Sunday, July 26, 2015

My comments on other people's comments

And I thought I'd post them here so I could remember what I said and find it again.

I posted this comment to one of George Takei's FaceBook post which is based on an opinion piece he wrote for MSNBC, because I believe this is an important and timely issue that has been overshadowed by name-calling. The issue is the origin of human rights and dignity--the state or God. Takei was upset about one item in Justice Thomas' dissent in Obergefell. Takei was criticized as making a racist comment. He's no racist. I can understand his complaint, especially given his history in the Japanese camps of WWII, but I think he is confused.

I wrote: "I can appreciate walking back from the blackface comment, but this is not the central issue. I think you misunderstand Justice Thomas. He was not arguing that the government is not accountable; far from it. He was pointing out that its role is not to give rights, but to recognize and protect unalienable rights, which are endowed by the Creator, not by the state. A person has dignity because he or she is a human being, not because the government gave that person dignity. So it should be held accountable for not respecting that dignity that God instilled. Persons would have no more or less dignity if they lived in Soviet Russia, or Canada, or Nazi Germany, or France, or China, etc. Their human dignity and rights would be recognized and protected to a greater or lesser degree, but they would always be there. As Whitney Houston sang in perhaps her most famous number, 'No matter what they take from me, they can’t take away my dignity.'"

I'm not the only one with the same reaction--that we are created with dignity, not given dignity by the state. Wesley Smith posted at National Review Online: "Slavery did not strip its victims of their inherent dignity. It was evil precisely because they had inherent dignity. So does each and every LGBT human being."

The other comment I made was on the website of Bud Deiner, who was my pastor at Evergreen Christian Fellowship back in High School. Deiner is a gifted teacher and expositor of the Word and I have great respect for him. He currently serves as a missionary in South Africa.

He recently did a series on Bible verses that relate to homosexuality as a response to the spin from people like Matthew Vines who are distorting the facts. Deiner's insightful analysis of the Sodom and Gomorrah passage from Genesis 19 prompted me to make this observation:

One thing I'd point out as well is the wider context. Looking at the previous chapter (Genesis 18), we see what happened right before the famous judgment against Sodom was carried out. The three angels visit Abraham and Sarah and tell them that Sarah will be fruitful and have a baby by their next visit (vv 10-15) which caused Sarah to laugh. Immediately they turn toward Sodom to go investigate the outcry against the city (vv 16, 20-21).

Given the Hebrew Bible's penchant for parallelism and irony (especially in the J source, if you're into that sort of thing), I think a contrast is being set up between the two--the ways of blessing or of curse. Sarah's laugh is an added touch of the contrast between those who laugh with joy at God's miracles and those who laugh in the face of God's authority. Abraham and Sarah are childless despite many attempts and many years of prayer and heartache. The men of Sodom have fallen for a counterfeit sex that forgoes procreation, which is the intended natural end of the marriage act. 

The contrast is underlined in verses 17-19 when the angel of the Lord (thinking out loud) says, "Shall I hide from Abraham what I am about to do?" He explains that he is making Abraham the patriarch of many nations and they need to be instructed in the ways of righteousness. The context implies that the reference at least includes a holy sexual ethic--the value of real sex versus the counterfeit. God can open the womb for the former, but his design is frustrated in the latter. The former seeks God's blessing, but the latter seeks God's curse. 

The answer is given in the action. The angels inform Abraham that they are going to Sodom to check things out. No word is said by them about punishment, so obviously Abraham has heard the rumors and assumes the worst. He begs and barters for God's mercy for Sodom and figures they are safe since God promises to spare the city on account of ten righteous (so at least nephew Lot and his family should cover it). Of course, the angels simply remove them from the city and that is the end of that.

Sunday, April 05, 2015

This Easter, rise to the occasion

Not too long ago, I heard an interesting ad on the radio. It was for a lighting company that was having a sale. I think they specialize in novelty lighting for parties and concerts. They told the listeners, “This Easter, rise to the occasion and take advantage of our sale on lighting.”

And that line struck me—“This Easter, rise to the occasion.” Was this just a lame Easter joke? A way to “cash in”? What if we were to say that on Easter day, Jesus “rose to the occasion”? If we were to take that seriously, what would it mean?

Jesus’ body was put to death on the cross, and he was buried in a tomb. Jesus Christ is now alive. The question I’m asking today is, Why? Why did Jesus rise from the dead? What occasioned his resurrection? Why did God want to redeem us in this way?

Because frankly, in a lot of people’s thinking, the resurrection is an afterthought. It’s a way of saying that Good Friday wasn’t so bad after all, that this whole cross/atonement thing somehow “worked.” But for those 1st century disciples, the resurrection of Jesus meant something clear and unmistakable.

It is perhaps best summarized by something Jesus says in John’s Revelation (1:17-18): “Fear not, I am the first and the last, and the living one; I died, and behold I am alive for evermore, and I have the keys of Death and Hades.”

These are not the words of a religious guru whose corpse lies rotting in a tomb while spiritually he continues to live on in our hearts and memories. These are the words of a Man who is God become flesh, who willingly lays down that mortal life and then takes it up again—changed, transformed, renewed, and immortal. They are the words of a Man who reigns as the divine judge, bringing the last, great day into the present moment, inaugurating God’s heavenly kingdom on earth.

As St Paul wrote in his epistle to the Church of Rome (6:9), “We know that Christ being raised from the dead will never die again; death has no power over him.” He is the omnipotent Son of God! 1. Jesus’ resurrection is the ultimate manifestation of his divinity.

2. Jesus’ resurrection shows his authority as Lord over time and space when he gives us a foretaste of the Last Day (the “day of resurrection”) here and now in the middle of time by overcoming death and being seated as the Judge of all the living and dead. That’s why he said, “I am the Alpha and the Omega: the beginning and the end” (Rev 21:6).

The third day signifies the day of the general resurrection in the Old Testament. In Hosea 6:2, the prophet says, “After two days, [God] will revive us; On the third day he will raise us up, that we may live before him.” Before being taken as a Messianic prophecy, this was viewed as being applied to God’s people together.

In the Acts of the Apostles [10:42], we heard Peter proclaim this morning, that Jesus “commanded us to preach to the people, and to testify that he is the one ordained by God to be judge of the living and the dead.” This is why St. Paul calls Jesus the “firstborn among the dead” or the “firstborn among many brethren” who are to follow in his steps through the resurrection at the last day.

3. In his resurrection, Jesus shows us that death is conquered. Death had been robbed of its sting, robbed of its power. It is no longer a dreaded foe, but a gateway to the great beyond. Life is changed by death, but not ended. Our bodies are not just returned at the Last Day, but restored and made new. Death is turned into a mere bump in the road.

The author of the letter to the Hebrews [2:14-15] tells us: “Since therefore the children share in flesh and blood, [Jesus] himself likewise partook of the same nature, that through death he might destroy him who has the power of death, that is, the devil, and deliver all those who through fear of death were subject to lifelong bondage.”

On this Easter Day, let us “rise to the occasion” by praising God that (1) our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ manifested his divine power and authority in conquering the grave. Let us praise God that (2) Jesus as Lord and Judge commands time and space, that he has shown himself to be our Alpha and Omega. And let us praise God this Easter Day that (3) our Lord Jesus Christ has vanquished our old enemy called “death” and made him our friend.

Christ indeed from death is risen, our new life obtaining. Have mercy, Victor King, ever reigning!

Let us pray.
Father in heaven, by the resurrection of your Son Jesus Christ, happiness entered the world: Grant that we, by the aide of the Virgin Mary, his Mother, we may share in those joys of eternal life; through Jesus Christ our Lord, who is now alive, and who always reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God, now and for ever. Amen.

Thursday, February 12, 2015

Did Jesus define the OT canon in Mt 23:35?

The short answer is no. Let me explain why; the explanation is important because the truth is important. This post is written in response to an old high school friend and pastor, Justin Evans, who has a genuine heart for God and a passionate love for the truth. I hope a little bit of Justin rubbed off on me and anyone to whom he has ministered, because he’s a real blessing.

Justin posted a link to an article he recommended by Brian Edwards, called ‘Why 66?’ Overall, it is a fairly good summary of how we arrived at a biblical canon, though not without a few serious flaws (the kind of revisionism that ruined the NIV).

Some background 
As an Anglican, our bible is larger than the Protestant bible, which has fewer books in the Old Testament. The books we call the Apocrypha were put into a section at the end of the Old Testament in the authorized Anglican translation, known in America as “the King James Version.” (Can’t find the Apocrypha in your KJV? I’ll get to that.)
 These “extra” books (and parts of books) in the Apocrypha are a part of the Septuagint—the Greek translation of the Old Testament in circulation at the time of Jesus. This was the Bible used by the early church (remember, the Old Testament was THE Bible before the New Testament was written) and it was the translation used by the writers of the New Testament books. For example, in Matthew 1:23, the Evangelist quotes from the Greek Septuagint translation of Isaiah (“Behold, a virgin shall conceive”) rather than from the Hebrew version of Isaiah (“Behold, a maiden shall conceive”).

