Today is my day to give the children's sermon. The sermon text is 2 Sam 23:1-7. It does not give much for me to do in the context of a children's sermon. So, I will do the thanksgiving thing. It should be fine.
Last night Trish and I were at Seabury hanging with Mitch, Jeff, Luke, Susie, Cathrine and Denise. It was good. I got a little frustrated at one point and called Jeff a bad name. I have apologised. Things have been a little wonky for me of late. I am more stressed than I realize.
Well, I am off to church. Later today I am singing at the local inter-religious service. Carol, one of the pastors from North Shore, is preaching. Susan, our choir director, is leading the singing. And there will be an opportunity for me to play mandolin. You see, a rabbi a priest and a seminarian can form a nice trio if given the opportunity. Who knew?
Thursday, November 20, 2003 chicken or egg, you tell me
So, last week I wrote this wee reflection for AKMA's class based on John's baptism of Jesus in the Jordan and how Matthew was not establishing a new ritual with this but reforming an older ritual...or perhaps not even that much. The narrative has everything to do with who Jesus is in relation to John and nothing to do with why we get baptised.
AKMA and Jeff asked me who might say that we get baptised because Jesus did. Which baptists say that? As Jeff said, there are no hymns about it. Then, surely, baptists don't think that.
Right and wrong.
First there is this article about baptismal theology written by an SBC guy. It is pretty well done considering my objections to the source. It is an orthodox baptist perspective. He uses Paul. He stays away from the gospel account. He does however allude to an earlier practice where "old timers" were baptised in a river or any moving water. This was so that they could be baptised like Jesus was.
Now, here is another article about how the baptism of the Baptist church is specifically to mirror and emulate the baptism that Jesus received. They used a river. They sang. They did it up emulating John the Baptist and Jesus. Well, now, which is the right way to go? Does there need to be?
I think what is the more interesting question is the chicken and egg argument of which comes first, theology or liturgy? This is clearly a chicken and egg argument. Bob Webber leans more toward the we-first-do-things-and-then-meaning-comes model. I think that both processes are happening at once and these two articles are a great example of that. So, when you have a river to play in, you think about Jesus' experience in the Jordan. When your congregation has enough money to build a font and move the liturgy inside, you lose that natural (?) inclination to connect the two and lean more heavily on Paul and that theology. The Jordan is not as evident. This speaks to issues of theological intention and the willingness of a community to buy into a theological understanding of their rite, but it is interesting.
So, the "old timers" in the first article had a different understanding of their baptism then those that followed, or at least a more readily handy scriptural image to play with. I like that. Both are at work, but one is recalled because of the specific liturgical elements. Go to a parish that has a tomb-like structure for a baptismal font and tell me what the believers baptised there recall of their baptism. Ask them what it means. I bet that even if you were to SAY "because Jesus did it in the Jordan" in the rite they would remember "we die to our sins."
In my reading of this passage, Matthew is once again exhorting the community to right Christian action. Neither those on the left nor those on the right appear to have recognized Christ in their dealings with "the least of these." That they do is unimportant. It is how they treat the "least of these" that matters. I have always equated this "least" as a reference to the poor of the world. Luz suggests, however, that this has nothing to do with the general poor of the world instead is about Christian missionaries. He is speaking of the least of "my brothers " or "my family ". This is a judgment upon those who do not treat Christian missionaries well and not upon those who do not have a sense of charity for the poor of the world.
Harrington further illuminates Luz's interpretation by suggesting that this passage is a parable about how the Gentiles will be judged. They will be judged according to how well they treat Jesus' disciples, for the disciples are the presence of Christ. This is a tremendous statement of loyalty by Matthew's Jesus. Also, this is consistent with a Jewish understanding of judgment where the chosen nation, Israel, will be judged separately from the Gentiles yet all will be judged. "The standard by which the Gentiles are to be judged is their treatment of Israel ."
This parable, according to Harrington, is not a parable about general Christian ethics. Instead, it is a parable about how Gentiles can enter the kingdom. They do so by having mercy upon Christians and thusly upon Christ himself. Harrington is hesitant to allow this parable to be co-opted by ethicists simply because it is one of the few parables that speaks to the question of how those outside the faith are to be judged.
I will admit that at first reading, I was deeply disappointed at his interpretation because I too wish to say that this is a parable about the poor and the needy. I had this wonderful little thesis about worship and Christian ethics commingling in this parable. Matthew appears to reform Jewish worship life by conflating the Law, the Prophets and all of Jewish identity into Jesus the Christ.
Chapter 5:14-16, Jesus wishes for our good works to be visible to the world. He then defines how strenuous these works are and how he has come to fulfill the Law through the remainder of the chapter. There is no anger . There are no insults . There are rules about marriage and oath taking. There is a strict understanding of how we are to receive the violence or the oppression from another. We are to love even our enemies. Let God judge the world. We need to live lives according to Christ, in fulfillment of the Law. We are to be perfect .
This is followed by a new understanding, or at least a clearer understanding of private and corporate worship life for Matthew. How we give alms, pray and fast are seen in a different light. The light that is to shine, the works that are to be seen are not those of pietistic observance. Instead it is all of the previous relational "works" that are the mark of the follow of Christ. No longer is our worship life the center of our existence. This makes some sense given the time and place of this gospel. The center of worship life, the Temple in Jerusalem, has been razed to the ground.
