if we are conjoined twins – will we have separate bodies?

The last group of questions are more difficult because if we say yes then what are we saying about people with these characteristics? I have read of deaf people who are offended by the notion that they will hear after the resurrection because they regard their deafness as difference rather than something that needs to be “fixed” even by God.

Let us continue with some more general questions. How old will we be? Will someone who died at 110 be raised as if they are 30? Will someone who died at birth be raised as if they are 20? And since resurrected life is theologically continuation of this life then what kind of memories and personality will a resurrected infant have?

Hold that thought.

Will we have sex? Probably not.

Will we reproduce? Probably not.

Will we eat and drink? This is a serious question because the reason we eat and drink and breathe is so that we will not die. As one of my teachers Alan McNeil at Cornell University said “the Second Law of Thermodynamics is why we eat lunch”. But if the resurrection signifies the final defeat of death and we will never die then why would we need to eat drink and breathe? For the fun of it? Quite possibly. The Bible frequently refers to the eschatological banquet.

Okay then. Will we go to the bathroom? How will the resurrected body metabolize food and drink?

Oh right. Science-fiction.

The most serious attempt to wrestle with the implications of resurrection is the Riverworld series by Philip Jose Farmer. No matter how old you were you are “resurrected” having a particular age. Although there is a special planet set apart for people younger than 5 – so that they have a chance to learn and grow. Farmer also attempts to explore the exact “technology” that would allow resurrection. Every human being from conception(? trying to recall) has a wathan which is an artificially created “soul” that retains a perfect record of the whole person and his/her life and personality.

Obviously Farmer’s theoretical version of resurrection is not the reality that the Christian faith teaches. But it is the only serious attempt to flesh out *cough* what resurrection of the dead would look like in practice.

I believe in the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come.

But I have some questions. Which may not matter.

Amen.

H/T The Anchoress by the way.

The deacons of University Baptist Church asked me to lead the ordination process for one of my fellow ministers who is not yet ordained.

The church by-laws are not very clear on what exactly is the process.

In the event the Church is requested to license or ordain applicants to the ministry, the applicant shall present to the Pastor a written application, including explanation of both personal conversion experience and call to the ministry. The applicant should attach a record of education and provide a list of three references. The Pastor shall investigate, as he deems necessary. The Pastor shall appoint a committee of three Church members to aid in the investigation. Their findings and recommendations will be presented to the Deacons. Upon approval, the applicant will be presented to the Church for a final decision. Upon approval of the Church, the Pastor is authorized to implement Licensing and Ordination.

The by-law raises almost as many questions as it answers. What exactly is the pastor supposed to investigate? what findings are we looking for? what are the criteria for whether or not to ordain someone?

But these questions arise partly because of a larger question. What is ordination?

The dirty little secret is that Baptists have almost no theology of ordination. So who do we ordain? why? and what does ordination do? I did ask the candidate for an explanation of her understanding of ordination as well. Not as a test. But just to see what does she think we are doing?

I spent an afternoon searching through books on theology and Baptist history looking for answers to these questions. The results were disappointing but not surprising.

In seminary our primary textbooks for Christian theology were Ethics and Theology by the Baptist theologian W. James McClendon. There are only two brief references to ordination. And McClendon never truly explains it.(a)

The famous Baptist Faith and Message 1963 statement – one of the reasons I became a Baptist during my second year at university – says absolutely nothing about ordination. All it says is that the officers of the church are pastors and deacons. The 2000 statement is exactly the same except it adds that women cannot be senior pastors. Which means it says nothing about ordaining them.

I searched through Baptist Confessions of Faith by William Lumpkin. Most of them say something along these lines:(b)

• The officers of the church are pastors and deacons.
• The church ordains by laying on hands after prayer and fasting.

(Which is interesting because in twelve years with this congregation one sees little prayer and no fasting associated with the process of ordination.)

