Pope Benedict XVI Resigning

POPE GREETS CROWD AFTER DELIVERING CHRISTMAS 'URBI ET ORBI' MESSAGE AT VATICAN

Breaking news from Martha of Ireland:

Breaking news – and yes, shocking news (for those of us who are Catholics): the Pope is resigning.

I’m flabbergasted, so I have nothing helpful to say. The last time this happened was in the year 1295*, so no-one really knows what will happen next or what it will be like if there is a new pope reigning while his predecessor remains alive. Heck, there’s even debate about can a pope resign.

*Never mind that bit about Gregory XII; that was during the Avignon Schism when there were rival popes and anti-popes. Celestine V was an uncontested election.

Here’s the report from Reuters:

(Reuters) – Pope Benedict shocked the world on Monday by saying he no longer had the mental and physical strength to cope with his ministry, in an announcement that left his aides “incredulous” and will make him the first pontiff to step down since the Middle Ages.

The German-born Pope, 85, hailed as a hero by conservative Roman Catholics and viewed with suspicion by liberals, told cardinals in Latin that his strength had deteriorated recently. He will step down on February 28 and the Vatican expects a new Pope to be chosen by the end of March.

Vatican spokesman Father Federico Lombardi said the Pope had not decided to resign because of “difficulties in the papacy” and the move had been a surprise, indicating that even his inner circle was unaware that he was about to quit.

The Pope does not fear schism in the Church after his resignation, the spokesman said.

The Pope’s leadership of 1.2 billion Catholics has been beset by child sexual abuse crises that tarnished the Church, one address in which he upset Muslims and a scandal over the leaking of his private papers by his personal butler.

The pope told the cardinals that in order to govern “…both strength of mind and body are necessary, strength which in the last few months, has deteriorated in me to the extent that I have had to recognize my incapacity to adequately fulfill the ministry entrusted to me.

“For this reason, and well aware of the seriousness of this act, with full freedom I declare that I renounce the ministry of Bishop of Rome, Successor of Saint Peter.”

He also referred to “today’s world, subject to so many rapid changes and shaken by questions of deep relevance for the life of faith.”

The last Pope to resign willingly was Celestine V in 1294 after reigning for only five months, his resignation was known as “the great refusal” and was condemned by the poet Dante in the “Divine Comedy”. Gregory XII reluctantly abdicated in 1415 to end a dispute with a rival claimant to the papacy.

Continue reading “Pope Benedict XVI Resigning”

Have You No Shame?

Misreading

Misreading Scripture with Western Eyes: Removing Cultural Blinders to Better Understand the Bible
by E. Randolph Richards & Brandon J. O’Brien
IVP Books (2012)

Part Three of a series.

“In fact, the entire issue of honor and shame over against right and wrong (innocence and guilt) is a bit of a mystery to us. As authors, we must confess that this chapter was one of the more challenging to write. English just doesn’t have good words to describe this system, and our cultural values run almost in the opposite direction.”

Having interacted with people who live in “shame” cultures, I can testify that understanding situations and relating to people in those cultures can be quite bewildering at times. Whereas I tend to look at things through the lens of right and wrong or good and bad, it has been hard at times to fathom the more relational perspective of friends and coworkers. I can recall many occasions, for example, where it was clear that someone we were working with in India was either giving us false information or not telling the whole truth for fear of losing face. It was not so much “the truth” that drove them to relate to us as they did, it was the cultural values of retaining honor and avoiding being shamed before their community and guests.

Randy Richards and Brandon O’Brien discuss the very different perspectives that are found in other cultures who don’t share our individualistic and legalistic conceptions.

…our decisions to act rightly are not necessarily made with other people in mind — to please others, for example — but on the basis of an objective and largely individual sense of right and wrong.

…Things work differently in shame cultures. In shame cultures, people are more likely to choose right behavior on the basis of what society expects from them. It is not a matter of guilt, nor an inner voice of direction, but outer pressures and opinions that direct a person to behave a certain way. Rules and laws are less a deterrent for bad behavior than the risk of bringing shame on oneself or one’s family.

As a simple example from the Bible, they note how Paul considered himself “faultless” as a Pharisee within his community, even when he was persecuting Christians (Philippians 3:6).

In a more contemporary case, they tell about a region in Indonesia, Aceh, that was hard hit by the 2004 tsunami. An isolated area, the Achenese government at first welcomed Western help. However, after a few months, the government began to worry that they were losing face in the sight of their people by having to rely on outside assistance. Though they didn’t want the outsiders to leave, they ordered them out anyway, effective on a certain date. With the help of an Indonesian official, they were able to work out a way of getting the aid they needed while saving face. However, Americans were furious, thinking the people of Aceh ungrateful, which in their eyes was wrong.

