Are Bishops and Apostolic Succession Essential or Unimportant to the Future of American Anglicanism?

The Optional Bishop

Some Pastoral Thoughts Regarding Apostolic Succession and the Historic Episcopate

by Father Tom Reeves

Recently, I attended a clergy day in our Diocese.  At one point during the day, I had a nice discussion and time of prayer with two other priests.  One of the Priests had recently graduated from a well-known Evangelical Seminary in Colorado.

As we discussed our lives, I turned to this newly ordained priest and asked him "So, what brought you in connection with Anglicanism"?  It seemed evident to me that this young man had a gentle and sincere spirit, and genuine love for the Lord and people.  As he began to explain his journey, he referenced his first interaction with our Bishop.

His response was not surprising.  This pastor called our Bishop as a first step to inquire about entrance into the Anglican Church and what it would entail.  He had called our Diocesan headquarters because he was interested in planting a church in our state, and thought he would just have some things mailed to him or explained to him by the staff.  As is often the case, the Bishop was in his office and was glad to speak to the young man.  This was a shock to the caller, who in no way had prepared himself to talk to the Bishop directly.

As an outsider to Anglicanism, this person's cultural view assumed a Bishop as someone who is  somber, austere, and given over to power.  Instead, he found our Bishop engaging, welcoming and informative.  He is now in an internship program toward the priesthood at one of our larger churches.  What will he be taught about the historic episcopate?

In another encounter on the same day, I was talking with a seasoned Episcopal priest.  As he related his story and the process his church took in leaving the Episcopal Church, he mentioned to me that he did not believe that Apostolic succession was scriptural.  In addition, he did not see the Episcopate as  historically necessary.  This sentiment by clergy in the ACNA is becoming a constant.

I too was an ordinand coming from outside the Anglican Tradition.  During a discussion with one of my Anglican professors, I was informed by him that  "Apostolic succession is just a tradition, and most scholars today (within the discipline of Biblical Theology) believe the Bible teaches elder rule" (similar to Presbyterian Polity). 

So, is Apostolic Succession and the historic episcopate just one "style" of leading and organizing a church?  Is it optional?

 A Fresh Approach to Anglicanism?

What I have discovered since entering the ACNA in 2008, is that many ACNA clergy see Apostolic Succession as an optional tradition and/or a necessary evil[1].  Most evangelical clergy (no matter what "denomination" they find themselves), usually use the word "tradition" in a pejorative sense.  The irony, though, is that by taking a low view of history and tradition, these pastors are relying on and contributing to another set tradition; a tradition that marginalizes tradition.   When we allow ourselves to think in this manner, we reveal an undeveloped understanding of Anglicanism at its core - or worse - a denial of the relationship between the Word, the Holy Spirit, and tradition. 

One of the negative marks of American Evangelical pietism is the belief that there is one, right, scriptural way to do just about anything.  The Bible in this way of thinking becomes a manual by which we are to put our Christianity into practice.  However, I submit that this approach is not only hermeneutically flawed, but also does injustice to the contexts and cultures in which the Old and New Testaments were penned (the writers were not post-Enlightenment Modernists or Post-Modernists).  In addition, this approach does not embrace the complexities of taking truth formed in one culture and applying it to another. 

In this way of thinking, applications from scripture become wooden or formulaic.  There are clear demarcations between the right way, and the wrong way; the good guys, and the bad guys; my people, and your people.  A characteristic of this church culture is the continual search for the ever elusive  "real church" or the "pure church".   It is in this milieu then, that a search for the "one right ecclesiology" makes perfect sense.

In so much of American Anglicanism it is my cross-references versus your cross-references; the book you just read, versus the book I just read;  my experiences verses your experiences; my favorite theologian, against yours.  This sets the stage for sectarian and polarized communal relationships that have little room for shared critical thinking, honest discussions regarding truth, or an appreciation of our need of the "push-back" from other views.  In other words, instead of a healthy grounded community, an insecure and defensive "group-think" evolves.

The reality is that our personal beliefs and experiences do not in and of themselves create lasting, authoritative truth.  Because we are created and human, we all interpret the scriptures with an informing tradition directing us as a tutor would a student.  We can deny this, but it doesn't make it any less true.  No matter what flavor of Christianity that we claim to be a part of, all developed theology, exegesis, confessions, and creeds are TRADITION by the very definition of the term. 

When we seek to explain scripture, organize it, and then disseminate it in any fashion (beyond just reading it outright in our assemblies and letting the reader decide how it strikes them), we are giving them a form of tradition.  So is Apostolic Succession tradition? Yes, and so is ANY  form of ecclesiastical rule, revision, or application.

In I Corinthians 15, the Apostle Paul reveals some tradition handed down to him as an Apostle:

3 For I handed on to you as of first importance what I in turn had received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, 4 and that he was buried, and that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. 6 Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers and sisters[c] at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have died

It Is Traditional to have Tradition

It should come as no shock to us that like the church fathers and the reformers, we too are children of our age and cultures (familial, local, regional, national).  From the day that we are born, we breathe-in and drink- in assumptions about life, living, philosophy, politics and truth.  Many of our presumptions will need to be shaped or abandoned as we grow in our understanding of the Gospel and the Kingdom of God.  We will also need assistance in Gospel and Kingdom applications and living.

 Anglicans have always believed that the Holy Spirit's work of sanctification (in the Covenantal Community and in individual lives) is a process that is continued until the consummation and glorification of Christ's church.  We learn and seek our God through Word and Spirit, but we see ourselves grounded and informed by the church fathers that have gone before us.  This historic and universal church (i.e., catholic church) has handed down a historic and core tradition in a particular historic context. 

However, it seems to this writer, that many Anglicans take the central content of the historic traditions while leaving their context.  Thus, the complexities and processes involved in developing our ecumenical New Testament Cannon go unnoticed; the importance of a unified (but imperfect) church in their development goes unnoticed; the importance of the spiritual authority of the Bishops in the development of the Cannon goes unnoticed.   We will give lip service to the Apostle's, Nicene, and Athanasian Creeds, and we are glad to have them as our historical documents;  however, we care little for the historic understandings and contexts in which these important and central truths were formulated. 

As most Americans , we are constantly tempted to be pragmatic while being a-historical and  anti-intellectual.  We, thus, are tempted to value our lives and ministries based on their perceived production value.  In addition, we live in a democracy that sees government rule distributed by a representative form of government[2], yet, somehow, we are certain that this governing reality has no influence on the way we interpret scripture. 

How have we decided that we are untouched by the blatant capitulation in our culture regarding individual reason and our ability to find truth on our own in isolation from others in community?  Why are we constantly condescending towards a faithful historic belief system informed by the faithful people of the past?  Why do we act as if our perceptions are so accurate that we have no need to consider the beliefs of those on the opposite side of an issue?  Why do we pick one small part of church history and "pitch our tent" there, while ignoring the rest of God's faithful work among his people in every age?

