Dare to Be a Sinner, Dare not to Stand Alone..

 This is exceedingly brilliant, amazing; it is sadly and joyfully true:

“The most experienced psychologist or observer of human nature knows infinitely less of the human heart than the simplest Christian who lives beneath the Cross of Jesus.  The greatest psychological insight, ability, and experience cannot grasp this one thing: what sin is.  Worldly wisdom knows what distress and weakness and failure are, but it does not know the godlessness of men.  And so it also does not know that man is destroyed only by his sin and can be healed only by forgiveness.”

“In the presence of a psychiatrist I can only be a sick man; in the presence of a Christian brother [or sister] I can dare to be a sinner.  The psychiatrist must first search my heart and yet he never plumbs its ultimate depth.  The Christian brother knows when I come to him: here is a sinner like myself, a godless man who wants to confess and yearns for God’s forgiveness.  The psychiatrist views me as if there were no God.  The brother views me as I am before the judging and merciful God in the Cross of Jesus Christ.”

That’s it, really.  Bonhoeffer nailed it.  Only before the cross and in the presence of a fellow real, true, sinner can we call a thing what it is: sin.

Above quote taken from the excellent, Life Together, page 118-119.

shane lems

sunnyside wa

Concordia: The Lutheran Confessions

 This is an awesome book.  It is handsome, sturdy, well-formatted, and easy to use.  The subtitle is correct: it is A Reader’s Edition of the Book of Concord.  Editorial props go to Paul McCain, Edward Englebrecht, Robert Baker, and Gene Veith as well as Concordia Publishing House for a job well done.

Now, I’m no Lutheran, but this book “almost maketh me” one!  Dr. Uwe Siemon-Netto is right: the book is “a wonderful guide out of the spiritual labyrinth created by liberal fudge on the one hand and simplistic self-righteousness on the other” (ix). 

Why the title, Concordia?  It means with and heart in Latin.  “It describes a commitment to the truth so strong and so deep, it is as if those who share it have a single heart beat” (xiii).

What is genuine, historic Lutheranism?  “To embrace the freedom of truth means rejecting the slavery of error.  That is why this book uses two phrases to capture the essence of biblical confession: ‘we believe, teach, and confess’ and ‘we reject and condemn.’  One cannot believe, teach and confess the truth without also rejecting and condemning everything that endangers or contradicts the truth” (xiv).

What is in this 700+ page book?  A helpful introduction on confessional Lutheranism, how to use the book, overviews, a reformation timeline, and what it means to subscribe to Lutheran confessions.  The confessions are: The three Creeds (Apostle’s, Nicene, and Athanasian), The Augsburg Confession (1530), the Apology of the Augsburg Confession (1531), The Smalcald Articles (1537), The Power and Primacy of the Pope (1537; the title is a tad misleading - this treatise discusses authority in the church from a Lutheran perspective), The Small and Large Catechism (1529), The Formula of Concord, Epitome (1577) and The Formula of Concord, Solid Declaration (1577).  There are also great historical introductions to those confessions, as well as a glossary, topical, and Scripture index.

You can get this book shipped to your door for well under $30 if you shop around.  I’ll post on it from time to time, to be sure, but suffice it to say that this is a mini “Lutheran Library” in one book.  All students of theology and church history should have one of these so you can learn from the Lutherans what Lutherans teach and confess.  Though I have the usual Reformed qualms with certain aspects of Lutheran theology, I deeply respect their confessional stance in a day and age of confessional drifting. 

shane lems

sunnyside wa

Those Stupid Christians

 On the stone wall of a room for guards near the Circus Maximus in 1st century Rome, archaeologists found a sort of graffiti that mocked Christians.  Here’s how Everett Ferguson describes it.

