The Internet Monk Archives

How NOT to respond to unimaginable grief

How NOT to respond to unimaginable grief

Here we go again. The indestructible Society of Job’s Friends speaks out in the wake of the mass shooting in Sutherland.

This time the theologizing comes from Lutheran pastor Hans Feine at the Federalist. In the article Pastor Feine defends God against critics and cynics who charge that prayer is futile in the wake of such an act.

For example, Feine quotes one angry man who said, “They were in church. They had the prayers shot right out of them. Maybe try something else.”

Another critic excoriated someone who appealed to prayer in the wake of the shootings: “The murdered victims were in a church. If prayers did anything, they’d still be alive, you worthless sack of shit.”

The good pastor comments:

For those with little understanding of and less regard for the Christian faith, there may be no greater image of prayer’s futility than Christians being gunned down mid-supplication. But for those familiar with the Bible’s promises concerning prayer and violence, nothing could be further from the truth. When those saints of First Baptist Church were murdered yesterday, God wasn’t ignoring their prayers. He was answering them.

When Christians pray “deliver us from evil,” Feine says, one aspect of that is “we are asking God to deliver us out of this evil world and into his heavenly glory, where no violence, persecution, cruelty, or hatred will ever afflict us again.” Their prayers were answered.

He also appeals to the theology of the cross to explain how God accomplishes his sovereign will and delivers his children from evil:

Sometimes, his will is done by allowing temporal evil to be the means through which he delivers us from eternal evil. Despite the best (or, more accurately, the worst) intentions of the wicked against his children, God hoists them on their own petard by using their wickedness to give those children his victory, even as the wicked often mock the prayers of their prey.

…So when a madman with a rifle sought to persecute the faithful at First Baptist Church on Sunday morning, he failed. Just like those who put Christ to death, and just like those who have brought violence to believers in every generation, this man only succeeded in being the means through which God delivered his children from this evil world into an eternity of righteousness and peace.

Let me be the first to say that I agree with Pastor Feine on the substance of his post. This is solid Lutheran theology that gives, in my opinion, “right answers” in addressing this situation.

The problem is, it’s not the right time for right answers. If I were an ecclesiastical referee, I would throw a penalty flag and call a personal foul — unintentional pastoral misconduct. If I were a teacher grading Pastor Feine’s article, I would mark him down for failing to include the most essential elements of pastoral theology in his argument: silence, commiseration, and lament.

In fact, in my opinion, the comments he is responding to may have seemed disrespectful, ignorant of the scriptures, and evidence of lack of faith, but in fact I think they may be more appropriate and indeed (to use a word I don’t like), more biblical than Pastor Feine’s right answers.

Ask the people who wrote the majority of psalms in the Psalter. They penned lament songs in times of trouble, not theological defenses of God. The way these psalms are written exemplify some essential truths about facing the hardships and sometimes incomprehensible experiences of pain and suffering in this world —

these experiences hurt,
they hurt bad,
God seems absent and uncaring when we go through them,
and it takes time (maybe a long, long time) for us to struggle through these experiences and their aftermath before we are able to say, “Praise the Lord.”

Does no one really pay attention to the Psalms anymore?

Does no one read the book of Job and get the picture?

Where are the laments?

Why must we jump immediately to apologetics and theologizing?

Why do we think “answers” are the cure for what ails us?

The people who reacted by doubting or blaming God and discounting prayer’s efficacy were being human, expressing anguish, telling it exactly like it is when you feel the pain, the anger, the questions, the doubts. When you can’t wrap your mind around something so incomprehensibly devastating and destructive. When you feel like you are in the presence of actual evil that frightens the living daylights out of you. When your heart is utterly broken as you think about babies and pregnant mothers, senior citizens and young people, whole families, good, gentle, neighborly people being mown down by a deranged and violent man. When the terror of imagining what it must have been like in that church gives you a sense of existential dread that shakes you to your core. When, even in a church, God doesn’t seem to show up.

Pastor, please don’t come to me in the immediate aftermath of something so harrowing and try to give me answers.

Let me scream at God. Let me damn God. Let me cry my eyes out. Let me question God and complain to God and demand answers from God. Let me say in private and in public that God abandoned me, that God, who promised never to leave or forsake me did just that. Let me say that prayer is useless, that God is deaf or has refused to listen to me. That God doesn’t care about me. That maybe God doesn’t even really exist.

If you let me do these things, it will help me in my faith more than a whole library full of theologically correct answers.

Let me work through it, pastor. Be there with me when I want you to be, but be quiet. Just let me know you’re available. Let me come to church when I can and don’t worry or think I’m losing my faith if I can’t for awhile. When I do come, please understand if I don’t participate with much enthusiasm. You can pray for me, and have others pray for me, but don’t make a big deal about it, and accept the fact that I may not want to hear those prayers said aloud right now.

Consider me in rehab, and give me as much time as it takes to heal and adjust to a new normal.

And, please, don’t ever say or imply that this is something I will “get over.” That God’s promises and truths will make this okay. Life has forever changed and this will always be a part of me. Don’t forget that. And don’t forget that it hurts like hell.

I know you want God honored as God. Well, let me be a human being. Please.

Adam Palmer: Cain, Abel, and a Theology of the Table

Note from CM: I’m always happy when we can post something from our friend Adam Palmer. This is good stuff, folks.

• • •

CAIN, ABEL, AND A THEOLOGY OF THE TABLE
By Adam Palmer

Too much grief. I have so much, and have it so consistently, and I almost always have it because of our violent world. Because someone shot someone else, or a group of people, or a church filled with people, or a school filled with people, or an outdoor concert venue filled with people, or a middle-Eastern city filled with people, or…

“This is nothing new,” say those who have gorged themselves lethargic on cynicism. “Oh, and you’re surprised by this?” they say. “Try reading history.”

Of course it isn’t new. The only thing new about it is our technological advances that allow for more rapid death and more rapid dissemination of news about that rapid death.

Darren Aronofsky’s film Noah vividly depicts the beginnings of human-on-human violence within the story of Cain and Abel. For a heart-stopping and spellbinding 27 seconds in the midst of a creation narrative, he shows us the silhouetted brothers, one violently smashing the life out of the other, the sun low on the horizon. Sunrise on violence? Sunset on peace? Perhaps both. The silhouettes blinkingly shuffle form through every kind of pre-firearm soldier imaginable.

•

The meaning is clear: when we enact violence against one another, we are reenacting the first violence found in the story of Cain and Abel.

No, of course it isn’t new.

In the story of Cain and Abel we see a sin that is the first of its kind. Adam and Eve sinned against God; Cain sins against his own brother. And it was because of a sacrificial rejection.

Abel brought a lamb and was accepted. Cain brought the harvest of the field and was rejected—and turned that rejection into the first act of violence recorded in scripture.

“Same as it ever was,” say the cynics, and in my lesser moments, I count myself among their number. It’s tough to hold on to hope in the face of the incessant cycle. Pragmatism defeats idealism. The repeated cries of “There’s nothing we can do” outshout hope.

But pragmatism doesn’t belong in Christianity. Jesus was an idealist. In the Christian church, we shouldn’t calculate our chances and make expedient choices. We believe in forgiveness of sin and in redemption and in actual resurrection. These are outlandish claims and, for the Christian, foundational and non-negotiable. They are our hope.

And so I turn to the Table every week and find a hope that lies buried in the story of Cain and Abel.

In the bread and the wine I see the body and blood of Christ. The Sacrificial Lamb. Abel’s sacrifice presented to the Lord

In the bread and the wine I also see the fruit of the harvest. Grain and grape. Cain’s crops presented to the Lord.

