Hill Country Anglican

On the way to work the other day I was listening to a pod cast on Anglican Radio. The host was interviewing a gentleman who had recently finished a book on creativity and the Trinity. The author’s name escapes me right now but he did get me to thinking. Some of the material below is dependent on his ideas expressed during that interview.

Humans are creative and ingenious. It’s no suprise since we are made in the image our Creator. We see this in children who are so creative that their creative instincts have to be schooled out of them. Intentional or not we tend to atrophy towards a uniform and unitarian way of thinking. In other words we find homogeny desirable.

This works itself out in some surprising ways and as the gentlemen mentioned above noted it makes us very suspicious and intolerant of anything that is or wants to be outside the norm (creative). We have to be careful though, for our God is both unified and diverse. “Always constant never the same”.

Creativity then is a good and godly thing. We should nurture it in ourselves and in children creativity should be encouraged and managed, but not squashed. After all do we really want to raise a bunch of unitarian totalitarians? Haven’t we enough of that already?

Probably more than any other religion Christianity, and Christians, enjoy debate and argument, and often debate and argue about the basics of the faith. Take for instance the sacraments and among Protestants and even Anglicans especially one in particular: Baptism. Questions on the topic abound, but as I think about the subject most, if not all, of them really ask just one; what is baptism?

Now I could say a lot about this, but I think Scripture gives us a very good answer to the question albeit an indirect one. The answer I have in mind is in the Gospel accounts of Matthew, Luke and John and in the Acts of the Apostles. According to John the Baptist, baptism is a work of Christ by The Spirit. Really, Jesus baptizes us and does so, as we might expect, through the means of His church; via her ministers. Whatever else that we might say about the sacrament of baptism, we have to say at least this: it is an act of God.

When talking about (or decrying) things like “religious formalism”, it is important to define what we mean by the phrase. A good place to start is by considering what we do not mean, or what we cannot mean. First, let us look at “religion”. In this essay, the words “religion” and “Christianity” are synonymous. Formalism is a little more work, and again let’s start with what it cannot mean. “Christian” or “religious” formalism cannot be decried or discussed from a negative perspective once we admit that all religion, whether we are talking about services or worship or anything else have, to a greater or lesser degree, some sort of “form”. For instance, all worship services are held on a specific day, and at a certain time. Hymns are sung from a hymnal (or from an overhead). They are not spontaneous. Even in churches where the minister does not wear a robe, some sort of liturgical garb (suit, tie, or other) is expected. We could go on but it’s clear formalism is an essential element of religion, and as such is acceptable (even desirable). Still, is there a kind of “religious formalism” that is undesirable? No doubt, there is. The kind Paul warns of when he speaks of those that have “a form of Godliness, but deny its power”. These men (or women) profess Christ (by going to church, praying, etc.) but in one way or another, by their deeds, actually oppose Him. The specific passage in mind is 2 Timothy 3.5 and if you read through the pastoral epistles you will find other passages that parallel it, and so we may surmise it was a common, and deadly, problem. Is there a cure? There is indeed but it’s one that those engaged in the kind of bad formalism mentioned above may find hard to swallow for it’s a cure that goes right to the heart of true religion. Bad religion is bad because it never goes far enough. In other words, it never gets past Sunday morning. It never becomes incarnational. It never walks and talks like Jesus, and so it is at once idolatrous and defiled. God hates bad religion; on this Scripture is clear. So what kind of religious formalism does He love? He loves the kind that comes from a Spirit filled heart, the kind that James calls “pure and undefiled”; the kind of religion that loves widows and orphans as much as it loves theology and the liturgy.

On any given morning nearly anywhere in America, it is usual see Jehovah’s Witnesses canvassing the neighborhood . I often see Mormon Missionaries as well. Though both of these groups are (rightly) classified as false religions they are particularly bothersome in that they view themselves as being within the stream of historic Christianity. That is they consider themselves Christian, though their teachings are actually at odds with the truth. Other groups such as the Masons  find succor within the church, even though their doctrines and religion is decidedly not Christian.

So how did this happen? How can these admittedly very large groups who deny the fundamental doctrines and tenants of Christianity come to view themselves, and even to be viewed by others, as Christian?

It is a complicated question and any answer has many factors to take into account. Yet, for Roman Catholic apologist the answer is simple: it is the fault of the Reformation. For as one of them warned in some place or another “if you guys go on like this it won’t be long before everyman interprets scripture for himself and chaos will reign” and then point to the Mormons and JW ‘s and Oneness Pentecostals as proof. Their point is of course that without the Church to interpret Scripture, Scripture can mean anything.