The Unity of American Anglicans

Instead of a real unity around a few, core, and shared beliefs that define our Anglicanism, we seem to be encouraging an undefined Anglicanism in the spirit of the "free-church"[3] so prominent among us[4].  I submit that if Anglicanism means anything Anglicans do or say, then being Anglican means nothing.  And if being Anglican means nothing, then being Anglican means anything.

The American Anglican Church is NOT a "free-church".   Many Anglicans claim the  Ecumenical Creeds, but not that whole "Baptism for the forgiveness of sins" idea.  We say we accept the liturgy in our 1662 Book of Common Prayer, but seem unaware at times of the theology behind its sacramental statements. We say we subscribe to the Thirty-nine Articles, but clarity regarding what this means in ecclesial application remains elusive.   Anglican practice reveals multiple groups doing what is "right in its own eyes" and the silence on these issues is deafening. 

So, what would it look like if we were NOT being Anglican?  The phrase "Anglican Tradition" gets tossed around in the world-wide Anglican Communion.  But what does "Anglican Tradition" even mean?  Can it be defined?  Do we actually believe an undefined Anglicanism will stand the test of time; an Anglicanism that positions itself as the caretakers of everyone's optional theology, confessions, and creeds?  This makes no scriptural or historic sense.

In the "free-church" way of thinking:

·         Liturgy is a style, is emergent, is cool, but is optional.  Also, the theology contained in the liturgy is not necessarily instructive theologically.

·         We keep the Sacraments, but don't mind adding a few sacramental rites of our own along with them.  The problem with this approach, is that only the Lord Jesus Christ has the freedom to create a sacrament for his church.[5]

·         Apostolic Succession is an optional belief, but it is what many of us in the ACNA were reared in.  Why we keep it as our ecclesiology may be more related to the difficulties in changing it, than our passionate belief that it should remain. 

So, does Apostolic Succession have Scriptural support? Yes! But I submit that the ecclesiology that we find in the New Testament is a "primitive" and "developing" form of a later and specific ecclesiology due to the different needs and the changing size of Christ's Church[6].  

In the scriptures, however, we see the beginnings and foundations for this later development and rule.

·         We see the authority and leadership of the Apostles while they were on earth, tasked by Christ to be his representatives of forgiveness in the absolution of sin, the power and authority over the evil one (and his forces), and the laying on hands as a sign of approved ministry and power in the Church.

·         We see the early church prioritizing the writings of the Apostles above all others in putting together the Cannon.

·         When unique problems face the church in the book of Acts (as the new church transitioned from the Mosaic Covenant to the New Covenant) we see an early, basic, and less-encumbered council in Jerusalem recorded in the book of  Acts 15.  The later official councils of the historic church established and clarified the importance of the incarnation, the Trinity, and ratified an established Cannon of Scripture (among other things).  These were all led by Bishops that saw themselves having their authority and beliefs coming directly from the Apostles themselves through the laying on of hands[7].

·         We see the laying on of hands established, from Apostle to under-ministers who then serve in ministry with, and under the authority of the Apostles.

·         We see in the earliest writings of the church an acceptance and an assumption of Episcopal rule, especially important for the combating of heresy.

·         As with the Apostles, most of the earliest Bishops on record were martyred for their faith in Christ[8], lived out the Gospel, and relied on Apostolic teaching and tradition.  The tradition during the early Christian centuries was disseminated  through combined written fragments of the New Testament and the communal oral tradition of the day.

What many of us misunderstand, is that when we decide that tradition plays no role in the formation of our Christian faith, we also philosophically rule out a reliable, historic New Testament Cannon as Scripture.   So in essence, many American Christians choose to accept the Cannon of the New Testament from the same communities who gave them the very notions of Apostolic Succession and Episcopal Oversight.  Is this consistent?

The Cannon of Scripture was developed through the working of the Holy Spirit in the Historic Community through TRADITION.  In accepting the New Testament Cannon, we choose to trust God's way of moving, leading, and protecting his communal people throughout their history.  We believe that we are also following the teaching of the Apostles and that we live under the  authority given to them through Christ as we engage the world, the flesh, and the devil.  We believe the same Holy Spirit leads and directs us, and that in the end we are completely reliant on our covenant making and life-giving Lord.

How long did it take for the New Testament to be gathered and recognized ecumenically as authoritative?  If we take the writing of Athanasius (A BISHOP) in his "Epistola Festalis" (A.D. 367) as the essential close of the New Testament Cannon, the answer is three hundred and sixty-seven years[9].

Most Christians believe that the collection and approval of what was later deemed "divinely inspired literature" was worked out by the leading and the protecting of the Holy Spirit locally, regionally, and ecumenically.  Multiple manuscripts, moving throughout the church had to be read, considered and decided on.  A fragmented and disunified church would not have been able complete such a task.  A Church with courageous, Spirit-led, authoritative (and flawed) Bishops did.  In other words, the Holy Scriptures are only available to "free-church" Christians because of a unified church under a developing Episcopal rule.[10]

Our American Influences

In their hermeneutics, many American Christians are nothing more than a less-extreme version of Joseph Smith, the founder of Mormonism[11].  Individually, Smith had multiple visions, was visited by God the Father and Jesus, and was given the book of Mormon through golden plates he could never produce.[12] 

Sounds crazy when we read it, but Joseph Smith sold it to a lot of Americans, and there is a still a Mormon Church existing and thriving today.  There are some Christian Ecumenists now claiming that Mormonism is a legitimate form of Christianity.  As a movement, Mormonism is impressive and has done much cultural good.  So why is their reading of the Bible not one of our considered choices?  What makes our opinions about scripture better than theirs?

An Anglican Province bent on mission removed from theological and historical depth will produce a weak church.  Ignoring healthy intellectual dialogue regarding our very core definitions, hinders a truly lasting unity or church.  We are called to discern and to encourage the Spiritual gifts of discernment and a culture that "tests the Spirits whether they be of God".  The Lord has called his bishops and clergy to "rightly divide the Word of God".  The honest engagement and significance of historical, cultural, and scriptural context is central to our life and future as Anglicans.

This means that theological dialogue and development must be present and a part of our communal trust.  Unlike the church fathers and communities responsible for the collecting and developing of our Scriptural Cannon, our Ecumenical Creeds, and our theology of Church and Mission, many seem to want an undefined core of Anglicanism.  But in the end, are we building a foundation for our Province that will last if we take this route?  If we are going to ignore the teachings of the Early Church and the Reformers on such things, then we reveal we don't know our own history.  One only needs to look at the very beginnings of the Global Anglican Communion in the late 1800's to see where mission work without a grounded theology, clarity in core definitions, and authoritative oversight leads us[13]. 

