Indulgence redeux

How may we obtain remission of our sins? Paul answers: “The man who is named Jesus Christ and the Son of God gave himself for our sins.” The heavy artillery of these words explodes papacy, works, merits, superstitions. For if our sins could be removed by our own efforts, what need was there for the Son of God to be given for them? Since Christ was given for our sins it stands to reason that they cannot be put away by our own efforts. -- from Commentary on Galatians by Martin Luther

I've been trying out the ebook reader apps on my iPod Touch. And after installing the app, I can then choose from a number of copyright free books. Not surprisingly, one of the books I downloaded with theological in nature -- Commentary on Galatians by Martin Luther. I figured that there are a number of seminal text that any lay Lutheran theologian must read and this is one of them. Besides being tremendously verbose (who would have thunk it?) it is quite insightful both into Luther's understanding of justification and of his exegetical skill. So it was with much interest that I read the article about the re-introduction of, get this, indulgences! Wow. What would brother Martin think. (click on post title to read the article)

Smackdown

Click on this posts title to read a NY Times article about the conservative evangelical ministry du jour. Now, the title of the article asks a rhetorical question which the glib person in me wants to say: "That jackass". But, again, that's the glib answer. Being Lutheran, I'm not too fond of Calvinism. I don't like the doctrine of predestination -- double or otherwise. But what really galls me is that this hyper-macho brand of Christianity is just another gimmick. The proponents use the term "ministry" but what they really mean is "marketing". They are doing what they decry the mainline evangelical movement of doing -- selling out.

More importantly, if the article accurately characterizes the power structure of Mars Hill, then it's fallen into the trap of power as idol:

You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and fourth generation of those who reject me, but showing steadfast love to the thousandth generation of those who love me and keep my commandments. (Deut. 5:8-10)

In the case of Mars Hill, as in other evangelical churches, the focus of worship is ostensibly God, but in reality it's the guy up on stage. Not the guy on the cross (or his ministry either). To the extent that the Mars Hill ministry welcomes those who society shuns then so much the better.

But the kick-ass method of ministry of Mr. Driscoll is antithetical to the ministry of the man he preaches about. If Jesus where really as kick-ass as Driscoll is, then he never would have allowed himself to be crucified. He would have, well, kick Jewish and Roman ass and made himself ruler. This was precisely what he was tempeted with after his baptism that we celebrated yesterday. But that is not the way of the cross. The way of the cross is sacrifice for others. To offer the left check after having the right slapped. To give your cloak and coat too. To give to others first just has God has given to us.

As the article seems to allude: this too shall pass as another fad in the long running list of fads that characterize the conservative evangelical church (and other denominations I know). Only time will tell how God uses this for his good purposes. But I'm confident he will.

Prayer for the New Year

Recently I received a copy of the Moravian Churches yearly prayer book call "Daily Texts". Not generally my style but you never know what God will use to teach so I accepted. And in the beginning of every month there is a section titled "Prayer List for ..." where, presumably, one writes in prayers that one will say during that month. However, January has an extra page that I think is quite interesting and worth sharing. This page is titled "Prayer Journal" and says that St. Ignatius asked his students these questions. They are:

1. What is your greatest hope for this year? (CONSOLATION)
2. What is your greatest fear? (DESOLATION)
3. Write a prayer of thanks that combines both your fear and your hope.

See? You never know what you will find.

So, I have thought about this and I'll share:

CONSOLATION: My greatest hope for this year is that 2009 be the start of a new spirit of cooperation that can overcome the numerous and well publicized divisions in our Church and our society such that real cooperation and reconciliation can happen.

DESOLATION: My greatest fear is that both society and the Church, will fragment even more on issues that generate a lot of heat and not much light and that good of both will again be set back while we argue and bicker.

PRAYER: Almighty Father, through your gracious love for humanity you gave us Jesus, who in word and deed showed your abundant love for the world. By his ministry we know your will; by his suffering we know the depths of your love; by his resurrection we know the good news that death has no power over us and that eternal life awaits us at the end; through your Holy Spirit we know the transformational power of your Word. Bless this new year for us. Where there is division, heal; where there is anger, show love; where there is strife, let there be peace. Instill in us a sense of sacrifice for others even as your Son sacrificed for us. Instill in us a sense of love even as you loved and love us that you gave your only begotten Son for our redemption. Send your Holy Spirit on us and empower us for the year ahead that it may be pleasing to you and further your kingdom. In the name of the one in whom we live and move and have our being . Amen.

The Poor Sufferer

The Birth of Jesus

2In those days a decree went out from Emperor Augustus that all the world should be registered. ²This was the first registration and was taken while Quirinius was governor of Syria. ³All went to their own towns to be registered. ⁴Joseph also went from the town of Nazareth in Galilee to Judea, to the city of David called Bethlehem, because he was descended from the house and family of David. ⁵He went to be registered with Mary, to whom he was engaged and who was expecting a child. ⁶While they were there, the time came for her to deliver her child. ⁷And she gave birth to her firstborn son and wrapped him in bands of cloth, and laid him in a manger, because there was no place for them in the inn. (Lk. 2:1-7)

Why did God choose for the embodiment of the Logos a child born of a poor young woman? Why not someone wealthy and secure? If God is the Living God of Israel, the creator and initiator of all that was and is and will be then why not try and maximize the potential for impact and be incarnate in a human that would be the most easily respected and followed by the largest number of people?

