I have several friends who are doing Advent in their Baptist churches for the first time, and they have lots of questions about candles and logistics. I wish there were more questions about Advent itself.
For example, the mood of Advent is dark and serious. It’s not the mood of Lent, which is a particular kind of seriousness as the shadow of the cross extends over our path. It’s the mood of darkness that comes because the world is in darkness.
We need a savior.
This is the time that we stop and see that the powers of evil are entrenched in the world. Evil authorities and and evil persons are having their way. A good creation is being ruined. Hearts made for love and light are imprisoned, crying out and empty.
There is war, terror, the loss of innocence and the curses of ignorance, poverty and death. The wise men of this age are propagating nonsense. Men and women made in God’s image are addicted to the worst the darkness has to offer. They think backwards and cannot find their way out of the dungeon. They have lost their will to live and love, and have settled for the cheapest and palest of imitations.
Advent’s darkness includes the failure of religion to bring any light to this fallen and dying world. Religion has become as empty as fool’s errand as can be imagined. The religious take themselves seriously, but the world hears the hollowness of it all.
In the Christian family itself, the prosperity gospel makes a mockery of the very savior it claims to proclaim. Western Christians plunge into the pagan celebration, spending thousands on themselves and their children. We spend enough on our lights to save thousands upon thousands of lives. But those lives are in the darkness of Advent’s waiting. Our “lights” are nothing more than an extension of that darkness. They have nothing to do with the true light that comes to the world.
The real center of Advent’s dark mood is that we need a savior. We who sing and go to church for musicals and eat too much and buy too much and justify the season by our strange measurements of suffering.
We light candles and wait because, after looking around and taking stock, there should be no doubt that we need a savior.
Ironically, after 2,000 years of offering our Savior to others, we- Christians- need one more than ever. When we mark ourselves has “having” Christ more than “needing” Christ, we miss the Spirit of the Advent season.
Despite the fact that the world needs a savior, those offering him and his story to the world look no more “saved” than anyone else. In fact, with an extra facade of religion or two, we seem to be in every bit as bad a shape as the world we call “lost.”
The mood of Advent is that we are all lost. Advent isn’t about the “saved” telling the “lost” to “get saved.” Advent is a light that dawns in all of our darknesses. Advent is bread for all of our hungers. Advent is the promise kept for all of us promise-breakers, betrayers and failures.
Can we find a way to celebrate Advent as those who NEED to be saved? As those who NEED a savior? Not as those who know for certain that someone else does?
Scripture says that we who had not received mercy have now received mercy. Those who were nobodies are now the people of God.
The key to Advent is not living as if we are the people of God and always have been. The key is to live as if we need a Savior, and he has come to us, found us, saved us and is there for everyone in the world.
The mood of Advent isn’t “come be religious like us.” It is “We are all waiting for our Savior to be born. Let us wait together. And when he comes, let us recognize him, together.”
When the day dawns, let us all receive him. We go to the manger and worship. We give to him our gifts. We take his light to the poor.
Until then, we are the poor, the weak, the blind, the lonely, the guilty and the desperate. We light candles because we who are in darkness are in need of a great light. We need a savior.
So we wait amidst the ruins, we protect the lights we hold in hope. We sing to one who is coming. We look and wonder. We pray for his star to take us, once again, to the miracle.
In this chapter Denis strives to rehabilitate Darwin’s popular image as the atheist of atheists. After all, Richard Dawkins has famously noted that while it had always been possible to reject theology, “Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.” (Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker London: Penguin, 1991, 6). At first, as I began this chapter, I was skeptical of what Denis was trying to accomplish. Charles Darwin’s theological views seemed to me to not be relevant to the science of evolution. Either the science was correct or it wasn’t. But as I read on, I was mindful of the audience that Denis was specifically trying to reach with this book; the young Christian raised in anti-evolution evangelicalism who was beginning their college years exposed to the actual science for the first time.
To that person, Darwin is the great bugaboo, the originator of “Darwinism”. Richard Dawkins, and others like him, equate “Darwinism” with their own dysteleological view of evolution in which “there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference.” (Richard Dawkins, River Out of Eden, New York: BasicBooks, 1995, 133). But Denis says:
The final surprise in this chapter will be to show that Charles Darwin did not embrace Darwinism… Dawkins famously stated that “Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist”. To counter Dawkins, I propose that Darwin makes it possible for me to an intellectually fulfilled theist. Be assured that this is no attempt to “Christianize” Darwin, because he rejected Christianity as a young adult. But what I will suggest is that Darwin provide numerous theological insights that have assisted me as a Christian to embrace evolution as the Lord’s creative process for making all plants and animals, including men and women.
Denis then traces Darwin biography with numerous quotes that indicate he did believe the deist version of intelligent design. In his early Cambridge years, Darwin was introduced to the works of William Paley and the watchmaker analogy. During his voyage on the Beagle, in his final diary entry, Darwin writes:
Among the scenes which are deeply impressed on my mind, none exceed in sublimity the primeval forests, undefaced by the hand of man, whether those of Brazil where the powers of life are predominant, or those of Tierra del Fuego, where death & decay prevail. Both are temples filled with the varied productions of the God of Nature– No one can stand unmoved in these solitudes, without feeling that there is more in man than the mere breath of his body.
Darwin clearly rejected God-of-the-gaps arguments as well as an interventionist, miracle working God. He says in his autobiography:
By further reflecting that the clearest evidence would be requisite to make any sane man believe in the miracles by which Christianity is supported—that the more we know of the fixed laws of nature the more incredible do miracles become—that the men at the time were ignorant and credulous to a degree almost incomprehensible by us… by such reflections as these, which I give not as having the least novelty or value, but as they influenced me, I gradually came to disbelieve in Christianity as a divine revelation.
However, in an earlier version of The Origin of the Species, he seems to have believed that biological evolution was teleological. He explicitly states, “By nature, I mean the laws ordained by God to govern the universe.” In the last sentence of The Origin of the Species, he states:
There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.
Denis notes that in the next five editions of his book from 1860 to 1872, Darwin is even more explicit and replaces “originally breathed” with “breathed by the Creator”. In a letter to Asa Gray dated May 22, 1860, devout Christian and Harvard botanist who promoted The Origin of the Species in America, Darwin states twice in no uncertain terms with regard to his book:
I had no intention of writing atheistically… Certainly I agree with you that my views are not at all necessarily atheistical.
In the Descent of Man, writing for those Christians in England that had trouble with man evolving from lower life forms, Darwin applies the Embryology-Evolution Analogy and says, “… The birth of both of the species and of the individual are equally parts of that grand sequence of events, which our minds refuse to accept as the result of blind chance.”