Thus, a new ethic is established where cultic worship is secondary to ethical practices. Worship can no longer serve as a line of purity or distinction. Jesus instead suggests something else. "Go and learn what it means 'I desire mercy and not sacrifice.' For I have come to call not the righteous but sinners ." There is "something greater than the temple". "The Son of Man is the lord of the Sabbath". It is mercy that defines the followers of Christ and not sacrifice. Jesus has brought forth a new understanding of worship. Worship is relational and public. It is founded in how we have mercy upon one another. Cultic worship is to be subdued. It is still present. We still pray, fast and give alms. Yet, this can no longer be the focus of our identity. Christ and our identification with him is the new Temple.
This is where I wished to use 25:31-46 and suggest that we are judged by how we practice mercy and not how we do liturgy. It is our ability to follow Christ and be the blessed poor that is the measure. Matthew must then be deadly serious about the place of worship in our lives. It is no longer cultic observance so much as it is our lives within community that defines us as followers of Christ. Harrington says yes and no to my theory.
No, primarily 25:31-46 is not about ethics specifically. It is not to underscore how we are to treat the poor. It is about how the followers of Christ, the missionaries, are treated by Jew and Gentile alike. This is how judgment will be issued. Harrington's agreement with an ethical interpretation comes in his last paragraph.
With regard to the "good works" tradition, homilists can easily make the transition from Gentiles to Christians: If good works to Christians are so important to non-Christians (and non-Jews) to perform, how much more are they expected from Christians (and Jews)! If Gentiles are rewarded for good deeds done to strangers and needy people, so also Christians (and Jews) will be rewarded for such actions .
So, to conflate the two interpretations serves to underscore even further how right works are important for Matthew. The community of Christ is a visible community. It is made visible in its good works. This will lead to acceptance and the furthering of the Kingdom. It will also be met with oppression and persecution. Not all will be able to accept the teaching. God will judge all nations, not just Israel, according to this. There is a way to be or act Christian. This is incorporated in our cultic life as well. Our focus is on Christ and his teaching. All piety is understated when compared to how we relate to one another. We have a new focus, a new way of identifying ourselves and a new judgment and that is as followers of Jesus, lovers of one another. God demands mercy and not sacrifice.
The only "social responsibility" of a Christian is to live, wherever and with whomever he may be, the life of faith, for his own salvation and as an example to others. If, in so doing, we help to ameliorate or abolish a social evil, that is a good thing - but that is not our goal. If we become desperate when our life and our words fail to convert others to the true Kingdom, that comes from lack of faith. If we would live our faith more deeply, we would need to speak of it less. - Blessed Seraphim Rose
The above quote came to me from a friend who is a recent Orthodox convert. At first glance, the quote and what Bonhoeffer suggests in Ethics have a great ring of truth about them. We can cause more trouble than we solve when we try to lead "ethical" lives, if we constantly look for our "social responsibility." Bonhoeffer's brief exposition about slavery, prohibition and the League of Nations (p.351 Ethics) is accurate in that there were more troubles birthed from what was deemed an ethical response to a social ill.
Human ethics are attempts to change things. We think that they change things for the better, but they often do not. Human ethics are often relative. This, for Bonhoeffer, is a negative. What Bonhoeffer suggests is that by being human, fully living in to the mandates of God (labor, marriage, government and church) and the authority structures implied, then our lives will be inherently ethical. Ethics are not necessarily a series of codes or goals. We are back to Act and Being again. He has not entirely forgotten his own dialectic. He is aware that governments will fail, the church will fall, marriages will sour and become abusive and labor can be oppression.
What he seems to have forgotten is the human responsibility to act ethically, to do specific things to witness to the reality of the Kingdom of God that is not yet fully visible but which is fully present. We, as creatures created in God's image, are responsible for bringing it forth. What I read Bonhoeffer suggesting is that by being pure, by being Christian, then perhaps these "ethical dilemmas" would be of no concern to us. He is right and wrong all at the same time. Or at the very least he is unclear in these theological sketches.
To be Christian is to respond justly. It is to stand in the stead of the oppressed. It is to feed the hungry. The Gospel of Matthew is clear about this. "When did we feed you, Lord?" Neither party in that story recognized Christ. Neither party responded to Christ knowingly. Yet, Christ was looking for a specific response to a social ill. He was identifying himself with the "least of these." Those who do not respond are punished.
Now, we can argue the nature of punishment. We can debate whether there is Hell or not, but that is immaterial to the point. The point is that God demands action. God has mandated service and a specific service at that.
This is not far from Bonhoeffer's understanding. Servant-hood is part and parcel of the role of Church and of Government, of marriage and of labor. What I kept waiting for was for him to clearly state that this means that these institutions must lower themselves, must sacrifice themselves for the revelation of the Kingdom. This incomplete treatise does not include this vital part of Bonhoeffer's earlier works. In no way do any of the mandated institutions lose themselves for the sake of the other. They can fail to be the said mandate. But he does not follow his own logic through to the end. He has forgotten the place of sin and the responsibility for the corporate self to lose itself.
Yes, we feed the hungry, as one might read Matthew, because we simply do. It is not because we recognize Christ, though Bonhoeffer may wish we did. It is because Jesus has asked us to respond to the hungry and the homeless in a specific way. For the gospeller, there is literal Hell to pay for not doing so. Jesus has a preference. It would seem that in this incomplete work, Bonhoeffer expresses very little of Jesus' preferences.