So at best we can surmise that ordination represents setting someone apart for a particular role in the church. The primary role of pastors seems to be preaching and teaching and watching over the flock. And since the candidate in question is a full time vocational minister clearly we are considering whether to ordain her as a minister/pastor not a deacon.

This in turn raises awkward questions about what happens if we ordain her as a minister-not-senior(?)-pastor. The Baptist Faith and Message 2000 statement clearly states no women can be senior pastors. But how would the local Baptist association? the state convention? the Southern Baptist Convention respond if we ordain a woman as a minister but not as a senior pastor? There are Baptists associations that have removed congregations for ordaining women not as senior(?) pastors but simply as staff ministers. Since the 2000 statement says nothing about ordination or women as staff ministers clearly these Baptist associations apply the statement beyond its actual wording.

It is quite possible that if we ordain this person it will damage or end our relationship with the Baptist Association of Greater Baton Rouge. That does not mean we should not ordain her.

Speaking of her.

To me the issue is not “should we ordain women?” The issue for Baptist Christians is “why do we ordain?” I do not see how we can debate or object to the ordination of women as ministers or pastors until we first figure out how Baptists understand and therefore practice ordination.

Other Christian traditions have a clear theology of ordination. Typically along one or both of these lines:

• apostolic succession
• the authority(? right? power?) to perform sacraments

But Baptists have no real concept of apostolic succession. And no real concept of sacraments. Even McClendon – who stretches the envelope of Baptist theology in ways I appreciate – goes no farther than outlining the concept of effective signs. So how is an ordained minister or deacon different from someone who is not ordained? Often the answer is “no different at all”. Ordination is understood primarily in terms of affirmation and setting apart. Which mean what exactly?

Do not misunderstand me. I will do this just as I led the ordination service for a deacon who happens to be a woman. But these are some of the questions that challenge us as we journey through this process toward the ritual of ordination and what it means for the life and work of the Christian church.

Notes:

a) “Ordination may rightly be included here if we see it as partial recognition of distinctive vocations in the kingdom of God” (McClendon, Theology, 144).

b) See “A Short Confession, 1610″ sections 23-27 (Lumpkin, Baptist Confessions of Faith, 108-109) especially “Yet is not every one therefore a teacher, elder, or deacon, but only such as are orderly appointed to such offices. Therefore, also, the administration of the said offices or duties pertaineth only to those who are ordained thereto, and not to every particular common person”.

Also “English Declaration at Amsterdam, 1611″ sections 20-21 (ibid. 121-122) especially “That the Officers off everie Church or congregation are either Elders, who by their office do especially feed the flock concerning their soules, or Deacon Men, and Women”.

Also “London Confession, 1644″ sections XLIV-XLV (ibid. 168) especially “And as Christ for the keeping of this Church in holy and orderly Communion, placeth some speciall men over the Church, who by their office are to governe, oversee, visit, watch”.

“Second London Confession, 1677″ chapter XXVI sections 8-10 (ibid. 286-287) “A particular Church gathering, and completely Organized, according to the mind of Christ, consists of Officers, and Members; And the Officers appointed by Christ to be chosen and set apart by the Church (so called and gathered) for the peculiar Administration of Ordinances, and Execution of Power, or Duty, which he intrusts them with, or calls them to, to be continued to the end of the World, are Bishops or Elders and Deacons.

“The work of Pastors being constantly to attend the Service of Christ, in his Churches, in the Ministry of the Word, and Prayer, with watching for their Souls, as they that must give an account to him”.

“The Orthodox Creed, 1679″ section XXXI (ibid. 319-320) is nearly identical to the Second London Confession, 1677.

Granted this is but a sampling. But does give some idea concerning not so much how ordination is performed as ritual but how ordination is understood in terms of who we ordain and why. The above emphasize setting apart for a particular office with special responsibility for the spiritual condition of the congregation.