What we "experience" or "feel the Spirit is doing" , does not a lasting or authoritative interpretation make.  Testing and discerning takes time, involves trust, requires lasting and developed relationships, submits to communal authority, and regularly engages historic Christian precedence in handling and teaching the Word of God.  This is why Anglicans hold the Creeds and the theology taught in our liturgy in such high regard.  Without it we believe that we would soon go off the rails of historic Christianity.  But if we don't have some clearly defined, shared, core beliefs, how can we hold one another accountable?

This writer submits that there is no lasting Anglican definition that lays aside the Scriptural foundations and faithful development of an Apostolic Episcopate.  Our uniqueness lies in the fact that our ecclesiology is both Apostolic and Reformational.  This distinctive should be taught and clarified as essential no matter the disunity or disenfranchising we fear in our province.

I believe Anglicanism is something, but without Apostolic Succession and the Historic Episcopate, I submit that Anglicanism is truly a disposable "container" that will not stand the test of time.

---

[1] This has also been my experience in regards to other core Anglican distinctives.  There seems to be an ambivalence regarding the unique and special working of the Christ in his sacraments, and a general disinterest in the context and theology of the Bishops that shaped our ecumenical creeds.  It at times seems that we assume our beliefs (without a deeper knowledge and context) will endure without us knowing why they should.  If true it reveals at best historical myopia, or at worse an irresponsible denial of the structures of human cultural processes.

[2] A Democratic Republic

[3] Being defined here as a church tradition that has no requirements of its parishes in regards to the order and content of their weekly gathered worship services.  As the ACNA develops its own prayer-book, it is unclear what minimums are now (or will be) required for a parish or diocese in regards to the liturgical use of the Book of Common Prayer.  While we decide on such things, and their authoritative application, what kind of liturgical structures and thinking will already have taken root?

[4] Is it wisdom that we are embracing when we engage in ministry and friendship with Free-church Evangelicals without a clear sense of when we are being "Anglican" or when we are not?  Without this clarity, do we think that we will avoid being influenced by their theologies, ecclesiologies and their cultures?  Is a core Anglicanism worth retaining?

[5] I submit that positioning a scripted "sinners prayer" as our one time act of conversion, is taught nowhere in scripture and detracts from the reality that only God is the giver of a lasting faith.   We are called to repent, believe  and be baptized.  Whether a believing faith is brought to Baptism, or confirmed later on, Baptism is Christ's one-time initiation sacrament of conversion, entrance into the New Covenant, and membership into Christ's "One Holy and Catholic Church".  NO ONE has the right to put themselves as equal to his lordship as if they have a better solution.  Some ACNA churches are even positioning infant baptism and baby dedication as equal in ceremony, are re-baptizing Roman Catholics,  and are encouraging Jewish religious ceremonies (A "Mikvah for the forgiveness of sins") to be practiced alongside and in conjunction with Christian Baptism.  There are reasons and beliefs behind WHY clergy see these kinds of actions as allowable.

[6] This is why in my estimation talking about a "Biblical Ecclesiology", as if we are interpreting a magic book that fell into our laps outside of time and space, is self-defeating.  Like the doctrine of infant Baptism we have just as much silence in the Scriptures as we do content.  Every ecclesiastical form is filling in the gaps where the Scriptures leave room.  In essence then, we are reliant on a tradition to help us organize our thinking.  Would not the best starting place then be in the earliest historical records of the Apostolic Church?

[7] no, the councils were not always right, and sometimes got things wrong.  However, this is in keeping with any form of human involvement , blindness and finiteness.

[8] As Father Tom Hopko once taught, this puts a completely different spin on I Timothy 3:1 - "He that desires to be a Bishop, desires a good thing".

[9] In the West the cannon was Ecumenically confirmed at the Council of Carthage in 397, and this cannon was held until the upheaval of the Reformation.

[10] It is humorous to think of the current decentralized Protestant Church organizing and developing a "cannon" of scripture.  One can easily envision multiple Cannons endlessly floating around with no end in sight, and no central authority to unify and make needed and final decisions.

[11] Or the sundry of other sect groups that are popping up especially during this time in American History.

[12] Although, later witnesses swore in statements that Joseph had showed them the plates.

[13] Mark Chapman has a good discussion of this in his book, Anglicanism: A Very Short Introduction where he with chapter 6 lays out the formation of the Anglican Communion, and in chapter 7 revealing where it has led us.

N.T. Wright on "Political Camps"

From Mark: In these theological/political times, where it seems so important to be in the right "camp" lest we be cast out from fellowship with others because we do not hold the "correct" views, how do you suggest moving forward toward greater unity, rather than greater division?


Beware of ‘camps’.


In the U.S. especially these are usually and worryingly tied in to the various political either/or positions WHICH THE REST OF THE WORLD DOES NOT RECOGNISE. Anyone with their wits about them who reads scripture and prays and is genuinely humble will see that many of the issues which push people into ‘camps’ - especially but not only in the U.S. - are distortions in both directions caused by trying to get a quick fix on a doctrinal or ethical issue, squashing it into the small categories of one particular culture. Read Philippians 2.1-11 again and again. And Ephesians 4.1-16 as well.


(from a blog interview conducted by Rachael Held Evans, June 11, 2013)

Transitions

Transitions are never easy; however, they are one of the constants in the human experience. Whether we want them or not, whether we are prepared or unprepared, the seasons of our life move in one direction: forward.

As newborns we become toddlers; we learn to garble and then talk; we learn to stumble, fall and eventually walk. We are taught things by parents and learn things through experience. We have our first day of school, middle school, high-school, etc. We have our first crush, our first date; we marry, have our first child. We get our first job, first car, first paycheck...and the pattern continues. We move from being children to young adults; young adults to middle-aged; middle-aged to early retired; retired to just...tired.

Of course, there are transitions that go far beyond just our human natural maturation. Transitions happen within families at the loss of a loved one, when a child goes to college, when a spouse get's ill; within companies when one is promoted, demoted or when a company downsizes; within a church when it MERGES, calls a new pastor, disciples new leadership, experiences new growth, or finds itself aging. Each transition brings new challenges and new opportunities.

In January The Church of St. Peter and St. Paul will be eight years old. We have been through a lot together; December marks my (and my family's) third year in sharing this journey with you as a family member (s) and shepherd.

I see the Spirit visibly at work in us and as we continue to submit to his Word and leading, and I see bright days ahead in regards to Kingdom of God living and serving. For me this is no small statement; I have rarely been able to say this in many of the other church contexts in which I have served. However, for us to continue to be fertile and receptive in following our Lord's direction, I believe we must embrace the transitions that He is now bringing us through.

