Pastor Tommy Thompson
7th Sunday after The Theophany of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ
Lev 19:1-2, 9-18; Matthew 5:38-48
20 February 2011
“Unique and Set Apart as Sacrament”
I remember a few years ago, when we lived in Morgantown, WV, we were looking for a family activity on a nice Saturday in the fall. We looked in the phonebook and found there was a small zoo not too far away from us, just across the state line in Pennsylvania--the Woodland Zoo. I’ve been a kid and I have kids...i have been to my fair share of zoos...but this zoo is the one I remember most vividly.
We expected that with it being a small zoo, there wouldn’t be a crowd...that we’d enjoy a leisurely and somewhat quiet stroll along the path to let the children see the animals. But I was wrong. When we arrived, there was hardly a parking space...when i finally found one, we got out of the car, loaded up the stroller and headed up the hill to see what was so special about this zoo out in the middle of nowhere.
When we got to the top of the hill, purchased tickets and started on the path, we noticed that most everyone was huddled around one particular cage (a larger cage...probably a couple of acres)...It wasn’t a fierce lion or a funny monkey...it was something rare and unique--an albino white-tailed deer. It was strange...not something we are used to seeing in the everyday world ... people wanted to see it for themselves...it was unique and we were drawn to its strangeness...so much that even today, it is the one zoo experience that I remember just like it was yesterday.
In the Old Testament lesson for today, God says to Israel: “You will be holy, for I, the Lord your God, am holy.” Anyone here ever started reading the bible from Genesis to Revelation and all is going well until you get to the book of Leviticus and get bogged down by the all the details? I liken Leviticus to the rubrics in our hymnbook...that red print that instructs the liturgist on how to properly perform the ritual. In Leviticus, we read through the details God gives his people on burnt offerings, grain offerings, offerings of well-being, sin-offerings, and every other kind of offering...it offers instructions on sacrifices, ordination rituals, which foods and animals are clean/unclean, and general community-relations instructions. You might not get very far in Leviticus before you throw your hands up and say, “What’s the point with all this rubric?!”
I definitely understand how you could get bogged down in a book full of ritual instruction and community relations issues...but if we keep reading, i believe the point of the book becomes clear. After 18 long chapters of instruction we arrive at chapter 19 where God makes a statement about His people. God says, “You will be holy, because I, the Lord your God, am holy.”
Ah! There is a rhyme and reason for all the details that have preceded this statement! These rituals and instructions are not to be undergone legalistically as if they are an end in themselves...No, by undergoing these divine things, the people of God are being formed to be something! And that something God says is “holy.”
What does that mean? What does it mean for God’s people to be holy? How does careful and faithful attention to chapters 1-18 engender holiness in and among the people of God?
Some of us don’t like that word “holy.” We hear that word too often on the news in conjunction with the word “war.” We cannot understand how holiness leads to such hatred and violence...good reason to have negative feelings arise when we hear the word.
Some of us have had negative encounters or have heard too many stories of people who called themselves holy yet their entire agenda seemed to be about being different from others for the sake of calling others, well...others. We don’t have to go further than our own history to see the lists...we don’t drink...we don’t watch movies...we don’t play cards...our women don’t let their hair down...our men don’t wear shorts...based on this form of life, it seems that to be holy means to “don’t.”
What comes to your mind when God says, “You will be holy, for I, the Lord your God, am holy?” legalism? war? exclusivism?
Well that is not at all what God meant when he said that by paying attention to the details of life that he has laid down for them, His people would be holy. I think to put it this way helps us: “You will be unique, for I, the Lord your God, am unique.”
To be holy is to be unique. The people of God have been set apart and given the Torah along with all the rubric and instruction so that they may be formed by God to be God’s unique/special people. The problem is that the people of God liked that word special too much. We enjoyed being set apart but we forgot the reason for our being set apart. We became like that albino deer...we want people to see us as different but that’s about it. Our difference points to the sameness of everyone else and stops there.
But that’s not what God intended when he said, “Be unique/special/holy, because I, the Lord, your God am unique/special/holy.” When we receive only part of the call to holiness but not the whole, we are in very dangerous territory. God calls a people and makes covenant with them, setting them apart from the world as a unique people, not as an end in itself but as the means to the end which is God Himself.
The people of God’s holiness has been like cooking for the sake of cooking but never enjoying the tasty results. Oh for God’s people to hear and accept God’s call to be set apart, not for the sake of being set apart, but to be the living, visible, and tangible means through which God’s life is revealed to the world!
Oh but the people of God only got part of the call! Jesus was born into a world full of signs that said “Danger-Keep out” “Contaminated” “No Trespassing” or “Beware of Dog.” Unfortunately these signs were not put up on doors and walls but on people...and the saddest part of all is that they were hung on people by those who thought of themselves as the set-apart and holy people of God. They thought they were unique, but they had become exactly like that which they were taken out of--the world of pride and competition...the old creation gone haywire due to sin and rebellion.
It is into this world that Jesus is born as the One who will sum up the vocational call of Israel in Himself. God called Israel out of the world, set her apart, in order that His unique, holy love might be made manifest to the nations. She liked being set apart as special, but that’s about it. Jesus shows up and he rips of the signs God’s people have hung around people’s necks! He knows His Father well and demonstrates a holiness that truly is so utterly different than anyone has ever seen. Love that embraces the stranger...the widow...the orphan...the vulnerable...rather than taking advantage of the weak, we see love that lifts up the weak from the ash heaps and hurls the sinful power of the decaying world down from it’s thrones.
Jesus sums up Israel in himself fulfilling that which God said of Israel so long ago: “You will be holy, for I, the Lord, your God, am holy.” Finally the uniqueness of God is revealed by One who did not see the set-apartness as something to be grasped! Never once did Jesus see the “set-apartness” as the end but always as the means...the means that led to the healing of the whole creation when death itself had to stare God in the face!
Sisters and Brothers, Christ is our holiness! Like that albino deer whose uniqueness summoned us to its cage, so, we have been drawn to the uniqueness that God is...the other-focused love of God incarnate in the one who has been named Jesus.
We cannot be holy...we’ve proven that. But Christ is our holiness....and when we were baptized, we became one with Christ--dying to the obsession of being set apart as end in itself and rising in grace with power to be the means through which others experience the healing love of God!
Like God’s instruction in Leviticus, Jesus has instituted a particular way of life, revealed most clearly at this altar where bread and juice become the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, feeding us with the same so that we might become what we eat for the sake of the world. Paying attention to the details of the unique form of life to which Jesus has invited us forms us to be unique, holy people, becoming the means through which God is revealed to a world full of people wearing signs they were never meant to wear!
Faithful receptivity of the particular form of life opened to us by our Lord Jesus Christ will make us so unique that we might even find ourselves with power to do that which we never even imagined--loving not only our neighbors who are like us...but even our enemies who hate us. Because the one we eat stared those who hate him in the face and said, “Father forgive them for they know not what they do,” and in so doing, gave them life.
O God, grant us enough faith this day that we might accept your grace and become what you said we will be. As we pay attention to the details of the church’s worship and community life, may we become what we eat -- sacrament--a means through which your unique life is conveyed to the world! Amen.
Saturday, February 19, 2011
Virtual Holy Conferencing on the Sacraments
Below is a conversation that began with a Facebook status I posted quoting from "By Water & The Spirit," The United Methodist Church's official statement on baptism/sacraments (along with "This Holy Mystery" and of course our articles of Religion and John Wesley's Sermons and Notes...)
Tommy Thompson
the following is official United Methodist statement on sacrament, not Roman Catholic, (though, thankfully, we have a lot in common): "The ritual action of a sacrament does not merely point to God's presence in the world, but also participates in it and becomes a vehicle for conveying that reality." ... why are we not running to the table every opportunity we get?
February 15 at 1:57pm · · Like ·
Leah DeLong and Stan Thompson like this.
Chad Harvey Because Folk Theology has much persuasion in the churchFebruary 15 at 2:04pm · Like
Tommy Thompson you are right Chad, but that's not a plausible answer for our neglect of such gracious opportunity. Knowing full well Rev. Harvey is doing something about it, i wonder what are "we" gonna do about it?February 15 at 2:06pm · Like
Chad Harvey I'm guessing "we" means Methodists...but as a Nazarene constant lay theological teaching and re-instructing is essential.February 15 at 2:08pm · Like
Tommy Thompson It is an inclusive"we" brother as we sit at the same table. Thanks for your hard work and passion toward eucharistic formation.February 15 at 2:10pm · Like
Jeremy Sullivan Because we read "a vehicle" and think that just means it could be if I decide it is, want it to be, find it personally meaningful, etc., in which case just puts the Sacraments as no more important than my personal devotions.February 15 at 2:13pm · Unlike · 1 person
Tommy Thompson i like what one UM theologian and pastor is teaching right now...the rediscovery of mystagogical preaching...so we're not simply teaching abstractly on holy mysteries that must be undergone, but proclaiming the Gospel that sacrament is in and through sacrament...beautiful stuff coming from the patristics here...a gold mine worth rediscovering!February 15 at 2:13pm · Like
Tommy Thompson http://www.amazon.com/Crea tive-Preaching-Sacraments- Craig-Satterlee/dp/0881773 557February 15 at 2:18pm · Like
Nathan Napier Because we're good Zwinglians!...and we've been colonized by what Martin Marty called the "baptistification" of America (and I do love my Baptist brother and sisters). Ordinances is the utilitarian way in which sacraments are understood.February 15 at 2:25pm · Like
Tommy Thompson Yes; exactly, Nathan. We understand it not as eucharist -- making thanksgiving in response to God's mighty acts of salvation that becomes communion, but as law (in the Lutheran sense of the word)...or at the very least something else we have to do.... I pray the Holy Spirit brings revival and reformation within the protestant churches to embrace the resurrected Lord in and through the sacrament so that we might more faithfully be sacrament for the world!February 15 at 2:35pm · Like
Stan Thompson There are 3 UMC churches in the Roanoke District that serve Holy Communion every Sunday. It is transformational.February 15 at 3:04pm · Like · 1 person
Tommy Thompson Amen brother Stan! And i know of one in Charlottesville District that does as well -- out in the middle of a cow field! They agree ;-)February 15 at 3:05pm · Like · 1 person
Jeremy Sullivan It's more than transformational. It's just Christian.February 15 at 3:12pm · Like · 1 person
Tommy Thompson Amen brother Jeremy!February 15 at 3:14pm · Like
Tammy Estep I agree, the main reason congregations don't run to the table is because we have not taught our people the significance of the table with love and grace.February 15 at 3:16pm · Like · 2 people
Tommy Thompson Amen Tammy; come Holy Spirit, its time for a new season of sacramental love and grace in the protestant and particularly the UM communities of faith.February 15 at 3:24pm · Like · 2 people
Carl Perez Et Al; I agree and it time for RENEWAL!February 15 at 4:11pm · Unlike · 1 person
Jason Honeycutt I agree with Nathan. Many are Zwinglian and only participate in the Sacraments because Jesus said so.
Participating because it is just Christian is also too circular, especially in a culture that is confused about what it means to be Christian.
Transformation is key. People can understand that God wants to turn our lives around and make us new.
God's vision is new creation, and we participate in that vision as we experience the Sacraments. Being transformed from old to new creation -- that's Christian.
Aah, I love new creation.February 15 at 4:43pm · Like
Tommy Thompson Jason, thank you so much for bringing eschatological orientation into this discussion...i think this is the larger over-arching framework for sacramental theology and practice that is often neglected. What a joy to see through the veil a bit more clearly as we make eucharist to be sent by the Spirit to make that vision reality for God's world!February 15 at 4:47pm · Like
Carl Perez Our problem I feel is we focus more of Christ's action in Communion and not on the work of the TRIUNE God in the Sacrament Changing us into a new Creation for the transformation of the world.February 15 at 4:54pm · Like
Jennifer Page pleads the 5th.February 15 at 4:55pm · Like
Jason Honeycutt No problem. I am telling everyone I can about God's new creation. I've told methodists, baptists, lutherans, presbyterians, nazarenes, and non-Christians.
I am leading my small group this Sunday and the topic is "converting grace". The class book mentions John 3:5 and 2 Cor 5:17. I will tell them about new creation in the story of Nicodemus who is "old". I am very excited.February 15 at 5:01pm · Unlike · 1 person
Tommy Thompson Carl-if i hear what you're saying, i agree with you...we tend to focus more on what happened thousands of years ago as revealed in the institution narratives themselves and not so much on the living reality of what that lived institution reveals/empowers to become via liturgical practice.February 15 at 5:01pm · Like
Samuel Simoes There is a mystery as well in serving monthly. Weekly eucharist can lead to a routine and legalist ritual, rather than a significant sacrament. Preparing our heart for communion may not be so much a matter of frequency, but relevance and mostly important; significance.February 15 at 5:02pm · Like
Tommy Thompson well, hundreds of years ago is better put...February 15 at 5:02pm · Like
Jeremy Sullivan Wesley called us to constant Eucharist. If it becomes legalistic ritual its our problem revealed..
Not the sacrament's problem..February 15 at 5:07pm · Like
Jeremy Sullivan The sacrament is meaningful and significant because God says so. Grace is on God's terms. Whether we find that meaningful or significant is not the issue.February 15 at 5:09pm · Like
Jeremy Sullivan Didn't we die to this individualistic, I decide what is meaningful and important in baptism?February 15 at 5:10pm · Like
Tommy Thompson Sam, i appreciate that perspective. However, I think it is spoken through a lens that understands Christian worship's primary center to be the sermon and not a movement to the climax of the Gospel revealed most clearly in the broken body and spilt blood of our Savior. I think this is where the late protestant/evangelical movement has led us...away from the church's tradition of worship as Eucharistically centered...of course the reason we ever communicated quarterly in the first place was due to the unavailability of ordained clergy as Methodism spread like wildfire across the U.S. You know how we are -- we develop habits ("we've always done it that way!"). Once we had more than enough ordained leadership we continued to celebrate quarterly until those like Thomas O. Summers and others called our habits into question and led us closer to the goal by advocating monthly communion. I think its time for the next step...