Finally, in his autobiography, Darwin argues back and forth with himself thusly:
Another source of conviction in the existence of God, connected with the reason and not with the feelings, impresses me as having much more weight. This follows from the extreme difficulty or rather impossibility of conceiving this immense and wondrous universe, including man with his capacity of looking backwards and far into futurity, as a result of blind chance or necessity. When thus reflecting I feel compelled to look to a First Cause having an intelligent mind in some degree analogous to that of man; and I deserve to be called a theist… But then arises the horrid doubt—can the mind of man, which has, as I fully believe, been developed from a mind as low as that possessed by the lowest animal, be trusted when it draws such grand conclusions?
So Denis concludes:
… the story of Charles Darwin is not only surprising, it is also an encouragement to Christians who are wrestling with biological evolution. He offers numerous theological insights that assist us to move beyond the “evolution” vs. “creation” debate. By declaring, “It seems to me absurd to doubt that a man may be an ardent Theist and an evolutionist,” Darwin opens the door for us to love Jesus and to accept evolution. We can reword this remarkable insight for twenty-first-century generation: It seems absurd to doubt that anyone may be an ardent born-again Christian and an evolutionary creationist.
So what do you think? Did Denis make his point? Is it important to revise Darwin’s viewpoint from atheist to agnostic deist? Does Denis’ argument lessen the impact of atheist rhetoric about “intellectually fulfilled atheists” and does his argument counteract the fundamentalist rhetoric that casts Darwin as the “evilution boogeyman”?
Rejoice in the Lord always; again I will say, Rejoice. Let your reasonableness be known to everyone. The Lord is at hand; do not be anxious about anything, but in everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known to God. And the peace of God, which surpasses all understanding, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus. Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things. What you have learned and received and heard and seen in me–practice these things, and the God of peace will be with you.
• Philippians 4:4-9
• • •
The Unlikely Outrage of the Gospel of Light An excerpt from a 2006 post by Michael Spencer
The message that God has taken an interest in this tiny world, and in any one of us, is beyond outrageous. It’s mind-boggingly incredible. It ought to stop us in our tracks in astonishment that we are claiming, continually, the absolutely unlikely and stupendously impossible.
Evangelicals have convinced themselves that the light shines in a room where it’s been patently obvious for a long time that we needed some light around here, and Christianity has the best bulb for the job. Scripture tells us that the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness cannot comprehend it.
We have convinced ourselves that every reasonable person is looking for a Savior, and that Jesus’ contemporaries should have been waiting for him with a welcoming committee. The Bible says the Word became flesh, came to his own, and no one wanted anything to do with him. In fact, the thought of God visiting this world is every bit as outrageous within the Christian story as it is outside of it.
…If we appreciate the outrage of the Gospel, then we ought to understand that shouting it in the face of an unbelieving world is a particularly inappropriate response. Paul knew this, and in our newer testament reading, told the Philippians how to live in a world of unbelief: our lives should show the evidence that this incredible story is true, and the light that shines in the darkness should be visible in us.
The city of Philippi presented Christians with the opportunity to live out their story- the story of God incarnated in an executed Jewish rabbi — in the midst of the story of imperial Roman power and culture. Their calling was one of contrasts and community, very similar to our own. Look again at the Paul’s encouragements, and hear them in the context of living out the unlikely outrage of the gospel of Light.
“Rejoice in the Lord.” Joy is an irresistible quality in a dark world. No matter what produces it, the world is curious. Joy in God lies at the heart of the Gospel. It lies at the heart of Advent, of Christmas and of all Christian worship. If we mistake entertainment or pleasure for joy, we make a crucial error, for God means for the light to be not simply a contrast in what is seen, but in what is experienced.
“Let your gentleness be known to all.” Christians often make unbelievers think of arrogance rather than gentleness. It’s not unusual to hear gentleness lampooned by evangelicals as being overly tolerant. The world is cruel, but Christ is gentle, especially with sinners. Our culture war rhetoric and determination to fight for our “values” often sounds anything but gentle. We are called to go gentle into a night that isn’t good at all, but our failure to value the gentleness of Jesus has discredited our claims of knowing him throughout history and today.
Another nuance of the same word is “moderation.” We live in a culture of excess and live lives of culturally and religiously justified excess. Christians are deeply idolatrous of the success worship that runs our culture. We bizarrely believe that God guarantees and justifies our devotion to have the “best” of everything, American style. Do such deeply idolatrous values give evidence that the light has shown in our hearts to reveal the glory of God in the face of Jesus?
“Do not be anxious” is a command to lay aside the worries and anxieties of life and to trust in God. Jesus taught in the sermon on the mount that believing in the God of the Gospel deeply convinces us that “all will be well and all manner of things will be well.” The Gospel does not produce the kind of anxiety that drives the culture war and the manipulation of Christians for political purposes. The Gospel produces prayer and worship to the God who sovereignly reigns in every circumstance.
The Gospel produces, Paul says, “the peace of God.” This peace passes understanding, which means, I believe, that we don’t spend vast amounts of time explaining it as if a lecture could outline God’s peace in a convincing way. This peace is a quality that belongs to the person of faith, and to the community of faith. It’s a fruit of the light that invaded the world at the nativity, and that comes to live in human beings who are vitally connected to Jesus.
Then Paul describes a litany of the good, the true, the beautiful, the excellent, the praiseworthy. Think on these things. Love these things. Create these things. Build lives and families and communities that value what the world distorts and despises. These wonderful evidences of the light of God are rare gifts in a vulgar world, and those who are children of God by faith value and treasure these gifts wherever they find them.
The good, the true and the beautiful are not, by the way, our exclusive property, and Christmas should remind us that the fingerprints of the God who made the world and redeems it in Christ are everywhere. The atheist has no sustainable reason to see a good gift anywhere- they are accidents of time, matter and chance, at best- or a reason to differentiate good from mediocre aside from the assertion of blatant preference. In Christ, we see a life full of the good, the true, the beautiful and all the other gifts of a gracious creator. We are privileged to put these gifts on display and to be grateful for them in worship and thankful use.
In other words, Paul reminded the Philippians that, as they lived beside and with those who did not share their faith, there was always the opportunity to show that those who live in darkness have seen a great light. We are a community that embodies the light of Christmas visiting a dark world.
We are never surprised that the darkness denies any light exists. Darkness is, in the Gospel, nothing if not self-justifying and exclusive. But darkness, no matter how many books it writes or speeches it makes, cannot dispel light, no matter how small the source or how meager the effect. Light illumines and reveals irresistibly and with continual wonder.