The Lord has drawn new members and friends to our body; not only do we desire to continue to love and serve these new people, we will need their gifts and support to continue to be effective as a New Covenant community of Christ. More of our active members have become too ill to serve, or have been drawn home to Lord. Many of us have transitioned into stages of our lives that have forced us to realize that we can no longer do the things we have done in the past. However, we have also experienced a slew of newly retired working professionals who now have more time for discipleship and ministry engagement and this has been a huge “shot in the arm” for us. Thanks be to God.

With me will you open your hearts to the transitions that God is bringing us through as a church? Where might he want to use you? What are some things that he is trying to show you? Where might you need to change your approach, and where might you need to look for another? How does God want to heal you in 2015, and where does he want to stretch you?

As we were reminded this week in our small group study of Hebrews:

Heb 2:14-15

Since, therefore, the children share flesh and blood, he himself likewise shared the same things, so that through death he might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil, 15 and free those who all their lives were held in slavery by the fear of death.

We have nothing to fear. Christmas reminds us that the Christ-child came to take on the form of flesh to represent us and save us by his death on the cross. In this death the evil one (here Satan being the figure-head of all that is in rebellion to God and his Kingdom) has been defeated, and we no longer have anything to fear because we have no punishment or death to be worried about.

The Lord walks with us day by day through our transitions. We are not alone, and we have nothing to fear. Let us EMBRACE our transitions as a church and in our personal lives; it will not be easy, but we do not walk alone.

Thanks be to God.

The Great Thanksgiving

Thanksgiving Day is a well known holiday in the United States.  Quite frankly, it is one of my favorite times of the year.  I really like the fall with all of its explosive colors, the crisp air, the festive food, and yes, the focus and feasting that encourages we Americans to be a thankful people for the many blessings that we have been given.

However, what is often lost on most Americans (even American Christians) is that the historic Christian Church celebrates a feast of Thanksgiving every single week.  It is called The Eucharist.  For many, the term Eucharist sounds different, mysterious, maybe even dangerous.  So, let’s take a closer look at this important word. 

 The word Eucharist comes from the Greek word εὐχαριστῶ (eucharisteo) and it is the general word for “thanksgiving”.  Interestingly, it is found in this form in just thirty-eight different scriptures in the New Testament.  Let’s look at a few:

 Mark 8:

⁶ And he commanded the crowd to sit down on the ground; and he took the seven loaves, and having given thanks he broke them and gave them to his disciples to set before the people; and they set them before the crowd. ⁷ And they had a few small fish; and having blessed them, he commanded that these also should be set before them. ⁸ And they ate, and were satisfied; and they took up the broken pieces left over, seven baskets full.
 

Mark 14:

²² And as they were eating, he took bread, and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to them, and said, “Take; this is my body.” ²³ And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, and they all drank of it. ²⁴ And he said to them, “This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many.

As you might know, the record of Jesus and his Disciples sharing Passover together, thus, establishing the Eucharistic Feast of Holy Communion, is recorded in all three of the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke).  It is at this first Eucharistic meal that Jesus gives us our “words of institution” so we may set apart the bread and wine to be a blessing to us, and a source of great thanksgiving, indeed.

I Corinthians 10:

¹⁶ Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ? ¹⁷ Because there is one loaf, we, who are many, are one body, for we all partake of the one loaf.
³⁰ If I take part in the meal with thankfulness, why am I denounced because of something I thank God for?

The attentive eye will notice that I did not highlight the word “thankgiving” or “give thanks” in verse sixteen above.  The Greek word used here is the normal word for “blessing” not “thanksgiving”, but the NIV has captured well here the idea implied in the text itself.  The blessing and thanksgiving at the table of our Lord work in conjunction with each other.  I challenge you to go back now to the verses in Mark 8 and 14 and see how Jesus uses the terms “thanks” and “bless” correspondingly as he does his miracle in the feeding of the four-thousand.

Each week when we come to celebrate Holy Communion, we are engaging and celebrating the Great Thanksgiving, i.e., The Eucharist.  We come to receive a blessing from God and to be a blessing to him as we honor him with thankful and moldable hearts.  We are there to worship and thank him for the love he has poured out on us through Jesus Christ on the Cross, through the power of the resurrection we experience through the Holy Spirit, and through the hope of our final glorification living eternally in the unhindered presence of the Father.

We have much to be thankful for, and we have the opportunity to give thanks to God every day.  However, the pinnacle of our individual and communal thanksgiving finds it’s fulfillment in our communion with the Lord and one another as we gather around The Table of the Lord Jesus Christ.

O Lord, enable us to be a people of constant thanksgiving!

Prayer

From Father Andrew, S.D.C - "Meditations for Every Day"

"Prayer does not mean getting God to do things, but co-operating with Him in doing things. It is not reminding God of things He has forgotten, but reminding oneself that God is remembering, and the way in which God is remembering somebody may be by giving us prevenient grace which made us set about praying. It was because God remembered first that we began to pray. It was because God was there first that we came pray".

Submitting to Death

Last chapter and last paragraph of Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis:


"Submit to death, death of your ambitions and favorite wishes every day and death of your whole body in the end: submit with every fiber of your being, and you will find eternal life.  Keep back nothing.  Nothing that you have not given away will be really yours.  Nothing in you that has not died will ever be raised from the dead.  Look for yourself, and you will find in the long run only hatred, loneliness, despair, rage, ruin, and decay.  But look for Christ and you will find Him, and with Him everything else thrown in."

K.I.S.S.?

Might I suggest to all of us a more complex, deep, and trusting Christianity in the Triune God who is the reason of all life and hope? Might I suggest that the simple easy to control God that we often seek to create, is a god of our own choosing and making?

C.S. from Mere Christianity, chapter on the Trinity:

"I warned you that Theology is practical. The whole purpose for which we exist is to be thus taken into the Life of God. Wrong Ideas about what that life is will make it harder....It is the simple religions that are the made up ones..."

C.S. reflecting on the historic Christian community:

 "...the one really adequate instrument for learning about God is the whole Christian community, waiting for Him together...that is why all these people who turn up every few years with some patent simplified religion of their own as a substitute for the Christian tradition are really wasting their time...if Christianity was something we were making up, of course we could make it easier. But it is NOT... anyone can be simple if he has no facts to bother about"

Trying to Love the Lord with "...all your mind"?

Below is a very poignant article regarding the whole "Creation vs Evolution" culture war debate.

It is my belief that much of popular American "Christian" thinking on this subject is unwittingly dictated not first of all by the context and understanding of Scripture but by a polarizing post-enlightenment, modernistic discussion between those given over to current cultural ways of thinking.  A thoughtful, historic, and orthodox (i.e., what Christians historically have always believed about the Church and revelation) Christianity needs to discern the culture from a truthful and thoughtful perspective.