After the destruction of Jerusalem and its glorious temple in AD 70, Judaism had to redefine itself. Part of that process was a determination of what holy books comprised the canon of scripture. Some accepted only the Torah, some all the Hebrews books, and others all the Greek books of the Septuagint. The Sadducees accepted only the Torah. The Septuagint was especially used and accepted by Jews in Alexandria and throughout the Mediterranean world outside of Palestine.

To make a long story short, the Jews settled on only the Hebrew books. Although some of the books in the Apocrypha were originally written in Hebrew, only the Greek translation survived. The Septuagint was also becoming more and more associated with those heretical Jews known as Christians. A purging of the last remaining Christians in the synagogues accompanied a purging of the “Christian Bible” as well. It is telling that Ethiopian Jews, who were cut off from mainstream Palestinian Judaism, retained the official use of the Septuagint.

Reading the article ‘Why 66?’ 
Of course, with the title ‘Why 66?’, I was not surprised to find the assertion that the Bible has only 66 books (the Hebrew Bible, plus the Christian New Testament). But one thing that really caught my attention when I was reading through ‘Why 66?’ was this line: “Whether or not the Septuagint also contained the Apocrypha is impossible to say for certain, since although the earliest copies of the Septuagint available today do include the Apocrypha—placed at the end—these are dated in the fifth century and therefore cannot be relied upon to tell us what was common half a millennium earlier.”

This statement is absolutely ridiculous. First of all, there is a problem of logic. You can’t make an argument from ignorance. You could equally say, “Whether or not the Septuagint contained Isaiah is impossible to say for certain, since although the earliest copies of the Septuagint available today do include Isaiah, these are dated in the fifth century and therefore cannot be relied upon to tell us what was common half a millennium earlier.” You could plug just about anything into that sentence and it would make the same sense (which is to say, no sense).

Second, Edwards claims in the article, “Nothing else, certainly not the Apocrypha, is given the same [canonical] status” in the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS). This statement is highly misleading. It leads one to believe that no books of the Apocrypha were found in the caves at Qumran, which is simply not the case. Copies of Tobit, Sirach (aka, Ecclesiasticus), and the Letter of Jeremiah were found in Cave 4, which generally housed biblical texts. There are also thousands of fragments from the DSS still waiting to be examined and identified, so who knows what might still be found.

You also have to remember that these were libraries of biblical and non-biblical material—literally, rooms with scrolls in them. There was no box labeled “Bible only.” Of course, at least two scrolls from the Apocrypha are unlikely to be found there. The sect at Qumran was anti-Hasmonean (the dynasty that the Maccabees had founded), so they probably did not want to keep copies of the chronicles of the Maccabees.
A fragment from the Book of Tobit of the Apocrypha found among the Dead Sea Scrolls.
The great significance of the DSS is that it advances our oldest copies of the Bible about 1,000 years into the past. Comparing the DSS with the Masoretic Text show a remarkable consistency. Which is to say, the Jewish communities which copied and preserved these sacred books went to great lengths to ensure that they remained faithful and unchanged. Neither the Hebrew nor Greek Bibles were arbitrarily added to or deleted from.

The discovery of Hebrew scrolls from the Apocrypha also showed that these books were not necessarily rejected even in “Hebrew only” Palestine. One scholar noted: “Up until recently it was assumed that ‘apocryphal’ additions found in the books of the LXX represented later augmentations in the Greek to the Hebrew texts. In connection with this, the Masoretic text (MT) established by the rabbis in the medieval period has been accepted as the faithful witness to the Hebrew Bible of the 1st century. Yet, this presupposition is now being challenged in light of the Dead Sea Scrolls” (Michael Barber, Loose Canons: The Development of the Old Testament, Part 1).

So how did these books disappear from Protestant Bibles? 
To keep costs down and thus facilitate the widespread distribution and use of the Bible, the printing costs were underwritten by Bible societies. In the 19th Century, there began to be increasing complaints made by Protestant members of American Bible Society (ABS) that their funds were used for Bibles printed with the Apocrypha. By the turn of the century, the ABS had defunded all publications of Bibles that included the Apocrypha, thus virtually all Bibles in the United States during most of the 20th Century were printed without the Apocrypha. The ABS lifted restrictions on the publication of Bibles with the Apocrypha in 1964, and most modern translations (except the NIV) have been available with the option of the Apocrypha included.

It is important to understand that the church never added any books to the Old Testament, rather the Reformers took them out. All of the Christian councils (which represent not the view of just one person, but the Christian consensus) that list the canonical books of the Old Testament, from the earliest centuries up to the Reformation, include the books of the Apocrypha. But don’t just take my word for it; listen to the experts.

The Anglican priest and patristics scholar J. N. D. Kelly wrote: "It should be observed that the Old Testament thus admitted as authoritative in the Church was somewhat bulkier and more comprehensive than the [Hebrew Bible] . . . It always included, though with varying degrees of recognition, the so-called Apocrypha or deuterocanonical books. The reason for this is that the Old Testament which passed in the first instance into the hands of Christians was . . . the Greek translation known as the Septuagint. . . . most of the Scriptural quotations found in the New Testament are based upon it rather than the Hebrew.. . . In the first two centuries . . . the Church seems to have accept all, or most of, these additional books as inspired and to have treated them without question as Scripture. Quotations from Wisdom, for example, occur in 1 Clement and Barnabas. . . Polycarp cites Tobit, and the Didache [cites] Ecclesiasticus. Irenaeus refers to Wisdom, the History of Susannah, Bel and the Dragon [i.e., the deuterocanonical portions of Daniel], and Baruch. The use made of the Apocrypha by Tertullian, Hippolytus, Cyprian and Clement of Alexandria is too frequent for detailed references to be necessary" (J. N. D. Kelley, Early Christian Doctrines, pp 53-54).

Luther removed these books from the Old Testament in his German Bible. He still printed them in a separate section, with the heading: “Apocrypha: these are books which are not held equal to the sacred scriptures, and yet are useful and good for reading.” But what you may not know is that Luther also wanted to remove books from the New Testament—James (an “epistle of straw” which he wished to “throw into the fire”), 2 Peter, Hebrews, and Revelation. On what basis? Only on his own judgment. Like 2 Maccabees, they had verses which presented difficulties for his theology.

His fellow reformers thought Luther had gone too far in wanting to remove books from the New Testament, and he was persuaded not to. But he was able to make one addition to the New Testament instead to bolster his theological claims. He added the word “alone” to his German translation of Romans 3:28—a word that was not in the Greek original. As to why he could make this alteration of sacred scripture, Luther replied in a letter to his critics, “If your papist wishes to make a great fuss about the word sola [‘allein’ or ‘alone’], say this to him: ‘Dr. Martin Luther will have it so . . .’ . . . Here in Romans 3, I knew very well that the word solum [‘allein’ or ‘alone’] is not in the Latin or the Greek text . . . it belongs there if the translation is to be clear and vigorous” (Luther’s Works, Volume 35, Page 182-198). Yet, somehow the word does not occur in other German translations of the same passage. It’s odd that the same person who proclaimed “Sola Scriptura!” wanted to tinker with the Bible so much, at least those parts that didn’t agree with him.

Coming back to Matthew 23:35
Seeing some of the misrepresentations in Edwards’ article ‘Why 66?’ and knowing how we really got down to 66 books, I couldn’t help but comment, “The only way to get to 66 is to start tossing out books. And we don't have the authority to do that.” To which Justin responded, “We don't have any authority period. But a responsibility to acknowledge what Christ has put His stamp of approval on. The 39 and 27 are the only ones that stand up to that scrutiny.”
The “39” are the books of the Protestant Old Testament and the “27” are the books of the New Testament, but what is Justin referring to here as Christ’s “stamp of approval”? In regard to the 27, it is a little less clear. Probably he means the authenticity of the works themselves that resonated with the early church (filled with people who knew Jesus and his apostles personally) and led to their being copied, collected, circulated, and received as divinely inspired writings. This process was well described by Edwards in ‘Why 66?”. In regard to the 39, it is most likely Matthew 23:35 (with a parallel passage in Luke 11:51) which is used as a proof-text to show that Jesus accepted the books of the Hebrew Bible (and by implication no other books in the Septuagint) as divinely inspired and canonical. What I hope to show is that this is not the case.

Jesus does define or at least mention the canon several times in the gospels. For example, in Matthew 5:17, he said, “Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfil them.” That phrase “the law and the prophets” represent two sections of the Old Testament—the Torah and the Nevi’im. We also find this phrase in Mt 7:12; 22:40; Lk 16:16; Acts 13:15; Rm 3:21; as well as in Sirach 1:1; 2 Maccabees 15:9 and 4 Maccabees 18:10. There is also a third section called the Kituvim, or the “Writings” (which is to say, “everything else”). Jesus may be referring to this third section when he said, “Everything written about me in the law of Moses and the prophets and the psalms must be fulfilled” (Luke 24:44). Jesus could be using “The Psalms” as title of that third section because the Psalter is the first and largest book in the Kituvim or because there are so many Messianic prophecies in the Psalms. If the books of the Apocrypha are canonical, they fall into the section of “the Writings.”

Matthew 23:35 is a little different. Starting in verse 34, Jesus said, “Therefore I send you prophets and wise men and scribes, some of whom you will kill and crucify, and some you will scourge in your synagogues and persecute from town to town, that upon you may come all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of innocent Abel to the blood of Zechariah the son of Barachiah, whom you murdered between the sanctuary and the altar.” What does this have to do with the canon of the Bible?

