Via Crucis

Moving

2008-04-03T16:02:00.000-07:00

I've moved from Blogger to Wordpress. Because I can :)

http://xristocharis.wordpress.com/

-Jon

Positive vs Negative Ethics

2008-02-04T13:29:00.000-08:00

Christians in America have (and are) been characterized by what they are against, rather than what they are for. This is generally a strange set of affairs as it seems, at least in my opinion, that Christianity has historically--especially in antiquity--been known for what it was for.

If it weren't for the friggin' Nazis I'd probably describe this contrast as Negative Christianity vs Positive Christianity, however the phrase "Positive Christianity" has its own definition invested by the sinister demagogues of the Nazi regime. Thus we'll avoid that language altogether.

Rather than Christians defining their ethos in positive terms (i.e. what they are for), Christians have for some time now--at least on this continent--defined their ethos in negative terms.

I think this is a highly problematic ethos because in having a negative ethos rather than a positive one the ethical activity becomes, itself, negative. A positive ethos means an active positive ethical framework by which to act ethically. As opposed to reacting on the basis of a negative (e.g. being against) ethical framework.

A positive ethos would be this: Christians are for helping widows and orphans, taking care of the poor, feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, advocating the liberation of the oppressed, welcoming the stranger and the outcast, loving one's neighbor (including one's enemies), blessing those who curse them, et cetera.

It ought to also include gender equality, racial equality, class equality, an authentic pro-life and pro-livelihood (in contrast to the fairly sterile anti-abortion ethic) ethic; being pro-justice (to restore and make right, not exact vengeance), et cetera.

This is, by no means, to say that our ethos should exclude the negative aspect, we should be against violence, against war, against injustice, inequality, bigotry, misogynism, and the like; but such negative ethics ought to only be there because of the already existing positive ones.

We ought to be known for what we are for, and only known for what we are against by contrast and comparison. If we are for peace, then that logically means we are against war. But we should be known for our pro-peace ethic and our activity to actually live-out peace into the world by the way we live our lives.

Blessed are the peacemakers.

-Jon

Jon's Provocative Analysis On How To Get Saved

2008-01-31T22:58:00.000-08:00

Step 1) Jesus died for you.

Step 2) See Step #1.

Grace is Awesome.

-Jon

That They Might Be One

2007-11-26T12:42:00.000-08:00

"After Paul's escorts had taken him to Athens, they came away with instructions for Silas and Timothy to join him as soon as possible. While he was waiting for them in Athens, his spirt grieved at the sight of so much idolatry. So he began to engage in discussion with the Jews and converts to Judaism in the synaggue, and also daily in the town square with whoever happened to be there. Even philosophers among the Epicureans and Stoics engaged him in discussion. Some asked, 'What is this scavenger trying to say?' Others said, 'He sounds like a promoter of foreign gods,' because he was preaching about 'Jesus' and 'Resurrection.'

They took him and led him to the Areopagus on the Hill of Ares and said, 'We would like to hear more of your ideas. For you bring some strange notions to us; we would like to know what they mean.' Now all the Athenias as well as foreigners residing there used their time for nothing else but telling or hearing some new philosophy or idea.

Then Paul stood up among them at the Areopagus and said: 'It is very clear to me that you Athenians are in every way a very devout and religious people, for as I walked around examining your shrines, I even discovered an altar dedicated to 'An Unknown God.' This, whom you unknowingly worship, I proclaim to you. The God who made the world and all that's in it, the Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in sanctuaries made by human hands, nor is He served by human hands as though He were in need of anything. Rather it is He who gives life to all and breath to everything. He made from one the whole human race to dwell on the entire surface of the earth, and He fixed the ordered seasons and the boundaries of their influence, so that people might seek God, even perhaps groping for Him to find Him, though He is, indeed, not very far from any one of us. For "In Him we live and move and have our being," as even some of your poets have said, "For we too are His offspring." Since therefore we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Divine is like an image fashioned from gold, silver, or stone by human art and imagination. God has overlooked the times of ignorance, but now calls all people everywhere into repentance because He has established a day on which He will "judge the world with justice" through the man which He has appointed, and He has provided confirmation for all of this by raising that same man from the dead.'

When the philosophers heard about the 'resurrection of the dead' some began to mock Paul, but others said, 'We would like to hear more from you about this at another time.' So Paul left them. Some did however join him and became Christians, among these was Dionysius, a mamber of the Areopagus, and also a woman named Damaris, and others with them." - Acts 17:15-34

This is perhaps one of my favorite sections of the Acts, partly because I find philosophy fascinating (Socrates and I are homies), partly because I find Paul's ability to so readily integrate himself into a group of thinkers very different than his own, partly because I think this is perhaps one of the best sermons given in the Acts, and lastly (and most relevant here I think) in part because it shows the disparity within the clash of metaphysical ideas.

One the one hand you have the Greeks who have their own long and ancient tradition, and on the other you have the Jews who likewise have a long and ancient tradition.

Here Paul is mediating between two very different worlds, the Hellenic and Hebraic. These two worlds have very different metaphysical conceptions of reality.

It demonstrates the unique world-stage in which Christianity was born, and the tug-of-war between Athens and Jerusalem which has forever shaped the course and core of Christianity down to this very day.

On the one hand there is Jerusalem, center of the Jewish world, center of the Hebrew way of life, home of the Temple. This is the home of the Prophets, this is Abraham, Jacob, Moses, David, Solomon and Elijah. Home of prophecy and revelation.

On the other hand there is Athens, center of the Greek world, center of the Hellenistic way of life, home of the Areogapus. This is the home of the Philosophers, this is Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Epicurus, and Zeno. Home of philosophy and pursuit of knowledge.

In typical Pauline style he seeks to mediate between the two. He is amongst philsophers here, the top thinkers in Athens, specifically here are students of Epicurus (Epicureans) and Zeno (Stoics).

I think that what amazes me about Pauline thought, what makes me love the Apostle Paul as a theologian is his vision. Paul's Christianity is not radically different than what the Apostles had been teaching up to that point, but it does have a scope of vision that is unbelievably broad.

Prior to Simon Peter's (quite literal) vision while meditating on a rooftop, the followers of "The Way" were quite content conceiving of their religion as little more than a new way to be Jewish. Theirs was very much a Jewish religion, and was exclusively for members of the Jewish religion. There was some idea of reconciling disparate groups, however. For example no one particular sect of Judaism was plucked from the consortium of Jewish sects of the period, whether Pharisees, Saducees, or Hellenic Jews it was all the same: The message of Jesus as Messiah. Indeed there may have even been this idea that, per Jesus' peaceful interactions with Samaritans (the woman at the well in John ch. 4) and His use of the "Good Samaritan" in the parable that is so-named, that these early followers of "The Way" were to help mediate between Jews and Samaritans and bring them together in unity of faith under the Messiahship of Jesus.

Peter's vision, and Paul's subsequent work changes the scope. It's a radical change in emphasis and vision of what Jesus came to do and who Jesus is in relationship to all humanity.

In truth Paul's visionary conception of Christianity is nothing more than taking Jesus' own teachings to their inevitable conclusion. That if Samaritan and Jew are, in fact, neighbors; if a Roman Centurian can have faith, if there is--indeed--no reason for any barriers to exist between people; then God has indeed done something truly magnificent and tremendously gigantic in the sending of Jesus.

It's precisely from this radical vision of seeing all people as part of a single people, rather than dividing them up into tribes and various other affiliations. Rather than seeing 'Jews' and 'Greeks' and 'Barbarians', rather than seeing 'Circumcised' and 'Uncircumcised'; rather than seeing 'slave' and 'freeman'--all these categories cease to function with any meaning in Paul's vision. In Christ God has done away with all these lines of demarcation, that is why Paul, in Galatians, says, "There is therefore no longer Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." (Galatians 3:28) It's why in Colossians he writes, "Here there is no longer Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, Barbarian, Scythian, slave, free; but Christ is all and in all." (Colossians 3:11). In Paul's Epistle to the Ephesians he writes, "But now in Christ Jesus you who were once far away have become near by the blood of Christ. For He is our peace, He who has made both one and broke down the dividing wall of enmity, through His flesh, abolishing the law with its commandments and legal claims, that He might create in Himself one new person in place of the two, thus establishing peace, and might reconcile both with God, in one body, through the cross, putting that enmity to death by it." (Ephesians 2:13-16).

There is, in Jesus, a new way of being human, a new kind of existance. The former way is full of division and bitterness, war and hatred, enmity and tribes trying to exterminate each other. Paul sees in Jesus a call from God toward something new, something which had always been predetermined by God for the world, but which was a mystery hidden in the past and only in the present coming to light. This mystery is the Church (Ephesians ch. 3), which hidden in God from time immemorial, has now come to light through Jesus Christ.

That Christ, who being a New Adam has set forth to establish a new humanity bound and interconnected with His Person. Through His death and resurrection Christ has overcome and destroyed the "powers and authorities" (i.e. sin, death and hell). Being now released from all bondage through the victory of Christ mankind is now free to enter into new life in and with God through Christ who is the Mediator between the two--being the very embodiment of God in human flesh--and this new life is unconditionally given to all as an act of God's unwavering generosity. Entering into the Life of God through Baptism, by which we are bound to the same Christ who was crucified and resurrected, we become participants in that same mystery of victory as Jesus and become inexplicably interwoven into the tapestry of His own bodily life. Therefore the Church--that community of baptized Christians--is properly called the body of Christ. If, thus, we are inexplicably bound, bodily, to Jesus we are therefore participant sharers in all that properly belongs to Jesus. All which is the unique property of Jesus is therefore the unique property of all who are, in mystery, bound to Jesus: Thus it is the Son of God who gives right for all others to be called children of God; if Jesus suffered we too shall share in His sufferings, since Jesus rose from the dead we too shall rise from the dead. If Eternal Life is His, it is ours too. The "evidence", or rather the pledge of God to us that this is true is that we have the same Spirit in us that was in Christ Jesus, namely the Holy Spirit--"If the Spirit of the one who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, the one who raised Christ from the dead will give life to your mortal bodies also, through his Spirit that dwells in you." (Romans 8:11)

This Church, this community of baptized, is the very organic--if not very mystical--body of Jesus Himself; and it is a new way to be human in the world. A way of being human that is organically and inexplically connected to Jesus Himself in all respects, and in which all people of all walks of life are brought together in the peace of God. This Church is destined toward a purposed future, where death will no longer have any power, for at the end of the age there will be a resurrection, and all who ever died will be brought back to life, vindicated by God and experience, in full, the victory of God in Christ who is the "firstfruits of those who have died" (1 Corinthians 15:20).

The purpose and mission of this Church is to live out into the world the same mode of life which Christ lived, and to--through loving words and actions--invite all people to come in and dwell and to sit and be gathered at the same table of peace as we ourselves sit.

Thus whether by feeding the hungry, giving to the poor, taking care of the sick, widow and the orphan we are doing the work of God in the world; the will of God to be peacemakers and ministers of reconciliation. These actions have within them the very character of Christ, and thus in them God is, Himself, at work in the hands that feed, clothe, give, and help.

In contradistinction from an exclusive club with highly mystical and religious overtones, the Church understands itself as a mystical union of people of all walks of life, that is inclusive to all. It is, in this respect, a reunion and re-formation of human community, a re-bringing-back of people who have been dispersed all over the world back together into a unity of hope and community, bound together in the grace and graciousness of God through the Crucified and Risen Jesus. If through Adam all men have become many and divided, through Christ the New Adam all men are being brought back together into the unity of love. Through the old there was war and strife and corruption of power; through the new there is peace and grace and the eradication of corrupt power.

Therein lay the Christian conviction that death is dead and life has sprung up bodily immortal in Christ Jesus, who "in [us] is the hope of glory." (Collosians 1:27).

-Jon

Superman vs. Mithras

2007-11-21T14:55:00.000-08:00

I'd like to demonstrate how Superman is nothing more than a rip-off of the ancient Persian-Roman god Mithras. As we'll see the entire Superman franchise essentially plagiarized Mithras for its own diabolical purposes.

1. Mithras was born from a rock.

As we all know, Superman, whose real name is Ka'el, was born on the planet Krypton. Kryptonite is the broken shards of Superman's home planet which--after Krypton exploded--scattered across the cosmos. Krypton was a large rock.

2. Mithraic art depicts Mithras surrounded by the twelve signs of the Zodiac.

Superman was the obvious leader of the League of Justice, which also included twelve additional heroes: Batman, Black Canary, Black Lightning, The Flash, Geo-Force, Green Lantern (Hal Jordan), Green Lantern (John Stewart), Hawkgirl, Red Arrow, Red Tornado, Vixen, and Wonder Woman.

3. Mithras is claimed to have sacrificed himself as a bull in order to save the world.

Superman sacrificed himself when he fought against Doomsday in the Death of Superman series.

4. Some people claim Mithras was resurrected.

Superman came back to life after his death at the hands of Doomsday.

5. Mithras is was considered supreme lord of the cosmos.

Superman, in one of the movies, made the world spin backwards on its axis and made time go in reverse so he could save Lois Lane.

The similarities are clear. Superman is nothing more than a rip-off of Mithraic religion.

Now you know the truth which the great Superman Conspirators don't want you to know. Spread the truth!

-Jon

Am I a Rebel?

2007-11-15T12:45:00.001-08:00

This is probably the third or fourth time I've talked on this subject, or something similar to it. Yet, here I go again.

In some ways I sometimes wonder if I'm a bit of a religious rebel, and yet rather than eschewing tradition, orthodoxy, I always seem to be drawn ever closer to them. Though I never seem to be so ambitious as to simply say, "I am this thing, and I'll play by all the rules." On the contrary, I always seem to be in some odd place, existing in the wilderness between urban sprawls.

When someone discovers I'm a Christian one of the first things they usually ask (if they as me anything at all pertaining to it), is what kind of a Christian I am. It's an honest enough question, one I've asked others myself. Presumably the question is asking what sort of church I go to, in which denomination do I kick off my shoes and hang my hat. It's a fair question, but it's one I've been unable to answer for nearly seven years.

Depending on whether I think a simple response or an accurate (though more complex) response is required, I'll give some short-hand answer such as "Well, I'm kind of like a Lutheran, only I'm not, nor ever been a Lutheran." or I'll offer this response, "I'm a Christian with one foot in the broad Evangelical tradition and the other foot in the broad Catholic tradition." In either case I'm sure you can tell that both responses may leave a person befuddled.

I'll use plenty of descriptor-terms to describe what species of Christianus I approximate: Evangelical, Protestant, Catholic, Orthodox, Lutheran-esque, Reformational, Traditional, Creedal, Sacramental, to name a few.