Our advent worship has been themed, as so many are, from the words of Isaiah: “The people who walked in darkness have seen a great light; those who dwelt in a land of deep darkness, on them has light shined.” (Isaiah 9:2)
Such is the wonder of the incarnation that we can feel all the depths of the unbeliever’s skepticism, and thereby increase our wonder at what God has done at Bethlehem. But the Gospel asks us, and enables us, to become the actual community of that light. Jesus says we are light in the world, a community set upon a hill to say that not only has the light indiscriminately invaded our planet, but it has also come to dwell in human beings, and this- who we are, what we do- is in some way the evidence of that light.
It’s an intimidating kind of invitation. It’s much easier, in many ways, to talk about a culture war or a truth war than it is to talk about being a community of gentleness, peace, prayer and transformation. It’s much easier to be right, and outraged at those who disagree, than it is to take on the meaning of the Gospel in our own families and callings.
Therefore we believe, teach, and confess that the congregation of God of every place and every time has, according to its circumstances, the good right, power, and authority [in matters truly adiaphora] to change, to diminish, and to increase them, without thoughtlessness and offense, in an orderly and becoming way, as at any time it may be regarded most profitable, most beneficial, and best for [preserving] good order, [maintaining] Christian discipline [and for eujtaxiva (i.e. good order) worthy of the profession of the Gospel], and the edification of the Church.
Now here’s a question I never faced in my evangelical days:
How much Christmas should be allowed during Advent?
I remember once watching a dramatic show about life in post-WWII America. A certain episode took place during the Christmas season. One character, an aristocratic woman, expressed how appalled she was that stores were decorated for Christmas the week before the holiday! And that people were buying and putting up Christmas trees before Christmas Eve! Horrors! How gauche!
The great capitalistic industrial-consumer complex has certainly changed all of that. Many retailers depend upon Christmas sales to survive. They must plan early in the year and receive shipments in the middle of the year, start decorating in early autumn, and essentially leap-frog Halloween and Thanksgiving right into the marketing of Christmas gifts. I’ve notice this year in particular that “Black Friday” has been lengthened into “Black November,” then stretching into “Black December.” My email inbox is filled with the best sales ever each and every day and will until Christmas Day itself, only then to be bombarded by the after-Christmas sales.
That has been the engine, but people have certainly gone along with it willingly, even enthusiastically. So have most societal institutions, including churches. December is all Christmas all the time.
In an effort to combat this, some church traditions, especially those deeply rooted in history and tradition, have made an attempt to emphasize Advent. Evangelical churches have started adding certain Advent observances too, in an effort to “keep Christ in Christmas.”
During the weeks before Christmas, Catholic churches stand out for what they are missing.
Unlike stores, malls, public buildings and homes that start gearing up for Christmas at least by Thanksgiving, churches appear almost stark save for Advent wreaths and maybe some greenery or white lights.
“The chance for us to be a little out of sync or a little countercultural is not a bad thing,” said Paulist Father Larry Rice, director of the University Catholic Center at the University of Texas at Austin.
By the same token, he is not about to completely avoid listening to Christmas music until Dec. 24 either. The key is to experience that “being out of sync feeling in a way that is helpful and teaches us something about our faith,” he told Catholic News Service.
Others find with the frenetic pace of the Christmas season it is calming to go into an undecorated church and sing more somber hymns like “O Come, O Come, Emmanuel.” But that shouldn’t be the only draw, noted Jesuit Father Bruce Morrill, who is the Edward A. Malloy professor of Catholic studies at Vanderbilt University Divinity School in Nashville, Tennessee.
He said the dissonance between how the church and society at large celebrate Christmas is that the church celebration begins, not ends, Dec. 25. The shopping season and Christian church calendar overlap, but don’t connect, he added.
And even though Catholic churches – in liturgies at least – steer clear of Christmas carols during Advent and keep their decorations to a minimum, Morrill said he isn’t about to advise Catholic families to do the same.
“It’s hard to tell people what to do with their rituals and symbols,” he said, adding, “that horse is out of the barn.”
I find this counsel to be sane and balanced. I know of churches and ministers who allow no Christmas songs to be sung during worship in Advent, who permit only minimal decorations, and will not have Christmas programs during Advent. They make this near to an article of faith, insisting that the church must be countercultural, that most Christmas customs have nothing to do with the gospel or Jesus, and that Christians who participate in them are distracted from honoring Christ aright and walking properly within good church discipline.
Funnily enough, I have heard this primarily in Lutheran circles, whereas the article above comes from the Catholics. Seems as though the shoe is on the other foot these days. The quote at the start of this post represents a hallmark of Lutheran teaching down through the centuries — certain practices and matters are adiaphora — not essential to the core message of the faith, and may be permitted or tolerated as long as things don’t get out of hand.
Certainly I could understand if someone would argue that this is exactly the situation in which we find ourselves. Things have gotten so far out of hand that we must double down on our Advent discipline in order to make a clear statement about what this season is meant to signify.
However, I think the folks in the article strike a good balance, recognizing that we are members of our communities as well as parishioners in our churches. Let our churches be as strict within their programs as they feel they must, but don’t place burdens on people and their families as they live among their neighbors.
As for me personally, I think a certain amount of “Christmas” in Advent can help increase expectation and warm people’s hearts. Even in congregational worship. I don’t disallow singing of Christmas songs, though I try to choose them carefully in an effort to build toward Christmas Day. We “hang the greens” early in Advent as visual signs on the pathway to Bethlehem. Sermons are from the lectionary, and I make an effort to stay true to its Advent intent.
And, apart from my preaching, I leave people alone to mark the season as they see fit. I trust that the love in our faith community, good teaching, and our gathered worship will help people take both Advent and Christmas seriously.
‘But in those days, after that suffering,
the sun will be darkened,
and the moon will not give its light,
and the stars will be falling from heaven,
and the powers in the heavens will be shaken.
Then they will see “the Son of Man coming in clouds” with great power and glory. Then he will send out the angels, and gather his elect from the four winds, from the ends of the earth to the ends of heaven.
‘From the fig tree learn its lesson: as soon as its branch becomes tender and puts forth its leaves, you know that summer is near. So also, when you see these things taking place, you know that he is near, at the very gates. Truly I tell you, this generation will not pass away until all these things have taken place. Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away.
‘But about that day or hour no one knows, neither the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. Beware, keep alert; for you do not know when the time will come. It is like a man going on a journey, when he leaves home and puts his slaves in charge, each with his work, and commands the doorkeeper to be on the watch. Therefore, keep awake—for you do not know when the master of the house will come, in the evening, or at midnight, or at cockcrow, or at dawn, or else he may find you asleep when he comes suddenly. And what I say to you I say to all: Keep awake.’