I think the answer might lie in the reality of poverty and what poverty means, experientially, for one who is poor.

Of all humanity, the poor are more aware of suffering and consequently more apt to suffer in this world then the wealthy. Now, I don't mean to say that those not poor don't feel pain or loss or don't suffer for a time. But isn't there is a qualitative difference between the suffering of the poor and those who are not? This is also not to say that the poor always suffer either. But it is to say that the poor are more acutely affected by suffering since it is very near them (the vagaries of the world being what they are).

This then reveals the goodness of God and the Good News that is Jesus Christ and why we wait during advent for his birth. After thousands of years, God's chosen people were not the people that God intended and there didn't seem to be much chance that it would change.

In short they were sinful.

So in a move that every parent surely must recognize, God choose a different method all together.

God became human.

But not just human. God experience humanity through suffering and reconcile humanity through that suffering. In Jesus, God experienced the nuance that is humanity in all its beauty and ugliness. As the author of Hebrews writes:

15For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who in every respect has been tested as we are, yet without sin. (Heb. 4:15 italics mine)

So this then gives God an experience into humanity that is possible no other way. God was one of us! God experienced the whole range of humanity. Moreover, the incarnation of God as human then gives us an insight into who he is. But not just an insight but the reality of God.

No other religion that I'm aware of has God becoming human as Jesus does. And for our salvations no less! To reconcile us to him. To experience God not as a distant idea but as a real live human being that we can relate to in ways the old Israelites never could with the God of the Old Testament. And to show fully the love of God in Jesus. In the end it couldn't be someone of wealth or power or prestige because that would have limited the extent to which God became, and experienced, humanity. It would have also limited us in our understanding of God and and his love for us and his love for all humankind.

Venite Adoremus Dominum.

Retrenchment

Maybe it's only me who sees this but why is it that the most contentious times in the church happens just before Advent? This post title is a link to a Richard John Neuhaus article on First Things about, yes you guessed it, abortion. Our president elect is not even sworn in and the battle lines are being drawn.

What galls me so is that "pro-life" folks aren't so much pro-life as pro-prenatal-life. But I hear little or nothing on what we as a society do once the baby has passed the birth canal. If even a 10th of the effort to ban abortion was spent on helping setup and fund programs for mothers of these children abortion would be much less prevalent than it is now. But we can't do that. It would be legitimatizing premarital sex. Great strategy. How this lessens the incidents of abortion I can't fathom.

The great shame of all this is that these culture wars will never end. No matter the outcome, one side will be aggrieved and retrench for a counter attack. It. will. never. end.

What's frustrating is that I agree with Neuhaus that the church is a community within a community and has a particular role to play that is separate from and unique to the society that it lives in. Maybe this means that we rededicate ourselves to those issues where we do have common interest: helping the poor, the heavy of heart, the sick, prisoners, the elderly, etc.. At least these are issues that Christ commanded us to address.

Unfortunately, it's fairly obvious that the battle lines have been drawn and martyrdom awaits the faithful. Retrenchment seems the order of the day.

Default Setting

If you click on the title of this post you will get to read a commencement address that the now deceased author David Foster Wallace gave in 2005 that a church friend of mine emailed to me. Up until Wallace's death I didn't know him from Adam and I couldn't understand what all the fuss was about. Now I think I might understand a little bit better. I'll give my quick opinion in the hopes that you will read the address afterwards since it is quite good. Actually, go read it now. I'll wait.....

Done? Good.

So, the theme of the address was that our natural disposition is to think only of ourselves; to think we are the center of everything (self-centered, self referential); that this condition is our *default setting*. This is not so earth shattering. However he goes on to say that our ability to think outside of this default setting -- the key act of making a choice in how to see the world and those in it -- is the hallmark of the mature adult life. It's this ability that makes a life worth living. He also goes on to say that everybody worships something. The question is *what* we worship. We have a choice in what to worship. Again, the default setting is to worship ourselves (or something that relates to only us) and so be absorbed in ourselves that we think of nothing else. Luther would call this navel gazing.

Wallace's take on how we treat others struck a cord with me because this is exactly how I've lived most of my adult life. If asked, I wouldn't have been as clever as Wallace describing it but I would have said something to the same affect.

A couple of thoughts about this address from a Christian perspective:

This default setting is, in fact, nothing but the consequence of humanities fall from grace; that
is sin and death.

Even the mundane events of everyday life can be just as challenging and rewarding for a Christian as great feats of faith but it's a matter of seeing all of God's creation as worthy of respect. Even if they don't deserve it.

We get to choose the path of sin and death or of righteousness and life -- that is belief in Christ Jesus as our salvation from this default setting.

This choosing for a Christian is: to pick up our cross, deny ourselves the lazy and sinful path of the default setting and follow the path our Lord made for us. This is the call of discipleship.

It alway surprises me when I come across stuff like this. You never know where the most helpful insights into faith will come from.