“The figure of a man with the head of an ass is shown hanging on a cross.  Nearby another man raises his hand in a gesture of adoration, and the inscription reads, ‘Alexamenos worships his god.’  Jews had been charged with worshiping an ass; this calumny was here transferred to Jesus.  As repulsive as the picture is to Christians now, it conveys strongly how contemptible the idea of a crucified Lord was to pagan thinking” (Ferguson, Backgrounds of Early Christianity, 3rd edition, p. 596).

This takes our thoughts in a variety of directions.  In light of all the preposterous Greek myths, why was the cross so ludicrous to this tagger? How does this ridicule help inform the “persecution” texts of the NT epistles?  Why don’t as many people make fun of the cross today -  because we’ve domesticated it so badly, because we’ve privatized our faith, or because no one really cares? 

shane lems

sunnyside wa

Our Way, Right Away: Finding God

 In David Wells’ great book, The Courage to be Protestant, he discusses the inherent neo-paganism in American religion.  “The assumption that we all have a natural access to the sacred is as old as the oldest forms of paganism.”  This, writes Wells, is the assumption of many Americans, that we can get to God our way, right away.  But Wells notes two new elements (hence ‘neo’-paganism) of religion today.  First, the centuries-old  paganism was a religion wherein people were afraid of most of the gods. 

“By contrast, we are unafraid of the sacred today.  More than that, we feel that the sacred will be pleased to have us, will spread out the welcome mat, so to speak, and be grateful for our attention.”

The second ‘neo’ to today’s paganism “is our consumer mentality.”

“As consumers we expect to get what we want immediately, without waiting, on our own terms, and with the right of return.  That is the mind-set that now invades the spiritual quest, as it does also many of our churches.  …Today we come confidently seeking, assuming an instant welcome, an immediate access when we have time for this in the midst of our busy lives. …We expect access to the sacred without cost, without thought, without pain, without waiting.  We have learned this in the malls.  After all, this is our right.  It is also our right to walk away from our experience of the divine if we are not satisfied.”

Wells continues.

“And many of us do [walk away unsatisfied].  To see this at work we need not look for strange cults or covens.  It is there among our most ordinary neighbors.  It is going on at the next desk over on the office floor, in break rooms, in meditation rooms, and on the way home in the car.”

Let me give just one more paragraph along this line.

“And it is going on in the garden-variety evangelical church of a seeker-sensitive, [conservative protestant - my addition!], or emergent kind.  There you can see this very same consumer spirituality at work, completely unafraid, buying, matching product to need, at work in all these ways.  Instant access!  An experience to be sized up.  Help when we want it, but on our own terms.”

I’ve quoted from this book before, and again, I deeply appreciated it.  The book was painful at times, because Wells’ critique is penetrating and deep; it was also painful because the finger was pointed at me!  Even if you don’t agree with Wells in this book, I encourage you to read it and let it chuck you around.  I’d love to see an “old-school” presbyterian/reformed guy/gal, a mega-church guy/gal, and an emergent guy/gal discuss this book cordially over coffee! 

Above quotes taken from pages 188-189 of The Courage to be Protestant.

shane lems

sunnyside wa

I Believe…The Communion of the [Sinful] Saints

Somewhere along the line, someone started the rumor that church-going people are decent people, that they’re good and wholesome, that churches are made up of people who have their ethical ducks in a moral row.  When non-church goers who believe that rumor go to a church, they often complain that they ”got burned” because they found “hypocrisy” there.  There is hypocrisy in the church, for sure.  And I’ve not yet found a church wherein all the people are good and wholesome.  In fact (HT to R.C. Sproul here), should I find a church where there are no hypocrites or sinners, I would stay out lest I ruin it.