To the casual observer this list may seem fairly odd. But I assure you that I take each with the utmost meaning in my self-designation.

I remember I once had a person tell me something like, "You can't be both Protestant and Catholic, it doesn't work that way?" Well certainly you can! Lutherans, Anglicans and other "High-Church" Protestants have been doing it for nearly five hundred years.

I think the problem comes in when you begin to take these terms and make them titles of particular church clubs, you have "The Protestants" over here and "The Catholics" over there, which is certainly true in most senses. I'm just not sure those are the only senses by which we have to use them.

I'm most certainly Protestant in that sense, I'm neither Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and last I checked I was never a member of a Coptic or Ethiopian church. My theological persuasion is still pretty Protestant, but enter my rebellious side. Unable to simply sit comfy I put on my leather jacket and kick start my Harley and I'm off on some journey on the highway.

But where am I going? That's an excellent question.

I've long been what I consider "ecumenical", meaning that in some way I believe that Christians should spend more time talking to one another instead of anathemizing one another. What I mean by that term has evolved over the years.

The lines which divide various Christian "bodies" have become fairly fuzzier over the years, so much so that I've begun to question the very idea of having some "denominational title", I know of other Christians who out of their own dislike for denominational disputes and titles have joined the "non-denominational" bandwagon. But, really, for all the talk of "non-denominational" these come across as virtually carbon copies of one another. I have no interest in the "non-denominational" movement because it seems like a bad alternative to the "denominational" system. It's not really non-denominational, it's simply quasi-denominational.

So that's not the route I want to take, that much I know for certain. And yet, as said, all these boundaries seem to be a bit blurry.

The more I'm on "the road" so to speak, the more I kind of just think I want to be part of it all. Now certainly I'm more comfortable in the Lutheran theological arena than the Baptist one, but I don't really want to say "I'm Lutheran, not Baptist." Not because it's approximating a semblence of truth, but because somewhere deep inside me I honestly believe in an idea. I certainly believe that there are Christians whose theology is closer in approximity to mainstream Christian orthodoxy than others, and often in different ways. I think the Lutheran conviction about the Gospel is more faithful than the Catholic one; I think the way Catholics "do" church is more faithful than the way Baptists do it; yet in all three cases we are still talking about Christians. I am theirs and they are mine. This is that idea I was getting at. That while our mileage may vary, all of us Christians are still Christian, and thus we are all part of the same fundamental thing.

I sometimes honestly do feel that there are Christains out there who are practicing a completely different religion than the one I am. These off-beat folk who go around pounding Bibles over everyone else's head certainly seems absurdly foreign to me; but this is the exception rather than the rule.

So what am I? I have no idea, I just know I'm a Christian. I guess I'm just slowly learning what that means exactly. So maybe I am a rebel, then again maybe I'm just a pilgrim.

Where am I headed? I'm not entirely sure, though I pray to keep my eyes on the Son just over the horizon. I'll just continue to enjoy the ride.

-Jon

Christian Unity?

2007-11-15T12:41:00.000-08:00

As with most of my religious blog posts (which is to say, just about ALL of them), if you aren't a Christian you probably won't have any interest in what I have to say except, perhaps, out of sheer curiosity. In this case, fairly specificaly, what I want to discuss gets close into the heart of inter-Christian discussion and dialogue. Feel free to be a spectator though.

What exactly does it mean to be the Church?

Chances are that unless you spend any considerable time thinking about these sorts of things the phrase "the Church" may sound odd to you. For many people, particularly we Americans, there simply doesn't exist this concept of "the Church", there are simply "churches". There are essentially two kinds of people who think this way, people outside of the Church and people whose only real religious fealty is, "This is what I was raised with." For the latter group this is something like, "My grandma was a Baptist, my mom was a Baptist, and I am a Baptist."

Thus "churches" become little more than religio-cultural entities, like membership clubs, similar to one's national heritage--one is "Lutheran", "Baptist", "Catholic" in the same way one is "Polish", "Italian", or "Iranian".

I want you, whoever you might be, to completely eradicate this idea from your mind in this discussion, because it's absolutely not what I'm talking about.

Baptists, Episcopalians, Lutherans and Catholics are, for certain, churches; we often call them "traditions" or "denominations"--that funny word coming from the Latin, "de nomine", meaning "to name". I prefer the term "expressions", these are localized "expressions" of Christianity, they are "expressions" of the Church.

Which gets at something quite deeper, the idea of the Church over the idea of "churches".

Many Christians, particularly Protestants, both Mainline and Evangelical, are quite comfortable with the idea of the "Invisible Church". This idea essentially says that there is the "Invisible Church" and the "Visible Church". The "visible" is, of course, what we can see, we see "churches"; and of course the "invisible" is what can't be seen, and it seeks to grasp at something deeper, that despite what we observe, all Christians are, more or less, part of the same thing: the Church. That is to say, the one and only Church; what is typically called "The Body of Christ".

Now following the Protestant Reformation, where we have a serious split within Western Christendom between Catholics and Protestants, there were the wars of religions where Catholics and Protestants killed themselves for roughly about a century. This whole thing obviously wasn't working out so well, and Protestants started to come up with a theory of "denominationalism", that each Protestant sub-group was simply just an expression of the same thing. It took a while to get some of the kinks out, but it allowed Protestants to basically stop hurling anathemas against one another; though of course it often meant continued anathemas against the Roman Catholic Church--after all she was to blame for all this (or so you'd think if you read all the anti-Catholic rhetoric which came out of the 17th-19th centuries).

The wars of religion also created something else, a large group of Europeans who simply were convinced that all this organized religion stuff was a problem in and of itself, which of course led to that wonderful thing called the Age of Enlightenment, and of course we've been so enlightened ever since here in the West that we've never gone to war again; unless you count the American and French Revolutions, the Napoleonic Wars, World War I and II, the Bolshevik Revolution and the Maoist Regime--to only name a couple.

The real brainchild of the Enlightement was what eventually was birthed in Democracy and the rise of the modern nation state, particularly the idea of secular government which could keep all us religious folks from slaughtering one another. America was born as such an utopia of religious freedom and religious plurality, with all the glory which secularism brings. This, of course, not to attack religious freedom, democracy, secularism or religious pluralism by any means--but it has all created this culture we now live in today. It's where we presently are as a civilization.

Which is probably why all my talk about "the Church" sounds so very odd.

Here's the real meat of what I'm getting at: Christ did not establish "churches", and talk to your local Catholic priest and he'll tell you the very same thing; but fear not my Protestant chums, I am not arguing on behalf of Rome, at least not completely. I am, however, arguing on behalf of something more than a mere amorphous "invisible" Christian unity.

Here's the cold and painful truth: What really divides us as Christians is not that we disagree on this or that point of theological minutia, Christians have been debating theology since Paul and James discussed the "Gentile Problem" at the Council of Jerusalem in around 50 AD. Anyone who cares much for studying Church history and reading the things Christians have been saying and writing over the centuries knows that all those guys with long beards and funny names disagreed on a hell of alot. Yet they were all still part of the same Church, probably because they had no concept for "church" in the modern sense. For them there simply was what there was, and so it didn't matter where you were, in what city you visited, you could go to any urban center throughout the known world and gather with your fellow believers and experience life together with them.

What made them one wasn't their agreement on theological minutia (though certainly theology was tremendously important, something also clear from a cursory study of Church history), but their participation together in worship. It was their liturgia--their work of worship as the people of God--which unified them as the Church. And for most of us Evangelicals, what we typically call "worship" would, no doubt, be completely and utterly alien to Christians from the apostolic era onward. For them worship was not getting up on Sunday, going to your local church building and singing a few hymns. Though they certainly did sing hymns, and hymnody is a vibrant part of the Christian tradition. For them what made worship actually worship was the Eucharist (Holy Communion, the Lord's Supper, the Table of the Lord, the Agape Feast, etc). Everything else which they did when they gathered was organized around this centralized event. The hymns, the prayers, the homily (sermon), these were all in place, placed around the reason the Faithful even gathered to begin with: To receive the bread and the wine.

There are good chances that this may seem silly to you, because this idea is probably so alien from your very conception of worship. Such is the way things have become over the last couple hundred years for many Protestants, but it's the truth.

Christians gathered to eat. Their eating together was the most fundamental part of their worship.

The theological meaning of the Eucharist for the ancient Church was that it was the actual body and blood of Christ, and there was a mystical meaning between the ideas of Jesus' body, the bread and the wine, and the Church as "Body of Christ".

I think this much is clear from reading just about anyone who had anything to say about the subject from antiquity: The bread and the wine of the Eucharist simply, and really, was the body and blood of Christ. This is long before theories like "Transubstatiation" existed, the philosophical ideas of medieval theologians. There was no "theory", it was simply "mystery" (Greek "mysterium", received into Latin as the word "sacramentum" or sacrament). The bread eaten was Jesus body, the wine drank was Jesus' blood. All the "how?" questions were fairly unimportant, the Eucharist simply was what it was: Jesus present in/as bread and wine. If you don't believe me then feel free to do your own homework.

The ramifications of this, however, are very important. Because three things in Scripture (and the ancient Church as a whole) were called "body": Jesus' own body which was crucified and resurrected, the Eucharist, and the community of Christian believers (the Church). In a real sense then these three things are all in some way the same thing: The Body of Christ. It's precisely in our eating that we partake in Christ's own body and are, corporately, that same body.

Think I'm making this up?

"The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? Because the loaf of bread is one, we, though many, are one body, for we all partake of the one loaf." - 1 Corinthians 10:16,17

We are the Body of Christ. And it's precisely because we all gather at the same Table that we are that very body.

What does it mean, then, if we don't gather together at the same Table? Division in Christianity is not because of theological minutia, but because we forbid each other from gathering together.

Much more could be said of the meaning of the Table, connecting it with Jesus' ministry of eating with people, going into their homes to share a meal, the Eucharist as gathering with Jesus, around Jesus (the Last Supper anyone?), because the Table is the central event where we are actually gathered for, in, around, with and under Christ; we could also delve into the topic of how this Eucharist supplants the Temple cultus of sacrifice. The Church as Temple, Christians as priests (which the New Testament affirms in several places), as well as the significance that only the Temple priests could partake of the Temple sacrifice thus participating in the sacrifice (look at 1 Corinthians 10:18) itself. But I won't get deep into that.

It will, however, suffice to say that what actually constitutes Christian unity is, in fact, the Eucharist--the Table.

As long as we forbid one another from the same Table, or if we no longer understand the Table as the central element of our gathered worship, we are no longer functioning as the Church. What's left are simply "churches", religious social clubs without any significant meaning.

Going on Sunday to sing a few songs, say a few prayers, and hear a sermon may all be really nice, it may be all really good, but it's like going to a wedding feast without any wedding, or building a car without an engine.

The Table is what we fundamentally do, and fundementally are called to do. Because, in the end, it's what we fundementally are.

Church without the Table ultimately isn't Church at all.

The Table of Christ, eating together, is what makes us one.

-Jon

1) The Culture War

2007-11-05T09:42:00.000-08:00

1) The Culture War

Here in America the concept of the "Culture War" has been going on for the past few decades. Right vs. Left. Lines have been drawn and both sides have, in the world of politics and culture said, "You must stand either here or there."

In America you must either be liberal or conservative; Democrat or Republican.

And Christians have absorbed themselves into this, becoming a leading set of soldiers in this fight for, in the words of Pat Buchanan, "America's Soul".

In the 1960's Jerry Falwell helped organize what became the Moral Majority, which became a significant religio-political force in America: The Religious Right. Its agenda was simple, to "take back" America from "godless liberals". It was easy enough for many Christians who already held to many so-called conservative ideals to join the cause and combine their love of God and their love of country into a single religio-political ideology. The Moral Majority and the Religious Right became that religio-political force which many already conservative-minded Christians could side with.

These Christians honestly feel that they are being targeted as objects of persecution by a conglomerated enemy: The Left. They see "liberals" as a force which has growing power, a power which will ultimately triumph over the good, wholesome, traditional values of America--which "conservatives" (specifically "conservative" Christians) perceive as innately and intrinsically Christian. Thus the destruction of the "Christian Republic" and the cessation of "freedom, liberty and justice for all."

How are these "liberals" doing this? By taking prayer out of schools, refusing to teach Creationism and/or Intelligent Design as an alternative to Darwinian Evolution, by legalizing abortion and keeping it legal, by supporting the "gay agenda" and legalizing homosexual marriages--"conservatives" even see this this "attack" in things such as substituting "Happy Holidays" in place of "Merry Christmas".

Now, of course, in this decade, we have seen an increased shift of "conservative voice", under the Bush administration many "liberals" have become concerned with what they perceive as the dangerous and reactionary tone with which The Right has used in its own rhetoric. If the Right were to succeed, say some in the Left, America would become a theocratic state led by Fundamentalist Christians almost or equally as dangerous as Al-Qaeda. Even left-of-center Christians often feel that the Religious Right pose a danger to everyone, including themselves.

In light of this "culture war", of liberal vs conservative, there is a quote by the late Pope John Paul II which I feel is poignant: "The Gospel of Jesus Christ is neithe 'liberal' nor 'conservative', it's simply true."

In recent discussions with a good friend of mine he has, though perhaps only in partial jest, called me a "liberal" and a "leftist". Because of my complete dislike for the Religious Right and particularly for my opposition toward not only the present war, but all war. I oppose violence, because it is my conviction as a Christian that one can not love your neighbor if you are doing your neighbor injury. How can I be a peace-maker if I'm acting like a war-mongerer? How can I believe in both the cross and the sword?

And so I've been called a liberal.

I'm neither a liberal nor a conservative, those labels only have meaning if you buy into the American dichotomy.

The great Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. once said, "The church must be reminded that it is not the master or the servant of the state, but rather the conscience of the state. It must be the guide and the critic of the state, and never its tool. If the church does not recapture its prophetic zeal, it will become an irrelevant social club without moral or spiritual authority."

How does the Church regain its "prophetic zeal"? In today's dichotomy? The Church certainly must not allow itself to become master of the state, which seems to be the ultimate aim of the the Religious Right, nor can the Church simply become a tool, another arm, of the state by which the state enforces its power through ecclesiastical action.

Rather the Church must stand independant of the State, recognizing that the Church has absolutely no intrinsic relationship to the State. The Church is related to Christ, and therefore doesn't even comprehend the national powers of the State.

The Church must be the Church, living in communion with God through Christ, with each other in the unity of the Spirit. Tearing down walls of separation which keep men from each other within her Communion.