• • •
Did you hear about the South Carolina man at Waffle House this past week? A guy named Alex Bowen couldn’t sleep one night. He was hungry and he also admitted he was slightly drunk, so he decided to go out to Waffle House for a midnight snack.
When he got there he went inside, and couldn’t find anybody. No customers, no employees. He waited about ten minutes, went outside and looked around, went back in. Still no one.
So he took matters into his own hands. Mr. Bowen went to the grill and prepared to make himself a sandwich — a double bacon cheesesteak melt with extra pickles. Then he saw that the employee who was supposed to be working was fast asleep in a corner. Bowen snapped a picture and then documented the rest of his cooking adventure on his cell phone and uploaded it to Facebook.
Well, apparently his mama taught him right. Bowen said that when he was done, he “cleaned the grill, collected my ill-gotten sandwich and rolled on out.” When Waffle House found out about it, they suspended the sleepy employee. Could’ve been a lot worse, right? The only negative consequence Waffle House and their cook suffered was that they lost a sandwich and had to endure some embarrassment, and one employee will go a couple of weeks without a paycheck.
“Keep awake!” Jesus says in today’s Gospel. Those who heard him say that in Jerusalem back then had a whole lot more to lose.
Mark 13 is a sermon of warning that Jesus gave his disciples about a time of great trouble that was about to fall on the Jewish nation. And now you can read about it in the history books. In 70ad, the Roman armies laid siege to Jerusalem and then completely destroyed the city, leveled the Temple, and scattered the survivors abroad into exile. It was one of the most brutal, devastating events in history. And it marked the end of the Jewish nation for almost 2000 years — until 1948.
In this chapter, Jesus is warning his disciples about that time, a time so terrible that the only smart thing to do was run and try to escape. So he urges them to keep awake and alert, to be aware at all times of what was going on around them so that they would be ready to hit the road when it was time.
But something else was going to happen in those days, and that’s where our specific text for this morning picks up. Right in the middle of the time when all these tumultuous things would be happening — things so calamitous that the only way to describe them was to say it would be like the sun, moon, and stars being extinguished and falling out of the skies — another series of events was going to start taking place. Jesus describes it this way in verses 26-27: “Then they will see ‘the Son of Man coming in clouds’ with great power and glory. Then he will send out the angels, and gather his elect from the four winds, from the ends of the earth to the ends of heaven.”
A lot of people read this and they think it refers to Jesus returning to earth, or what we call the Second Coming. But I don’t think that’s what it means. Jesus is referring to the book of Daniel in the Old Testament, where Daniel had a vision. Here’s what it says:
As I watched in the night visions, I saw one like a [son of man] coming with the clouds of heaven. And he came to the Ancient One and was presented before him. To him [i.e. to this son of man] was given dominion and glory and kingship, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that shall not pass away, and his kingship is one that shall never be destroyed. (7:13f)
Please note: in this passage “the Son of Man in the clouds” is not coming to earth, he is coming to God. He is not returning for his people, he is going to the throne of God to receive the kingdom. This passage in Daniel and Jesus’ words in Mark 13 are not describing the “Second Coming” to earth at the end of history. They are describing what happened back in those days, when Jesus rose from the dead, ascended into heaven, and sat down at God’s right hand: “The son of man came in the clouds of heaven to God’s throne and received the kingdom from his Father.”
This is what we say in the Creed. Jesus was born of the Virgin Mary. That was his first coming. He will come again to judge the living and the dead. That will be his second coming. But in between, we say that we believe he died, was buried, descended to the dead, rose again, and ascended to the right hand of the Father. There was a “coming” in between what we call the first coming and his second coming. There was a coming into heaven, when he took the throne and was declared Lord of all.
Our Lord is telling his disciples that, in the midst of all the turmoil and trouble that was about to fall upon the world, Jesus would be crowned king. Jesus would receive power and dominion and glory forever and ever. Despite his death, he would be raised up, vindicated, and declared Lord of all. Contrary to all appearances, God’s rule in the earth would start taking effect.
And then Jesus says here that something else will happen: “Then he will send out the angels, and gather his elect from the four winds, from the ends of the earth to the ends of heaven.”
Following Jesus’ installation as King, there would be a new mission. God would send his messengers into all the earth to proclaim the gospel and gather God’s children together in faith and hope and love.
Advent is the season in which we remember and prepare ourselves for Jesus’ coming. But here is one “coming” that we don’t always talk about. Jesus ascended into heaven, came to the right hand of the Father and was crowned Lord of all. And now his Gospel message is going out to people all around the world. During Advent, let us not forget this “coming” of Jesus when he went to the Father and was declared King of all creation.
And let us not be like that sleepy Waffle House employee! Let us not fall asleep at the table when we have work to do, when there are those waiting for us to come to them in the name of the King to feed them the bread of life and tell them the Good News. Jesus died, rose again, and ascended into heaven for the life of the world. Let us stay awake to speak and share his life. Amen.
Note from CM: During Advent, I have asked some of our wonderful iMonk writers to share meditations on seasonal themes each Sunday. We begin with Pastor Dan today. I am grateful for each of these friends and gifted people, and know that what they share will help us prepare our lives for celebrating the Incarnation.
✧ ✧ ✧
8 And there were shepherds living out in the fields nearby, keeping watch over their flocks at night.9 An angel of the Lord appeared to them, and the glory of the Lord shone around them, and they were terrified.10 But the angel said to them, “Do not be afraid. I bring you good news that will cause great joy for all the people.11 Today in the town of David a Savior has been born to you; he is the Messiah, the Lord.12 This will be a sign to you: You will find a baby wrapped in cloths and lying in a manger.”
13 Suddenly a great company of the heavenly host appeared with the angel, praising God and saying,
14 “Glory to God in the highest heaven, and on earth peace to those on whom his favor rests.”
15 When the angels had left them and gone into heaven, the shepherds said to one another, “Let’s go to Bethlehem and see this thing that has happened, which the Lord has told us about.”
16 So they hurried off and found Mary and Joseph, and the baby, who was lying in the manger.17 When they had seen him, they spread the word concerning what had been told them about this child,18 and all who heard it were amazed at what the shepherds said to them.19 But Mary treasured up all these things and pondered them in her heart. —Luke chapter 2
William Chatterton Dix (14 June 1837 – 9 September 1898)
In the year 1875, 29-year old William Dix of Glasgow was struck down with a mysterious and lingering disease. Until recently, Dix had lived a seemingly charmed life as a very successful young businessman. But now, months of pain, immobility and uncertainty had weighed down his spirits, and he entered the dark valley of depression. Yet he found he was not alone in that valley. In time, he saw, as it were, a single shaft of light piercing the dark clouds, and he called out to the God who gave that light. Though he had been a nominal Christian before, he met Christ, in his words, “in a new and real way”.