Building off of yesterday’s post (here), when we say the Creed, “I believe…the communion of the saints,” we’re saying “I believe the communion of saints who believe in the forgiveness of sins.”  Or, in Reformation terms, “I believe in the communion of sinful saints” (the Latin for that sounds cool!).  So if you want to find real sin and hypocrisy, go to church.  In fact, solid churches have a public confession of sins each Sunday – a time where people beside you will say “Against you, Lord, and you alone I have sinned and done this evil in your sight.”  It is like a big sign that says, “we’re not good and perfect!”  If you stay out of church you’ll have to deal with sin and hypocrisy on your own, but if you go to a good one, you’ll at least be able to confess it out loud with a bunch of other sinners and hear about forgiveness through faith in Jesus’ blood.  You won’t find that at Starbucks (or McCafe, whichever you prefer).

Once we get the proper perspective on the Christian life (saint and sinner at the same time), we understand why God said something like ”Let there be a church.”  Cyprian (over and over in his epistles) called the church the nourishing mother of Christians.  Calvin used that term as well, along with others. The institutional church (with pastors, elders, deacons, preaching, teaching, sacraments, and such) is a tremendous gift of God for his people.  Just like a godly Christian mother is one of the “chiefest” blessings in this earthly life, so too is the institutional church.  If you’re not too sinful, church might not be for you.  But if you’re a bona-fide sinner like me, you need the church like we need our mothers when we’re infants – our mothers who feed us, pray for us, discipline us, and embrace us.  Augustine knew a little about Christian mothers and the church.  Here’s what he said:

“Those who do not have the church as their mother do not have God as their Father” (On Baptism, VII). 

Here’s Bavinck.

“It [the church] is a gathered company (coetus) but also the mother of believers (mater fidelium).  …As it is in the natural world, so it is in the spiritual.  Every human being is a product of communion, and the individual believer born from the womb of the believing community.  The universal church is anterior to the particular church and to individual believers just as in every organism the whole precedes the parts.  The church of Christ is indeed a mother, but she is that not only as institution but also as organism.  Believers are simultaneously producer and product…through the church Christ gathers his church.”  (Reformed Dogmatics, IV.II.6).

I’ll have to expand on this some other day, but for now the main point is that the Christian life (sanctification, simil iustus et peccator) has to do with the communion of the saints, which is all about church.  And the church (pastors, elders, & deacons included) is an amazing gift God has given us to help us stumble upwards on the pilgrim way.

shane lems

sunnyside wa

The Saint Struggling With Sin

 I was contemplating Galatians 5.17  - For what the flesh desires is opposed to the Spirit, and what the Spirit desires is opposed to the flesh; for these are opposed to each other, to prevent you from doing what you want  (NRSV) – which brought me to Thomas Watson’s The Godly Man’s Picture.   Watson, in section 19 of the booklet, describes the saint who struggles with sin.  Here are a few of my favorite quotes.

“Though sin lives in him [the godly person], yet he does not live in sin.”

“Though sin is in him, he is troubled at it and would gladly get rid of it. …Sin in a wicked man is delightful, being in its natural place, but sin in a child of God is burdensome and he uses all means to expel it.”

“If we would have peace in our souls, we must maintain a war against our favorite sin and never leave off till it is subdued.”

“Grace and sin may be together, but grace and the love of sin cannot.  Therefore parley [meet] with sin no longer, but with the spear of mortification, spill the heart-blood of every sin.”

“A godly man dare not travel for riches along the devil’s highway.”

So Luther said that the Christian life means a severe struggle which never abates until we leave this world.

shane lems

sunnyside wa

The Expression: “They Sacrificed to their Standards”

A while back, I stumbled over this passage in the Pesher to Habakkuk (from Qumran):

Thou dealest with men like the fish of the sea, like creeping things, to rule over them. They draw [them all up with a fish-hook], and drag them out with their net, and gather them in [their seine. Therefore they sacrifice] to their net. Therefore they rejoice [and exult and burn incense to their seine; for by them] their portion is fat [and their sustenance rich] (i, 14-16)

[[this refers to]] VI the Kittim. And they shall gather in their riches, together with all their booty, like the fish of the sea. And as for that which He said, Therefore they sacrifice to their net and burn incense to their seine: interpreted, this means that they sacrifice to their standards and worship their weapons of war.