Now admittedly the warning seems to have some merit. However it is a warning directed at a problem that was, in terms of Reformational Theology, a sort of “straw man” for no Magisterial Reformer, or anyone following in their footsteps, ever contemplated such a thing. In other words the Reformers did recognize tradition as a hermeneutical control, a point Keith Matheson has very ably made here .

So if not the Reformers, then who?

As I said at the start, the answer is complicated and includes many factors (The Enlightenment, rationalism, the devil etc.) but I think one place we can point to as a sort of cause for Mormons etc. is American style democracy and especially American individualism, as exemplified in congregational ecclesiology and the mindset behind it.

Let me illustrate by way of this short anecdote. While pastoring a church in the Mid-West I became involved in a discussion about church polity and especially the polity of our church (the one I pastored). During the course of our discussion I asked this question; does the Holy Spirit speak through the will of the congregation, or to put it another way around, can we take the outcome of a congregational vote to be the leading of The Holy Spirit? And the answer was “yes”. I pointed out to the parishioner in question that the position he was holding to was not a whole lot different than that of The Roman Catholic Church, but to no avail.

So what does all of this have to do with Mormons and JW‘s and all the rest? Well, back to the Roman Catholic caveat. For, at the end of the day they were correct, not about the Reformers, but about the danger. Moreover, while it cannot be said that the Reformers were guilty of such individualism it can be said to be so of most of American Evangelicalism, who hold not to the Protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura but to”Solo” and so indeed, it is every man, or congregation, for him or themselves.

It is a very bad and ironic sort of situation. One that puts a large segment of American Protestants in a position from where it is really hard to see (at least logically) why there should be any problem at all with JW’s, Mormons, T.D. Jakes or any other heretic one might like to mention.

Now admittedly the above is a bit of a simplistic sketch of the problem and at the end of the day we have to also understand that Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Oneness Pentecostals, Masons and the rest are all victims of satanic deception and so are the work of the devil. Yet, the entrenchment of individualism and individual rights so basic to the American psyche has proved to be a very convenient handle for him. One that only a return to a proper (dare I suggest “catholic”) understanding of individualism, hermeneutics and the church can remove.

A few years back, I preached through Paul’s letters to the Corinthians. I actually began with 2 Corinthians and then went on to 1st.

Below is a summary based on my notes.

1. The Church is the Temple of God, His presence dwells in us and so we are Holy. Holiness is to be understood in terms of ownership by God.

2. Factions are caused by immaturity in the body and must be dealt with, and can only be dealt with by growing up.

3. Therefore the weaker members of the body are essential, for apart from them we cannot mature for maturity is achieved when we become like Christ. The weaker members of the body afford to us the opportunity to be like Jesus by setting ourselves aside on behalf of another.

4. The body of Christ is the context in which we live and grow. In it we are fed and nourished by the head. We must be careful though for others before us also had much the same advantage and many of them fell.

5. Therefore use the gifts God gave you to nourish and strengthen the body.

6. To turn your back on the body is to turn your back on Christ.

7. Be very careful that you do not act in such a manner so as to discourage someone in the use of their gift for apart from love gifts are nothing.

8. Anyone that does not love Jesus is cursed, those that love Him are blessed.

One of the things I like to emphasize is that the Bible is (Divine) literature, and as such should be understood and interpreted “literally” that is in accordance with way in which we normally understand or interpret any piece of literature. A while back, during a Christian education class, I had the opportunity to talk about biblical metaphors and the necessity of there being at least some similarity between the thing described and the metaphorical description. Therefore, it would do little good to make a point about my disposition by the use of a metaphor that did not have some point of similarity. For instance, you could not say, “Rogers’ head is as hard as a rock, if I am known to be of a supple and yielding disposition. Metaphors must have some point of contact if they are to get any traction.

Let me bring this to bear on Jesus’ description of John as “a reed shaken by the wind” (found in Luke 7.24). I suggest this is a rhetorical question; one that expects the answer to be “yes”. So, it is fair to ask what Jesus meant by comparing John to a reed.

A good place to start is to examine the context of the event Jesus is referring to, that is the ministry of John the Baptist. We need not go very far into the story of John to see the point for whatever else we may say about John, and his ministry, his name says it all. He was a baptizer. John came preaching a baptism for the remission of sins, and he came preaching and baptizing people who were already in a covenantal relationship with YHWH. Another important thing about John is that he was an Old Testament prophet. He was the Elijah of Malachi 4, which means that the baptism is an old covenant event. This brings me nearly to my point and to Jesus’ metaphor.