At the Communion table are both the brothers’ sacrifices, brought together. In the bread and the wine I see both the harvest and the lamb. Both Cain and Abel. The two brothers, reunited. The enmity between them—between all of us—forever healed, yesterday, today, and forever. At the table, violence is put to death and resurrected as peace.

At the table I lay down my pragmatism, my cynicism, my weary despair, my extended sighs of “This is how it’s always been and how it always will be” and Jesus redeems them and resurrects them as hope. He resurrects Cain and Abel from their sin-forced estrangement and binds them back into fraternal bonds.

The grief is too much. But with it, hope.

Selah.

“This world is ruled by violence”

Democracy don’t rule the world
You’d better get that in your head
This world is ruled by violence
But I guess that’s better left unsaid

• Bob Dylan

• • •

The Bible has a lot more to say about violence and its devastating effects upon the human race than it does about other sins, such as sexual misbehavior. “Now the earth was corrupt in God’s sight, and the earth was filled with violence,” the Flood story begins. The one story in our faith that talks about God’s judgment in universal terms blames it on violence. Many Jews have read the murderous story of Cain and Abel, rather than that of Adam and Eve as the account of humankind’s original sin. It’s hard to find a page in the Hebrew prophets that doesn’t decry violence vividly.

The very first moral danger the wise teacher in Proverbs warns the young against is this:

My child, if sinners entice you,
do not consent.
If they say, ‘Come with us, let us lie in wait for blood;
let us wantonly ambush the innocent;
like Sheol let us swallow them alive
and whole, like those who go down to the Pit.
We shall find all kinds of costly things;
we shall fill our houses with booty.
Throw in your lot among us;
we will all have one purse’—
my child, do not walk in their way,
keep your foot from their paths;
for their feet run to evil,
and they hurry to shed blood.

• Proverbs 1:10-16

Why isn’t this kind of wisdom teaching, this moral instruction, chapter one, front and center, instead of the fluff we continue to publish in our anemic, insubstantial “discipleship” manuals?

Why, my fellow Christians in the United States of America, are we not out of our minds with grief, anger, lament, and a commitment to repent and change our ways when it comes to violence in our land? Why is this not right at the top of our agenda when speaking out on public issues and working for the common good?

Yet another case has occurred where someone walked into a church — a church, mind you, a place where the Gospel of the Prince of Peace is proclaimed — and mowed down people with an assault rifle. 26 are dead as of this writing.

As of this moment, we don’t know why. I’m not sure it matters in the end. What matters is what we do know: the U.S. is tragically exceptional when it comes to these mass shootings. We have more of them more often and with more deadly results than anywhere else in the world. And those are just the spectacular cases. Research published in the American Journal of Medicine found that Americans are 25 times more likely to be killed by firearms than people in other developed countries. Among developed countries, the U.S. stands out in violence, and particularly in this kind of violence. Even though we are in a period when the murder rate is nearly half of what it was in 1980, our prisons are still full and we are subjected to reports of violent incidents day in and day out.

Maybe more than anything else, we ought to just own up. America is the most violent country in the developed world. We thrive on it. We feast on it as entertainment. We can’t turn away from it on the news. It is part of our DNA that has been honed and developed through every stage of our nation’s history. We are not a peace-loving people. We want to dominate, control, and have our way in the world. Go ahead, offer me reasons why that’s a good thing and how bad the alternative would be if the U.S. weren’t such a superpower, forcing its will around the globe. Maybe. All I know is that this approach has made us crave power on a level that would shame Attila the Hun. And it’s a mindset that infects us all, whether we realize it or not, in big ways and small. Just watch the way people drive around your city, how they rage through the streets. We are a fiercely independent and selfish people, who take umbrage at the smallest slight and put up our dukes whenever we think we’ve been dissed.

Of course we’re not all mass shooters. But there’s a continuum here, and given enough freedom, access to weapons, and mental strain, who’s to say what any of us might do?

There are no “answers.” I happen to advocate common sense gun reforms, and I seriously cannot believe organizations like the NRA keep important research institutions like the Centers for Disease Control from studying gun violence as a public health threat — that it is is surely the most obvious fact in our nation. But “gun control,” as sane and common sense as some of it might be, won’t cure us of corrupt and violent hearts. Nor will some of the conservative answers — like more guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens — do anything but continue to ramp up the violence. Both sides in this debate cling to myths, and the biggest one of all is that the leopard has the ability to change its spots. That doesn’t mean I think we should stop working to prevent violence, I’m just saying the problem is bigger than any political solution and we simply haven’t faced up to that. I am violent. You are violent. This world is ruled by violence.

But where in hell (literally) is the church? Why shouldn’t we be in the front lines of peacemaking when it comes to actively promoting sane remedies for the violence in our communities? Don’t we owe love like this to one another and to our neighbors? Conservatives abhor the violence of abortion, but are deadly silent when it comes to the slaughter chronicled each day in the news. Progressives detest the oppression of and violence against marginalized people, but have used tactics in the culture wars that can only be described as tribal and warlike.

Here are the thoughts of Wendell Berry on this subject, and I’m thinking of re-running them every time we have a significant event of violence that takes over the news. His point is that we’re simply not invested in doing anything to change the status quo. Not only do we not know the answers, we really don’t want to know them, because our entire social, political, and economic life is based upon violence and how it profits us.

This cheapening of life, and the violence that inevitably accompanies it, is surely the dominant theme of our time. The ease and quickness with which we resort to violence would be astounding if it were not conventional. …Each new resort to violence enlarges the argument against our species, and the task of hope becomes harder.

…The event in _________ is not unique or rare or surprising or in any way new. It is only another transaction in the commerce of violence: the unending, the not foreseeably endable, exchange of an eye for an eye, with customary justifications on every side, in which we fully participate; and beyond that, it is our willingness to destroy anything, any place, or anybody standing between us and whatever we are “manifestly destined” to have.

We congratulate ourselves perpetually upon our Civil War by which the slaves were, in a manner of speaking, “freed.” We forget, if we have ever learned, that the same army that “freed the slaves” established for us the “right” of military violence against a civilian population, and then acted upon that “right” by a war of extermination against the native people of the West. Nobody who knows our history, from the “Indian wars” to our contemporary foreign wars of “homeland defense,” should find anything unusual in the massacre of civilians and their children.

It is not possible for us to reduce the value of life, including human life, to nothing only to suit our own convenience or our own perceived need. By making this reduction for ourselves, we make it for everybody and anybody, even for our enemies, even for the maniacs whose enemies are schoolchildren or spectators at a marathon.

We forget also that violence is so securely founded among us— in war, in forms of land use, in various methods of economic “growth” and “development”— because it is immensely profitable. People do not become wealthy by treating one another or the world kindly and with respect. Do we not need to remember this? Do we have a single eminent leader who would dare to remind us?

…The solution, many times more complex and difficult, would be to go beyond our ideas, obviously insane, of war as the way to peace and of permanent damage to the ecosphere as the way to wealth. Actually to help our suffering of one man-made horror after another, we would have to revise radically our understanding of economic life, of community life, of work, and of pleasure. We employ thousands of scientists and spend billions of dollars to reduce matter to its smallest particles and to search for farther stars. How many scientists and how many dollars are devoted to harmony between economy and ecology, or to amity and lenity in the face of hatred and killing? To learn to meet our needs without continuous violence against one another and our only world would require an immense intellectual and practical effort, requiring the help of every human being perhaps to the end of human time.

This would be work worthy of the name “human.” It would be fascinating and lovely.

