God’s Mercy and Our Lack Thereof (Trinity 13)

In Bach’s day, the readings for the thirteenth Sunday after Trinity included Jesus’ parable of the Good Samaritan. The cantata he wrote for that day in his third cycle of cantatas (Aug, 1725), uses a powerful text on the Gospel written by Salomo Franck. It powerfully contrasts God’s mercy and our lack thereof in caring for those in need around us.

Conductor John Eliot Gardiner comments on this cantata, “Ihr, die ihr euch von Christo nennet” — “You who bear the name of Christ” (BMV 164):

Bach saw the exposition of scripture as the main meditative goal of his church music, in particular the need to forge audible links in the listener’s mind between the ‘historical’ (‘what [is] written in the book of the law’) and spiritual attributes of the texts to be set. Here, on the Thirteenth Sunday after Trinity, he is faced with a Gospel (Luke 10:23-37) centred on the parable of the Good Samaritan which stresses man’s slipperiness in evading his responsibilities to his neighbour, and an Epistle (Galatians 3:15-22) in which Paul probes the distinction between faith and the law.

…With no opening chorus, some commentators are disturbed by the apparent discrepancy, in the tenor aria with strings (No.1), between words which fulminate against un-Samaritan-like indifference to one’s neighbour’s plight and the easy pastoral 9/8 flow of the canonic melody. But isn’t that precisely Bach’s point here: to contrast true mercy – God’s mercy – with its human counterfeit…?

I offer this today, not so much as an example of Bach’s music, but as a powerful text for our contemplation.

How can we, who have been shown such mercy and grace in our hopeless condition, not show the same compassion for our neighbors who cry in pain around us?

• • •

You, who call yourselves of Christ, where is your mercy,
by which one recognizes Christ’s members?
It is, alas, all too far from you.
Your hearts should be rich with love,
yet they are harder than a stone.

We hear, indeed, what Love itself says:
Whoever embraces his neighbor with mercy,
shall receive mercy as his judgment.
However, we heed this not at all!
Still our neighbor’s sighs can be heard!
He knocks at our heart; it is not opened!
We observe him, indeed, wringing his hands,
his eyes, flowing with tears;
yet our heart resists the urge to love.
The priest and Levite, that walk to one side,
are truly a picture of loveless Christians;
they behave as if they knew nothing of another’s misery,
they pour neither oil nor wine upon their neighbors wounds.

Only through love and through mercy will we become like God himself.
Hearts like the Samaritan’s are moved to pain by another’s suffering
and are rich in compassion.

Ah, through Your love’s radiance melt the cold steel of my heart,
so that true Christian love, My Savior, I might daily practice,
that my neighbor’s anguish, be he whoever he is,
friend or foe, heathen or Christian,
would cut to my heart always as my own sorrow!
May my heart be loving, gentle and tender;
thus shall Your image be revealed in me.

To hands that do not close will heaven be opened.
Eyes that flow with pity behold the Savior with grace.
To hearts that strive for love, God will give His own heart.

Kill us through your goodness, wake us through your grace!
Sicken the old being, so that the new may live
even here on this earth, having his mind
all desires and thoughts for You.

 

Author: Salomo Franck (mov’ts. 1-5), “Herr Christ, der einig Gotts Sohn,” verse 5: Elisabeth Kreuziger 1524 (mov’t. 6)
Translation at Emmanuel Music

iMonk Classic: On Re-Baptism

Classic iMonk Post
by Michael Spencer
Series from Sept, 2008

Note from CM: A reader wrote me this week and asked about whether she should be re-baptized. After being baptized as an infant, she grew up in a nominal Catholic home, came “back to God” (her words) as an adult, and now the church she is attending requires her to be baptized to become a member. I gave her my view of baptism, which discourages the practice of re-baptism, since I view baptism as a sacrament through which God works rather than a human work by which we testify to God. At any rate, the exchange reminded me that Michael Spencer, a Southern Baptist, wrote quite a bit on the subject of re-baptism. Today, we present some of his classic thoughts, taken from posts that were published in September of 2008.

• • •

I know there are several angles to this subject, varying according to your own denominational preference. I am going to be writing from my position as an evangelical, a Southern Baptist and a lifelong minister to youth.