This, I also realize, is a shading of difference from what Bonhoeffer and Seraphim Rosemay be getting at. Yes, we are to be faithful. There may even be a way that the Christian is distinguishable from the rest of humanity (though I am still unclear how Bonhoeffer accomplishes this) by living out this faithfulness. Nevertheless, we are always, until the end of the age, sinners given the task of being the hands and feet of Christ. New evils will spring up out of our desire to do good. It is unavoidable. We are sinful. Yet, we are to try to do good. Christ has asked us to. And it would appear that he had some specific practices and notions in mind.
AKMA and Mae are talking about The DaVinci Code with differing perspectives. My fiancee too thinks about this book. We disagree on some level, but what can you do. Good book? Yes. Fun book? Yes. True enough to skandalize the church and make us wonder if Christians have any measure of truth to claim? Um...no.
In other unrelated news, the usual google search brings you here today: navel. Yep. Type in "navel" and this blog appears on the very first page. How's that for killer advertising? I get a few of those every day.
Ennetation is continuing to have troubles. I am tempted every day to find another host or move to MT or something just to avoid this hassle, but then it works again and I just like the look of my blog and my comments. Sigh. This is idolatrous on some level I am sure. I have looked at blog-city. I have looked at Cliff's new host. I've just been here so very long now. Over 20,000 visits. Sigh. Is it time to let it all go and move to something else? You tell me.
Been reading Bonhoeffer's Ethics. Interesting. It is an incomplete work and you can tell. His thoughts circle around each other and never really land. It is good to know that I am in good company even if my thoughts circle in a wee biplane and his in a concorde. Circling thoughts...mmm...
Trish and I travel east on Monday. We are off to Virginia to see friends and family and meet with loads of wedding-related people. This is a worthy pain in the butt. My advice is still to get married where you live and not where people want you to get married. We are having a hellish time getting things nailed down. 800 miles makes planning difficult. In any case, I will not be able to blog or check email. Yay?
Off to study. If you feel the need to post a comment, please feel free to email me.
something cool
Laura, a friend of mine from North Shore, is applying to colleges. She's written a cool essay for St. Olaf. I asked her if I could post it. She said yes...silly. So, here we go. It is good to know that our public high schools are turning out this kind of student.
Many people think that putting people with different ethnicities in a room together creates a diverse community. However, true diversity must include honest, sincere conversation and earnest listening between two or more different groups of people. Those groups might differ in ethnicity, culture, views of life, or economic differences. In a genuinely diverse community there cannot be one dominant group that rules over the others and makes all the decisions. There must be a sharing of power within the group and a willingness of all parties to hear each other's voices and then incorporate all those voices into the group's decisions and actions. When there is honest collaboration between people of different perspectives the decisions become that of the group and not of one person or dominant opinion. This makes the result much more meaningful to everyone involved.
My home church, North Shore Baptist Church, I feel is a working example of true diversity. The church includes three language groups: English, Spanish, and Japanese. Within the English congregation there is a large Filipino fellowship, and people from many other countries as distant as Vietnam, Togo, Germany, and Columbia. North Shore also has people with a wide spectrum of theological and political views, and economic backgrounds. The church works very hard to incorporate all these perspectives in making decisions but this can be very difficult and sometimes chaotic.
About three times a year all three language groups worship together. It is through these worship services that I most directly experience the community of North Shore living out its true diversity. The scriptures are read in all three languages and the sermon is often given in Spanish and English. But the music is what reveals the true spectrum of colors of the members of the church. On a normal Sunday in the English congregation, the service is typical of Anglo protestant worship. However, when we all join to worship together, we sing hymns in English, Spanish, and Japanese, the Filipino fellowship often sings in Tagolog, the choir sometimes sings spirituals, and the praise band might sing a Taize piece or a praise song.
I am often not comfortable singing in Spanish or Japanese, and I'm not used to the upbeat style of the Latino music. But, because I am a part of this incredibly diverse community I do my best to keep up and appreciate other's music. I believe this is what others do for the music and worship styles that are not comfortable to them. While at a joint worship service, I am stretched to accept other's ways of expressing themselves through their worship styles. In this way, I am able to understand other cultures more completely and I am able to enter into their way of thinking, as they are able to enter into mine.
Diversity is not about everyone being comfortable and enjoying every moment of worship; it is messy, confusing, and hard because of the clash of cultures and traditions. There are often places in North Shores' services that are disjointed but that's not what's important. What is important is that everyone has a voice in the service, every culture is represented and every view is acknowledged.
A college community that has true diversity is very important to me. I want to be involved in honest conversations with people holding different worldviews from mine so that they can challenge me and I can challenge them. I believe that living in a homogeneous environment would not challenge me to define myself and continue to grow. Therefore, I feel I would benefit from an education at a school filled with people of all different cultures, worldviews and backgrounds.
Firstly, I am having trouble getting my schedule straight. It looks as if I may miss a class or two during Thanksgiving week. CTU has class. Oops. I think I am all right everywhere else. Yay? On December 1-3 I have my psych evaluation appointment. It is in a group setting primarily and takes up the entire three days. Why am I not excited about this? Urf. And I have lots of papers to write. Yay. Don't worry. I won't publish them here. I'll put them on that other page of mine.
now on to class
The created order is a worthy vehicle through which the Presense of God may be encountered The Old Testament: burning bush, pillar of flame, tabernacle, temple, ark, word The New Testament: Jesus the Christ. God is united through the person of Jesus with the whole of Creation (Rom 8).