John Wesley was adamant about us being constant communicants rather than frequent communicants...primarily because of the grace available to us for healing and transformation. Surely we are not always prepared appropriately or receive adequately, but even then we are being formed into eucharistic community--easter people. Not to mention this is one of those sermons that Wesley preached in his early ministry and later ministry with the emphatic line, "The following discourse was written above five and fifty years ago, for the use of my pupils at Oxford. I have added very little, but retrenched much; as I then used more words than I do now. But I thank God I have not yet seen cause to alter my sentiments in any point which is therein delivered."
Here is a link to that wonderful sermon:
http://www.mathewsumc.org/ html/worship/constant1.htmFebruary 15 at 5:14pm · Like
Carl Perez ~ Tommy your right
~ Samuel but if we view the sacraments in such a way that the mysterion is the presence of our God living and moving with in us constantly then the sacrments can never get legalistic or ritual because everytime we part take we are seeing a revelation of self being made into the imagine of God... There more to this but gotta get dinner done :)February 15 at 5:16pm · Like
Tommy Thompson I also want to say paraphrase Marva Dawn (i think): some of the most important discoveries in life happen out of boredom and habit...(though i'm never bored with the holy habit of making eucharist)
Also some of the most life-giving activities of life are habitual (not to mention the preaching of a sermon)...I will not revert to telling my wife i love her monthly...
Also, experience has not demonstrated that those who are celebrating less frequently find the eucharist more meaningful...just some thoughts.February 15 at 5:19pm · Like
Tommy Thompson also, we intercede/confess weekly, we read scripture weekly (i hope!), we preach weekly, we sing weekly, we even offer money weekly...why single out the climax of all these things using the logic that doing something routinely is reason enough for not doing it?
i mean going to the bathroom, brushing my teeth, eating, drinking...all routine and sometimes not so exciting...but without these constantly, i'm not gonna be too healthy...
the most important action i do is make eucharist, for Christ has made me a priest (and he has made us all a priest in our baptism--to receive the world as sacrament, offer it to him in thanksgiving, and experience triune communion for the healing of our beings and for the sake of God's world).February 15 at 5:29pm · Like
Tommy Thompson with all that said, I think you rock, Sam, for leading a Nazarene congregation from celebrating a few times a year to monthly when you are not required to do so... :-)February 15 at 5:35pm · Like
Jeremy Sullivan It really is life.February 15 at 5:36pm · Unlike · 2 people
Tommy Thompson Jeremy: your concise yet profound statement reminds me of John's gospel: "unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you." ... and most everyone turned their backs and walked away...but don't you just love what Peter said when Jesus asked, "Do you also wish to go away?" :-)February 15 at 5:40pm · Like · 1 person
Jeremy Sullivan Well without trying to be too circular I think that it is just Christian. That's not circular....that's pretty specific revelation if you ask me.February 15 at 6:43pm · Like
Jason Honeycutt To people who either grew up in the Church or are theologically trained, no it is not too circular; however, to those who did not grow up in the Church (like me) and people such as my neo-pagan relatives, it is far too circular.
I have visited at least 8 churches in the last two months and they all have been in decline for years. They are literally dying off and not reaching the younger generation (to their credit, most of them are trying).
Non-Christians are not going to know what makes the Sacraments Christian. More than likely, they are not going to simply participate because someone (even Jesus) commanded. This is precisely why many people see the Eucharist as too ritualistic and legalistic. They do not know why we should other than we are suppose to or it is something good (or scary) to do. The reason why we have the Sacraments is so that God can transform us from old to new. New creation is essential.
Speaking of the Gospel of John, it is all about God's new creation. The (new) beginning is obviously a parallel to Genesis, new birth in ch 3, people are transformed when they encounter Christ, in ch 15-17 Jesus and His Kingdom do not belong to this "world" which is part of the old creation. The disciples now belong to an everlasting reality that impacts us here and now. Everything Jesus said and did (also says and does) prepares us for this new world -- the New Creation/New Jerusalem/Kingdom or City of God. We should see the Sacraments in this context.Wednesday at 3:46pm · Like
Jeremy Sullivan I totally affirm the eschatological orientation of the sacraments. It is central to them.
We are not forming disciples well if they can conceive of Christianity apart from the sacraments. They are means of grace....primary ones. They are the sign acts through which God fashions this new creation of which you are so joyfully speaking.
The heart of the witness of scripture is testimony to the ongoing new creation work God is doing in this world... Powerfully inaugurated in the resurrection of Jesus and moving us forward to the consummation of all things. It's not just John's thought.... It's all over scripture.Wednesday at 4:03pm · Like
Jeremy Sullivan All this talk Has me hungry now. It's a good thing sumbody will let me eat tonight.Wednesday at 4:56pm · Like
Jason Honeycutt Well, joy is part of the new creation. :)
Yes, exactly. And the same goes if we participate in the Sacraments apart from new creation. If we so, of course they will seem legalistic and ritualistic. From a new creation perspective, our old selfs are dead and forgiven and God transforms our selfs new. This means the Sacraments are evangelical as well because we profess them publicly as God calls others to participate.
New creation is my passion. It is also my lense/bias as I interpret Scripture. You're right on about it being all over. I understand the Bible as creation, uncreation and new creation. It's a wonderful blessing that I am very thankful to God for.Wednesday at 5:27pm · Like
Tommy Thompson Jason, if I hear you right, you are claiming that Jeremy's claim that the Holy Eucharist is Christian is something he's simply assuming as a premise...but something that cannot truly be proved if carefully thought out..or that he is simply dodging the real issue by going around it? Am I wrong here? If so, what do you mean by calling his assertion "circular?"
I think what brother Jeremy is saying when he says, "It's just Christian," is that we who even have this debate are an anomaly within CHRISTIAN tradition. From the first century, to be Christian meant to be Eucharistic--to be Eucharistic is to be Christian. I do not find this to be circular reasoning...i find it to be reasoning that demonstrates dramatic coherence/narrative continuity with the one, holy catholic and apostolic church.
If there is a better lens than new creation (which is inherently Christian) through which to see life, it is the ethos of the new creation--the Eucharist. I like when Wainwright says that most everything the church does will pass with resurrection, but praise & Eucharist will not.
I hope we can unashamedly reclaim the Eucharist as the core ethos of what it means to be a Christian (a new creation on the way to new creation in new creation--the Paschal Lamb). Of course it is not relevant to the world's deadly ethoses--which is why we practice most especially when it is strange, inviting the world not to hear explanation but resounding the words of our Savior who says, "Come and See" or maybe even "Taste and See."Thursday at 8:51am · Like
Jason Honeycutt I agree w/Jeremy but wanted more specifics. If we participate in a ritual simply because we are suppose to (that's circular), then the Eucharist could easily become legalistic. New creation keeps it fresh. When we are changed, even pagans begin to understand.
I don't see a better lens than new creation. New creation is much larger than what the Church does here and now. God's new creation is the everlasting reality which the Eucharist is a part but not the totality. The Sacraments are ways which God uses so we become new.
Also I do not see the Eucharist in every passage like I do new creation. John 6 may have the strongest passage for the Eucharist yet it is only a piece (a large and important piece) of John's new creation story. Same w/the rest of the Bible.
What exactly do you mean by Eucharistic? Obviously it's broader than just the Sacraments but how we should live, right?Thursday at 11:25am · Like
Tommy Thompson new creation is the new world wherein we live eucharistically...which is what i mean by eucharist being ethos of the Kingdom of God. The baptized live in new creation as people who see the world shot-through with the glory of God (as the water covers the seas), receive the new creation as gift, offer that gift back to the Father through the Son and in the Spirit where that offering is transformed into triune communion. The sacrament forms us to be this way always, healing our sin-diseased nature and forming us as eucharistic people who are sacrament and experience the world as such.
New creation is the full realization of the priesthood of all believers who are eternally making eucharist. Since eucharist is the ethos of the new creation, it is the most proper way to see all of life...it is the content of the new creation!Thursday at 11:36am · Like
Tommy Thompson Oh, and since the eucharist is the rehearsal of God's mighty acts of salvation climaxing in the pascal mysteries of Jesus Christ (that which is new creation and makes new creation reality for us), I'd have to say that it is indeed ALL OVER the biblical narrative...though it is also important for us to be reminded that it was indeed the eucharistic community who received and nurtured the biblical text in the first place...Thursday at 12:51pm · Like
Jason Honeycutt I have not thought of it that way. I talk about worship in the same way as you speak about eucharistic. Worship and new creation go hand in hand. When we choose to worship the only One who is not created, we participate in the new creation. Old creation worships created gods/idols.
So basically, you are saying that new creation is the reality we now belong and Eucharist is the participation we experience in that reality. What passages are most meaningful for the latter? Some of Hebrews and Revelation come to mind.
It seems like there is little difference between worshiping God and choosing new creation in all we think, say, and do -- and living eucharistically.
We are talking about the same thing but you are using sacramental language, right?Thursday at 1:01pm · Like
Tommy Thompson I think part of what makes Christian worship inherently eucharistic is the realization that we individuals cannot simply choose to worship the one God or even know God is Trinity. All worship in Spirit and Truth is eucharistic in that it comes from a deep sense of thanksgiving offered in, through, and to the triune God for even healing our sin-diseased faculties so that we might then be able to choose to respond to such gracious initiative in Jesus Christ offered through the eucharistic community that is the church! And it is through constant participation in eucharistic community that the new creation is revealed to us as such...not something "I" just choose as antithesis of "old creation."Thursday at 1:12pm · Like
Tommy Thompson Lastly, I want to question your statement: "New creation is much larger than what the Church does here and now. God's new creation is the everlasting reality which the Eucharist is a part but not the totality." Is the chief sacrament of the church simply what the church is doing here and now? (If so, doesn't it cease to be sacrament)? Or is the eucharist participation in what God has done, is doing, and will do...even participation in the future world so that that world might become reality in the world through the church's faithful mission?
The Sacrament of the Lord's Supper is the primary portal into the eternal reality of the eucharist. When with Christ's re-appearing, the dead are raised and sacrament fades into full, glorified reality, that reality will be nothing short of eucharistic, as it is the ethos of the new creation.
We must be careful elevating the blessing above the one from whom all blessings flow. Eucharist precedes our participation in new creation and is it's reason for existence and is that which defines it most thoroughly. Those who undergo eucharist are most obviously new creation.Thursday at 1:49pm · Like
Jason Honeycutt I am assuming that God enables us by His grace to make choices to follow Him or the world. That doesn't mean we can't sing "I have decided to follow Jesus, no turning back, no turning back" or "The world behind me, the Cross before me" which I sang this Sunday (the 'world' of course being part of the old creation). John 3 and Col 3 (among many more passages) both have the eschatogically dualistic contrast of old and new creation which N T Wright describes so well in Surprised By Hope.
I am trying to figure out how you can move from participating in a specific sacramental ritual (the Eucharist) to life in its entirety. New creation is easier because it is both God's vision for us personally (2 Cor 5:17) and universally (Rev 21:1-5).Thursday at 1:54pm · Like
Tommy Thompson because "The ritual action of a sacrament does not merely point to God's presence in the world, but also participates in it and becomes a vehicle for conveying that reality."
Again, new creation is that which sacrament reveals. The content of Eucharist, The work of the Paschal Lamb in triune perichorsis, makes it possible. Eucharist is the lens through which to understand all things new.Thursday at 2:00pm · Like
Tommy Thompson And i have to say too, in response to what you said about just assuming that God's grace is there for you (a bit circular): How does God enable us? that's the question. The Apostles' answer to that question (the faithfulness of Jesus Christ) is revealed for us most precisely in the sacrament which our Lord instituted...Apart from this Spirit-filled community of grace centered around Jesus' life-giving death and resurrection, i cannot "decide to follow Jesus."
Also, I encourage you to go and listen to some of Bishop Wright's lectures on that wonderful book; you will find the eucharist is his primary lens for understanding resurrection/new creation. He's very close to the late Fr. Alexander Schmemann (+) with his liturgically shaped eschatology.Thursday at 2:17pm · Like
Jason Honeycutt About being careful not to elevate a blessing, I was thinking the same thing about the Eucharist. God is life and the Eucharist is a vehicle but not the reality itself. The Sacraments from make so much more sense from a new creation pov. Perhaps that really is a back and forth dialogue.Thursday at 2:20pm · Like
Jeremy Sullivan Yes. Bishop Wright would applaud Jason's passion for new creation and yet kindly remind him of the Eucharistic context from which comes his reflection.Thursday at 2:20pm · Like
Tommy Thompson the names of those lectures: "Space, Time, Matter, and New Creation" and "Sacraments and New Creation" in his lectures at calvin institute for christian worship. and also, "Surprised by Hope" lecture given at West End UMC in Nashville more recently.Thursday at 2:22pm · Like
Tommy Thompson Jason, again, the reason Eucharist is the center of Christian worship throughout Christian history is because it is the content and participation in paschal mystery itself. We must be careful speaking of it as "a" vehicle but not the reality. Eucharist is larger than even sacrament...but even sacrament in the most general sense is means to participating in divine reality.Thursday at 2:26pm · Like
Jason Honeycutt Or is it that we understand the Eucharist in its new creation context? It seems to me that new creation is the larger reality that the Eucharist participates.Thursday at 2:27pm · Like
Jason Honeycutt So does that mean the Eucharist is the Trinity who I know is suppose to be the center of worship? The answer I am sure is no, so what makes it different?Thursday at 2:32pm · Like
Tommy Thompson The Eucharist is synonymous with the real presence of the Risen Lord and His saving activity visa-vis resurrection and resurrection of the Risen Lord is always connected via triune perichoresis, so i would say yes; it just may be a deeper reality than you are making it...
Eucharist is the baptized participation in triune perichoresis--into the new creation which Christ's resurrection has opened! :-)Thursday at 2:36pm · Like
Jason Honeycutt Okay, now we getting somewhere. I see what you are saying. I am not sure if I would go that far.
So when we are in a Sun morning worship service and Holy Communion is not being served but God's presence is there, do we still experience Eucharist?Thursday at 2:45pm · Like
Jason Honeycutt Of course, you could say that the service is less than what God intends for us to experience because He wants us to participate in the SacramentsThursday at 3:01pm · Like
Tommy Thompson I would go that far because i stand in the Wesleyan tradition that affirms that sacrament conveys the divine reality. We believe this is actually very orthodox and in line with Christian tradition. If you don't want to go that far, you do not have to.