I’m going to write about rebaptism, an issue that has deeply affected and weakened my own denomination, the Southern Baptist Convention, and an issue that touches every Christian communion I am aware of in some way.

Rebaptism is a very emotional issue. One reason we don’t talk about it is how quickly it becomes an occasion for disagreement and division. I have seen many tears and heard many angry words over this subject. Just thinking about it and remembering what I have experienced has brought strong emotions back to me, even as I wrote.

Baptism stands at the entrance to the Christian experience. Christians may differ on exactly where that doorway occurs in relation to faith or forgiveness, and they may quibble about how directly that doorway leads into full communion in the church, but all Christians place baptism at the beginning of the Christian life, and assume that those who walk through it are, in some way, a part of the visible people of God.

In baptism, all Christians believe divine promises are heard. All Christians believe that baptism is, in various and very diverse ways, related to faith. All Christians believe that when the Church baptizes, it speaks a word from God to the one baptized, and a word to all Christians and all other persons who know the one baptized.

Amidst all the diverse and differing beliefs regarding baptism, there is a great common belief: This person is a part of God’s people, and is the recipient of God’s great promises in the Gospel.

I say all of this to make one point: For anyone to reject baptism- either their own or another’s- is a powerful and serious statement. It is powerfully divisive.

To reject one’s own baptism is to say something deeply revealing about what one believes about baptism, but more importantly, it is to say something revealing regarding the Gospel itself.

Continue reading “iMonk Classic: On Re-Baptism”

Saturday Ramblings 9.17.11

As it does most weeks, Saturday has once more arrived here at the iMonastery. We work very hard all week long. So hard, in fact, that we need one day just to sweep up. The broom gathers stories we just didn’t have time to comment on throughout the rest of the week, and before we dump them in the dustbin, we like to run them by you. This collection of garbage is something we like to call Saturday Ramblings. So put on your apron, your boots, grab a broom, and get ready to ramble.

Speaking of garbage, Joel Osteen’s new book is out. It’s all about how you can choose to be happy each day. You know, I swear my Bible must be defective. I cannot find the passage Joel refers to about Jesus telling us how to have a good attitude even when the economy is down. Warning: This link includes an excerpt from Osteen’s book. Read at your own risk.

If you want to read something that will gladden your heart, read this short excerpt from Scot McKnight’s new book, The King Jesus Gospel. McKnight, a friend of InternetMonk, gets it. Really.

A committee within the Presbyterian Church (USA) is recommending that the denomination divest itself of any stock holdings in Caterpillar, Motorola, and Hewlett-Packard because of these companies’ Israeli-Palestinian policies. Ok, well, perhaps that makes sense in some form or fashion. Now, is it just me, or is anyone else puzzled as to why a denomination owns stock at all?

Continue reading “Saturday Ramblings 9.17.11”

Fantasy Friday Night Dinner Party

It is an old way to talk about the people and topics we find most interesting…

You are having a dinner party for four, including yourself. If you could invite anyone else in the world, living today, who would you ask to join you at the table? Why would you ask those particular people? What interests you about them? What would you like to ask them?

Today, this is my answer. If I were to have a dinner party and invite three others to join me at the table, I would ask a historian, a leader in religion, and someone who has given me great enjoyment over the years, probably a musician.

For my historian, I would invite David McCullough.

For my religious leader, I would ask Tom Wright.

For my musician, I would call James Taylor.

I will be glad to discuss why in more detail in the comments, but suffice it to say at this point that David McCullough may be the most respected popular historian in the world. I recently heard him say, “If I were an expert at something, I would never write about it. For me the joy of choosing a subject is anticipating how much I will learn.” Few characteristics are more attractive to me than that kind of hunger. Tom Wright is a predictable choice, though Eugene Peterson would certainly do if Wright had to cancel. There is no theologian in the world, particularly among evangelicals, who is as interesting and well-spoken as the former Bishop of Durham. And why James Taylor? Well, first of all he represents one of a handful of musicians I appreciate whose career basically spans my lifetime of being a music lover. Secondly, he has provided my family and me a popular soundtrack for our life. No one has brought us more hours of listening pleasure than JT.