The Church must recognize herself to be a spiritual force which seeks no temporal gain, but has radical implications within the temporal sphere.

Thus the polorization of "Left" and "Right" are ultimately meaningless in and for the Church. The Church can only be a source of conscience for those outside of her if she becomes more concerned with the log in her own eye than the splinter in another.

Can Christians, instead of focusing on the abortion issue focus on training themselves in a holistically pro-life ethic? An ethic that goes beyond anti-abortion rhetoric into a lifestyle and proactivity of life that seeks the improvement of life for everybody and the renunciation of death even when sanctioned by the state? St. Cyprian of Carthage once said, "They call it homicide when a man kills another man unjustly, but it's considered a 'virtue' when the state ordains killing." Can anyone really call themselves "pro-life" if they support warfare, capital punishment, and if they refuse to listen to the pains of the hurting and the dying--the widow and the orphan and the foreigner--even those in their own backyard?

Maybe there is a culture war going on in America. But as Christians we don't have to be a part of it, we can lay down our arms and surrender ourselves to Christ and stop being "left" or "right" and just be Christian.

To love our neighbor, to feed the hungry, to speak out against injustice, to support the widow and the orphan, to welcome the foreigner into our house, to give all our wealth to the poor, to stand and identify ourselves with the oppressed in every circumstance, to preach the Gospel with gentleness, respect and grace. With arms wide open to embrace the poor and poor of spirit whom God brings to us so that we might say the Lord's Prayer with honesty: "Thy Kingdom come, Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven."

Blessed are the poor.
Blessed are the hungry.
Blessed are those who mourn.
Blessed are the peace-makers.
Blessed are the meek.
Blessed are the oppressed.

-Jon

My 12 Beefs with American Christianity

2007-11-03T17:11:00.000-07:00

My intention here is to eventually go over these twelve issues which I think are highly problematic in American Christianity, please note that I am not picking on any particular subgroup of American Christianity but dealing with a wide range of issues.

Here's the list, with the most bombastic of titles as I could come up with to make me sound smarter than I really am.

1) The Culture War.

2) The Gnostification of Salvation and Christ.

3) Americocentric Religionism.

4) Jerks for Jesus.

5) The Bibliolotry of American Fundegelicalism.

6) The Sanctification of Capitalism.

7) The Plight of the Enfranchized.

8) The Renunciation of Creed.

9) Antiscientism.

10) The Demythification of Faith.

11) Dominionism.

12) The Exaltation of Modernity.

The Two Ends

2007-11-01T20:48:00.000-07:00

Eschatology: The study of last things.

Teleology: The study of purpose.

In Christianity, I firmly believe, both of these studies work in ultimate conjunction with the other. Together they take hold of the entire concept of ultimate meaning in the universe. Christian teleology goes beyond simply asking or speculating about how it will all turn out in the end, but also draws upon why we are even here and what purpose it serves.

The late Pope John Paul II is quoted as having said that Christ is "the center of the cosmos and of history."

I believe in Christ the very meaning of reality is found. That's a fairly brief statement that carries a lot of weight. If you were to ask me how things came to be my answer would be Christ. If you were to ask me why things came to be my answer would be Christ. If you were to ask me where all things are purposed, my answer would be Christ.

Everything that is exists for and because of Jesus Christ.

He is the source behind creation, evolution, and all of history.

He is the force behind nature, physics and the atom.

He is the life that gives life to all things living.

If I may borrow an analogy from Plato, I'd say that Christ is the "Archetypal Man"--the Form that ultimately grants us our own humanity. Additionally He is the Human Telos, the grand purpose toward which our own humanity is ultimately destined.

He is Man as men ought to be, and His ministerial work is to take the ideality of His own perfection and make it a reality within men. Christ is man perfected.

The Second Adam.

"Perfection", here, must be understood properly as "teleological maturity", of something coming into its full potential. An adult chicken is the "perfection" of the chicken egg. Michaelangelo's David is the "perfection" of that particular slab of marble. The Incarnate Christ is the "perfection" of man.

So taking these teleological ideas and drawing from them and bringing them over into eschatological discussion we inquire as to what the finality of all things will be.

To that end we have the words of God in St. John's Revelation, "Behold! I make all things new!"

The apocalypse is not the destruction of the world, but is simply the disclosure, specifically the disclosure of Jesus Christ (the word "revelation" is simply a translation of the word "apocalypse" which means "unveiling"). The Apocalypse is the disclosure of Jesus Christ, not the destruction of the world. In fact the Apocalypse is the restoration, the renewing of the world. The becoming of the world to its original and eternally destined purpose of God who framed the heavens and the earth.

He who calls matter into being sets its course into its ultimate purpose, with its finality being found in the Same who is its Source. He who is the Beginning is the End, He who is the First is the Last, He who is the Alpha is the Omega.

Since "all things were created by Him and for Him," He alone can is the means and end of the restoration of all things.

While the present "kosmos" is destined for fire, this is not the fire of destruction, but the fire of purgation, the "Refiner's Fire" that makes gold pure in the furnace.

The kind of world we see in John's Revelation in the end is one where there is no need for sun or moon or stars, because the very glory of God and the Lamb illuminate the heavens.

When discussing eschatology one may speak of "Unrealized Eschatology" which states that we must wait for God to act sometime in the future, and one may speak of "Realized Eschatology" which states that God is waiting for us to act.

We could potentially say that Premillennialism is "unrealized" and Postmillennialism is "realized"--the former says we must wait for Christ to come and establish His millennial kingdom and the latter says God is waiting for us to establish the kingdom here and now and then Christ will come.

This dichotomy ultimately misses a crucial point. That both are truth and both are wrong.

We are not merely waiting for God to act nor is God waiting for us to act--rather God has called us to participate in His own work.

That is our calling here and now, to take the hand of Christ and participate in His own ministerial work through the empowerment of the Spirit. To work with Him.

We are to understand the paradox between the present reality of the Kingdom as well as its future fullness. We are not waiting for a future Kingdom, and at the same time we are; we are not to establish a kingdom on earth and at the same time are called to establish Kingdom on earth. The former "a kingdom" meaning some geo-political entity, the latter "Kingdom" meaning the boundless reign of God through the preaching of the Gospel.

A key difference between "a kingdom" and "the Kingdom" is the former is "of this world" while the latter is "not of this world"; the former would simply be patterned after the things of this world while the latter is patterned after the things of God.

The former carries the sword the latter carries the cross.

Christians have no allegiance to the "powers and principalities" not because we are anarchists but because our allegiance is to a higher Power, the Principality of Christ embodied by the Cross.

Christ teaches "render to Caesar what is Caesar's" but expressly forbids drawing the sword. St. Paul says to "submit" to the governing authorities which often meant nonresistance when the governing authorities (i.e. Caesar) decided to have the Christians killed.

In any case we speak of the Kingdom as "now and not yet". This eschatological "tension" or "paradox" is essential to the Christian faith which can not speak of simply sitting around waiting for God nor presume that God is waiting around for us. There is the proactivity of God at work in the world and this proactivity takes place within His Church which is empowered by the Holy Spirit to do the things of Christ. The Church being as much transhistorical as it is historical, the work of God in history and working beyond it. The works are historical, but envelope around history.

What I mean, then, is that the Church is a sacred thread interwoven through history and all its parts, intersecting all things and through which God is drawing all things in, because the Church is the immanent expression of Christ in the world--He who sits at the right hand of God is immanent in the Church on earth--He who sat at the table with His disciples is at the Table every Eucharist.

The transcendent Christ is the immanent Christ. The Incarnation is not mere Christological dogma but immanent truth expressing itself through Word and Sacrament via His Holy Ekklesia.

"Lo, I am with you always, even until the end of the age."

-Jon

This Kosmos

2007-10-21T14:22:00.000-07:00

When we read the New Testament there can be, sometimes, confusion over what the term "world" means. For example John 3:16 famously says, "God so loved the world," and yet in 1 John 2:15 we read, "If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him." What becomes more confusing is that in Genesis 1 we read that "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth," and after God surveyed all He had made He declared it all, "exceedingly good," and yet in 1 Corinthians 4:4 it says, "In whose case the god of this age has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, so that they may not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God."

Furthermore the Prophets speak of a future world where the lion will lay with the lamb, the lion will eat straw like the ox, the child will have no fear of playing near a viper's den; and yet in the Gospel of John Jesus says to Pilate, "My kingdom is not of this world." (John 18:36).

Does God love the world or does He hate it? Is God the God of this world or is Satan the god of this world? Will there be a future kingdom present in the tangible reality or will it be a spiritual existence?

The problem, I believe, is two-fold:

1) Many English translations render two Greek words as "world", kosmos and aion. Which have very different meanings, and, in fact, neither mean (literally) the planet we call Earth. Kosmos means "order" and aion means "age"

2) In the case of the Greek, kosmos, the word has a long history of use as it developed layers of meaning through roughly five hundred years of Greek philosophy prior to the time of Jesus. Originally it simply meant "order", and it was the opposite of chaos, disorder.

About six hundred years before Jesus, the Ionian philosopher Thales famously said, "The world [kosmos] is water." Without getting too much into it, the earliest philosophers were deeply interested in what the world--the kosmos--was. In Sicily, the philosopher Pythagoras would, taking a different approach, said that the world--kosmos--was number; being interested in how the world was. The Ionians were interested in matter, the Pythagoreans were interested in function.

However what these two schools had in common was that there was, in fact, an order, a kosmos, that reality was an ordered structure, an orderly unity--some believed that the order was unitary (one thing) others said the order was many pluralistic (many things). So, for example, Thales said the world was water, everything was water, Pythagoras said everything was number. Democritus held that there were only atoms and void, Anaxagoras held there existed only mind and matter. Heraclitus would say that the kosmos is in constant motion under the power of the logos, the creative word, which was like a cosmic fire causing all things to be in perpetual motion. While Parmenides would say that there is no motion, change and motion are illusions, everything is absolute, being has always been and everything is perpetual being.

Through all this was an attempt to grasp what is and how is kosmos. What is the order and how is it ordered? Is it one thing or many, is it in motion or is it motionless?

From this concept of order--of kosmos--the conception of kosmos being "the world" developed, we are in the kosmos, the order, we are part of it. It's from this idea that we speak of the universe as "the cosmos"--it's all that is, and all that is an order--a kosmos.

So here is what I propose, that the writers of the New Testament were aware of these layers of meaning as the word kosmos was used in Greek. It could refer to "the world" as might understand it, as creation, the earth, moon, sun, the stars and all that is within them. It could be used to refer to the peoples of the world, but it's most basic meaning was still "order", and coulse be used in that sense to refer to how things or something is organized, ordered, or ruled. Thus we can speak of, for example, the Roman Kosmos, the Roman World, specifically the Rule and Order of Rome spread across the Meditareranean; including Roman government and power.

In this sense God can love--agape--the world (kosmos), showing His benevolent grace and compassion through the selfless act of sending His Son into the world. And thus Christians ought to imitate this by loving and being for the world through agape, service and self-sacrifice, loving our neighbor as we would love ourselves. And at the same time if any one loves--agape--the world (kosmos)--that is if they have affection for the way things are done, loving the present order and structure of authority spread across the world, with hate and war and oppression, if anyone loves these things, loving the order of how things are presently run--then the love of the Father is not in them. Because the god of this world(age)--aion--is the ruler which the world--kosmos--follows.

When the Prophets speak of a future age--aion--where peace exists on earth, with lions and lambs laying together, lions eating straw like an ox and children playing fearlessly around viper nests, this is true; and when Christ says that His kingdom is not of this world--kosmos--He is saying that His authority and dominion is nothing like the authority and dominion of the present order--kosmos. Christ's kingdom has nothing to do with temporal, "worldly" kingdoms, His is not a kingdom led and governed by the sword, but goverened by the Gospel of Peace. His kingdom is not going to supplant Rome in any usual sense, He wasn't about leading a zealous revolt against Roman occupation with swords and daggers; His was a kingdom removed from the present order, this present kosmos. His kingdom is above this kosmos, it is something different altogether, and altogether better, and altogether MORE dangerous to the kingdoms of the world and the present order than any insurrection could ever be.

The Way of the Cross is a thousand times more threatening and dangerous to the world and its powers than a rebellion. One kingdom rising against another in war is simply more of the same, it's the same kind of kingdom simply attacking another, they are ultimately the same kind of kingdom and under the same rule, the same order, the same kosmos. Christ's Kingdom will ultimately decimate them all, not through sword and war, but through the ultimate destruction of the present kosmos, which St. Peter says, is "reserved for fire." This is the Fire of God's Presence, the Fire that burns and purifies, the burns away the chaff and the dross. The all-consuming fire that consumes everything, destroying that which is impure and leaving only the pure, which St. Gregory of Nyssa envisions will mean (at least) the potential for the salvation of all and the restoration of all--apokatastasis. It is this fire, after it has consumed everything, where God is all in all, and makes all things new, where St. John sees a "new heavens and a new earth", in effect, a new kosmos. A kosmos ordered not under strife and pain, but ordered under love and grace, where every tear is dried, every life made whole, where the lion will lay with the lamb and the child play near the viper's den.

Christ came to set captives free and proclaim the Jubilee of God (Luke 4:18) and it is within His very Person that the Kingdom of God is manifest (Luke 17:21), the one Proclaiming the Kingdom of God is near, and that it's the time of change (repentance--metanoia). And this Kingdom is manifest through the Crucified Jesus who then rises from the dead. It is the Christ of the Cross who brings forth God's Reign, and sets to ruin this present age and kosmos, establishing within it's crumbling decay a new order, a new kosmos, found structured within His Ekklesia, His Church. While the present kosmos is crumbling in its own self-destruction, Christ having overcome it (John 16:33), and establishing a new world order within His disciples, gathered together as ekklesia--as called community--the new kosmos is being ordered, and will be finally and fully ordered at Christ's Parousia, His Second Coming.

In this sense the Church is the microcosm of the Age to Come, or in Hebrew, Olam Ha'ba. It's purpose is the continued ministry of Christ in the present world and age, it is the Presence of Jesus in the world operating under the power of the Promised Comforter--the Holy Spirit--within the Community of God (the Church) through the preaching of the Gospel and the administration of the Sacraments. Through the incorporation of individuals into the Body of Christ, by the Grace of God, through the Mystery of Baptism (death of the old and birth of the new), and called into Communion--koinonia--at the Table of Jesus, i.e. the Eucharistic Supper where the Gathered partake of body and blood of Jesus in and under the elements of bread and wine; which both rekindles the memory of Christ's Passion which is as much a present reality as it is an historical one, and calls one to meditate upon the fullness of the Coming Time, when all will be gathered with Christ to partake of the Wedding Banquet of the Lamb (Revelation 19:9).