The authors show in further illustrations that the Ancient Near East was, by and large, made up of honor/shame cultures rather than right/wrong cultures. The issue is not which is better or worse, for they both have strengths and weaknesses, and God can and does work in both kinds. The issue is that we may fail to understand what the Bible is saying if we don’t recognize that much of it is written from a point of view that is different than ours.

David with Bathsheba, Chagall
David with Bathsheba, Chagall

The OT story they analyze in these terms is the account of David, Bathsheba, Uriah, and Nathan, showing in scene after scene how David and others act not out of inner conscience but out of concerns about honor and shame. David only internalizes his sins and confesses them when confronted by the prophet Nathan with a story he considers shameful. And then the consequences God pronounced were of ongoing shame for David and his royal household.

This language is also reflected in the concern throughout Scripture for God’s glory and the honor of his name. And Jesus consistently appealed to matters of honor and shame in his teaching and ministry. In fact, it is clear that many of his public words and actions caused the religious leaders of Israel to lose face, thus inflaming their hatred and inciting murderous actions against him.

This chapter fits closely with the chapter on individualism vs. a more collective understanding of life. Broadly speaking, individualistic cultures tend to focus on standards of right and wrong, inner moral guidance, and personal consequences and rewards. More collective cultures operate under standards of honor and shame, relational considerations, and the consequences that fall upon the community for individual actions.

  • How have you seen these distinctions in your reading of the Bible?
  • Have you had any experiences relating to people from different cultures where these differences have emerged?
  • What are we to make of these cultural differences in the way we conduct our lives as Christians?

A Transfiguration Thought Experiment

transfiguration03[2]

This morning the pastor asked us to do a “thought experiment” with regard to the story of the Transfiguration. I thought I’d include you and give you a chance to discuss it.

The text from Luke reads:

“While he was saying this, a cloud came and overshadowed them; and they were terrified as they entered the cloud. Then from the cloud came a voice that said, ‘This is my Son, my Chosen; listen to him!’ When the voice had spoken, Jesus was found alone.” (Luke 9:34-36, NRSV)

Here are the questions:

  • What if the voice from the cloud had said, “This is my Chosen One, listen to him!” and the disciples had opened their eyes and seen Moses alone?
  • What if the voice from the cloud had said, “This is my Chosen One, listen to him!” and the disciples had opened their eyes and seen Elijah alone?

What would that communicate, and how would that matter, and how would that differ from them seeing Jesus alone?

If it were our calling to listen to Moses or Elijah and look to one of them alone, what would that entail? What would our faith and the practice of our religion look like today?

What Did the Transfiguration Mean to Jesus?

transfiguration abstract
Transfiguration (detail), Bowman. http://bowmangalleries.com

“And while he was praying, the appearance of his face changed, and his clothes became dazzling white.”

– Luke 9:29, NRSV

What did the Transfiguration mean to Jesus?

Often, when we approach Bible stories like this we ask what the event being portrayed means to us, and for us. We would do well to remember that there is an Actor in the center of every scene in the Gospels, and it is not our place to steal the attention away from him. So with this story. It is about Jesus, not about us, and it offers one of the best opportunities to get over ourselves that I know.

When Lent begins this week, we might well remember that. Let’s get over ourselves, OK?

The Transfiguration story is told in the context of Peter confessing Jesus’ true identity as the Messiah and Jesus foretelling his death and the cruciform path both he and his followers must take (9:18-27). So we know that Jesus is now focused upon the Cross.

This must have weighed heavily on him, for both the confession and Transfiguration narratives begin with the observation that Jesus was engaged in prayer. As he turned toward Jerusalem and began making his way toward his gruesome destiny, we see him spending significant moments praying. The Transfiguration event, in fact, took place while Jesus was offering up petitions and supplications to God.

Luke alone tells us that Jesus was praying, and he is also the only author who tells us what Jesus, Moses, and Elijah discussed on the mountain that day. In 9:31 we read that they “were speaking of his departure, which he was about to accomplish at Jerusalem.” They were talking about his death. In Greek, Luke uses the word exodus here, with all its rich imagery of Passover, of lambs slain and blood spilt and wiped on door frames, of slaves freed from bondage and life preserved from the Angel of Death.

That is the main scene in this Transfiguration story: Jesus in prayer, being transfigured, and talking with Moses and Elijah about his coming Passion. The rest of the account highlights the disciples’ disorientation and incomprehension of what was taking place. But the momentary comedy of their fumbling attempts to take it all in is overwhelmed when God thunders from heaven for them to shut up and listen to Jesus.