I’m sorry to say that this is a males-only table tonight. Next time, I will have a party for the three women I find most interesting.

Now, tell me who you will be having at your dinner party.

Wild Things I Cannot Control

I was reading through some old files the other day, and I came across a NYT column by David Brooks about the film, “Where the Wild Things Are.” I remember enjoying the film; his commentary on it prompted my thinking and imagination even more.

For Brooks, the movie shines light on the matter of personal character. As he ponders this, he contrasts the “philosopher’s view” of character with the “psychologist’s view.”

The first perspective asserts that individuals have certain ingrained character traits that shape who we are and how we act. I am basically a dishonest person or an honest one. I am either compassionate or unsympathetic. One of life’s great tasks is to develop a deep-rooted character of virtue. Then, I can be the “hero” who will always do the right thing and win the day.

In contrast, the psychologist’s view suggests that our actual behavior is not driven by specific permanent character traits that consistently apply across contexts. I may be honest in one situation while dishonest in another. I have any number of different tendencies that may be activated by various circumstances and moods. I am made up of what Paul Bloom calls, “a community of competing selves.” Or, as in Maurice Sendak’s vision, an island of wild things.

The film, based on Sendak’s children’s book, portrays us as people torn by warring impulses that are difficult to understand and control, even in childhood. The main character, Max, is a boy who adores his mother, yet he also rages against her. He looks up to his older sister, yet trashes her room when he cannot enjoy her in his life as he would like.

In the midst of his pre-adolescent turmoil, Max makes a fantastical journey to an island where wild things live. Each of the monsters he meets represents a member of his own “community of selves.” Brooks comments on what the lad discovers on the island:

In the movie, Max wants to control the wild things. the wild things in turn want to be controlled. They want him to build a utopia for them where they won’t feel pain. But in the movie Max fails as king. He lacks the power to control his wild things. The wild things come to recognize that he isn’t really a king, and maybe there are no such things as kings.

The philosophers teach that once we achieve virtue, we do virtuous things. However, the view represented in this film show us that…

…people have only vague intuitions about the instincts and impulses that have been implanted in them by evolution, culture and upbringing [and, I would add, our sinful nature]. there is no easy way to command all the wild things jostling inside.

That may be one of the clearest statements of the Christian’s spiritual struggle that I have read — “There is no easy way to command all the wild things jostling inside.”

I want to think, “If I can only be king and rule over them, all will be at peace and there will be no more sadness.” But I am not really a king; indeed, there really are no such thing as kings among ordinary humans. The answer is not within us.

However, there is a king outside of us who has overcome the wild beasts (Mark 1.12-13), whom God rescued from the mouths of the menacing monsters and raised up in victory over them (Psalm 22.6-24).

Each and every moment, I must look to this one, King Jesus, to tame the wild beasts within.

A Day at Work in the Great Hall

Yesterday, this Caucasian, American, Midwestern Christian who now practices his faith in a Lutheran church, who grew up a Methodist, who had a spiritual awakening in a Southern Baptist church, who went to a non-denominational Bible college and an Evangelical Free Church seminary, who served as a pastor in American Baptist, Bible, and Community churches, went to work.

I spoke to a gay colleague who attends a Methodist church.

I tried to call one of my supervisors, who is a member of a Nazarene church.

When I couldn’t get her, I phoned a Mormon coworker.

I prayed at the bedside with an African-American family whose loved one had died.

I greeted my white, African-American, Latino, and Asian co-workers at the hospital.

I read an email from an administrator whose husband served as a pastor in the Christian and Missionary Alliance.

I texted a Roman Catholic co-worker about a personal situation.

I phoned a Mennonite friend and inquired about having lunch together.

I offered to give some pastoral counsel to a friend who grew up in the Church of Christ, but is now looking for a church home because she never really felt her parents’ church was her own.

I also sent an email to a United Methodist friend.

I sat at the bedside of an unchurched person and prayed for her.

I had a brief conversation with another chaplain, who is Catholic.

I visited the home of a woman who had grown up Southern Baptist, but who most recently has been part of a Church of Christ congregation.

I tried to set up a visit with a lady who was once part of an independent Baptist congregation, another to a lady who attends a Wesleyan church, and yet another who is a member of Disciples of Christ church.

