A Little Hockey

I'm a little embarrassed that the hockey season has started and I haven't posted any hockey content.  Last night, Marian Hossa gave me ample reason to do so.  Check out this goal against his former team, the Atlanta Thrashers.

To quote John Wayne in True Grit, "He reminds me of me."

First Autumn Frost

This morning was the first hard frost of the fall season, and it was so beautiful (and cold!) that I thought I'd take a couple pictures of it and post them. Isn't it amazing the beauty that is always around us that we frequently fail to see? Well, at least I didn't miss it this morning....

Necessity of Baptism

In my "Early Church and Its Creeds" class yesterday, our topic of discussion centered upon baptism; and after looking at all the major biblical passages concerning baptism, my professor, Dr. Christianson (whom most of you would love) made a comment that bears further thought.  He said:

"Whether or not baptism is necessary for salvation, it is necessary for the assurance of salvation."

Thoughts?

Communion Rails and Pastor/Congregation

Greetings everyone - sorry I haven't updated in quite some time, but with the start of seminary I needed some time to figure out how my schedule was going to work out.  Your prayers and encouragement are so appreciated!

I was on the blog yesterday of Father John Zuhlsdorf, a Catholic priest and prolific writer on all things Catholic and liturgical. If you follow the link, you'll find an entry concerning altar rails.  Apparently, there are churches (even Catholic churches) that are tearing them out, seeking to reduce the distance between a priest and a parish that this physical dividing line inevitably causes.  But is this a good thing?  Father Z finds this to be a disturbing trend, and he argues for the usefulness of the altar rail.  But I want to draw your attention to one of his arguments in particular:

Lay people and the ordained have different roles in the liturgy. They have their own particular places. When you blur those places by making them less distinct, you undermine something important in the hearts and minds of the clergy and congregation.  When you constantly tell people that they are being empowered by being given things to do and places to sit or stand that cannot be distinguished from what the clergy do, you are really telling them that on their own they aren’t good enough. They are really not good enough unless they do things priests do, or sit where they sit.

This blew me away because it perfectly describes me.  Part of the reason I wanted to be a minister is because it seemed like I couldn't be the best Christian I could be unless I was a minister.  All the best Christians I knew were pastors (I now see how wrong that was), which suggested to me that clergy were on another spiritual plane that couldn't be accessed unless on was clergy.  Furthermore, if it was acceptable for me to preach as a 15-year-old, then I wasn't doing enough, and was therefore less of a Christian, when I wasn't preaching.  The thought never entered my mind that I may have a vital role to play in worship as a member of the congregation. 

I wonder if I would have felt this way if there were a greater distinction between clergy and congregation growing up, if the creep of egalitarianism wasn't so strong.  What if there were places I wasn't allowed to go on the altar?  What if someone had explained to me that there are things the pastor does that the congregation can't do, and things the congregation does that the pastor can't do?  What if I knew that both are essential for worship (and, by extension, we do great harm to the worship of the church when we don't show up)?  I wonder if I would have valued the sacraments and the preaching of the Word more if I had a better understanding of the differences between ordained and lay.

I'm not necessarily arguing one way or the other; I'm just surprised at how personal this was for me.  How do you see it?  Are there differences between clergy and lay, and should we maintain those differences, even by physical barriers?  This gets at the very heart of what worship is all about, and so I'd be most appreciative of your thoughts.

(By the way, this further goes to illustrate that the buildings in which we worship shape how we worship and what we believe about God; as Winston Churchill said, "We shape our buildings, and then our buildings shape us."  Our buildings matter.)

May the Lord bless you and keep you! 

Caleb's Beans

Caleb had an interesting rendezvous with a green bean tonight. Here's the comical evidence.

Anticipating Sunday School: John Edwards

For those who may not know, each week our adult Sunday School class takes one of the significant news stories of the week and discusses it in the context of a Christian faith and worldview (the curriculum we use is from The Wired Word).  It often generates stimulating conversation while causing each of us to consider more deeply the events of the world and our daily lives in the context of Christ and his Kingdom.