My hope is that the article below will prod some of us (who have ears to hear) along this path.

Creationism Is Materialism’s Creation

2/8/14

www.patheos.com/blogs/badcatholic/2014/02/creationism-is-materialisms-creation.html 1/17

I take Frederich Nietzsche quite seriously when he says, “when you gaze long into an abyss the abyss also gazes into you,” and thus I did not, nor ever will watch the recent debate between Bill Nye The Science Guy and Ken Ham The Creation Man. There are things in this world too depressing for people desperate to maintain some sense of hope regarding humanity, its direction, and capacity for truth.

Nevertheless, I want to take this opportunity to point out that, far sooner than any creationist vs. scientist debate amounts to a debate between a Christian and an atheist, it amounts to a debate between atheists. Neither side defends or attacks the Christian tradition. Both argue about a laughably boring god, a strange phenomenon of modernity — not the God of philosophy, theology or Scripture in any meaningful sense.

Fundamentalism, which includes creationism, is a modern phenomenon. The Middle Ages, though rife with scientific illiteracy in comparison with our age, never bred such a beast. It is a 20th century frenzy, not the product of ignorance as much as a by-product of materialism, and I daily blame — in an odd, bitter ritual that usually involves throwing pretzels at a cut-out of Richard Dawkins — the propagators of this selfsame materialism for cursing the world with the idiocies of devil-buried fossils and 6-day literalism. For evolution is only ever a threat to the idea of God if your idea of God has been hopelessly manhandled by materialistic assumptions. That’s right kids. Creationism is materialism’s inescapable, obnoxious spouse.

“What?” protest the protestors. “Creationists believe in angels, demons, and a whole host of immaterial realities, while materialists believe in no such thing!” But the point is not that creationism and materialism are in secret cahoots. The point is that materialism has provided the metaphysical framework for mainstream modern thought, a framework within which the creationist operates, from whence — along with a typically materialistic incapacity to distinguish poetry from a science textbook — comes his creationism.

The materialistic assumption is this: The universe is a closed, material system, and that all there ever is or was can be reduced to matter and material processes. The materialist flatly denies the possibility of the spiritual. The creationist concedes to a closed, purely material universe as the prejudice of the age. Unlike the materialist, however, he holds on to the idea of spiritual things. Now, however — and thanks to the materialist assumption — these spiritual things cannot be in harmony with the material. They — whether God, angels, or demons — must exist apart from it — opposed to it, even.

Consider it this way: If the universe is reducible to matter and material processes, but is nevertheless created by God — for people will always believe in God — then God, who himself is not reducible to matter or material processes, must be “outside” and “apart” from the universe he creates. He is utterly estranged from the universe. In short, the rise of the materialistic worldview meant that — if there was to be a belief in God — this god must be the god of Deism.

This is the god the creationist unwittingly and inconsistently defends, a god who creates the universe at a single point, a god whose creative action must be defended as a particular point in time (6 days of time, to be exact) now long past — a god who already made the closed, material universe and is now done, dwelling outside of it like “an old man peering from the sky.” Such a relationship between God and the universe necessarily makes any forces that determine our physical existence “competitors” of his work. He created the material universe. He served as its origin, a 6-day origin now over. Thus any apparent “creation” within the material order is creation apart from God, and a threat to his sovereignty. The only creation possible must either have already happened, at one point, or it must be magical.

I mean this quite seriously. If by the world we mean a purely physical system, than God — who is not
physical — can only be encountered in an inexplicable “break” in the same system. If God is to be active in a purely material universe, it must be as a Cosmic Magician popping into the world over and against all physical processes and laws — utterly at odds with his own creation.

God is evidenced by that which is “utterly apart” from the universe “breaking into” the universe. And so the creationist, having conceded the materialistic assumption, must “prove” the existence of God by way of things “science can’t explain.” The complex cell, the fossil record — God is real because there are inexplicable things, materials that look as if something has broken into the material system and left its immaterial and thereby inexplicable mark.

Evolution, which posits a natural process of change in successive generations of living things, is a threat precisely because it works against the Cosmic Magician, the God of one-time creation who now busts into the universe here and there. It says, quite reasonably, that living things as we know them today were not always so, and that man in his material consistency did not spontaneously pop into existence as the bipedal we know and sometimes manage to love today. Evolution is an affront to a god who “finished” his work of creation some 6000 years ago. It is an affront to a God who made the material universe in one now-past action, a god who now only associates with his creation through the miraculous breaking of the spiritual into what is purely material. It is, in short, a rival god.

But now we’ve stared into the abyss long enough. God is not simply the Creator of the material order, and the theistic tradition has never made such laughable claims. The concept of God as Creator has always been the source of existence as such. This means that God does not just answer the material question of “Where came this rock, that plant, or the entire conglomerate of material thing mabobs we call the universe?” He answers the ontological question: “Why is there something rather than nothing?”

Evolution cannot answer the question of why there is something rather and nothing, and no scientist outside of the self-titled, 8th-grader/athesim variety would ever embarrass themselves with such a claim. Evolution presupposes something which evolves. Existence — the fact that something is — is prior to any evolution. Again, God is first and foremost the source of existence, the fact that there is something rather than nothing.  For not a single thing in this entire marvelous universe contains the source of its own existence. Each depends on an innumerable multitude of factors for the fact of its being here. The most obvious example of this is in our origins — there is not a single thing in the universe that brought itself into being. The less obvious but even more important example of this is in our current existence — there is not a single thing in the universe that “holds itself in being.” There is nothing that causes itself to continuously exist. 

To quote David Bentley Hart again: If one considers the terms of one’s own existence, for instance, one sees that there is no sense in which one is ever self-existent; one is dependent on an incalculable number of ever greater and ever smaller finite conditions, some of which are temporal, and some of which are definitely not, and all of which are dependent on yet further conditions. One is composed of
parts, and those of smaller parts, and so on down to the subatomic level, which itself is a realm
of contingently substituent realities that flicker in and out of actuality, that have no ontological
ground in themselves, and that are all embraced within a quantum field that contains no more of
an essential rationale for its own existence than does any other physical reality. One also
belongs to a wider world, upon all of whose physical systems one is also dependent in every
moment, while that world is itself dependent upon an immense range of greater physical
realities, and upon abstract mathematical and logical laws, and upon the whole contingent
history of our quite unnecessary universe…In short, all finite things are always, in the present,
being sustained in existence by conditions which they cannot have supplied for themselves, and
that together compose a universe that, as a physical reality, lacks the obviously supernatural
power to exist on its own. Nowhere in any of that is a source of existence as such.