The church is gathered by the Spirit to make Eucharist. There are six other days where she has prayer services. If I were okay with our response to the Spirit's gathering stopping short of making Eucharist, i would've never posted in the first place.Thursday at 3:05pm · Like
Tommy Thompson Exactly brother Jason; God desires for us to commune with him so let's cooperate with grace and do it and in that communion experience and become new creation...without the Eucharist along with the other means of grace, the new creation is bogus and cannot be realized (since God provided the means for this end)Thursday at 3:09pm · Like
Jason Honeycutt I do see the Eucharist as well as all of Christ's efforts and grace preparing us to become new and enter the New Jerusalem.
The only possible concerns I have would be worshiping the Eucharist (similar to how some Christians worship the Bible or adding Mary to the Trinity), and I do not see the Eucharist that explicitly elevated in Scripture, although I see why theologically.Thursday at 3:42pm · Like
Tommy Thompson The Eucharist is the church's way of life...much more than what we experience n monthly communion when it's an addendum to the preaching service...Thursday at 4:33pm · Like
Tommy Thompson again, the Eucharist is synonymous for the Real presence of the Risen Lord and His saving activity via His glorious resurrection. We worship Christ Eucharistically! He is the means and the end--the victim and victor--the priest and the offering--the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, the bread of heaven and cup of salvation: that's what we say/hear when we communicate, not "Receive this bread and wine that is not really Jesus"...well that wouldn't be communion at all would it.Thursday at 4:41pm · Like
Jeremy Sullivan Silent is the Spirit's whooing
drawing us to dance, to be.
God's own heart to us revealing
manifest is grace and truth!
Oh to dwell in sweet communion
with the Lover of mankind.Thursday at 4:45pm · Unlike · 1 person
Tommy Thompson Aamen! There's a reason our orthodox brothers and sisters hit the floor when the Spirit is invoked over the gifts! They believe in the holy mystery! Christ is present!Thursday at 4:49pm · Like
Tommy Thompson This just came to mind: "What was conspicuous in the Redeemer has passed over into the sacraments." -- Leo the GreatThursday at 4:54pm · Like
Jeremy Sullivan Pretty good stuff.Thursday at 5:01pm · Like
Jeremy Sullivan Christ is in our midst!Thursday at 5:12pm · Like
Jeremy Sullivan The response is.... He is and ever shall be.Thursday at 7:51pm · Like
Tommy Thompson Amen; He is and ever shall be.Thursday at 7:53pm · Like
Tommy Thompson next discussion is on your facebook, Jeremy. The follow up discussion from the "ontological existence of the devil" conversation...post it and we'll chime inThursday at 7:54pm · Like
Tommy Thompson Jeremy, who wrote that hymn? ;-)Thursday at 9:11pm · Like
Jeremy Sullivan oh dear.Thursday at 9:35pm · Like
Jeremy Sullivan the stanza from the above hymn was the first one I have written ;)Thursday at 9:36pm · Like
Tommy Thompson That's some good stuff brotherThursday at 10:22pm · Like
Jason Honeycutt Ok, I thought through this last night while working. I do believe in the real presence during the Eucharist but quite extend the language as far as you suggest. To be fair, I will try to put on a Eucharistic lens while studying Scripture.
I wrote earlier that Scripture does not explicitly state this higher meaning of Eucharist. What other passages besides John 6 states it? I read John 6 but it does not necessarily go that far; I have to read into the text to some degree to come to that conclusion.
Some passages/thoughts I see that may help your case is Jesus as the new Moses with the new Passover and new Exodus, Jesus as the High Priest/Melchizedek in Hebrews, and Jesus as the Lamb in Revelation (Heb too). Those tie into new creation and probably bridges it with your broad conviction of Eucharist.
Any thoughts on Jesus being the new Moses and how it relates to Eucharist and new creation?
Thank you both for sharing; I have enjoyed this.Yesterday at 12:14pm · Like
Stan Thompson I have led two churches in the past 5 years to weekly Communion and the most often heard argument against was that it would become ritualistic and lose its meaning. My common response was, "We recite the Lord's prayer, the doxology, and the Apostle's Creed every Sunday, which of these 3 or are all 3 ritualistic with lost meaning?" I think it is the attitude of the one coming to worship that is the determining factor. I was also amazed to find Hoyt Hickman write concerning the Basic Pattern of Worship for United Methodists, “The climax of the service is giving the bread and the cup to the people and their partaking in Holy Communion with God in Christ and with the whole family of Christ in every time and place.”1 If the climax of worship is the receiving of Communion, then it seems to me, it is imperative that it be offered every Sunday in worship.
1 Worship Matters, 35.Yesterday at 3:12pm · Like
Jeremy Sullivan Certainly so. The classic order of worship, however it is inculcated, is very much with the climax of the service in mind. It is an intentional movement from gathering to Word to Thanksgiving (Eucharist) to sending forth. We were created, an in turn redeemed, to offer our praise and thanks to God continually through the offering of the Eucharist for the sake of the world.Yesterday at 4:34pm · Like
Stan Thompson Luke 24 and the Emmaus account are used to explain the four fold pattern of Worship and in this account Jesus is made known to them in the breaking of bread. In other words the real presence of Christ. This may be why John Wesley considered Communion to also be a converting ordinance as well as a sacrament.18 hours ago · Like
Jeremy Sullivan Not sure here. I might be more apt to say that Luke 24 represents the event retold through the eyes of the early Christian community... Which was Eucharistic to the core? I think the passage is very revelatory of both the mind and heart of our forebears in faith. I believe that text is clearly shaped by that community who lived in communion with the risen lord.10 hours ago · Like
Stan Thompson The UMC Book of Worship gives a detailed explanation of the Luke 24 account and its relation to the basic pattern of worship.9 hours ago · Like
Tommy Thompson It's too bad the majority of our church's aren't using that flow :-( Even some of our parishes who are communing at least weekly are simply tacking it on to the end of their preaching service (in a very Zwinglian fashion) that has some of the liturgical pieces, but they're jumbled up like a puzzle that's been dismantled. When it comes to worship we seem more like a network of independent churches doing it our own way...we've elevated "that's the way we've always done it" above "this is the way the church has received it (with deep meaning and formational value). There really is a flow...a flow that comes more from the liturgical communities of the early church than Luke 24--a beautiful flow that leads us to the climax of the service and then out to mission...
Though I see how we use Luke 24 to give biblical credence to our flow of worship, i think the most plausible answer is in the ancient liturgical tradition of the church that is simply assumed in our Scriptures.9 hours ago · Like
Tommy Thompson Jason, thank you; i, too, enjoy virtual holy conferencing. haha. :-)
I wonder if rather than trying to proof text something as far-reaching as the Eucharistic meta-narrative of the early church, it would be best to go back and study the church's liturgy from which the Scriptures were born (better yet experience them..because i'm convinced that liturgy cannot be taught without first being a present reality in our lives)?
The church has not taught me to see the Scriptures as our exhaustive reference book for all things spiritual but the story of God's mighty acts of salvation climaxing in the life death resurrection and ascension of Jesus Christ, which of course is the core of Eucharistic celebration and life.9 hours ago · Like
Stan Thompson The reason for the standardization of worship as contained in the Book of Worship is to help churches worship together in the same way at the same time without each church left to decide what it thinks is worship on its own. The basic pattern is what the UMC thinks is the worship pattern of the early church.9 hours ago · Like
Tommy Thompson Stan; good point. I agree and believe the UMC is right on...as she has received this discovery in ecumenical dialog (as we all went back together to the early church for the sake of liturgical reformation).
The UMC liturgy is faithful to the historic flow of worship yet it is much freer than, say, the Book of Common Prayer and other liturgies. That's where the freedom is located--in the fact that even though we have a liturgy with logical and meaningful flow, we are free to be creative with the content of that flow. This is the beautiful potential of United Methodist liturgy! We can pull from the rich well of Christian tradition within the pattern of worship that has been handed to us...it can be very dynamic within the bounds of orthodoxy week in and week out! :-)
However, I do not believe the UMC suggests that we dismantle the flow into something entirely different with no logical or meaningful direction. Though in most every case this is not what is happening. What is happening is that all the various local liturgies that preceded and that gave way to liturgical renewal/reformation are still the basis of our worship with the church's liturgy being worked in where we see fit.
I do not deny this is a difficult road that must be traversed graciously, but it is a road we need to traverse. My critique is that we continue to do nothing in the name of patience and grace and our churches continue to decline primarily spiritually and consequently numerically (though, in my mind, these are hardly ever directly correlated).8 hours ago · Like
Stan Thompson Good points Tommy. Although there is much freedom within the BP, the transition to the BP is difficult for churches. This is the place for pastoral leadership. However, if the pastor's themselves don't believe in Communion every Sunday as a part of the BP, then the churches can hardly be faulted for following a different pattern of worship.8 hours ago · Like
Tommy Thompson Amen Stan. In the words of a favorite band of mine, we clergy must learn to confess, "the fault lies clearly with me.". --The Avett Brothers
Tommy Thompson
the following is official United Methodist statement on sacrament, not Roman Catholic, (though, thankfully, we have a lot in common): "The ritual action of a sacrament does not merely point to God's presence in the world, but also participates in it and becomes a vehicle for conveying that reality." ... why are we not running to the table every opportunity we get?
February 15 at 1:57pm · · Like ·
Leah DeLong and Stan Thompson like this.
Chad Harvey Because Folk Theology has much persuasion in the churchFebruary 15 at 2:04pm · Like
Tommy Thompson you are right Chad, but that's not a plausible answer for our neglect of such gracious opportunity. Knowing full well Rev. Harvey is doing something about it, i wonder what are "we" gonna do about it?February 15 at 2:06pm · Like
Chad Harvey I'm guessing "we" means Methodists...but as a Nazarene constant lay theological teaching and re-instructing is essential.February 15 at 2:08pm · Like
Tommy Thompson It is an inclusive"we" brother as we sit at the same table. Thanks for your hard work and passion toward eucharistic formation.February 15 at 2:10pm · Like
Jeremy Sullivan Because we read "a vehicle" and think that just means it could be if I decide it is, want it to be, find it personally meaningful, etc., in which case just puts the Sacraments as no more important than my personal devotions.February 15 at 2:13pm · Unlike · 1 person
Tommy Thompson i like what one UM theologian and pastor is teaching right now...the rediscovery of mystagogical preaching...so we're not simply teaching abstractly on holy mysteries that must be undergone, but proclaiming the Gospel that sacrament is in and through sacrament...beautiful stuff coming from the patristics here...a gold mine worth rediscovering!February 15 at 2:13pm · Like
Tommy Thompson http://www.amazon.com/Crea tive-Preaching-Sacraments- Craig-Satterlee/dp/0881773 557February 15 at 2:18pm · Like
Nathan Napier Because we're good Zwinglians!...and we've been colonized by what Martin Marty called the "baptistification" of America (and I do love my Baptist brother and sisters). Ordinances is the utilitarian way in which sacraments are understood.February 15 at 2:25pm · Like
Tommy Thompson Yes; exactly, Nathan. We understand it not as eucharist -- making thanksgiving in response to God's mighty acts of salvation that becomes communion, but as law (in the Lutheran sense of the word)...or at the very least something else we have to do.... I pray the Holy Spirit brings revival and reformation within the protestant churches to embrace the resurrected Lord in and through the sacrament so that we might more faithfully be sacrament for the world!February 15 at 2:35pm · Like
Stan Thompson There are 3 UMC churches in the Roanoke District that serve Holy Communion every Sunday. It is transformational.February 15 at 3:04pm · Like · 1 person
Tommy Thompson Amen brother Stan! And i know of one in Charlottesville District that does as well -- out in the middle of a cow field! They agree ;-)February 15 at 3:05pm · Like · 1 person
Jeremy Sullivan It's more than transformational. It's just Christian.February 15 at 3:12pm · Like · 1 person
Tommy Thompson Amen brother Jeremy!February 15 at 3:14pm · Like
Tammy Estep I agree, the main reason congregations don't run to the table is because we have not taught our people the significance of the table with love and grace.February 15 at 3:16pm · Like · 2 people
Tommy Thompson Amen Tammy; come Holy Spirit, its time for a new season of sacramental love and grace in the protestant and particularly the UM communities of faith.February 15 at 3:24pm · Like · 2 people
Carl Perez Et Al; I agree and it time for RENEWAL!February 15 at 4:11pm · Unlike · 1 person
Jason Honeycutt I agree with Nathan. Many are Zwinglian and only participate in the Sacraments because Jesus said so.
Participating because it is just Christian is also too circular, especially in a culture that is confused about what it means to be Christian.
Transformation is key. People can understand that God wants to turn our lives around and make us new.
God's vision is new creation, and we participate in that vision as we experience the Sacraments. Being transformed from old to new creation -- that's Christian.
Aah, I love new creation.February 15 at 4:43pm · Like
Tommy Thompson Jason, thank you so much for bringing eschatological orientation into this discussion...i think this is the larger over-arching framework for sacramental theology and practice that is often neglected. What a joy to see through the veil a bit more clearly as we make eucharist to be sent by the Spirit to make that vision reality for God's world!February 15 at 4:47pm · Like
Carl Perez Our problem I feel is we focus more of Christ's action in Communion and not on the work of the TRIUNE God in the Sacrament Changing us into a new Creation for the transformation of the world.February 15 at 4:54pm · Like
Jennifer Page pleads the 5th.February 15 at 4:55pm · Like
Jason Honeycutt No problem. I am telling everyone I can about God's new creation. I've told methodists, baptists, lutherans, presbyterians, nazarenes, and non-Christians.