Listen to him!

Listen to the One who is telling you about the Cross! the Exodus to come!

In other words, the story ends with what we said at the beginning of this lesson: It’s time to forget about ourselves and focus on Jesus. His glory. His heart. His prayers. His words. His place in history. His Cross.

Luke shows us that the Transfiguration was not simply about some great experience the disciples had, witnessing Jesus’ glory. That’s what we want to talk about because the scene so impresses us. But for Jesus it was about what was coming down the road. It was about a burden so heavy that it moved him to constant prayer. It was about an event that would bring ancient prophecies and promises to pass, that linked Moses and Elijah and the salvation of the world together in the sufferings he must endure in his own body.

Glory in the shape of a Cross.

Frank Schaeffer: Progressive Christianity is Broken Too

Christ_teacher

Frank Schaeffer has been an outspoken critic (to say the least) of the Christian Right since he left the movement many years ago. He found a spiritual home in Orthodoxy, and blogs at “Why I Still Talk to Jesus — In Spite of Everything.” In a recent blog post, he widened his critique of evangelical Christianity in America to include “progressive” Christianity. Here, he takes on the Phyllis Tickles and Diana Butler Basses of the world who see a new era emerging in the western Church — an age that stresses spirituality rather than religion, community rather than institutionalism, inclusiveness and diversity rather than a “bounded set” mentality, and orthopraxis rather than orthodoxy.

He lays his cards on the table right at the outset of his piece:

I don’t think there will be some new age of religion dawning in America anytime soon unless a lot of people change their minds about worship. The dream of progressive Christians whether they call themselves “emergent” or something else will fizzle along with the slowly collapsing evangelical/fundamentalist juggernaut unless the basic mistakes of North American Christianity are addressed.

In summary, he asserts: “The problem with North American Christianity is not the window-dressing– it’s the whole package.”

And the whole package, as far as Schaeffer is concerned, is the liturgy.

  • Dispensing with the liturgy, churches have abandoned the primary signpost that forms people into a community.
  • Dispensing with the liturgy, churches have lost “something to show up for that was different than the rest of your life, special, set apart.”
  • Dispensing with the liturgy, churches have forsaken the unity that comes through shared practice and tradition.
  • Dispensing with the liturgy, churches have lost the sense of being “home” — “…the point was you showed up and it was always reassuringly the same. It was to worship what the Manhattan skyline is to born and bred New Yorkers: home.” Instead, Schaeffer asserts, churches have replaced the real New York with a Las Vegas imitation.

He concludes:

It’s no wonder then that a generation of evangelicals and disgruntled fundamentalists wandering away from evangelical communities have zero idea about what to actually “do” in terms of worship and practice when they start up their own churches as a counterpoint to the bad experiences they suffered through in times past. They may think that they are rebelling against the straitjacket of right wing fundamentalist “culture war” Christianity, but in fact they’re just simply continuing it by other means. The sign posts are still gone. They are still in a head game of ideas about God, not in the world of worship of God. Until forward thinking Christians are willing to look back at what’s been lost no one is going to be able to get anywhere past just being another fad.

For Frank Schaeffer, the problem is not primarily doctrinal but practical. No matter what our doctrine may be, if our churches look like the rest of the culture, feel the rest of the culture, speak like the rest of the culture, and act like the rest of the culture, we will not “do” Christianity as it was meant to be done. We create consumerist Christians who are ever after the latest and greatest thing.

Frank Schaeffer at table IHere’s what’s actually needed, according to Schaeffer (and I paraphrase):

  • Mystery and open-mindedness in our theology
  • Rediscovery of Eucharistic sacramental tradition in our worship
  • Seeking out the old, the mystical, and the monastic for spiritual formation
  • Abandoning “relevance” and  trying to be “modern” and instead reconnecting with our historic traditions of worship
  • Practicing NT freedom in being more inclusive and recognizing the ever-expanding trajectory of the Gospel, which welcomes the marginalized — minorities, women, gays, etc. — and allows them to serve and lead in our congregations

Schaeffer critiques us for abandoning the wisdom of tradition to live out the human proclivity for “free-thinking” and autonomy that has been at the root of our civilization since the Enlightenment (and which, by the way, was the original sin). If we abandon this “progressive” mindset, he says, and instead intentionally “build communities around ancient worship practices that would be recognizable to any other Christian in history, we’ll be on to something.”