The Church, therefore, exists in the present, with the crumbling of the old order and the dawning of the new to function like Noah's ark, the only place of refuge against the diluge which is washing away the corrupt things of the present.

It is not a message of condemnation which the Church bears, but of reconciliation and peace. It is not with hellfire on her lips that she speaks, but of persevering grace and a call to come and partake. To welcome all and love all and accept all, with all the insurmountable love of Jesus Christ which is beyond all height, width, length and depth.

The present order is a dying order, the principalities and authorities, the powers and dominions, are a dying thing. A facade, and coming to an end. Many kingdoms and nations have come and gone in two thousand years, and many more. America will wither away and die and be replaced by another--these are beside the point. It is the order that is itself dying, whether manifest through Rome or Byzantium, China or the Ottoman Turks, Britain or America.

The powers that be are, by the light of Christ, not powers at all, but merely fabrications without permanence.

This kosmos is dying, it has been dying for two thousand years. It is self-destructive and self-destructing.

This is not "end-of-the-world" hysteria, because I'm not saying everything you know will come to an end tomorrow, or even a year from now, I'm saying it's already been coming to an end for two thousand years and it may continue to be coming to an end for another two thousand.

The present reality, the present kosmos, is one that is ultimately unreal and without permanence, reserved for fire.

Christ has overcome the world, and by His loving grace has saved the world, so that the world can have eternal life in the Shalom--the Peace--of God. Unto the ages of ages. Amen.

-Jon

I'm Still Breathing

2007-10-02T18:56:00.000-07:00

Haven't blogged in a while, thought I'd give an update as to what I've been up to.

I started classes at Clark College last week, finally taking the plunge to actually getting a real education. Right now I'm just trying to get my AA so I can transfer to a "real" school. I'm taking Philosophy, English and Math right now (I despise math, for the record).

I've also got myself a hefty book list (hefty for me anyway), I've ordered a few books off of Amazon, The Politics of Jesus by John Howard Yoder, Sanctorum Communio: A Theological Study of the Sociology of the Church by Dietrich Bonhoeffer, On the Apostolic Preaching by St. Irenaeus and Man and the Incarnation: A Study in the Biblical Theology of Irenaeus by Gustaf Wingren. The Politics of Jesus and On the Apostolic Preaching have already shown up in the mail, I plan on reading Yoder's book first.

I'm just hoping I'll find time to read while juggling all my homework, I haven't had homework in ages.

-Jon

A Prayer Based Upon the Great Litany

2007-09-08T16:29:00.000-07:00

A Prayer for Peace, Safety, and the Salvation of All.

To God, the Almighty Father, and Christ Jesus His only Son and our Lord, and to the Holy Spirit who proceeds eternally, we pray to God the Most Holy and Divine Trinity whose Blessed Kingdom we long for, Your Kingdom come, Lord, in our hearts and in our lives, and at the Coming of our Lord Jesus we now wait; blessing, honor, and glory to our God. Amen.

In peace let us pray. For the peace of God and for our salvation and the salvation of the whole world, let us pray. For the peace of the whole world, for the stability and unity of all the holy churches, and for the unity of all mankind, let us pray. For this house and this sanctuary and for all who enter into it with faith, reverance and the awe of God, let us pray. For our bishops, presbyters, and deacons in the service of Christ; for all clergy everywhere and for all the Faithful, let us pray. For this nation, and all nations, for our leaders and all leaders, without bias or prejudice, with goodwill toward all men, and the peace and safety of the whole world, let us pray. For this city, for every city, for all people and all Christians everywhere, let us pray. For good weather, for abundance of fruit and grain, for temperate seasons, let us pray. For travellers by land, sea and air, for the sick, the suffering; for the captives and those in prison, for the hungry and the weak, and for all those who are oppressed, and for their salvation, let us pray. For our deliverance from all affliction, wrath, danger, distress, and all the evil charms of the evil one, let us pray. From all temptation, save us and rescue us; help us, save us, have mercy upon us, and protect us, O Lord our God, by Your Grace.

Remembering now St. Mary the Virgin and mother of our Lord, along with all the Holy Saints, committing ourselves to their example, and committing ourselves to one another, and all together, as the Holy Christian Church, committing our whole life to Christ Jesus our Lord, King and God.

Lord, our God, whose power is beyond compare, and glory beyond comprehension; whose mercy is boundless, and love for us ineffable; look upon us and upon this house and sanctuary in Your compassion. Grant to us and to those who pray with us Your abundant mercy.

For to You belongs all glory, honor and worship; to God the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, Most Holy God and Divine Trinity, now and forever, and to the ages of ages, in the Name of Christ our Lord we pray. Amen.

The Struggle for Peace

2007-09-07T22:06:00.000-07:00

I'm slowly finding, as I deal with issue of pacifism and non-violence in Christ's teachings and my Christian faith, that my logical desire to find excuses for times when force might be necessary are running thin. The more I try to resist non-violence as immutable Christian truth, the more I find myself disarmed. I'm slowly more convinced that non-violence is the only genuinely Christian path one can take--the desire to find loop holes in it keep ending up being futile excuses. Even as I write this I still seem to struggle with it, but there seems to be only one possible outcome: Christ calls me to absolute, radical non-violence. Period.

-Jon

I Stand Baptized

2007-08-27T04:05:00.000-07:00

Sometimes I think we find it easier to imagine that our baptism was some curiosity of our personal past, that it was something that happened, it's over with, and we move on; or that we don't grasp the level of depth of what it really means that we have been baptized.

Can we really categorize the segments of our life, like a pie chart, and in our religious, Christian pie section we have been baptized, but the rest of us remains less than wet? When we were baptized, it was not that just we were baptized, but that the whole of everything we are was baptized.

We were not merely baptized in the moment, but baptized in the whole, our past, present and future were all brought together, in a holy moment, all our dreams and our ambitions, all our sins and our failures, all the possibilities, all the potential that lay before us, every sphere of who we are, every area of interest, every last bit of us was buried beneath and within the Sacrament, and the rock was rolled over, and it sealed us within. Grace buried itself deep within us, a life transplant was made, we died, and as the rock was rolled away, we came out of the joyous mystery something different than we were when it had begun.

We are baptized.

That's what we are, it's not just a curiosity of a past moment, but an enduring and irrevocable reality, we can no more become unbaptized than we can become unborn.

The whole of ourselves, with all our problems, weaknesses, dreams, ambitions, interests, hobbies and ideas was brought down into the sacred waters with us.

So can we really live a life of discipleship thinking our baptism only applies to a single sphere of our being? Rather the whole of ourselves was baptized, we are baptized.

There's a reason why for hundreds of years a baptized person would take upon themselves a new name, it symbolized that in their baptism they were a new person, a "new creation" as St. Paul says. While I was not baptized in a tradition that kept alive that tradition, I sometimes wish I could have taken upon myself a baptismal name, though it's been quite a few years since that day.

In some sense, perhaps because I've used it for so long, I've come to see "Xristocharis" (Christocharis) as less than a cool looking moniker, but a name embodying what I long to become in Christ, that is, in a sense, a baptismal name. If I could adopt for myself a baptismal name, it's likely I would choose Xristocharis to be that name.

Our name, our identity, our very being and self was baptized.

I stand baptized, my whole identity bound in Christ, every part of me captive to Him. Every sphere of being in which I operate as a person is Christian, baptized in Christ, crucified to the world, dead and alive.

I'm not sure there can be any other way. I am baptized, I stand before the world today, baptized. It's what I am, it's all I can ever be, it's all I want to be.

-Baptized

Abandonment to Love once Crucified

2007-08-24T16:42:00.001-07:00

In the ideological war, where the isms clash against one another for dominance, where in a post-enlightenment and post-modern globe, Jesus stands alone, whose only militant position was that of radical love, far away from militant ideology, to suffer the world its indulgences, Jesus commands attention who breaks away from our vitriolic metaphorical cannibalism; standing alone against the war of man versus man proclaims the cessation of conflict, and marks the death of cannibalistic religionism and ideologism. If Jesus is ever to be compared to a military general it is only in His proclamation that we follow Him heel and toe toward endless and unceasing love toward one another, even to the point of dying. He is not merely some martyr for a movement, but a Movement Himself, a movement away from the world, and a movement toward unconquerable self-giving love and theocentric humanism.

For it is God who stands in Christ, suffering the abominable iniquities of the world, crucified in the world by the world and for the world; and it is through the greatest defeat that the greatest victory is achieved. For the Crucified Christ disarms His enemies by letting them simply run out of ammunition, and after all their hostile energies are spent, He wraps them up in all-embracing forgiveness, leaving even the most sadistic tyrant powerless.

Caesar for all his power and violent might, marching through the world and enslaving whole nations simply can not overcome the Crucified Man, who holding all judgment in His hands pronounces upon the Tree, "Father, forgive them."

For there is no power which can disarm Him who has never been armed, and the weaponless can never be destroyed by the machinations of war.

Thousands of philosophies, ideologies, theologies and tyrannies all stand poised to annihilate one another, the Crucified Jesus stands alone, having overcome them all, robbing them of their might.

To all who question if love can ever overcome hate, they need only to look to the One who embodies love, and is Himself the Love of God; for all our hate, and all our anger, and all our prejudice, for all that we might, we could not stop the Son of God, who rose from the dead, overpowering and disarming Hell and Hades and leaving Death in a slump, has stood upon the dragon's head and defiantly swallowed up the world in the Grace of God. Not only shall love overcome hate, Love has already overcome it.

And He has established His Revolution, the wildfire of forgiveness was set to blaze once and for all upon silent cruciform silhouette, the naked Body of the Son of Mary hung in the distance upon Mount Calvary; the fire it rages and it continues to ignite the hearts of those who come into contact with it. For despite all of the world's tactics, nothing has come close to extinguishing this fire, and it ignites and consumes and burns down all that it comes into contact with, and shall, one day, at the time of His Coming, engulf the world in a final roar, and all our swords will have become plowshares and all our spears pruning shears. Even the lion shall lose his carnivorous bite and shall lay gently with the newborn lamb; the child shall play near the viper's den and shall fear nothing.

For despite all that we may witness in the world around us, the hate and the wars and the sufferings of the innocent, the power of tyranny is failing, and our "culture war" rhetoric and all our ideological and philosophical disputations are its evidence. Though it may increase, it is all doomed to futility, the Cross has already happened, the grave has already been defeated, Death is already dead, and the Gospel is already being preached.

Behold He comes with the clouds, and every eye will see Him on that day.

And then the trumpet sound, and the Judgment, the Resurrection of all flesh, and the Age to Come forever and ever; and God will be our God, and we will be His people, and Death and Hell itself shall be thrown away like rubbish, never to be heard from again. And the Voice of Grace shall speak, and His Peace enduring forever, and the reign of the nations shall become the Reign of our God and of His Christ, forever and ever and ever. Hallelujah, Hallelujah, Hallelujah.

-Jon

Why I can't be a Docetist

2007-08-21T03:56:00.000-07:00

Jesus pooped.

-Jon

Holy Time-Traveling Jesuit Conspirators Batman!

2007-08-20T19:18:00.000-07:00

It's true, see, Jack Chick never fails, never! He's brilliant!

-Jon

Science and Scripture

2007-08-15T21:09:00.000-07:00

In the wild fire that is the Creationism vs. Evolution debate I find that so much is assumed, and so much is missed--often at the expense of Scripture, of science, and faith.

The way the issue is polarized on both sides just seems to make everyone talk past one another, and thus anyone who doesn’t exist on the polar ends of the “debate” seem to be left out or misunderstood altogether.

I’m neither a scientist nor a biblical scholar, but I am a thinking Christian layperson with an interest in being honest and having a view of the world and of faith that neither requires me to abandon my Christianity nor my plain reason.

First of all I see those who insist either:

A) We must conform our natural science to the words of Scripture, anything observed in the natural world must be bound to what we read in the Bible. Or

B) We, having observed what we have observed scientifically, must abandon the superstitions of ancient religious writings penned by ignorant ancients.

Neither of these work for me, both make assumptions that I hardly think are justified. In the first case I see neither honesty in regards to Scripture nor honesty in regards to science, rather both are cast away entirely in favor of a preconceived idea; in the second I see a similar dishonesty in assuming that the ancient authors of Scripture were somehow more interested in being scientific according to western, post-Baconian standards than in their faith and God about whom they write about.

What I mean is that the Scriptures are not scientific, they were never intended to be scientific, and to treat them as though they were--whether positively or negatively--is an injustice to them. And science is science and there is nothing to fear about the natural mechanics of the universe--and if Scripture makes no dogmatic claims about science then allow science to be science, and Scripture to be Scripture.

To this end I also see a third, equally, dishonest route which ones seeks to take, that is to try and reconcile Scripture and science such as to make the two same the same thing--once again this does no justice to Scripture. Thus those who take what they know of science and attempt to read it back into the Creation Narrative of Genesis chapter one are doing nothing good, they are desperately trying to make Scripture credible in such a way that it must be credible in a totally modern way--an act of futile eisegesis.

Here my crypto-Lutheranism is seeping through, because the paradox of accepting what Genesis 1 says and of evolution doesn’t escape me, but neither does it bother me. I simply see no reason to choose one over the other, I see no reason to try an force Scripture to be scientific or science to be scriptural. The paradox is fine, and I can live with it, and no injury is done to my faith nor to my reason.

Luther warned against trying to rationalize Scripture, he argued that if two passages of Scripture say different things one must accept both as true, even if that leaves one believing in a paradox (indeed Lutheranism--and Christianity at large--embraces many paradoxes of faith). Luther also warned against trying to rationalize Scripture so as to force an interpretation that artificially made one passage or another trump the other or say something it wasn’t really saying.

I want to apply that same principle here. Allow Scripture to be Scripture, allow Scripture to say what it has to say, accept what it says in good faith, but not at the expense of having to reject plain reason in regard science and the natural world nor allowing ourselves to change what Scripture says in order to conform to what science informs us of the world.

Thus the Scriptures say that in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, and that He purposefully and organizationally fashioned all things through His Divine Command, calling into existence all things, and that He created humankind in His own image, and breathing into man’s nostrils making him a living being--and that there was a fall from paradise, a fall from grace, and so on and so forth--and this is all true; it is likewise true what science informs us about the world around us, that through time life has evolved, over the course of millions of years, and we have the fossil record to prove it.