I am leading my small group this Sunday and the topic is "converting grace". The class book mentions John 3:5 and 2 Cor 5:17. I will tell them about new creation in the story of Nicodemus who is "old". I am very excited.February 15 at 5:01pm · Unlike · 1 person
Tommy Thompson Carl-if i hear what you're saying, i agree with you...we tend to focus more on what happened thousands of years ago as revealed in the institution narratives themselves and not so much on the living reality of what that lived institution reveals/empowers to become via liturgical practice.February 15 at 5:01pm · Like
Samuel Simoes There is a mystery as well in serving monthly. Weekly eucharist can lead to a routine and legalist ritual, rather than a significant sacrament. Preparing our heart for communion may not be so much a matter of frequency, but relevance and mostly important; significance.February 15 at 5:02pm · Like
Tommy Thompson well, hundreds of years ago is better put...February 15 at 5:02pm · Like
Jeremy Sullivan Wesley called us to constant Eucharist. If it becomes legalistic ritual its our problem revealed..
Not the sacrament's problem..February 15 at 5:07pm · Like
Jeremy Sullivan The sacrament is meaningful and significant because God says so. Grace is on God's terms. Whether we find that meaningful or significant is not the issue.February 15 at 5:09pm · Like
Jeremy Sullivan Didn't we die to this individualistic, I decide what is meaningful and important in baptism?February 15 at 5:10pm · Like
Tommy Thompson Sam, i appreciate that perspective. However, I think it is spoken through a lens that understands Christian worship's primary center to be the sermon and not a movement to the climax of the Gospel revealed most clearly in the broken body and spilt blood of our Savior. I think this is where the late protestant/evangelical movement has led us...away from the church's tradition of worship as Eucharistically centered...of course the reason we ever communicated quarterly in the first place was due to the unavailability of ordained clergy as Methodism spread like wildfire across the U.S. You know how we are -- we develop habits ("we've always done it that way!"). Once we had more than enough ordained leadership we continued to celebrate quarterly until those like Thomas O. Summers and others called our habits into question and led us closer to the goal by advocating monthly communion. I think its time for the next step...
John Wesley was adamant about us being constant communicants rather than frequent communicants...primarily because of the grace available to us for healing and transformation. Surely we are not always prepared appropriately or receive adequately, but even then we are being formed into eucharistic community--easter people. Not to mention this is one of those sermons that Wesley preached in his early ministry and later ministry with the emphatic line, "The following discourse was written above five and fifty years ago, for the use of my pupils at Oxford. I have added very little, but retrenched much; as I then used more words than I do now. But I thank God I have not yet seen cause to alter my sentiments in any point which is therein delivered."
Here is a link to that wonderful sermon:
http://www.mathewsumc.org/ html/worship/constant1.htmFebruary 15 at 5:14pm · Like
Carl Perez ~ Tommy your right
~ Samuel but if we view the sacraments in such a way that the mysterion is the presence of our God living and moving with in us constantly then the sacrments can never get legalistic or ritual because everytime we part take we are seeing a revelation of self being made into the imagine of God... There more to this but gotta get dinner done :)February 15 at 5:16pm · Like
Tommy Thompson I also want to say paraphrase Marva Dawn (i think): some of the most important discoveries in life happen out of boredom and habit...(though i'm never bored with the holy habit of making eucharist)
Also some of the most life-giving activities of life are habitual (not to mention the preaching of a sermon)...I will not revert to telling my wife i love her monthly...
Also, experience has not demonstrated that those who are celebrating less frequently find the eucharist more meaningful...just some thoughts.February 15 at 5:19pm · Like
Tommy Thompson also, we intercede/confess weekly, we read scripture weekly (i hope!), we preach weekly, we sing weekly, we even offer money weekly...why single out the climax of all these things using the logic that doing something routinely is reason enough for not doing it?
i mean going to the bathroom, brushing my teeth, eating, drinking...all routine and sometimes not so exciting...but without these constantly, i'm not gonna be too healthy...
the most important action i do is make eucharist, for Christ has made me a priest (and he has made us all a priest in our baptism--to receive the world as sacrament, offer it to him in thanksgiving, and experience triune communion for the healing of our beings and for the sake of God's world).February 15 at 5:29pm · Like
Tommy Thompson with all that said, I think you rock, Sam, for leading a Nazarene congregation from celebrating a few times a year to monthly when you are not required to do so... :-)February 15 at 5:35pm · Like
Jeremy Sullivan It really is life.February 15 at 5:36pm · Unlike · 2 people
Tommy Thompson Jeremy: your concise yet profound statement reminds me of John's gospel: "unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you." ... and most everyone turned their backs and walked away...but don't you just love what Peter said when Jesus asked, "Do you also wish to go away?" :-)February 15 at 5:40pm · Like · 1 person
Jeremy Sullivan Well without trying to be too circular I think that it is just Christian. That's not circular....that's pretty specific revelation if you ask me.February 15 at 6:43pm · Like
Jason Honeycutt To people who either grew up in the Church or are theologically trained, no it is not too circular; however, to those who did not grow up in the Church (like me) and people such as my neo-pagan relatives, it is far too circular.
I have visited at least 8 churches in the last two months and they all have been in decline for years. They are literally dying off and not reaching the younger generation (to their credit, most of them are trying).
Non-Christians are not going to know what makes the Sacraments Christian. More than likely, they are not going to simply participate because someone (even Jesus) commanded. This is precisely why many people see the Eucharist as too ritualistic and legalistic. They do not know why we should other than we are suppose to or it is something good (or scary) to do. The reason why we have the Sacraments is so that God can transform us from old to new. New creation is essential.
Speaking of the Gospel of John, it is all about God's new creation. The (new) beginning is obviously a parallel to Genesis, new birth in ch 3, people are transformed when they encounter Christ, in ch 15-17 Jesus and His Kingdom do not belong to this "world" which is part of the old creation. The disciples now belong to an everlasting reality that impacts us here and now. Everything Jesus said and did (also says and does) prepares us for this new world -- the New Creation/New Jerusalem/Kingdom or City of God. We should see the Sacraments in this context.Wednesday at 3:46pm · Like
Jeremy Sullivan I totally affirm the eschatological orientation of the sacraments. It is central to them.
We are not forming disciples well if they can conceive of Christianity apart from the sacraments. They are means of grace....primary ones. They are the sign acts through which God fashions this new creation of which you are so joyfully speaking.
The heart of the witness of scripture is testimony to the ongoing new creation work God is doing in this world... Powerfully inaugurated in the resurrection of Jesus and moving us forward to the consummation of all things. It's not just John's thought.... It's all over scripture.Wednesday at 4:03pm · Like
Jeremy Sullivan All this talk Has me hungry now. It's a good thing sumbody will let me eat tonight.Wednesday at 4:56pm · Like
Jason Honeycutt Well, joy is part of the new creation. :)
Yes, exactly. And the same goes if we participate in the Sacraments apart from new creation. If we so, of course they will seem legalistic and ritualistic. From a new creation perspective, our old selfs are dead and forgiven and God transforms our selfs new. This means the Sacraments are evangelical as well because we profess them publicly as God calls others to participate.
New creation is my passion. It is also my lense/bias as I interpret Scripture. You're right on about it being all over. I understand the Bible as creation, uncreation and new creation. It's a wonderful blessing that I am very thankful to God for.Wednesday at 5:27pm · Like
Tommy Thompson Jason, if I hear you right, you are claiming that Jeremy's claim that the Holy Eucharist is Christian is something he's simply assuming as a premise...but something that cannot truly be proved if carefully thought out..or that he is simply dodging the real issue by going around it? Am I wrong here? If so, what do you mean by calling his assertion "circular?"
I think what brother Jeremy is saying when he says, "It's just Christian," is that we who even have this debate are an anomaly within CHRISTIAN tradition. From the first century, to be Christian meant to be Eucharistic--to be Eucharistic is to be Christian. I do not find this to be circular reasoning...i find it to be reasoning that demonstrates dramatic coherence/narrative continuity with the one, holy catholic and apostolic church.
If there is a better lens than new creation (which is inherently Christian) through which to see life, it is the ethos of the new creation--the Eucharist. I like when Wainwright says that most everything the church does will pass with resurrection, but praise & Eucharist will not.
I hope we can unashamedly reclaim the Eucharist as the core ethos of what it means to be a Christian (a new creation on the way to new creation in new creation--the Paschal Lamb). Of course it is not relevant to the world's deadly ethoses--which is why we practice most especially when it is strange, inviting the world not to hear explanation but resounding the words of our Savior who says, "Come and See" or maybe even "Taste and See."Thursday at 8:51am · Like
Jason Honeycutt I agree w/Jeremy but wanted more specifics. If we participate in a ritual simply because we are suppose to (that's circular), then the Eucharist could easily become legalistic. New creation keeps it fresh. When we are changed, even pagans begin to understand.
I don't see a better lens than new creation. New creation is much larger than what the Church does here and now. God's new creation is the everlasting reality which the Eucharist is a part but not the totality. The Sacraments are ways which God uses so we become new.
Also I do not see the Eucharist in every passage like I do new creation. John 6 may have the strongest passage for the Eucharist yet it is only a piece (a large and important piece) of John's new creation story. Same w/the rest of the Bible.
What exactly do you mean by Eucharistic? Obviously it's broader than just the Sacraments but how we should live, right?Thursday at 11:25am · Like
Tommy Thompson new creation is the new world wherein we live eucharistically...which is what i mean by eucharist being ethos of the Kingdom of God. The baptized live in new creation as people who see the world shot-through with the glory of God (as the water covers the seas), receive the new creation as gift, offer that gift back to the Father through the Son and in the Spirit where that offering is transformed into triune communion. The sacrament forms us to be this way always, healing our sin-diseased nature and forming us as eucharistic people who are sacrament and experience the world as such.
New creation is the full realization of the priesthood of all believers who are eternally making eucharist. Since eucharist is the ethos of the new creation, it is the most proper way to see all of life...it is the content of the new creation!Thursday at 11:36am · Like
Tommy Thompson Oh, and since the eucharist is the rehearsal of God's mighty acts of salvation climaxing in the pascal mysteries of Jesus Christ (that which is new creation and makes new creation reality for us), I'd have to say that it is indeed ALL OVER the biblical narrative...though it is also important for us to be reminded that it was indeed the eucharistic community who received and nurtured the biblical text in the first place...Thursday at 12:51pm · Like
Jason Honeycutt I have not thought of it that way. I talk about worship in the same way as you speak about eucharistic. Worship and new creation go hand in hand. When we choose to worship the only One who is not created, we participate in the new creation. Old creation worships created gods/idols.
So basically, you are saying that new creation is the reality we now belong and Eucharist is the participation we experience in that reality. What passages are most meaningful for the latter? Some of Hebrews and Revelation come to mind.
It seems like there is little difference between worshiping God and choosing new creation in all we think, say, and do -- and living eucharistically.
We are talking about the same thing but you are using sacramental language, right?Thursday at 1:01pm · Like
Tommy Thompson I think part of what makes Christian worship inherently eucharistic is the realization that we individuals cannot simply choose to worship the one God or even know God is Trinity. All worship in Spirit and Truth is eucharistic in that it comes from a deep sense of thanksgiving offered in, through, and to the triune God for even healing our sin-diseased faculties so that we might then be able to choose to respond to such gracious initiative in Jesus Christ offered through the eucharistic community that is the church! And it is through constant participation in eucharistic community that the new creation is revealed to us as such...not something "I" just choose as antithesis of "old creation."Thursday at 1:12pm · Like
Tommy Thompson Lastly, I want to question your statement: "New creation is much larger than what the Church does here and now. God's new creation is the everlasting reality which the Eucharist is a part but not the totality." Is the chief sacrament of the church simply what the church is doing here and now? (If so, doesn't it cease to be sacrament)? Or is the eucharist participation in what God has done, is doing, and will do...even participation in the future world so that that world might become reality in the world through the church's faithful mission?
The Sacrament of the Lord's Supper is the primary portal into the eternal reality of the eucharist. When with Christ's re-appearing, the dead are raised and sacrament fades into full, glorified reality, that reality will be nothing short of eucharistic, as it is the ethos of the new creation.
We must be careful elevating the blessing above the one from whom all blessings flow. Eucharist precedes our participation in new creation and is it's reason for existence and is that which defines it most thoroughly. Those who undergo eucharist are most obviously new creation.Thursday at 1:49pm · Like
Jason Honeycutt I am assuming that God enables us by His grace to make choices to follow Him or the world. That doesn't mean we can't sing "I have decided to follow Jesus, no turning back, no turning back" or "The world behind me, the Cross before me" which I sang this Sunday (the 'world' of course being part of the old creation). John 3 and Col 3 (among many more passages) both have the eschatogically dualistic contrast of old and new creation which N T Wright describes so well in Surprised By Hope.
I am trying to figure out how you can move from participating in a specific sacramental ritual (the Eucharist) to life in its entirety. New creation is easier because it is both God's vision for us personally (2 Cor 5:17) and universally (Rev 21:1-5).Thursday at 1:54pm · Like
Tommy Thompson because "The ritual action of a sacrament does not merely point to God's presence in the world, but also participates in it and becomes a vehicle for conveying that reality."
Again, new creation is that which sacrament reveals. The content of Eucharist, The work of the Paschal Lamb in triune perichorsis, makes it possible. Eucharist is the lens through which to understand all things new.Thursday at 2:00pm · Like
Tommy Thompson And i have to say too, in response to what you said about just assuming that God's grace is there for you (a bit circular): How does God enable us? that's the question. The Apostles' answer to that question (the faithfulness of Jesus Christ) is revealed for us most precisely in the sacrament which our Lord instituted...Apart from this Spirit-filled community of grace centered around Jesus' life-giving death and resurrection, i cannot "decide to follow Jesus."