This attitude of worship led him to reflect with wonder on some things he had heard many times, but not sufficiently thought through. Among these was the manger scene describe in Luke chapter 2: the shepherds, in amazement at the angel’s birth announcement given to them, of all people, gathered around pondering what the meaning of this strange vision before them. He wrote a carol, which invites us to ponder along with the shepherds by asking two questions that never lose their ability to puzzle, even baffle, despite hearing the answers before many times. Indeed, the more we ponder, the more we wonder and worship.
What Child is this
Who laid to rest
On Mary’s lap is sleeping?
Whom Angels greet with anthems sweet,
While shepherds watch are keeping?
This, this is Christ the King,
Whom shepherds guard and Angels sing;
Haste, haste, to bring Him laud,
The Babe, the Son of Mary.
The first of those two questions is reflected in the first verse of the song, What Child is this? In many ways, this is the central question of human history. It is also the central question of our lives, no matter how we choose to answer it. What child is this? Just a fraud? A charlatan? At best a good, but deluded teacher? Or was He really, is he really, what the angelic anthem proclaimed?
The angels appeared to shepherds, and that fact alone could this fact alone evoke wonder, for it would be hard to find two more distant points on the scale of worth (in thinking of that day). Angels were high, mysterious and exalted – messengers from the very throne of God, the very heights of heaven. Shepherds were lowly, down to earth. Their profession was an honest one, to be sure, but with about the same status in their society as we would likely give a busboy or garbage collector. Perhaps we are already sensing the wonder that the one who is higher than all angels would become lower than a common shepherd, indeed die a criminal’s death, in order to make shepherds higher than angels.
And these messengers from heaven give their birth announcement not to Caesar in Rome, or even Herod in Jerusalem, but to lowly shepherds, keeping watch over their flocks by night. They describe this child with three words: savior,Christ, and Lord.
A savior is simply someone who saves someone else. By this time in Jewish thought the word conjured up a mighty warrior who would save the people from the domination of their Roman oppressors. But of course, these angels had a deeper, and broader, idea of salvation.
The word Christ is simply the Greek way of saying the Hebrew word, Messiah. It meant “the anointed One” and, though occasionally applied to kings, who were anointed with oil, representing the Holy Spirit, again by this time it meant more. The Messiah was the savior, but also the one who would not only defeat the enemies of God’s people, but the one who would set up and rule over the everlasting kingdom, when all the nations would live in peace and fullness.
The third title given to this child is the Lord. This is likewise a word of authority, broader and more generic that the Jewish words Christ or Messiah. Though the shepherds doubtless did not understand it yet, this child would later be revealed to be Lord not just of the Jewish people, but over all people, and, indeed, all creation.
So the chorus of our carol rightly answers the question: this is Christ the King, the savior of all people, the promised One who would build an everlasting Kingdom of peace, justice, and love.
If so, then we see how appropriate is the question asked in the next verse of the song. Why lies he here in such mean estate?
Why lies He in such mean estate,
Where ox and ass are feeding?
Good Christians, fear, for sinners here
The silent Word is pleading.
Nails, spear shall pierce Him through,
The cross be borne for me, for you.
Hail, hail the Word made flesh,
The Babe, the Son of Mary.
That phrase may take some explaining today. To us, meanness is a moral quality, and not a good one. But the older meaning of the word is something lowly, insignificant, or even off-putting. “Such mean estate” refers to the puzzlement that this high, exalted being should be born in a stable (instead of a palace), and clothed with rags (instead of royal robes), and placed in a feed trough (instead of a bed of ivory). And why are ox and ass the ones gathered around, instead of the court philosophers and nobles?
Why indeed?
The answer lies in the titles already given. He is savior, not from the Roman armies, but from something much deeper, much more brutal, and much more universal: our sin. He saves us both from the slavery of sin, and the punishment of sin. This is why is nails and spear pierce Him through, so the “cross be borne for me, for you”.
Because of this, He is fully Christ or Messiah in a most paradoxical way. He brings about the kingdom of peace not by force, but by suffering. He brings about the kingdom of justice by taking the injustice of the cross for us. He brings about the kingdom of love by showing what true love really is, and does.
Therefore, He is also Lord or King, but his kingdom is not like the kingdoms of this world. It is a kingdom of love (giving of oneself to meet the true needs of the other). Jesus can only form this kind of Kingdom by Himself giving the ultimate price to meet our deepest needs: to be forgiven, to be re-united to God, to be in union with God ( and thereby with each other).
By the very nature of this kingdom, then, it cannot be forced upon anyone, just a true marriage must begin with the consent of both parties. For though it is in one sense a kingdom, it is also a marriage, a family, a realm where love, not force, is the both the language and currency.
So Jesus comes not in His rightful glory, but in his needful humility. He comes not to force us into a prison walled off by his power, but to knock down the walls of the prison house of this world, and invite us outside into the realm of freedom. And this He can only do from the inside. And so He became one of us, humbling himself to be like us in our weakness, in our “mean estate”.
So bring Him incense, gold and myrrh,
Come peasant, king to own Him;
The King of kings salvation brings,
Let loving hearts enthrone Him.
Raise, raise a song on high,
The virgin sings her lullaby.
Joy, joy for Christ is born,
The Babe, the Son of Mary.
These are the two questions asked by the first two verses of this song: what child is this, and why lies he here in such mean estate? The third question is implied by the answer given in the third verse. The question is this: What do we do after looking at this scene anew? We see the shepherds crouching around the feeding trough; we hear them relate the message from heaven about who this boy is. We see, through the very meanness of the scene, what kind of savior, messiah and King is lying here. What do we do?
The first thing is that we, like Mary, ponder anew what all this means. We don’t just turn from the scene and forget it likes yesterday’s newspapers, but fold it into the deepest recesses of our heart, and take it out again and again to meditate upon it.
Practically speaking, this might mean singing this carol, or other carols, with your family (f you have one) this advent season. It could mean putting away our shiny screens after some hour in the evening, and reading from a hymnal or from the scripture. It might mean intentionally looking for a way to spread the Kingdom of love and peace and justice by giving to someone in need, by giving or working for justice, by forgiving and seeking to restore a relationship. This is what it means to ponder and wonder.
As we ponder, there is one other word that comes to mind: Come. Or, as the angels said to the shepherds, come to Bethlehem to see the Christ-child. The carol puts it like this: come, peasant or king, to own Him; that is, to embrace Him as your own. He is the great king, but the king of love, not force. You must choose to enthrone Him in your heart and life.
