“Bach Cantata BWV 105 is one of his gigantic masterpieces” (Craig Smith). It is also a work that vividly describes the experience of Anfechtungenthat was so much a part of Martin Luther’s spiritual experience.
Historian David Steinmetz describes the terror which Luther experienced at these times as a fear that “God had turned his back on him once and for all,” abandoning him “to suffer the pains of hell.” Feeling “alone in the universe,” Luther “doubted his own faith, his own mission, and the goodness of God—doubts which, because they verged on blasphemy, drove him deeper and deeper” into despair. His prayers met a “wall of indifferent silence.” He experienced heart palpitations, crying spells and profuse sweating. He was convinced that he would die soon and go straight to hell. “For more than a week I was close to the gates of death and hell. I trembled in all my members. Christ was wholly lost. I was shaken by desperation and blasphemy of God.’” His faith was as if it had never been. He “despised himself and murmured against God.” Indeed, his friend Philip Melanchthon said that the terrors afflicting Luther became so severe that he almost died. The term “spiritual warfare” seems apt.
In a three-part article he wrote, Armstrong also reports the “dark night” experiences of C.S. Lewis and Mother Teresa in terms of Anfechtungen.
Today’s cantata, “Herr, gehe nicht ins Gericht mit deinem Knecht” (Lord, do not pass judgment on your servant), portrays this experience and coming through it by the word of the Gospel with musical brilliance and deep emotion.
CHORUS: Lord, do not go into court with your servant. For before you no living person is just.
ALTO: My God, do not reject me, while I bow in humility before you, from your face.
I know how great is your wrath and my crime, that you are at the same time a prompt witness and a just judge. I state my confession freely to you and do not throw myself into danger by denying, by concealing
the errors of my soul.
SOPRANO: How tremble and waver the sinners’ thoughts
while they bring accusations against each other and on the other hand dare to make excuses for themselves. In this way a troubled conscience is torn apart through its own torments.
BASS: But fortunate is the man who knows who is his guarantor, who sets aside his guilt. Then the sentence of condemnation is done away with, when Jesus moistens it with his blood. He himself fastens it to the cross He will of your goods, body and life, when your hour of death strikes, to the Father himself give over the account. Even though your body, that is carried to the grave, may be covered with sand and dust, your saviour opens for you the everlasting tabernacles.
TENOR: If only I make Jesus my friend, then Mammon has no value for me. I find no pleasure here in this vain world and earthly things.
CHORALE: Now I know you will quiet my conscience, that torments me Your faithfulness will fulfill what you have said yourself: that on this wide earth no one should be lost but should live for ever, if only he is full of faith.
Because this cantata describes a journey of the soul from darkness to light, I have included a recording of the entire work, so that you can experience the journey for yourself.
•
But I have also isolated a remarkable movement from this cantata — the soprano aria, “How tremble and waverthe sinners’ thoughts,” so that you can hear how skillfully Bach uses a musical setting to draw the listener into the experience of the Anfechtungen.
Craig Smith writes how “the soprano aria with strings and oboe but no bass instruments creates a world shaking with fear.”
This is a remarkable example of how Bach can get to the inner psychology of spiritual abandonment, while at the same time raising remarkable beauty from the ashes.
”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.”
SPECIAL NUCLEAR ANNIHILATION EDITION
The main news event of this week featuring (nuclear) warlike language from Washington and Pyongyang will dominate our Brunch discussion today. Not only because it’s what everyone is talking about, but also because this whole subject was a formative influence in my life and in the lives of many who read this blog. A person of my generation can’t hear the phrase “nuclear weapons” without experiencing a serious wave of dreadful nostalgia.
And it all started, kids, in what we used to call “The Cold War.”
Oh, what memories! Donald Trump and his followers have expressed their deep nostalgia for the days when America was great. I can only assume they are referring to the post-WWII era, when the U.S. had played a major role in saving the world from fascism and then her soldiers returned home to produce and enjoy the greatest prosperity boom in world history.
Oh yeah, those were the days, but there was also…the Cold War! That’s right, you know — US vs. USSR, the Red menace, the Berlin Wall and the Iron Curtain, Sputnik and the Space Race, the Cuba Missile Crisis, civil defense and espionage, etc., etc., etc.
And with all that — the threat of nuclear annihilation!
Those were, indeed, the good old days. But amid all the peace and prosperity, these were also times when we needed great wisdom and preparation, so our beneficent government promised to keep us safe by instructing us how to protect ourselves when “the fire and fury” of the atom bomb fell.
Remember?
• • •
And remember those fun school drills, performed to the piercing sound of air sirens? I know you boomers do.
Remember when people built personal nuclear fallout shelters to protect their families, and stocked them just in case?
• • •
Do you recall that this was the time when the Emergency Broadcast System was put in place?
• • •
Remember when this guy was encouraging us to look out for Commies everywhere? Remember the Red Scare? The House Un-American Activities Committee? Black lists? The FBI under the paranoid eye of J. Edgar Hoover?
• • •
Many people, especially on the right, thought there was a Communist conspiracy behind the Kennedy assassination, making JFK a “casualty of the Cold War.” After all, as the article states: “Lee Harvey Oswald, [was] a self-described Marxist, defector to the Soviet Union, and admirer of Fidel Castro.”
• • •
Some people knew that if we didn’t laugh a little, we’d cry a lot. As we reflect on that great era, how about we listen to one of the clever songs from the political comedy that sprang up back then?