I made a pastoral call to the home of a man who has no church, but who had a local Pentecostal preacher he knows officiate his father’s funeral.

Then I visited a young man whose family has been part of an independent Christian Church congregation.

I emailed a pastor who will be seeing some patients for me when I’m off. He’s a Wesleyan.

I communicated with a couple of fellow team members who are active in the Church of God.

I will be participating in a charity golf tournament today in memory of a young Roman Catholic man.

• • •

At the end of day, we go to our separate rooms. And like most everyone, I feel strongly about the rightness and suitability of the room wherein I dwell.

But during the day, I am happy to spend time with all of these interesting people, as we try to help each other and serve together in our little corner of the great hall of humanity.

Anger At The Poor

So many people these days seem to be angry at poor people.  I hear comments by journalists, by so-called pundits, by television and radio talk-show hosts, and by the people who call in on those shows.  The poor, according to these professionally angry people, are getting a “free ride;” they’re part of an “all-out war on the productive class of our society for the benefit of the moocher class.”  The world has “makers” and “takers,” and the poor are the takers.  They’re “parasites;” like “raccoons, they do the easy way [sic].”  In fact, the welfare culture has turned them into “utterly irresponsible animals.”  These are all actual quotations, and some were said by people who would identify themselves as Christians.

I’m not making a political point.  I’m really not.  I don’t want to talk about the efficacy or morality of government programs.  I want to ask two questions.  First, why are so many people so angry – furiously, tremblingly angry – at poor people whom they probably don’t know and would rarely see in the course of their daily lives?  And second, what is the proper Christian attitude toward the poor in today’s complicated economic and political climate?

Continue reading “Anger At The Poor”

Some Enchanted Evening

Boaz Awakes and Finds Ruth at his Feet, Chagall

Ordinary Time Bible Study 2011
The Book of Ruth (10)

Update: edited with some added content commenting on the deliberately ambiguous portrayal of Boaz and Ruth’s encounter. Did she, or didn’t she?

• • •

Sex!

Sex!!

Sex!!!

There. Do I have your attention?

Few things keep us on the edge of our seats like a little sexual tension in a story. The third chapter of Ruth portrays a man and a woman on a dark night, in a place known for sexual encounters, relating to each other in a scene rife with romantic possibility, temptation, and bold suggestions.

The accompanying artwork by Marc Chagall makes these themes explicit. This chapter, which portrays the climactic encounter in the story of Ruth, leaves the reader breathless.

Who needs Hollywood?

Continue reading “Some Enchanted Evening”

George, Mildred and the Thin Places

Photo by M. Burgoyne, http://www.thinplace.net

The three of us sat together and talked, as we had many times before — the old WWII vet, his daughter, his son, and me their pastor. They had designated me such, ever since I had been hospice chaplain for his wife and their mother Mildred, a lovely woman with Alzheimer’s disease. Upon occasion, when I visited, she would sing and “dance,” her body swaying to a melody in her mind the rest of us could not hear.

Her husband George, wheelchair bound, has had health problems of his own. He also has the most positive, sunny spirit of anyone I’ve met, despite having faced challenges I could not imagine. After two solid years of war zone action, hopping from island to island in the Pacific in WWII, seeing the majority of his companions killed, witnessing untold horrors, he came home to Mildred a broken man. It took him three years to stop having vivid nightmares, to be able to think, to be able to plan their future. With faith and sheer force of will he went into business for himself and became successful. They raised a family and experienced the post-war prosperity of middle America.

At one point, his business burned down. George turned to the insurance company, who called the fire suspicious and never did pay off. Somehow, they survived, rebuilt their lives, and went on. They had each other, loving children, a spirit of optimism, and Mildred’s music. She played the organ in church, and at home around the house was always singing. At times they had little more than that music to carry them through.

When they grew older and more frail, it became clear that Mildred had dementia. The songs in her mind were the only sounds that made sense. George was heartbroken. The two of them had been through so much together, and now she seemed far away. He could touch her, see her, talk to her, but Mildred was somewhere else. And so it it was George in his chair and Mildred swaying back and forth, a caregiver insuring her safety and supporting both of them in their final season of life together.

Continue reading “George, Mildred and the Thin Places”