The books of the Hebrew Bible are in a different order from the English (which follows the Septuagint, ironically). In the Hebrew, the last book of the Bible is not Malachi (which belongs in that middle section called the Nevi’im) but the Book of Chronicles (which is two books in English Bibles). The argument is that Jesus is using a euphemism for “the Bible” here when he says “from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah” since Abel was the first person murdered in the first book of the Bible (Genesis) and Zechariah was the last person murdered in the last book of the Bible (Chronicles). Is that the case?

There’s no trouble identifying Abel (see Genesis 4:1-16); it’s Zechariah that is the problem. Those supporting the theory identify him with the Zechariah in 2 Chronicles 24:20-21, which reads: “Then the Spirit of God took possession of Zechariah the son of Jehoiada the priest; and he stood above the people, and said to them, ‘Thus says God, “Why do you transgress the commandments of the Lord, so that you cannot prosper? Because you have forsaken the Lord, he has forsaken you.”’ But they conspired against him, and by command of the king they stoned him with stones in the court of the house of the Lord.”

But there’s a problem with that. Jesus doesn’t say “Zechariah, son of Jehoiada,” he says, “Zechariah, the son of Barachiah.” Well, who is that? He’s the Zechariah the Prophet, mentioned in the book bearing his name, and who did not meet a violent death as far as we know. That book begins, “In the eighth month, in the second year of Darius, the word of the Lord came to Zechariah the son of Berechiah, son of Iddo, the prophet . . .” (Zechariah 1:1). Zechariah the son of Jehoiada (c. 800 BC) lived roughly three centuries earlier than Zechariah the son of Barachiah (c. 520 BC).

Sometimes it is answered that Barachiah could have been the grandfather of the earlier Zechariah. Zechariah ben Barachiah would be still be a correct description of him in Jewish culture, but since he was referred to as Zechariah ben Jehoiada in 2 Chronicles, why would Jesus refer to him by a different name than the one people would have been familiar with from the Bible? In fact, another article at Answers in Genesis argues that Jesus cannot be referring to Zechariah ben Jehoiada in Matthew 23:35. On the other hand, Calvin argues in his commentary that Jesus is referring to Zechariah ben Jehoiada, despite the discrepancy in name, theorizing that Barachiah is a kind of honorific title.

There are other possibilities for identifying the Zechariah Jesus mentions. One early Christian writing called the Protoevangelium of James identifies him with Zechariah, the father of John the Baptist, who was a priest in the temple. It records that he was murdered during the slaughter of the innocent children of Bethlehem. Another Zechariah is mentioned by Josephus who was murdered in the temple courts in AD 68 during Titus’ siege of Jerusalem. But this took place after Jesus spoke these words, so that identification doesn’t make sense.

The truth is that we don’t exactly know what Zechariah Jesus is referring to here. But that’s okay because we don’t need to know; it doesn’t affect his meaning. What Jesus is getting at is that “You ungrateful Jews have killed all the holy people that God has given you,” with the implication that Jesus knows he is next on the list. Jesus does not comment on the canon in this passage. In fact, there is no reason that he would include the holy Maccabean martyrs (see Hebrews 11:35 and 2 Maccabees 7) in this list because unlike the others, they were killed by Greeks for being faithful to the Law of Moses, not killed by the Jews out of rebellion toward God.

Why is it important? 
The Bible tells us that “The words of the Lord are pure words” (Psalm 12:6) Not only would we be losing a great treasure if we tossed books out of the Bible, we would also be in rebellion against God. The reason is that we simply don’t have that authority. The role of the Church is to acknowledge the Lord’s word, not to decide (and certainly not to go back on the acknowledgment we already made centuries ago). Despite attempts to remove the Apocrypha, they used to be familiar works even among Protestants. Even Luther still bound them in his German Bible, even if he denounced their status. The truth is that these books are a part of the Septuagint which was the Christian Bible, used by the early Church, the apostles and the writers of the New Testament, and by Christ himself.

While it is true that the New Testament never directly quotes the Apocrypha with the type of explicit formula that Matthew uses (“this took place to fulfill what was spoken by the Prophet x who said y), yet the New Testament does in fact quote from the Apocrypha. The language of these books are sprinkled all throughout the New Testament just as are the other books of the Old Testament. The article notes, “The Apocrypha is entirely absent in [New Testament] writing.” Yet, this is utterly false.

In your Bible, you will notice the small print cross-references printed next to the biblical text, citing passages that quote or otherwise relate to one another. The total number of references to the Apocrypha in the margins of the Old and New Testaments of the King James Version as printed in 1611 is 113. Of this number, 102 are in the Old Testament, and 11 in the New. The New Testament passages with references to the Apocrypha in the King James Version are as follows:
Mt 6:7     Ecclesiasticus 7:14
Mt 23:37     2 Esdras 1:30
Mt 27:43     Wisdom 2:15-16
Lk 6:31     Tobit 4:15
Lk 14:13     Tobit 4:7
Jn 10:22     1 Maccabees 4:59
Rom 9:21     Wisdom 15:7
Rom 11:34     Wisdom 9:13
2 Cor 9:7     Ecclesiasticus 35:9
Heb 1:3     Wisdom 7:26
Heb 11:35     2 Maccabees 7:7

Want more? Consider these other cross-references from the gospels alone:
Mt 2:16 - Herod's decree of slaying innocent children was prophesied in Wisdom 11:7 - slaying the holy innocents.
Mt 6:19-20 - Jesus' statement about laying up for yourselves treasure in heaven follows Sirach 29:11 - lay up your treasure.
Mt 7:12 - Jesus' golden rule "do unto others" is the converse of Tobit 4:15 - what you hate, do not do to others.
Mt 7:16,20 - Jesus' statement "you will know them by their fruits" follows Sirach 27:6 - the fruit discloses the cultivation.
Mt 9:36 - the people were "like sheep without a shepherd" is same as Judith 11:19 - sheep without a shepherd.
Mt 11:25 - Jesus' description "Lord of heaven and earth" is the same as Tobit 7:18 - Lord of heaven and earth.
Mt 12:42 - Jesus refers to the Wisdom of Solomon which was the title of a book in the Greek Bible.
Mt 16:18 - Jesus' reference to the "power of death" and "gates of Hades" references Wisdom 16:13.
Mt 22:25; Mk 12:20; Lk 20:29 - Gospel writers refer to the canonicity of Tobit 3:8 and 7:11 regarding the seven brothers.
Mt 24:15 - the "desolating sacrilege" Jesus refers to is also taken from 1 Maccabees 1:54 and 2 Maccabees 8:17.
Mt 24:16 - let those "flee to the mountains" is taken from 1 Maccabees 2:28.
Mt 27:43 - if He is God's Son, let God deliver him from His adversaries follows Wisdom 2:18.
Mk 4:5,16-17 - Jesus' description of seeds falling on rocky ground and having no root follows Sirach 40:15.
Mk 9:48 - description of hell where their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched references Judith 16:17.
Lk 1:42 - Elizabeth's declaration of Mary's blessedness above all women follows Uzziah's declaration in Judith 13:18.
Lk 1:52 - Mary's magnificat addressing the mighty falling from their thrones and replaced by lowly follows Sirach 10:14.
Lk 2:29 - Simeon's declaration that he is ready to die after seeing the Child Jesus follows Tobit 11:9.
Lk 13:29 - the Lord's description of men coming from east and west to rejoice in God follows Baruch 4:37.
Lk 21:24 - Jesus' usage of "fall by the edge of the sword" follows Sirach 28:18.
Lk 24:4 and Acts 1:10 - Luke's description of the two men in dazzling apparel reminds us of 2 Maccabees 3:26.
Jn 1:3 - all things were made through Him, the Word, follows Wisdom 9:1.
Jn 3:13 - who has ascended into heaven but He who descended from heaven references Baruch 3:29.
Jn 4:48; Acts 5:12; 15:12; 2 Cor 12:12 - Jesus', Luke's and Paul's usage of "signs and wonders" follows Wisdom 8:8.
Jn 5:18 - Jesus claiming that God is His Father follows Wisdom 2:16.
Jn 6:35-59 - Jesus' Eucharistic discourse is foreshadowed in Sirach 24:21.
Jn 10:22 - the identification of the feast of the dedication is taken from 1 Maccabees 4:59.
Jn 10:36 – Jesus accepts the inspiration of Maccabees as he analogizes the Hanukkah consecration to his own consecration to the Father in 1 Maccabees 4:36.
Jn 15:6 - branches that don't bear fruit and are cut down follows Wis. 4:5 where branches are broken off.

And this is a small sampling of cross-references. For a more exhaustive list with the rest of the New Testament and early Church fathers, see this page.

Okay, so the New Testament quotes passages from the Apocrypha? Still not convinced of it’s divine inspiration? After all, lots of non-biblical references are made in the Bible. Well, what if the Apocrypha actually quoted the New Testament?