1QpHab 5.12-6.5 (cited in The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English [Trans. Geza Vermes; Rev ed; London: Penguin Books, 2004], 512). (Words in double brackets are my addition.)

I was unfamiliar with the expression “sacrificing to a net” or a “standard” and wondered if this should be translated in some other way.  I couldn’t think of any likely sounding alternatives though.  Something I read in Josephus’ The Jewish War, however, made me think that this expression was probably fairly standard in antiquity.

After recording the sack of Jerusalem by Titus and the Roman army, Josephus writes:

As the partisans had fled into the City, and flames were consuming the Sanctuary itself and all its surroundings, the Romans brought their standards into the Temple area, and erecting them opposite the East Gate sacrificed to them there, and with thunderous acclamations hailed Titus as Imperator.

Jewish War, 6.316. (cited in The Jewish War [Trans. G.A. Williamson; Rev ed; London: Penguin Books, 1981], 363).

The end note to this section offers some words of clarification:

Military standards, both the legionary eagles and the standards of auxiliary units … and sections of legions, were objects of reverence and even of cult. This is a unique literary reference to actual sacrifice to them.

The Jewish War, 453 n. 23

Of course, the citation in 1QpHab shows that that this literary reference isn’t completely unique. Still, it is interesting to find such a parallel. In Habakkuk, the traitors/wicked are depicted as fishermen who drag the righteous into his net and once he has landed his catch, attributes all providence and glory to the nets themselves (Hab 1.13-16). In these battle scenes from 1QpHab and Josephus, the armies are glorying in their battle implements, essentially giving spiritual/divine power to them.

This may help to understand why the Psalmist is so horrified in Ps 74.4:

Those hostile against you have roared in the midst of your meeting place
They have placed their signs (standards?) as signs.

The ruined sanctuary of God is now the site of worship for pagan worship. Rather than a place devoted to the worship of YHWH, it is now a place to worship military cults (provided the setting up of the ‘ot is indeed the setting up of a military standard, which seems quite likely). While we don’t know what “sacrificing to standards” (or nets) might have looked like and what precisely it represented (e.g., worship of the war god? Gods of Rome? The emperor or king?), it is interesting to find this parallel written by Jewish writers with regard to the Roman army (1QpHab and Josephus; Hab 1.16 excepted.)

_________________
Andrew

The Emergent Manifesto (A Quick Review)

• 

I finally finished this: An Emergent Manifesto of Hope (ed. by Doug Pagitt and Tony Jones).  As you may know from earlier posts, I’m about as Emergent as a dead stick.  At the same time, the “movement” fascinates me, and is something I as a pastor want to know something about.  Also, to be sure, the movement makes some good points.  I’ll acknowledge that despite my deep disagreement with much of the theology and piety of the Emergent movement, some things I read by them are helpful.  But instead of discussing Emergent (smarter guys have done it already quite well), I’ll give a few comments on the aforementioned book.

The book has five parts:  1) A People of Hope,  2) Communities of Hope, 3) A Hopeful Faith, 4) A Hopeful Way Forward, and 5) Hopeful Activism.  In each section, around 5 or 6 Emergent type leaders write on differing topics, from jail church to social justice to Karl Barth to sexual ethics to transforming culture.  The book is one you certainly want to get if you need a small and very easy to read window into the Emergent movement. 

On thing I appreciated about the book was that the authors understand our “day” is different from the “day” of 50 or 100 years ago.  I realize some in “conservative” churches are entrenched in the past, using old grammar, language, illustrations, totally unwilling to step into this century.  Again, despite my theological disagreement with how they handle our new “day,” I enjoyed some aspects of how they described it. 