Why I must choose one over the other makes no sense to me, why must I be dishonest to either my faith or my plain reason? And to force either into something they are not, well that would be the most dishonest of all.

I understand how absurd this position must seem to many, and I’m aware of its seeming absurdity, but I’m convinced it’s the least absurd out of all the alternatives, and it’s the most honest.

Let Scripture be Scripture.
Let science be science.

“And may God be found true, and every man a liar.”

-Jon

Church of Losers and Failures

2007-08-07T13:26:00.000-07:00

We are a beautiful let down,
Painfully uncool,
The church of the dropouts
The losers, the sinners, the failures and the fools
-The Beautiful Letdown

These lyrics were penned by Jon Foreman of the band Switchfoot, and are my favorite from the whole song, and among my favorite lyrics ever penned. The truth contained in them simply resonates within me.

We are the church of the dropouts, losers, sinners, failures and fools.

Simul Iustus et Peccetor

A loser in the faithful service of Christ,
-Jon

Son Jong Nam

2007-08-03T02:01:00.000-07:00

Came across this article from the New York Sun.

A North Korean Christian has been arrested, officially because the North Korean government claims he illegally crossed the border, but according to his younger brother here in the States, who is pleading for help, the entire issue has to do with religion.

Son Jong Nam left North Korea for China after his pregnant wife was severely beaten by North Korean soldiers (both she and their child were lost), he returned to preach the Gospel, for which he was arrested and has been held prisoner and is currently awaiting public execution as an example to the North Korean people.

Martyrdom is bitter-sweet in our faith. Death is never a good thing, death is always an ugly awful thing, even the death of a martyr; at the same time to kill a martyr is, ultimately, to cause the exact opposite than the intended effect. When the powers of the world try and silence us, our voice echoes louder.

Whether Brother Son Jong Nam lives or dies, he is already a martyr, a witness to our faith. We pray that his life be spared, that he is let go and is given the gift of enjoying the rest of his natural life; but should his execution be carried out, let us pray that through his sacrifice the Kingdom of God resounds, and the grace of God is carried by the Spirit to all who are experience his martyrdom. Thy Kingdom come, Lord, and Thy will be done. Our brother is in Your hands, Lord.

Brother Son, we both know that the grave is now powerless, it's an empty vain power, and can't hold anyone any longer. Regardless of how events unfold from here on out, I look forward to meeting you at that time when we shall all be together, in the Presence and Glory of our precious Lord Jesus Christ, for whose Name you presently suffer.

Lord, have mercy.
God be praised. Amen.

EDIT:

Found this Youtube Video,

-Jon

This isn't the Gospel.

2007-08-01T06:13:00.000-07:00

Could someone tell me when exactly some people began thinking the Gospel is:

"Believe everything exactly as I do or suffer the horrible pains of God's wrath in hell forever and ever."

Because last time I checked, that wasn't the Gospel.

-Jon

Matthew 24

2007-07-31T23:59:00.000-07:00

The following is a response to a challenge given on Beliefnet, concerning Matthew chapter 24, it was too long to post there, so it's here.

At the end of Matthew 23, Christ laments over Jerusalem.

In Matthew 24:1 it says Christ came out of the temple and His disciples come up to Him, Jesus, points to the temple in verse 2 and says,

"Do you not see all these things [the temple]? Truly, I say to you, not one stone here will be left standing upon another, which will not be torn down."

This is Jesus' prophecy of the Destruction of Jerusalem, which happened in 70 AD.

Matthew, without any narrative between this and what follows, immediately places Jesus on the Mount of Olives (verse 3), the disciples then say to Jesus,

"Tell us, when will these things happen [the destruction of the temple], and what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age?"

In other words the chief interest here is about the temple's ruin, but the disciples are also curious about the Lord's return and the Eschaton.

"See to it that no one misleads you. For many will come in My name, saying, 'I am the Christ,' and will mislead many."

Don't be misled by false messiahs and prophets.

Here are just some Messianic claimants after Jesus:

Theudas, c. 45 AD
Menahem ben Judah, c. 50(?) AD
Simon bar Kochba, c. 135 AD
Moses of Crete, c. 450 AD
Serene, c. 720 AD
Nissim ben Abraham, c. 1295 AD
Sabbatai Zvi, c. 1650 AD
Jacob Joseph Frank, c. 1750 AD
Menachem Mendel Sneerson, died in 1994 AD

Then, of course, such figures as...

Montanus, c. 150 AD
Baha'u'llah, c. 1850 AD
Haile Selassie, died 1975 AD (never claimed to be messiah, but others claimed it for him)
Iesu Matayoshi, born in 1944
David Koresh, died 1993

There have been messianic claimants, both Jewish and otherwise, for two thousand years.

"You will be hearing of wars and rumors of wars. See that you are not frightened, for those things must take place, but that is not yet the end. For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom, and in various places there will be famines and earthquakes. But all these things are merely the beginning of birth pangs." (Matthew 24:6-8)

In other words, these are common occurances in the world, and they should not lead us to panic and speculation and prediction. Jesus, here, is saying, "Don't freak out, these things happen and will continue to happen." Those who go around looking at news headlines trying to find signs for the end, because of an earthquake here, or a tsunami there, a hurricane there, a war in Iraq, hostility in Israel, terrorist bombings here or there...these people are thinking the exact way Jesus warned us against.

Rather than fretting over such things, Jesus wants us to know that these are normative in this world, and will continue to be so until the end. We shouldn't be troubled or distraught or panic when these things happen, because they just will.

"Then they will deliver you to tribulation, and will kill you, and you will be hated by all nations because of My name." (verse 9)

History testifies that this has been true for the last two thousand years, each of the Apostles suffered a martyrs death, the first of those to be killed was St. Stephen. To give a list of those who died is not only impractical here, but impossible, only a fraction of the names of the martyrs have been preserved for us, the nameless thousands who have died since the first century for the sake of Christ and His Gospel are real. We have been enduring tribulation since Day One.

"At that time many will fall away and will betray one another and hate one another." (verse 10)

There have been apostates, heretics, and traditors since the beginning. The issue of the "traditors" was a prevailing issue in the 4th century, and led to the Donatist schism, Donatus, a North African bishop, refused to re-admit those who apostasised and betrayed their brethren to Roman authorities.

"Many false prophets will arise and will mislead many." (verse 11)

Simon Magus, Cerenthius, Marcion of Sinope, Valentinius, Montanus, Sabellius, Paul of Samosata, Apollonarius, Arius, Macedonius, Eutychus, Joseph Smith, Charles Russel, Herbert Armstrong, Benny Hinn, Creflo Dollar...these names ring a bell to anyone?

"Because lawlessness is increased, most people's love will grow cold. But the one who endures to the end, he will be saved." (Matthew 24:12,13)

Yes, things will continue to get bad. The world continues to act sinfully, and love of neighbor is far from the reality of this present age; thus Christ calls us to remain faithful to Him through ALL these things.

I.e. sh!t happens, but continue to endure, continue to remain faithful, continue to cling to Jesus, because it's totally worth it. He's worth the risk of losing EVERYTHING.

"This Gospel of the Kingdom shall be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all the nations, and then the end will come." (vesre 14)

Most everythign Jesus says before this is talking about what is to be expected in the world, from then until the end, just HOW this fallen age works, and is given as a call to remain faithful and not freak out. Don't lose hope or panic when wars happen, or when the next self-made-famous prophet shows up preaching a strange "gospel", there will be false messiahs, but don't listen to them. Just remain faithful, just preach the Gospel.

That's the heart of this matter here, Jesus wants us to just keep preaching the Gospel, be faithful to Christ and His call to go and do what He says to do, the end will come when the end will come.

Next Jesus moves into discussing the the destruction of Jersusalem, which is why His disciples came to Him in the first place when He was chilling on the Mount of Olives,

"Therefore when you see the Abomination of Desolation which was spoken through the prophet Daniel, standing in the holy place (let the reader understand), then those who are in Judea must flee to the mountains." (verses 15-16)

This is Jesus clearly addressing about the destruction of Jersusalem, which took place in 70 AD. Jesus doesn't give instruction to His followers to defend Jerusalem, but to flee into the mountains.

In fact, when the armies of Titus surrounded the city, Christians in the city knew exactly what was coming, and they did flee. In fact this was seen as an act of betrayel by the Jews of Jerusalem that it is probably a BIG reason for the increased chasm between Jews and Christians after then.

"Whoever is on the housetop must not go down to get the things that are in his house. Whoever is in the field must not turn back to get his cloak. But woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing babies in those days! But pray that your flight will not be in the winter, or on the Sabbath." (Matthew 24:17-20)

In other words, "GET YOUR BUTT AS FAR AWAY AS YOU CAN AND AS FAST AS YOUR FEET WILL TAKE YOU!!"

"For then there will be great tribulation, such as has not occurred since the beginning of the world until now, nor ever will." (verse 21)

It's of interesting note that at about the same time as the first Jewish War, around 65 AD, under the reign of Nero, is about the same time as Rome began to persecute the Christians. Rome found the Christians fairly annoying, but didn't actively set about to have them executed until Nero came to power, and found the Christians fair game as a scapegoat for the fires that raged through Rome.

The Church has been enduring great tribulation since then, in fact the personal liberty we experience here in the West is very abnormal, historically as well as for a great many Christians throughout the world right now.

To that end, just last month an Iraqi priest, Father Ragheed Ganni, along with several subdeacons, were gunned down just following Mass, and Christians have been suffering horrible in Iraq since the war started. Not to mention the plight of Christians in Sudan, or even still in China.

How about the Japanese Christians in the 17th century? The Twenty-Six of Nagasaki who were crucified (the youngest martyr was only 13 years old) can't be forgotten.

"Unless those days had been cut short, no life would have been saved; but for the sake of the elect those days will be cut short." (verse 22)

Jesus doesn't tell us how long this period of tribulation and trouble will last, only that it will be cut short for the sake of His Faithful, the Church.

But it would seem that at our pace, the chances of of our species literally blowing up the planet is increasing at an exponential rate, we became intimately aware of this when the Era of the Bomb began in the 1940s. We simply NEED Divine intervention to prevent us from destroying ourselves. Whether in a hundred years, or in a thousand years.

"Then if anyone says to you, 'Behold, here is the Christ,' or 'There He is,' do not believe him. For false Christs and false prophets will arise and will show great signs and wonders, so as to mislead, if possible, even the elect. Behold I have told you in advance." (verses 23 and 24)

Jesus restates that false messiahs and prophets will show their ugly heads, we shouldn't be led astray by them, but remain faithful to Jesus.

"So if they say to you, 'Behold, He is in the wilderness,' do not go out, or, 'Behold, He is in the inner rooms,' do not believe them." (verse 26)

Again, Jesus says, "Don't let them fool you."

"For just as the lightning comes from the east and flashes even to the west, so will the coming of the Son of Man be." (verse 27)

I.e. it will be unmistakeable. Nobody will question it, because everybody will see it. When the Lord returns, there won't be any second guesses.

"Wherever the corpse is, there the vultures will gather." (verse 28)

You can tell where a dead body is when you see a bunch of vultures gathered in one area, it will be just as obvious when Jesus returns.

"But immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from the sky, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken." (verse 29)

A referance to Isaiah's description of the "Day of the Lord" in Isaiah 13, Jesus quotes Isaiah here identifying His coming with the Day of God's coming judgment upon the world. When the Lord Jesus returns, He comes to "judge the nations", or as the Creed says, "From whence He will come again to judge the living and the dead."

"And then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky with power and great glory." (verse 30)

Jesus referances Daniel 7:13, which describes "one like a son of man" coming with the cloudsof heaven, and presented before the Ancient of Days, the "Son of Man" theme is also found in the Book of Enoch, which St. Jude quotes in his epistle, of the Son of Man coming with his "ten thousands of holy ones".

"And He will send forth His angels with a great trumpet and they will gather together His elect from the four winds, from one end of the sky to the other. (verse 31)

Comparing this to what Paul writes in 1 Thessalonians 4 seems to indicate the Resurrection of the Dead. All those who "sleep" in Christ will be gathered, harvested, for the Resurrection of the Dead.

"Now learn the parable from the fig tree: When its branch has already become tender and puts forth its leaves, you know that summer is near; so, you too, when you see all these things, recognize that He is near, right at the door." (verses 32,33)

The signs of Christ's coming are described in verses 29-31, and we'll know that He is near when it happens. And, arguably, it shouldn't be questionable, it's obvious that summer is near when the fig tree sprouts leaves, nobody questions it--so it is the same for Christ's return.

"Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place." (verse 34)

This is perhaps one of the most difficult passages in the Gospels, and part of it depends on how you translate the word (translated here) "generation", there are quite a few views on this, and I don't feel it appropriate here to elaborate on this verse alone.

"Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will not pass away." (verse 35)

The words of Christ are enduring and everlasting.

"But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone." (verse 36)

This is important, because it silences anyone who would predict the Lord's coming, not even Jesus Himself knows.

"For the coming of the Son of Man will be just like the days of Noah. For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, and they did not understand until the flood came and tooke them all away; so will the coming of the Son of Man be." (verses 37-39)

Jesus points to the seeming suddenness of His return, life will seem normal until suddenly everything changes. When the Son of Man returns in Judgment, it will be like the flood, wiping away the wicked suddenly.

"Then there will be two men in the field; one will be taken and one will be left. Two women will be grinding at the mill; one will be taken and one will be left." (verses 40 and 41)

Combined with preceeding verses, the "one ... taken" refers to the wicked, the wicked will be taken away in Judgment.

"Therefore be on the alert, for you do not know which day your Lord is coming. But be sure of this, that if the head of the house had known at what time of the night the thief was coming, he would have been on the alert and would not have allowed his house to be broken into. For this reason you also must be ready; for the Son of Man is coming at an hour when you do notthink He will." (verses 42-44)

Compare with 1 Thessalonians 5, when Paul explains that,

"For you yourselves know full will that the day of the Lord will come just like a thief in the night. While they are saying, 'Peace and safety!' then destruction will come upon them suddenly like labor pains upon a woman with child, and they will not escape. But you, brethren, are not in darkness, that the day should overtake you like a thief;" (1 Thessalonians 5:2-4)

"Who then is the faithful and sensible servant whom his master put in charge of his household to give them their food at the proper time? Blessed is the servant whom his master finds so doing when he comes. Truly I say to you that he will put him in charge of all his possessions. But if that evil servant says in his heart, 'My master is not coming for a long time,' and begins to beat his fellow servants and eat and drink with drunkards; the master of that servant will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour which he does not know, and will cut him in pieces and assign him a place with the hypocrites; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth." (Matthew 24:25-51)

I.e. don't be a jerk, be faithful to Jesus.