From “The Commerce of Violence” (2013)
In Our Only World: Ten Essays

Sermon & Cantata of the Week: November 5, 2017 (All Saints)

(Click picture for larger image)

• • •

For All Saints Sunday

Today, we hear a cantata admirably suited for this Sunday, on which many churches commemorate the faithful departed. Bach’s cantata BWV 26, “Ach wie Flüchtig, ach wie nichtig” (Ah, how fleeting, ah, how fading), takes its theme from the Gospel account of Jesus raising Jairus’s daughter (Matthew 9:18-26).

As Simon Crouch explains, the subject of human mortality is not considered with a somber tone, however.

Listening to this fine chorale cantata without paying much attention to the words may give you the impression that this is a very joyful piece. However, this is a meditation on the Gospel story, reflecting on the fleeting nature of human existence. The subject is dealt with by the music, not with gloom and resignation but with the knowledge that redemption is the goal of human existence, rather than the pursuit of Mammon here on Earth.

Ah how fleeting, ah how insubstantial
is man’s life!
As a mist soon arises
and soon also vanishes again,
so is our life, see!

❦

Sermon: When the Saints Come Marching Home (1Thessalonians 4:13-18)

Prayer of the Day
Almighty God, you have knit your people together in one communion in the mystical body of your Son, Jesus Christ our Lord. Grant us grace to follow your blessed saints in lives of faith and commitment, and to know the inexpressible joys you have prepared for those who love you, through Jesus Christ, our Savior and Lord, who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God, now and forever.

During the final weeks of Ordinary Time this year we are considering teachings from Paul’s first letter to the Thessalonians. We are linking these teachings with the emphases of Martin Luther and other reformers during the Protestant Reformation.

Two weeks ago we talked about the principle of CONVERSION. Conversion signifies that Christians are people who are always and ever being converted, or changed, by God. If we are true Reformation believers, we are always changing, always growing, always dying to the old life and being raised to walk in new life with Christ.

Last week, our special Reformation commemoration focused on the principle of REVELATION. God has spoken to us in his Word, and that Word has been communicated most fully in the person of his Son, Jesus Christ. Last week I read one of Luther’s actual sermons, urging the people not to put themselves under new rules and laws, but to let God’s Word change their hearts and lead them to true freedom.

Today, on All Saints Sunday, we look at a third Reformation principle, that of RESURRECTION. We’re going to skip ahead just a little bit in the text of 1 Thessalonians and look at a passage in chapter 4 that is most fitting for this day when we remember the faithful departed: 1 Thess 4.13-18, where Paul writes

But we do not want you to be uninformed, brothers and sisters, about those who have died, so that you may not grieve as others do who have no hope. For since we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so, through Jesus, God will bring with him those who have died. For this we declare to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will by no means precede those who have died. For the Lord himself, with a cry of command, with the archangel’s call and with the sound of God’s trumpet, will descend from heaven, and the dead in Christ will rise first. Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up in the clouds together with them to meet the Lord in the air; and so we will be with the Lord for ever. Therefore encourage one another with these words.

Each week in the Creed we confess that Jesus will come again to judge the living and the dead. We also believe in the communion of saints, the resurrection, and the life everlasting. Christians are not simply people who are justified by faith. Christians are not just people whose faith works itself out in love. We are also people who have HOPE — what the book of Hebrews calls, “hope — a sure and steadfast anchor of the soul.” We are people with a future in a world where all will be made new.

We have hope that those who leave this life through death still live and are now being cared for by God. Also, as the hymn says, we who are still on our journey through this life have “mystic sweet communion with those whose rest is won,” and this communion of saints strengthens our hope. Furthermore, we have hope that one day God will raise the bodies of those who sleep in the grave and they will be made new and whole again along with all creation. Jesus promised us, “Because I live, you will live also.” He also said, “I am the resurrection and the life; the one who believes in me will live even if he dies, and the one who lives and believes in me will never die.”

This is what Paul writes about in 1 Thess 4.13-18.

Paul’s friends in Thessalonica had some questions about those in their congregation who had died. They were obviously sad and mourning their deaths, but they also weren’t sure what their future would be when Jesus comes back. So in this section of the letter, Paul gives them a picture of what it will be like in terms that they would understand from their own culture.

In the Roman empire, sometimes an important government official or leader or perhaps even the Emperor himself would visit a city to strengthen ties with the citizens there. This was called an Adventus. Do you recognize that word? We have a season in the Church Year called “Advent,” in which we look forward to Christ’s coming.

An Adventus was like a royal parade. Preparations would be extensive, and when the time came the honorable dignitary who was visiting would approach the city with his impressive delegation. The leaders of the city, along with specially chosen greeters would go out of the city gates, beyond its walls, and welcome the eminent person and his entourage with great ceremony, then they would escort them in a royal parade back into the city. The citizens of the city would also come out and line the way, celebrating the entrance of their esteemed guest.

Paul uses this scenario to describe what will happen when Jesus, our risen King, reappears to bring ultimate peace and justice to this world. The dead in Christ will be raised, and they will be the first people, the specially honored and designated people to greet and escort the King. Then, those who are still alive at that time, Paul says, will be transformed and join them in the royal parade to celebrate Jesus’ coming to reign. Paul uses striking imagery, much of which comes from the OT — loud cries of victory, trumpets sounding, angels singing — to describe a scene that is magnificent. Heaven is going to come to earth, Paul is saying. The King will reappear among us to rule. And not only will we get to experience that, but the very first thing that will happen is that those who have died will be raised and will join Jesus as honored guests to welcome him.

Paul tells us this, he says in the text, so that we will not grieve as people who have no hope. We will grieve, yes. But we are not hopeless. We need not utterly despair.

Listen very carefully here. Paul does not say that Christians don’t grieve. He does not say that Christians have an easy time or an easier time than any other person when it comes to losing a loved one. Death always breaks close and loving connections, and that tearing apart hurts and sometimes even cripples us. Just because we have faith in Jesus doesn’t mean we get to skip out on being human and suffering what all other human beings experience. Don’t let anybody tell you it does. Life can hurt you — bad.

However, in Christ there is also an element of hope. There is reason to go on. There is reason to keep going. There’s a great parade planned, and you and your loved one who has passed on will be there together. There is something to look forward to. It’s not going to be like they used to say in Narnia, “Always winter and never Christmas.” Today, All Saints Sunday is a day we remember that. We not only honor the faithful departed, but also look forward to the great family holiday party that is coming.

I know well as a hospice chaplain that some days knowing these things doesn’t even take the edge off the pain of your sadness and sense of loss. But it’s real, it’s the very promise of God himself, and it is a handle you can grasp to keep from despairing.

Those names we said out loud this morning? Do you know what we were doing? We were reciting the names of the honored guests who will be specially chosen for recognition at that parade and at that party. They will be first to be raised. The first to greet Jesus. The first to escort him toward his throne. And we who live will be caught up with them in the great celebration with shouts and trumpets and angels’ voices.

May we, as Paul says, encourage each other with these words. Amen.

The IM Saturday Brunch: Nov 4, 2017 — Fall Back Edition

THE INTERNET MONK SATURDAY BRUNCH

”It is talk-compelling. It puts you in a good temper, it makes you satisfied with yourself and your fellow beings, it sweeps away the worries and cobwebs of the week.”

It’s the weekend during which most Americans and others in countries around the Northern Hemisphere set their clocks back one hour. Why in the world would we do that? Here’s a little background from TimeandDate.com:

Daylight Saving Time (DST) is the practice of setting the clocks forward 1 hour from standard time during the summer months, and back again in the fall, in order to make better use of natural daylight.

US inventor and politician Benjamin Franklin first proposed the concept of DST in 1784, but modern Daylight Saving Time was first suggested in 1895. At that time, George Vernon Hudson, an entomologist from New Zealand, presented a proposal for a 2-hour daylight saving shift.