Perhaps that means for you coming to the savior for the salvation from your sins. Perhaps that means coming to the Messiah, the Christ, living in the hope of His coming kingdom. Perhaps that means coming to Him as king by making a deeper commitment that this child is the one you honor to in your decisions and values; this child, not all the powerful people, not the idols of our age, is the one you desire to exalt and emulate and make King over your life.
If so, then we can sing that first chorus not as an abstract truth, but also as a very personal choice, filled with wonder and worship: This, this is Christ my King, whom shepherds guard and Angels sing; I will haste, haste, to bring Him laud, the Babe, the Son of Mary.
Tomorrow, we begin a brand, spanking new church year. This calls for champagne! For mimosas! For blintzes! For cinnamon rolls! For brie! That’s right — this calls for monks to come together and have BRUNCH! Welcome to The Saturday Monks Brunch at Internet Monk!
• • •
THIS GUY COULDN’T WAIT FOR BRUNCH
WEST COLUMBIA, S.C. (WIS) – A South Carolina man out for a midnight snack took matters into his own hands at Waffle House.
Alex Bowen tells WIS-TV he couldn’t sleep, was hungry and slightly drunk, when he went to the restaurant early Thursday. But when he arrived, there were no other customers in sight – and no employee, either.
After waiting about 10 minutes for someone to show up, Bowen went outside to look around. When he still couldn’t find anyone to take – or make – his order, he got on the grill himself.
“Walked back in and waited a few more minutes and then it was go time,” Bowen laughed.
He documented the adventure on his Facebook page, after he found the lone employee on duty asleep at a table and snapped a picture.
From there, Bowen took selfies of himself behind the restaurant’s counter, frying bacon and stacking pickles on a slice of bread for what he said was a “double Texas bacon cheesesteak melt with extra pickles.”
Not one to be a rude guest, Bowen said when he was done, he “cleaned the grill, collected my ill-gotten sandwich and rolled on out.”
• • •
DON’T TRY THIS AT HOME…PLEASE!
The city of Cohoes, NY, is not celebrating today. John Gomes of Cohoes was trying to bend metal in an attempt to imitate the History Channel television series “Forged in Fire” when he started a barrel fire in his backyard that quickly spread. As a result, three city blocks were engulfed in smoke and flames.
Mayor Shawn Morse said, “We often tell people we don’t allow open burns in the city and they often say, ‘What’s the worst that could happen?’ Well, this open burn just caused millions of dollars of damage and destroyed half our downtown.”
There is a reason people on TV say, “Don’t try this at home.”
Oh, and also, by the way, when getting your Christmas tree, don’t take it home like this Massachusetts family tried to do:
For the past year, ProPublica has been documenting the state of toxic pollution left behind by the military across the U.S. As part of this investigation, we acquired a dataset of all facilities that the Department of Defense considers contaminated. Today we used the data to publish an interactive news application called Bombs in Your Backyard. Here’s how you can use it to find hazardous sites near you — and what, if anything, is being done to remedy the pollution.
The data, which has never been released before, comes from the Defense Environmental Restoration Program, which the DOD administers to measure and document cleanup efforts at current and former military locations.
• • •
AND WE DIDN’T KNOW MATT LAUER WAS A JERK?
The only evidence we needed was this cringe-worthy interview with Sandra Bullock…
• • •
SAY IT AIN’T SO!
Closer to home — to my home, at least — are the allegations that Garrison Keillor committed “inappropriate behavior,” leading to Minnesota Public Radio washing their hands of the radio icon.
On Wednesday, Minnesota Public Radio announced it was severing all ties to Garrison Keillor, citing allegations of “inappropriate behavior” toward a co-worker when he was producing the show. The station will stop distributing old episodes of “A Prairie Home Companion” featuring Keillor, who retired from hosting duties a year ago. And it will rename his show, which is now fronted by bluegrass musician Chris Thile. American Public Media, MPR’s parent organization, will end distribution and broadcast of “The Writer’s Almanac,” a short daily spot featuring poetry and literary tidbits. Within a day, Keillor’s decades-long radio career has been effectively scrubbed from the public square.
The details of what prompted the dramatic announcement remain murky, and Keillor’s own statements have only added to the confusion. “I put my hand on a woman’s bare back,” he told the Minneapolis Star Tribune. “I meant to pat her back after she told me about her unhappiness and her shirt was open and my hand went up it about six inches. She recoiled. I apologized. I sent her an email of apology later and she replied that she had forgiven me and not to think about it. We were friends. We continued to be friendly right up until her lawyer called.” In a later statement, Keillor referred to “the two employees who made the allegations.” More information is forthcoming, presumably.
Prairie Home Companion has been part of my life since the late 1970s and The Writer’s Almanac is a daily dose of poetic respite in a world of banal, noisy prose. You can have a thousand Matt Lauers, but I for one am going to struggle not hearing Garrison’s voice each day.
• • •
HEY, HEY, HEY!
Jay Leno used to have a recurring bit when he asked the question, “Just how fat are we getting here in America?” followed by some new indication of our national penchant for gluttony and bad taste in food. Well, here’s a study from Harvard that puts out some alarming numbers in answer to Leno’s query.
The U.S.’s obesity problem is set to get much worse, according to new Harvard research that simulates future obesity rates for those Americans who are currently children.
…The new research took data from five earlier studies about actual American children and adults’ height and weight, and simulated growth trajectories in order to project where today’s kids were likely to end up by the age of 35.
The results showed that 57.3% of today’s kids, up to the age of 19, will be obese by the age of 35. Of those, around half will become (or already be) obese during childhood, and half will become obese later on.
Maybe we’ll cut back on the brunch a bit, huh?
• • •
A BLOW TO CHARITABLE DEDUCTIONS?
Some have raised an alarm that the GOP tax reform bill will have a serious negative impact on charitable giving in the U.S. Here is a statement urging Congress not to pass the tax bill from three leading organizations representing foundations and charitable nonprofits:
The charitable nonprofit and foundation communities stand united in opposition to the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act and, in the strongest possible terms, urge a “NO” vote on the bill. The current legislation damages the civic infrastructure upon which our communities depend, and hurts the people that we serve.
We collectively represent tens of thousands of charitable and philanthropic organizations that employ millions of individuals in every state, engage tens of millions of additional individuals who serve as board members and other volunteers, and touch the lives of virtually every American every day. For 100 years, federal tax policy has incentivized this giving spirit and empowered this crucial work. Our overriding concern, and that of our member organizations, is the impact of both versions of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act on the people and communities we serve. On the basis of securing a sound future, maintaining our ability to serve as dedicated problem solvers in our communities, and the ability of the sector to secure resources to perform necessary work, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act is fatally flawed.