Here is typically where Baptists stop. We can get a little gnostic. Oops. We dematerialize Christ. We do not care for a material presense. We want a spiritual presense. We want a symbol, but we do not want a material presense. We are trying to avoid a transubstantive theology. So, we get rid of the whole thing. Um, sorry?
Where then is the presence of God? Um...now Bob is talking about Vatican II. Very good move, Bob. Christ is present in the gathered community (whever two or three are gathered), its worship (do this in remembrance of me) and work (whenever you do this to the least of these...).
You know, this is gonna get heated really quickly. Bob is preaching orthodoxy. Oh no. I'll let you know how it goes. Anyone remember 451 CE?
*later*
Okay, so far so good. Some peopl eare sitting in a stunned silence. Others are nodding happily. Baptists, we, are a mixed-up lot to say the least. I wonder how these people will manage the epiclesis (the prayer that invites the Holy Spirit).
Somehow we are talking about the apostolic succession. This is harder for the class than the real presence in the elements of the eucharist.
2 Corinthians 5:16-21 is being used to suggest that homousious (human and divine) is incorrect. We are no longer the same, so how can it be human energy at all? Can you respond to this, Cliff or Karl? My fellow student, John, is a Willow Creek congregant. He is struggling with a sacramental reading of this verse. The change, if it is afforded, is through faith signified through baptism. We are made new. So, we are not what we were. So, this is not human and divine, this is something new.
[btw - has anyone ever noticed that this verse, 2 Cor 5:19, suggests that God reconciled the world (them or they in the NRSV) through Christ, it is we (the Church?) who must preach reconciliation, must live reconciliation (see John 13:34-35) and preach reconciliation with one another all creation and God? Why? Because it is the reality of all things. This is connected to the sacraments somehow and I cannot for the life of me figure it out. Jeff? Susie? Jane Ellen?]
CT suggests Romans 12:1 plays into the conversation about human and divine and the sacraments.
*break*
Now we read the Didache. Oh my. I like this class. It is so affirming for this sacramental baptist.
in other news
There is a radio station in Chicago playing nothing but Christmas carols now. Oh. My. God. This is what is wrong with the world today.
Here is a thought on agape (love) for Cliff
Amidst all kinds of love in the world, there is Christian love, agape love. It is not based on mutuality. It is based on the radical love that is shown in Jesus Christ. That love seeks us out, affirms us, and forgives us before any capacity or even inclination on our part to reciprocate that love. It upsets the nice calculus - the give and take- of mutual love. God's agape love in Christ is a kind of divine madness that breaks the sane confines of worldly love. - Robert Benne Ordinary Saints
Megan and I have been in the midst of a good conversation here and via email about faith and truth and how Christians engage with people of other traditions. Where I get tied up, a metaphor of course (sorry, still fourteen on some level), is how to get to my goal. This should clarify some of why I am confused...I hope.
See, I want to say that the absolute claim that Christ has on my life leads me to believe that every person has a claim on me. I am responsible to the life that Christ has asked me to live and that is His Life. I am to be poor. I am to sacrifice my self for the other. Why? Because Christ has claim on them as well. Whether or not this is recognised is of absolutely no consequence. This means that I worship with the Moslem. This means I marry the same-sex couple. This means that I stand in awe at the Seder meal. This means that the Mass is the Body and Blood of Christ and is present in the oppressed people of the world...and in me. He is outside my life, asking for justice. He is inside my life, transforming me in ways I cannot begin to understand.
You want to follow Christ, and not look back: remember that, as you walk in his footsteps, you will be irresistably drawn to share, and to a great smplicity of life. Perhaps you could place these Gospel words on the wall of your home; they come straight from the heart of Christ: "Whatever you do to the least of my brothers and sisters, you are doing to me!" Who will give the best of their creative gifts so that suffering throughout the world may be alleviated, in places where there is sickness or hunger or appalling housing conditions? Who will understand the cry of all those living in the "land of the shadow of death" [here and here]? Who will be a ferment of trust and of peace, so as to break out of a spiral of haterd and fear between individuals and between peoples?
- Brother Roger of Taize
In Matthew, neither knew it was Christ they were in relationship with. Can we know? Can we discern who is Christ? It would seem not. God so loved the world for he created it good. We should, as Christians, do the same. We are to love the world, call them brother or sister and work toward our shared redemption. This is what Christ came for...no?
Is this something that a man would have died for? Is this, if only an idea, worthy of our lives? Is there an idea so worthy? (Ask the troops...they will have opinions.) Can Christ ask the same of me? He does ask. What is my answer? If it is merely an idea then it cannot claim my life fully. Then I can deny it. If it is true, if it is real, then it must claim my life. I must be willing to lose all, even my religion, for my brother and sister. This is the cross. This is the fallen Temple. This is the oppressed Church. This is the Reformation. This is the War on Terrorism. Where there are the oppressed or victim or where there is fear and hatred, Christ asks us to be there. Christ is present. We are to witness to that.