Update: 2010-10-13

Sure enough Dale Moody in The Word of Truth – arguably one of the best Baptist theologies of the 20th century – has a good discussion of the issue (452-460) although he does not fully or finally resolve the question(s) of what exactly is ordination within the Baptist tradition. He does however explore the biblical evidence exceptionally well. With regard to the apostles he emphasizes the importance of dynamis and exousia – power and authority. With regard to the epistles he emphasizes the importance of charismata and cheirotonia – spiritual-gifts and ordination (literally “hand-stretching/laying”). With regard to the Pastoral epistles he emphasizes 1-2 Timothy and what appears to be the “pouring of one man’s powers into another man” (ibid. 158). Moody clearly and strongly distinguishes charismatic and official ministries within the Christian church. He summarizes:

The picture that develops is one of a large charismatic circle that includes all the people of God, all members of the body of Christ; but some members with unusual gifts and qualifications are set aside for special ministries that have official status…. There is no reason why those “who live by the gospel” should not be consecrated to the life to which they have given themselves. (ibid. 159-160)

It would appear that an important ingredient in any discussion of ordination is not just gifts and not just office but also whether this is the primary (perhaps life-long but not necessarily) vocation to which the ordinand commits.

Unknown; Illustrator of 'Speculum humanae salvationis', Cologne, c. 1450

(Ed – when I speak to Evensong on Sunday evenings I do not prepare a full “manuscript” but rather use brief notes. So when I “publish” them I throw in some some words here and there to help the reader make sense of something that is not much more than an outline.)

(Relationship between physical salvation/actions and spiritual transformation/salvation)
2 Kings 05
Richard M. Wright
Evensong
University Baptist Church
August 08 2010

[2 Kings 5:1-15]

What is salvation?

What is the relationship between salvation and physical reality? How do we understand salvation in spiritual terms and/or physical terms?

Story of Naaman one of my favorite in Scripture. Several dimensions of the narrative to explore.

Naaman – a foreigner. Enemy state. Worships different god. “Through him the Lord had given victory to Aram”.

Israelite girl – normally “us/native”. Foreigner. Captured. Worships Yhwh.

Powerful but powerless. Powerless but powerful.

Success and brokenness. Naaman is “successful” – king likes him his men like him he probably has a nice house and a good salary. But he experiences “brokenness” in the form of a disease.  All that in verse 1!

Men and women/girls. Role of women in story. Especially Israelite slave and Naaman’s wife.

Servants. Israelite girl slave versus servant of Elisha.

Immigration policy and procedure. Naaman enemy general visits Israel. How does that work exactly?

What is the problem? Verse 1. Naaman is a great man but he has a disease. Issue is physical healing. Naaman needs salvation. Here salvation in the physical sense.

What does he expect? Perhaps religion and/or magic. Based on human pride and effort. “Elisha will come to me. Wave his hands say the magic words”. And then Naaman will pay for the service.

What does he get? Something simple. Not dramatic. No magic words. Take a bath. Seven times. All he said was “wash and be clean”. If you would do something hard would you do something simple? Washes and his flesh is returned to him clean like a small boy and he is clean.

Earlier in story Elisha says to king of Israel, “So that he will know there is a prophet in Israel”. Then he says, “Now I know there is no God in all the earth except in Israel. I will no longer offer or sacrifice to any god except Yhwh”. Issue of physical salvation (healing) now becomes spiritual transformation. Salvation in the spiritual sense.

What is the problem? Disease. What is the issue? Naaman will know God.

What is salvation? For Naaman salvation means physical healing. For story (also?) spiritual transformation. Salvation as relationship with God. (Verb shub in story – “returned to him clean” – can mean “turn/return to God”. Tshubah in later Hebrew “repentance”. Naaman does not use shub to talk about healing in Syria. But servants do not use shub in “wash and be clean”. Story understands his healing in terms of shub even if Naaman and servants do not. This may not be valid interpretation especially since tshubah as “repentance” is post-biblical Hebrew.) The story presents salvation as physical reality. And salvation as spiritual reality.

Chris Andrew of First Methodist last Sunday raised this issue. Salvation is about forgiveness and eternal life and heaven. But not only that. In Hebrew Bible salvation always has concrete meaning. When we talk about salvation solely in spiritual terms we cheapen and limit its meaning.