The goal of simplifying the tax code and making it easier for Americans to file their taxes is admirable, but the collateral damage this simplification would cause is too great a cost. According to Republican estimates, nearly doubling the standard deduction would result in only five percent of taxpayers itemizing their tax deductions — placing the charitable deduction out of the reach for 95 percent of taxpayers. As a result, experts calculate that the absence of this powerful incentive for such a vast majority of taxpayers would reduce giving by $13 – $20 billion every year. It is regrettable that neither chamber has recognized the simple solution to this issue: a universal charitable deduction that would extend an incentive to give to all taxpayers, not just the very few who would itemize.
A decrease in giving of this scale would force charitable nonprofits to make significant cuts to their operations—meaning that millions of people will no longer have access to the services that nonprofits are currently able to offer. Economists also estimate a loss of 220,000 to 264,000 jobs in the nonprofit sector as a result of the cuts that will be necessary for many charities to keep their doors open. A bill that is designed to create jobs shouldn’t be taking away the jobs of almost a quarter of a million Americans who are trying to help others.
• • •
WISHING YOU A BLESSED, HEALTHY ADVENT
• • •
MUSIC FOR ADVENT/CHRISTMAS I
On Facebook, John Rutter is hosting a 2017 Advent Calendar, with a wonderful choral song of the season each day. Here is the first carol, from Friday, December 1: the Ralph Vaughn Williams arrangement of “This Is the Truth Sent From Above.” Check it out each day for another selection designed to prepare your heart for Christ’s coming.
A Thought at the End of Ordinary Time from Wendell Berry
I know I am getting old and I say so,
but I don’t think of myself as an old man.
I think of myself as a young man
with unforeseen debilities. Time is neither
young nor old, but simply new, always
counting, the only apocalypse. And the clouds
–no mere measure or geometry, no cubism,
can account for clouds or, satisfactorily, for bodies.
There is no science for this, or art either.
Even the old body is new — who has known it
before? — and no sooner new than gone, to be
replaced by a body yet older and again new.
The clouds are rarely absent from our sky
over this humid valley, and there is a sycamore
that I watch as, growing on the riverbank,
it forecloses the horizon, like the years
of an old man. And you, who are as old
almost as I am, I love as I have loved you
young, except that, old, I am astonished
at such a possibility, and am duly grateful.
The story of the Galileo affair has become the primary symbol of the popular understanding of the relationship between science and religion, known as the “conflict” or “warfare” model. The picture is of ignorant, superstitious religious leaders armed only with their Bible verses versus the lone astronomer equipped with his telescope and scientific evidence. In this chapter, Denis sets out to show this is too simplistic and not historically accurate. Of course Denis is pursuing an agenda; that the current origin debate is a recycling of the Galileo affair with only the scientific question being different—evolutionary biology instead of astronomy. Are the modern Christians who do not accept evolution like the church leaders who rejected the notion that the earth circled the sun?
Copernicus
The theory that the sun was the center of the universe was first proposed by Nicholas Copernicus in his 1543 book On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres. Galileo accepted Copernicus’ theory and popularized it in the early seventeenth century. One popular misconception was that the Catholic Church believed that the earth was flat. That was not true as every astronomer in the seventeenth century realized the earth was a sphere. The Greeks had, many centuries earlier figured out the earth was a sphere. They were a sea-faring people and they noted that a masted ship, as it sailed away not only got smaller but appeared to go down. The only way it could go down was because the sea was curved. So the sea was curved, and if the sea was curved that could only mean the earth was curved. Eratosthenes, a Greek philosopher who lived in Alexandria around 250B.C. made a calculation of the circumference that was surprisingly accurate.
Galileo believed the Bible was the inspired Word of God and that God was also revealed in nature. In his letter to the Grand Duchess, he writes:
Galileo
“For the Holy Scripture and nature derive equally from the Godhead, the former as the dictation of the Holy Spirit and the latter as the most obedient executrix of God’s orders.”
Galileo upheld the supremacy of scripture over science when dealing with theological issues.
“I have no doubt at all that, where human reason cannot reach, and where consequently one cannot have a science, but only opinion and faith, it is appropriately piously to conform absolutely to the literal meaning of scripture.”
With regard to matters dealing with science and the physical world, Galileo defends the priority of nature over scripture. He writes:
“I think that in disputes about natural phenomena one must begin not with the authority of scriptural passages but with sensory experience and necessary demonstrations.”
Galileo argued that the Creator gave us a mind so we could practice science”
“I do not think one has to believe that the same God who has given us our senses, language, and intellect would want us to set aside the use of these… Indeed, who wants the human mind put to death?”
Galileo had a well-honed insight into how the Book of Nature plays a role in understanding the Book of Scripture. Twice in his Letters to the Duchess he states that scientific information assists in biblical interpretation:
“Indeed, after becoming certain of some physical conclusions, we should use these as very appropriate aids to the correct interpretation of scripture…” And again, ”It would be proper to ascertain the facts first, so that they could guide us in finding the true meaning of Scripture.”
Although Galileo asserted the inerrancy of scripture, he noted that doesn’t mean our interpretations of scripture are inerrant.
“Though the Scripture was inspired by the Holy Spirit… we cannot assert with certainty that all interpretations speak by divine inspiration”.
Galileo also believed that God never intended to disclose scientific facts in the Bible. In his letter to Benedetto Castelli, he argues:
“If the first sacred writers had been thinking of persuading the people about the arrangement and the movements of the heavenly bodies, they would not have treated of them so sparsely.”
Even though Galileo firmly rejected the belief that the Bible was a source of scientific information, he recognized that there were “sciences discussed in Scripture” and noted that they were “the current opinion of those times”. He added that the Bible speaks “incidentally of the earth, water, sun, or other created thing” since these are “not at all pertinent to the primary purpose of the Holy Writ, that is, to the worship of God and the salvation of souls.” He believed in the principle of accommodation:
“… propositions dictated by the Holy Spirit were expressed by the sacred writers in such a way as to accommodate the capacities of the very unrefined and undisciplined masses.
If you know the actual history of Galileo’s conflict with the church you know that he himself precipitated much of it by his prideful arrogance and insulting manner towards his opponents. Pope Urban the VIII had been a friend of Galileo and had advised him to be careful and include arguments for and against the idea presumably so a reasonable person could decide for themselves. These arguments should include things the Pope himself had said supporting the dogma so as to lend them weight. In that era such arguments were presented by characters having a dialog representing the sides being argued. Well one of the characters in Galileo’s book was named Simplicio which has a connotation of simpleton or idiot in Italian. And that is the character that said the Pope’s words. That was a foolish move that threw the weight of church politics against Galileo and towards his enemies.