First, though, I want to think about some the things that attended the inauguration of the Old Covenant. One of the places we can look to is Exodus 24 and the ritual confirmation of the Old Covenant by the blood that was thrown on the people, probably what Hebrews 12. 24 refers to as “The Blood of Sprinkling”. Now to get to the point about John we need to put ourselves in the place of Moses. How do you throw blood on so many people? Well the answer is (probably) that you don’t throw it, but you sprinkle it, or better yet you throw/sprinkle it by some mechanical means and in this instance, like others (for instance Leviticus 14.6), the mechanism was a piece or a rod (kanon) of hyssop. The Old Covenant was inaugurated by sprinkling.

Which brings us back to Jesus’ metaphorical description of John.

Jesus could compare John to a reed because John, in accordance with other Old Covenant inauguration/ purification/renewal rites was baptizing by sprinkling the nation, and was sprinkling them with a reed of hyssop.

There was however, an important difference. For John’s baptism is also related, typologically, to ours, through Jesus. Prior to Jesus’ baptism, John’s baptism was an Old Covenant event. That is though not true of Jesus’ baptism, for at his baptism Jesus becomes (officially) the forerunner, the first man of the New Covenant, The Second Adam. So, just as The Old Covenant was inaugurated by the sprinkling of the people, so also was the New by the sprinkling of the covenant head, The New Israel, Jesus. Therefore, the (expected) answer to Jesus’ question was this: No. John’s reed was not shaken by the wind, but by the Holy Spirit.

Like any parents, my wife and I are very mindful of the habits we encourage or discourage in our daughter. For instance as a Christian father, I am concerned she learns to worship in a proper fashion (among other things of course). We are also very aware that the way we raise our daughter has the potential to effect generations to come, for as Scripture tells us the sins of the fathers are passed on to those that follow. Bad habits in children translate into habitual sin (and worse) in adults.

Take for instance anger.

In a child, anger is usually an understandable response and is generally related to, or is an expression of, indignation of some sort. For instance, you wake up one morning to what sounds like a demolition crew in your living room and find that the cause of the noise is little Johnny knocking holes in the wall with a hammer. You respond by taking the hammer away from Johnny which (predictably enough) causes Johnny to cry, howl, dramatize and so forth; which gets him nowhere and nothing but a spanking. A commendable situation all the way around for soon you won’t have to worry about Johnny and hammers; unless of course you give in.

But, you may ask yourself, shouldn’t I give in sometime? Is being lenient always bad?

Well, that depends, of course, on what we are allowing. In some instances being lenient, (which is a form of grace) is fine, but I would say that in the case of (sinful) anger we have no leeway for if we give into a child’s anger we can be sure that even though we missed an opportunity to educate, education still happened, but of the worse possible sort. For anger quickly, very quickly, becomes a means of manipulation and manipulative children grow into manipulative adults who learn to use anger, or the possibility of it, in a very effective way. Therefore, men learn that they can avoid dealing with problems or hearing bad news or any number of things by becoming angry. We have all heard it at one time or another “let’s not bring this up for we don’t want to make you know who angry”.

Yet it can get worse for this sort of ungodly anger can quickly become a form of covetousness for what is coveting but desiring that which God (through one means or another) has said we may not have. Anger is a way of getting something that God has said “no” to. Therefore that man who gets around his responsibilities (family, ecclesisiatical or other) by being such a touchy jerk that no one wants to bring anything to his attention is, by his anger, seeking something God has said he must not have; in this instance peace or rest or inactivity.

But it gets worse for covetousness is also, according to Scripture, a form of idolatry and idolaters are notorious manipulators. Its an evil brew and one full of unintended consequences, for our lives and for our families and for our future. The angry man may just want to be left in peace, but peace is something he will never find. For anger produces turmoil and never produces the righteousness that comes from God. For an angry man will never grow up.

On the way to work the other day I was listening to a pod cast on Anglican Radio. The host was interviewing a gentleman who had recently finished a book on creativity and the Trinity. The author’s name escapes me right now but he did get me to thinking. Some of the material below is dependent on his ideas expressed during that interview.