• • •
Now, let’s take a peak inside the War Room, where nuclear attacks would be ordered, as the film Dr. Strangeloveportrayed it back then. In 1964, with the Cuba Missile Crisis fresh on our minds, the Cold War at its coldest, and prospect of the new and terrifying hydrogen bomb, Stanley Kubrick imagined this conversation in the War Room:
•
(By the way, I thought the line about “getting our hair mussed” was especially funny and relevant, given the current situation with these two guys and their great ‘dos:
• • •
Another popular film presented a more serious scenario, in an effort to question the sanity of considering nuclear war. This was 1964’s Fail Safe. Here’s Walter Matthau making the argument for killing them before they kill us — nuclear-ly.
• • •
One mainstay of popular culture throughout my lifetime has been the James Bond character and films. There would be no Bond without the Cold War and the imminent threat of mad enemies working deviously to annihilate the world.
• • •
Did you know that the U.S. military even enlisted Santa Claus as a tool of propaganda during the Cold War?
Here is an article that includes an AP story from Christmas Eve, 1955. It tells how the U.S. (and Canadian) defense system would protect Santa and guarantee his safe passage, so that American’s children could have their abundant Christmas.
Colorado Springs, Colo., Dec 23 (AP) — Santa Claus Friday was assured safe passage into the United States by the Continental Air Defense Combat Operations Center here which began plotting his journey from the North Pole early Friday morning.
CONAD said first reports of its radar and ground observer outposts indicate Santa was traveling about 45 knots at an altitude of 35,000 feet and should arrive in the United States early Saturday night for his annual visit.
U.S. and Canadian defense units will steer him into the prevailing jet stream which should double his speed, and around stormy weather west of the Hudson Bay areas.
CONAD, Army, Navy and Marine Air Forces will continue to track and guard Santa and his sleigh on his trip to and from the U.S. against possible attack from those who do not believe in Christmas.
And Santa’s track, being plotted here on the main surveillance board, is a very wide one, indicating that his sleigh is heavily loaded with toys and goodies.
• • •
One of the most famous, influential, and controversial Presidential campaign ads had a sobering Cold War theme. This was Lyndon Johnson’s “Daisy” ad (1964). Though it aired only once, this powerful ad proved to be important in his campaign, which won a landslide victory over Barry Goldwater.
• • •
Finally, a “Christian”(?) perspective: We can’t leave this week without mentioning what the little Baptist Trump groupie from Dallas had to say in support of nuclear war or “whatever it takes.”
Thankfully, they enlisted another point of view to counter this crap.
Here is a wise and sane perspective, firmly and unequivocally stated. Nuclear weapons are, by nature, indiscriminate, designed to achieve one thing: a massive level of death and destruction. Even if we hold to just war theory, a common “Christian” view to which many appeal, we must recognize that it ascribes to a doctrine of proportionality, which states that the use of force must not exceed what is absolutely necessary. In this light, soldiers are never to target civilians. However, that is not an option with nuclear weapons.
This is not the place to argue the fine points, but it is the place to reiterate that we stand in that stream of Christians who find no justification for the use of nuclear weapons. This is not a politically radical view. Some of the most conservative of Christians and politicians, including evangelist Billy Graham, have also concluded that nuclear weapons are inherently evil or, to not put too fine a point on it, “totally irrational, totally inhumane, good for nothing but killing, possibly destructive of life on earth and civilization” (Ronald Reagan).
In an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal a few years ago, former secretaries of state George Shultz and Henry Kissinger, along with William Perry (former secretary of defense) and Sam Nunn (former chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee) wrote, “We endorse setting the goal of a world free of nuclear weapons.”
A hearty “Amen!” to Mark Galli and a categorical “No!” to those who foolishly foster even the remotest possibility of using nuclear weapons as instruments of war.
• • •
Let’s end with a little post-nuclear nuclear family song from a guy I really miss, especially at times like this. I just know if he were here today, he would be treating us to some new songs about the “fire and fury.”
Ladies and gentlemen, the late Mr. Steve Goodman. Let’s laugh a little with him so we won’t cry too much over all the bluster and bombast in the news this week.
Carrying the Cross with Christ. Photo by Fr Lawrence Lew, O.P.
Ordinary Time Bible Study
Philippians: Friends in the Gospel Study Eight
Note: When passages are quoted at the beginning of new sections, I will be using The Message translation because of its conversational, friendly tone. You can compare this version with others, as well as have access to Gordon Fee’s commentary, at Bible Gateway.
✥
Nothing can frustrate the advance of the gospel more, both in a Christian community’s effectiveness in their witness for Christ and in Christians’ individual lives, than internal unrest among believers. The gospel is all about reconciliation, and unreconciled people do not advertise it well.
• Gordon Fee
• • •
PHILIPPIANS 1:27-30
Meanwhile, live in such a way that you are a credit to the Message of Christ. Let nothing in your conduct hang on whether I come or not. Your conduct must be the same whether I show up to see things for myself or hear of it from a distance. Stand united, singular in vision, contending for people’s trust in the Message, the good news, not flinching or dodging in the slightest before the opposition. Your courage and unity will show them what they’re up against: defeat for them, victory for you—and both because of God. There’s far more to this life than trusting in Christ. There’s also suffering for him. And the suffering is as much a gift as the trusting. You’re involved in the same kind of struggle you saw me go through, on which you are now getting an updated report in this letter.
•
Today’s passage begins the “body” of this friendship letter. The focus turns at this point from Paul’s news about himself to words of encouragement and instruction to the Philippian congregation. And, as the quote from Gordon Fee above indicates, the Apostle’s main concern is that the church be unified in their life together as they face the pressures of living for Christ in the midst of a community that didn’t always appreciate their faith and practice.