I'm anticipating that this week's topic will center around John Edwards.  To that end, an article (ALERT:  adult themes) I read this morning was stimulating because it begs the question:  Why are we so upset about all this?  The author asks us to look critically at our culture and its mores and taboos, and she sees in them the seeds of infidelity not just for John Edwards, but for all of us.  Yet the condemnation we so freely lavish on Edwards is so seldom directed towards the culture that encourages such behavior, or the normal people that behave in the exact same way.  If your time is short, read the final paragraph.  Powerful stuff, and scary.

Eunuchs and Birth Control

When studying the week's readings in preparation for my sermon on Sunday, I generally pull up the commentary from St. Charles Borromeo Catholic Church in Picayune, MS. On their site they provide very good commentary for the week's readings when the Catholic and Revised Common Lectionaries match up.  I also recommend them for the layperson who wants to prepare for Sunday by reading the lessons before worship.

The Old Testament reading for this week is from Isaiah 56, and it focuses on the care of God for those who are excluded from Israel because of the law, which meshes well with the Gospel reading about the Caananite woman.  Among those who were excluded were eunuchs, and the writer of the commentary explains: 

"Eunuchs were refused admission into the assembly of the Lord (Leviticus 22:24; Deuteronomy 23:1) because it seemed improper for a person, deprived of the power of transmitting life to associate with the God of life."

This is very interesting commentary explaining why God would be exclude someone from His presence for a simple bodily deficiency (somehow, that word seems too benign!); restrictions on eunuchs had nothing to do with sex and everything to do with reflecting God's nature and character in one's body.  

Recently we passed the 40th anniversary of Humanae Vitae, the much-maligned Catholic encyclical published by Pope Paul VI in 1968, which is most famous for its strong condemnation of birth control.  For a full treatment on the subject, Mary Eberstadt's article in First Things is a must-read.  In the opening statement of the encyclical, Paul VI writes,

"The transmission of human life is a most serious role in which married people collaborate freely and responsibly with God the Creator."

The operating principle in the encyclical is that sex necessarily entails a responsibility to create; since God creates, and we are made in the image of the Creator, we are called to c0-create with the Creator.  Furthermore, the Bible is unmistakable that God created out of love - Psalm 136 explains that everything exists because "His love endures for ever."  Love and creation cannot be separated because to do so cuts right across the grain of who God is.  Therefore, the act of intercourse cannot be limited to an expression of love; to make it a non-creative act is to do violence to the design of God.

It seems that the same principle that excluded eunuchs from the sacred assembly is in play when discussing birth control.  Consider:  if God would exclude a eunuch from the sacred assembly for a bodily deficiency that deprives someone the ability to create life, why would God permit someone into His assembly who willingly deprived themselves of the possibility of procreation?  Is there a difference here?

Catholics have been rankling over this logic for 40 years, but Protestants are relative newcomers to the game.  Protestants have taken their positions on abortion on both sides, but we've remained largely silent on the next logical step of birth control.  And if there is any truth to Ms. Eberstadt's article, then it is imperative that we start speaking out on this issue, because contrary to popular opinion, birth control is not a private issue for couples, but a moral issue affecting all of us.  In the 40 years since Humanae Vitae, have we seen a significant drop in abortions, in children born or raised out of wedlock, in sexual irresponsibility?  Of course not; and as Ms. Eberstadt points out with remarkable clarity, much of that can be traced to the increase use of birth control, and, I would add, the stunning silence of churches.  "Free love" has been shown to be a filthy lie from Satan himself; the only answer is the responsible, creative love of God expressed in marriage.

Of course, the good news of the reading from Isaiah is that God has mercy on those who "keep justice and do righteousness."  For those who may have fallen, who have put themselves outside of the people of God, there is good news - we can choose God's way again.  Isaiah writes,

"To the eunuchs who keep my sabbaths, who choose the things that please me and hold fast my covenant, I will give in my house and within my walls a monument and a name better than sons and daughters; I will give them an everlasting name which shall not be cut off."

Thanks be to God.