Wednesday, May 20, 2015

Cutting the Eucharistic knot (Calvin's Institutes, Battles edition: p. 1416, vol. 2)

Presbyterians occasionally mock the doctrines of transubstantiation and consubstantiation because a physical presence of Christ in the sacrament of the Lord's Supper seems to them inherently ridiculous, if not offensive to reason. It's certainly offensive to my reason, but I have some sympathy with Lutherans and Romanists who struggle to understand how Christ can really and actually be present if he is not physically present. As the literature on the Lord's Supper over the millenia amply demonstrates, determining the precise relationship between the materials of the bread and cup and the physical body of Christ is where many Christians and theological traditions get stuck.
Alexander the Great, so they say, took a non-linear approach to loosing the Gordian Knot, which was impossible to untie: he cut it in half. In a passage explaining why the administration of the Lord's Supper must be accompanied by the preaching of the Word, John Calvin discusses an error which arose because this did not happen.
[T]hey did not observe that those promises by which consecration is accomplished are directed not to the elements themselves but to those who receive them. Certainly Christ does not say to the bread that it shall become his body, but he commands his disciples to eat and promises them participation in his body and blood. Paul's teaching takes the same form, that the promises are offered to believers along with the bread and the cup.
Attentive listening to, and exegesis of, the words of institution found in the Gospels and 1 Corinthians 11 will keep us from focusing on what happens to the elements of the Supper: instead, they direct our attention to its recipients. Since they receive the sacraments by faith, and faith is a gift of the Holy Spirit, we begin to see the Spirit is the agent who unites us to Christ.

Proper exegesis, Calvin suggests, offers the Romanist or Lutheran the freedom to step outside his or her dilemma and approach the sacramental knot in a non-linear and more fruitful manner.

Thursday, May 14, 2015

What is marriage?

You may have an answer to that question, but it may not be the correct one. In "What is Marriage to Evangelical Millennials?," Abigail Rine helpfully points out that a revisionist definition of marriage (marriage is a formalized romantic attachment) took root in our culture, and in evangelical circles, several decades ago, and has rather completely usurped the much older understanding of marriage which is rooted in Bibilical, natural, and common law.

It's an extremely helpful explanation of both the origin of today's same-sex marriage debate and why evangelicals seem unable to speak coherently to, much less against, it. It's also a helpful reminder that what the modern mind assumes takes for granted as the natural order of things is, in fact, often only a philosophical fashion of very recent vintage.

And those of us who are dismayed by recent cultural trends may be heartened by the realization that fashions change.

Monday, May 11, 2015

Which got eaten first?


Friday, May 1, 2015

Evangelical vs. Liturgical?

My critical review of Melanie C. Ross' Evangelical vs. Liturgical? Defying a Dichotomy appears in this month's Ordained Servant.

Friday, April 24, 2015

To multiply religious ceremonies


 One of my favorite moments from Marilynne Robinson's Gilead comes when John Ames wonders why the bestowal of blessings isn't dealt with more prominently in pastor's manuals. As human beings and Christians, I think we have an intuitive sense that moments of great import should be commemorated and even consecrated before the God with whom we are in relationship. Weddings are a perfect example of this: the Bible is casually indifferent to marriage ceremonies, yet Christians across time and space have felt the need for a religious ceremony when a new marriage is formed. Prayer is good, yet we crave something a bit more liturgical.

 There's an argument here for multiplying religious ceremonies: not obligatory ceremonies, to be sure, but ones like the OPC's recommended marriage and funeral services. Congregants are free to take or leave as they like, but they do reflect the wisdom of the Church over the ages.

 This comes up because an older couple would like to repeat their wedding vows before our congregation. Taking vows once is enough, but there's some testamentary value, I think, in repeating them on occasion. Along with blessings, perhaps giving testimony deserves more consideration in our presbyterian pastoral manuals.

Thursday, April 9, 2015

Thomas the Disciple Presbyterian Church

(This homily was delivered at the devotional service which opened the April 7-8, 2015 stated meeting of the Presbytery of the Dakotas, OPC.)

It was, of all things, the television show Lost that brought me back to Thomas. In the fifth season, the darkly villainous (yet thoroughly and debilitatingly human) Ben observes that Thomas the Apostle is remembered for his doubt rather than his great bravery. By “bravery,” Ben refers to John 11, when Jesus announces he will go to Judea despite the fact his enemies there may kill him. Thomas “said to his fellow disciples, ‘Let us also go, that we may die with Him’” (John 11:16).