Nevertheless, those opposing Galileo and Copernicus’ theory were very much “scientific concordists”. From the trial of Galileo:
“We pronounce this Our final sentence: We pronounce, judge, and declare, that you, the said Galileo . . . have rendered yourself vehemently suspected by this Holy Office of heresy, that is, of having believed and held the doctrine (which is false and contrary to the Holy and Divine Scriptures) that the sun is the center of the world, and that it does not move from east to west, and that the earth does move, and is not the center of the world; also, that an opinion can be held and supported as probable, after it has been declared and finally decreed contrary to the Holy Scripture…”
So from Denis’ perspective, the modern origins controversy is a recycling of the Galileo affair with the scientific issue being biological evolution instead of astronomy. The conflict in Galileo’s day was not between the facts of science and the foundational beliefs of Christianity. It was caused by the misguided assumption of the Catholic hierarchy that scientific concordism is a feature of scripture. Denis says:
The central lesson we should draw from the Galileo affair is that every time the Bible is used as a book of science, the results will be disastrous for both modern science and out faith. If Christians today continue to read the biblical accounts of origins as scientific records of how God actually created the universe and life, we will only repeat the embarrassing mistakes of the church with Galileo. And worse, we will become stumbling blocks to those who the evolutionary evidence and are seeking the Lord (2Cor 6:3).
Of course, YECs cannot abide the “Galileo principle” as a critique of concordism, as Denis is advocating. Answers in Genesis states in their article about the Galileo affair:
The 17th century controversy between Galileo and the Vatican is examined. Fifteen theses are advanced, with supporting evidence, to show that the Galileo affair cannot serve as an argument for any position on the relation of religion and science. Contrary to legend, both Galileo and the Copernican system were well regarded by church officials. Galileo was the victim of his own arrogance, the envy of his colleagues and the politics of Pope Urban VIII. He was not accused of criticizing the Bible, but disobeying a papal decree.
Once again, note how disingenuity is employed. Galileo was a victim of his own arrogance, true enough. But he was most certainly accused of not taking the scriptures literally, as the above transcript from his trial shows. And the idea that scripture contains ancient science, which Galileo most certainly believed and argued for, has to be denied in order to maintain the YEC hermeneutic. And hermeneutics, that is to say, interpretation, is the main issue that can never be admitted.
In this post I will share my opinion, stating my opinion that sharing opinions is overrated.
And I will publish it on a blog dedicated to giving people a forum for sharing their opinions.
So there.
As a young minister, I soon learned the truth of a quip that someone — I think it might have been Vance Havner — once made. He said that when people start complaining that the church ought to do something about a matter, they usually mean the pastor ought to say something.
For many Christians, words equal deeds.
Our measure of faithfulness is often described as “taking a stand” for one’s faith or for the right position on some issue. That means being willing to speak up and tell the truth, to take a public stand by saying something when you might be tempted to remain silent. If someone does that, he or she is considered a strong, vibrant follower of Jesus.
I don’t claim to know about other people around the world, but this seems to me to be another one of those peculiarly American characteristics with regard to how we think we should live out our faith. It is part of our personality. We are, by and large, an opinionated, outspoken people. And so we view Christian living through this lens. Christianity is about truth. Christian living means telling the truth. Boldly. Directly. Without shame. As we discussed in a recent post, Christians are constantly being told, “The most loving thing you can do is tell the truth.”
This has become our standard for faithful Christian living. The believer who speaks up for truth and right is the one we honor. The current climate, dominated by 24-hour news, Facebook and other social media, and other means of instant communication, has only exacerbated the tendency to equate words — even knee-jerk, disembodied words over a computer screen — with being upright and devoted to the Lord.
We’re not just talking about preachers here. Certainly many expect this from the pulpit. In fact, a large number of folks don’t even consider preaching to have occurred if sin is not strongly condemned, the moral evils of our culture excoriated, and strong opinions about one’s interpretation of doctrine advanced. But the same parishioners who endure the preachy preachers are are also being challenged themselves to be verbally engaged in the battle for truth. Witness. Testify. Say so. Tell the truth. Talk the talk. Take a stand. Be bold. Be unashamed. Open your mouth wide, and the Lord will fill it.
Overdone and overrated.
Certainly what we speak, and how we speak, and when we speak is an important part of our lives and our faith. The “Gospel” itself is an announcement to be proclaimed, discussed, explained, and shared in appropriate ways at appropriate times. The prophetic tradition of which we are heirs was made up of men and women specially chosen to hear and speak God’s word of righteousness as they called Israel to return to the Law and covenant. Christians take truth seriously.
We also have to take our culture into account. In free lands of the world like the U.S., we are afforded rights of free expression unknown throughout most of history. Because of the very nature of our free society, we will have opportunities to speak more, and perhaps we should.
Nevertheless, I worry about this undue emphasis on verbal Christianity.
I’ve engaged with many who think my concern is misplaced. However, if someone argues that the world is not shy about getting its immoral and idolatrous messages out and therefore we should be redoubling our efforts to speak and speak often on behalf of righteousness, I would counter with the words of the Apostle Paul, who wrote, “For the kingdom of God depends not on talk but on power” (1Cor. 4:20).
In context, Paul was explaining to the Corinthians that the false teachers leading them astray were “all talk.” On the other hand, he had sent Timothy to them on a personal, pastoral visit, and soon Paul would coming himself. Then the congregants in Corinth would see the difference. Paul’s words and even his letters were not the ultimate measure of his ministry. It was the “power” of Christ in him that shone through his personal presence, his pastoral care, and his involvement in their lives that would prove the difference. That would certainly involve words, but so much more. In the passage, he describes himself as their spiritual “father” (4:14-16), a vocation that goes far beyond speaking — all the way to love.
Others will argue that they are not speaking “the opinions of people” but the Word of God. They have chapter and verse to prove it. Please. Verbal-oriented Christianity so easily turns into opinionated Christianity.
“Speaking the truth” gets transformed into stating my opinion or interpretation of some “truth” or issue.
“Sharing the Gospel” becomes trying to persuade others of my doctrine and/or practice.
Those who “engage the culture” end up turning complex issues into simple black and white moral choices.
“Taking a stand” too often means not listening well to others and considering that any spirit of forbearance or compromise indicates surrender and defeat for God and his truth.
“Speaking up boldly” can indicate zeal without knowledge and the humility to own that what we don’t know far exceeds our current conclusions.
A Thought at the End of Ordinary Time
The Internet Monk Archives 