Well, you asked, so I delivered.

-Jon

Ecclesia Semper Reformada

2007-07-29T19:28:00.000-07:00

I've typically found that as I have grown as a Christian and gotten older with a host of -isms and movements swirling around and also what I generally see as contemporary theological manure I've done three things:

Looked to Scripture.
Looked to the Past (i.e. Ancient Tradition).
Looked East.

I look to Scripture because I believe in Prima Scriptura (what I think is actually the more accurate understanding of the 16th century Evangelical doctrine of Sola Scriptura), I look to the Ancient Tradition because I believe there is more clarity and substance in the Traditional Faith of the Fathers and the Protestant Reformers than in most contemporary theological talk, and I look East because, while I reject the unique Ecclesiological claims of Eastern Orthodoxy, I do believe it retains the purest form of the Ancient Apostolic and Patristic Tradition; indeed my primary reason for not joining the Orthodox Communion is over the issue of soteriology, to which I remain ever steadfast in my affirmation of the original Evangelical Confessions of the 16th century.

I bring this up because I've once again been reminded of the kind of theological manure which the 19th and 20th century has produced. If I thought good ol' regular Dispensationalism was bad, I'm fairly flabbergasted at the biblical and hermeneutical gymnastics of the Hyperdispensationalists.

I grew up in a thoroughly non-sacramental tradition, we had the Sacraments, we just called them "Ordinances". Baptism and the Eucharist were part of my youthful experience of my faith, so I can still understand the non-sacramental views of the broad Anabaptist Tradition, because those were once my views as well. However Hyperdispensationalism goes an even further radical step, totally eradicating Baptism from its churchly praxis entirely.

Hyperdispensationalism teaches that Baptism was part of the Dispensation of Law, and that the Dispensation of Grace (which they teach we are currently in) didn't begin after the death and resurrection of Jesus (as Traditional Dispensationalists believe) but at some point later. The most radical of the Hyperdispensationalists argue that nearly the entire Book of Acts is for an uniquely "Jewish Church", whereas the Dispensation of Grace is for the "Gentile Church" which begins sometime in Acts 28, and thus assign the practice of Baptism to the former Jewish Church, but as non-applicable to the latter Gentile Church.

How do people come up with this stuff? Seriously!

I find the anecdotal story that Martin Luther, on his deathbed, lamented, "My God, what have I done? Even the milkmaids think they can interpret Scripture!" to be fairly interesting. It's not that milkmaids (and the rest of us) shouldn't read and seek to understand Scripture, rather Luther's lament is most likely grounded in this unfortunate truth: When we threw off the yoke of Rome, Rome's Pope and his Curia, we fashioned for ourselves papal tiaras and crowned ourselves mini-popes.

What good is it to cast away one Pope a thousand miles away in Rome in exchange for a thousand popes right in our own home?

It's no wonder that when the Orthodox look at us Protestants they call us "Crypto-Papists".

To be true to our Evangelical heritage means, in my honest and most sincere opinion, to take seriously the Ancient Tradition of our Faith.

The Hyperdispensationalists remind me, once again, why the Reformation isn't over, and the call toward Evangelical Reform is as important now as it was five centuries ago.

Solus Christus--Christ Alone.
Sola Gratia--Grace Alone.
Sola Fides--Faith Alone.
Sola Crucis--Cross Alone.
Solum Evangelium--Gospel Alone.

-Jon

Our God, our Fortress, our Help

2007-07-29T14:15:00.000-07:00

"A Mighty Fortress is Our God"
by Martin Luther

A mighty fortress is our God, a bulwark never failing;
Our helper He, amid the flood of mortal ills prevailing:
For still our ancient foe doth seek to work us woe;
His craft and power are great, and, armed with cruel hate,
On earth is not his equal.

Did we in our own strength confide, our striving would be losing;
Were not the right Man on our side, the Man of God’s own choosing:
Dost ask who that may be? Christ Jesus, it is He;
Lord Sabaoth, His Name, from age to age the same,
And He must win the battle.

And though this world, with devils filled, should threaten to undo us,
We will not fear, for God hath willed His truth to triumph through us:
The Prince of Darkness grim, we tremble not for him;
His rage we can endure, for lo, his doom is sure,
One little word shall fell him.

That word above all earthly powers, no thanks to them, abideth;
The Spirit and the gifts are ours through Him Who with us sideth:
Let goods and kindred go, this mortal life also;
The body they may kill: God’s truth abideth still,
His kingdom is forever.

Lord, and Divine Trinity, our God and our Rock. Everlasting Friend and Companion, and Refuge and Source of Strength for the weak. Be a refuge to us a sinners, in our times of distress and anxiety. Our only Good Physician, and Caring Shepherd.

To God the Father.
To Christ His Son.
And to the Holy Spirit.
One God, Immortal, Holy and Everlasting.
Glory be to Thee, both now unto eternity.
Unto the ages of ages.
Amen.

-Jon

Creation, Calamity, and Calvary

2007-07-27T16:29:00.000-07:00

There is, I believe, profound mystery that in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, and that in the end God will create the new heavens and the new earth.

Within that mystery there is the Salvation of the World.

The first ten chapters of Genesis depict the protohistory of the world, seen through the lens of the Israelites.

Creation.
Fall.
Flood.
Tower of Babel.

Noticing that it begins with the benevolent act of God to create all things, the Fall initiates the world into Sin and Death, the Flood demonstrates the destruction of the world due to the proliferation of evil in the world, and the Tower of Babel is the dispersal and confusion of the nations and their languages.

In other words the setup for the Patriarchal Narrative (beginning with Abraham in Genesis 11) is the narrative establishment of the creation of the world and its subsequent fall into corruption, into Sin and Death. It ends with the disharmony of the nations, people separated into separate cultures, languages, barriers are put up between people.

The Patriarchal Narrative flows from this with the beginnings of the Promise of Covenant, "Through your [Abraham's] Seed, the nations of the world will be blessed." The Patriarchal Narrative flows seamlessly into the Story of Moses and the Exodus, the Establishment of Israel as God's Covenant People through Torah. From Joshua onwards we see Israel as the Covenant Nation, and its history from the time of the inhabiting of Canaan, the age of the Judges, and finally the Monarchy; the Kingdom Narrative continues through the Age of the Prophets, and within that period is the Messianic Promise.

The Story of Israel doesn't end with Malachi, but endures through the conquest of Alexander the Great, the Defilement of the Temple under the Seleucid Dynasty, the Maccabean Revolt, and then finally the Occupation of Rome when Pompey conquered Judea in the name of Julius Caesar.

From here the Evangelists tell us that a half century afterward, shortly before Herod the Great's death, during the reign Augustus Caesar, that Jesus of Nazareth was born.

We believe Jesus to be the Messiah, the Christ, and the Salvation of the World.

In Christ God undoes all the wrong that has been wrought. He is the Story of Israel encapsulated, the Presence of the Temple enfleshed before us, the Veil torn down separating the Sanctuary of the Most Holy God from the world. In Death and Resurrection undoing what Adam did, being Second Adam and New Man.

Flowing from Him is the Establishment of His Church, His Ekklesia, and the pouring out of the Spirit on Pentecost broke down the barriers erected at Babel--on Pentecost began the uniting of the nations as one New Man. And through His Gift of Baptism the waters that once destroyed wicked men now gives them life and unity into His New Covenant People. Through Him we have been and are being redeemed from the Curse of Sin and Death, for everyone in Christ is a new creation; and our eventual and ultimate eschatological hope is in the end, when God restores the whole of creation, a new heavens and a new earth.

The entire Historical Narrative brings us from Creation to Calamity, and in Christ, from Calamity back to Creation.

That, in a nutshell, is the Mystery of Salvation.

-Jon

Christianity in a Japanese World

2007-07-25T08:32:00.000-07:00

People who know me pretty well know that I have a few quirky obsessions: Theology, Church History, linguistics, paleozoology and (what comes to a surprise to a lot of people) a love affair with all things Japanese.

Perhaps it was the “Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles“, or the anime series, “Ranma ½” that did me in. In my sophomore year in high school I took Japanese as my chosen language course, I had intended to go a second year, but it didn’t work out. A few years ago I was introduced further into the wide world of anime. I found myself in love with that cultural delicacy known as sushi, and drawn toward craving Japanese dishes I have never tasted. I have for years had my heart set on visiting Japan at some point while I’m still young enough to enjoy traveling, a traveling experience as intense as my desire to visit Ireland (if not greater) and to visit the Holy Land (the Church of the Holy Sepulcher specifically). And the list goes on.

But there is an entire field of obsession that brings my love of Christianity and my love of Japan together, the topic of Japanese Christianity, or perhaps, Christianity in Japan.

It is well known that Assyrian Christians were the first to take the Gospel to China, we have archeological evidence from around the 8th century to prove this. These “Nestorian” Christians planted churches and Christianity was generally well received, though within a couple centuries seems to have receded into the mists of history. This Assyrian-Chinese Christianity adapted to the Chinese culture, churches were constructed in typical Chinese fashion, as pagodas. There is also, perhaps, some evidence of Buddhist-Christian syncretism having taken place.

There are some who even argue that these same missionaries made it to Japan, almost a thousand years before St. Francis Xavier came to the island empire.

In the 16th century a Jesuit priest, Francis Xavier, came to Japan to spread Christianity among the Japanese. The Jesuit mission was fairly well received, with many Japanese converting to Catholicism.

However within a century the Japanese Shogunate officially outlawed the Christian Faith, and those found to be Christians were treated harshly. The Portuguese and Spanish missionaries were deported, and while some remained behind, the native Japanese Christians were largely left to fend for themselves.

The Shogunate employed the tactic of the Fumie, a wooden image of Christ or the Virgin which suspected Christians were told to trample upon and break, those who refused to trample upon the Fumie were arrested for being Christians. All sorts of tortures were employed to get Christians to renounce their faith. The most famous of the Japanese martyrs are known as the Twenty-six Martyrs of Nagasaki, some were Jesuit priests, but most were Japanese, the youngest was a thirteen year old boy, Louis Ibaraki--all of them have been canonized by the Roman Catholic Church, and are also remembered on the calendars of the Anglican Communion and the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (their Feast Day is February 6th). All twenty-six of them were crucified together on a hill in Nagasaki, today there is a memorial which remembers them.

Due to the persecutions the Japanese Church went underground, and hid all evidence of their faith, presenting their Christianity in the guise of Buddhism and Shintoism. Over the next two hundred and fifty years they would largely forget the Latin and Portuguese they spoke liturgically, but continued to due to tradition.

Then in the 19th century, during the Meiji Restoration, Japan reopened its boarders to the West, and a period of cultural revolution ensued. Amongst the radical changes taking place within the Empire was an influx of both Catholic and Protestant missionaries.

Despite well over a century of missionary activity, the Japanese seem to be particularly resistant to Christianity, today only about 1% of the Japanese population is said to be Christian.

Missiologists have long struggled to understand why the Japanese seem so particularly resistant to missionary efforts. And there have been many who have taken to task to try and make Christianity more substantially Japanese, by removing Christianity of particular Western cultural trappings. Many Japanese Christians have likewise struggled with the conflict between Christianity and Japanese identity.

It is within this mesh and matrix that I find particularly interesting. In the late 19th century, during the latter part of the Meiji Era, a Japanese Christian, Kanzo Uchimura, along with several others started the "Non Church Movement" which essentially removed much of the "external" aspects of the Christian Religion--Sacraments, rituals, clergy, church buildings, etc.--and sought a non-institutional loosely affiliated network of home Bible study groups, using a traditional master-disciple method of operation. It is one of the more popular Christian movements in Japan.

But is that kind of thing actually healthy? When discussing what aspects of "Western" Christianity can be dropped for the sake of cultural adaptation, it becomes a pretty muddied area.

I like to believe, quite strongly, that a thoroughly Japanese Christianity can exist, one that doesn't need to look like an American or a European Church, but one that when all is said and done looks like a Japanese Church. Where the Japanese are not only allowed to continue to be Japanese, but are encouraged to do so; but without sacrificing the fundamental essence of the Christian Tradition.

This goes deeper into the very function of Christianity, how do we do Christianity? What is the essence of the Christian Way? What does it mean to be Christian? What does it mean to be the Church?

Do we have to totally eradicate Liturgy all together? Or perhaps we can construct an authentically Japanese Liturgy.

Do we have to remove the Sacraments? If we do, aren't we essentially denying our identity as Christians? After all the Sacraments aren't merely ritual tokens, but fundamental channels and communicators of God's Gracious Action in the world and in the Church-at-work-in-the-world.

Exactly how much do we have to change Christianity to adapt before it stops being Christianity altogether? Both pragmatically as well as theologically?

At the same time, I'm not arguing for a "take it or leave it" mentality, so much as for an honest pursuit of a Japanese Christianity that is both authentically Japanese as well as authentically Christian. Something that resonates both within the Japanese themselves, as well as being authentically linked to the broader Christian Tradition.

I think such an honest pursuit will help foster a deeper meditation of our own "Western" Christianity, as well as show us how Christianity can develop in other cultures.

In the end I have more questions than answers.

I think I should also offer, here at the end, that I am less concerned with "winning Japanese souls" (with the idea higher numbers) so much as I am with a serious interest in the proclamation of the Gospel of the Kingdom, such that it truly resonates within the Japanese psyche and it remains true to what it is. Less concerned with building new churches, and more concerned with establishing genuine Ekklesia. It's not about getting the Japanese to "play on our team", but about sincere Kingdom-building with a evangelically faithful and resonantly meaningful call for the Japanese to participate in the Church's Kingdom-mission in the world.

After all, we believe, that,

"...He is our peace, He who made both one and broke down the dividing wall of hostility, through His flesh, abolishing the law with its commandments and legal claims, that He might create in Himself one new humanity in place of the two, thus establishing peace, and might reconcile both with God, in one Body, through the cross..." - Ephesians 2:14-16

All the cultural boundaries that keep men from true Koinonia with God and each other have been torn down by Christ, we are no longer "Jew nor Gentile"; it follows that there is neither Westerner nor Easterner, European nor Japanese, etc. That, indeed, in Christ, there is now only one new humanity--His--and that He is establishing it within His Church, and all people, everywhere, are called to participate in His "Kosmic" Revolution.

-Jon

Sharktacos on Hell

2007-07-23T13:34:00.000-07:00

Sharktacos does not disappoint.

This is a wonderfully crafted paper on the most uncomfortable of all topics: Hell.