You will observe the note of “suffering” in this passage, a suffering that Paul describes as “the same kind of struggle you saw me go through.” This may have reference to the troubles Paul and Silas endured on their first visit to Philippi (Acts 16), and/or to his present circumstances in prison that he just informed them about in 1:12-26. At any rate, the Apostle who brought the strange good news of a crucified and risen Lord to Philippi, had also exhibited in his own body that Jesus’ followers are those who take up the cross as well.
In his commentary, Fee points out a key metaphor that Paul uses here to motivate the Philippians to maintain “courage and unity.”
At issue is how the Philippians conduct themselves, meaning live out the gospel in Philippi. Pivotal to the present appeal is that instead of the ordinary Jewish metaphor “to walk [in the ways of the Lord],” Paul uses a political metaphor, which will appear again in 3:20-21. The people of Philippi took due pride in their having been made a Roman colony by Caesar Augustus, which brought the privileges and prestige of Roman citizenship. Paul now urges them to live out their citizenship (conduct yourselves) in a manner—and the sentence begins with these emphatic words—worthy of the gospel of Christ. What is intended by this wordplay is something like “Live in the Roman colony of Philippi as worthy citizens of your heavenly homeland.” That, after all, is precisely the contrast made in 3:17-20, where “our citizenship is in heaven,” in contrast to those whose minds are set on “earthly things.”
The use of this metaphor is a brilliant stroke. Not only does it appeal to their own historic pride as Philippians, but now applied to their present setting, it urges concern both for the mission of the gospel in Philippi and especially for the welfare of the state, meaning in this case that they take seriously their “civic” responsibilities within the believing community. Their being of one mind and heart is at stake; disharmony will lead to their collective ruin.
We can admire Paul’s brilliant way of communicating in terms to which his audience can relate. In essence, Paul is urging people who have been raised to have strong civic pride in their Caesar-blessed city of Roman privilege, to imagine what it would mean to carry that same attitude in their life together as blessed saints in their Lord Jesus Christ’s community of faith and love. Even when it means that others might not appreciate the new community and her new Lord.
In chapter two, Paul will put even more flesh on this overall exhortation, setting before the Philippians real examples of people who were willing to sacrifice their own agendas for the sake of serving their neighbors, suffering that others might have life.
Apparently, God’s plan is that his people will win, but not by winning. “The suffering is as much a gift as the trusting.” Not because suffering is good or to be desired in and of itself. But because God’s only way to life is through death.
I just want to share some random thoughts about the book and about Mike’s journey to wrap up this book review. As a scientist, I identified with Mike’s struggle to reconcile ancient faith with modern science. Too many of the extremists want to drive the wedge and separate faith from science in an absolutist manner. The extreme atheists want to say that you cannot believe that what modern science has revealed to be TRVTH with what the bible says. Six thousand year old “punyverse”, an original pair of humans from whom all humans descended, planet-wide flood responsible for all geology, a wrathful deity sending you to hell just because you never heard of him:
“The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.” Richard Dawkins
Such a god doesn’t exist and such a bible is demonstrably false. End of story, deconvert now, stop the cognitive dissonance, and embrace the FSM, noodly world without end, amen.
Sigh… and the funhouse mirror flip side: If you don’t think that Noah put all the animals on the ark, including the dinosaurs, then you don’t believe the gospel. There is no difference between the narrative of Genesis 6-9 and the narrative of John 20; you believe them both or you believe neither. Choose ye this day whom you will serve… and avoid(ing) profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called (I Timothy 6:20).
But the extremes no longer seem to be persuasive. As Tom Krattenmaker notes, in his USA Today article :
New polling data show that for the first time in a long time there’s a notable decline in the percentage of Americans — including Christians — who hold to the “Young Earth” creationist view that humankind was created in its present form in the past 10,000 years, evolution playing no part.
According to a Gallup poll conducted in May, the portion of the American public taking this position now stands at 38%, a new low in Gallup’s periodic surveys. Fifty-seven percent accept the validity of the scientific consensus that human beings evolved from less advanced forms of life over millions of years.
Has atheism taken over so thoroughly? No, and that’s why this apparent break in the creationism-vs.-evolution stalemate is significant and even instructive to those in search of creative solutions to our other intractable public arguments.
As the poll reveals, the biggest factor in the shift is a jump in the number of Christians who are reconciling faith and evolution. They are coming to see evolution as their God’s way of creating life on Earth and continuing to shape it today.
There does seem to be a rising tide of acceptance of science as the explanation for the physical realities of life while there is still the longing for meaning and purpose that transcends the mere humanistic explanation for those deep-seated emotional needs. And as Chaplain Mike mused in several recent posts , “rationality is overrated when it comes to developing our moral psychology” and our sense of transcendent meaning as well. That is why “Science Mike” is gaining a wider and wider audience with the millennials, the nones, and the dones; he is willing to explore the questions and the nuance without condemning the lack of reliance on dogma.
Let me make my own position clear; I’m a creedal Christian who accepts the basic doctrines of Christianity. I don’t sanctify doubt. I’ve noticed a trend on some Patheos blogs to… oh, I don’t know… wear your doubts as some kind of “progressive” badge of honor. Roger Olsen had a recent post on defining fundamentalism. He listed what he called: “…a critical mass of spiritual-theological “symptoms” that I find common to and almost unique (in terms of emphasis and influence) among a particular tribe of American Protestant Christians.” They were:
Roger Olson
1) A tendency to elevate doctrines historically considered “secondary” (non-essentials) to the status of dogmas such that anyone who questions them questions the gospel itself.
2) A tendency to eschew “Christian fellowship” with fellow evangelical Christians considered doctrinally “impure” along with a tendency to misrepresent them in order to influence others to avoid them.