This is why I’ve decided on a new name for my imaginary Church plant. Just as young girls will choose names for their hypothetical children, many pastors keep a stock of Church names on hand should the occasion arise. While I am still partial to “Big Happy Rainbow Church (OPC),” I’ve now settled on the more likely “Thomas the Disciple Presbyterian Church.” Not “the Apostle,” for that might put one in mind of his post-Pentecost mission to the east, reputedly as far away as India. No, “the Disciple” because in John 11:16 Thomas summarizes the essence of Christian discipleship. What does it mean to go with Jesus, to follow him? It means to die with him.

Clearly, Thomas has taken to heart Jesus’ words in Mark 8:34: “Whoever desires to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow Me.” The commentaries observe that the Synoptic Gospels fall into two basic sections: before the Transfiguration, and thereafter when Jesus goes to Jerusalem and the Cross. True enough, but really, all our Savior’s life was lived along a road to Calvary. He came in order to die, and by his death to set us free from the sins which enslave us. But if we are set free, then we must die as well, die to the life we once lived and still do, captive to our lusts and vain ambitions. “For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world, and loses his own soul? Or what will a man give in exchange for his soul?” (Mark 8:36-37)

As you know, two views on the number of ordained offices are in the OPC: the three-office view, and the Biblical view. The January and February 2014 issues of Ordained Servant ran a two-part polemic against the two-office position, a version of which later appeared in New Horizons. I didn’t quite understand its purpose: if it was to persuade, I suspect the persuaded were those who already held the three-office position. If it persuaded those of us who hold to the classic two-office, two-order position of anything, it was that the positions of power and influence on the Committee on Christian Education are held by three-office men, and that when our turn comes to hold those positions (as it inevitably will; these things tend to be cyclical), we should more modestly push our agendas. On whichever side of the question one finds oneself, I think we can all agree that this polemic’s most laughable assertion was that the two-office view tends to lead to dictatorial pastors.

“Laughable” because one’s view of office does not lead one to dictatorial impulses; instead, one’s vanity and pride lead to dictatorial impulses. Vanity leads pastors to confuse their personal preferences with Biblical principle, pride tempts them to say “my Church” without even the mental reservation that it is in fact the Lord’s Church, and vainglory makes them think their name on the sign out front will entice more visitors through the door. For all these reasons and more, pastors like running sessions (yes, I said “running,” and not “moderating”), and for most of us in the profession the cross we are called to take up is the crucifixion of our agendas and grand plans for our congregations. To minister, to serve through Word and sacrament, one must first be a disciple of Jesus. The minister must die with Christ so he will remember he is merely a minister: not only all power, but all wisdom itself, resides with him who came not to be served, but to serve.

And it is at precisely this point, just when they are beginning to feel a little holier-than-the-teaching-elders, that the ruling elders in our midst must be called to account. Pastors are not uniquely tempted by vanity; I exaggerate only slightly when I say to be male is to be vain. Why are pastors allowed to succumb to that sin? Because their elders, who are closest to them in their exercise of office and who, other than the pastor’s wife, are best situated to note the emergence of sinful tendencies, find it difficult to care for their pastors’ souls and so do not try. “The pastor is different from me, by temperament or background; I’m not automatically comfortable around him so I won’t try to befriend him.” “The pastor is quick-witted and always ready with a response; there’s no point in my trying to raise a concern with him.” “He’ll only be here for a few years anyway, and we can always force him out if he gets too big for his britches.” Jesus told his disciples they were his friends; immediately thereafter, they betrayed him. Caring for people, caring about people, sacrificially loving people, gives those people (whether they be pastors or Church members) the power to hurt and wound you. That, brothers, is your calling: to go with Jesus into the midst of sheep who act more like wolves, and there to die with him.

I do not know where your particular vanity lies, brother. I only know it is there. As Nathan the prophet said, you are the man: seek it out, repent of it, kill it, and die to self.

The Church officer who protects himself seems rather different from the one who lords it over others, but both have the same sinful problem: the man himself is at the center of his own thinking and ambition. The self must be removed, and the self can be removed only if he dies with Jesus. "For whoever desires to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake and the gospel’s will save it” (Mark 8:35). Pastors must submit to the rule of their elders, and elders must love their pastors and congregants more than themselves. When we do so, we find Christ, for when we do so, we are following him. He died, and so we died; he rose, and in him and only in him do we live. We live with him so we may minister in his name and in the power of his Spirit.