Saturday Ramblings 2.9.13

RamblerGreetings, iMonks. Welcome once again to our weekly gathering we like to call Saturday Ramblings. We tiptoe through the TULIP, or through the daisies (for those who are not of the Calvinist bent), trying not to get our feet wet or dirty so we don’t track mud in the iMonastery. I come bearing a gift for you, a gift that will help lift the winter gloom from your soul. It is a gift of words, four simple words to bring you joy unspeakable and full of glory. But before we get to those words, what say we ramble …

First, the big news of the week. Seems Richard III has been found hiding beneath a parking lot in Leicester, England. The king was killed in the Battle of Bosworth Field in 1485. Then someone went and paved a parking lot on top of him. He once was lost, but now is found. Let the merriment commence.

Meanwhile, a little closer to our era, there seems to be a (link redacted)battle brewing in the UK, circa 1920. Tom Branson wants his daughter to be christened Catholic, while Lord Grantham, the baby’s grandfather, doesn’t want his daughter to become a “left-footer” and insists she be sprinkled by an Anglican minister. There is great tension all around. Oh come on. You watch Downton Abbey like the rest of us, don’t you? If not, you should. Just sayin’…

The new head right-footer has taken office. Seems like a nice guy. Anyone on that side of the pond want to comment?

Evangelical Catholicism is on the offense, not defense, they say. “They” being a new wave of evangelical Catholics. The part of this article that concerns me is where they say, “And so the evangelical Catholicism of the future will be a culture-forming counterculture. It will form its own culture … ” Perhaps they will want to look at how creating their own culture has worked for other evangelicals first.

Continue reading “Saturday Ramblings 2.9.13”

Scot McKnight on Zealotry

Simon the Zealot
Simon the Zealot

Our friend Scot McKnight gave permission for us to piggy-back on his discussion from yesterday on the subject of zealotry.

In the following excerpt from his post on Jesus Creed, Scot describes what Christian zealotry is and what it does, and he contrasts this approach with those who walk in genuine freedom in Christ. He gives some Biblical examples and then invites us to contribute examples from our own experiences.

Thanks, Scot.

* * *

Zealotry is the choice to protect holiness by living beyond what the Bible says, and it finds in that zeal a source of immunity from being wrong. I contend that zealotry reflects an absence of trust in God’s Word. Its motivation is the fear of freedom. Its environment is inevitable: judgmentalism and boundary-marking that together destroy, in separable ways, the unity in Christ. God’s people were not meant to be penguins, waddling all alike, but instead freed, separable, unique individuals who live in community.|inline

I’ve never seen zealots who weren’t also judgmental; I’ve never seen those freed in the Spirit who were judgmental. The freed know the tranquility of where they belong in God’s society; zealots don’t know where they belong and therefore do not know where others belong.

The freed do love others and, in so loving others, care for their moral development; zealots seek to control others, and therefore do not love others properly and do not lead others into moral development but into conformity.

Zealots judge and sometimes condemn others who do not live by their rules, who explore things they are uncomfortable with — not because they’ve thought through it but because they don’t trust others to make good decisions. The freed, however, can live with the ambiguity that freedom in the Spirit creates: they can trust God to work with others, they can trust others to be responsible, and they can trust another group to discern its way in this world. The freed can render judgment as discernment, the zealots only judgment as condemnation. The freed can say “that’s not good, that’s not wise,” the zealot will say “you are bad.”

(By the way, and off the record, in this post — when we combine fences and judgmentalism — we’ve wandered into legalism. But that’s a different post.)

How far would Jesus have gotten if he had lived by the fences of zealotry? How much table fellowship with sinners would have ever taken place? None. Ever. He suffered the judgment of zealotry, but he pressed on anyway. Why? Because he knew that God made people to live in freedom in order to love God and to love others and that was the essence of what it meant to be a spiritual person. It was what the Torah was pointing to then and it was the Torah is pointing to now. This is what my Jesus Creed is all about.

Zealots who judge and build walls lose touch with the essence of the Torah, because they break trust with God and break down trust with others.

Jesus’ harshest demands were reserved for Pharisees who had learned to construct fences around the Torah and who rendered judgment on others by those fences. They thought their fences were protecting people from breaking Torah; Jesus thought their fences were (1) boundary marking and (2) preventing people from living in the freedom of God and (3) a failure to trust the sufficiency of Torah/Bible and (4) they were leading others astray. Matt 23.

So, the fence makers inevitably end up judging others who don’t live by their fences, who jump their fences and who mess around with the Torah by living on the edge and by experimenting in God’s grace with how to live in a new day and a new way.

James blasts away at those who judge others; try reading James 2.

Paul accuses the Galatians of tearing the body of Christ apart by constructing boundaries and by not living in the freedom of the Spirit.