When Germany switched to DST on April 30, 1916 for the first time, it became the first country in the world to use DST on a national level. However, the town of Thunder Bay in Ontario, Canada implemented DST already in 1908.

Less than 40% of the countries in the world use DST. Some countries use it to make better use of the natural daylight in the evenings. The difference in light is most noticeable in the areas at a certain distance from Earth’s equator. Some studies show that DST could lead to fewer road accidents and injuries by supplying more daylight during the hours more people use the roads. Other studies claim that people’s health might suffer due to DST changes. DST is also used to reduce the amount of energy needed for artificial lighting during the evening hours. However, many studies disagree about DST’s energy savings, and while some studies show a positive outcome, others do not.

In the Southern Hemisphere (south of the equator) the participating countries usually start the DST period in September-November and end DST in March-April.

UPDATE: For more DST fun and information, read this lively and illuminating article in the Washington Post: “Termination of chaos”: How daylight saving solved America’s clock craziness.

• • •

CONGRATS TO THE WORLD CHAMPION ASTROS!

Now there’s a phrase that’s never been uttered before. The Houston Astros won the first World Series championship in their 56 years of existence, defeating the Los Angeles Dodgers four games to three.

George Springer was voted the Series MVP. Springer matched Reggie Jackson (1977) and Chase Utley (2009) by hitting five home runs in one World Series. Springer also had 29 total bases in the World Series, breaking the record of 25 shared by Willie Stargell (1979) and Jackson. Springer also passed Stargell for the most extra-base hits in a World Series with seven, becoming the first player to have had at least one extra-base hit in six straight World Series games.

Not only is this great because it’s Houston’s first title, but in the light of all the city has been through this year, it’s nice that they get a little bit of joy through this win.

My Chicago Cubs sent the Astros 40 pizzas as congratulations for winning the World Series. It’s become a tradition that the previous year’s champion sends the new champion pizza.

And now the long dark night of life with no baseball begins…

• • •

REFORMATION 500

Joint Statement by the Lutheran World Federation and the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity on the conclusion of the year of the common commemoration of the Reformation, 31st October 2017

(Click the link to read the entire statement. Here’s an excerpt:)

On 31st of October 2017, the final day of the year of the common ecumenical Commemoration of the Reformation, we are very thankful for the spiritual and theological gifts received through the Reformation, a commemoration that we have shared together and with our ecumenical partners globally. Likewise, we begged forgiveness for our failures and for the ways in which Christians have wounded the Body of the Lord and offended each other during the five hundred years since the beginning of the Reformation until today.

We, Lutherans and Catholics, are profoundly grateful for the ecumenical journey that we have travelled together during the last fifty years. This pilgrimage, sustained by our common prayer, worship and ecumenical dialogue, has resulted in the removal of prejudices, the increase of mutual understanding and the identification of decisive theological agreements. In the face of so many blessings along the way, we raise our hearts in praise of the Triune God for the mercy we receive.

…We rejoice that the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification, solemnly signed by the Lutheran World Federation and the Roman Catholic Church in 1999, has also been signed by the World Methodist Council in 2006 and, during this Commemoration Year of the Reformation, by the World Communion of Reformed Churches. On this very day it is being welcomed and received by the Anglican Communion at a solemn ceremony in Westminster Abbey. On this basis our Christian communions can build an ever closer bond of spiritual consensus and common witness in the service of the Gospel.

…Looking forward, we commit ourselves to continue our journey together, guided by God’s Spirit, towards the greater unity according to the will of our Lord Jesus Christ. With God’s help we intend to discern in a prayerful manner our understanding on Church, Eucharist and Ministry, seeking a substantial consensus so as to overcome remaining differences between us. With deep joy and gratitude we trust “that He who has begun a good work in [us] will complete it until the day of Jesus Christ” (Ph1:6).

• • •

MIGHT BE AN INTERESTING READ…

CT took a look at a book that might prove interesting to iMonk readers: Lincoln A. Mullen’s The Chance of Salvation: A History of Conversion in America.

According to the review, Mullen claims “that conversion is not unique to evangelicalism. Instead, he argues, it is perhaps ‘the defining feature of what American religions had in common.’”

Furthermore,

The fact that there was such “variety of conversions” in the United States actually helped create a shared understanding of religion—that religion is something you choose, as opposed to something you inherit. This freedom to choose, however, implied an obligation. The book speaks of “obligatory religious choice” or the “burden to choose.” As Mullen states it: “…in the United States, people not only may pick their religion, they must.”

However, this led to an ironic outcome:

But here’s the irony: While forced choice may have helped create a more religious United States, it simultaneously made the country more secular. To support this argument, Mullen borrows from Charles Taylor’s A Secular Age (2007), which distinguishes between different kinds of secularity. One kind of secularity is when a society moves from having an unchallenged belief in God to regarding this belief as one option among many. The widespread attention given to conversion in the United States made it impossible for people to ignore religious options (thereby making them more religious). But it also made people more aware of the fact that options existed (thereby making them more secular).

Sounds like we ought to be exploring this here on the blog soon.

• • •

IS THE WORLD GETTING MORE DANGEROUS?

Sweden’s Civil Contingencies Agency thinks so. And, according to their calculations, they don’t have enough nuclear shelters to protect their population from an attack.

They only have 65,000 such shelters. That’s right: the country currently has 65,000 shelters with space for seven million people in the event of an attack.

According to a Swedish news website,

Sweden’s shelters are housed in residential buildings, office blocks, and some more unusual locations. They are designed to protect residents from “all weapons that could be used”, according to the MSB, including shock waves and shrapnel as vapor deposition, biological weapons, fire, and ionizing radiation.

The Agency’s report recommends that more bunkers with space to shelter 50,000 additional people should be built over the next twelve years. Also, many of the existing shelters need to be refurbished. These efforts are in addition to other actions by Sweden, such as reintroducing military conscription this year, and stationing a permanent military force on Gotland, a strategic location in the Baltics.

• • •

SOME STRANGE NEWS STORIES FROM THE WEEK…

On Halloween, Oskar Frankenstein was born in Florida to Kyle and Jessica Frankenstein.

Max Crocombe, goalkeeper for Salford City, was sent off the field in their match against Bradford Park Avenue. Why? He urinated on the field in the middle of the game.

In Utqiagvik, Alaska last week, workers had to figure out how to remove a 450-pound bearded seal off an airport runway.

Sam Adams released their beer Utopia that costs $199 per bottle, boasts an alcohol content of 28%, and is illegal in 12 U.S. states. (Maybe that’s what Max Crocombe was drinking.)

A kung fu master in China broke a Guinness World Record when he used his bare hands to smash 302 walnuts in 55 seconds.

• • •

ALL SAINTS, ALL SOULS, ALL SKULLS

This week the Church marked All Saints and All Souls days (some traditions will commemorate the dead this Sunday). Here’s a chapel in Portugal where you can worship among the visible remains of the “great cloud of witnesses” every day of the year.

Constructed by Franciscan monks in the 16th century, the Chapel of Bones in Evora will get one’s attention about human mortality like nothing else.

The Chapel’s story is a familiar one. By the 16th century, there were as many as 43 cemeteries in and around Évora that were taking up valuable land. Not wanting to condemn the souls of the people buried there, the monks decided to build the Chapel and relocate the bones.

However, rather than interring the bones behind closed doors, the monks, who were concerned about society’s values at the time, thought it best to put them on display. They thought this would provide Évora, a town noted for its wealth in the early 1600s, with a helpful place to meditate on the transience of material things in the undeniable presence of death. This is made clear by the thought-provoking message above the chapel door: “Nós ossos que aqui estamos, pelos vossos esperamos,” or: “We bones, are here, waiting for yours.”