If the materialistic assumption is true, and the universe is entirely reducible to matter and material processes, then the universe is an inexplicable oddity. All things exist in their present-moment existence by depending upon other things, which in turn exist in their present-moment existence by depending on other things, and so on unto infinite regress. If this were true, nothing would ever come into or persist in being. 

The theistic position, properly understood, is that our universe is not an inexplicable infinite regress, but that all things exist in their present-moment existence because all things are upheld by an absolute existence, a being that is the source of its own existence (snipping short the infinite regress), supplying all contingent things with a non-contingent “ground” which renders their existence possible.

How could evolution possibly pose a threat to God, properly understood as the Absolute Giver of Being, who at every moment provides the absolute ground for the existence of every contingent thing, every thing which does not contain the source of its own present-moment existence — every particle, every random mutation, every genome strand, every protein, every moment of procreation, every fertilization event, in short, every single material component of the process of evolution?

In fact, I can think of no other view more favorable to the concept of evolution than the view that Creation is now, not an act that happened at one point in time, now long past, but rather the timeless fact of there being something rather than nothing, the present-moment, as-you-sit-reading donation of being which you cannot provide for yourself. God created, creates and is always creating the universe in a singular timeless act by which the entirety of space, time and human history, from beginning to whatever end, is given that existence it cannot provide for itself. God is creating everything now, there is no need for miraculous, inexplicable events to “prove” His existence, no need for him to break in to an already finished work and leave some boggling mark. It is the horrifying and beautiful surprise that anything in this storm of contingencies exists at all that has the theist positing an absolute source of existence, our wonderful God, not a thought that
“everything looks so well-designed,” or that “science cannot explain this or that.”

Creationism only exists as a reaction within the framework of materialism. The Christian ought to reject the evolutionist vs. creationist debate on the level at which it is offered, and question instead the metaphysics of the thing, for if the universe is a contingent reality that requires the eternal and ever-present donation of being by an absolute source of being, then the idea that evolution is an affront to creation is ridiculous at best, manufactured for easy points at worst.

Why Do Anglians Call their Pastors "Father"?

Why in the world do some Anglicans call the priest/pastor, “Father”? Below I am taking several different portions from an article that a fellow Anglican Priest (and good comrade) wrote in regards to this subject. If anyone would ever like to read the article by the Rev. Joe Murphy in it's entirety, I would be pleased to send you a copy.

Jesus reproached the religious leaders of His day with some strong words about being called, "father," that sounds like we shouldn't touch that name in the Church” (to save space I will not be printing most of the scripture texts, but I would challenge you to read them for a better understanding of what is being written. - Fr. Tom - Matthew 23:1-12 ).

Jesus' words to His disciples on not calling anyone else "father" seems to make the catholic practice of addressing a priest as "father" completely unbiblical, and a proud and Pharisaic thing to do. At least, a straightforward reading of the text might lead us to think that, what some would call a "literal" reading. The problem with such a reading of this text is that it would also prevent Christ's followers from calling their earthly male parent, "father." Jesus is pretty explicit: " . . .call no man your father on earth . . ." The same thing applies to teachers, of course. We would have to cease calling all teachers by that name--Jesus doesn't restrict it to religious teaching--if one takes this statement at face value. But, human society and the Church within it still need parenting and teaching. Of course, if we stopped using those terms altogether it would be very problematic, because then we wouldn't even be able to explain Who the heavenly Father is in relation to Jesus, or why Jesus alone is our Teacher, because those words would no longer apply to their earthly counterparts. No, Jesus wasn't teaching His disciples to stop using a name, a label, a way of referring to or addressing someone, whether "father" or "teacher." A literal reading of Jesus' words here just doesn't make sense.”

We run into further problems when we read the Apostle Paul's comments to the Corinthians and Thessalonians (see I Cor 4:14 – 17 and I Thes. 2:11-12)

The early Christians followed Paul's pattern. The Aramaic word "abba" ("father" or many argue, "dad") (e.g., Romans 8:15; Gal. 4:6) is the source of the English word "abbot" which the Celts first used for the head of their monastic communities. The French "Abbe" is similar, common for a parish priest. 

Oddly enough, the Christians that find it offensive to call the priest "father" routinely call their ordained church leader, "pastor." That term, however, is derived from the Latin word for "shepherd." Apparently, in their view, we have only one Father (as Jesus said) and so don't call their leader "father," but we have more than one shepherd. This is odd because Scripture is very clear on this:

The LORD is my shepherd . . . (Psalm 23:1 ESV)

But, its even more specific. At one point during the ministry of the prophet Ezekiel, the Lord rebuked the shepherds of Israel, His flock (Ezekiel 34:2), and later called David (as a type of the Messiah) the shepherd of his people (Ezekiel 34:23 and 37:24).

One Shepherd and yet we call our church leader “pastor” (shepherd)?

But, in fact, calling your church leader "Pastor" isn't wrong. For Christ is our "chief Shepherd" (see I Peter 5:1-4).

Peter commands the leaders of the Church in I Peter 5 to "shepherd" the people of God, yet they have a chief Shepherd. With pastors(shepherds), it isn't that God doesn't use humans to do that work--He does--but they are only obedient and beneficial as God's shepherds if there is a clear understanding of who the Real Shepherd is. 

Isn't this, however, exactly the case with fatherhood? We have a physical father, yet only one heavenly Father. We may have a spiritual father as well, perhaps several, yet understood as utterly insignificant in light of our heavenly Father because such "fathers" are only by analogy.  

So, why did Jesus say, "call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven"? For the same reason He said,

"If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell.  And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body go into hell."(Matthew 5:29-30 ESV) 

He was making a point, a strong one, about the seriousness of sin. But, if we took it literally we might wind up killing ourselves to keep from sinning! Repentance is what Jesus was getting at, not self-mutilation. 

With giving our church leaders titles, whether "pastor", "teacher", or "father," Jesus' point is clear and driven home by the forceful way He expressed it: don't mistake anyone for the only Real Shepherd, Real Teacher, Real Father that you have. 

I believe the best and first way to see a local church body is as a "family".  Jesus talks of those that do "the will of his Father" as those that are his true family.  We are "adopted" to be heirs with Jesus Christ, the Son of God.   The Apostles in their writings also use family terms constantly: "household of faith", "brothers", "brotherly love",  "sons and daughters" of the Father God, being  "children of God", etc.  In scripture it is also revealed that the biblical communal love that we have is a close and intimate love which reflects that of a close family.  

Thus, i refer to myself mostly as Father Tom (although, I am receptive to Pastor Tom, or just Tom as well).  I am a shepherd, care-giver, and an authority figure in regards to the centrality of Gospel and Christ's teaching regarding the Kingdom of God.  However, in my basic membership in the household of God, I am one family member in a local church of many members.  We are all equal in the eyes of God due to the work of Christ...while we may have differing roles.