3) A tendency to “hunt” for “heresies” among fellow evangelical Christians and to reward fellow fundamentalists who “find” and “expose” them—even where said “heresies” are not truly heresies by any major confessional standards shared among evangelical Protestants.
4) A tendency to place doctrinal “truth” above ethics such that misrepresenting others’ views in order to exclude or marginalize them, if not get them fired, is considered justified.
5) A tendency to be obsessed with “liberal theological thinking” that leads to seeing it where it does not exist along with a tendency to be averse to all ambiguity or uncertainty about doctrinal and biblical matters.
Well and good, right? Certainly something we on this blog see all the time in the comments. But he went on to post the next day “What is Liberal Christianity”and said there:
1) A tendency to reduce the Bible to “the Christian classic” that is “inspired” insofar as it is inspiring;
2) A tendency to reduce Christianity itself to ethics such that doctrine is an expression of collective opinion always open to revision in light of changing cultural conditions;
3) A tendency to embrace and promote individualism in spirituality and doctrine while insisting on certain controversial ethical positions as matters of justice and therefore beyond debate;
4) A tendency to deny miracles or “demythologize” them so that belief in no miracle is essential to authentic Christian existence;
5) A tendency to emphasize the immanence of God over God’s transcendence;
6) A tendency to believe in the essential goodness of humanity and to deny hell except as inauthentic existence in this life;
7) A tendency to interpret Jesus as different from other humans only in degree (e.g., more spiritually and ethically advanced) and not in kind;
8) A tendency to promote authentic Christian existence as a life of love only without judgment (except of “injustice”).
Right on, Roger, especially numbers 2 and 4. I do not have to “demythologize” miracles to be a scientist. And I don’t have to accept one extreme or the other, I don’t have to buy into the fallacy or false dilemma of the excluded middle. And you can’t make me.
All that being said, I don’t think Mike McHargue is promoting his doubts as something to aspire to. This book was about a man who began as a fundamentalist Southern Baptist, a bible-believing Christian, if you will, and then was overwhelmed by all the modernist assertions of “scientific” truth. He concluded, in his own words:
The universe was indifferent to us. We were all just an accident of the self-organizing principles of physics—mere quirks of gravity, electromagnetism, and chemistry. This was it. This was the end of my search. “God, I don’t know why I’m praying. You aren’t even real.”
In the time it took to say those 11 words, I’d become an existential nihilist.
And for two years Mike was on a path leading him further and further from God and Christianity. All the doubling down of his “Christian” friends, the rebukes, the apologetics, and the warnings weren’t reversing that path. Those things weren’t helping him recover his faith; they were, in fact, driving him farther and farther away. And then… and then… what happened? It wasn’t the brilliant apologetics of William Lane Craig or Norman Geisler that brought Mike back. It was being served communion by hyper-liberal-uber-alles ROB FREAKIN’ BELL where God spoke to him. Hah… tell me God doesn’t have a sense of humor!!
Oh… but he’s not a Christian, he doesn’t believe in a literal resurrection or a literal virgin birth. Well, he has his doubts, but two things about those doubts:
They are honest expressions of his thinking, he is not deceiving himself pretending he doesn’t have them.
They are not unique to him; plenty of people share them.
But here’s the thing, Matthew 28:16-17 says this:
Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them. And when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some doubted.
Did Jesus rebuke their doubts? No, he commissioned them with a promise:
18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. 19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: 20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.
As I said in an earlier post; Mike realized that the people in that beach house that day accepted him exactly as he was. He wasn’t made to feel like an outsider. He threw the fullness of his doubts about God at them, and they held it with grace. They didn’t shout him down or take apart his arguments. They didn’t try to win him over or rebuke him. They just accepted him. And they even thanked him for caring. And that’s why Mike could say this:
If you’re a Christian who wonders what to do with someone who’s in doubt, consider these words carefully: Love and grace speak loudly. The first and best response to someone whose faith is unraveling is a hug. Apologetics aren’t helpful. Neither are Scripture references. The first thing a hurting person needs is to know they’re not alone. My path back to God was paved with grace by those who received my doubt in love.
So I think Mike, like the early disciples, has been commissioned, both despite, and because of his doubts. Despite his doubts, Jesus is with him always, even unto the end of the world. Because of his doubts, Mike is “able to comfort them which are in any trouble, by the comfort wherewith we ourselves are comforted of God “(2 Corinthians 1:4).
The Problem with Being “Gospel-Centered” By Scott Lencke
Over the past decade or so, many churches in America have been espousing that they are “gospel-centered.” Just as in culture, there are many buzzwords within the church: missional, organic, intentional, etc. And another one happens to be gospel-centered.
But what’s the problem with being gospel-centered? That’s a good thing, right?
Let me go ahead and say up front that being gospel-centered is not necessarily a problem. One the one hand, being gospel-centered is important, just as being kingdom-centered, Jesus-centered, even church-centered is important. However, identifying as gospel-centered becomes problematic when it stringently runs the gospel through one particular (and narrow) set of theological lenses.
You see, particular groups have, in one way or another, hijacked the word gospel and strictly applied it to their own theological view. I find this typically happens within a new reformed, Calvinist setting. The problem is not so much reformed theology – by this I mean the problem is not with a more historic, robust reformed theology. Rather it’s with the particular new Calvinism that has arisen in the past couple of decades.
How has the word gospel been hijacked by certain groups?
I see it as having happened primarily in two ways.
1) The adding of many peripheral doctrines into this “gospel-centered” view.
In my engagement with many groups championing a gospel-centered faith, they also tie in other secondary issues to the gospel. Perhaps not outright, but there is a kind of sleight of hand to make secondary issues more central to the gospel than they should be. One of the great “add-ons” is that of complementarianism – the belief that men and men alone are to be the leaders in the home and church. Here’s an example of how this is done, this one coming from, Denny Burk, now the Director of the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood.