About 5,000 corpses are interred in the chapel. In a small white coffin by the altar, the bones of the three Franciscan monks who founded the church in the 13th century rest. Two corpses hang by chains from the wall next to a cross, one of them a child.

A poem on one of the pillars addresses pilgrims and urges them to take what they see to heart. It says, in part:

Recall how many have passed from this world
Reflect on your similar end
There is good reason to reflect
If only all did the same

• • •

TONIGHT: JOHN GORKA

Tonight one of our regular folk series that we’ve enjoyed here in Indianapolis will be holding their final concert, and they’re bringing back one of our very favorite singer-songwriters, the remarkable John Gorka.

In anticipation, I present you with a taste — my all-time favorite Gorka meditation…

iMonk Classic: What Is Heaven?

Heaven: An interesting topic. Basically, I think we look at it entirely backwards, and really, the Matrix and Capon on Genesis have been extremely helpful to my own thoughts. I am not looking forward to going there. I think I am there.

The idea that there is a place where God “is” as opposed to God filling the universe itself always and everywhere with his glory is problematic. In fact, creation existing in any way actually separate from the existence of God is problematic. C.S. Lewis said that Hinduism was far more appealing that atheism for that very reason. It makes more sense to say that God=all things than it does to speak of God separate from all things in any sort of spacial-temporal way. “In Him we live, and move and have our being” is about as profound a Biblical statement as I know of. I don’t believe the universe=God, but I also do not believe the universe is anything short of “filled” with the “fullness” of God and his glory at all times. God is transcendent and imminent, not removed or at a distance.

Therefore, the idea of heaven as a place “up there” or “over there on planet Q” is nonsensical in many ways. Far more likely to me is that we are constantly in the presence of God, constantly surrounded by spiritual “beings,” constantly surrounded by a “great cloud of witnesses” because we are about as much “in heaven” as we can be…..two matters being excepted.

1) We exist in a physical plane that limits and restricts our awareness of reality. Before sin, this affected us less than it does after sin, but the physical universe is not identical with the fullness of God’s glory. That glory is mediated through it and is never separate from it, but physical existence- especially as mediated through the senses, the body, etc, is always a restriction of our participation in the full dimension of God’s presence and existence. (I believe this limitation will still be there in the new creation, and is a basic difference between God and any creature in any form.)

2) Sin has perverted our awareness of God and reality to the manner of self-centered, blind existence we currently live in. Though the glory and presence of God are everywhere, we are blinded to it by our fallen condition. At times that glory and reality creeps in around the edges, but we are utterly opposed to accepting it. This does change with conversion, and eventually, with glorification, as the effects of sin are removed. (Sin is, basically, a way of thinking and seeing reality.)

3) Therefore, “heaven” to me is a return to the full experience and awareness of God that surrounds us always. This happens in three ways: 1) Salvation, 2) death and 3) resurrection/new creation.
When Denise’s Uncle Ben died, I believe he lost the limitation that separated him from much of the enjoyment of God’s presence. Suddenly, he was with the Lord. As a Christian, I think he entered into an intimate experience of that fullness through the life of Christ, and now sees us as those who are actually “dead/dying” while he is fully alive in the Lord’s presence. In the coming resurrection and new creation, I think he will enter into a physical existence in the fullness of God’s presence here on earth, like the existence of Adam before sin.

So think about the last chapter of Screwtape, where the patient dies and suddenly God’s presence is immediately revealed for him in this world. “Oh…it was you all along.” The barrier falls away, and the truth is revealed. We were the ones who did not/could not see. We don’t “go somewhere,” because it’s all right here. Now. People don’t go away. They become fully alive in the present, unlike this shadowy existence.

When scripture talks about heaven, it talks in the language scripture uses. Pictures. Poetry. Cultural understanding. Please put away the physics books. (Who are these people literally calculating the dimensions of the New Jerusalem? Good grief.) It’s great stuff, but it’s communicating with us on a level different than literal.

Jesus is the traveler from reality to the shadow. He takes on the limitations of the flesh but lives fully in the presence of God. He says the Kingdom of God is here. Now. With him. With us. We are in it. If we believe in him, we never die. I believe that completely. I think when we “die,” it is death that falls away and we simply “fall” into the resurrection of Jesus, whose life allows our disembodied existence to continue until resurrection again gives us a spacial and temporal existence. If we follow him, to death and beyond, we are right there all the time.

Two thoughts. Some of the paranormal is the bleedover from this situation. I am convinced of that. And “Field of Dreams” had it almost perfectly right. The door is in the cornfield.

Evolution: Scripture and Nature say Yes! Chapter 4- Intelligent Design and the Book of God’s Works

Evolution: Scripture and Nature Say Yes! Chapter 4- Intelligent Design and the Book of God’s Works

By Denis O. Lamoureux

Denis begins this chapter by reminding readers he does not hold to the view of design called “Intelligent Design Theory”. He says ID Theorists, for the most part, reject evolution and claim that God intervened miraculously to put design in living organisms. He notes the leading ID Theorist is Michael Behe, whom formulated the idea of “irreducible complexity” in his book Darwin’s Black Box . Behe’s most famous illustration was the bacterial flagellum, which he asserted was too complex to arise as an integrated unit in one fell swoop and had to be created fully formed.

Behe’s use of the flagellum is a classic case of “God of the Gaps”, the view that there can be a gap in nature where only God could have intervened. If you google “debunking irreducible complexity” you can get a nice line-up of articles and videos, for example, this Ken Miller video from his lectures on the Kitzmiller trial, that pretty thoroughly debunks irreducible complexity. “God of the Gaps” has a very poor track record and every single case in the history of science has shown that there is a gap in knowledge regarding how natural processes work. It’s a poor strategy for Christians to adopt as an apologetic.

The Kitzmiller v. Dover trial mentioned above, to those of you unfamiliar with it, was the high-water mark of the Intelligent Design Theory movement. In October 2004, the Dover Area School District of York County, Pennsylvania, changed its biology teaching curriculum to require that intelligent design be presented as an alternative to evolution theory. Eleven parents of students in Dover, York County, Pennsylvania, near the city of York, sued the Dover Area School District over the school board requirement that a statement presenting intelligent design as “an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin’s view” was to be read aloud in ninth-grade science classes when evolution was taught. It was a bench trial before Judge John E. Jones III, a Republican appointed in 2002 by George W. Bush. The judge ruled that Intelligent Design Theory was a religious viewpoint and could not be taught as science. Which is true and it was revealed that the ID Theorists were being disingenuous by trying to say it was only about science. This disingenuity was demonstrated by the discovery of the “Wedge Document”, a public relations campaign meant to sway the opinion of the public, popular media, charitable funding agencies, and public policy makers by pretending to be only about science and not at all about Christianity, nudge-nudge-wink-wink-know-what-I-mean-say-no-more-know-what-I-mean. Disingenuity by Christians (aka lying-for-Jesus) is a very poor strategy that is guaranteed to backfire. No one, nowhere, is ever convinced of the truth of Christianity by Christians being disingenuous. Can I get an AMEN!

As Denis noted in the previous chapter, intelligent design is not a scientific theory, it is a religious belief and metaphysical concept that is the belief that beauty, complexity, and functionality in nature point toward an Intelligent Designer. Denis asserts there are two types of divine revelation.

Special Revelation is specific revelation from God that is given to men and women, the nation of Israel, and the Christian church. The greatest act of divine revelation is when God became man in the person of Jesus so we could know him personally and experience his love for us. Biblical revelation is a subset of special revelation that means the Bible contains the very words of God. General revelation is experienced by all men and women, religious or not. This divine disclosure offers a broad outline of God’s attributes and is non-verbal. Natural revelation is a form of general revelation and deals with intelligent design in nature. The creation points to the existence of God and declares His glory (Psalm 19:1).