Thanks be to God for the body of Christ!

.

Catholic but NOT Roman Catholic: Big "C" and Little "c"

Our ecumenical baptismal creed, the Apostles Creed, states “I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy catholic Church. . . .” The most widely used ecumenical creed, the Nicene Creed states “We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.” So what does it mean to be catholic?

For the most part, when we hear someone declare “I am a catholic” or if someone uses the word catholic, our thoughts turn first to the Roman Catholic Church. However, while the Roman Catholic church is catholic, they are not the only catholics. The very term Protestant derives its meaning from that time period in the 16th century when many historic, catholic Christians were protesting some of the doctrine and a lot of the practices of the Roman Catholic church. It is important to realize that all Protestants derive their starting place from the medieval Catholic church. Men like Martin Luther and John Calvin were Roman Catholics that were forced to leave the church, and were used over time to help the Roman Church see its need of change in multiple ways. However, John Calvin and Martin Luther always subscribed to the catholicity of the creeds and the importance of those Christians and church fathers that went before them.

Unfortunately, many groups have decided in their own thinking, and in their brief history, that THEY now are the true church (as if they were starting the church from scratch). The implication is that the church before them has been getting things wrong, that they are above the corruption or blind-spots that others have had, and that they are in little need of the help offered by those Christians who have lived before them. Not only is this historically dishonest, it is thoroughly unscriptural. The reality is that the Feast of Pentecost in the first century was the beginning of the church (as recorded in Acts). The Reformation, Pilgrims landing on Plymouth Rock, Great Awakenings, Azusa Street Revival, etc., were NOT the beginning of the church. In addition, of
all the informing events that may be meaningful for us, we should be open to discernment and an honest evaluation of these same events through the lenses of scripture and those who have gone before us. History teaches us (if we will listen) that hindsight is 20/20. Why do we always believe that our generation is somehow removed from this reality; that we will avoid the blind-spots that no generation has ever eluded?

All churches that name Christ as Lord today owe a great debt to the church councils and leaders that helped settle the debates and truth regarding the Trinity, the incarnation of Christ, and many more basic core doctrines that we take for granted today. In other words, our debt to those who have gone before us is pronounced whether we want to admit it or not.

So what does it mean when we declare every Sunday that we are catholic?

First of all, it means that we have an ancient faith. We, by very definition, are a people dependent on those who have come before us. We are dependent on God's work now among us, but God's work among us does not negate or lay aside the work that he has always been doing among his covenant people. From the creation of humanity to today, we owe a debt of gratitude to those who have faithfully served the Lord and handed down a living faith to our generation. If we desire the scriptural and historic honesty that the Lord requires of us, we will embrace that we build on the shoulders of those who have come before us. There is a core teaching and interpretation of Scripture that has been and is being passed down from generation to generation. It is appropriate to question what belongs in this “core” and we are still in the process as the “church universal” of taking the good and leaving the bad. However, there is that which we believe will not change from the past regarding the Gospel, the Kingdom of God, and the character of our God. This is our catholic faith, and the creeds are our starting place in any discussion of our central beliefs.

Secondly, it means that we have an apostolic faith. As Christians we read the Old Testament through apostolic “lenses;” and we are guided by the apostolic perspective, especially as recorded in the Holy Scriptures. The catholic perspective is that any authority we have as a church is derived from Jesus Christ who is the head of the church. However, we also believe that we learn of this Jesus through the perspective of the apostles who lived, listened, and walked with Him. Their teaching and their writings in the Holy Scriptures now guide and shape our thinking, being, and living. In Acts 2 we are told that the church gathered together in part to hear “the apostles’ teaching”. We believe that the truth and authority that we have today as God's faithful people is derived and handed down to us from the apostles. Outside of their Holy Spirit-led perspective, Christian truth does not exist.

Thirdly, we are a global church. Our catholicity, while derived from the Jewish people and
based on the salvific work of a Palestinian Jew who was also God, has always been intended for ALL the peoples of the world. WE ARE AN INCLUSIVE FAITH; although, not in a politically correct way. Every nation and tribe is offered the good news regarding the Messiah, Jesus Christ. The Abrahamic Covenant makes it clear that the Lord was going to bless all nations through Abraham's family. This has come to pass with the coming of Jesus Christ in obedience to His Father through the power of the Holy Spirit. Now the church is spread across the globe. There is a strength and a unity that Christians gain from these global relationships, challenges, and differing perspectives. Christ's desire is that we all be one, so that the nations of the world may see our love and unity and “believe that you (the Father) have sent me (Jesus)” (John 17).

So are we catholics? YES! We are local bodies of believers with our own distinct location, culture, strengths and weaknesses. However, we are also an ancient, apostolic, and global people interconnected and dependent on those faithful believers throughout space and time. Thanks be to God!

The Anglican Tradition

In a nutshell, what is the Anglican Tradition?

"Sane, wise, ancient, modern, sound, and simple," as Martin Thornton calls it, the Anglican tradition is rooted in the witness of the Holy Scriptures and the Early Fathers, and is often described as a via media (middle way) between Roman Catholicism and Protestantism.  Sometimes called "reformed Catholicism," Anglicanism gives equal weight to Word and Sacrament in its worship, and secures its polity in the Apostolic Succession of bishops.  With Holy Scripture as its rule of faith, Anglicanism reserves a place for Reason and Tradition in its theological discourse, and has always made a strong association between what the Church believes and what the Church prays.  Lex orandi, lex credendi - "the law of prayer is the law of belief" - well expresses the close correspondence in classical Anglicanism between doctrine and doxology.

(taken off of the Nashotah House Seminary website in 2013)

It's Complicated

Last Sunday in our Christian Education class, my children and I looked at the story of Joseph, son of Jacob. It is actually a very interesting story involving a lot of different characters, twists, motives, tragedy and hope. And like many other Bible stories that as children seemed very basic with “good guys” and “bad guys”, it is actually quite complicated and confusing throughout.


Jacob has three wives, and he favors one of them: Rachael. THIS is actually where the story of Joseph begins. In Genesis chapter 37 we see Joseph as a young man, his father's favorite. Joseph is young with many older adult brothers. These brothers hate Joseph and what he stands for in their minds. Joseph is the favorite son, of the favorite wife. They are second class citizens who long for their Father's approval and affection (as is poignantly seen when they seek to console their father in the coming tragedy). Joseph, being young and dealing with normal naive pride, doesn't always help his own situation. Let's look at verse 2 of chapter 37:


Joseph, a young man of seventeen, was tending the flocks with his brothers, the sons of Bilhah and the sons of Zilpah, his father's wives, and he brought their father a bad report about them.


