Month: December 2005

Interesting (if cursory) article on N.T. Wright and the “new perspective” on Paul from the Wall Street Journal:

[Wright] contends that the leaders of the Protestant Reformation–Martin Luther especially–misread St. Paul on the subject of justification by faith. A self-described Reformed theologian, he proposes nothing less than a reformation of the Reformation, 500 years on–and he does so by appealing to the Reformers’ own motto, sola scriptura, “going back to scripture over against all human tradition.”

[…]

So what is at stake in this theological argument? “The doctrine of justification is the doctrine of the Reformation,” says the distinguished Princeton Seminary theologian Bruce McCormack. Justification as it was taught to me and my fellow young Protestants a generation ago amounted to this: Catholics believed in salvation by works–doing good in your earthly life would help win you a place in heaven–but we Protestants, following Luther, knew that we were “saved by grace…through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast.” Those words, from Paul’s letter to the Ephesian church, expressed the very heart of the gospel, which Luther had recovered. And there was a parallel, we were taught, between the Catholic belief and the works-righteousness of the Pharisees, so uncompromisingly exposed by Jesus as mere outward show, divorced from inner virtue.

But for generations of Protestants, long before Dr. Wright, nagging questions remained. The Reformed emphasis on justification appeared to diminish the meaning of a life lived in obedience to Christ. Didn’t James write–in a letter Luther wanted to drop from the New Testament–that faith without works is dead? And sure enough, one perennial problem of evangelical culture has been an overwhelming attention to “getting saved,” while another has been a rigid legalism (don’t dance, don’t drink, don’t play cards), smuggling works-righteousness in via the back door.

So, is Wright right? And, if so, should we heirs of the Reformation pack it in?

Mark LeVine writes that the Christian Peacemaker Teams, several members of which are currently being held hostage in Iraq, are a model of what the anti-war movement should be about.

(See Leaving Muenster for updates on the CPT hostages.)

That’s what Miroslav Volf asks about the rhetoric of the Christian Right (and Left).

Lutheran theologian Ted Peters states the obvious (or, at least I always thought it was pretty obvious):

I hang out with those so-called theistic evolutionists. We tend to think scientists are pretty smart. In fact, many of my colleagues are research scientists, even evolutionary biologists. We are convinced that the neo-Darwinian model of random genetic variation combined with natural selection provides the most adequate explanation for the development of life forms.

But my friends and colleagues are also religious, mostly Christian but with some other faiths mixed in. We think religious people can be pretty smart too. What is so important and what gets missed too often when the media covers the evolution wars is this: To be a Christian does not require that one be anti-Darwinian.

It’s very possible that one could embrace the science of the Darwinian tradition and also embrace a Christian understanding of God at work in the natural world. I believe that God has used the evolution of life over deep time to serve a divine purpose for creation. This requires distinguishing between the strictly scientific Darwinian model and the atheism and related ideologies that have frequently been associated with evolution. The science is solid.

What annoys me the most about the “intelligent design” controversy is that complex theological, scientific, and philosophical issues get reduced to culture war “boundary markers” that are supposed to separate the sheep from the goats (who’s who depends on which side you’re on). The idea that this of all things would be what distinguishes “true” Christians from wishy-washy theological liberals* just strikes me as absurd.
—————————————–
*Anglican philosopher Peter Van Inwagen once wrote of having a conversation with a fundamentalist-turned-logical-positivist (!) wherein Van Inwagen asked if he considered St. Augustine to be a “wishy-washy theological liberal” since he clearly read the opening chapters of Genesis non-literally and believed in a development of life forms. The logical positivist said yes!

The story that several of the larger evangelical megachurches are opting not to have services on Christmas this year has been making the rounds, provoking quite a bit of outrage that they are selling out to the culture and promoting an “idolatry of the family” (see this Internet Monk post for a good collection of comments (via Camassia)).

Today’s Inquirer carried the story and this bit jumped out at me:

Cally Parkinson, a spokeswoman for Willow Creek Community Church in South Barrington, Ill., said church leaders decided that organizing services on a Christmas Sunday would not be the most effective use of staff and volunteer resources. The last time Christmas fell on a Sunday was 1994, and only a small number of people showed up to pray, she said.

“If our target and our mission is to reach the unchurched, basically the people who don’t go to church, how likely is it that they’ll be going to church on Christmas morning?” she said.

Two things here. First, “reach[ing] the unchurched” is presumably not an end in itself is it? I mean, once you’ve got them what do you do with them? The whole point can’t be to reach the unchurched “seeker”; you have to be reaching them for something.