Christians have traditionally held the two views, often expressed as “Two Books” as illustrated in Denis’ Figure 4-2. Psalm 19 is the classic example of the Bible asserting natural revelation. Psalm 19 uses the ancient understanding of the structure of the world, the “firmament”, the “ends of the world”, the heavens structured like a tent with a flat floor and domed canopy, the daily movement of the sun rising at one end and making its circuit to the other, to illustrate the central spiritual truth that God reveals Himself through his creation. Knowing the actual structure of the world is not essential for believing in intelligent design. The biblical notion of design focuses on the belief that nature reflects design, and not on how the actual world is structured or how it operates. Likewise Romans 1:18-23 affirms the reality of natural revelation and intelligent design. Paul uses a bit of rhetoric to say that the divine disclosure is so obvious that “men are without excuse” if they don’t recognize it. But despite the rhetoric, Denis asserts that one’s spiritual state influences one’s belief in intelligent design. He says:

“The reciprocal arrows of Figure 4-3 represent the two-way exchange of information between the religious/philosophical belief in intelligent design and the scientific discoveries in nature. This interchange of ideas occurs with interpretation of design, including those that reject design… This approach is presuppositional in that it begins with the assumption that intelligent design exists, and then it views the creation through this lens to discover reflections of design in nature. I call this way of reasoning the “argument from to design to nature”.

Denis emphasizes that this a faith claim that (Hebrews 11:3) “by faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.”

Any discussion of evidence for design in nature will have to deal with Richard Dawkins book, “The Blind Watchmaker”, and Denis does so. Here is what he says:

Richard Dawkins is obsessed with design in nature. He wrote a 350 page book attempting to write off intelligent design as an illusion in our minds. It is odd that any atheist would take so much time and effort to do so. But maybe Dawkins hears the ‘voice’ of a non-verbal divine revelation in the physical world, and as an atheist he needs to find a way to justify his rejection of its clear message.

The Blind Watchmaker is a reference to William Paley (July 1743 – 25 May 1805) who was an English clergyman, Christian apologist, philosopher, and utilitarian. He is best known for his natural theology exposition of the teleological argument for the existence of God in his work Natural Theology or Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity, which made use of the watchmaker analogy. Paley said:

Let’s say you’re walking around and you find a watch on the ground. As you examine it, you marvel at the intricately complex interweaving of its parts, a means to an end. Surely you wouldn’t think this marvel would have come about by itself. The watch must have a maker. Just as the watch has such complex means to an end, so does nature to a much greater extent. Just look at the complexity of the human eye. Thus we must conclude that nature has a maker too!

The Scottish philosopher and famous skeptic, David Hume (1711-1776) supposedly demolished Paley’s argument, and Dawkins borrows from Hume’s arguments. I say supposedly because the argument still, to this day, rages on with either side confidently asserting they have mastered the other. Denis notes that we are entirely accustomed to the idea that complex elegance is an indicator of premeditated crafted design, as have most people throughout history.

First and foremost, Denis notes that Dawkins admits that nature powefully impacts everyone, including himself. He confesses that “complex elegance” hits him so hard that it creates a “problem” that needs to be explained (away). Second, Dawkins acknowledges that this experience in nature leads to the notion of God’s existence, and that nearly everyone throughout history has understood that message. Its almost as if he understands the message in nature of declaring the reality of a creator must be destroyed in order for him to maintain his hard atheism.

Third, Dawkins agrees that artistic and engineered features in the world are an “indicator of premeditated crafted design”. Note that these “feats” of engineering” and “works of art” are non-verbal. Dawkins also sees a balance between these characteristics as evident with his use of the terms “elegant efficiency” and “complex elegance”. This means it also includes beauty. God is just not a Supreme Engineer; he is also a Cosmic Artist.

Finally, Dawkins rejects intelligent design; believing it is nothing but appearance. Design is merely an illusion in the minds of most people. Dawkins then concludes, “It is almost as if the human brain were specifically designed to misunderstand Darwinism (atheistic evolution) and find it hard to believe.” From the Christian’s perspective, the Creator HAS gifted us with a brain to see design and when considering the atheistic position conclude it could never be true.

In other words, you say reality only appears to be designed…

I say it is apparent reality is designed…

You like potato and I like potahto, You like tomato and I like tomahto; Potato, potahto, tomato, tomahto! Let’s call the whole thing off!

But oh! If we call the whole thing off, Then we must part. And oh! If we ever part, Then that might break my heart! (George and Ira Gershwin, 1937)

So lets not part and break my heart… lets argue instead. First of all, Christians, lets be brutally honest and admit to all the facts. There is plenty in nature that seems poorly, even badly designed. Here is a talk origins page that lists a number of nature’s jury-rigging, including the giraffe’s neck and the panda’s thumb. And much of nature seems random; the whole issue of theodicy is basically an argument post-fact excusing God’s so-called hiddeness. Well, why should we make excuses for God, let him show up and defend himself. The vastness of the universe, most of it cold, inhospital swirling dust and gas, eventually headed for an even colder heat death and the end of everything. It makes belief in God’s design just whistling past the graveyard.

And Atheists, if everything is ultimately purposeless and meaningless, then why are YOU showing up to argue at all. It’s all just sound and fury signifying nothing. Who are you trying to convince, but more importantly WHY are you trying to convince anyone of anything?

Well, enough of the prelimnaries… LETS GET IT ON!!! C’mon Klasie, J, Robert F on a bad day, BRING IT!!

But before you bring it, just remember… on my side I have:

Remember, you don’t want to make me mad, you won’t like me when I’m mad

Reformation 500: Some Ways We Get the Reformation Wrong

Getting the Reformation Wrong: Correcting Some Misunderstandings
by James R. Payton, Jr.
IVP Academic, 2010

* * *

Originally posted on Reformation Day, 2013

Dr. James R. Payton, Jr. is a professor of history at Redeemer University College in Ancaster, Ontario. He grew up in an evangelical home and went to a Christian college, but says that he knew next to nothing about church history. It wasn’t until early graduate studies that he became aware of and hooked on the subject. After serving as a pastor in Presbyterian and Christian Reformed congregations, he became a history prof, focusing on the Reformation.

In that role, he realized that Christian teaching about the Reformation lagged behind the scholarship that has expanded exponentially in the last century.

The result is that, however well intentioned, much of what is presented in churches and Christian colleges offers viewpoints and interpretations that have been weighed in the balances and found wanting by careful Reformation-era scholarship.

Payton finds that what is presented to Christians often “gets the Reformation wrong” in several ways. In this post, I will simply list the ways he says this happens so that we can see the big picture and have a conversation about this pivotal period of our history.

1. “One way in which some people get the Reformation wrong is by overlooking or neglecting its historical rootedness.”

Payton discusses the “intense, ongoing, multifaceted crises” throughout all aspects of life and society that marked the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries and how the Catholic Church, the mainstay of Western Christendom, proved incapable of alleviating those crises. Anticlericalism and calls for reform were pervasive long before Luther.

2. “One sure way to get the Reformation wrong is to misunderstand its relationship to the Renaissance that preceded it.”

A standard way of presenting the development of Western civilization, thought, and religion is to say that the Renaissance and the Reformation were two rival, competing ways of responding to the corrupt medieval Church. The earlier Renaissance is portrayed as a human-centered movement that turned away from God and prepared a path for the Enlightenment, whereas the Reformation was God-centered, a movement that called humans to profound humility before a transcendent Deity. Payton calls this “a great schematic but lousy history.” The fact is that the Reformation could not have happened without the Renaissance. In fact, it grew organically out of the Christian Humanism that the Renaissance produced. As the author affirms, “To the Reformation, the Renaissance was friend, not foe.”