Humans are creative and ingenious. It’s no suprise since we are made in the image our Creator. We see this in children who are so creative that their creative instincts have to be schooled out of them. Intentional or not we tend to atrophy towards a uniform and unitarian way of thinking. In other words we find homogeny desirable, which is also one of the reasons we like Social Media platforms like Facebook (for example).

This works itself out in some surprising ways and as the gentlemen mentioned above noted it makes us very suspicious and intolerant of anything that is or wants to be outside the norm (creative). We have to be careful though, for our God is both unified and diverse. “Always constant never the same”.

Creativity then is a good and godly thing. We should nurture it in ourselves and in children creativity should be encouraged and managed, but not squashed. After all do we really want to raise a bunch of unitarian totalitarians? Haven’t we enough of that already?

If you know me you know I am a son of the South. I have in my lienage several Confederate officers and even a Chaplin who served under Leonidas Polk. Lots of family and a long, long line that stretches back to the very beginnings of this part of the country. Lawmen, lawyers, judges and Indian fighters. Cowboys, carpenters, lumbermen, motorcycle racers and preachers. The stuff legends are made of. The stuff of the South.

It might have been Faulkner who said that “in the South, history is not in the past”. Whoever said it was right though. I love history. I love the history of the South and I love setting the record straight about the war that was between the States. Much may be said and of course to the victors go the spoils along with the writing of the history, therefore its pretty certain the South has gotten the short end of the stick, when it comes to the telling of it. I have sympathy for the cause at many points. I have heroes and family that fought in that war, who fought for their country and their land.

I love the South and yet the South was dead wrong. At the end of the day she failed and Southern slavery was her  failure. Southern slavery made her cause wrong, made it stink to heaven. Slavery was her sin. Slavery undid her good. Slavery made her stumble. Slavery made her immoral.

So, the South was wrong. That one issue made her horribly so. So wrong in fact that for all the above I could not lend her my support.

I have a a few young friends. Guys at work, smart fellows who on more than one occasion have questioned my politics.  They know me. For the most part they know how I think. They see how I conduct myself and they wonder;  “How on earth can you vote for a Republican?” How can a man like you, a Priest who loves his fellow man and is demonstrability concerend with social justice, not a racist or a bigot, no chauvinist. An educated guy with a good sense of humor, how can such a man not vote Democratic?

Its a good question because truth be known I am very sympathetic to some of the big aims of the Democrats. Yet there is that one issue. One issue that makes them wrong. Horribly wrong. Wickedly wrong. Catastrophically wrong. That issue is abortion. I simply cannot support murder. Like slavery in the South this one issue completely undoes the good. This one issue makes the whole thing corrupt.

At the end of the day my loyalty lies with Christ. I cannot serve death. I cannot promote murder in the name of doing good anymore than I can say a black man is less than human and another man’s property. I may be a Southerner but I pray I am no monster.

And I want no part of them.

A while back I preached through The Gospel according to Matthew. In doing so, I tried to be sensitive to the events and situations that lead Jesus to The Cross. While I do not think of The Cross as the most important event of the story (the resurrection is), it is obviously very important and plays a central role in its theology.

As I went along, following many others before me, I asked this: for what sorts of reasons was Jesus crucified, not theological reasons only, but cultural and other (not that those are not theological reasons, they are just not explicitly theological). As one well-known New Testament scholar puts it (more or less) if Jesus was just a teacher of timeless truths (sort of like a first century hippy) why was He crucified? People like that just did not end up o n a cross.

It is a good question and one that has, I think, multiple answers. One reason seems to be His penchant for associating with people that no else could stand. I am closing in on the 11th chapter now and the list of folks Jesus takes in, and heals and blesses is remarkable. Roman soldiers, demon possessed people, women with flows of blood, dead people; people few, if any, wanted association with. Jesus loved those that no one else loved, and this caused Him to become, increasingly, unpopular. Moreover, when the popular and powerful and the influential are ignored, they take notice, and they do not like it.

So one of the reasons Jesus ended up on a Cross was His identification with the unpopular and their identification with Him.

Now that says something to us, today. Something about what it means to follow Jesus. It says this: following Jesus means identifying you with someone that the rich, and the powerful, and the beautiful, and the well heeled of every stripe hates. To identify with Jesus means identifying yourself with those He loved, and to reap from it the world’s hatred. It means membership in the social strata the bible calls the weak and foolish, and, oh yes, it also means this. If you find that you really have a problem with people with personality issues, or who don’t bathe that often, or are fat, or just not very likable guess what? You may also find out you are having a problem with Jesus too.