This is the ghetto in America's city where sewage runs down stairwells in public housing projects. This is where there are metal detectors in schools. This is the white family disguising its addiction, its abuse. This is where there is any suffering or pain. Christ picks no favorites. He loves us all. Has he called you to the same? I am afraid he has called me to this. I am afraid that he has indeed asked me to die with him.
My spelling is bad. Really, really bad. I know this. I actually pay attention for the most part, but ever since fourth grade, I have experienced a steady decline in my ability to spell. But this takes the cake. Someone linked to my site through a google search.
world historical insidents
Yep, mispelling and all. I am first in the list. So, there are some advantage, I guess.
Megan: Sorry if i sounded patronizing. It is the frustration of this media. You know me better than to think I would patronize you. I admire you to no end. What I was suggesting is that, perhaps, you are like me and many others that think that Christianity is a belief system to be agreed with or whatever...yada yada yada. Maybe you don't. I just know that it is something that I had to get past in order for my faith to grow.
Why do I believe it? Revelation (not the book, mind you) is the best answer I have for you. It is a faith claim and not a proof.
This is where I get confused myself in my articulation. Bear with me. See, I used to think of Christianity as a useful system for belief about the Universe and some Divine Thang that set it all in motion and keeps it going. I would compare it to other world religions and see the commonalities and think "Cool! It's all the same! What grace!" Then I started diving in more deeply spiritually and intelectually. I ended up getting advice from a Moslem Imam that really helped me.
This Imam wrote an article about how in America our gift is this incredible diversity. It is also a curse of sorts because we do not often have a place to take a stand. He suggested that we need to own a tradition fully and only that tradition. We may then find that we (World Religions) are indeed talking about the same thing. But we cannot even engage in the conversation without having our own tradition in which to live. These are his thoughts and not my own. Nevertheless, I found them entirely helpful.
What it has encouraged me to do is commit entirely to Christianity and thus to Christ. The spiritual growth that has followed has been challenging to say the least. I like thinking in terms of pluralities. I like that there are different religions. I like that it may be possible that we are all getting after the same thing. I also have come to value particularizing myself into Christianity. I am Christian after all. It make some sense. So, I want to own it. I want to speak from it and to it. I need it to be full and authentic. Matthew (the gospeler) points to this I think. He wants us to see the distinctions. He wants us to know ourselves in relation to Judaism and the rest of the world in a specific way. We are not the same. That way, as I understand him, is through the full sacrifice of Love, Christ's love. I must, I am compelled to embody that love. The only way, I think, that I can get at this is to be Christian to the fullest, to realize that to do so means that God indeed is creator of all things and that his Son, who is God, affords this. I say that because the scriptures seem to say that. This is why I believe what I wrote. I have no idea if this helped illumine or confuse. I just know that God has been leading me down this path. It is nothing that I can prove.
Now, where I still struggle is exactly where you keep pushing me. What does this mean for my relationships with other religious traditions (institutional or individual)? It changes nothing really. I have to love them. I have to respect them. If they decide to explore my faith in the process, great. If not, great. I am not concerned with their salvation like most "good Baptists" would be. God loves God's creation. This is what Christianity says. I just need to follow Christ. This is hard enough, I think.
So, is Hinduism speaking of God? Possibly. I would like to think so, certainly. But Jesus asked me to speak his Gospel and not someone else's. It is hard. I am not entirely sure I understand it, but there is something profound that I have to wrestle with there. It is not a question of right and wrong. I am enough of a relativist to grant that. I am also endeavoring to be humble enough to know that God is everywhere. My "getting it" is of no consequence to God. God is love. That is what I have.
Cathy: You said -
Your argument, if I'm getting it, is that us'ns have a relationship with christ just as much as you do--we just don't know it, or admit it. this is a tough one for me to wrap my brain around. maybe this is because you're the only baptist I know... but I understand christ as an intercessionary (literal or symbolic) between man and god. I reject the notion of necessity of intercession; i reject the need for "a christ" in my relationship with god and the universe. but you seem to be saying that this rejection isn't just a bad idea, but it's not possible in the first place, for christians and non-christians alike? am i right?
Um...yes? Let's talk about it in terms of the first part of your post. If I am to have a world view, then all the world is in that view...even those who do not believe as I do. So, I would say that, yes, your realtionship with God is through Christ whether you know it or not. Is this propriatary? Is it just flat out rude? Probably. I personally think it sucks, but it makes sense. See, Christ, as the second person of the Trinity, is GOD. There is no difference. So, to pray through is to pray to. It gets complicated. I am not avoiding further explanation because you cannot get it but because I have a book to read today. Whatever. The truth is that Jesus the Christ reconciled us with God. We do have a direct relationship with God. You can go right to God. Do not pass Rome. Do not collect $17.50 for a bus pass.
The kicker is that, since God is a Trinity, that direct access is through Christ. Aigh! Damn theologians.
Next installment: how Hell is not as bad as we think it is.
Trying to write for AKMA...AIGH! Waaaa! I just have too much to pull together. So, who do you think Matthew thinks Jesus is when you look at 3:11-17? Hmm? I think he wants to say his usual and make excuses for his being baptised by John. I really do not think that the Baptism of John is significant for Matthew. I really do not think he cares. Matthew likes to redefine things in the light of the Christ. I think...maybe. Hell, people, I really do not know.