3. Another way of getting the Reformation wrong is to think that, when Luther came on the scene, the insights of the Reformation were immediately apparent and proclaimed, presenting people with a clear choice between truth and error.

James Payton counters this by saying, “However, what actually transpired in the sixteenth century was not nearly as clean and neat as this myth, in all its variations, assumes; the reality was actually quite messy. Rather than initially advancing by sure understanding, the Reformation was carried along by misunderstandings.” Luther’s own thought developed, and the people to whom he spoke were not blank slates but had their own thoughts and issues with which they were dealing. Payton describes the reality vividly, “German society jumped on the reforming horse and galloped off in all directions at once.”

4. Add to this the significant disagreements and competing views of the various Reformers, and any neat conception of “THE” Reformation is profoundly challenged.

So Payton: “Neither Luther nor his Christian humanist associates desired conflict. All of them hoped that truth would prevail and all would agree. However, they differed in significant ways as to what that truth was, what it required, how to implement it and how to defend it. None of them wanted the conflict, but they disagreed on how to deal with it and overcome it.”

5. We get the Reformation wrong when we think the Reformers taught that “sola fide” means “solitary faith” — without any connection to “good works.”

James Payton strongly criticizes forms of extreme fideism that have blossomed particularly since the advent of revivalism, with its emphasis on “the moment of decision” that seals everything. “This calls people to rely on a spiritual birth certificate to know they are alive; the Reformers called them to live.”

6. “What much of Protestantism thinks the Reformers taught about religious authority is a significant misrepresentation of what they actually taught.”

Many Protestant Christians have a simplistic “Bible good, tradition bad” frame of reference that James R. Payton charges “trivializes the Reformers’ views on religious authority.” About their actual views he says: “For the Reformers, sola scriptura found its boundaries in the faithful teaching of the church fathers, the ancient creeds and the doctrinal decrees of the ecumenical councils.”

7. We have misunderstood the role of the “Anabaptists.”

Those who have been considered part of the “Radical” Reformation had significant differences among themselves as well as with those who comprised the “Magisterial” Reformation. Because they were significantly at odds with both religious and societal conventions in the sixteenth century, they were lumped together as “radicals” and viewed as equally dangerous. They have often been “tarred with the same brush,” Payton observes, and there remains much work to be done in understanding these groups and their legacy.

8. We get the Reformation wrong when we imagine that the Protestant Reformation was the only reforming movement within the Roman Catholic Church.

Reformation scholars note that four movements of reform in the Church antedated the Protestant Reformation: (1) northern Christian humanism, (2) Spanish clerical reforms, (3) Italian confraternities, and (4) the rigorist movement that called the church back to scholastic theology. Also, the so-called “Counter-Reformation” was not merely a response to Protestantism, but a serious and wide-ranging effort toward renewing the Church itself. It produced such stalwarts as Ignatius Loyola and the Jesuits as well as a renewed papacy. The Council of Trent was not only a doctrinal council but included such thoroughgoing reforms in Church life that the popes themselves feared its impact.

9. We get the Reformation wrong when we do not carefully recognize the differences between the Reformers and the later Protestant scholastics who constructed theological systems to articulate the Protestant faith.

Payton argues that the Reformers’ successors “rushed to adopt scholastic methodology and Aristotelian reason” in the context of the Enlightenment, and that this led to real differences between their teaching and that of the Reformers in terms of content, methods, and emphases. The author makes a simple contrast to summarize the distinctions: “With the hymn-writer, the Reformers would sing, ‘I know whom I have believed,’ while the Protestant scholastics would rewrite that line to sing, ‘I know what I have believed.'”

* * *

To conclude his book, James R. Payton asks two questions:

Was the Reformation a success?
Is the Reformation a norm?

In the end, he thinks we must view this momentous period of Church History as both triumph and tragedy. As for whether it was a “golden age” that should serve as a template for future generations (including ours), Payton notes that the Reformers themselves mourned the faithlessness of their own generation to live up to the ideals of the patristic Church, which they saw as a brighter era of Christian faith and practice.

One thing is for sure. The Reformers would not be happy with how ignorant most Christians are concerning Church History, especially the foundational teachings of the Fathers, the creeds, and the church councils. Given the resources we have today, the paucity of our knowledge and wisdom would likely shock and disturb them. In fact, it is likely that they would think today’s Church in need of thorough Reformation.

Thanks to Dr. Payton, we have a source that enables us to think a bit more deeply and clearly about our heritage, challenging not only our views of the past but also our present convictions and practices.

A Halloween Open Mic

A Halloween Open Mic

Some years ago, Michael Spencer posed an Open Mic question to the iMonk community: “Where in the Bible does it say Satan wants to take “souls” to hell?”

Today, in addition to that query, I’m pulling a few other questions out of Michael’s famous Halloween posts so that we can discuss them together today. Here they are:

Where in the Bible does it say Satan wants to take “souls” to hell?
How did those great, fun, harmless, safe, nostalgic, exciting, slightly scary and completely un-demonic Halloweens of the past that many Christians enjoyed get turned into a complete rejection of Halloween and a growing body of evangelical taboos about the occult?
How can anyone, particularly one who says they believe in the resurrection of Jesus from the dead, believe that mummies and werewolves and ghosts and witches hold any spiritual or actual power?
How has the faith and the church suffered from what Michael called “the escalating attacks of religious people on the realm of the imagination”?
How do you respond to the following commentary by Michael Spencer on such fundamentalist takes on Halloween as “Hell Houses”? — “But a person cannot watch Hell House without seeing a bleak, pessimistic and ultimately apocalyptically distorted vision of Christianity. This is a community of believers who are shaped almost entirely by the manipulative authoritarian spirituality of pastors who seem to have never heard of the doctrine of creation, the Kingdom of God, the present Lordship of Jesus or the church as the living body of Christ. This is a vision of evangelicalism that is loading a plane for escape from this world as quickly as possible.”

Reformation 500: Is It Time for the Reformation to End? (Scott Lencke)

Note from CM: Sorry for the delay today. As the old song says, “Rainy days and Mondays always get me down.” Actually, my slowness to post has little to do with today but with an extraordinarily busy weekend with friends, at church, and with family. Not to mention very little sleep because of the fantastic October baseball being played in the World Series!

At any rate, Scott Lencke came to my rescue this morning, sending me this thought-provoking piece on the Reformation. Scott blogs at The Prodigal Thought, and when we are lucky enough to have him, he contributes here at IM.

. . .

Is It Time for the Reformation to End?
By Scott Lencke

In just a couple of days from now, on October 31st, the world will remember one of the most life-altering days in the history of the world. Yes, many will celebrate Halloween (and I’m good with that). But many will also remember this day of October 31st as it particularly relates to the year 1517. It was on this day in 1517 that Martin Luther nailed his 95 Theses to the door of the Castle Church in Wittenberg, Germany.

Luther’s actions began the movement that would later be identified as the Protestant Reformation. It is truly amazing to think it has been a full five hundred years since the Reformation was set in motion.

In particular, Luther’s 95 Theses were questions and propositions he desired to debate with the Roman Catholic Church, the religious power of the Western European world. It was Luther’s fresh reading of Romans 1:16-17 – particularly the verse, “The just [or righteous] shall live by faith.” – which led him to dispute many of the practices of the Roman Catholic magisterium, the church’s leadership that consisted of the Pope and his bishops.