St. Augustine of Hippo formulated in the well known axiom: “In the Old Testament the New is concealed, in the New the Old is revealed.” One of the most powerful and convincing testimonies to the spiritual reliability of the Bible is the Old Testament witness about Christ—a testimony given before the events even happened. Jesus told others about how the Old Testament spoke prophetically of himself. He said, “You search the Scriptures, because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness to me; yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life” (John 5:39-40). This includes the Old Testament books in the Apocrypha. There are what I like to call “Four Gospels of the Old Testament.” They are the Gospels according to Moses, to David, to Solomon, and to Isaiah. The Book of the Wisdom of Solomon in the Apocrypha, composed about 100 BC, tells vivid details about the crucifixion of Jesus many years before it even happened in the second chapter.

Wisdom 2:12“Let us lie in wait for the righteous man . . . 16We are considered by him as something base, and he avoids our ways as unclean; he calls the last end of the righteous happy, and boasts that God is his father. 17Let us see if his words are true, and let us test what will happen at the end of his life; 18for if the righteous man is God’s son, he will help him, and will deliver him from the hand of his adversaries. 19Let us test him with insult and torture, that we may find out how gentle he is, and make trial of his forbearance. 20Let us condemn him to a shameful death, for, according to what he says, he will be protected.” 21Thus they reasoned, but they were led astray, for their wickedness blinded them, 22and they did not know the secret purposes of God.”

One of the most powerful and convincing testimonies to the spiritual reliability of the Bible is the Old Testament witness about Christ—a testimony given before the events occured. "All scripture is inspired by God [not just the parts that the Reformers agreed with] and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work” (2 Timothy 3:15-17). Only the Word of God speaks prophetically about the Word made flesh. 

As a great man once said, “Confirm everything, never take your pastor's word for anything. Rather, be noble-minded, search the Scriptures for yourself.” The truth will make you free. As I stated earlier, the only way to get to 66 books in the Bible is to start tossing out books. And we don't have the authority to do that.

For some excellent further reading:
Defending the Deutero-canonicals
Who Decides? Unraveling the Mystery of the Old Testament Canon 

Wednesday, February 11, 2015

Praying "in Christ"

I came across a delightful passage this afternoon from a book called Liturgy for the Layman by Luwig Winterswyl that I just had to share:

"The Christian who prays through Christ to God the Father is not just calling upon Christ but is, as it were, placing himself beside Christ who as Man is our brother. Furthermore, when he prays, he enters Christ, he prays from within Christ of whom he is a member by baptism. Prayer through Christ is true Christian prayer and through Christ this prayer is sure to reach the Father. For Christ our Mediator lives and reigns with the Father, one God for ever and ever. And therefore prayer through Christ leads the Christian straight to the Heart of God, to the Holy Trinity in which the Father and the Son in the unity of the Holy Spirit are united from all eternity in the fullness of divine life and love."

Thursday, December 25, 2014

A Christmas without Anglicans?

One of the things I like most about the Christmas season are the carols. It only occurred to me recently that so many of them came to us from Anglicans. That reminded me that even our popular image of jolly old St. Nick was shaped by a professor of biblical studies at (of all places) an Episcopal seminary.

“‘Twas the Night Before Christmas” is a poem first published anonymously in 1823 and generally attributed to Clement Clarke Moore, a professor of classics at Columbia and then lay Professor of Hebrew and the Bible at the General Theological Seminary in New York, which was built on land he donated. The poem, which has been called “arguably the best-known verses ever written by an American,” is largely responsible for the conception of Santa Claus from the mid-nineteenth century to today, including his physical appearance, the night of his visit, his mode of transportation, the number and names of his reindeer, as well as the tradition that he brings toys to children.

And what about the carols? The text of the popular Christmas carol “O little town of Bethlehem” was written by Phillips Brooks, an Episcopal priest who was the long-time Rector of Trinity Church Trinity in Boston, and later the Bishop of Massachusetts. He was inspired by visiting the Palestinian city of Bethlehem in 1865. Three years later, he wrote the poem for his church and his organist, Lewis Redner, added the music. Redner’s tune, simply titled “St. Louis,” is the tune used most often for this carol in the United States.

John Mason Neale was an Anglican priest, scholar, and hymn-writer. He translated many ancient hymns, such as the Christmas classic “Of the Father’s love begotten.” He was also responsible for much of the translation of the Advent hymn “O come, O come, Emmanuel,” based on the “Great O Antiphons” for the week preceding Christmas. Neale’s most enduring and widely known legacy is probably his own original Christmas contributions, most notably “Good Christian men, rejoice” and his Boxing Day carol, “Good King Wenceslas.”

The Anglican priest Charles Wesley, penned the classic “Hark! The herald angels sing.” The original words were reworked by his friend and fellow priest George Whitfield into the verses familiar to us today. The “Father of English Hymnody” Isaac Watts, a nonconformist minister in the Church of England, wrote the famous carol “Joy to the world!” The Anglican bishop Christopher Wordsworth penned the famous carol, “Sing, O sing, this blessed morn.”

Christina Rossetti was an English poet and a devout Anglo-Catholic. Two of her poems, “In the bleak midwinter” and “Love came down at Christmas,” became popular Christmas carols. Cecil Alexander, wife of a priest and then bishop in the Church of England, wrote the hymn “Once in royal David’s city.” Nahum Tate, who was the son of a priest and became England’s poet laureate, wrote the hymn “While shepherds watched their flock by night.”

At the age of twenty-nine, English writer and Anglican layman William Chatterton Dix was struck with a sudden near-fatal illness and confined to bedrest for several months, which resulted in a deep depression. Yet out of his traumatic experience, he wrote the lovely carol “What Child is this?” What would Christmas be like without Anglicans?

Tuesday, December 23, 2014

The pagan origins of the Christmas tree?

Probably the most recognizable Advent tradition is putting a tree in your home and decorating it for Christmas. The trees came to Britain after Prince Albert, the German husband of Queen Victoria, introduced them in 1841. It is often assumed that this is a pagan custom that was appropriated by Christians in Germany, but that is not quite the case. The Christmas tree began in Germany, but it started with a saint (an Anglican, in fact).

It was the 8th Century Benedictine monk St. Boniface from the Anglo-Saxon kingdom of Wessex who first took the Gospel to the pagan Germanic tribes of Northern Europe. There, they worshipped Odin and Thor—fierce and ancient Norse gods. One of the savage aspects of Germanic Norse religious culture was human sacrifice.

Boniface knew that Christianity had subdued the wilder, more violent aspects of Anglo-Saxon warrior culture in England and believed the same could happen in Germany. So Boniface let spread word among the tribes that when the next sacrifice was planned, he would personally prevent it. He gathered his monks at an ancient oak tree, a place of sacred blood-letting.

The pagans bound a young girl to the oak tree in preparation, but before the fatal blow could be struck, Boniface grabbed the axe out of the executioner’s hands. He swung at the girl’s chains, breaking her free, and then turned his axe on the sacred oak. The pagans knelt in silence, expecting their gods to avenge this blasphemy.

Boniface broke the silence, calling them to look at the base of the oak. There, springing out of the ground from between the roots was a tender young fir tree. Boniface explained that their other gods had fallen with the oak but that Boniface’s God had given them this little tree which remains green and full of life even in the depths of winter. The fir tree’s evergreen leaves pointed upwards to heaven, reminding them that the Christian Triune God’s love for them was everlasting.

At the first Christmas after this event, Boniface brought a fir tree indoors into the church as a symbol of Christ’s everlasting love. It has been used as a Christmas reminder of God’s love ever since.

Tuesday, July 22, 2014

Summer of Saints: Mary Magdalene

When we were expecting a child, my wife and I came up with a list of 20 names—some from the dictionary of saints, and others from our heads. We finally settled on Madeline, which is the Anglicized form of the French version of “Magdalene” (though we kept the French spelling). Her feast day is this coming this Tuesday, July 22nd, so I thought we'd talk about her in this summer of saints.

She has always been a popular saint, with many churches and institutions named after her. C.S. Lewis taught at Magdalene College in Oxford (though if you’re in Oxford, you’ll have to ask for “Maudlin College.” It took me about a day and a half to figure that one out.) Contrary to what you may have heard, she was not Jesus’ girlfriend (or wife), and it's very unlikely that was she a prostitute.

Mary Magdalene is introduced in the gospel story in Luke 8:1-3. Jesus “went on through cities and villages, preaching and bringing the good news of the kingdom of God. And the twelve were with him, and also some women who had been healed of evil spirits and infirmities: Mary, called Magdalene, from whom seven demons had gone out . . . and many others, who provided for them out of their means.” 

She was a rich woman from the town of Magdala, near the Sea of Galilee. She was known as the Magdalene because of her very common first name and she is noted to have funded Jesus’ ministry and travels in Galilee.

In the Middle Ages, she was often misidentified with the unnamed woman who anoints Jesus’ feet in Luke 7, the context indicating a repentant prostitute. She was also confused with Mary of Bethany, which seems even more odd. Why would one person be described as from both Magdala and Bethany.

The real Magdalene was exorcised and healed by the Savior, changing her life forever. She remained a devoted follower and close to him through the end, being one of those few at the cross, the burial, and the empty tomb. Both John and Mark’s gospels say that she was the first to see the risen Lord.