In the Old Testament: Save me! from my enemies. From sickness. From death. Salvation as healing or rescue.

Several months ago (when Church of the Nations met with University Baptist Church) I talked about salvation as healing. Several times in the book of Luke – “You faith has saved you”. Physical healing. Emotional/mental healing. Social healing. New Testament also save/salvation often physical reality. And often spiritual reality. But raises question of whether they are so separate.

Back to Naaman story.

Physical condition. Physical act – wash in water. Physical healing. But also spiritual result.

Or physical/spiritual condition. Spiritual/physical act – because Naaman trusts Elisha/God. This produces a physical/spiritual change.

To what extent can physical actions have spiritual effects? And spiritual actions/changes have physical effects? *** Do we separate too much and/or too often spiritual/physical (a) salvation (b) change/transformation (c) work of God?

Consider stories of the saints – sometimes saints would shine with light, or get along with wild animals. Their spiritual condition sometimes produced concrete visible physical results. What is resurrection if not a physical/spiritual sign? (We do not teach “immortality of the soul” but the radical healing/transformation of the body.) We pray “Your will be done on earth as in heaven”.

To what extent have we removed God from physical reality (without realizing it of course)? To what extent do we overlook the dynamic relationship between spiritual changes/salvation/reality and physical actions/salvation/reality? What difference would it make in how we pray/worship/believe/minister?

(There is usually a reason for the images I choose.)

(How theology matters)
Richard M. Wright
Evensong at University Baptist Church
Sunday August 01 2010
Colossians 1

“Spaceships? Our space fleet is the ships the Settlers came in from Urras nearly two centuries ago. To build just a ship to carry grain across the sea, it takes a year’s planning, a big effort of our economy”.

Oegeo nodded. “Well, we’ve got the goods, all right. But you know, you’re the man who can tell us when to scrap this whole job – throw it all away”.

“Throw it away? What do you mean?”

“Faster than light travel”, Oegeo said. “Transilience. The old physics says it isn’t possible. The Terrans say it isn’t possible. But the Hainish, who invented what we use now, say that it is possible, only they don’t now how to do it, because they’re just learning temporal physics from us. Evidently if it’s in anybody’s pocket, Dr. Shevek, it’s in yours”.

Shevek looked at him with a distancing stare. “I am a theoretician, Oegeo. Not a designer”.

“If you provide the theory, the unification of Sequency and Simulteneity in a general field theory of time, then we’ll design the ships”. (Ursula LeGuin, The Dispossessed, 86)

Theory and engineering. Perhaps theology and practice. What we believe and what we do.

Imagine that someone says, It does not matter what you believe about chemistry or physics or mathematics – what matters is how you drive your car. But of course it does matter. If someone does not understand chemistry or physics or mathematics it may not even be possible to build that car we drive.

And yet how often do we hear, It does not matter what we believe about Christ. What matters is that we follow Christ.

It sounds reasonable. And there is a lot of truth to that. We should follow Christ.

Consider the writings of the apostle Paul. Paul writes to churches that are having concrete problems. First Corinthians – divisions within the church. Galatians – do Gentiles need to follow Jewish law in order to be Christians? Ephesians – unity? Philippians – unity? Colossians – special holidays and dietary regulations. First Thessalonians – concern for those who have died before the Parousia. Second Timothy – idleness. First Timothy – life of the Christian community. And so on.

Problems with behavior. How people live. What people do. How does Paul respond to practical concerns? With “theory”. This is who God is. This is who Christ is. This is what God has done through Christ. Therefore. Paul offers theology to address practical issues of life within the Christian community.

But that itself raises another important point. For Paul all theology is practical. There is no theory for the sake of theory. Correct belief is not the goal. Life in Christ is the goal. Christianity is not a system of thought. It is a way of life.

Consider Friedrich Schleiermacher. In his book Christian Theology: An Introduction Alister McGrath describes fifteen theological movements of the modern period. Schleiermacher one of key figures of “liberal protestantism”. (The goal of which is to bridge the gap between Chrsitian faith and modern knowledge.) In his book Christian Faith (1821-1822) Scheliermacher argues Christian teaching/understanding must be consistent with the essence of Christianity. Which is God has redeemed humanity through Jesus Christ.

Who is God? Who is Jesus Christ? What has God done through Jesus Christ? What is the human condition? What is redemption? How do human beings live because God has redeemed us through Jesus Christ?

This is precisely how and why Schleiermacher defends the traditional teaching that Jesus Christ must be at one and the same time God and a human being. We cannot emphasize one over the other. Or deny one in favor of the other. Not simply because that is false belief versus true belief. But in order to uphold the possibility and the reality of our redemption.

Vladimir Lossky in his book Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church first helped me see this dynamic and essential relationship between theory and practice.

Far from being mutually opposed, theology and mysticism [? by which Lossky mans experiential knowledge of God] support and complete each other. If the mystical experience is a personal working out of the content of the common faith, theology is an expression, for the profit of all, of that which can be experienced by everyone…. There is no Christian mysticism without theology; but, above all, there is no theology without mysticism. (8-9)

Christian theology is always a means: a unity of knowledge subserving an end which transcends all knowledge. This ultimate end is union with God. Thus, we are finally led to a conclusion which may seem paradoxical enough: that Christian theory should have a practical significance”. (9 – edited for simplicity)

Scheiermacher and Lossky  make similar points although they frame/express those points quite differently.

Schleiermacher: The essence of the Christian faith is God has redeemed humanity through Jesus Christ. Christian teaching must be consistent with this essence.

Lossky: The goal/purpose of the Christian faith is union with God. Our theology must be such that union with God is even possible.

How would Paul phrase the goal or essence of the Christian faith? Dare we ask how Jesus would frame the issue?

I am not advocating that we become obsessed with theory or theological reflection. Nor we should adopt some stringent statement of doctrine that everyone must sign and to which all Sunday school teachers must adhere or else. Or that we give up concern with Christian living with following Christ with Christianity as a way of life. Nor am I arguing for a particular theological agenda.

(Well okay maybe. Part of what prompted me to talk about this is a recent article by Diana Butler Bass that drove me up a tree.)

Simply this. What we believe matters. What we teach matters. Theology matters. Not because the goal of the Christian faith is correct beliefs. The goal is very practical: practice/experience. But as Schleiermacher and Lossky and many others show – theory theology teaching matter. Because otherwise the goal of the Christian faith – however we understand or express that – is not even possible.

Postscript: A few people asked questions or made comments afterwards.

My excellent colleague the minister of music invited me to answer my own question. How would Paul or Jesus frame the issue? I suggested Paul would emphasize reconciliation and/or life in Christ (Greek en Christo). Jesus might say the goal is to love God and love neighbor.

Which led to one of my favorite sisters in Christ to say everything I had said but much better and in just a couple sentences. Something to the effect of how we practice the Christian life (say love God and love neighbor) might not even be possible without the right theology. She said it better and unfortunately cannot recall her exact words.

I would add that when Christians of a more liberal persuasion say “correct doctrine does not matter the goal is love God and love neighbor” my response would be “but does your theology even make it possible for sinful broken human beings to love God and love neighbor?” When Christianity is reduced to “look – just be nice to other people will you?” then it is unclear how exactly that is good news.

Moreover it raises the question whether telling people that (1) sexual ethics do not matter or (2) male and female do not matter – if we are ignoring basic human realities such that the above examples harm human persons. And by extension we are not loving our neighbor when we tell them it does not matter (1′) who they have sexual relations with (2′) how men and women relate to each other within the Christian community.

Do not misunderstand me. Perhaps theological liberals are correct on all or some of these and other issues. But they need to do a much better job of dealing with the underlying theological issues. And yes that applies to theological conservatives as well. “Because God said so” may not always be an adequate answer to the tough questions people ask.