There is little doubt that the Protestant Reformation was deeply needed. The oppressive power of the Roman Catholic Church – which was just as much a social, political and cultural as it was religious – stripped the general populace of any sense of God’s grace, forgiveness, love, generosity and kindness. Abuses were plentiful within the Church’s institutional system of merit and questionable practices in light of Scripture.

It was out of the Protestant Reformation that the reformers begin advocating the five solas:

Sola scriptura (by Scripture alone)
Sola fide (by Faith alone)
Sola gratia (by Grace alone)
Solus Christus (by Christ alone)
Soli Deo gloria (Glory to God alone)

One great point worth noting – one that is very rarely talked about – is how the Protestant Reformation has led to a slow and measured reformation within the Roman Catholic Church itself. I don’t so much speak of the counter-Reformation as identified with the Council of Trent (in the mid-1500s). Whew, that was a reactionary event that basically labeled all Protestants as heretics! Rather I speak of something unfolding over the past five hundred years since the Reformation, particularly summed up in the Second Vatican Council of the 1960s. I will also note that I believe more change is still needed within the Catholic Church.

In all of the good that truly came from the Reformation, there is a lot of bad to recognize as well. I originally thought of titling this article, “The Protestant Reformation: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly.”

So there is bad and there is also ugly.

What are some of the bad and ugly moments?

In all our efforts in championing the priesthood of all believers, summed up with the practicality of placing the Scriptures in the hands of all people for their own personal reading and interpretation, we have to consider how this has led to the thousands of denominations and church splinter groups worldwide. Matter of fact, in the 20th century, one might say continued and rapid splintering was foundational within the Protestant evangelical movement. Each new group had finally figured out what was the truest and most biblical version of Christianity as God had originally designed. Each one believed they inched ever closer to what we find in the book of Acts and the rest of the New Testament.

I know, I used to believe this. It was/is a bit naive. Somehow we knew better than 1900 years of Christians before us.

I now believe the church of old has more to teach us than the church of now.

Of course, I don’t believe we need retract the priesthood of all believers – though I would redirect it from our individualistic lens of the west. When Peter speaks of us being a “chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s special possession” (1 Pet 2:9), he speaks of a collective people with that people focused on the mission of God – “that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light.”

And I do believe, at its core, the church should have access to the study of Scripture. I would simply remind us that God has given some as apostles, some as prophets, some as evangelists, some as shepherds and teachers . . . (Eph 4:11).

Not only did the Protestant church become more and more fragmented, but it also learned the way of its predecessor. Whereas power once lay in the hands of the Roman Catholic Church, it was now shifting into the hands of the Protestant Church. This newly formed segment of Christianity desired its own expression of religious, social, political and cultural rule.

The Hugenot Wars and Thirty Year’s War saw millions of people perish (both Rome and Protestants are to be implicated in the evils of these wars). Not only that, but much of Protestant Christianity got wrapped up in colonialism. As western empires looked to expand their power into “new” lands, institutionalized Protestantism of the west was able to develop its own horizons. With such, we have the tragic realities of how Africans, Native Americans and the like were treated, many times in the name of Christ. Even more, in recent decades, the Protestant-evangelical church has found itself lagging behind (or worse!) in the defending the rights for African-Americans and women.

Part of our ugly Protestant history also includes our treatment of Roman Catholics. There have been plenty of Protestants and evangelicals who have marked out Rome as the Beast of Revelation and the Pope as the anti-christ. I remember when all Catholics used to be considered “unsaved.” Our disdain for this group is appalling. Thankfully much has changed these days (though there is still much work to be done).

In all, if we are honest, we have to admit the Reformation and it’s legacy is a mixed bag of good, bad and ugly. To deny such is, I believe, to deny history.

I am grateful to God for his mercy in the midst of our own brokenness and my hope is that the way toward healing and reconciliation is continually paved.

As we joined together with our church this morning, remembering what was begun by the great Luther those five centuries ago, I was freshly reflecting on the Reformation. I had actually been reflecting on some things for many days, knowing the anniversary was upon us. And as we worshipping this morning, a very clear comparative picture came to me.

The Bible recounts a story of an ancient people who in the land of the Chaldeans (the plain of Shinar) long ago. It’s a well-known story found in Genesis 11. We call it the Tower of Babel. Interestingly enough, we read that the whole world had one language, a common speech (11:1). With this background, we find that the people come together and make an astonishing declaration: “Come, let us build ourselves a city, with a tower that reaches to the heavens, so that we may make a name for ourselves; otherwise we will be scattered over the face of the whole earth” (11:4).

We know how things play out.

God confuses their language and what they had hoped would not happen did happen. The people were scattered over the earth (11:8-9).

Confusion. Division. Scattering.

And, so, when we come to the pages of the New Testament, particularly the festival of Pentecost as detailed in the book of Acts, we read an interesting account. “God-fearing Jews from every nation under heaven” had come together for this festival (2:5). It was an annual festival that would remember God’s giving of the law, the torah, at Mt. Sinai. Following the pouring out of the Spirit of God, we read “each one heard their own language being spoken” (2:6). You have people present from all over the then-known world and all of a sudden they hear folk speaking their own language seemingly at random.

Not your average festival, eh?

What many theologians see happening here is a reversal of the curse of Babel. Whereas the united people of Shinar became confused in language and, thusly, were scattered over the earth, we now find God’s people from every known nation of that time coming together and hearing “the wonders of God” in their own tongue. What a turn of events!

At Babel, unity was turned to disunity.

At Pentecost, disunity was turned to unity.

How does this relate to the Reformation?

What came to me this morning is this: The Reformation was truly needed five hundred years ago. It was needed religiously, socially, politically and culturally. It was a literal deliverance for the people of God from an oppressive system that had held a deep stronghold for approximately one thousand years.

To use the words of the Babel scene, a scattering was needed.

But, just as the famed Pentecost of Acts 2 reversed the disunity of Babel, forging a fresh togetherness in God’s people, so it is time for a reversal of the Reformation and it’s scattering, separatist trajectory.

For five hundred years we have watched the church splinter and splinter and splinter. Not only that, but we’ve found ways to form our own oppressive systems wherever we find our home.

It is now time for something better, for something new; it is now time for a reversal of the division that started on October 31, 1517.

As Stanley Hauerwas stated in a recent article in the Washington Post:

In short, the Reformation seemed to us to be “back there,” and I felt no need to defend Protestantism because it seldom occurred to me that being a Protestant was all that important or interesting. The antagonism of the past simply seemed no longer relevant. (bold mine)

Further along, he articulates:

That the Reformation has been a success, however, has put Protestantism in a crisis. Winning is dangerous — what do you do next? Do you return to Mother Church? It seems not: Instead, Protestantism has become an end in itself, even though it’s hard to explain from a Protestant point of view why it should exist. The result is denominationalism in which each Protestant church tries to be just different enough from other Protestant churches to attract an increasingly diminishing market share. It’s a dismaying circumstance.

Is it time for the Reformation to end?

In a sense, no. We remember it and remember the good that would unfold because of Martin Luther and his companions. And as many Protestants and evangelicals would remind us, we must always champion the call of Ecclesia semper reformanda est – “the church is always reforming.”

However, in a sense, it may be time for the Reformation to end. It may be time for something anew (or Great Emergence, as Phyllis Tickle calls it).

Why?

Because it’s time to put to bed the division; it’s time to end the casting out of Roman Catholics; it’s time to lay aside oppressive ways through the entanglement of our own religion, culture and politics.

In a sense, we need to move on from what our fathers and mothers handed us. There is a better way for today. That better way is a reversal of the curse of Babel, one that truly unifies, heals and reconciles. We need a new work of the Spirit to build the New Jerusalem that we read about in Scripture.