In the article, Burk says complementarianism is a secondary issue. But he then works really hard to show the dangers of being egalitarian – the belief that both men and women can be leaders in the home and church. His third and final point even uses the scare tactic of the slippery slope. Anyone who knows a basic knowledge of rhetoric would be aware that the slippery slope is an invalid argument. Burk notes a couple of egalitarians who have not gone down the path of liberalism (Millard Erickson and Roger Nicole). But he then uses anecdotal evidence as to how the slippery path is real.
So, let’s be clear: just because one is an egalitarian does not mean he or she will become liberal, not to mention that our understanding of the role of men and women in leadership is not a gospel issue!
Connecting complementarianism to the gospel is problematic.
Others raise similar issues by saying we must hold to such views as:
a) A literal reading of Genesis – because to deny a historical Adam puts a wrench in the cog of a specific view regarding Romans 5.
b) A reformed view of justification – which espouses a particular view of penal substitutionary atonement.
c) An Augustinian view of original sin – though they may say it’s a “biblical” view of original sin, not an Augustinian view.
Let me go ahead and say that none of these are gospel issues. To not realize this is to show one is not aware of the breadth of views on these issues across church history.
Let me say the opposite as well: holding to these specific secondary issues (complementarianism, literal reading of Genesis, etc) does not inherently make one gospel-centered.
The gospel (or evangel) is centered in the proclamation that the kingdom of God has come near, God is doing what he said he would always do, and he has done that in and through Jesus the Messiah. This is good news within the biblical story. And this is what it truly means to be evangelical – to be centered in the evangel, the gospel, the good news.
Secondary and tertiary issues do not determine whether one is gospel-centered.
2) Gospel-centered folk primarily center their theology of the gospel in Paul.
Now, before we jump into this point, let me note that I am not against Paul – not at all! – nor am I for pitting Jesus and Paul against one another (as some critical scholarship has done). Paul is important, indeed. Jesus and Paul were working from the same framework, both being first-century Jews who explained how the story of Israel was coming to completion through God’s Messiah, that Messiah being Jesus.
Paul good.
Jesus and Paul were together.
Alright.
What I find from these same gospel-centered folk is that they spend their predominant time forming their perspectives from Paul, particularly the letters of Romans, Galatians, and Ephesians. Paul has the meat and potatoes of the gospel, they conclude. Everything else, including the gospels themselves, feed into Paul’s theology of the gospel. However, folk like Scot McKnight (e.g., in The King Jesus Gospel) and NT Wright (e.g., in How God Became King and others) have done well to expose this problem. And, yes, it is a problem.
The trouble lies in the fact that most gospel-centered groups jump straight over the gospels themselves. But, as McKnight notes:
If you want to read the gospel,
hear the gospel,
or preach the gospel,
read, listen to, and preach the Gospels. (loc.1255)
He goes on to note that these four accounts of Jesus were identified as gospels because, well, they tell us the gospel. It’s an innovative thought for some, but it’s deep truth that could revolutionize our theology if we’ll grasp it.
Yet so many see the gospel as a four point list of what to believe, centered in the good ol’ meaty theology of Paul. And the gospels are the story behind everything, but they are just that – story, history. And we develop theology from the epistles, not the history portions of Scripture. Hence, Paul easily takes precedence.
I say it’s rubbish.
I would argue that we need to a) start with the gospels (though not pitting Jesus and Paul against one another) and b) re-envision Paul in light of the gospels, which is to re-understand Paul as connecting into Israel’s long story now being summed up in the Jesus story as told in the gospels.
Therefore, in Romans, Paul is telling a story, one that is a very Jewish story connected deeply into Abraham. Everything he has to say about the gospel, Jesus, justification, the righteousness of God, the Spirit and more is centered in that long story that had been unfolding for centuries upon centuries. And understanding Paul’s details on this journeyed story means we need to understand the Israel story of the Old Testament and the Jesus story of the gospels.
As some have countered the gospel-centered movement, we may better off being gospels-centered.
Is being gospel-centered problematic? Not necessarily. But, if a) we are making secondary and tertiary issues central to our understanding of the gospel and b) if we are setting aside the gospels as telling us the gospel, then the claim that we are gospel-centered becomes problematic. Very problematic. We are missing some very important details on the gospel.
It’s time we become gospels-centered, understanding the gospel in light of the Jesus story, which connects into the long-held Israel story of the Bible.
We evolved to live in groups. Our minds were designed not only to help us win the competition within our groups, but also to help us unite with those in our group to win competitions across groups.
• Jonathan Haidt, The Righteous Mind
In the final section of Jonathan Haidt’s book, The Righteous Mind, he covers a lot of ground to focus on some important aspects of how people think morally.
The big point is that people have evolved to not only develop individual moral thinking, but also to come together in groups — humans “are products of multilevel selection, which turned us into Homo duplex” (p. 367). Or, metaphorically, we are a lot like chimps (autonomous, selfish individuals) who sometimes transcend our individualism and function like bees (cooperatively, with a hive mentality).
In this chapter I presented the hive hypothesis, which states that human beings are conditional hive creatures. We have the ability (under special circumstances) to transcend self-interest and lose ourselves (temporarily and ecstatically) in something larger than ourselves. I called this ability the hive switch. The hive switch is another way of stating Durkheim’s idea that we are Homo duplex; we live most of our lives in the ordinary (profane) world, but we achieve our greatest joys in those brief moments of transit to the sacred world, in which we become “simply a part of a whole.” (pp. 283-284)
This has impact on how we view such human realities as religion and politics. For example, Haidt is critical of the so-called New Atheists, who misunderstand religion primarily in terms of individual beliefs which must be answered, rather than as “social facts. Religion cannot be studied in lone individuals any more than hivishness can be studied in lone bees” (p. 287).
This “tribal” religious instinct is and has been a double-edged sword. On the one hand, religion is “well suited to be the handmaiden of groupishness, tribalism, and nationalism” that can act violently to defend and advance its interests. On the other hand, Haidt quotes studies which show that: “By many different measures religiously observant Americans are better neighbors and better citizens than secular Americans—they are more generous with their time and money, especially in helping the needy, and they are more active in community life.”
In like manner, Haidt describes how we have developed political tribes, each with its own vision of “the good life” and what it takes to achieve that.
Some people, in modern politics, gravitate toward the “left” (valuing the first two moral foundations primarily, being more open and welcoming to change and innovation, and distrustful of institutions that have at times oppressed and marginalized people and groups).
Some find themselves on the “right” (valuing all six moral foundations — with some differences in definition — valuing order and stability, convinced that there are threats to moral capital from certain kinds of change).
This section is most interesting in that it reveals Haidt’s own personal transformation from a committed “liberal” to one who learned to appreciate the moral vision of conservatism.
The “groupishness” of human life leads Jonathan Haidt to develop his final point about morality:
Morality binds and blinds. It binds us into ideological teams that fight each other as though the fate of the world depended on our side winning each battle. It blinds us to the fact that each team is composed of good people who have something important to say.
…This book explained why people are divided by politics and religion. The answer is not, as Manichaeans would have it, because some people are good and others are evil. Instead, the explanation is that our minds were designed for groupish righteousness. We are deeply intuitive creatures whose gut feelings drive our strategic reasoning. This makes it difficult—but not impossible—to connect with those who live in other matrices, which are often built on different configurations of the available moral foundations. (pp. 366-367)
Learning to get along, then, is a rather monumental task. It involves recognizing our own individualistic and groupish tendencies to fight instinctively for our values and our team and to dismiss those from other teams. It also means learning to listen, beyond the rhetoric, to the underlying moral foundations and moral vision of others as they promote their way. It means seeing the “enemy’s” point of view, deeply, intuitively, even sympathetically.
As Tim Keller said in the video we posted yesterday, if we really embrace the teaching of our faith and the example of our Savior, Christians should be well-equipped to respectfully engage our neighbors with love, kindness, respect, and appreciation.
But I will be the first to acknowledge that log-removal surgery (Matt. 7:1-5) is a daunting prospect. It would be great if many of us would set aside our fears and sign up for the procedure.
Note from CM: I realize that this is a long presentation, but believe me, it is worth your while. Perhaps you can break it down into segments and watch them throughout the week. I would be happy to receive comments today, Tuesday, or Wednesday on this video.
Here is a prime example of civil conversation and the possibilities of productive, peace-enhancing discourse between two people with radically different faith positions. I chose to show it today because we are talking about Jonathan Haidt’s book, The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion, and here he is, attempting to apply his own teaching by engaging in a conversation and Q&A session with Pastor Timothy Keller at NYU, who also demonstrates a spirit of kindness and cordiality that is most attractive.
I found it extremely encouraging, and I hope you will too. And that you’ll pass the word along that this kind of respectful interaction is possible, even in our polarized moment of history.
Today, we hear Bach’s inspiring setting of one of the greatest texts in the Hebrew Bible, the opening chorus from Cantata BWV 45, “Es ist dir gesagt, Mensch, was gut ist”
It has been told to you, mankind, what is good and what the Lord expects from you, namely: to keep God’s word and practice love and be humble before your God.
”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.”
WELCOME TO AUGUST 2017
Welcome to the dog days. It’s August. These days, ’round our part of the country that means “back to school” now that most districts have gone to a full year-round or modified calendar. But August will never mean that to me. This was the month to endure before going back to school. We were done playing organized baseball. It was too dang hot to play football. We were starting to get tired of hanging around the pool. And mom kept locking us out of the house!
Well, here is a list of a few of the special days that have been designated for this August. Maybe at Brunch today we can talk about some of the fun things we’d like to do in August 2017. If we were properly celebrating today, for example, we’d all have hangovers (it is the day after National Beer Day, after all), work like dogs in our underwear, and then gather around the campfire and eat mustard. Sounds like fun!
1 National Mountain Climbing Day
1 National Raspberry Cream Pie Day
2 National Ice Cream Sandwich Day
3 Grab Some Nuts Day
3 National Watermelon Day
4 International Beer Day (First Friday)
5 Campfire Day (First Saturday)
5 International Hangover Day (First Saturday)
5 National Mustard Day — (first Saturday)
5 National Underwear Day
5 Work Like a Dog Day
6 Wiggle Your Toes Day
8 Sneak Some Zucchini onto Your Neighbor’s Porch Day
9 Book Lover’s Day
10 Lazy Day
10 National S’mores Day
12 Middle Child’s Day
13 Left Hander’s Day
14 National Creamsicle Day
16 National Tell a Joke Day
18 Bad Poetry Day
19 National Potato Day
20 National Radio Day
20 World Mosquito Day
21 National Spumoni Day
25 Kiss and Make Up Day
28 Race Your Mouse Day
30 Frankenstein Day
30 Toasted Marshmallow Day
31 National Eat Outside Day
31 National Trail Mix Day
• • •
JOB OPPORTUNITY
It sounds like it might be the most important job in the universe, or at least in our solar system. Are you up for being the Defender of Our Planet™? Well, NASA has a spot open for Planetary Protection Officer. You must be able to fight off any nasty aliens that threaten us, as well as protect the planet from being contaminated by extraterrestrial materials brought back to earth on space missions.
You must, of course, be able to work in harmony with all other countries that have space programs, so that they won’t endanger us all.
One megachurch pastor that has earned my deep respect is Joel Hunter, pastor at Northland Community Church in Orlando. Now, he’s stepping down to pursue other types of ministry outside the four walls of the church. Here is part of his announcement:
“You’ve often heard me express a desire to serve at Northland for the rest of my life. So you may be asking, ‘What changed?’
I believe God will continue using Northland in wonderful ways, but He is calling me to focus my life on a new season of ministry outside the four walls of the church.
When I knelt at the altar to give my whole life to Jesus, I was a part of the Civil Rights movement. My focus on Jesus was not only for personal salvation after this life but also for compassion towards the marginalized in this life. My call to follow Jesus and serve the vulnerable is stronger than ever.
Jesus often taught in different synagogues but the bulk of his teaching and work was outside established religious settings. Following his way, I will seek to include the unincluded in the Kingdom.
There’s a fine article in Christianity Today that notes how he has been involved in public as well as parish ministry for many years now. In days to come, this will be his main focus.
“There is great potential for the church to be part of the solution to the problems in our culture and the problems in our world,” he told CT in a 2008 interview, “if we can build coalitions that help enhance the common good that also enhances the Christian social agenda.”
That’s a commitment I can get behind wholeheartedly.
Joel Hunter has contributed to Internet Monk over the years. Here are examples:
Samantha Bronker in the Christian Science Monitor tells us:
As baby boomers begin to downsize, they are discovering their grown children do not want their stuff. In fact, they recoil in something close to horror at the thought of trying to find room for collections of Hummels and Thomas Kinkade paintings.
…While every generation has its turn with an attachment for antiques or nostalgia for outdated technology, today’s tech-heavy culture shows few signs of trading in its sleek, modern designs for dark furniture or knick-knacks from bygone eras. And many younger families see trips, vacations, and photos as the repository of family memories – not shelves full of mementoes.
As we are preparing to try and sell our (big) house, we are in the process of going through our stuff now. My parents were ruthless in getting rid of their things, my wife’s parents were not. We’re somewhere in the middle, but golly do we have a load to think about, because the author’s right — for the most part, our kids don’t want it, don’t need it, and think a lot of it is outdated and worthless.
So, we’re going to have to be creative and find good uses for some of it. How many of you have gone through this or are dealing with this situation now?
• • •
MYSTERY RADIO STATIONS
In Lent 2015, I wrote a piece about the band Wilco’s groundbreaking album from 2001, Yankee Hotel Foxtrot. The story about the album’s title fascinated me.
Shortly after World War I, mysterious shortwave radio stations began cropping up on long-dormant frequency bands across the globe. These stations, dubbed “Numbers Stations,” are thought to have been created for espionage purposes. Allegedly, government agencies would broadcast encrypted messages to undercover spies, who would then decode the messages using a one-time pad, or cipher key.
“Yankee Hotel Foxtrot” was one of the encrypted messages these stations sent out, and the band included actual samples from the radio broadcasts on the record.
In the middle of a Russian swampland, not far from the city of St Petersburg, is a rectangular iron gate. Beyond its rusted bars is a collection of radio towers, abandoned buildings and power lines bordered by a dry-stone wall. This sinister location is the focus of a mystery which stretches back to the height of the Cold War.
It is thought to be the headquarters of a radio station, “MDZhB”, that no-one has ever claimed to run. Twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week, for the last three-and-a-half decades, it’s been broadcasting a dull, monotonous tone. Every few seconds it’s joined by a second sound, like some ghostly ship sounding its foghorn. Then the drone continues.
Once or twice a week, a man or woman will read out some words in Russian, such as “dinghy” or “farming specialist”. And that’s it. Anyone, anywhere in the world can listen in, simply by tuning a radio to the frequency 4625 kHz.
It’s so enigmatic, it’s as if it was designed with conspiracy theorists in mind. Today the station has an online following numbering in the tens of thousands, who know it affectionately as “the Buzzer”. It joins two similar mystery stations, “the Pip” and the “Squeaky Wheel”. As their fans readily admit themselves, they have absolutely no idea what they are listening to.
There are many theories (and conspiracy theories to boot) about these stations. The article notes one of the most prevalent: “One such idea is that it’s acting as a “Dead Hand” signal; in the event Russia is hit by a nuclear attack, the drone will stop and automatically trigger a retaliation. No questions asked, just total nuclear obliteration on both sides.”
Go read this fascinating article which traces the history of these stations and how they might be being used to instruct networks of spies all around the world.
I love this kind of stuff! And, of course, one reason for that is that it gives me the opportunity to play some Springsteen…
…you can run into an Accident in Maryland, enjoy Intercourse in Pennsylvania, do Nothing in Arizona, stop for a Pee Pee in Ohio, find Protection in Kansas, try Toast in North Carolina, go to War in West Virginia, or go to Hell in Michigan? These are just a few of the weird place names you can find in states across the U.S..
Who would have thought one of the big stories this week would be a fight over the Statue of Liberty?
Well, actually the fight was over the poem by Emma Lazarus that graces the statue. White House spokesperson Stephen Miller and CNN’s Jim Acosta got into a heated exchange about immigration and what set it all up was the meaning of the Statue of Liberty and whether Lazarus’s poem has anything to do with the actual symbolism of the monument.
“What the president is proposing here does not sound like it’s in keeping with American tradition when it comes to immigration,” the network reporter said to Miller. “The Statue of Liberty says, ‘Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.’”
The implication of Acosta’s description was that the statue is an invitation to immigrants.
Not so, Miller retorted:
“I don’t want to get off into a whole thing about history here, but the Statue of Liberty is a symbol of liberty and lighting the world. It’s a symbol of American liberty lighting the world. The poem that you’re referring to, that was added later, is not actually a part of the original Statue of Liberty.”
Miller was correct in saying that the poem was added later, and I think Acosta was right in saying that, ever after, Americans and immigrants in particular have identified the Statue of Liberty not only as holding up a beacon of freedom to the world, but that this beacon is an invitation to come and share in that freedom.
But some on the right want to be “originalists” when it comes to what Lady Liberty is saying. And some of the more extreme object to the fact that acceptance of the poem amounts to kowtowing to a Jewish Communist named Emma Lazarus. As Rush Limbaugh said in a broadcast earlier this year, “The Statue of Liberty had absolutely nothing to do with immigration,” Limbaugh said on a January 31 broadcast. “So why do people think that it does? Well, there was a socialist poet.”
So there you have it. The conversation in this country has become so polarized we can’t even agree on the significance of one of our most basic and beloved symbols.
• • •
TODAY’S MUSIC — WHAT ELSE FOR AUGUST?!
The Mrs. and I are heading out to Symphony on the Prairie here in Indy tonight to enjoy a picnic while listening to the Beach Boys’ quintessential summer songs. Nothing says summer like their sun-drenched surfin’ sounds. So, on this first Saturday in August, we’ll leave you with a taste too. Have a great Saturday!
Ordinary Time Bible Study
Philippians: Friends in the Gospel Study Seven
Note: When passages are quoted at the beginning of new sections, I will be using The Message translation because of its conversational, friendly tone. You can compare this version with others, as well as have access to Gordon Fee’s commentary, at Bible Gateway.
✥
Paul then permits the Philippians to have a unique look into his innermost being, to see the turmoil of his soul as he yearns equally for death on the one hand, because life has become a very heavy burden and death would bring him into a closer, more intimate fellowship with Christ, and for life, on the other hand, because to go on living would mean for him continued productive work in general and in particular would serve to meet the very great need of the Philippian church. He cannot make up his mind.
• Gerald Hawthorne
• • •
PHILIPPIANS 1:19-26
And I’m going to keep that celebration going because I know how it’s going to turn out. Through your faithful prayers and the generous response of the Spirit of Jesus Christ, everything he wants to do in and through me will be done. I can hardly wait to continue on my course. I don’t expect to be embarrassed in the least. On the contrary, everything happening to me in this jail only serves to make Christ more accurately known, regardless of whether I live or die. They didn’t shut me up; they gave me a pulpit! Alive, I’m Christ’s messenger; dead, I’m his bounty. Life versus even more life! I can’t lose.
As long as I’m alive in this body, there is good work for me to do. If I had to choose right now, I hardly know which I’d choose. Hard choice! The desire to break camp here and be with Christ is powerful. Some days I can think of nothing better. But most days, because of what you are going through, I am sure that it’s better for me to stick it out here. So I plan to be around awhile, companion to you as your growth and joy in this life of trusting God continues. You can start looking forward to a great reunion when I come visit you again. We’ll be praising Christ, enjoying each other.
•
What’s tomorrow look like for you? What do you anticipate when you look toward your future?
Think about those questions, and then put yourself in the Apostle Paul’s sandals at the time when he wrote to the Philippians. Imprisoned, facing a trial, unsure of what the outcome would be — for many of us the future would not appear bright. We might find ourselves anxious, fearful, despondent, or desperate.
It could be that the mere fact of not knowing would set us on edge; the waiting, the wondering, the uncertainty of it all. Many of my hospice patients seem to come to a place of peace and acceptance once they know that the end is near. But the waiting, the vigil, the not knowing…that’s often the agonizing part.
Some of us who like to be in control and have some kind of say about our circumstances (and really, who doesn’t?) would likely feel a growing frustration being in a position of weakness and helplessness.
As Simon and Garfunkel sang, “Every way you look at it, you lose.”
Except Paul didn’t see it that way. According to today’s text:
He was rejoicing, celebrating.
He was convinced God would keep him going until his work was done.
He believed that the Philippians’ prayers and the power of the Spirit would prevail.
He was sure that whatever happened to him would bring greater honor to Jesus the true King.
Even if the worst fate on earth — death — should take him, he would just move on to something better.
In fact, Paul sees himself in a win-win situation. Whatever he might face personally, he would end up a winner with Christ.
The options he sees are both good: either he will die and be with Christ, or stay on and be available to serve God’s family.
At this point, he thinks he’ll survive and carry on in God’s mission.
Now, let me be the first to say that I have heard myself and a lot of other Christians talk this way — unconvincingly. It sounds like cliches. It sounds like someone who is unrealistic, emotionally immature, incapable of being truly serious about how brutal and painful this world can be. The response comes too quickly, too easily, too generically. The face shows no worry lines, there’s no limp, no hard-won victory scars from battling disappointment, discouragement, and fear.
I believe a legitimate expression of these bright, positive, hopeful words must ordinarily emerge from a place of darkness and distress. Paul is not like the actor whose personal life is in shambles, yet he puts his hands up to his face, forces himself to smile, and says to the mirror, “Ok, c’mon, it’s showtime!” Paul is not putting on a happy face for the crowd.
His life praying the psalms must surely have ingrained the passionate feelings and language of lament into his heart. I think he might even have written the words, “to die is gain,” with tears in his eyes.
And then, only then, the surge of hope and a smile.
• • •
Ordinary Time Bible Study Philippians – Friends in the Gospel
.
, as a complement to this series.
The Internet Monk Archives 