While he doesn't get into a lot of what Hell is (which is a fun debate in and of itself), he does speak a lot toward how Christians (specifically Evangelicals) have a warped view of God in relation to Hell and how we ultimately fail to faithfully represent the Gospel to the world in our typical presentations of the Gospel.

While I think a very good case can be made that Hell's ultimate purpose (without getting into my ideas about what Hell fundamentally is) isn't retribution against sinful people, but reconciliatory and restorative justice, in true Gospel fashion, bringing the lost and broken back into a healing, full, vibrant Koinonia with God, each other, and creation (which, ironically, is a fairly Jewish conception of Hell, and is one not a few of the ancient Fathers speculated upon), Sharktacos doesn't get into any of that here, nor do I claim to know what his exact position on such a concept might be.

A large part of me feels something like this:

The fires of Hell burn everlasting, because the fires of God's love are everlasting; the fires of Hell burn everlasting because they everlastingly restoratively usher sinners into reconciliation with God.

But Shark doesn't get into any that, and I'm fairly confident that my somewhat unconventional (but not all that heterodox) views on the topic will probably garner some criticism from a few people, assuming anyone's reading this blog yet. :)

However Shark does get pretty deep into the topic of Divine Justice not as retribution, but as restoration. Or as Martin Luther said,

"I began to understand that this verse [in Romans] the justice of God is that by which the just person lives by a gift of God, that is by faith. I began to understand that this verse means that the justice of God is revealed through the Gospel, but it is a passive justice, i.e. that by which the merciful God justifies us by faith, as it is written: 'The just person lives by faith.' All at once I felt as I had been born again and entered into paradise itself through open gates." - Luther's Tower Experience

What is Divine Justice if it does not ultimately flow from the very God unveiled before us, naked, in the Crucified Jesus?

-Jon

The World is a Sacrament

2007-07-22T20:49:00.001-07:00

Over the years I’ve become more and more convinced that the Christian world-view is fundamentally sacramental.

Before proceeding further, I’d like to offer my definition of what a Sacrament is.

Augustine, writers Martin Luther, defined a Sacrament as,

“Aocedat verbum ad elementum et fit sacramentum.“

When the Word and natural substance (element) meet, that is a Sacrament. The Sacramental Mysteries of the Christian faith are those “places” where God’s word meets with natural substance--though Luther further defined a Sacrament as having to have been clearly instituted by Christ and available to all Christians, which limited those things which could be properly called “Sacraments” to two in number: Baptism and the Eucharist.

However, on a broader scale, what can be called “sacramental” is much wider. Anywhere and anything by which God communicates Himself, by means of His word, through and in the natural world, that can be properly called “sacramental.”

In Orthodox thought, there is no limitation as to what can be called a musterion--a “mystery”--which is what the Sacraments are called in the East. And in Orthodox thought all of the Sacraments derive their sacramental quality from the greatest Sacrament of all: Jesus Christ. Jesus is the Sacrament, the Incarnation of the Logos, the union of God’s Word and human nature.

Following then from this, the Orthodox (and, in fact, not a few early Lutheran theologians) saw that there is no true limit to what is genuinely sacramental. I was once introduced into to an anecdotal story where Luther’s friend and fellow reformer, Philip Melancthon, is to have said, “there are a thousand Sacraments”, the validity of this story I have never heard confirmed, and the source was never confirmed to me, so take it with a grain of salt.

But the point is still made, when God acts in the world, God acts sacramentally. God’s Grace-filled Action, God’s Energia, is manifest visibly, tangibly, incarnationally--sacramentally. God’s Primary Action in history is not words of the prophets, or songs of the psalmists, nor teachings of the apostles---though good these are, God’s Primary Action in history is the Hypostatic Union of the Divine Logos assuming human substance, the coming together of God and man in Christ. The Incarnation, as the author of Hebrews says,

"God, who has at various times and in many ways spoken to our fathers through the prophets has in these last days spoken to us through His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, by whom He also fashioned the ages. He is the the radiance of God's glory, and the express image of His Hypostasis, sustaining all things by His powerful command," - Hebrews 1:1-3

Flowing from the Chief Sacrament Himself, our Lord Jesus, comes the whole sacramental quality of the Christian conception of the cosmos and God’s Divine Purposes for the cosmos.

Christ does not start a religion, so much as He institutes a Sacramental Communion, a community of people bound to Himself, sacramentally. He establishes a community that is to embody His own self, and thus extend to them the Mystery of His own Incarnation.

The Church, therefore, is not some religious institution, but a Divine Mystery, the very Body of Jesus Christ Himself, embodying Jesus into this world.

The Church can rightly be called, therefore, the Secondary Sacrament, if we say that Christ is the Primary Sacrament. The Church is the instrument by which Christ has chosen to act in the world.

This gives the Church a Sacramental Mission, to function as an extension of Christ Himself into the world, proclaiming what the Apostle Paul calls the “ministry of reconciliation” (2 Corinthians 5:18). We are ambassadors for Christ, prophetically speaking into this world the Gospel of Peace, the Gospel of the Kingdom, agents of the Divine Reign of God.

This gives the Church an eschatological purpose and mission as well, for the Church is to be a microcosm of the World to Come, the Olam Ha’ba, the Future Age, the New World, the Age of God’s Divine Reign that is brought into fullness at the second advent of the Lord Jesus.

And given to the Church, by Christ, are the two “properly called” Sacraments, Baptism and the Eucharist (or the Lord’s Supper). These two things by which Christ principally functions through the Church and in the world.

Through Baptism God calls and invites the world to participate in what He is doing in the world, that is creating His Ekklesia--His Church--and establishing and setting forth His Divine Reign. Thus each person in this present age is called to participate in the prophetic speaking-forth of the coming age. This Baptismal invitation is not restricted, but open to all, from the very young to the very old, the healthy and the sick, the rich and the poor; slave, free; Jew, Gentile; male and female. This is why historically the Church has always baptized infants, because there is no good reason to restrict Christ’s Baptismal Action to only a select group of persons. The Church is egalitarian, open to and for all, because the Church is for the world.

Through the Eucharist God in Christ invites each of us to regularly participate in the Mystery of the crucified and risen Christ, to take part in the blood and body of Jesus. Not through mere symbol, but through actual participation. The bread which we break, that is the body of Jesus; the wine which we drink, that is the blood of Jesus; the Eucharist is not merely a token of Christ, but is, in some incomprehensible way, Christ. The Eucharist is Jesus. The Eucharist is also the central Symbol of the Reign of God, the most vital component of what it means for the Church to be the Church. The Church, without the Eucharist, simply isn’t the Church, it’s when we come together for the Body of Christ that we most certainly are the Body of Christ; the Mystery of Christ, the Church, and Sacred Koinonia all wrapped up into one sublimely sacred Act. Christ on our lips and in our stomachs, Christ within our bodies and in our hearts, Christ in our Communion and our Coming-Together, Christ as our Table; Divine Portent of the Feast of the Ages, the Wedding Supper of the Lamb, of the unity and coming-together of all things and all persons in the World to Come, the Future Age of God, in the Reign of God.

And yet God’s Sacramental Action in the world is not limited to these two things only, because the entire Sacramental quality of life itself flows from the Christ Himself, the union of Creator and creation, the whole cosmos is filled with the Sacramental Life of God.

Thus it is true when the Psalmist says,

"The heavens declare the glory of God! The skies display His handiwork. Day to day uttering speech, and night to night revealing wisdom. There is no speech nor language where their voice is not heard." - Psalm 19:1-3

The world becomes a Sacrament, the Scriptures become a Sacrament, the lips that speak Good News a Sacrament, the hands that heal the sick a Sacrament, feet rushing to aid the poor a Sacrament.

But we must first understand that all of this flows from Christ and Christ alone. Who being the Chief Sacrament, grants to the world, by His Incarnational Mystery, the same Sacramental quality.

And what seems quite amazing to me is that God invites us to partake of that Mystery and share in the Divine Action. Thus we preach the Gospel, feed the hungry, give to the poor, heal the sick, visit those in prison, welcome the stranger, making disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the Name of the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit, and sitting down with them, and they with us, at the Eucharistic Banquet of the Ages, to celebrate and prophetical speak-forth the teleological and eschatological purposes for which all things have been made.

For all things are for Christ, and in Christ He has given us all things.

To the glory of God the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, as it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be, unto the ages of ages. Amen.

-Jon

Rabia al-Basri

2007-07-22T16:43:00.000-07:00

"I want to put out the fires of Hell, and burn down the rewards of Paradise. They block the way to God. I do not want to worship from fear of punishment or for the promise of reward, but simply for the love of God." - Rabia al-Basri

-Jon

My Peculiar Aristocratic Title is...

2007-07-22T16:11:00.000-07:00

My Peculiar Aristocratic Title is:
His Most Noble Lord Jonathan the Unhyphenated of Eschaton End
Get your Peculiar Aristocratic Title

Fascism

2007-07-22T06:55:00.000-07:00

"Fascism is an authoritarian political ideology (generally tied to a mass movement) that considers individual and other societal interests subordinate to the needs of the state, and seeks to forge a type of national unity, usually based on, but not limited to, ethnic, cultural, or racial attributes. Various scholars attribute different characteristics to fascism, but the following elements are usually seen as its integral parts: nationalism, authoritarianism, statism, militarism, corporatism, populism, totalitarianism, anti-communism, racism and opposition to economic and political liberalism." - Wikipedia

I'm not going to call America a fascist nation, because I don't think we're there yet. I think we have a ways to go. But there are definite seeds already planted.

As a general rule, I hate politics. I just do.

But when politics meet religion, or more specifically, when political ideology and Christian theology come into contact, then it becomes more interesting to me.

Let me get this out of the way first.

I believe pretty strongly in the secular liberties upon which this country was founded, notice that I said secular and not Christian. I believe strongly in the concept of personal freedom, civil liberties, in freedom of religion, and speech, and press, and assembly. I believe that a secular nation which strives for humanitarian ideals and as a refuge for people of different races, ideologies and of all sorts of opinions is a good thing.

The United States, as a nation built upon secular liberty is a good thing.

So I'm not Anti-America. I'm not an anarchist. I'm not advocating--as Thomas Jefferson did--that we use violence to overthrow corrupt political power. So, to that end, I can be no more against this nation than Jefferson, if I'm radical and perceived as a threat, then you'll have to get through the writer of the Declaration of Independence before you can get to me.

Here is what I am against. I'm against mindless nationalism, flag waving people who scream "God bless America!" at every turn. Mindless drones of American Civil Religion. I'm not a Religious American--I'm a Christian. I serve Christ, not Caesar.

There are forces at work which are trying to convert us all to the Religion of American Nationalism, and we even have a group of people to hate, we call them "Terrorists" and "Islamofascists", many people just hate all Muslims.

In the 1930s there was another country that promoted a Religion of Nationalism, and had a group of people to hate and place all the blame on. Germany.

Using German national symbols, charismatic talk, and converting the masses to hatred of the Jews and blaming them for all that's wrong. Even using the churches to turn Christians away from Christ and toward Nationalist ideas and ideologies.

In this country we have the American Eagle, the flag ("Old Glory"), in our churches we are turning Christians away from Christ and toward American Nationalism, we sing songs of patriotism in the House of God, we speak of the American flag as being "sacred" in the same way the Cross of Jesus Christ is "sacred". We listen to people incite our passions for the fatherland--the patria in patriotism--we insist everyone be a "patriot", and if you dare challenge or question the American Civil Religion, if you don't conform to the way we think we should do things, you're unpatriotic. And being unpatriotic in the American Religion is nothing short of being called an apostate, a heretic, an infidel.

We haven't been exporting Muslims to concentration camps, but we do commit torture in prisons--all the while saying it's not "really" torture.

Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe America already is there. Maybe we already are a fascist nation.

To that end, I present to you the Declaration of Barmen, which is as relevant for today's America as it was for 1930's Germany.

I serve Christ, not Caesar.

Iesou Christou Kuriou.

-Jon

Why I can say "Shit" and not be an Antinomian

2007-07-20T18:49:00.000-07:00

In the world of Christian politics and theological discourse a common bullet fired from the barrel of the gun is the word "antinomian" (literally meaning "against [the] law").

Conversely another is the word "legalist".

Both Legalism and Antinomianism are dangerous extremes in our Christian faith, one raises lawfulness to the point giving it salvific qualities, or to say we hang our holy hats on doing particular things and not doing particular things. As though doing "this" or "that" or abstaining from "this" or "that" could, in fact, induce holiness. The other, Antinomianism, means I reject any and all concept of law, that I can engage in any sort of behavior and to hell with the consequences, as though I were the lord of my domain and captain of my ship.

The Christian must not find him/herself in either camp.

What I want to focus on is the charge of Antinomianism.

It's a charge that's been leveled as a kind of pejorative jab against a person or group another group happens to find distasteful. During the Protestant Reformation Rome accused Luther and Co. of being Antinomian, consequently Luther defends his position and contends that he has never advocated lawlessness.

What am I getting at?

Here is my point, I fail to see how holiness, genuine holiness, can be attained by following a particular code of behaviors, and in our culture that usually means the remnants of late 19th century Victorian Era behaviors and cultural norms.

A well-mannered and "civilized" person in the year 1900 would most likely not use "crude" language, they would refrain from speaking about many topics.

Sex, off limits.
Bodily functions, off limits.

And a host of other issues were, for a gentleman or a lady, verboten.

Certain words were to have no part in a gentleman or a lady's vocabulary, because they were "vulgar"--they were "common" words and far be it that a good Christian gentleman or lady ever engage in or discuss what was "common". You just wouldn't speak about what those filthy uncivilized vagrants down at the shipyard spoke about, you were "above" that.

Marry the Victorian Era to the post-WW2 baby boomer era, which was, in case you've never seen "Leave it to Beaver", fairly conservative.

Boy, was that time swell!

So there is a culture of "nicety" and since the '60s and '70s we've, as an American culture, been slowly moving out of that, and not a few people have lamented our cultural departure from the "good old days" (you know, those times when "blacks" were barred from voting and segregation was the norm, where a woman's place was barefoot and pregnant and cooking dinner, where everything was hunky dory...assuming you were a WASPy male and middle class, for everyone else, it was pretty much a shit hole).

Middle-Upper class WASPs have pretty much been pissed off since the 1960s.

Now here's the thing. I don't particularly feel any need to be a "gentleman" as Miss Manners would dictate I be c. 1900. Because I don't particularly see how that benefits anyone. I do follow a code of ethics, but not ethics dictated by 19th century cultural elitists and Victorian Era snobs.

I follow the ethics of Christ, or at least to the best I can (being a sinner and all).