The mp3 is cool. I finally listened to it. Wow. Who knew? No ear bleeding. Get it while it is hot! It is your's for free!
the wee essay
Tripp Hudgins
November 13, 2003
Matthew
Seabury-Western Theological Seminary
Matthew 3:11-17
“I Baptize you with water for repentance, but one who is more powerful that I is coming after me; I am not worthy to carry his sandals. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire. His winnowing fork is in his hand, and he will clear his threshing floor and will gather his wheat into the granary; but the chaff he will burn with unquenchable fire.”
Then Jesus came from Galilee to john at the Jordan to be baptized by him. John would have prevented him, saying “I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?” But Jesus answered him, “Let it be so now; for it is proper for us in this way to fulfill all righteousness.” Then he consented.
And when Jesus had been baptized, just as he came up out of the water, suddenly the heavens were opened to him and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting on him. And a voice from heaven said, “This is my son, the Beloved, with whom I am well pleased.
The Baptism of Jesus by John can be seen in several ways.
1. The milepost marking the beginning of Jesus’ ministry
2. The anointing of Jesus by God
3. John’s baptism (Essene? A prostelyte Jewish baptism?)
4. The paradigm for Christian liturgy and theology of baptism
5. The moment when Jesus finally understands who he is as Messiah
These are just a few of many interpretations. I am sure that if we wished, we could discover several more. What I want to know, however, is why Matthew included this narrative. If we agree with Luz, that Matthew is always trying to illuminate the identity of Jesus as the Messiah and then redefine that title for his community, so that they too may be Christ, then our reading of this narrative need never be utilized to understand Christian baptism beyond a “patterning” of our lives after Christ. None of our categories for understanding this listed above will matter.
What we need to concern ourselves with is who Matthew is saying Christ is by using this narrative. Daniel Harrington and Max Johnson both want to say that Matthew is compelled to speak about this because it really happened. It is a necessary narrative because it is an historical event. All the synoptics speak to it, and give it their own theological spin according to Johnson. John’s gospel utilizes it as well. The narrative must be included in reports of Jesus’ life because everyone knows about it.
Harrington suggests that the compulsion has to deal with the possible social ranking of John over Jesus. The way that Matthew deals with this possibly embarrassing event is by including the dialogue in verses 14 and 15. John admits his relationship to Christ is subordinate there and in verse 11. For Matthew, John understands whom it is he is baptizing. It is the one he has been proclaiming who will baptize with the Holy Spirit and fire. For Matthew, there is no comparing the two.
The “why” of the baptism is explained as “to fulfill all righteousness.” This is who Jesus is. He is the one who fulfills all righteousness. It is necessary that he do so for that is who he is. As interesting as it may be, it is not necessary that we understand John’s baptism to understand what Matthew is alluding to. Whether it is an Essene rite or it is a “prostelyte” baptism is inconsequential. What is of consequence is who Jesus is. He is the one who “fulfills all righteousness.”
From here, the narrative is even more explicit about the identity of Jesus. The heavens open. The Spirit descends. He is anointed by the Spirit with the words of God pronouncing for all to hear “This is my Son, the Beloved, with whom I am well pleased.” Matthew has God pronouncing the identity of Jesus. He is the Son. He is the Beloved. God is pleased.
This pronouncement fulfills John’s ministry. He no longer need proclaim the coming of the Lord for the Lord is here. John’s work is done. Perhaps this is why the next we hear of John after the baptism of Jesus is that he is arrested. Matthew no longer needs John to tell the story of Christ.
This is where a non-liturgical, non-sacramental Baptist reading of the this passage may actually be useful. The concern is what Matthew says about Jesus and not necessarily what the Church wants to say Matthew says about Jesus. This may be a tangle that is impossible to escape.
Matthew is attempting to articulate his experience of Christ to his community. He is attempting to gather his community into a practice of Christian life that is Christ-patterned. Perhaps then it is important that we too be baptized. But more importantly it is that Jesus is baptized. He must fulfill all righteousness. Once that is done, we only need follow him. We only need be like him. This does not necessarily mean that we must be baptized by John. Why would Matthew then remove John from the narrative? Yes, there is a historical possibility that John was soon arrested so including him is impossible. Nevertheless, Matthew has no other baptismal narrative. Jesus does not baptize in this gospel. Jesus does not tell us to be baptized. He wants us to proclaim the Good News.
We could then argue that our baptism is unnecessary. It is being Christ that is necessary. The baptism that Christians participate in has been infused with meanings that Matthew was unconcerned with if we look only at this narrative. Matthew was not creating a new ritual. He was telling us about Christ. What our contemporary baptism does or signifies is another matter entirely.
Hey there, gang. I am sorry that I have been unable to play online as much of late. I have been struggling with my iunternet access at home. I am hopeful that Leo and I will work out something that allows us both cable and a cable modem. Jane, let Bruce know that he will be getting a call! Really!
So much is going on. Trish and I are off to her parent's house for Turkey Day. This is good. I will meet upwards to 50 kin. Wow. That thar is a bunch! My mother uis driving down from DC to join us. I will drive out to Richmond to see Dad and Judy the Friday following. I am hoping that Trish may join me, but that is unlikely. You see, the wedding stuff is under way. We have three appointments on Tuesday of that week. I assume that we will have more by the time all is said and done. Yeesh. It is stressful.
estoy famoso
I am famous. You need Quicktime (?) to listen, but get it while it is hot! It is your's for free!