Some of the earliest traditions and commentaries seem to suggest that instead of being possessed by seven demons (possession is predicated upon a surrendering of the will), she was obsessed—or harassed—by seven demons. The Eastern fathers insist that she was a holy and devout person even before her deliverance and conversion.

Just imagine that for a moment, being harassed by demons. Seven malevolent spirits have made it their life’s work to ruin yours—to take away your happiness, your health, your well-being, your peace of mind, your sanity, your self-determination. She was under the constant attack of darkness until she was set free by the light of the world.

Aside from this brief introduction of Mary Magdalene in Luke 8, all the other references to her in the gospels come at the end of Jesus’ ministry. When the world turned dark for Jesus, she was there for him. She, with his mother and with John, stayed with Christ through his trail when all the others among the Twelve ran away and deserted him.

When he was being whipped, she was there. When he was mocked as a king with a robe and a crown of thorns, she was there. When he was carrying his cross, she was there. When his hands and feet and side were pierced and bled, she was there. When he breathed his last, she was there. When they laid him in the stone tomb, she was there. She wept as he bled and her heart broke with his.

To be like Mary Magdalene is to be there for Jesus has he has been there for us. In the Eastern Church, she is given the title of Holy Myrrh-Bearer because she came to the tomb carrying spices for Jesus’ burial. She was there to support her Lord’s work with a final gift, but when she arrived, found much more than she expected.

The door was already rolled away and Jesus was not there. Fearing it was one last act of sacrilege, she went and told the apostles. Peter and John came running to inspect the tomb. And it was not yet clear exactly what had happened. When they left, Mary Magdalene remained at the tomb, weeping.

Then two angels ask her why she is weeping. She says because “someone took away the body my Lord, and I do not know where they have laid him.” Then she turns around and bumps into what she thinks is the gardener who asks her the same question. She gives the same answer. The joyfulness of the moment simply will not allow her tears to persist. Both angels and the risen Lord intervene to cheer her up.

When Jesus calls her by name, she looks up and recognizes him. Jesus tells us her that this is not the time to embrace, but to go tell others. Apostle literally means “one who is sent.” In this sense, she has been called “Equal to the Apostles” or as St Augustine put it, “the Apostle to the Apostles.”

Usually this title is identified with those twelve patriarchs of a renewed Israel,but sometimes we see it used in this informal sense. Paul and Barnabas were the “Apostles to the Gentiles.” Cyril and Methodius were the “Apostles to the Slavs.” Patrick was the “Apostle to the Irish.” James Lloyd Breck was the “Apostle to the Wilderness.”

This is the only case I know of where someone is called an apostle because they are sent to bear witness to the risen Lord not to the outside world, but to the church herself. Jesus said, “Go tell my brethren . . .”

To be like Mary Magdalene is encourage fellow believers with the truth of the gospel: Jesus is risen from the dead; he is now alive, and he is there for you. In this summer of saints, we give thanks for St. Mary Magdalene, the holy Myrrh-bearer and "Apostle to the Apostles."

Summer of Saints: John Damascene

Perhaps like me, you have watched with growing alarm the Jihadist trail of conquest of the new group called ISIS—the Islamic state of Iraq and Syria. It has left a path of destruction from the Syrian civil war to the outskirts of Baghdad in the effort to built a new Caliphate.

They are regarded as especially brutal and callous—murdering without hesitation. They are being very successful at killing the few Christians left in the area and demolishing churches, but those are not their only targets.

Earlier this month in the Iraqi province of Nineveh, the militants blew up mosques and then took sledgehammers in hand to personally demolish the tombs of the biblical prophets Seth and Jonah—which were commonly revered by Jews, Christians, and most Muslims.

But these ISIS Mohammedan warriors ascribe to the puritanical Wahhabist movement, which is iconoclastic and thus vehemently opposed to the veneration of tombs like these or anything that would be an artistic depiction of God, prophets, saints, or any other holy thing.

What you may not know is that this is not the first time that religious zealots have destroyed holy shrines with hammers in this part of the world, and that back then, Christians were doing this. In 725 the Byzantine Emperor Leo III touched off the iconoclastic period when he ordered the destruction of images throughout the Roman empire, beginning with an icon of Christ, to which miraculous powers had been attributed.

Into this controversy came a powerful mother and an old monk name John. He was born in the year 676 in Damascus, Syria, the capital of the Moslem Umayyad Empire which stretched from Spain to India.

John succeeded his father at the court of the Caliph, but was not satisfied and left after three years to become a monk and priest at St Saba's in Jerusalem. He labored long and hard there in the patient work of theology and liturgy, becoming one of the greatest hymnists of the East as well as the last of the early Church Fathers and first of the medieval scholastics.

John’s writings defended the faith against Moslems, and other Christian heretics. He was called John of golden streams because of his eloquence. He was a man of deep learning and simple piety, who wrote and spoke in a way that people could understand.

Iconoclasm fell in and out of favor with the emperors for a hundred years (and with it, periods of legal image-breaking and persecution) until a female regent named Theodora (her name means “lover of God”) would finally end it for good. The Second Council of Nicaea was confirmed and the images restored in 842—an event still celebrated to this day throughout the Eastern Church on the First Sunday in Lent as the “Triumph of Orthodoxy.” And with Nicaea II, the orthodox, catholic expression of Christianity became “the Church of the Seven Councils.”

John of Damascus was highly praised at this ecumenical council He had picked up on German of Constantinople’s original defense of images back when iconoclasm first broke out, and articulated it well.

German and John explained how the so-called “worship” given to the images was different in kind from the worship of God, but also derived from it. Following their theological defense, the council defined that the images were to be restored and rightly honored.

The Second Council of Nicaea stated: “For the more frequently one contemplates these images, the more gladly he will be led to remember their prototypes, and the more will he be drawn to it and inclined to give it . . . a respectful veneration (proskynesis), but not however, the veritable worship (latria) which, according to our faith, belongs to God alone. But as is done for the image of the revered and life-giving cross and the holy gospels and other sacred objects, let an oblation of incense and lights be made to give honor to these images according to the pious custom of the ancients, for the honor given to an image passes over to its prototype, and whoever venerates an image venerates in it the person represented.” 

If John were writing after the invention of photography, he would have said, "Look, if one can take a picture of Christ, one can paint a picture of Christ.” The fact that the divine Word did indeed become flesh is very important. For St John Damascene, matter truly matters.

In his First Apology for Images, he wrote: “In former times, God, who is without form or body, could never be depicted. But now, when God is seen in the flesh conversing with men, I make an image of the God whom I see. I do not worship matter; I worship the Creator of matter, who became matter for my sake; who willed to make his abode in matter; who worked out my salvation through matter. Never will I cease honoring the matter which wrought my salvation! I honor it, but not as God. . . . God’s body is God because it is joined to his person by a union which shall never pass away. . . . I salute all the rest of mater with reverence, because God has filled it with his grace and power. . . . Do not despise matter, for it is not despicable; nothing God has made is despicable.” 

Speaking of Jesus, St Paul wrote, “He is the ikon of the invisible God” (Colossians 1:15). What was seen on the outside it what was on the inside—God in the flesh. Jesus didn’t just come to save your soul, he came to save your body—because that’s the real you, the whole you: body and soul.

We must remember also that matter truly matters. The church is not only concerned with the spiritual and the hereafter, but also with the physical in the here-and-now.

People matter, families matter, peace and violence matters, justice matters, safety matters, hunger matters, life and death matters, creation matters. All that God has made, he has also acted to redeem. In this summer of saints, we give thanks for St. John of Damascus.

Saturday, July 12, 2014

Summer of Saints: Becket and More

When I was growing up, we attended the First Baptist Church in Shreveport, LA. My father worked in the sound booth at the back of the balcony in church. So I’d often get to go up with him for the service.

On the back wall, above the sound booth are two large flags—American and Christian. And there is something unique about that American flag in that church. It’s the current configuration of the stars and stripes, but it is not red, white, and blue. It’s red, white and purple.

The flag looks like it’s made of silk, so maybe that has something to do with the reason for the odd color. And I’m not sure, but I think the blue field on the Xn flag is purple too. Seeing those stars on that blueish purple field left an impression on me. Since the only red, white, and purple American flag I’ve ever seen is in a church, it reminds me that America should look different from a Christian perspective. As a people with dual citizenship—in our country and in God’s kingdom—we can transcend the merely secular point of view.

With that in mind, I wanted to talk about two English saints today. That might seem like a strange choice so close to our own Independence Day. But these are two martyrs who became martyrs because they stood up for the liberties of God’s people against the tyranny of the crown—Sir Thomas More and the Archbishop of Canterbury Thomas Becket.

More’s memory has (of course) been celebrated by Roman Catholics in England since Reformation times. He was officially canonized by Pope Pius XI in 1935, and he has been recognized on the Church of England’s calendar since 1980. His Anglican feast day is actually today, July 6th.

Opposition to Lutheran ideas spreading through Europe was one of the things that More shared with King Henry VIII. Some have even suggested that More helped Henry write his book denouncing Luther that won him the papal title Defender of the Faith. But then it was religious opinions that drove them apart.