Also, I encourage you to go and listen to some of Bishop Wright's lectures on that wonderful book; you will find the eucharist is his primary lens for understanding resurrection/new creation. He's very close to the late Fr. Alexander Schmemann (+) with his liturgically shaped eschatology.Thursday at 2:17pm · Like
Jason Honeycutt About being careful not to elevate a blessing, I was thinking the same thing about the Eucharist. God is life and the Eucharist is a vehicle but not the reality itself. The Sacraments from make so much more sense from a new creation pov. Perhaps that really is a back and forth dialogue.Thursday at 2:20pm · Like
Jeremy Sullivan Yes. Bishop Wright would applaud Jason's passion for new creation and yet kindly remind him of the Eucharistic context from which comes his reflection.Thursday at 2:20pm · Like
Tommy Thompson the names of those lectures: "Space, Time, Matter, and New Creation" and "Sacraments and New Creation" in his lectures at calvin institute for christian worship. and also, "Surprised by Hope" lecture given at West End UMC in Nashville more recently.Thursday at 2:22pm · Like
Tommy Thompson Jason, again, the reason Eucharist is the center of Christian worship throughout Christian history is because it is the content and participation in paschal mystery itself. We must be careful speaking of it as "a" vehicle but not the reality. Eucharist is larger than even sacrament...but even sacrament in the most general sense is means to participating in divine reality.Thursday at 2:26pm · Like
Jason Honeycutt Or is it that we understand the Eucharist in its new creation context? It seems to me that new creation is the larger reality that the Eucharist participates.Thursday at 2:27pm · Like
Jason Honeycutt So does that mean the Eucharist is the Trinity who I know is suppose to be the center of worship? The answer I am sure is no, so what makes it different?Thursday at 2:32pm · Like
Tommy Thompson The Eucharist is synonymous with the real presence of the Risen Lord and His saving activity visa-vis resurrection and resurrection of the Risen Lord is always connected via triune perichoresis, so i would say yes; it just may be a deeper reality than you are making it...
Eucharist is the baptized participation in triune perichoresis--into the new creation which Christ's resurrection has opened! :-)Thursday at 2:36pm · Like
Jason Honeycutt Okay, now we getting somewhere. I see what you are saying. I am not sure if I would go that far.
So when we are in a Sun morning worship service and Holy Communion is not being served but God's presence is there, do we still experience Eucharist?Thursday at 2:45pm · Like
Jason Honeycutt Of course, you could say that the service is less than what God intends for us to experience because He wants us to participate in the SacramentsThursday at 3:01pm · Like
Tommy Thompson I would go that far because i stand in the Wesleyan tradition that affirms that sacrament conveys the divine reality. We believe this is actually very orthodox and in line with Christian tradition. If you don't want to go that far, you do not have to.
The church is gathered by the Spirit to make Eucharist. There are six other days where she has prayer services. If I were okay with our response to the Spirit's gathering stopping short of making Eucharist, i would've never posted in the first place.Thursday at 3:05pm · Like
Tommy Thompson Exactly brother Jason; God desires for us to commune with him so let's cooperate with grace and do it and in that communion experience and become new creation...without the Eucharist along with the other means of grace, the new creation is bogus and cannot be realized (since God provided the means for this end)Thursday at 3:09pm · Like
Jason Honeycutt I do see the Eucharist as well as all of Christ's efforts and grace preparing us to become new and enter the New Jerusalem.
The only possible concerns I have would be worshiping the Eucharist (similar to how some Christians worship the Bible or adding Mary to the Trinity), and I do not see the Eucharist that explicitly elevated in Scripture, although I see why theologically.Thursday at 3:42pm · Like
Tommy Thompson The Eucharist is the church's way of life...much more than what we experience n monthly communion when it's an addendum to the preaching service...Thursday at 4:33pm · Like
Tommy Thompson again, the Eucharist is synonymous for the Real presence of the Risen Lord and His saving activity via His glorious resurrection. We worship Christ Eucharistically! He is the means and the end--the victim and victor--the priest and the offering--the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, the bread of heaven and cup of salvation: that's what we say/hear when we communicate, not "Receive this bread and wine that is not really Jesus"...well that wouldn't be communion at all would it.Thursday at 4:41pm · Like
Jeremy Sullivan Silent is the Spirit's whooing
drawing us to dance, to be.
God's own heart to us revealing
manifest is grace and truth!
Oh to dwell in sweet communion
with the Lover of mankind.Thursday at 4:45pm · Unlike · 1 person
Tommy Thompson Aamen! There's a reason our orthodox brothers and sisters hit the floor when the Spirit is invoked over the gifts! They believe in the holy mystery! Christ is present!Thursday at 4:49pm · Like
Tommy Thompson This just came to mind: "What was conspicuous in the Redeemer has passed over into the sacraments." -- Leo the GreatThursday at 4:54pm · Like
Jeremy Sullivan Pretty good stuff.Thursday at 5:01pm · Like
Jeremy Sullivan Christ is in our midst!Thursday at 5:12pm · Like
Jeremy Sullivan The response is.... He is and ever shall be.Thursday at 7:51pm · Like
Tommy Thompson Amen; He is and ever shall be.Thursday at 7:53pm · Like
Tommy Thompson next discussion is on your facebook, Jeremy. The follow up discussion from the "ontological existence of the devil" conversation...post it and we'll chime inThursday at 7:54pm · Like
Tommy Thompson Jeremy, who wrote that hymn? ;-)Thursday at 9:11pm · Like
Jeremy Sullivan oh dear.Thursday at 9:35pm · Like
Jeremy Sullivan the stanza from the above hymn was the first one I have written ;)Thursday at 9:36pm · Like
Tommy Thompson That's some good stuff brotherThursday at 10:22pm · Like
Jason Honeycutt Ok, I thought through this last night while working. I do believe in the real presence during the Eucharist but quite extend the language as far as you suggest. To be fair, I will try to put on a Eucharistic lens while studying Scripture.
I wrote earlier that Scripture does not explicitly state this higher meaning of Eucharist. What other passages besides John 6 states it? I read John 6 but it does not necessarily go that far; I have to read into the text to some degree to come to that conclusion.
Some passages/thoughts I see that may help your case is Jesus as the new Moses with the new Passover and new Exodus, Jesus as the High Priest/Melchizedek in Hebrews, and Jesus as the Lamb in Revelation (Heb too). Those tie into new creation and probably bridges it with your broad conviction of Eucharist.
Any thoughts on Jesus being the new Moses and how it relates to Eucharist and new creation?
Thank you both for sharing; I have enjoyed this.Yesterday at 12:14pm · Like
Stan Thompson I have led two churches in the past 5 years to weekly Communion and the most often heard argument against was that it would become ritualistic and lose its meaning. My common response was, "We recite the Lord's prayer, the doxology, and the Apostle's Creed every Sunday, which of these 3 or are all 3 ritualistic with lost meaning?" I think it is the attitude of the one coming to worship that is the determining factor. I was also amazed to find Hoyt Hickman write concerning the Basic Pattern of Worship for United Methodists, “The climax of the service is giving the bread and the cup to the people and their partaking in Holy Communion with God in Christ and with the whole family of Christ in every time and place.”1 If the climax of worship is the receiving of Communion, then it seems to me, it is imperative that it be offered every Sunday in worship.
1 Worship Matters, 35.Yesterday at 3:12pm · Like
Jeremy Sullivan Certainly so. The classic order of worship, however it is inculcated, is very much with the climax of the service in mind. It is an intentional movement from gathering to Word to Thanksgiving (Eucharist) to sending forth. We were created, an in turn redeemed, to offer our praise and thanks to God continually through the offering of the Eucharist for the sake of the world.Yesterday at 4:34pm · Like
Stan Thompson Luke 24 and the Emmaus account are used to explain the four fold pattern of Worship and in this account Jesus is made known to them in the breaking of bread. In other words the real presence of Christ. This may be why John Wesley considered Communion to also be a converting ordinance as well as a sacrament.18 hours ago · Like
Jeremy Sullivan Not sure here. I might be more apt to say that Luke 24 represents the event retold through the eyes of the early Christian community... Which was Eucharistic to the core? I think the passage is very revelatory of both the mind and heart of our forebears in faith. I believe that text is clearly shaped by that community who lived in communion with the risen lord.10 hours ago · Like
Stan Thompson The UMC Book of Worship gives a detailed explanation of the Luke 24 account and its relation to the basic pattern of worship.9 hours ago · Like
Tommy Thompson It's too bad the majority of our church's aren't using that flow :-( Even some of our parishes who are communing at least weekly are simply tacking it on to the end of their preaching service (in a very Zwinglian fashion) that has some of the liturgical pieces, but they're jumbled up like a puzzle that's been dismantled. When it comes to worship we seem more like a network of independent churches doing it our own way...we've elevated "that's the way we've always done it" above "this is the way the church has received it (with deep meaning and formational value). There really is a flow...a flow that comes more from the liturgical communities of the early church than Luke 24--a beautiful flow that leads us to the climax of the service and then out to mission...
Though I see how we use Luke 24 to give biblical credence to our flow of worship, i think the most plausible answer is in the ancient liturgical tradition of the church that is simply assumed in our Scriptures.9 hours ago · Like
Tommy Thompson Jason, thank you; i, too, enjoy virtual holy conferencing. haha. :-)
I wonder if rather than trying to proof text something as far-reaching as the Eucharistic meta-narrative of the early church, it would be best to go back and study the church's liturgy from which the Scriptures were born (better yet experience them..because i'm convinced that liturgy cannot be taught without first being a present reality in our lives)?
The church has not taught me to see the Scriptures as our exhaustive reference book for all things spiritual but the story of God's mighty acts of salvation climaxing in the life death resurrection and ascension of Jesus Christ, which of course is the core of Eucharistic celebration and life.9 hours ago · Like
Stan Thompson The reason for the standardization of worship as contained in the Book of Worship is to help churches worship together in the same way at the same time without each church left to decide what it thinks is worship on its own. The basic pattern is what the UMC thinks is the worship pattern of the early church.9 hours ago · Like
Tommy Thompson Stan; good point. I agree and believe the UMC is right on...as she has received this discovery in ecumenical dialog (as we all went back together to the early church for the sake of liturgical reformation).
The UMC liturgy is faithful to the historic flow of worship yet it is much freer than, say, the Book of Common Prayer and other liturgies. That's where the freedom is located--in the fact that even though we have a liturgy with logical and meaningful flow, we are free to be creative with the content of that flow. This is the beautiful potential of United Methodist liturgy! We can pull from the rich well of Christian tradition within the pattern of worship that has been handed to us...it can be very dynamic within the bounds of orthodoxy week in and week out! :-)
However, I do not believe the UMC suggests that we dismantle the flow into something entirely different with no logical or meaningful direction. Though in most every case this is not what is happening. What is happening is that all the various local liturgies that preceded and that gave way to liturgical renewal/reformation are still the basis of our worship with the church's liturgy being worked in where we see fit.
I do not deny this is a difficult road that must be traversed graciously, but it is a road we need to traverse. My critique is that we continue to do nothing in the name of patience and grace and our churches continue to decline primarily spiritually and consequently numerically (though, in my mind, these are hardly ever directly correlated).8 hours ago · Like
Stan Thompson Good points Tommy. Although there is much freedom within the BP, the transition to the BP is difficult for churches. This is the place for pastoral leadership. However, if the pastor's themselves don't believe in Communion every Sunday as a part of the BP, then the churches can hardly be faulted for following a different pattern of worship.8 hours ago · Like
Tommy Thompson Amen Stan. In the words of a favorite band of mine, we clergy must learn to confess, "the fault lies clearly with me.". --The Avett Brothers
Friday, February 11, 2011
Holy Conferencing on The Ontological Existence of Satan in Light of Creedal Confession
Below is an unfolding conversation on Nathan Napier's Facebook wall. With his permission, I have posted it here as you might find it to be an interesting discussion. The contributors are Nathan Napier, Jeremy Sullivan, Jared Henry, Tommy Thompson (Me), and Josh Fite. As the conversation unfolds, I will update this blog...
Nathan: In what part of the Creeds am I required to confess belief in Satan ontologically? Someone please let me know since I obviously missed this in my Patristics studies.
Jeremy: Not required in creeds. However we do ask you to renounce him and his works at baptism where you confess the creed before receiving water.
Nathan: Not all Nazarenes are asked that before Baptism ;)
Jeremy: True Nathan, many Nazarenes are not examined in historically consistent ways prior to baptism. But since you mentioned the creedal context, I wanted to highlight that in historic practice (and in the liturgy of many denominations today) that the very first question posed to a baptizand is "Do you renounce Satan and all the spiritual forces of wickedness that rebel against God" (or something similar). Following the examination, the creed is then professed. So, yes, the creeds do not require you to confess a belief in Satan, but the liturgy of baptism, which so centrally hangs on the profession of faith through the words of the creed is a context in which one is asked to directly renounce Satan (whether that qualifies as ontological reality or not, I guess one could argue). Speaking of Patristics, you might be interested in the other liturgies surrounding baptism in particular historically (since baptism was a process of preparation prior to the actual sacrament and had accompanying liturgies marking various important stages along that path) actually involved intentional prayers of exorcism over those who were preparing for baptism....some of the most intense ones being offered as part of the Holy Saturday service (remember most baptisms of those who can answer for themselves took place as part of the Easter celebration). It would seem to me that a Patristic world view would presuppose that if one has not been baptized into the kingdom of light, then we would belong to the kingdom of darkness, and in turn to the prince of darkness? Seems to me that the mere violence of the act of baptism, especially immersion, at some level while dramatizing our identification with the burial of Christ, also was an equally dramatic demonstration of the putting to death of our allegiance with evil...perhaps even drowning it out of us? LOL
Nathan: Jeremy, well said...and I like your caveat that such confession might not mean an ontological reality, but a reality that is immersed in chaos and rising to new life in the baptized. There does seem to be a consistent Patristic theology of evil as the juxtaposition of virtue, thus sin as vice and the realm from which vice becomes needs to be laid to rest, along with the many adversaries we encounter as representative of it. I suppose these nuances are missed too many times...but to be entirely consistent a pre-modern medieval worldview would have no qualms about an ontic reality known as Satan, or devil...even Luther thought such was throwing things @ him from the trees...whether WE can think this is another issue.
Jeremy: Of course, I always have Dr. Greathouse echoing in my ears... "If you don't believe in the devil, brothers and sisters, why then you've been duked by the devil!"
Nathan: I can see him saying that...I've been told, "it's ok if you don't believe in the devil because he believes in you!"...I have to admit, I chuckle @ this. ;)
Jeremy: Yeah I hear you....I stopped chuckling my first experience of an exorcism. But admittedly, there can be distinctions made between evil forces and an ontological Satan as you speak.
Nathan: Sure thing...I wonder though, how much of an exorcism is the emodiment of images given to the subject prior to possession...or oppression? Is it possible that most individuals that experience such are, or have been, part of religius environments wherein these "realities" are given a heightened awareness and hence a more likely visual embodiment? If so, than an excorcism may work because we believe it does not necessarily because it does something in the subject. But, I am offering this as an outside observer, not as one with Bob Larsen credentials.