Thomas’s invitation has never been more timely. As I write, the news this last week has been consumed with Indiana’s and Arkansas’s Religious Freedom Restoration Acts, which our mass media have persistently mischaracterized as intended to promote discrimination against individuals in private commerce. If such a mild assertion of First Amendment rights is met with such vehement distortion and disapprobation, the future looks rather dim for those of us inclined to stand on conscience whether or not we have constitutional protection. In the days to come, the temptation will be to fight those attacking us with the same mean-spiritedness with which they willfully distort our intentions and desires. Better, in fact necessary, to love those who hate us and to pray for those who spitefully use us, even if that means losing rights, privileges, buildings and pensions. The seed of the Gospel is watered by the blood of martyrs who are willing to go with Jesus and die with him.

That, brothers, is the witness of Thomas the disciple. Let us go with him so we may go with Jesus, and let us die with him. The crying need of the hour is not for pastors and elders who will fight; the fighting, too often, is just another symptom of the vanity. It is not time to stand and fight, but to stand and die.

Or better, to follow Jesus and die. Let us take up our cross and follow him. Let us find his death is sufficient even for our sins, and his resurrection and Spirit enough to accomplish in and through us his purposes for his Church, to his everlasting glory.


Amen.

Wednesday, March 25, 2015

Why infant baptism matters (Calvin's Institutes, Battles edition: p. 1359, vol. 2)

As he so frequently does, John Calvin points us back to gratitude for God's goodness in 4.16.32 of his Institutes:
Now I think no sober person will be in doubt how rashly they stir up Christ's church with their altercations and contentions over infant baptism. But it behooves us to note what Satin is attempting with this great subtlety of his. He is trying to take away from us the singular fruit of assurance and spiritual joy which is to be gathered from it, and also to diminish somewhat the glory of the divine goodness. For how sweet it is to godly minds to be assured, not only by word, but by sight that they obtain so much favor with the Heavenly Father that their offspring are within his care? For here we can see how he takes on toward us the role of a most provident Father, who even after our death maintains his care for us, providng for and looking after our children. Should we not, following David's example, rejoice with all our heart in thanksgiving, that his name may be hallowed by such an example of his goodness (Ps. 48:10)? It is precisely this which Satan is attempting in assailing infant baptism with such an army: that, once this testimony of God's grace is taken away from us, the promise which, through it, is put before our eyes may eventuallly vanish little by little. From this would grow up not only an impious ungratefulness toward God's mercy but a certain negligence about instructing our children in piety. For when we consider that immediately from birth God takes and acknowledges them as his children, we feel a strong stimulus to instruct them in an earnest fear of God and observance of the law. Accordingly, unless we wish spitefully to obscure God's goodness, let us offer our infants to him, for he gives them a place among those of his family and household, that is, the members of the church.

Friday, March 20, 2015

How to be a sick Christian

Victor Austin's "How to be a Sick Christian" in the January 2015 issue of First Things is an immensely practical and helpful bit of pastoral advice. Austin writes as a fairly high-Church Episcopalian, so not all his points of application have direct correspondences in presbyterian faith and practice. However, "call your pastor" applies to pretty much every Christian everywhere, and we presbyterians are well-reminded that liturgical ritual brings a form of comfort different than, but not in opposition to, words grounded in Biblical truth.

This side of glory, illness is not an aberration in our lives: it is a univeral experience which, because we all hope to avoid it, most of us experience as an interruption to, rather than a piece with, our ordinary Christian lives. Until the Son of God, who first came to us in order to share our flesh with us, comes again for us in glory, we must learn to bear and sanctify our fallen-fleshly lives as did he.

Thursday, March 19, 2015

1st day with solar panels

Over the last two days, our new solar panels were installed and set up.

Today the weather is overcast and rainy.

Friday, March 13, 2015

Two brilliant commentaries

In "Liturgy and Interchangeable Sexes," Peter Leithart considers Paul's 1st Timothy 2:12-14 commentary on Genesis 2-3 to show how "liturgical order and sexual order stand together;" that is, if male and female are interchangeable in the pulpit and at the Lord's Table, then they shall be in the bed as well.

In a different vein, Mark Tatulli, in his Lïo strip, offers the last word (in non-verbal form) on the shamefully large number of comic strips in today's newspapers which are either simply republished or carried on by lesser lights after their original, wildly inventive creators have died: