The Internet Monk Archives

The Heroic Journey

But what are you going to do with your now resurrected life? That is the heroic question.

– Richard Rohr
Falling Upward: A Spirituality for the Two Halves of Life

* * *

One traditional way of thinking about the course of life has been through the stories of journeys made by heroes or heroines. Richard Rohr notes that those who are portrayed making the heroic journey go through certain recognizable stages:

They live in a world that they take as given and sufficient.
They receive a call to leave home for some sort of adventure.
On the journey, they are forced to deal with dramatic conflicts that force them to grow and change.
In the course of these conflicts, they are wounded in some way, and their wounds become the key to their development.
The outward events reveal a much deeper flow of life underneath the surface, the “real life” or “true self” of the heroic person, which becomes more and more apparent as the journey continues.
The hero or heroine returns home a changed person with new gifts to share with others. As Rohr says, the heroic person’s experience has caused him or her to know a reality beyond the parochial, he or she “lives in deep time and just in his or her own small time,” and is thus able to be a “generative person” — a source of life and wisdom for others. This person becomes an “elder” of the people.

Richard Rohr contrasts this traditional hero with those we honor in today’s more youth and “celebrity”-oriented cultures:

Interestingly enough, this classic tradition of a true “hero” is not our present understanding at all. There is little social matrix to our present use of the word. A “hero” now is largely about being bold, muscular, rich, famous, talented, or “fantastic” by himself, and often forhimself, whereas the classic hero is one who “goes the distance,” whatever that takes, and then has plenty left over for others. True heroism serves the common good, or it is not really heroism at all.

The crucial thing, Rohr notes, is that the hero or heroine must leave home. The heroic journey for our ancestors, according to Hebrews 11, involved becoming “foreigners and exiles on the earth.” From Abraham, who left home when he was called to the disciples along the Sea of Galilee who responded to Jesus’ “Follow me,” there is a “going out,” a “leaving,” a separation from what is comfortable and known in order to move into the unknown. “It’s dangerous business, Frodo, going out your door. You step onto the road, and if you don’t keep your feet, there’s no knowing where you might be swept off to” (Tolkien).

The next important thing is to keep going. The point of most hero stories, especially those in the Bible, is that the person involved is specifically not strong or well-suited for making a heroic journey. The path is long and hard, and without grace, there would be no ongoing odyssey. So the important thing is to simply put one foot in front of another as long as strength is given, recognizing all that is at stake in the quest. As Nelson Mandela, a hero of our time said, “I have walked that long road to freedom. I have tried not to falter; I have made missteps along the way. But I have discovered the secret that after climbing a great hill, one only finds that there are many more hills to climb. I have taken a moment here to rest, to steal a view of the glorious vista that surrounds me, to look back on the distance I have come. But I can only rest for a moment, for with freedom come responsibilities, and I dare not linger, for my long walk is not ended.”

In the end of such a journey, when we return home, the gifts others receive through our lives come honestly from our travels.

In this season of my life, this helps me. I long to be “heroic” in this classic sense — not for the purpose of making a name for myself, but so that I might be a more life-giving person to others. I hope I am granted many more years, many more vistas that take my breath away, many more opportunities to engage the enemy in battle, many more conversations with friends as we walk together or cool our feet in rest-stops along the way, but whether I am or not, I know I’m on the homeward portion of my journey. It is the time of life when these “hero” narratives, these “journey” stories take on new significance.

This is the season when the pace slows a bit. Taking on new challenges becomes more and more outweighed by looking back to reflect on what I have become through facing the road’s adventures. Learning to mix past and present together into an elixir that brings refreshment to others is a primary focus of the second half of life.

It is not the kind of heroism that makes headlines but in Christ, perhaps it can help bring life to the world.

Saturday Ramblings – February 22, 2014

Note from CM: Pastor Dan is enjoying the weather in Arizona and driving me crazy by being right in the neighborhood where the Cubs have started spring training. Meanwhile here I sit in the Midwest. Oh well. As Dan rambles ’round the desert, I asked our friend Adam Palmer to pinch-hit for Dan today. Thanks, Adam!

* * *

Happy weekend, everyone! I hope you’ve enjoyed your life up to this point, because Norse mythology tells us that Ragnarok is happening today, and therefore the world will be ending. And just as spring training was getting under way! Oh well, we may as well go out on a high note and ramble a bit while Odin and Fenrir duke it out.

Let’s get the self-service out of the way first: this week, yours truly interviewed Ron Jeremy about sex and spirituality, and his answers were almost as revealing as his 2500+ adult films. I’d love to hear your thoughts on his thoughts on my thoughts.

Speaking of movies, Noah made some headlines this week when the trade publication Variety published the results of a nonscientific, opt-in, single-question push poll conducted by Faith Driven Consumer stating that 98% of people who visit the Faith Driven Consumer website are determined to pre-hate the Darren Aronofsky film. That’s not actually what Variety reported, but it’s a little closer to the truth. For those who would be worried about Old Testament epic, Steven Greydanus makes some good points here. Of course, lost in all this hubbub and furor is the hyphen that belongs in “Faith Driven Consumer.”

Probably the best thing I read all week was from Brian Zahnd, who wrote about his problem with the Bible, which is, mainly, that as a wealthy Westerner, he is reading it from the opposite perspective from which it was written. “Imagine a history of colonial America written by Cherokee Indians and African slaves,” he writes. “That would be a different way of telling the story! And that’s what the Bible does. It’s the story of Egypt told by the slaves. The story of Babylon told by the exiles. The story of Rome told by the occupied.” Do you have the same problem?

Another week, another pair of stories about gay rights in America. For starters, a bill in the Kansas legislature that would’ve made it legal for business to refuse service to same-sex customers was passed in the Kansas House of Representatives last week but was killed in the Kansas Senate this Tuesday. These bills are largely arising because Christian business owners feel it would compromise their beliefs to provide services for same-sex weddings, but this columnist thinks that, if Jesus were around today and was aware of a same-sex wedding, He’d bake the cake.

In contrast, a pair of Christian students at the University of Missouri stood up for Michael Sam, the current NFL prospect who recently announced he was openly gay, and who will presumably become the first openly gay NFL player. When members of the Westboro Baptist Church announced they would protest Sam, this pair of believers — who expressly say they believe homosexuality is a sin — nevertheless organized a human wall to obstruct the protest. “We’re both Christians,” one of them said. “We know [WBC’s protest] is not God. God is love.”

While the University of Missouri was expressing unity over their athletic program, Matthew Paul Turner was alerting us this week to unity among the children of Elevation, the Charlotte, NC megachurch pastored by Steven Furtick. Specifically, Turner posted a coloring page, apparently from Elevation’s children’s ministry, that promoted dubious unity. And that wasn’t the only ink Elevation drew this week: we also learned how the church manufactured some baptisms. As a Baptist church, you’d think they’d know that baptism is a symbolic ritual and not something to check off your Christianity to-do list, right?

Hey, if that one got you angry, perhaps you should seek solace and peace in an Asian elephant. A study revealed this week that Asian elephants comfort one another when they’re in distress. If you are angry, though, don’t be surprised if an elephant puts its trunk in your mouth. That’s just how they hug. Something to keep in mind at your church service tomorrow when the music wraps up and the speaker tells you to greet each other.

I also ran across two “thinkpieces” this week that don’t deal with churchy stuff but that nevertheless provide some food for thought. For starters, this piece about the American news media. Here’s a quote: “Nobody represents America anymore. Today people assume that, in speaking for themselves, their view of the world and how they fit into it should be accepted at face value… The origin of your argument—-what thinkers used to call its sociology of knowledge—-is all that matters. The argument will either be supported or lambasted depending upon whether its readers are ‘coming from’ the same ideological or demographic place as its writers, or not. The actual evidence you assemble is almost irrelevant.” See any parallels in current Christian discourse here?

And then there’s this devastating critique of the film Dead Poets Society. I know many of you love the film, so I’ll just back away slowly now, but first just throw this out there: in that piece, replace “Mr. Keating” with “your pastor,” “humanities” with “Christianity,” and “poetry” with “scripture,” and then see if you find anything to chew on.

The decidedly anti-poetic Ernest Hemingway has been immortalized with an writing program that was given his name. Supposedly, Hemingwayapp.com will help you write like the master. It’s been around a few months, but last week The New Yorker ran some of Hemingway’s prose through and the results were what you’d expect.

And finally, Jimmy Fallon made his debut as host of “The Tonight Show” this week, and while we wish him all the best, we also understand that we need him now more than ever. There’s a clown shortage going on, you see.

Birthdays this week include actors Ellen Page, Matt Dillon, Alan Rickman, and Jackie Gleason; athletes Justin Verlander and Michael Jordan; musicians Charlotte Church, Dr. Dre, and Kurt Cobain; and the uncategorizable Vanna White.

Note from CM: Adam asked me to pick the video for this week. So, in honor of the beginning of Spring Training, here’s James Earl Jones giving his famous speech in “Field of Dreams” about baseball, the one constant through all the years. And all God’s people said… Amen.

Elder Qualifications: Difficult Issues in Translation and Interpretation

ephesus-artemis-temple — Temple of Artemis, Ephesus

I have been having a wonderful experience leading a small group through the Sermon on the Mount. We got side tracked a couple of weeks ago when we started talking about how we interpret the Bible, and so we spent one evening going through Michael Patton’s Biblical Interpretation in a Nutshell This is an excellent resource and is really worth reading.

In short, Michael Patton shows how the process of interpreting starts with understanding what the text meant to the ancient audience, extracting the timeless truth being taught, and then applying that truth to our circumstances today.

This process is not without its pitfalls. Many will read the same text and come to different conclusions as to its meaning to the ancient audience. This of course then leads to a different formulation of the timeless truth, which then leads to a different application.

I would like to walk us through one passage which has had many different interpretations, in order to show how difficult this process can be, and to maybe give a slightly different take on the passage.

The passage that I would like to look at is 1 Timothy 3. The list of qualifications for Elders and Deacons:

3 Here is a trustworthy saying: Whoever aspires to be an overseer desires a noble task. 2 Now the overseer is to be above reproach, faithful to his wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, 3 not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. 4 He must manage his own family well and see that his children obey him, and he must do so in a manner worthy of full[a] respect. 5 (If anyone does not know how to manage his own family, how can he take care of God’s church?) 6 He must not be a recent convert, or he may become conceited and fall under the same judgment as the devil. 7 He must also have a good reputation with outsiders, so that he will not fall into disgrace and into the devil’s trap.

8 In the same way, deacons[b] are to be worthy of respect, sincere, not indulging in much wine, and not pursuing dishonest gain. 9 They must keep hold of the deep truths of the faith with a clear conscience. 10 They must first be tested; and then if there is nothing against them, let them serve as deacons.

11 In the same way, the women[c] are to be worthy of respect, not malicious talkers but temperate and trustworthy in everything.

What you may not have realized is that I may have already influenced your understanding of this text. How? I called it a list of qualifications. When we read this text in just about any translation we read a comma delimited list: distinct items, separated by commas.

One of our problems in reading Koine Greek is that it has no punctuation. So the translators have to supply it for us. This can result in different understandings of the text. For example, Bruce Metzger points out that in Revelation 5:1 the scroll held in the right hand of God can be understood as either “written on the inside and on the back, sealed with seven seals” or “written on the inside, and sealed on the back with seven seals.”

Why is that important here? What if the text in 1 Timothy 3 is not a list but a primary point with a series of secondary points? What if we understand that the first phrase should not be followed by a comma, but a colon?

We would then read the start of verse two as: “Now the overseer is to be above reproach:…”

Is the primary concern of this passage about being above reproach?

Several things tell me that in fact it is:

The importance of being above reproach or its semantic equivalents is repeated over and over in the passage. Above reproach (vs 2), worthy of full respect (vs 4), a good reputation with outsiders (vs 7), not fall into disgrace (vs 7), worthy of repect (vs 8), nothing against them (vs 10), worthy or respect (vs 11), trustworthy in everything (vs 11).
The concept is the first one introduced in each of the first three sections.
It also serves as a summary statement at the end of the first section. That is, not only must the overseer be above reproach (inside the church) for all of the first set of items. “7 He must also have a good reputation with outsiders, so that he will not fall into disgrace…”
Opening and closing a section with a summary statement or parallel summary statements in stylistically quite common among Hebrew scriptural texts. While Paul was not writing in Hebrew, he was well versed in the language. (For those who have had to write essays for School, we do the same thing in our language.
All of the items listed in this chapter could quite easily fall under the category of being “above reproach.”
The context supports it. Paul begins his instructions on behaviour in the previous chapter. 2:8: “ Therefore I want the men everywhere to pray, lifting up holy hands without anger or disputing.” The “therefore” here is very important. As a seminary professor once said to our class, “Whenever you see a therefore, you need to find out what it is ‘there for’. The reason for the therefore can be found in the first four verses of chapter 2. “ I urge, then, first of all, that petitions, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for all people—2 for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness. 3 This is good, and pleases God our Savior, 4 who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.”

So if I was to summarize all of chapter two and chapter three into one summary timeless truth it would be this: “God wants all people to be saved and to come to knowledge of the truth so therefore… you had better act in a way that is above reproach.”

When we do this, not only do the sub points become secondary, they are given clarity.

Let us look at the second item for example. The Greek is literally “of one woman, a man”. Translators have a great difficulty with this one. Consider these:

Faithful to his wife (NIV)
The husband of one wife (KJV) (ESV) (ASV) (NET)
Married only once (NRSV)
Be faithful in marriage (CEV)
Committed to his wife (The Message)
He must have only one wife (The Living Bible)
A one woman kind of guy (Seminary professor translation)

You will note that the translations vary in their emphasis. Some are very male centric, some try to balance the idea of maleness with the idea of faithfulness, and some completely make the text gender neutral. Some focus on the concept of “one” wife, while that emphasis is dropped from other translations.

It is no wonder then that interpretations and application are all over the board. Interpretations range from:

Elders must be men.
Elders must be married (and therefore not single, divorced or widowed.)
Elders must be married to one person (As opposed to multiple people. This issue has come up in African situations that I am aware of.)
Elders cannot be remarried (whether widowed or divorced)

To:

Gender and marital status is not what is being discussed here.
It is about the type of person you are in relationship commitments.
Elder’s must be faithful to their significant other.

What I would argue here is that all these interpretations fail to see the proverbial forest for the trees. The timeless truth that is being communicated has to do with the importance of being above reproach, but more specifically, being above reproach so that it does not become a hindrance to the gospel. (God…wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.) The question we need to ask ourselves then is not so much what it meant to above reproach so not to hinder the gospel in the ancient culture (although that has some bearing), but what it means to above reproach so not to hinder the gospel now.

Let us take the issue of whether or not the intent was to restrict eldership to men. In that culture would women in that leadership position have been a reproachable hindrance to the gospel? Quite possibly.

I have not touched on historical/cultural issues here, but here is a quick quiz for you?

Where was Timothy when 1 Timothy was written?
What do we know from scripture about this location?
What do we know from other sources about this location?
How might that impact our understanding of this passage?

Short Answers:

Ephesus.
Acts 19:21-41. Ephesus housed the Temple of the Goddess Artemis.
The temple of Artemis was one of the seven wonders of the ancient world and had tremendous influence in the region.
This can impact our understanding of the passage in many ways. One of the best books on the subject is: Paul, Women Teachers and the Mother Goddess at Ephesus: A Study of First Timothy 2: 9-15 in Light of the Religious and Cultural Milieu of the First Century. It is out of print and hard to find, but worth the hunt. (The picture by the way is that of the Goddess Artemis)

If we are to properly apply this passage we must ask a slightly different question: What does being above reproach for the sake of the gospel mean in our society today? How would it apply to our elders? Would restricting eldership to men be above reproach and help to advance the gospel, or would it be reproachable and serve to hinder the gospel? I would argue that the latter is true, and that restricting women from leadership positions is now considered very reproachable, and I have personally seen how it has hindered the gospel. In this case, because of the timeless truth that is being communicated, our application might be very different to the first century application. Not being faithful to your partner, on the other hand could be considered just as reproachable and a hindrance to the gospel today as it was in the time of Paul and Timothy.

There is so much more that I could say on this topic and I have just begun to scratch the surface. I am very interested in how my ideas resonate with you. Let the (cordial) debate begin!

Final note: I do need to give credit to Miguel Ruiz, as the idea for this topic came from a facebook discussion that we had on a facebook post he had made. His perspective may differ.

An Ordinary God

O the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God!
How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways!
‘For who has known the mind of the Lord?
Or who has been his counselor?’
‘Or who has given a gift to him, to receive a gift in return?’
For from him and through him and to him are all things.
To him be the glory for ever. Amen.

– Romans 11:33:36, NRSV

* * *

In an opinion piece at RNS, Mitchell Stevens argues that, while society is not becoming less religious, the “god” people worship has generally become diminished. God is a mere shadow of his former self.

God is not, to borrow Friedrich Nietzsche’s image from 1882, dead. And neither is religion approaching extinction, despite what its staunchest opponents may have wished. The number of people in the world who have rejected religion has been rising rapidly; nonetheless, as of 2012 only 13 percent of the world’s population would describe themselves as convinced atheists, according to a global survey by WIN-Gallup International. Here in the United States, only 5 percent would accept that designation.

However, religion has been growing much less important. God once was seen as commanding the entire universe and supervising all of its inhabitants — inflicting tragedies, bestowing triumphs, enforcing morality. But now, outside of some lingering loud pockets of orthodoxy, we have witnessed the arrival of a less mighty, increasingly inconsequential version of God.

Stevens supports his case by making the following observations:

Religions explain much less than they used to.

God is being given less credit for the outcomes of our personal experiences.

The worship of this God is also less demanding, and religions tend to impose fewer restrictions on adherents. People are also less likely to go along with the standards religions might promote.

Most today hold their religious beliefs more lightly than their ancestors.

The commenter quotes the poet Percy Bysshe Shelley, who predicted that religion would not be “o’erthrown” but simply become “unregarded.” Then he concludes:

Religion’s supporters can take comfort in the fact that, so far, most minds still find room for some sort of God. But as religion recedes and we contend less and less with the strictures of ancient holy texts, it is an increasingly distant, indistinct, uninvolved, ordinary God.

* * *

Mitchell Stevens is describing life in a secularized age, with little room for transcendence, mystery, awe, and humility. In our world, humans can recreate any sort of miracle or spectacle by means of CGI on a 3-D Imax movie screen, and so it has become hard to be “wowed” by almost anything. The most distant stars in the universe and the smallest particles of matter seem accessible to humans, and the fact that I can view them all and hear them explained in my living room or on the device in the palm of my hand threatens to diminish the wonder of life itself.

As I sit here tonight with my laptop, I have easy and quick access to a quantity of information my ancestors could never have imagined even existed. They gazed into the night sky and felt miniscule. They could explain so little, compared to what we know today. Sure, we still face intractable challenges like cancer, poverty, and warfare, but the very fact that we see them as “challenges” rather than as “powers and principalities” holding dread sway over us signals that we live in a different age.

Is it possible for us to imagine anything we cannot ultimately master, given enough time and resources?

Is it still possible for us to imagine a God who is beyond our knowledge and control?

Where is this leading? Religion may have a future, but what of God?

Site Update – Feb. 2014

As most of you know, we’ve had some major changes around Internet Monk this winter. Foremost among them was the departure of our friend and mentor Jeff Dunn. Jeff and I met around the time of Michael Spencer’s death. He had helped Michael with his book, and when Michael knew he would be leaving this life, he turned to Jeff and me and asked us to carry on the blog. Jeff gave good leadership to IM, but needed to leave at this time to attend more fully to some personal and family business. I keep in touch with him regularly and had a nice visit with him, his family, and friends like Adam Palmer earlier this year in Tulsa. Please continue to keep Jeff in your prayers as he deals with the challenges in this season of his life.

For some time now, we’ve been discussing a few behind the scene changes that will give us a more stable site with a better experience for our readers. Some of those will take place this week. Our technical advisor, Joe the Plumber, has been helping me and we ask for your prayers as we make backstage transitions.

For example, lately, we have been dealing with some server issues. You may have received “database errors” when accessing the site, and on our end we have been battling incursions of spam that have required non-stop monitoring to make sure all legitimate comments get through in a timely fashion. We’re sorry for any problems you’ve encountered. It is hoped that they will be cleared up soon.

This site wouldn’t be what it is without two things: our writers and our readers.

You may not be aware of it, but all of our writers volunteer their time and gifts to present daily posts designed to carry on Michael’s legacy of challenging and encouraging us forward in lives marked by a Jesus-shaped spirituality. We all deal with the daily realities of family, work, and life in our various settings, and try to carve out time to write things that will prompt serious thought and discussion on matters of life lived Christianly. I am so grateful for those who do this, and occasionally we ask some of you, our readers, to contribute posts too.

Internet Monk is a labor of love, but we do have a few regular bills to pay too. If you have any interest in sending a donation at any time to help us, you can do so through the PayPal “Donate” button on the top right hand corner of the page. If you would prefer to contact me personally about our needs, please send me an email at the “Write Chaplain Mike” link, also at the top of the page. All donations go toward keeping the site going and no one profits from what anyone gives.

Finally, let me give a word of thanks to you, our readers. I don’t do this often enough. Occasionally, it hits me and I’m blown away by the quality of the discussion and interaction we have here, as I indicated on a recent post. I hope our audience will continue to grow and that the discussion will keep gaining momentum. Right now, thousands of people stop by every day to check out IM, and I would love to see that number jump to the tens of thousands — not because we’re trying to make a name for ourselves, but because we value thoughtful and respectful conversation and want to see that increase in this day of information overload and innocuous sound bites.

For the glory of God and the good of others,

Chaplain Mike

A Surprising Implication of the New Perspective

St_Paulus_St_Gallen — St. Paul, 9th c manuscript, Monastery of St. Gallen

We haven’t talked much about biblical scholarship lately.

I know it’s not necessarily high on the agenda for a number of our readers, but perhaps others might wish we would discuss such matters more often. Honestly, too much time was spent in my former fundamentalist and evangelical circles arguing about who wrote what book of the Bible and so on, and marking who was “in” and “out” on that basis. Biblical/apologetic battles (usually between Christian traditions) received an inordinate amount of attention during my training for pastoral ministry and many of us were thereby shortchanged with regard to training in worship, pastoral care, spiritual formation, and church life.

Nevertheless, an awareness of the issues in biblical scholarship has a place, and today we’ll give some time to an interesting development noted by N.T. Wright in his latest book.

Some Bible scholars have expressed opposition to various forms of the so-called “New Perspective” because they challenge certain long-held conservative positions, particularly with regard to soteriology (doctrines of salvation). However, as today’s quote from N.T. Wright illustrates, some of these new perspectives also call into question established liberal/critical conclusions about Paul and the Bible, and actually end up reinforcing what conservatives have been arguing for all along.

Per Wright, critical scholars deny Pauline authorship of many of the epistles attributed to him because of dogmatic agendas. However, the findings of Wright and others have undercut the dogmas which formed the foundation for those views.

Hardly anybody today questions the authenticity of seven of the “Pauline” letters: Romans, the two Corinthian letters, Galatians, Philippians, the first of the Thessalonian letters, and Philemon — though it is a salutary exercise to remember that all have them have been challenged at one stage or another, and that F.C. Baur, who launched the nineteenth century Tübingen school, regarded only the first four of those as genuine, spreading all the others out across a lengthy chronological framework. That position died a death over a century ago, but some of Baur’s assumptions linger on in other forms, as we shall see.

It is high time, in my view, to reconsider the three obvious omissions in the list, namely Ephesians, Colossians, and 2 Thessalonians. Many scholars have in fact resisted the trend on one or more of these letters, more with Colossians than with the other two. Reasons of style are often cited. But I have come to think that the main reasons why Ephesians and Colossians have been regarded as non-Pauline (or, in the somewhat grandiose phrase, Deutero-Pauline) is because they fly in the face of the liberal protestant paradigm for reading Paul which dominated the scholarly landscape for several generations, but which has been undermined from more or less all sides over the course of recent decades. Quite simply, Ephesians in particular, and Colossians to a considerable extent, seem to have a much stronger and higher view of the church — and, indeed, of Jesus himself — than many scholars have been prepared to allow. The real Paul, such scholars assumed, taught “justification by faith”, and since this was held to be radically incompatible with what was seen as a high view of the church (sometimes, too, with a high view of Jesus), Paul could not have written those letters. Indeed, these letters did not appear to teach “justification by faith”, except in the single verse Ephesians 2:8, and that could be explained away in terms of “Deutero-Paul” nodding politely to his great exemplar. But Procrustean beds will not do. It is time to challenge such dogma-driven prejudices head on.

But surely (someone might ask), isn’t that liberal protestant paradigm what has been challenged so strongly over the last generation by the “new perspective”? And what about the new “political” and “sociological” readings of Paul? Now that they’ve highlighted Paul’s vision of Christ as sovereign over the powers, and realized that Paul was interested in forming and shaping the early communities, might that not affect a decision about sources? What, indeed, about the fashion for “apocalyptic”? Might that not have changed things as well?

Well, yes, all three of these movements might well have had that effect. The “new perspective” might well have noticed that the main emphasis which has emerged from its own study of Romans and Galatians is exactly what we find in Ephesians 2:11-21, and that the stress on “participation in Christ” which was so important already for Albert Schweitzer, and which has reemerged as a central theme for writers like Ed Sanders and Douglas Campbell, is massively reaffirmed there as well. So, too, the “political Paul” of Horsley and others might have been thought very likely to emphasize the sovereignty of Jesus Christ over all the powers and authorities, and the victory of the cross in which those powers were led as a defeated rabble behind him. There we are again: Ephesians and Colossians….

– N.T. Wright
Paul and the Faithfulness of God

A broader and clearer understanding of the N.T. message — the Gospel that is more than simply “justification by faith” for individuals and the hope of heaven when we die — not only helps us understand Jesus and his Messianic mission better, but also sheds a new light on the epistles, suggesting that the “Paul” of both conservatives and liberals may have been misunderstood in some key ways in the past.

The Least of God’s Holy People

As I reflect on my life today, many years after my ordination to the priesthood and that season of monastic life at the Abbey of Genesee, I still feel like the least of God’s holy people. Looking back over the years, I realize that I am still struggling with the same problems I had all those years ago. Notwithstanding my many prayers, periods of retreat, advice from friends, and time with counselors and confessors, it seems that very little, if anything, has changed. I am still the restless, nervous, intense, distracted, and impulse-driven person I was when I set out on this spiritual journey. I am still searching for inner peace and unity and a resolution to my many internal conflicts. At times this obvious lack of spiritual maturation depresses me as I enter into the “mature” years.

– Henri Nouwen
Discernment: Reading the Signs of Daily Life

* * *

The stories of our fathers and mothers in the faith reflect Henri Nouwen’s admission: they are not, by and large, stories of transformation. Reading them, I do not see that the peculiarities and rough edges of their personalities were changed into something much different over the course of their lives. Yes, they learned to trust and obey. But I don’t think today’s commonly expressed religious idea of “life-change” is an appropriate category to describe the “progress” we can talk about with regard to the patriarchs’ and matriarchs’ relationships with God.

Perhaps the best way to say what actually took place is that they became more themselves. They grew into more mature versions of themselves. Flaws of character were not erased or reversed or covered up. Rather, the lines, blemishes, and imperfections that once made them appear unattractive slowly became set into integral marks of quirky beauty and character. Perhaps a saint is nothing more than that old scoundrel we can’t help but smile at.

This was certainly true of the patriarch Jacob. Born trying to supplant his brother’s place, he lived as a schemer to the end. Having tricked his brother out of both birthright and blessing, he was forced to flee home. The living God met him on the road in an encounter that we sometimes speak of as Jacob’s “conversion” experience. However, if it was a conversion, it didn’t change Jacob very much. He emerged from the divine dream and immediately began bargaining with God:

“If God will be with me, and will keep me in this way that I go, and will give me bread to eat and clothing to wear, so that I come again to my father’s house in peace, then the Lord shall be my God, and this stone, which I have set up for a pillar, shall be God’s house; and of all that you give me I will surely give one-tenth to you” (Genesis 28:20-22).

What a deal for God.

It seems Jacob almost met his match when he went next to live with his uncle Laban. The story of their many years together is a tale of two tricksters continually trying to outdo each other. Meanwhile, in his own tent Jacobs’ wives scratched and clawed to gain an advantage like prizefighters. Ultimately, Jacob stuck it to Laban, packed up his contentious clan, and hit the road with a pile of booty.

Having left that frying pan, he turned back home — toward the fire that was his brother Esau, who had held grudges ever since Jacob left. While en route, a man (an angel, God himself) ambushed the patriarch and they wrestled through the night until Jacob emerged the crippled victor — Israel. I guess you could call that transformation. I call it a busted hip and the knowledge that the only hope for any of us is hanging on to God for dear life.

For the rest of Jacob’s days, he and the family dealt with the consequences and ongoing patterns of his lifetime of deception. The character traits engraved on Jacob’s face and visible in his constant limp flowed through the rest of the family, and until the day he died, Jacob worried and struggled to keep faith, hope, and love alive in a clan full of connivers.

The last story about Jacob before his death brings a smile. Joseph presents his two sons to their grandfather for his blessing. Manasseh, the firstborn, should have been blessed with Jacob’s right hand, but instead the patriarch places it on the head of the younger, Ephraim. Manasseh, the elder and rightful heir, gets the left hand — second best.

Joseph has a hissy fit and objects. He thinks the old man made a mistake because of his failing eyesight. This is the ultimate faux pas; it will scar his boys for life.

But Jacob insists. Here at the end of all his journeys, he wants to pass on what he’s learned about the only thing that really matters: God’s choice, God’s blessing, God’s grace, God’s relentless promises.

I think I can hear Jacob chuckle a little at Joseph’s indignation. We chuckle with him.

Perhaps a saint is nothing more than that old scoundrel we can’t help but smile at.

Miguel Ruiz: A Response to “Annoying Things in Worship Songs”

psalms microcall — Psalms (microcalligraphy), Leon Azoulay

Note from CM: Miguel is a regular reader and commenter on Internet Monk. I appreciate his personal and theological insights as one who is working in a congregational context and share his passion for worship and for the music that is such an important ingredient in our worship. Today, Miguel responds to a recent article that uses the Psalms to reflect on contemporary worship music.

* * *

A Response to “Annoying Things in Worship Songs”
by Miguel Ruiz

Jeremy Pierce has an article up on Justin Taylor’s blog over at The Gospel Coalition. It is a satirical look at some of the critiques leveled against recent church music that holds these critiques (or rough caricatures of them) up to the Psalms in order to see if they would condemn the sacred texts.

Now, I understand the purpose of the article was to be humorous and make the point that we ought to be careful how we criticize Contemporary Christian music. It takes inarticulate lines of reasoning to their logical absolutes, and I commend his idea of careful, critical reflection on doxological practices. This purpose of this response is to engage his reasoning and provide a rebuttal for the sake of promoting a deeper reflection on the purpose of music and singing in worship.

In his caricature, I believe he too quickly brushes aside legitimate critiques of poorly written music. But more importantly, the article deflects valid critiques with a seemingly poor understanding of what the Psalms are and very little engagement with their substance.

It begins: “Here are some of the things I really hate in a worship song” …

1. Too simplistic, banal, lacing in depth, shallow, doctrine-less: Consider this one that just talks about unity among brothers that only mentions God in passing at the very end. [Psalm 133]

“Simplistic, banal, lacking in depth, shallow, and doctrineless” is quite a hefty label for any portion of Scripture. Psalm 133 is rich in Biblical allusions and instruction. See Christ’s prayer in John 17 (especially verse 21). It is a perfect illustration of how the Psalms are Christ’s own prayers. Do the songs we sing in church reflect the heart of Christ?

2. It’s so repetitive. I mean, come on, how many times can you repeat “His steadfast love endures forever” before you start thinking the song is going to go on forever? [Psalm 118 and 136]

These are not the same as some of the simplistic mantras we call “worship” these days. The refrain is repeated, but what about the rest of the text? It makes Wesley’s 17 stanzas of “O For a Thousand Tongues” look like an introduction. Consider these psalms likely had more of a liturgical use to them, rather than comprising a song festival prior to the sermon. Also, the simple refrain made it possible for worship assemblies prior to the invention of the printing press or projection screen to participate interactively with a text that was more complex than they could easily memorize. Do our songs recount God’s might works on our behalf in detail?

3. For some songs, the focus is too much on the instruments, and the sheer volume leads to its seeming more like a performance than worship and prevents quiet contemplation. [Psalm 150]

There is a difference between the use of instruments and a focus on them. They didn’t go off on a 16 bar shofar solo after the predictable post-chorus buildup. Not that solos in church are always wrong (I do them), but there is a difference between instruments used to support group singing and the shameless pursuit of “cool.” There is also a difference between being loud, and being always loud. Psalm 150 does not preclude silence before the lord. Does our worship provide the sort of balance that includes jubilant rejoicing, quiet reverence, and silent reflection?

4. There might be too much emphasis on too intimate [Psalm 27] a relationship with God, using first-person [Psalm 13] singular pronouns like “me” [Psalm 6] or “I” or second-person pronouns like “you” instead of words like “we” and “God.” This fosters a spirit of individualism, and it generates and atmosphere of religious euphoria rather than actual worship of God. Worship should be about God, not about us. Or what about the ones that use physical language to describe God and our relationship with him? Can you really stomach the idea of tasting God? [Psalm 34]

Psalm 27 is so much more substantive than a “Jesus is my boyfriend” jingle. Psalm 13’s use of the personal pronoun is for supplication. You can’t ask for God’s aid without it. Many worship songs use it to express how much we love God and are wholeheartedly dedicated to him and are going to serve him. One highlights the necessity of God’s work on our behalf, the other highlights our own works offered up to God. Oh that contemporary songwriters would lament over sin and model repentance in their songs like Psalm 6. This is truly a lost art. And “tasting God” is only an offense to non-sacramental churches, where the idea should at least be entertained metaphorically on the basis of John 6. Do our songs have the kind of substance that implores God for help, portrays sin rightly, and confronts us with Biblical metaphor?

5. Some songs have way too many words for anyone to learn. [Psalm 119]

If you stick with the same repertoire long enough, you’d be surprised how much people retain. Disposable songs rotated out after 2.5 years weren’t worth memorizing to begin with. A song that is older than your parish and will likely outlast it is worth memorizing: it can bring you comfort in times where you are unable to attend a worship service. Do we sing texts that are worth reading, marking, learning, and inwardly digesting?

6. It patterns its worship on experiences that not everyone in the congregation will be able to identify with. If you’re not in the frame of mind or don’t have the emotional state in question (e.g., a desperate longing for God [Psalm 63]), then what are you doing lying and singing it? Worship leaders who encourage that sort of thing are making their congregations sing falsehoods.

Just a second there. A desperate longing for God is not quite a stretch as “surrendering all.” There is room for the totality of human emotional experience to be expressed in worship, as the Psalms model. Indeed, there is the necessity for most of these to be at least touched on for the sake of balance. The problem with “I’m so in love with Jesus” ditties is they tend to dominate the repertoire and never leave room for the hurting and struggling, those whom Christ came to comfort, to voice their faith in song. Do our songs equip us to process our emotions through trust in Christ?

7. Then there’s that song with the line asking God not to take the Holy Spirit away [Psalm 51], as if God would ever do that to a genuine believer.

I know. The Bible is just so full of bad theology, isn’t it? I guess King David just wasn’t a Calvinist. There are texts like this which provide interpretative difficulties for different theological systems. Should we hide from them? Or rather, can the songs we sing help to explain difficult passages?

8. Then there’s that song that basically says nothing except expression negative emotions. [Psalm 137]

Yes please. More of this. In fact, the Psalms as a whole are about 69% lament. A diet of saccharine pop will poison your soul. Learning to lament will prove a invaluable aide when you walk through the valley of the shadow of death (and you will). What songs are we singing that enable us to cope with suffering as Christians? “You give and take away” just doesn’t comfort me much in times of trouble, especially when my heart is not choosing to say “Blessed be the name of the Lord.” Does our repertoire have room to, as Christ does in Psalm 22, question God in times of trial? Singing through these kind of passages can help us to process out doubts in the light of God’s faithfulness to us.

9. Finally, there are those songs that have like four or five lines [Psalm 117] that people just either have to repeat over and over again or just sing briefly and never get a chance to digest.

But are they four or five divinely inspired lines? Or is it four or five recycled and worn out cliches? Is there room for both simplicity and complexity in our singing?

* * *

Let’s not defend bad songwriting by pointing to the Psalms. They are the greatest treasure in the history of literature, priceless works of poetry that will endure forever. Too many of the products of the CCM industry are disposable, trend driven ear-worms written to evoke an emotional response rather than to cause the word of Christ to dwell in us richly. The industry is largely owned by secular interests and driven by a bottom line, not accountable to the church or primarily concerned with its edification. Would that songwriters these days were more engaged with the Psalms, emulating their style, substance, structure, and most importantly, tenacious Christo-centricity.

Oh that those writing songs for today’s church would look deeply into these texts as the true lex orandi, models of right doxology and spirituality.

Oh, wait… they do. We call them. hymn. writers.

Don’t Even Think about Preaching on That

song-of-songs-ii-1957-Chagall — Song of Songs II, Chagall

I’m speechless, in awe—words fail me.
I should never have opened my mouth!
I’ve talked too much, way too much.
I’m ready to shut up and listen.

– Job 40:3-5, MSG

* * *

The other day I drove by a church with which I’m familiar and noticed that they were doing a sermon series on the biblical wisdom book, the Song of Solomon.

I thought, “Really? Why?”

This particular congregation is not renowned for its in-depth, exegetical Bible teaching. It falls more within the holiness tradition. They emphasize spiritual enthusiasm and emotive worship, and have a history of being legalistic with regard to personal behavior codes. I have an idea the church believes in entire sanctification and I know they are somewhat Pentecostal, with a strong belief in experienced manifestations of the Holy Spirit — though I am not sure what particular evidences they look for.

I would feel confident betting that they are not preaching the Song of Solomon for what it is: a series of erotic love poems. I’m pretty sure the pastor won’t be explaining its sensual metaphors and talking in detail about the steamy longings and fantasies of its characters. Nor, would I imagine, will he spend much time explaining the long history of interpretation of this difficult book within Jewish and Christian traditions. Most have concluded that the book is not simply about sexual desire and fulfillment, but also reflects something concerning divine love and wisdom as well. As one scholar put it, “The Song of Songs has served for centuries as a focus for the religious imagination, connecting bodily passions with the most powerful of spiritual aspirations.”

What will this particular pastor and congregation do with the Song of Solomon? I found their description of the series, and here is an edited version of the direction the six-week sermon series will take:

In this study of the Song of Solomon, we will focus on developing proper, godly relationships rooted in loving God first. If your relationships work, your overall life will improve…. The order of developing relationships is of utmost importance for lasting relationships and honoring God.

Sorry folks. The Song of Solomon doesn’t teach that. I may not be 100% sure what it does teach, but I know without a doubt that’s not it. Unfortunately, there’s a congregation of Christians here in the Midwest that will be led to believe this sublime meditation on erotic and sacred themes is a practical handbook for developing one’s relationships in the right way. Some of the world’s most intimate and delightful love poetry will be turned into bullet points on a moral checklist.

Why did the pastor choose to use Song of Solomon this way? I don’t know his reasons. But I, your venerable chaplain, once presumed to preach a series on Song of Solomon when I was a young preacher, and I know why I did it — because it is in the Bible. If it’s in the Bible, it must be truth. If it’s in the Bible, it must be God’s Word to God’s people. If it’s in the Bible, it must be applicable to our lives today. If it’s in the Bible, God must intend for a preacher like me to understand it and turn it into a series of sermons that will help my church. After all, does not Paul write, “All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable…”?

By the way, my sermon series was awful. If I remember correctly, I was heavily influenced by Watchman Nee’s spiritual and allegorical interpretation of the book at that time, and I’m pretty sure I turned Solomon’s most excellent song into an incomprehensible mystical mess.

Such thoughts lead me to make this point today:

I don’t think most ministers should preach on parts of the Bible like the Song of Solomon.

There are texts in the Bible that are too hard for many of us to understand, at least not without years of study and consideration. Then, even if we begin to grasp them, converting our insights into sermons that shine forth the Gospel with Jesus clearly in the center is an immensely difficult task.

Pastor, you don’t have to preach, nor is it wise to try and preach, everything that’s in the Bible.

Continue reading “Don’t Even Think about Preaching on That”

Saturday Ramblings, February 15, 2014

Did you miss the Christian Oscars? Okay, that is not their official name, but The Annual Movieguide Faith & Values Awards doesn’t exactly roll off the tongue. This year’s big winners included Duck Dynasty, Frozen, Iron Man 3, Grace Unplugged and The Bible. Quote of the night goes to Mark Burnett (producer of The Bible mini-series): “America was built on two things: the Bible and free enterprise”. Now you know.

The New Yorker ran a story on the Christian Oscars. The same magazine looked at when and how we became secular.

Quick, what do Catholics, Mormons, Lutherans (LCMS) and Southern Baptists have in common? Opposition to gay marriage, of course. What else?

Imagine the Mona Lisa carried around a crowded city in a donkey cart, then placed on smurf blanket for examination, having part of it cut off to check the value, being briefly offered on eBay, then disappearing in the hands of Hamas. Laughable, right?

No, its not the Mona Lisa, but one expert claimed it holds the same value. The 2000 year old bronze statue of Apollos was apparently found by a fisherman in Gaza, who took it home on the donkey cart. Joudat Ghrab’s mother was not happy when she saw the naked Apollo carried into the house, demanding that his private parts be covered. “My mother said ‘what a disaster you have brought with you’ as she looked at the huge statue,” said Ghrab. The statue is in perfect shape, except for the two missing fingers Ghrab and his brother cut off to see if they were gold. One was melted down by a jeweler.

A year ago Tuesday, Pope Benedict XVI announced that he was becoming the first pontiff to resign in more than half a millennium. Benedict’s longtime private secretary credited the stunning decision with opening the way to the “enormous impact” Pope Francis is having on the church and world at large. Benedict says he has “no regrets”.

Sochi has 20,000 Muslims. But no mosque.

Want to keep track of when U. S. drones kill someone? There’s an app for that.

Bob Jones University has apparently decided they are not a fan of GRACE after all. A year ago they hired Godly Response to Abuse in the Christian Environment to investigate allegations of sexual abuse. But a month before the results of the 13-month investigation were due to be published, it has fired the firm, and requested that the investigation halt and remain confidential.

“From my admittedly limited vantage point, the gravest dangers for us seem to be not legalism but antinomianism, not intellectualism but sentimentalism, not scrupulosity but laxity, not despair but presumption, not all-out retreat but all-out assimilation, not pharisaic ritualism but anti-liturgical iconoclasm, not missionary timidity but evangelical over-hastiness, not self-referentialism but self-forgetfulness (and not the good kind), not stifling uniformity but disjointed miscellany, not clericalism but, for lack of a better word, laicism.” So writes Michael Hannon in First Things, reacting to the New Evangelization ideas current in the Catholic Church.

Within the last six months, two bastions of conservative evangelical higher education, Biola and Moody, dropped their prohibition against drinking. CNN notes that this is part of a broader trend toward Protestants becoming more accepting of alcohol, especially beer. The article also states many Christians view it as a way to connect with non-believers. John MacArthur, by the way, is having none of it: “It is wrong-headed, carnal, and immature to imagine that bad-boy behavior makes good missional strategy. The image of beer-drinking Bohemianism does nothing to advance the cause of Christ’s kingdom. Slapping the label ‘incarnational’ on strategies such as this doesn’t alter their true nature. They have more in common with Lot, who pitched his tent toward Sodom, than with Jesus, who is ‘holy, innocent, undefiled, separated from sinners and exalted above the heavens'”.

This could get confusing. Facebook announced Thursday that it will let users choose from “custom gender” options on the site, providing a drop-down menu that includes “Gender Fluid,” “FTM,” “MTF,” and about 50 [editor: 50???] other terms. A statement released by the company said they worked closely with Network of Support, a group of leading LGBT advocacy organizations, “to offer an extensive list of gender identities”. No word yet on John MacArthur’s opinion of this.

This could get confusing, part 2. The Maine Supreme Judicial Court ruled the rights of a transgender girl from Orono were violated when school administrators made her use a staff bathroom at her elementary school instead of the girls’ restroom. Nicole Maines was born Wyatt Maines, but had identified as a girl since an early age. School officials became aware of her gender identification when she was in the third grade, when students and teachers began referring to Nicole as “she.” This is following a recent California law that lets students of that state choose their bathroom and the gender of their sports team by which gender they say they identify with. I surely can’t see any un-intended consequences of this one, can you?

In un-related news, Mary Ann Johnson won the California girls state tennis title.

Pew Research Center reports that support for the death penalty has decreased from 78% in 1991 to 55% today. Your thoughts, imonkers: Is the death penalty ever justified?

The creator of Salvation Mountain has passed away. Leonard Knight, a self-described “little hobo bird,” spent three decades painting a mountain in the desert of Imperial Valley (California) He painted pastoral scenes and biblical quotations, all supporting a universal theme: “Love Jesus and keep it simple.”

Children in Belgium will soon legally be able to end their own life. The Belgian Parliament has lifted the age restrictions on euthanasia (the King’s signature will make it law). Joni Eareckson Tada commented, “Society’s unwritten moral law has always led us to save our children, not destroy them – and certainly not to allow them to destroy themselves.” And isn’t not being able to make adult decisions kinda the whole point of childhood? Your thoughts? Should there be a right to die? And what age restrictions (if any) would you place on it?

Do you need to forgive your parents? I came to a place where I had to do just that. Leslie Leyland Fields talks about why it’s so hard to forgive our parents and why we must anyway.

Famous birthdays this week include Cotton Mather (1663), Thomas Malthus (1766), Abraham Lincoln, (1809), Charles Darwin (1809), Frederick Douglas (1818), and Jack Benny (1894) who provides this week’s video, where he plays a contestant on Groucho Marx’s “You Bet Your Life” Program.