Jared: What about the Bible?
Jeremy: The power of suggestion is powerful, for sure, but the physical realities that emerge in the midst of these things I find too compelling to just understand them as suggestions that then 'work' for someone. But I am aware that many discount the whole thing entirely.
Jeremy: Jared, agreed with you...other than just pointing to texts that speak of demonic activity (and admittedly we have to take culture and the worldview of the first century into account here) what in particular do you wish to bring forth regarding the personality of Satan?
Nathan: I hear ya Jared...what about it?
Nathan: Jeremy- I am not limiting my analysis to the power of 'suggestion' as much as I am bringing forth the idea that persons in highly spiritual environments, or environments that give heightened awareness to spiritual warfare, automatically place believers into a context of psychological and experiential sensitivity, wherein spiritual struggles are not simply battles of the self, but cosmic occurrences with the angels and demons beside us. Folks with this worldview will be more apt to experience these realities because they are images and symbols already within the subjects construction of the world.
Nathan: Of course, I also need to point out this is probably a largely unconscious reality. I don't think oppressed, or possessed, people consciously do this...but religious imagery work @ a subconscious level impacting the way we view the world without us necessarily thinking about it too much.
Jeremy: I think I hear you here...and I can understand the comments. I could see that working in this 'oppressed' category possibly, particularly among communities that intentionally raise awareness of such issues. But what about those communities that don't? I mean, take the Roman Church for that matter? If you go to confession saying, "the devil made me do it" they're gonna have a talk with you. :) I do think oppression and possession need to be addressed differently, however, for they present two distinct experiences. True about the seeing struggles as cosmic experiences....I suppose that could be. But I do find it interesting experientially... but admittedly I come from it experientially. Having prayed with folks...and even having used certain liturgical rites for such things, I have a different perspective. ...and it's always interesting when those who are suffering DON'T come from a community that would cause heightened awareness/sensitivity to it. Interestingly enough, it's often the opposite... they don't know what on earth is going on, have no explanation for it, don't believe in it, and are anxious as all get out because of it. Yes, some folks are mentally ill. I'm not discounting that either.
Jeremy: But back to Jared...Jared, it's interesting how folks who are suffering often can't stand the Word being read to them, cough up holy communion if they try to receive, etc. etc.
Tommy: Baptism, holy communion, the word, and the devil...better watch out y'all are being watched. haha
Nathan: Jeremy---good comments. I speak as one with more Freud and sociology of religion and culture than as one in these situations. If I had to be nailed down on this one, I would say I prefer biblically, historically and theologically an evilwithout ontic status...a more personified one rather than a personel one. There are many reasons for this. Due to your comments on folks in low sensitivity issues, I would say that if I was honest I would really be more agnostic on this issue. There is darkness and light and there are realities pertaining to both that neither myself nor the biblical text can fully explain that seem to participate in the world with us. From a modernist perspective, I offer these insights. From a christian perspective, I would have to probably come down humbly agnostic about absolute propositions on this issue.
Tommy: Uh oh yall he just dropped the a bomb.
Jared: I think the conversation is purely academic. If you read Scripture, it is clear that there is a Devil. It is not even a questioned reality throughout Scripture. To question that existence is to be deceived. To question his existence, especially with the line of thinking that has been put forth, you would have to question the existence of Christ and claim that He is simply a cultural symbol of light or truth. You would have to question the existence of Moses and claim that he was simply the cultural symbol of deliverance or freedom. you would have to question the existence of the angel Gabriel and claim that he was simply the cultural symbol of revelation.
In my opinion, a denial of the existence of Satan is an attempt to deny what we cannot fully understand. It is yet another step down a liberal road that leads not only to questioning obvious and plain Bible truths, but a vulnerability obey Scripture and thus protect ourselves spiritually, as in 1 Peter 5:8 "Be sober-minded; be watchful. Your adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour."
Tommy: Jared, where was he in the first/old covenant?
Jeremy: uh oh.
Jeremy: The conversation is not purely academic. It started with a question about the creed. This is not an academic issue, it is a worship issue... a foundational one. Now, let's talk scripture, shall we? How have we learned to handle scripture? Can we really strongly claim this to be one of thees 'plain obvious truths' or is it perhaps that what seems plain and obvious to us is colored by our cultural lenses? Now, let me be clear. I'm not agnostic on the issue. And while I am sensitive to Jared's concern that we not slide down the slippery liberal slope or whatever I have to ask... does not a careful read of scripture (taking into account a premodern worldview evident there) allow for a variety of conclusions on this issue?
Jeremy: Further, I believe the reality of Christ's incarnation has a great deal to bear on this. Christ came among us and was revealed in the context of a particular time, place, people, culture, worldview. That is part of the profundity of whatGod has done for us. The Word of God emerges from this context...it is clearly colored by their understanding of the world...let's not forget, we consult Hebrew and Greek because even the language of the scripture brings important meaningful layers of understanding to light for us. I believe it would be important to really explore what the scriptures testify regarding Satan and keep this set against what medieval Christianity did with these images that seem to dominate the imagery many still hold today.
Tommy: I think both of you have been very faithful christian theologians. This conversation has been biblically, philosophically, and liturgically grounded...which means many legitimate responses will surface. What I appreciate more than anything is that this conversation began appropriately with creed and not "where in the bible.". You couldn't demonstrate a more orthodox beginning point for theological discourse...
Tommy: Jeremy and Nate, you are two of the sharpest minds I've ever known...rock on with more convo like this. Good theology and it's free!
Nathan: Guys...I am going to respond, but I am in the middle of "The Bible Tells Me So" conference @ NNU in Nampa. We are in MST, so I will respond @ Lunch. Jeremy, Jared...thanks for the remarks...and Jeremy, you are right...this question first occurred not in my denying a biblical reality, but after a Sunday morning worship. It is a theological and liturgical issue for sure...among others.
Tommy: sorry Nate, i will keep out of the discussion. ;-)
Nathan: Tommy- you're welcome to join...and thanks for the compliments. Your affirmation means a lot. Please throw in any comments you would like. The more the theologians the better :)...I am sure you have some opinions here that would help us.
Josh: I've been eavesdropping. I couldn't help myself. Nate, I'm interested in hearing some of the dangers you find in granting an ontological status to evil--i.e. why not?
Tommy: Thanks for the invitation Brother Nate. First of all, i want to affirm your initial question. To begin with creed just blesses my emergent soul (more on that to come). The creed is the beginning of faith...it is that which is received in baptism as we journey from personal faith to a faithful receptivity and grasp of the church's faith from which the Scriptures proceed.
Secondly, I want to affirm Brother Jeremy for going back to womb of the church -- the baptismal waters. Of course the creeds do not tell us whether or not to believe in the ontological existence of Satan...this was not the subject matter for debate in Nicaea...The creed is the starting point...it is the boundary lines, if you will, for Christian life and worship, but it is not all inclusive. Which means, that both Nathan and Jeremy are right and orthodox in their stances. A Christian can believe in the ontological existence of Satan or evil (though I think its problematic) as well as believe in Satan as the emergence of evil in its fullest form (with the whole being much greater than the sum of the parts) or even as personification.
What is most important, in my opinion, is what Brother Jeremy laid out so masterfully. The very existence of the Christian and the church is through a very particular victory won by the Son of God when the resurrection forever gave way to our anthem, "Christ is risen from the dead, trampling down death by death, and upon those in the tombs bestowing life." To be Christian is to be in opposition to evil and death in all its various and deceiving forms. To be Christian is to be made so very aware of the existence and power of evil, chaos, death, the demonic, Satan, or whatever you are formed to call it and to accept and embody the victory that has been won over it on our behalf. It is no little thing.
The earliest church got this as she led the neophyte-to-be to turn toward the west, renounce Satan in the first person, spit upon him and then turn east to embrace Christ and His kingdom for all its worth, putting words to the sacramental participation in death and resurrection that would immediately follow in the waters of baptism.
Now, this is what is important and necessary in my mind. Not that we embrace the ontological existence of Satan, so to speak, but that we realize evil's/chaos'/death's strong grip and sting on and in the universe...realize our participation in the darkness, and our utter dependence upon the grace of God in the victory of Christ to participate in the restored creation of justice and order in the triune God.
I, too, have problems with the ontological existence of Satan, because I am a Thomist. I believe to claim ontological existence of evil--to say that it exists as a separate metaphysical entity from Good is to go down a theological path I am not willing to traverse. I believe that evil is parasitic on the good...or at least that evil is emergent in much the same way i believe the soul is emergent from the physical substrates of the brain. What emerges is greater than the sum of the parts and becomes the soulish aspect of the human being that can even affect/effect the physical raw material from which it emerged--top down causation.
A lesser argument which is also valid and necessary for discussion is the idea that evil, like wisdom, was personified over time. Wisdom eventually got itself a capital letter and a feminine gender, but this doesn't negate that wisdom never existed before it became a she. In the same way, evil and chaos eventually got itself a capital, and even stole the hebrew word and fictional character, "the accuser," but this does not mean that evil/chaos/death was not very real before it was personified as such...
My point in all this is that there are options for us...and in these options we are still orthodox and creedal (oxy-moron, i know).
Brother Tommy
TommY: Since Br. Jeremy pointed us back to the waters, it might be enlightening to see this.
Nazarene liturgy (no, not an oxy-moron): "Do you renounce Satan and all the spiritual forces of wickedness that rebel against God? Do you renounce the evil powers of this world that corrupt and that destroy the creatures of God? Do you renounce sinful desires that draw you away from the love of God?
United Methodist liturgy (no, not an oxy-moron, either): "Do you renounce the spiritual forces of wickedness, reject the evil powers of this world, and repent of your sin?"
Evangelical Lutheran liturgy: "Do you renounce the devil and all the forces that defy God? Do you renounce the powers of this world that rebel against God? Do you renounce the ways of sin that draw you from God?"
Episcopal Liturgy (someone please say amen with me that this liturgy is properly situated in the prayerbook with the Easter VIgil): "Do you renounce Satan and all the spiritual forces of wickedness that rebel against God? Do you renounce the evil powers of this world which corrupt and destroy the creatures of God? do you renounce all sinful desires that draw you from the love of God?"
I would put the orthodox one on here, but it might scare the ontological existence of hell out of us...ha. this is enough.
It looks like we Methodists are the only ones who do not believe in Satan/the devil any longer...and unfortunately, we are in the most accelerated state of decline...just a thought.
In the end, i must admit to being agnostic too...I'm not sure about the ontological existence of the devil, but i do renounce him/it/whatever it is that i know is real and powerful and still turn today to Jesus Christ, accepting him as my Savior/Victor.
Tommy: i can't do that to you...if you want to read the historic baptismal liturgy with the exorcisms, the spitting, the blowing, the whole nine yards, that our ultra-cool Eastern Orthodox brothers and sisters still believe in today (bless them Lord), here it is:
http://goarch.org/chapel/liturgical_texts/catechumen
http://goarch.org/chapel/liturgical_texts/baptism
Now that's some good stuff! Sorry for those who are concerned...this may further concern you...just saying...
Nathan: Tommy- well said. Your addition of multiple liturgies is insightful. I agree wholeheartedly with your assessment on evil/satan and some of the reasons you gave for not traversing an anti-Thomstic duality. On that note, the other reason I have made suggestions toward a freudian and sociological hermeneutic is precisely because what we are talking about is the existential experience of a subject and the content within the subject/or outside of it, that determine behavior. I like your retelling of capitalizing he W of wisdom and its correlation of "ha satan"....and to add, the capitalizing seems to be a theological move by the church to alleviate Divine culpabability in evil that would have been transferred from OT theologies of a sovreign, all-powerful God. The Devil is sociologically necessary within a hellenistic world, and a theological necessity to pin the blame somewhere other than the goodness of God. More after my workshops today.
Tommy: "the existential experience of a subject and the content within the subject/or outside of it, that determine behavior." Now that is well said! I appreciate that you are not ready to immediately elevate experience over disciplined reason and especially the received and nurture tradition of the church that includes her Scriptures. I also appreciate your attentiveness to the reality that for many the devil has become a sociological necessity to point the blame elsewhere, thereby getting the good God off the hook. There is certainly something to be said of our pre-modern brothers and sisters who had no problem with lament! Thanks for your insight.
Tommy: I want to say one more thing about "academic vs. liturgical or whatever else." Aren't all the contributors here graduates from TNU who had Dr. Spross for Biblical Exegesis? I think we're all committed as TNU grads to help re-unite the academy and the church rather than to strengthen that dichotomy created by modernity and the enlightenment...so i want to say, keep it up fellas, you're doing good work!
Nathan: In what part of the Creeds am I required to confess belief in Satan ontologically? Someone please let me know since I obviously missed this in my Patristics studies.
Jeremy: Not required in creeds. However we do ask you to renounce him and his works at baptism where you confess the creed before receiving water.
Nathan: Not all Nazarenes are asked that before Baptism ;)
Jeremy: True Nathan, many Nazarenes are not examined in historically consistent ways prior to baptism. But since you mentioned the creedal context, I wanted to highlight that in historic practice (and in the liturgy of many denominations today) that the very first question posed to a baptizand is "Do you renounce Satan and all the spiritual forces of wickedness that rebel against God" (or something similar). Following the examination, the creed is then professed. So, yes, the creeds do not require you to confess a belief in Satan, but the liturgy of baptism, which so centrally hangs on the profession of faith through the words of the creed is a context in which one is asked to directly renounce Satan (whether that qualifies as ontological reality or not, I guess one could argue). Speaking of Patristics, you might be interested in the other liturgies surrounding baptism in particular historically (since baptism was a process of preparation prior to the actual sacrament and had accompanying liturgies marking various important stages along that path) actually involved intentional prayers of exorcism over those who were preparing for baptism....some of the most intense ones being offered as part of the Holy Saturday service (remember most baptisms of those who can answer for themselves took place as part of the Easter celebration). It would seem to me that a Patristic world view would presuppose that if one has not been baptized into the kingdom of light, then we would belong to the kingdom of darkness, and in turn to the prince of darkness? Seems to me that the mere violence of the act of baptism, especially immersion, at some level while dramatizing our identification with the burial of Christ, also was an equally dramatic demonstration of the putting to death of our allegiance with evil...perhaps even drowning it out of us? LOL
Nathan: Jeremy, well said...and I like your caveat that such confession might not mean an ontological reality, but a reality that is immersed in chaos and rising to new life in the baptized. There does seem to be a consistent Patristic theology of evil as the juxtaposition of virtue, thus sin as vice and the realm from which vice becomes needs to be laid to rest, along with the many adversaries we encounter as representative of it. I suppose these nuances are missed too many times...but to be entirely consistent a pre-modern medieval worldview would have no qualms about an ontic reality known as Satan, or devil...even Luther thought such was throwing things @ him from the trees...whether WE can think this is another issue.