John was willing to reduce God’s will to love God and to love one another. Read 1 John.

Zealots, however, would rather construct fences, build walls, and create boundaries. They fracture the Body of Christ and they deprive the community of followers from the freedom God has given us.

Zealotry is to construct rules beyond the Bible and, in so doing, to consider oneself immune from criticism because of radical commitment. What we have learned is that such a radical commitment is actually a fearful commitment rather than a life of freedom.

What are some examples?

We could give plenty.

Let me hear from you some examples where (1) people add to the Bible and (2) create a sense of holy zealotry that leads to immunity and (3) leads people not to be or do what God wants us to be or do. Got some examples?

What Evangelicalism Gets Right

Hands ApplaudingI want to wrap up my month-long harang at evangelicalism—the camp I have made my home for nearly 40 years now—by talking about what evangelicalism gets right. Yes, there are a few things we do manage to do in a good way, at least once in a while. For each of the following I could also list dozens of examples of how it has been and is being done wrong. (And I guarantee I can name more bad examples than you can.) But that’s not what I want to do here. And I ask that in your comments you restrict yourself to other examples of things being done right. (That will ensure our server is not deluged with comments, huh? I may be pitching a shutout here …)

It’s easy to make evangelicalism the punching bag for all that is wrong with Western Christianity. When I was growing up in the 70s it was Catholics who were the embodiment of religion gone wrong. Now it’s evangelicals. But we are not all bad. And even those who are far off-course are still our brothers and sisters, and we are called to carry their burdens for them. I’m the first to admit I’d rather have a latte with an honest atheist than a dishonest Christian. But the dishonest Christian is, after all, a Christian. And as we discussed this morning, Jesus commands us to love our brothers and sisters even as he has loved us. This is the sign to the world that we are his followers, and the world is allowed to judge whether or not we are his followers by how we love one another.

So in a spirit of wanting to help us all get along, let’s look at some things that evangelicals actually do well.

Continue reading “What Evangelicalism Gets Right”

An Open Letter To My Fellow Evangelicals

open-letterThis is addressed to those who, like me, identify themselves most closely with the evangelical movement. While I feel there is much here that can be applied to other denominations, movements and churches, I am drawing from my 40 years experience as a Christian within evangelicalism.

Dear Fellow Evangelical,

I have shared ideas in the past three weeks on how we can save, or renew, evangelicalism. I’m not interested in just painting the walls a different color. Yet I also don’t want to put up a For Sale sign and move to a different neighborhood. What we need is to clear out the clutter that has accumulated over the past generation, clutter that comes with too much attention focused on me me me and what God wants me me me to have. The message has been that he wants me me me to prosper, so I had better start getting more more more stuff so I don’t miss out on any of his blessings.

There has been too much attention focused on what we are against. The world knows evangelicalism based on those things we fight against. We are against gay rights, gay marriage, gays in the military, gays in the Boy Scouts, and, apparently, gay dogs. We are against government bailouts, handouts, and copouts. We are against big government, unless it can be led by our party of choice. We are against religion (meaning any church but our church). We are against liberal theology (defined as someone who believes differently than we do). We are against Catholics and their candidate for antichrist status, the pope.

There has been too much attention focused on our own clubs, also known as churches. We build bigger and better clubhouses in order to attract more club members, knowing full well that these new members will be leaving their current club to join ours, and also knowing that if we don’t keep adding new and shiny programs and fun things to do in our club these people will move on to the next club that builds bigger and better. And we need lots of dues-paying club members to maintain our clubhouse. In our weekly gatherings, we never say anything that might challenge or offend a club member. We want to make them feel good about themselves so they keep coming (and keep paying their dues, of course).

So we have a lot of clutter to clear away if we are to make our house livable once again. Some have said it would be better to just tear down the whole thing and move on. I disagree. I think there is much good in evangelicalism still. A missionary zeal for the lost. Passionate worship. A willingness to try new ideas and methods of reaching the sick and hurting and dying. A reverence for Scripture. A willingness to let it be known outside of the church that we are, indeed, Christians.

It is this last point that needs to be where we begin and end in our quest to save evangelicalism. This is the one mark that Jesus said would identify us as Christians. It is the way he said those outside of our tribe will know we are his followers. It is what we are most in need of today. It is the area where we are least competent. John records Jesus’ words on this most vital of all tasks we should be about.

I give you a new Law. You are to love each other. You must love each other as I have loved you.  If you love each other, all men will know you are My followers. (John 13:34, 35, NLV)

Continue reading “An Open Letter To My Fellow Evangelicals”