And finally I get to Cathy's questions. Whew!
So, as if you didn't have anything better to do than email me, I pose you a
couple of questions. First off, can you explain to me the process of becoming a
"professional" minister in the Baptist church? I follow your doings with
enthusiasm and a certain amount of ignorance. You say you can perform weddings
etc. now--is this it? are you There, as it were? I'm only familiar with the
Catholic process, which seems to have very concrete stages over a set period of
time (and that's joining holy orders rather than becoming a diocesan priest,
I've no idea how THAT works either.) When you've got time, I'd love to have a
rough idea of what you have to do, what you've done, and what's yet to come in
your work with the church.
I can only speak to the process in the ABC-USA. It is not unlike other processes, but we have our peculiarities. This is the ideal:
I feel called or someone convinces me this ministry thing is worth looking at or whatever. It varies from case to case.
Hopefully I am already praying, but this would be a good place to begin the "oh shitte" prayers. Look at the Psalms. There are a bunch.
I approach my pastors. We talk about this stuff. At this point, I might begin seminary if it looks like I really do have a call and I am not just hearing voices. It is sometimes hard to tell the difference.
Somewhere during school, I may get an internship. This way I have a formal relationship with a congregation as a minister. It is a good idea. This is what I have been doing at North Shore. I have been a teacher and a preacher and stuff. It is cool.
Then the voting thing happens. I wrote about this before.
Now I am going to Midwest Ministry resources for my psyche evaluation and writing a bunch of essays about my journey for my first meeting at the regional level. This is the level where the hard questions begin from pastors at other churches. It should be interesting. Then there is a "Watch Care Committee" established. I assume this means that people at church will be making sure I am being "formed" rightly...whatever that nmeans. At a minimum of six months later I can go before the regional folk again. That is a longer interview with the subject being nothing but theology. Yay. If it works well there, my church will be sent a letter (w/in a week) to say that all is well and the congregation has their stamp of approval for my ordination. Then we have a service (All are invited! Really!) where the mojo is laid upon me...and, tah dah! I am Reverend. Wow. Now that there is something to be fearful of on many levels.
Second question is a philosophical one brought to mind from your sermon--it
really should be posed over coffee, late at night, with a bag of cookies on the
table. Your discussion of belonging to Christ--Trish belongs to Christ, not to
you, and vice versa, and your friend's dilemma of being Called in different
directions--brought me to the question of then what are we to each other, if we
don't truly belong to one another? Didn't god give us to one another as well?
(This leads to the question, "Is Tripp really God's Gift to women?" but we'll
leave that for now...) Seriously, though, if our bond with God is the only one
that really counts in the crunch, and if God gives us temporary gifts--"Sure,
you can have Sally for a while, but if I need her, you have to give her
back!"--that seems like a strange set-up to me. Does God truly call people to
do things which force them to leave behind their fellow man? Or is that really
a call from God and not just an earthly (and understandable) desire to change
one's life in a radical way?
This is probably a really good question that you have asked. I wonder how many others read it in that way. IN some sense, we can rightly say that God is the One Who Says "Psych!" God does have an ultimate call upon all of us. I am not speaking about death or anything like it. That gets us all. God is in there somewhere, but that is not the "dust" that I want to speak of. I am talking in terms of identity and property. Who owns you? In the Christian context, we are made new (God's Created) through our Baptism. We are grafted onto the vine which is Israel. We no longer even belong to ourselves. All of our relationships reflect this reality. My firends are God's first. They are not mine. Yet they are more fully mine because of God, because of that redemption. All relationships are reconciled through Christ. They are made new through the cross, by Christ's sanctifying death and resurection.
That raises lots of questions about those from other faiths or no faith tradition at all. So, here is the quick and dirty answer. Christians believe that all is made new through Christ. It has all be done, and is continuing to be done. This is the Kingdom of God revealed through a glass dimly. This is the hope for the End Time (eschaton). So, in some way, we have a propritary claim upon the cosmos. No, this ain't PC. But it is the Christian world view. What the world does with this relationship is where salvation may or may not enter. Do you engage in this relationship, your "new createdness?" We may be blind to it. As a Christian, I must endeavor to see Christ in all the world. I must treat the world as such. There is a Good News to proclaim.
I wonder how you hear the word "salvation." I also wonder how you think about this propriatary theology. It is arrogant in one way. It is redemptive in another.
It is important that we stop thinking of Christianity as a set of beliefs and mores and instead realize that it is the ultimate reality of Creation. Yes, that is from a Christian perspective, but that is where I come from. So, I am Christian to the exclusion of all other traditions. That is hard to hear in America. The gut response is then "You don't think I'm saved! You think I am going to Hell!" Um...no. That is not it at all. I am to love you like God does. The rest is up to the relationship we have with one another through Christ and God's work in you. If that means that you are Jewish and remain so, then so be it. It has absolutely nothing to do with where we spend eternity. We do not decide that. God does. And we are better off that I don't decide that. I will love you and respect you as God's created. That is what God has asked of me. I may never be able to say that Hinduism and Christianity are saying the same thing, but I am not asked to. All God asks of me is to love you.
Um...does this help? I have probably botched it all, but there we go.
November 4, 2003 - not whatever day I actually get this posted.
