We’ve been here before

From the first decades of the church, controversy over doctrine has troubled us. In the New Testament we have evidence of a deep and divisive debate over what followers of Christ should and should not do.

We find this in many places, but some of the evidence can be found in Acts 15 and 21, Galatians 2, and Romans 14. We see here the church and its leaders wrestling with and disagreeing over what food to eat, among other issues. And we see, especially in Romans 14, Paul’s pastoral wisdom in living within a church divided over doctrine.

Some people might think sex and food do not have a great deal in common, but they are both personal and bodily in ways that are quite intimate. (Maybe these are the words of a fat guy.) They also are both items on the list of particulars of the Acts 15 council.

I don’t know what we would learn from these biblical texts. Perhaps we would all be trapped by our original commitments. Peter and Paul had a tough time working through their differences. James and Paul appear never to have agreed.

Can we learn from the apostolic controversies or merely repeat them?

Lectionary reflection: John 10:22-30

The Jews who were there gathered around him, saying, “How long will you keep us in suspense? If you are the Messiah, tell us plainly.”

Jesus answered, “I did tell you, but you do not believe. The works I do in my Father’s name testify about me, but you do not believe because you are not my sheep.” (John 10:24-26, NIV)

Is this saying that we must first be a follower of Jesus before we begin to properly see his works and hear his voice? Belonging comes before believing?

My favorite picture of this

I am only posting this because I love this illustration, which I am copying from a really nice post about Genesis and scientific explanations of the origin of the universe.

Anselm: The gravity of sin

Methoblogger Morgan Guyton wrote recently about his perception of the way contemporary evangelicals misunderstand and misuse the theology of Anselm of Canterbury. His description and post got me wanting to learn more about Anselm’s theology. I’ve only read bits of it here and there, including in my Intro to Theology class at United Theological Seminary. So, I purchased a book with some of Anselm’s major writings, including his essays on incarnation and atonement.

In his treatise Why God Became Man, Anselm writes about the gravity of sin. To make his point, Anselm proposes a hypothetical situation. He asks the reader to imagine we are standing before God. A person tells us to look to the left. God, however, commands us not to turn our eyes to the left. In this situation, Anselm asks, is there any thing that would cause you to ignore God’s command?

Anselm argues that our answer should be no. Indeed, he argues that even if there were a multitude of universes and that by looking to the left we could keep them all from being destroyed, we should not violate the will and command of God, which would be sin. Even the smallest sin, he argues, is as weighty as the choice to let a thousand inhabited worlds be obliterated. To ignore the will of God in any way is of incalculable consequence.

“[T]his is how gravely we sin whenever we knowingly do something, however small, contrary to the will of God. For we are always in his presence, and He always commands us not to sin.

I can hear how Anselm’s view plays out in some later theology. John Wesley agreed fully that any sin we commit is of such high consequence that there is nothing we could ever do to set things right. Reinhold Niebuhr would argue to the contrary that there are degrees of sin. A little sin is little and a big sin is big. I presume Niebuhr would argue that there are times when it would be okay to look left when God says not to.

What I’m not certain about is how biblical Anselm’s view of sin is. I am certainly mindful of the death of Uzzah when God struck him down for reaching out to keep the Ark of the Covenant from jostling. I think of Ananias and Sapphira lying at the first stewardship meeting.

It gets me thinking and asking: How big a deal is it to knowingly violate the will of God?

Proclaiming Easter in Acts

So what does Easter mean?

Well, here is what the preachers in the Book of Acts said as they explained the meaning of the resurrection and the response it calls for:

Peter on Pentecost:

Therefore let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Messiah. … Repent and be baptized, everyone of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. (Acts 2:36, 38, NIV)

Peter before the Sanhedrin:

Then know this, you and all the people of Israel: It is by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified but whom God raised from the dead, that this man stands before you healed. Jesus is the stone your builders rejected, which has become the cornerstone. Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to mankind by which we must be saved. (Acts 4:10-12, NIV)

Peter at the house of Cornelius:

He commanded us to preach to the people and to testify that he is the one whom God appointed as judge of the living and the dead. All the prophets testify about him that everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name. (Acts 10:42-24, CEB)

Paul in Pisidian Antioch:

We proclaim to you the good news. What God promised to our ancestors, he has fulfilled for us their children by raising up Jesus. … Therefore, brothers and sisters, know this: Through Jesus we proclaim forgiveness of sins to you. From all those sins from which you couldn’t be put in right relationship with God through Moses’ Law, through Jesus everyone who believes is put in right relationship with God. (Acts 13:32-33, 38-39, CEB)

Paul in Athens:

God overlooked ignorance of these things in times past, but now directs everyone everywhere to change their hearts and lives. This is because God has set a day when he intends to judge the world justly by a man he has appointed. God has given proof of this to everyone by raising him from the dead. (Acts 17:30-31, CEB)

 

The reticence of Scripture

Stanley Hauerwas from a commencement speech at Eastern Mennonite Seminary:

Scripture, of course, is the source as well as the paradigm of Christian speech. What we say must be said faithful to the language of Scripture. That is a complex task because it is by no means clear how the many ways of expression in Scripture are to be said coherently. The investigation of that process is called theology. But theologians are often tempted to say too much because of the reticence of Scripture, the refusal of Scripture to tell us what we think we need to know, drives us crazy. I sometimes think that the work of historical criticism, essential work for helping us read the Scripture faithfully, is a rage against the silences of Scripture. Why do not the Gospels tell us what Jesus is “thinking.”

In Working With Words: On Learning to Speak Christian

Is the sea ever full?

All streams flow into the sea, yet the sea is never full. To the place the streams come from, there they return again. (Ecclesiastes 1:7, NIV)

The wisdom of Solomon, the teacher.

I don’t think we believe him. We have not tired — as he did — of studying all that is done under the sun. We do not find it meaningless. We believe we will, at last, unlock a secret that eluded him. We will unlock the secret of life and happiness and meaning.

And so, we are perplexed when people who seem to have found the answer — at least the answer our culture provides — put pistols in their mouths or stumble into the street half-naked and raving at the passing traffic.

How could he come to this? He seemed to have all the answers.

All things are wearisome, more than one can say. The eye never has enough of seeing, nor the ear its fill of hearing. (Ecclesiastes 1:8, NIV)

And yet we live in a world that pours out more and more to fill our eyes and ears. Wise men and women of our age remind us that we live in a visual age. Indeed, we are told that our churches need to muscle their way into the eye- and ear-filling business. We need more, not less.

But is that the truth?

Is our frantic activity the secret of life? Is our endless, ravenous devouring of sights and sounds and experiences what makes our life meaningful? If we keep pressing and going and striving will we at last straighten everything that is crooked in our lives?

Can we, to quote the prophet of our age, make a dent in the universe?

If Jesus had consultants

DATELINE: JERUSALEM, 19th year of the reign of Emperor Tiberius

Today, Jesus of Nazareth issued an apology to all those he offended with his recent comments about the Scribes and Pharisees. He had compared the prominent religious leaders to rotting tombs and accused them of devouring widows. The charismatic, young itinerant preacher’s words at the Temple Mount were recorded by a member of the crowd and quickly went viral.

Jesus issued a statement today that reads in part: “I understand that my words yesterday may have offended some people. While I know people of good conscience can disagree about important issues of the day, I regret that some people were offended by my choice of words.”

High Priest Caiaphas declined to comment specifically on the Galilean preacher’s statement, but did say that it was not unusual for young men from the country to get overly enthusiastic when they come to the big city for the first time.

Spokesmen for Roman Governor Pontius Pilate refused to comment saying he had washed his hands of the local religious disputes.