Jeremy: Of course, I always have Dr. Greathouse echoing in my ears... "If you don't believe in the devil, brothers and sisters, why then you've been duked by the devil!"
Nathan: I can see him saying that...I've been told, "it's ok if you don't believe in the devil because he believes in you!"...I have to admit, I chuckle @ this. ;)
Jeremy: Yeah I hear you....I stopped chuckling my first experience of an exorcism. But admittedly, there can be distinctions made between evil forces and an ontological Satan as you speak.
Nathan: Sure thing...I wonder though, how much of an exorcism is the emodiment of images given to the subject prior to possession...or oppression? Is it possible that most individuals that experience such are, or have been, part of religius environments wherein these "realities" are given a heightened awareness and hence a more likely visual embodiment? If so, than an excorcism may work because we believe it does not necessarily because it does something in the subject. But, I am offering this as an outside observer, not as one with Bob Larsen credentials.
Jared: What about the Bible?
Jeremy: The power of suggestion is powerful, for sure, but the physical realities that emerge in the midst of these things I find too compelling to just understand them as suggestions that then 'work' for someone. But I am aware that many discount the whole thing entirely.
Jeremy: Jared, agreed with you...other than just pointing to texts that speak of demonic activity (and admittedly we have to take culture and the worldview of the first century into account here) what in particular do you wish to bring forth regarding the personality of Satan?
Nathan: I hear ya Jared...what about it?
Nathan: Jeremy- I am not limiting my analysis to the power of 'suggestion' as much as I am bringing forth the idea that persons in highly spiritual environments, or environments that give heightened awareness to spiritual warfare, automatically place believers into a context of psychological and experiential sensitivity, wherein spiritual struggles are not simply battles of the self, but cosmic occurrences with the angels and demons beside us. Folks with this worldview will be more apt to experience these realities because they are images and symbols already within the subjects construction of the world.
Nathan: Of course, I also need to point out this is probably a largely unconscious reality. I don't think oppressed, or possessed, people consciously do this...but religious imagery work @ a subconscious level impacting the way we view the world without us necessarily thinking about it too much.
Jeremy: I think I hear you here...and I can understand the comments. I could see that working in this 'oppressed' category possibly, particularly among communities that intentionally raise awareness of such issues. But what about those communities that don't? I mean, take the Roman Church for that matter? If you go to confession saying, "the devil made me do it" they're gonna have a talk with you. :) I do think oppression and possession need to be addressed differently, however, for they present two distinct experiences. True about the seeing struggles as cosmic experiences....I suppose that could be. But I do find it interesting experientially... but admittedly I come from it experientially. Having prayed with folks...and even having used certain liturgical rites for such things, I have a different perspective. ...and it's always interesting when those who are suffering DON'T come from a community that would cause heightened awareness/sensitivity to it. Interestingly enough, it's often the opposite... they don't know what on earth is going on, have no explanation for it, don't believe in it, and are anxious as all get out because of it. Yes, some folks are mentally ill. I'm not discounting that either.
Jeremy: But back to Jared...Jared, it's interesting how folks who are suffering often can't stand the Word being read to them, cough up holy communion if they try to receive, etc. etc.
Tommy: Baptism, holy communion, the word, and the devil...better watch out y'all are being watched. haha
Nathan: Jeremy---good comments. I speak as one with more Freud and sociology of religion and culture than as one in these situations. If I had to be nailed down on this one, I would say I prefer biblically, historically and theologically an evilwithout ontic status...a more personified one rather than a personel one. There are many reasons for this. Due to your comments on folks in low sensitivity issues, I would say that if I was honest I would really be more agnostic on this issue. There is darkness and light and there are realities pertaining to both that neither myself nor the biblical text can fully explain that seem to participate in the world with us. From a modernist perspective, I offer these insights. From a christian perspective, I would have to probably come down humbly agnostic about absolute propositions on this issue.
Tommy: Uh oh yall he just dropped the a bomb.
Jared: I think the conversation is purely academic. If you read Scripture, it is clear that there is a Devil. It is not even a questioned reality throughout Scripture. To question that existence is to be deceived. To question his existence, especially with the line of thinking that has been put forth, you would have to question the existence of Christ and claim that He is simply a cultural symbol of light or truth. You would have to question the existence of Moses and claim that he was simply the cultural symbol of deliverance or freedom. you would have to question the existence of the angel Gabriel and claim that he was simply the cultural symbol of revelation.
In my opinion, a denial of the existence of Satan is an attempt to deny what we cannot fully understand. It is yet another step down a liberal road that leads not only to questioning obvious and plain Bible truths, but a vulnerability obey Scripture and thus protect ourselves spiritually, as in 1 Peter 5:8 "Be sober-minded; be watchful. Your adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour."
Tommy: Jared, where was he in the first/old covenant?
Jeremy: uh oh.
Jeremy: The conversation is not purely academic. It started with a question about the creed. This is not an academic issue, it is a worship issue... a foundational one. Now, let's talk scripture, shall we? How have we learned to handle scripture? Can we really strongly claim this to be one of thees 'plain obvious truths' or is it perhaps that what seems plain and obvious to us is colored by our cultural lenses? Now, let me be clear. I'm not agnostic on the issue. And while I am sensitive to Jared's concern that we not slide down the slippery liberal slope or whatever I have to ask... does not a careful read of scripture (taking into account a premodern worldview evident there) allow for a variety of conclusions on this issue?
Jeremy: Further, I believe the reality of Christ's incarnation has a great deal to bear on this. Christ came among us and was revealed in the context of a particular time, place, people, culture, worldview. That is part of the profundity of whatGod has done for us. The Word of God emerges from this context...it is clearly colored by their understanding of the world...let's not forget, we consult Hebrew and Greek because even the language of the scripture brings important meaningful layers of understanding to light for us. I believe it would be important to really explore what the scriptures testify regarding Satan and keep this set against what medieval Christianity did with these images that seem to dominate the imagery many still hold today.
Tommy: I think both of you have been very faithful christian theologians. This conversation has been biblically, philosophically, and liturgically grounded...which means many legitimate responses will surface. What I appreciate more than anything is that this conversation began appropriately with creed and not "where in the bible.". You couldn't demonstrate a more orthodox beginning point for theological discourse...
Tommy: Jeremy and Nate, you are two of the sharpest minds I've ever known...rock on with more convo like this. Good theology and it's free!
Nathan: Guys...I am going to respond, but I am in the middle of "The Bible Tells Me So" conference @ NNU in Nampa. We are in MST, so I will respond @ Lunch. Jeremy, Jared...thanks for the remarks...and Jeremy, you are right...this question first occurred not in my denying a biblical reality, but after a Sunday morning worship. It is a theological and liturgical issue for sure...among others.
Tommy: sorry Nate, i will keep out of the discussion. ;-)
Nathan: Tommy- you're welcome to join...and thanks for the compliments. Your affirmation means a lot. Please throw in any comments you would like. The more the theologians the better :)...I am sure you have some opinions here that would help us.
Josh: I've been eavesdropping. I couldn't help myself. Nate, I'm interested in hearing some of the dangers you find in granting an ontological status to evil--i.e. why not?
Tommy: Thanks for the invitation Brother Nate. First of all, i want to affirm your initial question. To begin with creed just blesses my emergent soul (more on that to come). The creed is the beginning of faith...it is that which is received in baptism as we journey from personal faith to a faithful receptivity and grasp of the church's faith from which the Scriptures proceed.
Secondly, I want to affirm Brother Jeremy for going back to womb of the church -- the baptismal waters. Of course the creeds do not tell us whether or not to believe in the ontological existence of Satan...this was not the subject matter for debate in Nicaea...The creed is the starting point...it is the boundary lines, if you will, for Christian life and worship, but it is not all inclusive. Which means, that both Nathan and Jeremy are right and orthodox in their stances. A Christian can believe in the ontological existence of Satan or evil (though I think its problematic) as well as believe in Satan as the emergence of evil in its fullest form (with the whole being much greater than the sum of the parts) or even as personification.
What is most important, in my opinion, is what Brother Jeremy laid out so masterfully. The very existence of the Christian and the church is through a very particular victory won by the Son of God when the resurrection forever gave way to our anthem, "Christ is risen from the dead, trampling down death by death, and upon those in the tombs bestowing life." To be Christian is to be in opposition to evil and death in all its various and deceiving forms. To be Christian is to be made so very aware of the existence and power of evil, chaos, death, the demonic, Satan, or whatever you are formed to call it and to accept and embody the victory that has been won over it on our behalf. It is no little thing.
The earliest church got this as she led the neophyte-to-be to turn toward the west, renounce Satan in the first person, spit upon him and then turn east to embrace Christ and His kingdom for all its worth, putting words to the sacramental participation in death and resurrection that would immediately follow in the waters of baptism.
Now, this is what is important and necessary in my mind. Not that we embrace the ontological existence of Satan, so to speak, but that we realize evil's/chaos'/death's strong grip and sting on and in the universe...realize our participation in the darkness, and our utter dependence upon the grace of God in the victory of Christ to participate in the restored creation of justice and order in the triune God.
I, too, have problems with the ontological existence of Satan, because I am a Thomist. I believe to claim ontological existence of evil--to say that it exists as a separate metaphysical entity from Good is to go down a theological path I am not willing to traverse. I believe that evil is parasitic on the good...or at least that evil is emergent in much the same way i believe the soul is emergent from the physical substrates of the brain. What emerges is greater than the sum of the parts and becomes the soulish aspect of the human being that can even affect/effect the physical raw material from which it emerged--top down causation.
A lesser argument which is also valid and necessary for discussion is the idea that evil, like wisdom, was personified over time. Wisdom eventually got itself a capital letter and a feminine gender, but this doesn't negate that wisdom never existed before it became a she. In the same way, evil and chaos eventually got itself a capital, and even stole the hebrew word and fictional character, "the accuser," but this does not mean that evil/chaos/death was not very real before it was personified as such...
My point in all this is that there are options for us...and in these options we are still orthodox and creedal (oxy-moron, i know).
Brother Tommy
TommY: Since Br. Jeremy pointed us back to the waters, it might be enlightening to see this.
Nazarene liturgy (no, not an oxy-moron): "Do you renounce Satan and all the spiritual forces of wickedness that rebel against God? Do you renounce the evil powers of this world that corrupt and that destroy the creatures of God? Do you renounce sinful desires that draw you away from the love of God?
United Methodist liturgy (no, not an oxy-moron, either): "Do you renounce the spiritual forces of wickedness, reject the evil powers of this world, and repent of your sin?"
Evangelical Lutheran liturgy: "Do you renounce the devil and all the forces that defy God? Do you renounce the powers of this world that rebel against God? Do you renounce the ways of sin that draw you from God?"
Episcopal Liturgy (someone please say amen with me that this liturgy is properly situated in the prayerbook with the Easter VIgil): "Do you renounce Satan and all the spiritual forces of wickedness that rebel against God? Do you renounce the evil powers of this world which corrupt and destroy the creatures of God? do you renounce all sinful desires that draw you from the love of God?"
I would put the orthodox one on here, but it might scare the ontological existence of hell out of us...ha. this is enough.
It looks like we Methodists are the only ones who do not believe in Satan/the devil any longer...and unfortunately, we are in the most accelerated state of decline...just a thought.
In the end, i must admit to being agnostic too...I'm not sure about the ontological existence of the devil, but i do renounce him/it/whatever it is that i know is real and powerful and still turn today to Jesus Christ, accepting him as my Savior/Victor.
Tommy: i can't do that to you...if you want to read the historic baptismal liturgy with the exorcisms, the spitting, the blowing, the whole nine yards, that our ultra-cool Eastern Orthodox brothers and sisters still believe in today (bless them Lord), here it is:
http://goarch.org/chapel/liturgical_texts/catechumen
http://goarch.org/chapel/liturgical_texts/baptism
Now that's some good stuff! Sorry for those who are concerned...this may further concern you...just saying...
Nathan: Tommy- well said. Your addition of multiple liturgies is insightful. I agree wholeheartedly with your assessment on evil/satan and some of the reasons you gave for not traversing an anti-Thomstic duality. On that note, the other reason I have made suggestions toward a freudian and sociological hermeneutic is precisely because what we are talking about is the existential experience of a subject and the content within the subject/or outside of it, that determine behavior. I like your retelling of capitalizing he W of wisdom and its correlation of "ha satan"....and to add, the capitalizing seems to be a theological move by the church to alleviate Divine culpabability in evil that would have been transferred from OT theologies of a sovreign, all-powerful God. The Devil is sociologically necessary within a hellenistic world, and a theological necessity to pin the blame somewhere other than the goodness of God. More after my workshops today.
Tommy: "the existential experience of a subject and the content within the subject/or outside of it, that determine behavior." Now that is well said! I appreciate that you are not ready to immediately elevate experience over disciplined reason and especially the received and nurture tradition of the church that includes her Scriptures. I also appreciate your attentiveness to the reality that for many the devil has become a sociological necessity to point the blame elsewhere, thereby getting the good God off the hook. There is certainly something to be said of our pre-modern brothers and sisters who had no problem with lament! Thanks for your insight.
Tommy: I want to say one more thing about "academic vs. liturgical or whatever else." Aren't all the contributors here graduates from TNU who had Dr. Spross for Biblical Exegesis? I think we're all committed as TNU grads to help re-unite the academy and the church rather than to strengthen that dichotomy created by modernity and the enlightenment...so i want to say, keep it up fellas, you're doing good work!