Jesus didn't seem to have a problem identifying Himself with and enjoying the company of "vagrants", He ate and hung out with prostitutes and tax collectors, made friends with lepers, and genuinely did everything that pissed off the religious elite of His day.

Should I feel obligated to use "nice" language, where "nice" is defined according to Victorian Era standards? I don't see why I should. Because I don't believe certain words have inherent value in them, we assign value and meaning to words. Words which we consider "bad" or "foul" only have such an assigned value because we allow them to have such an assigned value.

There are words which I have no trouble using in everyday speech and around friends, that I use in an informal way; words that I probably would not use around my grandma. Then again there are a LOT of things I wouldn't discuss around my grandmother, and many words, many not even "bad" words, I'd never use.

Simply a matter of context.

I feel no particular need to USE certain words either, as though their usage somehow means something of value, but I see no reason NOT to use certain words either.

A word is a word, and such cultural baggage does not have an impact on my Christian faith.

And as to whether or not I am engaging in "lawless" behavior has much more to do with how I treat my neighbor than if I happen to use a word that to Victorian ears sounds unthinkably awful. I do know there are people who find such words horribly offensive, and I have no desire to intentionally offend their sensibilities. At the same time there are people who are offended by the fact that I enjoy to eat pig meat, I enjoy bacon, I would not go out of my way to offend a person's sensibilities, but I don't see why I should be yoked to something just because another person feels particularly yoked to it.

In this vein I think we ought to abide by the words of St. Paul, to follow conscience. After all that is part of what our liberty in Christ means.

So, no, I'm not an Antinomian, I'm not engaging in lawless behavior when I speak frankly and openly about a subject, nor when I use this or that particular word. It is not lawless because I am breaking no law. I am not violating the commandments of Christ, to love God and my neighbor.

I violate no law by saying "shit", but I do break outdated cultural norms.

But only in the same way a woman who votes or wears pants breaks those same norms.

-Jon

I'm a Catholic Evangelical

2007-07-20T16:08:00.000-07:00

"Catholic Evangelical", this is how I've come to see myself over the years. It sounds like a strange pairing of words, as though it sounds like I make Catholicism and Evangelicalism bedfellows, and that itself seems "just not right."

Actually I don't see it as the pairing of Catholicism and Evangelicalism, but a natural union of the broad Catholic and Evangelical Traditions.

The original Evangelicals of the 16th century--Martin Luther and Co.--were not Catholic dissenters, but Catholic reformers. Their goal was to reform the Catholic Church, not break away and create a new one. Protestantism was born because the Roman Catholic powers-that-be chose to sever ties with those who agreed with Luther and his ideas by declaring them schismatics and heretics.

Also, I don't see why the Roman Catholic Church should have a monopoly on the word, "Catholic", as though we agreed that that ecclesiastical institution governed by the Pope and his Curia was the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church. The Church was called "Catholic" almost a thousand years before the Filioque Controversy and the Great Schism of 1054, thus a thousand years before we can genuinely speak of a "Roman Catholic Church", with the implication that it's Roman precisely because the Papal Chair is located in Rome, the See of St. Peter.

I see myself as an Evangelical Christian within the broad Catholic Tradition; I see myself as a Catholic Christian within the broad Evangelical Tradition.

Catholic because I affirm the Fathers, the Creeds, the Traditions, and Sacraments of the ancient Catholic Faith.

Evangelical because I affirm the Reformers, Confessions, Teachings and Ideals of the original Evangelical Reform.

It is no great effort for me to on the one hand say that Baptism is the Means of Grace by which we are made partakers of the Life of God--by which God takes hold of us and makes us Christians; and on the other hand speak of Sola Fide, because faith, being a gift from God, is that by which we take hold of God as He originally took hold of us in Baptism.

I do not see the Sacramental Life of the Church as supplementing the "Merit of Christ", but as the means by which God communicates the "Merit of Christ" to us.

It is no strange wonder, then, that I have identified myself with the Lutheran tradition. Though I have never been a member of a Lutheran church nor truly self-identified as "Lutheran", for I believe doing so would be disingenuous.

Also, in calling myself Catholic and Evangelical, I feel liberated in both. I am free to question both the Catholic and the Evangelical Tradition.

Ultimately such labels have no eternal reward, it honestly doesn't matter what I call myself, because ultimately I am only Christian. But having a "tag", so to speak, that helps identify where I stand theologically and practically within the Universal Church should help people see where I stand and better facilitate dialog and discussion.

If the Pope can draw his line in the sand, I don't see why I can't.

-Jon

Sharktacos

2007-07-19T20:08:00.000-07:00

Sharktacos is someone I've "known" for a while, he's probably been lurking around Beliefnet for as long, if not longer, than I have. And that's a long time.

Well I recently discovered he has a blog, and I seriously recommend it, pretty much anything he'll have to say about anything will be solid gold. He's the first person to introduce me to the concept of Christus Victor a number of years ago.

-Jon

She got it!

2007-07-19T19:42:00.000-07:00

I found this Communion story over at Sinning Boldly, I hope you find it as heart warming as I did.

-Jon

The Experience of God

2007-07-18T23:32:00.000-07:00

Halden over at Inhabitatio Dei wrote a very good post over the issue of whether or not Christ's suffering means God suffers.

I recommend reading it.

My own thoughts on the issue are as follows:

I think there is a psychological aversion in the minds of many well-meaning Christians to the whole concept of the Incarnation. It's not so much that they consciously deny it, so much as the implications leave a feeling of discomfort and uneasiness, an unsavory taste is left in their mouth. The idea that God truly joins Himself to human nature seems to make us feel that somehow God is lessened in the process.

I disagree, God is not lessened in the process, not even slightly.

My first comment is that the Incarnation doesn't say that God stops being God in order to become human, but that God assumes humanity. He joins whatever humanity is to whatever He is (which is Deity), thus we speak of the union of Deity and Humanity. This does not affect God on an ontological level, it doesn't violate His immutability.

More to the point, I disagree because I think a very strong case can be made that the Incarnation was never an "afterthought" in the Divine plan.

I think that may be the first problem we run into, thinking the Incarnation was an idea of God after the fact. St. Irenaeus of Lyons makes a case, in the second century, that the Incarnation had always been part of the plan.

What I think this means is downright radical.

It was always the intention and plan of God to assume flesh, to be joined to humanity. Irenaeus, in his Against Heresies, in my opinion, argues a powerful case.

Without getting into it too much, Irenaeus' speaks of salvation occurring precisely because of the Incarnation, in the union of God and man Christ "undoes" what Adam "did". Christ, the Second Adam, reverses the corruption of Adam in His own humanity. But Irenaeus makes another point, that the Incarnation was always intended, even had there never been a Fall, the Logos would have still "tabernacled" with us.

To this end, I believe, it can even be further argued that since all things were "created by Him and for Him," that the Incarnation was always meant to be. More than that, Adam and Eve were created in the image of God precisely because God the Logos was to share in their humanity, and they in His Deity.

Thus Fall or no Fall, the Incarnation has always been an essential part of God's purpose for creation. The union of God and man, of the sacred and profane.

What the Orthodox call "theosis".

To what degree does this relate to the suffering of God in Christ?

I think it may mean that the experience of God's assumption of human flesh, the act of God's condescension into our world of human experience, is somehow reciprocally reflected in both God and man. God to man (since man was created in the image of God), and man to God (since God assumed human flesh and nature).

Without venturing too much further, I think it can even be appropriate to say that man experiences precisely because God experiences, that the very act of "experiencing" something, is, itself Divine, and has been reflected in humanity.

Conversely, man's experience of suffering, of pain, of sorrow, all due to the Fall, is reflected in God because God, in assuming human flesh, enjoins to Himself what it means to be human.

Thoughts?

-Jon

Shit Happens (Just for Fun)

2007-07-17T20:59:00.000-07:00

Catholicism: If shit happens, see a priest.

Calvinist: It is God's sovereign will as to when and if shit happens.

Methodist: Abstain from tobacco, alcohol and shit.

Episcopalian: Sometimes shit happens, and that's okay, as long as it's served with a good wine.

Lutheran: We don't know when or if shit happens.

Fundamentalism: When shit happens, and it will, ask Jesus into your heart or burn in hell.

Seventh Day Adventism: Shit happens, just not on the Sabbath.

Quakerism: Shit happens silently.

Pentecostalism: Praise God for all this shit!

Arminian: Shit only happens because you let it happen.

Amish: We don't worry about shit, but if it happens, we forgive it.

Evangelicalism: Ask Jesus to save you from all this shit.

Eastern Orthodoxy: Shit has always happened, we've always known about this shit, and though it may or may not happen elsewhere, we know shit happens here.

Unitarian Universalism: Shit's all good.

Baptist: Shit happens, but you still aren't allowed to dance.

Non-denominationalism: We're just as confused about this shit as you are.

Jehovah's Witnesses: Knock, knock, shit happens.

Mormonism: We alone know about the true shit.

-Jon

Old Text File Rummage Part Uno

2007-07-17T18:53:00.000-07:00

I was going through a bunch of old text documents from over the years, and I came across this quote I had saved from St. Maximos the Confessor,

"The mystery of the Incarnation of the Word contains within itself the whole meaning of the created world. He who understands the mystery of the Cross and of the Tomb knows the meaning of all things, and he who is initiated into the hidden meaning of the Resurrection understands the goal for which God created everything from the very beginning."

I don't know the source of the quote, which isn't terribly helpful. But It's good nonetheless.

-Jon

Who I am

2007-07-16T21:02:00.001-07:00

I'm a 25 year old self-professed dork. I'm a Christian, a follower of the Way. A disciple of Jesus struggling as a pilgrim amidst a world of challenge and hardship. Simultaneously both saint and sinner, usually a sinner, but with my hope firmly planted in Jesus that some day I can be everything He sees in me and can make me to be. In a life of suffering, pain, and hardship I believe in being a spark of His love and light, to bring joy and happiness to all around me. His Kingdom come.

-Jon

Definition of Chalcedon

2007-07-16T20:02:00.000-07:00

We, then, following the holy fathers, all with one consent, teach all men to confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in Deity and also perfect in humanity; truly God and truly man, of a rational soul and body; con-substantial with the Father according to the Deity, and in these last days, for us and our salvation, born of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, according to the humanity; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, only-begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures, without confusion, without alteration, without division, without separation; the distinction of the natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the characteristics of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one Person and Hypostasis, not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son, and only-begotten, God the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ; as the prophets from the beginning said about Him, and the Lord Jesus Himself taught us, and the Symbol of the holy fathers has handed down to us.

The Nicene Creed

2007-07-16T19:31:00.000-07:00

We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and all things visible and invisible.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all ages, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father; by whom all things were made; who for us human beings, and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was made flesh by the Holy Spirit of the Virgin Mary, and was made human; he was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered, and was buried, and the third day rose again, according to the Scriptures, and ascended into heaven, and sits at the right hand of the Father; from where He will come again, with glory, to judge the living and the dead; whose Kingdom shall have no end.

And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of Life, who proceeds from the Father [and the Son], who with the Father and the Son together is worshiped and glorified, who spoke by the Prophets. In one holy, catholic and apostolic Church; we acknowledge one Baptism for the forgiveness of sins; we look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the Age to Come. Amen.

What is the Via Crucis?

2007-07-16T18:49:00.000-07:00

Centuries ago Christians made pilgrimages to the Holy Land, to visit the sacred sites. Inevitably every pilgrim would trace the final steps of Jesus life, leading up to the crucifixion, by walking a traditional road--the one believed to have been used by Jesus--from Pilate's courtyard to Golgotha, the Place of the Skull, where the condemned were crucified.

In Latin this road became known as the Via Dolorosa, the Way of Suffering; and alternatively known as the Via Crucis, the Way of the Cross. Over time a tradition developed, where regular spots, or stations, came to exist, where pilgrims would stop, recite prayers and meditate upon each moment of Christ's Passion.

Walking the Via Crucis became a part of Christian spirituality, a way of enjoining oneself to the sufferings of Christ, a way to abide by the call of Christ,

"Whoever wishes to come after me must deny himself, take up his cross, and follow me." - Mark 8:34

The Crusades and following wars began to separate Western Christians from visiting the holy sites, and a system of walking the Via Crucis without physically being in Jerusalem developed during the Middle Ages. The spiritual discipline of the Stations of the Cross were developed to this end.

The Via Crucis, however, is not merely some medieval tradition, but a more deeply rooted spirituality. It springs from a fervent desire to, as the Apostle Paul writes,

"To know Him and the power of His resurrection, participating in His sufferings by being conformed to His death," - Philippians 3:10

The Way of the Cross is not simply a spiritual exercise, but, in my estimation, the chief form of life in the here and now.

The Way of the Cross is the most resonantly human form of being. Suffering echoes through our humanity, as we sojourn through life, seeing life come and go before our eyes. The majority of the world's citizens do not live in luxury, but in utter poverty--our American condition is the abnormality of the broader human condition. Where children starve, and mothers see their children collapse in death, where wars tear apart families, where disease infests entire nations.

The Way of Suffering is normative to human life.

God, in condescending down into that human experience, in the Person of Jesus, comes into the full depth of penultimate human existence. By bearing the Cross, he bears the fullness of human wretchedness, and the call of Jesus to, "pick up your cross" is no trifle. Rather it is His demand, that if anyone would seek to follow Him, they must do as He does, and bear cross and suffering, and enjoin upon themselves the suffering of humanity.

While Christ alone overcomes death, He calls all to enter into His death--for His death is the ultimate death, the death of Death. Coming to participate in His death is both the annihilation of our former life, and the beginning of the new.

Since in Christ we are a "new creation" (writes Paul), it can only come in being ripped away from what we once were, and being born anew into something totally other.

And in the midst of all that, is the Cross.

The Way of the Cross is the path we must all walk if we truly seek a genuine death, a death that ends all death--the death of Death itself. The scandalous mystery of the Cross, however, is that when death is, itself, crucified, all that is left is life.

The Way of the Cross, is the path toward life.

But Eternal Life is found in the Way of Suffering, Christ Himself the One True Victim, who joins Himself to all the victims of suffering, calling them into a community of resurrection and transfiguration. A Community of Grace.

So we hope for the resurrection from the dead, and life in the World to Come. And God will wipe away every tear from our eyes, the old has passed, behold, He makes all things new.

-Jon

Greetings World

2007-07-16T03:03:00.000-07:00

I have a blog. It's true, I do. Let's see how this will go.

I think I'll start off my blogging career on a light note.

Wookie Genitals

-Jon