I have to say that I am disappointed. It happens more frequently than I usually admit. I try not to be disappointed. I am a perfectionist and try to be aware of my tendancy there and just let it all go, you know? There is so little I can actually control in this world. Why should I get as much say as I would like and who am I to say anything at all? Just because I think it should go a certain way means nothing. I have no more vision or insight than any other person. I gotta get my ego out of the equation. Yay. This is a constant learning and relearning for me.
So, tonight I had a presentation, a liturgy thang at Northern. It was a team project and one of the team did not come. Now, I could think badly of this person, but he had a great excuse. Kidney stones are no whining matter. He is ill. Still, no one told me and the third member of our team. We set up. We waited. We prayed. We were finally informed of what was going on with our cohort. We went through the service. It was a survival game for me. The class (our congregation) seemed so lost to me. It would have been such a great service. But, no, it sucked. Well, perhaps that is too strong a statement. I am just frustrated. We worked hard. Our sick cohort worked hard. All of his work is at home. Sigh.
So, what have I learned? I have learned that I still want it to be right godammit. I still want to smack people around and get this shit done all by myself if necessary. This is bad. This is not the way I want to function yet I still try from time to time. I have to constantly learn to let go. It is not my call. This is not my world. I do not control the universe. As much as I may want to, I cannot control anything. Usually this is an okay place for me. Not today.
If I controlled the universe, there would have been more camping equipment in our liturgy. Yes, I said camping equipment. It worked. Trust me. The class would have sung the Taize stuff with more contemplative gusto. The Magnificat would not have left them struggling. These struggles have nothing to with the classmates being Baptist (or Presbyterian, Episcopalian, and Methodist). It has to do with my inability to predict or control any outcome. I can try. I can think I have done something profound. And I can be wrong in all of this.
So, where is God? I dunno. Maybe God was in this worship. Jesus said "wherever two or three are gathered in my name." I get that. I just do not think that he was gathering us in order to have us stare at a bulletin blankly. Sigh.
Whine, whine, whine...
I owe a post to Hamaker. She asked a good question. I need to answer it. I know. Hold on, Cathy! I'll get there.
This week: Bonhoeffer, Bonhoeffer and more Bonhoeffer Matthew and some bizarre Christian moralism that I seem to be toting about recently The end of the Ethics of the Ekklesia.
Here is a question for you guys...well, several questions, really: Do you think God cares that the Bears have won two games in a row? Do you think that he cares about the Cubs? What about Bishop Robinson? Why do I have a Simon and Garfunkle tune in my head? Does it matter that the Catholics at CTS are more liberal than I am? Should I be afraid?
live blogging
I am doing all this in Bob's class. We are debating "time." What is the place of time in our worship? Sacraments. Yay. Chaos and Creation and Crusifixion and the Kingdom of Heaven (God?) are all rolled up into one eternal moment. It is something to think about here at Northern. It is a hard word to say the least. We are wrestling in all of this. How is all of creation redeemed in the Christ event? How are we redeemed? Does our act of worship enact or cause this? It is a good conversation.
A guy who attends Willow Creek is wrestling this out in a good way. He wants to know how creation is redeemed. He understands how humanity is redeemed. Yet he does not see how the rest of creation is redeemed. A good question coming from his end of the theological spectrum. Who can help him work it out? I have Romans 8:18-27 running through my head. "The whole of creation is eagerly waiting for God to reveal his [people]." It is tough. It is cool. It is true.
No internet connection at home. Dunno why. Need to talk to Leo and figger it all out. Yay.
The positive thing is that I have been less distracted by the blog and have gotten a lot of other things done. This is a good thing. Here is a sample of the liturgy I will be helping with (as a musician) at Northern Theological tonight. Hmmm...will this cause a stir amongst the baptists?
People: While we were yet sinners and in the bondage to the Tyrant of Evil,
and subject to Death and Hell,
Christ our God became the Passover Lamb for us.
On the night before he was to die,
he looked at us with love in his eyes.
He took bread, blessed it, and broke it saying,
“ This is the Bread of my Presence, My Body broken for you.
Eat this in remembrance of me.”
He also took the cup of wine, blessed it, and raised it saying,
“This is the Blood of my Life, The Cup of the New Covenant.
Drink this in remembrance of me.”
Celebrant: Therefore, we pray King of the Universe, who causes bread to come forth from the ground and the fruit to come forth from the vine, to send Thy Spirit upon these gifts of Thy creation this Bread and Wine may become the Body and Blood of the Lamb of God, Thy Son Jesus Christ. Therefore Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us. Let us keep the feast.
People: We shall keep the Feast of the LORD!
Trevor had something fun to say about the whole Mennonite than at my licensing service.
Jesus the Christ invites us all to the Feast of Remembrance. The invitation is to join with all who have believed throughout the ages. This table is here before us and in the upper room. Around this table is gathered all the disciples and saints, our loved ones, friends, and family in Christ throughout the world. They gather and pay heed to these words.
We remember how the Lord Jesus, on the night that he was betrayed, took a loaf of bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body that is broken for you. Do this in remembrance of me.”
In the same way, he took the cup also, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.”
Let us pray.
Bless these gifts, O God. Bless the saints in every time and place. Bless us this day that we may be continually transformed and upheld by your Spirit. For as often as we eat this bread and drink the cup, we proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.
In the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, Amen.