Henry became convinced that he was cursed and that his marriage to his sister-in-law Catherine of Aragon was invalid. The King sought a judgment of annulment from the pope, who just happened to be a prisoner of Catherine’s nephew, Emperor Charles V. So the pope kept putting off a response to the king’s request.

A papal legate had heard the case in England, but been recalled before giving judgment. The king asked why he even had to appeal the matter to a foreign bishop at all. There were plenty of bishops in England who could decide the matter. This led to a series of parliamentary bills which renounced all papal jurisdiction in England and let the annulment be granted locally.

As chancellor, More was the only one of the King’s advisers to oppose both the quest for an annulment and the King’s new title Supreme Head of the Church of England. He hoped to resign and retire quietly, but his hand was forced. As a former high official he had to take the Oath of Supremacy which included the title that More felt not only trampled upon the rights of the church to govern its own affairs, but also intruded upon the law of Christ.

His refusal along with only one bishop (John Fisher of Rochester) was considered treason. Both were beheaded in 1535 for standing up for the church’s rights. More’s last words were, “I die the king’s good servant, but God’s first.”

Another Thomas (Becket) had lost his life in the king’s service for similar reasons. 400 years earlier, Thomas Becket and King Henry II became close friends. Becket was a nobleman and a politician who was also a deacon. Seeing his administrative skills, the king appointed him chancellor. And because he had proved so capable and such a loyal friend, King Henry secured Becket’s election as Archbishop of Canterbury.

The King thought the move would help consolidate his power over church and state. But God began to work on Thomas’s heart after his consecration. His pastoral responsibilities changed him. Becket loved his flock. Instead of being the king’s puppet, he became his bitter rival as Becket vigorously defended the rights of the church.

The feud became so contentious that Becket lived in exile in France for 6 years. He returned to England through a fragile truce which didn’t last long. After grumbling about Thomas, some knights did the king a favor and went to the cathedral to rid him of the troublesome archbishop. Before he was beheaded, Becket said, “Willingly I die for the name of Jesus, and in the defense of the Church.” The king did public penance after the slaughter.

The event helped solidify the Charter of Liberties, and later the Magna Carta, whose first clause is “the Church of England shall be free,” and which enshrined those rights of the church (that two Thomas’ died defending) into England’s developing constitution.

Both Thomases were basically politicians, both chancellors of England, both devoted public servants, both loyal to a King Henry as a personal friend, both had the experience of a growing faith and devotion to God which became stronger and stronger as pressure on them grew, and both, in the end, decided to follow their consciences by being obedient to God rather than to men.

As I’ve said before, it will become more and more difficult in the coming years to be a faithful Christian in our changing culture that is leaving its heritage. Some may even argue that an American that sees red, white, purple on the flag and had pledged to follow God first might love his country less.

I believe that the love of God helps a Christian love his country more, not less. We are people who recognize that all of us are created equal—in the same image of the same God, who gave us the rights we enjoy. Like Thomas Becket and Thomas More, we will not stand idly by and let mere men try to take away what God has given. We are America’s good servants, but God’s first.

I believe that this nation is the greatest on earth. I think America might be the greatest country that ever has been. And if God will give us saints like Becket and More, then God will have truly blessed America.

Saturday, July 05, 2014

Summer of Saints: Peter and Paul

Today we begin our sermon series: “A Summer of Saints." It’s a good day to do so, not just because it’s the second Sunday of the summer, but more importantly, because it is also the Feast of Ss Peter and Paul—two apostles who replaced Romulus and Remus as the founders of Christian Rome and its empire. Ordinarily, when a feast falls on a Sunday (even a major feast) it is postponed, but during the green seasons, these feast days may take precedence.

The importance of the pivotal figures cannot be overstated. Pope St. Clement I called them “the greatest and most upright pillars of the Church.” St Luke tells us in the Book of Acts that each of them had special apostolic vocations.

As the leader of the Twelve, Peter was also the leader of the church after Pentecost. Under the Holy Spirit’s direction, Peter welcomed the first Gentiles into the Church. Yet, in a strange turn of events, it was Paul who was called to be an apostle to the Gentiles while Peter remained the apostle to the Jews, bringing both together in one Church of Christ—Peter laboring from the inside (as it were) and Paul from the outside.

St. Augustine of Hippo said, “Peter alone deserved to represent the entire Church. And because of that role which he alone had, he merited to hear the words: “To you I shall give the keys of the kingdom of heaven.” . . . [because Peter] represented the unity and universality of the Church.”

Paul clearly recognized that leadership and that authority vested in Peter, yet at the same time, as a brother in Christ and a brother apostle, Paul did not hesitate to hold Peter openly accountable—even rebuking him at Antioch for his mistreatment of Gentiles.

These two men began as unlikely heroes. In Mt 16:18, Simon became one of those few people in scripture God whom renamed. Instead of Simon, Jesus called him “Peter” (or “Rock”). It must have seemed like a strange choice, for he was anything but. Simon was not steady and immovable. He was impulsive, hot-headed, unreliable. But Pope St. Leo the Great said Peter was made firm by the strength of Jesus. For God, our future is more important than our past. God did not name him for the simple fisherman he was, but for the great fisher of men God called him to become. (Interestingly, in Rev 2:17, it says we are all given new names one day.)

Paul (who was once called Saul) was not given a new name. Saul was his Hebrew name and Paul was his Greek name—a common habit at the time. But Saul, a well-trained rabbi and “Hebrew of Hebrews” as he said, was a persecutor of the church, who by God’s grace became Paul—the apostle to the Gentile world, planting churches far and wide after his roadside encounter with the risen Lord.

Peter and Paul, unlikely heroes who somehow came to labor together for Christ also both ended up in Rome, dying in his Name under Nero’s persecution. And we must point out that both men went willingly to their deaths. Circumstances provided a way out, but neither of them took it, preferring instead to follow Jesus on the way of the cross.

Peter’s leadership in the Church took him first to Antioch (where we were first called Christians) and then later in about the 50s to the imperial capital of Rome. The Emperor Nero unleashed a vicious persecution in 64, blaming Christians for the great fire of Rome. At this point, Christians were rounded up and thrown in prison. Some were thrown to the lions in the games, some crucified. And some were burned alive as human torches to light the imperial gardens at night. Those who could, decided to flee the city. Among them was Peter.

But departing by the Appian Way, Peter saw a familiar face on the road. It was of a man who is not fleeing, but walking toward the very heart of Rome. Echoing Jn 13:36, Peter asked him, “Quo vadis, Domine?” (or “Where are you going, Lord?”). Jesus responded that he was “going to Rome to be crucified again.”

Jesus had once appeared to Peter after the resurrection, urging him to be a pastor. “Do you love me? If you do, then feed my lambs, tend my sheep.” Peter had once said he would follow Jesus to death, but then denied him three times (see John 13:37-38).

When Jesus restored him, he told Peter that one day, men would tie him up and take him where he did not want to go—alluding to Peter’s death. Peter decided there on the road he would follow Jesus, even back to Rome. Peter was one chosen to be crucified, but because Peter said he was not worthy to die like Christ, they crucified him upside-down and buried him there on Vatican hill.

In Acts 21, Paul was at the center of a temple riot and arrested on false accusations. Because of his Roman citizenship, he exercised his rights of appeal. Years later, the Jewish complaint about the incident had died down and the Romans wanted to be rid of him, but at his own insistence Paul continued to be shuffled around in the judicial system.

At one point, Agrippa remarked to Festus, “This man could have been set free if he had not appealed to Caesar” (Acts 26:32). Paul himself said he feels guided by the hand of Providence, but does not know the ultimate reason why until an angel tells him that Paul is under divine protection on his journey to Caesar.

If he stayed the course, Paul could be guaranteed an audience for the gospel. With that opportunity, he could either glorify God by Caesar's conversion or by Paul's own martyrdom. Historically, God would grant both. Paul fought the good fight, he finished the race, he kept the faith. He glorified God by a martyr’s death in Rome, with a merciful beheading according to his rights as a citizen and was buried there outside the walls.

Just about 250 years later, the Roman Emperor was led to his own conversion by an event similar to those which changed the lives of Peter and Paul on the road—a vision in the heavens and a message from the Savior of men.

Tuesday, June 24, 2014

How about a 'Three Streams' ecclesiology?

Ecclesiology has to do with the theological self-understanding of the church. One popular concept among some Anglicans today is the “three streams, one river” approach. In his article on the subject, the Rev’d Leslie Fairfield explains: “The genius of Anglicanism is that for five hundred years it has held in creative tension three different strands of Biblical Christianity. Those three streams are the Protestant, the Pentecostal/Holiness and the Anglo-Catholic movements.” 

There is so much that is problematic about this, it is hard to know where to begin. The Pentecostal (or Charismatic) Movement only began in 1900, and the Protestant Reformation in the 1500s. But the Catholic faith has been practiced in Britain since at least the third century, if not the first. But the main difficulty is that the metaphor tries to identify the river (the Catholic faith) with a party (Anglo-Catholicism). It’s a category mistake which leaves the whole concept incoherent. You should have one river of pure water—the undiluted Catholic faith. Beyond Pentecostalism and Protestantism, other movements in church history have had streams pouring into the river—Gnosticism, Arianism, Pelagianism, Iconoclasticism, etc.