Joseph in his prized position is a “tattle-tale”. Jacob in the next verse gives Joseph a beautiful and likely very expensive coat which physically and visibly screamed to his older brothers: “I am better and more important to my father than you”. In addition to this, Joseph has several dreams (sent to him from the Lord) that he shares with his family. The point of the dreams is unmistakable to his brothers: “I am going to rule you, and you will bow down to me”. If you listen closely, even NOW you can hear the brother's blood boiling!!!! Even Jacob proclaims when he hears Joseph talk to him of the second dream:


When he told his father as well as his brothers, his father rebuked him and said, “What is this dream you had? Will your mother and I and your brothers actually come and bow down to the ground before you?”


However, the verse goes on to reveal that even in Jacob's incredulity, he heard something that rang true. He filed the dream and it's potential importance into the back of his mind.


The rest of the story, many of us remember: Joseph is sold into slavery, goes through many trials, is used providentially by God to protect and bless the people of Israel, and rules Egypt and his family with great wisdom and forgiveness.


What is interesting and revealing, is that the “problems” that led to the above reality and blessing of the family (and, thus the Nation of Israel) are complex and multi-faceted. In the midst of the struggle, neither Joseph, Jacob, or the brothers would have felt “blessed” by God in how things were playing out. Present were the sins of pride, hate, unforgiveness, favoritism, and deception. In addition, Jacob showed a great lack of wisdom and foresight in understanding the implication of his favoritism, and Joseph a great naivety in the way he approached his position and dreams.


So who caused the problems that led to Joseph's initial slavery? I submit that the problems were caused by everyone involved...including the Lord. The Lord did no evil, but in his providence stirred up jealous hearts that reacted to the revelation of Joseph's dreams. The Lord gave the truth of these dreams to a young, haughty, well meaning adolescent. Who among us would not have struggled with what Joseph struggled with in his position? Yet, Joseph later reveals that he has a real, enduring faith in God, and a tender heart to God's teaching and moving.


I believe the lesson for us is that our lives and the moving of God is more complicated than we will often admit to ourselves and others. It is a constant challenge for us to look for simplistic answers to our many inter-personal problems, sins, and blind spots and seek someone or something to blame...the whole time giving ourselves a free pass. Similarly, mistakes can be made by the insecure and over-sensitive; instead of seeing the multi-faceted nature in the conflict and tensions of having relationships in this life, and God's gracious work in the midst of the conflict, the spiritually fearful “take all the blame” for the sake of peace. But neither approach gets us closer to the truth, nor does it put us in line with the perspective and moving our our Lord.


The reality is that God is moving and working in His own way and time. There are many people that are often a part of our problems (starting with us!), and God is one of them. He is moving to stir up our messiness and heart attitudes that he is already aware of. He does it for his purposes, and for our blessing. Let us all open our hearts to the reality that our limited individual perspectives are just that...very limited. Let us seek God; his truth, his leading, his timing. Let us open our hearts to where he constantly wants to draw us to repentance, grace and hope knowing he is good, forgiving and in control


Thanks be to God.

Looking at Life and Death

Philippians 2: 21-24

21 For to me, living is Christ and dying is gain. 22 If I am to live in the flesh, that means fruitful labor for me; and I do not know which I prefer. 23 I am hard pressed between the two: my desire is to depart and be with Christ, for that is far better; 24 but to remain in the flesh is more necessary for you (NRSV).

 
In writing to the Philippians, Paul finds himself in a tough predicament. He is under house arrest due to his preaching the gospel and is now getting word that other “pastors” are maligning him for it. There are those that are standing by him, and he is writing to the Philippians to help them keep their faith and perspective regarding their own situation.


Paul is torn in his view of the future. He knows that his execution is a real possibility, yet he believes that if he is set free, he will have a continuing fruitful ministry (especially in relation to the Philippian church). However, Paul settles on the fact that his execution would be far better. No, I do not believe that Paul is a masochist, or that he would not have had great trepidation about the whole execution process. What Paul relates to us is a mature understanding of what really matters: Jesus Christ and the hope that we have in Him.


Paul is not more mature than us in his perspective because God loves him more, or because He is more impressed with Paul ministry than with ours (I mean, come on, his story made it into the Bible!!!). Paul is not more mature because he had built up more good works than us, and therefore had an elevated status. No, I believe that Paul's maturity was found in his clear perspective of this life and the life to come; in his desire to live within a “redemptive reality” not caught up thinking that this life is what life is really all about. He saw Christ at work in both realms, but preferred to be in the unhindered presence of the Lord.


Also, please notice that his desire to stay with the Philippians was not because he still wanted to try skydiving, reach a few more milestones, or see his favorite vacation spot one more time. No, his desire to stay in the temporal realm was in relation to his love for the Philippians and their growth in the Lord.


As a church we have been through quite a time in the last six months. Illnesses that have come to a head, unexpected surgeries (in all age groups), lingering sickness, and the unexpected deaths of loved-ones. While we want to pray to the Lord in regards to His protection, and know that He will bring us through this time as a church committed to Him, some of what we are facing can help us focus on what really matters...IF we see it as an opportunity for such. Please don't misunderstand me. I am not minimizing our pain, the grief, and the stress that we have all been dealing with. What I am suggesting is that in the midst of it, the Lord is working and “growing” us as a people of God...IF we receive it as such through the power of the Holy Spirit. An eternal perspective does not see our limited engagement with the presence of Jesus in this life to be “the new heavens and the new earth”, but finds the true “new heavens and new earth” in the eternal unhindered presence of God. In this life, we “see through a glass darkly” and only experience the presence of God in limited (although, glorious) ways. His presence through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit is a “down-payment” not the whole inheritance.


Our God is with us, so we have hope. His Spirit indwells us, so we have the strength to carry on. Let us seek Him and hunger after righteousness, praying and meditating on His precepts so that we may truly know his peace. Grant us this gift as you have promised us, Oh, Lord.

A Brief Statement Regarding Political Affiliations

Statement Regarding Political Affiliations

Two or three issues should not dictate to us the entirety of our vote. As Christians we should work for justice and thoughtfulness in all areas of politics, government and society.  Our focus as children of the Kingdom of God should be on being salt and light. When we give into this world's view of manipulation, power, and pragmatism to get our way politically, we hinder the Kingdom of God power and influence that is available to us only through the Holy Spirit. An honest grasp of context and complexity in a fallen world should aid us in avoiding blind and simplistic approaches when it comes political and moral solutions.

As Christians, our scriptural call to civic responsibility is about stewardship, faithfulness and influence NOT power and control.  The temptation to trust in the forces and kingdom of this world to the neglect of the priority of Gospel and Kingdom-of-God-living is pronounced.  We have nothing to fear, even if the "mountains fall into the heart of the sea".