"Choosing...No...Receiving Life"
Pastor Tommy Thompson
Deut 30:15-20 & Matt 5:20-37
The Sixth Sunday after The Epiphany
13 February 2011
“Choosing...No...Receiving Life”
“I call heaven and earth to witness against you today that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Choose life so that you and your descendants may live, 20 loving the Lord your God, obeying him, and holding fast to him; for that means life to you and length of days, so that you may live in the land that the Lord swore to give to your ancestors, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob.”
Choosing ... something we’re accustomed to doing. Our whole world is shaped by the fact that we have the power to do such a thing. We choose daily...cereal, toothpaste, shoes, hats, watches, fragrances, screen names, colors, pets, restaurants, web addresses, you name it. We are beings who choose.
The problem is that our society, and Israel’s wasn’t too awfully different, tells us that choosing is all that matters...all choices are legitimate in our world...as long as they are “free” choices...meaning that as long as desire runs rampant, you are free to choose whatever, and I am free to sell whatever...this is the way our society runs.
In the Old Testament lesson for today, the people of God are summoned to make a choice....to choose life...problem for them, like us, is there is not a life isle in the grocery store like the cereal isle where we are free to choose whatever form of life we want. There is but once choice for God’s people -- life or death. Our world tells us all choices are valid choices...the Bible calls the people of God to the truth that our choices are the reasons for the stench in the air...we have died but the world keeps telling us that they can keep us alive...if we keep making choice the end in itself...
In the book of Deuteronomy, we learn that God gives His people land upon which and through which His people are freed to live a very particular way of life; On the flip side, God does not give us life for the sake of gaining property. This way of life God calls His people to display before the nations is nothing short of the Torah, the will of God for the world.
Moses stands on the plains of Moab and gives Israel this key to life in the land. It is fourth and inches for Israel and the Super Bowl is on the line. She has had opportunities the whole game...but she forgot what she was playing for...now it comes down to this last chance...fourth and inches...the timeout has been taken...the coach has opened the playbook, given a motivating speech, reminding the team of who and whose they are...the team goes back on the field. Will she cross and score or will she be sacked without ever tasting the flowing of milk and honey?
When Israel arrives in the land will she receive the land as gift--as the raw material for faithfulness? Will she receive God’s blessing for what it is--the means provided for the sake revealing life and light to the nations? Or will she take it, possess it, as and end in itself, leading her to bow down to the other gods who promise to give her more and more..to a way of life that reeks of death, where choice is again the idol of choice?
We don’t have to pretend we haven’t read Jeremiah ... when the Lord spoke to Israel in her sin. He asked, “Can Ethiopians change their skin? Can leopards change their spots? Can those who are evil do good?” Of course the answer in every case is no. People cannot change the color of their skin…leopards can’t change their spots... and the people of God, who have become stiff-necked and rebellious, cannot turn and do good.
The people of God have fallen in love with the false sovereignty of choice. We have made ourselves kinds and queens, so we think...we call the shots...we know what is best for us...we feed our passions...giving them what the world says they need...We don’t know how to choose life...to live in the land as God’s people...
Which is why we don’t like to hear what Jesus says in his sermon on the Mountain. I’ve noticed that when Jesus’ sermon is read, we cringe... we can’t wait for it to be over and we hope the preacher won’t expound on it...and the preacher hopes she doesn’t have to...Jesus’ sermon is much like Moses’ sermon, but hits closer to the heart...because Jesus is even closer to the heart of the Torah -- the will of God for God’s world, because He is the will of God, the Logos of God, the Divine Word of God, the Torah’s fulfillment.
It’s hard enough for us to hear, “have righteousness equal to scribes and Pharisees and you will enter the kingdom of heaven”...even harder to hear that our righteousness must exceed it...hard enough to hear, “you shall not murder,” but quite another to hear “if you are angry with a brother or sister, you will be liable to judgment. It’s one thing to obey the command “you shall not commit adultery…” It is another to hear, “Whoever even looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart...
An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth is fair enough...it protects the perpetrator from having to give up more than an eye or a tooth...but to say that when a man strikes me on the right cheek to turn my head so that he might strike the other is preposterous…I want to hit him back! If someone steals the wheels off my car, am I really supposed to give him my car?
This is serious stuff Jesus is proclaiming...stuff that seems so far removed from the world we live in...where murder, anger, lust, brokenness, and revenge run rampant. Jesus proclamation is radical heard through the filters of this decaying world...it turns upside down everything we’ve been taught as normal...
It’s pretty radical to look at folks who are sinful and say “If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away; it is better for you to lose one of your members than for your whole body to be thrown into hell....and if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away; it is better for you to lose one of your members than for your whole body to go into hell.” My reaction to that is, “Lord, there’d be nothing left of me!”
And that’s exactly what the point of this sermon seems to be--to jolt the people of God with the divine light that wakes us up to the realization that we are utterly sinful with ho hope for fruitful change within ourselves! As we are attentive to Jesus’ sermon, “the light of the Gospel uncovers the darkness of our lives with a clarity which will leave no cause for hope in ourselves.” When we hear the words of Jesus’ sermon, we stop patting ourselves on the back for at least a moment. We’ve all been bragging about how high we can jump...how we out jumped so and so...but now we hear that the goal is to jump to the moon and all our bragging is revealed as ridiculous.
We cannot choose life...and that’s why Jesus is on the mountain proclaiming this sermon. The good news of the Gospel is that the proclaimer is the proclaimed! He speaks knowing full well we cannot do what he says...he speaks knowing full well he will do for us what we could not do for ourselves! The sermon of Jesus is revelatory of what will be normative in the future when we are “perfect” as our heavenly Father is perfect...being who we were created to be...as He is who he always has been...but this perfection, this fulfillment is a received perfection, not an achieved perfection.
Jesus’ sermon “can be compared to flashes of light out of the kingdom to come. A traveler groping through dangerous terrain in the dark of night may chart the way by the wind in the trees, the obscure glimmer of the stars behind the clouds, the memory of the way as it was described earlier, or the faint light of a lantern against the storm...But the brilliant flash of the lightning illumines the path, the perils, and even the distant goal in the twinkling of an eye...Suddenly everything is clear, although the darkness quickly closes in again.”
Without the flash of divine light that Christ is, we are left with the obscure glimmer of cloud-covered stars and the faint light of our own faith and reason. The good news is that the Christ light shines forth from the reality of Jesus’ sermon showing us the way to our future. As the lightning illumines the path, the design of the road is unmistakably in the form of a cross filled with water. The light summons us to the water where we accept the gift of life, dying to the world of the sovereign chooser and rising to life as the grateful servant who lives the future reality of the sermon in thanksgiving and praise.
Moses called the people of God to make a choice. But we cannot choose to change our spots...or our skin...Now Jesus calls us to accept the gift. All we have to do is accept in faith that Jesus has chosen what Israel could not choose. We accept it by going down into the water of the cross and rising to new life of thanksgiving in response to grace that is best described as faithfulness and life.
May the jolt of lightning that Jesus’ sermon is wake us up to our utter need for grace and a celebration of the mighty acts of God in Jesus Christ that has made grace available like a gift under the tree...will you open the gift or leave it there?
Deut 30:15-20 & Matt 5:20-37
The Sixth Sunday after The Epiphany
13 February 2011
“Choosing...No...Receiving Life”
“I call heaven and earth to witness against you today that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Choose life so that you and your descendants may live, 20 loving the Lord your God, obeying him, and holding fast to him; for that means life to you and length of days, so that you may live in the land that the Lord swore to give to your ancestors, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob.”
Choosing ... something we’re accustomed to doing. Our whole world is shaped by the fact that we have the power to do such a thing. We choose daily...cereal, toothpaste, shoes, hats, watches, fragrances, screen names, colors, pets, restaurants, web addresses, you name it. We are beings who choose.
The problem is that our society, and Israel’s wasn’t too awfully different, tells us that choosing is all that matters...all choices are legitimate in our world...as long as they are “free” choices...meaning that as long as desire runs rampant, you are free to choose whatever, and I am free to sell whatever...this is the way our society runs.
In the Old Testament lesson for today, the people of God are summoned to make a choice....to choose life...problem for them, like us, is there is not a life isle in the grocery store like the cereal isle where we are free to choose whatever form of life we want. There is but once choice for God’s people -- life or death. Our world tells us all choices are valid choices...the Bible calls the people of God to the truth that our choices are the reasons for the stench in the air...we have died but the world keeps telling us that they can keep us alive...if we keep making choice the end in itself...
In the book of Deuteronomy, we learn that God gives His people land upon which and through which His people are freed to live a very particular way of life; On the flip side, God does not give us life for the sake of gaining property. This way of life God calls His people to display before the nations is nothing short of the Torah, the will of God for the world.
Moses stands on the plains of Moab and gives Israel this key to life in the land. It is fourth and inches for Israel and the Super Bowl is on the line. She has had opportunities the whole game...but she forgot what she was playing for...now it comes down to this last chance...fourth and inches...the timeout has been taken...the coach has opened the playbook, given a motivating speech, reminding the team of who and whose they are...the team goes back on the field. Will she cross and score or will she be sacked without ever tasting the flowing of milk and honey?
When Israel arrives in the land will she receive the land as gift--as the raw material for faithfulness? Will she receive God’s blessing for what it is--the means provided for the sake revealing life and light to the nations? Or will she take it, possess it, as and end in itself, leading her to bow down to the other gods who promise to give her more and more..to a way of life that reeks of death, where choice is again the idol of choice?
We don’t have to pretend we haven’t read Jeremiah ... when the Lord spoke to Israel in her sin. He asked, “Can Ethiopians change their skin? Can leopards change their spots? Can those who are evil do good?” Of course the answer in every case is no. People cannot change the color of their skin…leopards can’t change their spots... and the people of God, who have become stiff-necked and rebellious, cannot turn and do good.
The people of God have fallen in love with the false sovereignty of choice. We have made ourselves kinds and queens, so we think...we call the shots...we know what is best for us...we feed our passions...giving them what the world says they need...We don’t know how to choose life...to live in the land as God’s people...
Which is why we don’t like to hear what Jesus says in his sermon on the Mountain. I’ve noticed that when Jesus’ sermon is read, we cringe... we can’t wait for it to be over and we hope the preacher won’t expound on it...and the preacher hopes she doesn’t have to...Jesus’ sermon is much like Moses’ sermon, but hits closer to the heart...because Jesus is even closer to the heart of the Torah -- the will of God for God’s world, because He is the will of God, the Logos of God, the Divine Word of God, the Torah’s fulfillment.
It’s hard enough for us to hear, “have righteousness equal to scribes and Pharisees and you will enter the kingdom of heaven”...even harder to hear that our righteousness must exceed it...hard enough to hear, “you shall not murder,” but quite another to hear “if you are angry with a brother or sister, you will be liable to judgment. It’s one thing to obey the command “you shall not commit adultery…” It is another to hear, “Whoever even looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart...
An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth is fair enough...it protects the perpetrator from having to give up more than an eye or a tooth...but to say that when a man strikes me on the right cheek to turn my head so that he might strike the other is preposterous…I want to hit him back! If someone steals the wheels off my car, am I really supposed to give him my car?
This is serious stuff Jesus is proclaiming...stuff that seems so far removed from the world we live in...where murder, anger, lust, brokenness, and revenge run rampant. Jesus proclamation is radical heard through the filters of this decaying world...it turns upside down everything we’ve been taught as normal...
It’s pretty radical to look at folks who are sinful and say “If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away; it is better for you to lose one of your members than for your whole body to be thrown into hell....and if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away; it is better for you to lose one of your members than for your whole body to go into hell.” My reaction to that is, “Lord, there’d be nothing left of me!”
And that’s exactly what the point of this sermon seems to be--to jolt the people of God with the divine light that wakes us up to the realization that we are utterly sinful with ho hope for fruitful change within ourselves! As we are attentive to Jesus’ sermon, “the light of the Gospel uncovers the darkness of our lives with a clarity which will leave no cause for hope in ourselves.” When we hear the words of Jesus’ sermon, we stop patting ourselves on the back for at least a moment. We’ve all been bragging about how high we can jump...how we out jumped so and so...but now we hear that the goal is to jump to the moon and all our bragging is revealed as ridiculous.
We cannot choose life...and that’s why Jesus is on the mountain proclaiming this sermon. The good news of the Gospel is that the proclaimer is the proclaimed! He speaks knowing full well we cannot do what he says...he speaks knowing full well he will do for us what we could not do for ourselves! The sermon of Jesus is revelatory of what will be normative in the future when we are “perfect” as our heavenly Father is perfect...being who we were created to be...as He is who he always has been...but this perfection, this fulfillment is a received perfection, not an achieved perfection.
Jesus’ sermon “can be compared to flashes of light out of the kingdom to come. A traveler groping through dangerous terrain in the dark of night may chart the way by the wind in the trees, the obscure glimmer of the stars behind the clouds, the memory of the way as it was described earlier, or the faint light of a lantern against the storm...But the brilliant flash of the lightning illumines the path, the perils, and even the distant goal in the twinkling of an eye...Suddenly everything is clear, although the darkness quickly closes in again.”
Without the flash of divine light that Christ is, we are left with the obscure glimmer of cloud-covered stars and the faint light of our own faith and reason. The good news is that the Christ light shines forth from the reality of Jesus’ sermon showing us the way to our future. As the lightning illumines the path, the design of the road is unmistakably in the form of a cross filled with water. The light summons us to the water where we accept the gift of life, dying to the world of the sovereign chooser and rising to life as the grateful servant who lives the future reality of the sermon in thanksgiving and praise.
Moses called the people of God to make a choice. But we cannot choose to change our spots...or our skin...Now Jesus calls us to accept the gift. All we have to do is accept in faith that Jesus has chosen what Israel could not choose. We accept it by going down into the water of the cross and rising to new life of thanksgiving in response to grace that is best described as faithfulness and life.
May the jolt of lightning that Jesus’ sermon is wake us up to our utter need for grace and a celebration of the mighty acts of God in Jesus Christ that has made grace available like a gift under the tree...will you open the gift or leave it there?