Streams will pour into the river as a simple fact of life. But those streams have both the elements of pure water as well as pollutants. People come into the church and they often bring outside ideas, misconceptions, and outright theological errors with them. What we need are filtering mechanisms. They are things like the Bible, the catechism, preaching, and the ministry of bishops (who are called to guard the faith and drive out strange doctrine). A good church has these to purify the water from foreign elements which make their way into the river, keeping it clear instead of murky.

Instead, many in ACNA celebrate the streams and consider the Catholic faith to be but one of them. I find it remarkable that some who would not think of tolerating theological diversity as the Episcopal Church does today don’t hesitate to do the same thing under the name “three streams.”

The formation of the Anglican Church in North America comes with its own set of challenges, the primary one being to herd several constituencies together into one group. So it's no surprise that talk of  'Three Streams' or something like it would emerge. Basically, it is a political statement. But the problem is that it can't help but be a theological statement.

Friday, June 20, 2014

Straight talk about Rick Perry and John Paulk

Today I read a story of an "ex-gay" named John Paulk who recently divorced and is back to being just plain "gay." What prompted my interest is his misunderstanding of Rick Perry's recent comments comparing alcoholism and homosexuality, and the further questions he raises.

Asked about reparative therapy for homosexuality, Perry said, "Whether or not you feel compelled to follow a particular lifestyle or not, you have the ability to decide not to do that . . . I may have the genetic coding that I'm inclined to be an alcoholic, but I have the desire not to do that, and I look at the homosexual issue the same way." He since apologized and said he "stepped in it" by addressing that question, adding that we need to be a respectful and tolerant country where the public discourse is about jobs.

Paulk made the following observations in his article: "What worries me more is the ignorance betrayed by Perry’s comments—an ignorance that I believe is still widespread among conservatives in the straight world—about what being gay means. . . . As long as this widespread misunderstanding in the straight world about homosexuality persists, that it is a choice or a 'lifestyle,' as Perry put it, not only will we never be fully accepted by society, some of us will remain unable to accept ourselves. . . . I want to tell them—and Rick Perry: We are not broken, damaged, inferior or throwaways. We are created in the image of God—just like everyone else."

Paulk's own history is a painful journey through the "nurture" side back to the "nature" side in the "nature vs. nurture" argument over the origins of homosexuality, so it is understandable that this issue hits hard for him. What is strange is that Paulk and most everyone else seems to have missed the fact that Perry apparently agrees with him, siding with nature. Otherwise, there is no point to Perry's analogy with alcoholism.

Perry's point (it seems to me) is that while we have genetic predispositions to certain things, it is our free will manifested by our actions that is the moral crux of the matter. You may have a particularly strong temptation, but that is no sin. The sin comes in the decision to act--to get drunk or to be unchaste.

Genetic predisposition does not free us from moral culpability, except in the sense that repeatedly giving into temptation makes temptation more and more difficult to resist. In a sense, the will become less and less free as a matter of practice. Moral culpability is reduced, but does not go away. Otherwise, there would not be any such thing as moral culpability. By definition, a sin is a conscious and deliberate trespass of the revealed will of God.

Although the issue is undoubtedly complex, when it comes to homosexuality, Christian theology comes down on the nature side of the argument. It says that nature is fallen from its created intention. It says that we are all genetically predisposed to sin and even temptations which are particularly unique to individuals (see Hebrews 12:1), yet that does not free us from moral culpability. The Gospel requires that we recognize not only that we do sin, but that we have this disordered impulse toward sin from the beginning--that we cannot fix the fundamental problem, that we cannot save ourselves. Only God saves.

I had not heard of John Paulk before today (though I vaguely remember an apology a few years ago from Exodus International). But his story is the story of so many. And I see how a Christian ministry that becomes a psychological therapy program can be a problem. It's more than just the fact that any such program will work for some and not for others. It leads to a confusion between therapy and the Gospel itself. These should work side-by-side, but not be equated.

Therapy can help deal with temptations, with emotional struggles, and so on. The Gospel is about repentance, about turning to God for the things we cannot fix ourselves, about seeking forgiveness and welcoming grace, about pursuing the hard life of holiness and obedience. There is much overlap here, of course, but the focus is different. Therapy is not about the surrender to the grace, love, mercy, and will of God. The Gospel is not about facing our problems and overcoming them with conditioned alternatives. Sometimes God does the impossible and the miraculous. Sometimes he does not. Either way, all of us have the same vocation to holiness and in this case, the call is to chastity.

What concerns me the most in Paulk's frank story is the spiritual dimension that is left unsaid. Human beings are sexual; the prefix is not so important. Each of us faces the calling of chastity and the temptations to deviate from that. Paulk did not write the article for a secular magazine, so I don't expect him to answer the questions of a religious audience.

But the questions are there--how did he keep his faith in God if he rejected his vocation to marriage and the vows made to his wife and to God? How did his surrender to temptation affect his wife and sons' pursuit of holiness? What does not mean to say, "I'm no longer an ex-gay"? (And what does it really mean to be "ex-gay," for that matter?) It seems to imply that a gay man cannot be holy, be chaste. That's false. And it seems to imply that he is not simply treating his besetting temptation for what it is, but that he has given into it--that he chose to commit adultery (not as a momentary indiscretion, but as a--is there another word?--"lifestyle") and embraced it as an identity. Will this be the end of the story?

Perry and Paulk (and Matkin) are only a few among billions--the fallen. They are those for whom our Lord became human, suffered, bled, died, and rose again to redeem. He has redeemed us from the wages of our sins and given us the invitation: "Follow me."

Sunday, June 08, 2014

What is speaking in tongues?

The biblical charism of speaking in various unknown foreign languages (called glossolalia) fell upon the apostles on Pentecost. By praising God this way, the gospel was understood by outsiders and the Church grew. St. Paul records that the gift was still in use in the first century.

This gift was manifested a few times after that, such as in the preaching of St. Anthony of Padua, St. Paul of the Cross, and St. Dominic to audiences that included many foreigners. However, the “speaking in tongues” heard today is different.

The Charismatic/Pentecostal movement began in 1901 with a small group of Wesleyan Bible students in Topeka led by Charles Parham praying for the gift of tongues. One of the students, Agnes Ozman, began to speak and write what was believed to be Chinese. Her experience was soon shared by her teacher and fellow students, supposedly speaking in nearly a dozen languages. But they later found out these were not foreign languages at all.

Figuring this was a new Pentecost, Parham boasted, “The Lord will give us the power of speech to talk to the people of the various nations without having to study them in school.” He insisted that missionaries from his Bethel College demonstrate that. And those students were devastated to find that when they arrived in foreign lands, the natives simply could not understand them.

This, along with several other embarrassing incidents, dealt a severe blow to the early movement. Two of the things that helped it survive were moving beyond Parham’s leadership and reinterpreting the meaning of speaking in tongues. According to the modern view, the gift is not about speaking in a foreign earthly language (as in the book of Acts), but speaking a heavenly or spiritual language. It is sometimes described as a prayer language. And the practice is not confined to Pentecostal denominations or even to Protestantism. The charismatic phenomenon is found in almost all churches today.

St. Paul made it clear in 1 Corinthians 12 that not all believers have been given a gift of tongues. But those who have, must use it (like all spiritual gifts) to the glory of God and the building up of his Church.

Saturday, November 23, 2013

What if JFK had not been assasinated?

I've always loved speculation about alternative history. What if the Roman Empire had not fallen? What if America had not revolted? What if the Confederacy had won the Civil War? or President Lincoln had lived out his second term? What if WWII had been averted? or the Nazis had prevailed? What if the Vietnam War had not been fought? or the Soviet Union had not collapsed? It is a reminder that history is repleat with turning points and how little events can affect the great flow of history.

Many people have speculated about President Kennedy in such ways. What if he had not been in Dallas that day? What if he and his brother had not been assassinated? I propose a similar speculation. What if Lee Harvey Oswald had still assassinated the 35th President of the United States and JFK had lived to a ripe old age? You might argue that it almost happened that way because he almost wasn't president.
We often forget how close the election of 1960 was. It was one of those elections that literally could have had a different outcome if the weather had been different. In 1960, Kennedy prevailed with a margin of 0.17% of the popular vote over Nixon. Rumors were rampant about political machines and voter fraud in Illinois and Texas, two states which would have given Nixon the presidency had they gone his way. But unlike Al Gore, Nixon decided against contesting any state results, saying, “our country cannot afford the agony of a constitutional crisis.” Ironically, we later see that same value rise to the surface at his resignation.

So Nixon wins in 1960 . . . how does history change? Well, Kennedy lives, of course. He may have run for president again later and won as Nixon did. But I suspect that with his health problems he serves a term or two more as a senator from Massachusetts. Then, he hands the job over to one of his younger brothers--probably Robert, unless he has gone on to bigger and better things. So JFK writes books and gives lectures, fading into the sunset as an elder statesman.

Nixon becomes one of our youngest presidents, bridging the gap between WWII generation and the prosperous Eisenhower years and the up-and-coming generation of Americans looking toward a bright future. Both Kennedy and Nixon ran on very similar platforms, so policies may not have been so far apart. But surely things would have been different. Who knows how the Cuban missile crisis would have been different. Certainly Nixon was no less anti-Soviet than Kennedy.