Which leads to the second point – there seems to be a confusion between (or conflation of) worship and evangelism here. They aren’t the same thing. The worship of God is an end in itself and shouldn’t be thought of as instrumental to some other goal like “reaching the unchurched.” In the ancient church, the catechumen (those seeking to join the church) were actually dismissed during part of the liturgy prior to the eucharist (the Orthodox church still retains the “dismissal of the catechumen” in its liturgy I believe, but I don’t think non-members are actually expected to depart anymore).

This clearly shows that worship has its own telos that isn’t directly related to evangelism. Although my experience of the megachurch style of worship is limited, I fear this attitude reveals a tendency to make the church service a kind of performance for the sake of those in attendance, rather than an act of worship directed at God.

From Slate (via the Japery):

A study says people who have one alcoholic drink a day are 54 percent less obesity-prone than teetotalers are. (But those with four or more drinks a day are 46 percent more obesity-prone.) Another study indicates that among people who weigh too much or drink too much alcohol, those who drink more than two cups of coffee a day are only half as prone to chronic liver disease. Each study involved more than 8,000 people. Cynical take: Wash out your fat with liquor, then rinse out your liquor with coffee.

The perfect diet?

In addition to having a reputation for generosity and gift-giving, St. Nicholas (of Myrna) is said to have put the smack down on heresy – literally – at the Council of Nicea. According to legend, jolly ‘ol St. Nick clocked Arius in the face for denying Jesus’ divinity!

According to Wikipedia:

Nicholas was kicked out of the Council for this offence, and jailed as well. However, according to this account, that night the Virgin Mary appeared in a vision to many of the bishops of the Council, telling them to forgive Nicholas, for he had done it out of love for her Son. They released Nicholas and allowed him back into the process the next day.

[…]

His reputation for gift giving comes partly from a story of three young women who were too poor to afford a dowry for their marriages: as each reached a marriageable age, Nicholas surreptitiously threw a bag of gold into the house at night. Some versions of the legend say that the girls’ father, trying to discover their benefactor, kept watch on the third occasion, but Nicholas dropped the third bag down the chimney instead. For his helping the “financially challenged”, St. Nicholas is the patron saint of pawnbrokers; the three gold balls traditionally hung outside a pawnshop are symbolic of the three sacks of gold. People then began to suspect that he was behind a large number of other anonymous gifts to the poor, using the inheritance from his wealthy parents. After he died, people in the region continued to give to the poor anonymously, and such gifts were still often attributed to St. Nicholas.

Blessed Lord, who hast caused all holy Scriptures to be written for our learning; Grant that we may in such wise hear them, read, mark, learn, and inwardly digest them, that by patience and comfort of thy holy Word, we may embrace, and ever hold fast, the blessed hope of everlasting life, which thou hast given us in our Saviour Jesus Christ. Amen. — from The Book of Common Prayer (1928 edition)

Today I saw a book on the bargain shelf of the local bookstore called The Secret Sayings of Jesus. Turns out it was just a translation of the Gospel of Thomas, but it made me wonder how much of the demand for “secret,” “hidden,” “gnostic” or esoteric information about and/or teachings of Jesus is really just a desire to avoid coming to terms with the Jesus we already know.

After all, why look for “secret” sayings of Jesus when something like “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind” and “You shall love your neighbor as yourself” ought to be more than enough to keep most of us busy for a lifetime? Or if that’s not advanced enough, why not try “Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you” or “Sell all that you have and give to the poor”?

The same thing may be at work in the constant interest in new or esoteric forms of spirituality, often imported from some exotic culture or some largely imaginary setting of the past. Or the parade of “prosperity” and self-help-style “Christian” books. This is not to say there’s nothing of value there, just that there’s probably more faddishness in religious publishing than any other area, except maybe self-help and business (take a look at the “spirituality” section of your local Barnes & Noble if you don’t believe me). I mean, who wants to pracitce the same old boring things Christians have been doing for 2000 years: going to church, reading the Bible, praying the Psalter and the Lord’s Prayer, fasting, performing works of mercy, etc. Just because something worked for the great saints and martyrs doesn’t mean it’ll work for me! My needs are special and unique! (Plus, there’s only so many books you can sell on the same old, same old!)

Eugene Peterson has called the Christian life “a long obedience in the same direction.” Could there be any description more guaranteed to repel the sensibilities of a society that thrives on novelty? But the endless quest for novelty can create people incapable of making committments or putting down roots, which seems like a guarantee of a shallow life.

Really interesting profile of baptist preacher and gadfly Will D. Campbell. He marched with Martin Luther King and escorted black children into desegregated schools, has ministered to Ku Klux Klansmen and country singers like Waylon Jennings and Kris Kristofferson, and lambastes the Southern Baptist leadership for their support of war and the death penalty.

When once asked to summarize the Christian message in ten words or less Campbell replied “We’re all bastards, but God loves us anyway.”

(link via Jesus Politics)