Kennedy's challenge to go to the moon was never made. But we still have Sputnik and space technology beginning, so surely there is some kind of space race. Both Kennedy and Nixon were pro-civil rights, so there's some advancement on that front (probably mostly as a memorial after Nixon's assassination). Nixon keeps the pledge to appoint at least one black to his cabinet. But since the only segregationists were Democrats and there was no need later need for a "southern strategy" in 1968, African Americans become deeply attached to the party of Lincoln while the Democrats are split over segregation for a decade.

The biggest difference in this alternative history is that instead of LBJ, Vice-President Henry Cabot Lodge, Jr. is sworn in as president after the assassination of Nixon.  Since the Great Society is so identified with President Johnson, it doesn't come to pass even though some elements of it may have later been enacted. Ironically, Kennedy had defeated Lodge for the Massachusetts senate seat in 1952. So perhaps like Nixon, JFK would have run for president again against Lodge in 1968.

President Lodge was a diplomat and perhaps this change in personality and temperament would have made a significant difference in regards to Vietnam, but maybe not. Ironically, Lodge later served as ambassador to Vietnam under Presidents Kennedy and Johnson, so he was already deeply involved in our own historical reality.
As for Nixon, we forget how popular he actually was because of Watergate. Nixon came back from political death to be elected president in 1968 and then was re-elected with the fourth largest margin in the popular vote and his total in the electoral college was only barely surpassed by Reagan's 49 state win in 1984.

The young first family has a romance with popular culture remembered as "Camelot" from the popular Broadway musical of the time. It is a much younger Elvis Presley who meets Nixon in the Oval Office. Perhaps even Marylin Monroe sings him "Happy Birthday" one year (but that's as close as she gets to the president of the United States).

With Oswald's assassin bullet in 1963, Nixon is immortalized along with his dream of a better America for all Americans. No one remembers him as "tricky Dick," but as a young president (perhaps our greatest) who inspires Americans for generations to come.

Don't let it be forgot 
That once there was a spot 
For one brief shining moment 
That was known as Camelot.

Saturday, September 14, 2013

Lillie Matkin and the Waco tornado of 1953

My great-grandfather's sister, Lillie Matkin, was the last survivor to be rescued from the rubble after an F-5 tornado struck downtown Waco on May 11, 1953. In the deadliest tornado in Texas history (along with Goliad in 1902), 114 people were killed and 597 were injured. Nearly half the dead (61) were killed in one city block.

John Dominis—Time & Life Pictures/Getty Images
“2:30 A.M., a power saw is used to cut away some timbers. Afraid she might be cut, Lillie [Matkin] said, “I’ve been here 10 hours — a little longer won’t hurt.”

John Dominis—Time & Life Pictures/Getty Images
“6:45 A.M., Lillie Matkin’s ordeal ends, 14 hours and eight minutes after she was trapped and able only to wiggle her feet. Gently as they could, the men who had labored through night to disentomb her carry her from wreckage to surface…. Near the end of her entrapment a worker removed her shoes and before she was lifted out she cautioned, “Don’t lose them. They’re old but comfortable.” They were brought to her later at the hospital.

John Dominis—Time & Life Pictures/Getty Images
Lillie Matkin, Waco tornado survivor, is finally freed from rubble about 10:30am on May 12, 1953.

In the immediate aftermath of the tornado, LIFE’s John Dominis and correspondent Scot Leavitt, who had just recently moved to Texas, made their way to the devastated city. All of the photos in this gallery, many of which never ran in LIFE, are Dominis’s; in a note sent to LIFE’s editors in New York, Leavitt noted that “through virtually all [of Dominis's] shooting, rain fell, the sky was dark and the mood was somber.”

For its part, LIFE wrote of the disaster in its May 25, 1953 issue:
By May 11 the warm, close weather was uncomfortably routine to the people of Waco, Texas. The day before had been muggy and the day before that, too. The big news in the Morning News-Tribune was of a tornado in far-off Minnesota. At mid-morning the New Orleans weather bureau warned there might be a few tornadoes close to home. But an Indian belief that tornadoes would never strike Waco had always held true and no one in the city worried about the report At 1:30 .m. the Waco weather forecaster announced, “No cause for alarm.”
Three hours later the skies suddenly darkened. people scurried for shelter from the hail and slashing rain, and at the edge of town a cemetery workman looked up to see a thick black wedge forming under a low cloud … At 4:37 p.m. the black wedge in the sky struck Fifth and Austin [streets], gouged the earth for a block and left the heart of Waco a broken coffin for scores of schoolboys, housewives, motorists….

Monday, September 09, 2013

Sit down first and take counsel

It is remarkable how sometimes the scripture readings in the lectionary correspond to events unfolding in the world around us! It is a reminder that God’s Word always has something to say to us today.
In today's Gospel, Jesus said, “What king, going to encounter another king in war, will not sit down first and take counsel . . ." (Luke 14:31). The context of this statement was that Jesus was telling his followers that they should carefully count the cost of discipleship before committing. Following Jesus could very well mean the loss of a whole way of life or even life itself—it could cost you the comforts of social status, friends, and even family. This new commitment to Christ has to take priority even if it means following the way of the cross. “Whoever of you does not renounce all that he has," Jesus said, "cannot be my disciple.”

How ironic it is that just this week our president asked the congress to give counsel and authorization, considering the costs of potential war! The step was unexpected as the War Powers Act recognizes the president’s authority as Commander-in-Chief to take limited military action when needed and only then to come to the Congress for authorization for a resolution of war or more long-term military engagement.

So far, as public opinion is running against it, it seems that we face the distressing prospect of the Congress and the people saying "No" while the president may go on to engage military action anyway. Since the Word of God, which is “living and active—sharper than any two-edged sword,” I thought we might engage this intersection of the front page and the sacred page about costs of war. The church is often speaking out and praying about the cause of peace when such war is the topic of discussion in the public arena. Yesterday was a special day of fasting and prayer for peace as called for by Pope Francis and our own Archbishop Robert Duncan.

One might think that the only word the church has on the topic is “No.” But in Christian moral theology, beginning with St. Augustine in the fourth century, there is a whole tradition of criteria for ascertaining a “just war.”
Wars by their very nature will involve material evils—death and destruction—so Christian moral theology has an automatic disposition against war, but sometimes Christians can morally (or even should) engage in warfare. Since this is what so many are thinking about, talking about, and praying about, I thought it would be helpful to review the just war theory today.

But first, let’s get a common misconception about just war out of the way. It can be summed up in the phrase, “Somebody ought to do something!” Most of us feel that urge to get involved when we see news about some dictator being cruel and committing atrocities.
The problem is that we are not the world’s policemen. We can't solve every problem. If we went to war every time a petty despot was naughty or people were being killed, we would ALWAYS be at war. We tend to look for military solutions to human problems.
So then what should be our concerns when considering military intervention? What does Christian moral theology have to say? The just war tradition looks at least five basic criteria in evaluating whether warfare can be just, and they all have to be satisfied: cause, legitimate authority, probability of success, last resort, and proportionality. The burden of proof is on those arguing for war to make their case in each of these areas.

1. A “just” or “righteous” cause for fighting. A just war is always defensive in nature. That is generally considered to extend to the defense of allies. Indeed, mutual protection treaties work against the likelihood of war. It is hard to see how our involvement could be seen as defensive in nature. In fact, getting involved in the Syrian Civil War might be more of a threat to our regional allies and to our own national interests than staying out of it. The protection of human life is a noble cause for intervention, but why is the killing of several hundred by use chemical weapons more imperative than the tens of thousands killed since 2011? If we got involved, would we be saying that killing is alright as long as it's not done chemically.

2. Legitimate authority to wage war. Because the US was not directly attacked, an American attack on Syria would actually violate international law—unless we obtain UN backing (which has not and will not be forthcoming). So if we did this, we would be breaking international law by attacking a country that broke international law by using chemical weapons to teach them that breaking international law is wrong. That's problematic at best.

3. Probability of success. War cannot be just if there is no likely achievement. You wouldn’t plan war strategy that way anymore than football strategy. What is the strategic objective in this case? Is it depleting arsenals? Is it regime change? What are we trying to accomplish and is that a viable goal? What assurance do we have that the situation would not end up being worse with our involvement? These are tough questions that deserve answers.

4. Last resort. This civil war has been going on since the 2011 Arab Spring uprising. But our country has not shown a major concern for resolving it until now. The problem is not that peacemaking has been tried and failed. Where are the diplomatic negotiations? the economic sanctions? Nonviolent strategies have hardly been tried at all and alternative measures need to be exhausted first.

5. Proportionality. Any direct action (even limited engagement) by the US could escalate the war and involve Russia, China, Iran, and Israel. Would the strategic damage done with a military strike likely be proportionate to any good that might be accomplished? Would this action stop the war and ultimately save lives? These questions deserve answers.

As we approach the 100 year anniversary of the so-called “war to end all wars,” we need to stop and consider the cost and the best way to serve peace. We will always have tough decisions to make.
As Moses said: “Behold, I have set before you this day life and good, death and evil” (Deuteronomy 30:15). As individuals and as a nation, may God give us the grace, the wisdom, and the guidance to always choose life.