I also enjoyed the chapter on the church in the jail (by Thomas Olson) as well as the chapters on Karl Barth (by Chris Eerdman) and humble theology (by Dan Kimball).  I’m not convinced by Eerdman as he compared Barth’s Church Dogmatics with Brian McLaren’s ”broad ecclesiology” – though I see some truths in the statement, that in some ways Barth and McLaren are similar (p.241).  Kimball’s chapter was so doctrinal that it almost doesn’t fit in the book!  Some authors in the book were saying quite negative things about fundamental theological beliefs, while Kimball advocated the need to hold on to fundamental beliefs (p. 215).  I’d say things a bit differently than Kimball, but the chapter does stick out for me.

I also was quite frustrated with certain aspects of the book.  First, the buzzwords drove me nuts.  How many times can you say “explore” and  ”post-colonial” and “adventure” and “authentic” and “community” and “generative” and “missional” and “conversation” in a single book?  I suppose the buzzwords might have to do with the internet aspect of the Emerging churches.  Buzzwords and internet go hand in hand.

Some aspects of the book were pretty offensive for me.  Though the words “hope” and “future” were all over the place, many of the authors were totally stomping on the historic or “old-school” church.  I was offended when they criticized “modern” churches for being so exclusive and disruptive to families.  For example, on page 53, Carla Barnhill critiques modern churches: In many churches, “There is little help for parents who struggle with a difficult child. There is little room for imperfect families.”  She goes on to say how Emerging churches are much more family-friendly than traditional churches because they are so much more inclusive and diverse than anything else.  This is pretty offensive, not just incorrect.  In the “old-school” churches I’m in, and grew up in, I have seen a group of mothers take turns helping a troubled family for weeks on end – food, cash, and prayers.  A month ago, after church, I saw an 82-year-old woman teaching some 13-year-old girls how to do needle work for their school project.   I’m not sure how you could improve on that kind of help and inclusiveness - this stuff just happens without all the blog buzzwords and talk.

The book also has an underlying theme: white, middle-class Americans (especially males) are to blame for most of the problems in Christianity.  It is my fault the Enlightenment happened, it is my fault that the church is patriarchal, it is my fault that there is racism, it is my fault that churches are fragmenting.  There may be glimmers of truth to some of those statements, and I’m far from perfect, but all those implicit accusations soon became offensive to me.  The only solution to the problems I’ve caused, the book implies, is to become Emergent, then my white-maleness will somehow be erased.  I’m not sure what to do with this undercurrent of the book!

In summary, there were some helpful things in the book and I’m glad I own it.  Some chapters made me want to put it in the compost pile to see if the ink really is biodegradable; other chapters left me pondering a few things.   I could note a few more things; this was just a very short review.  Maybe some other day I’ll post a tad more about it.

shane lems

sunnyside wa

The Early Church: A Dynamic, Progressive, Organic Community?

 As I mentioned in my last post (something I’m sure many of you know), there is a huge movement in the broader American/Western church which rejects all church authority.  The Jesus-figure in The Shack clearly hints that office and authority structure in the church get in the way of one’s relationship with himself.  Evangelical church-goers also sometimes have the same mindset, saying that one finds God outside of the church, that elders and pastors are of no real help to the Christian. 

What’s worse – probably – is that some of these “church-institution-rejecters” cite the early church as their model, as if the early church was a homey, dynamic, organic commune with no real leadership structure.  They blame later bishops and pastors for foisting a hierarchy on the church, which made it institutional.  Well, to be blunt, that is just wrong.  The early church didn’t float around without officers, elders, bishops, and deacons.  For one example, 1 Clement, one of the earliest post-NT epistles, was written from Christians in Rome to Christians in Corinth (c. 95 AD). 

In the opening, the church at Corinth is praised for her piety, hospitality, and love of truth.  Then, they are commended for living “in accordance with the laws of God, submitting yourselves to your leaders and giving to the older men (presbuterois) among you the honor due them” (1 Cl 1.3).  Later in the letter, the Roman Christians address some sort of revolt/schism that happened in Corinth (about which scholars arm-wrestle).  Here’s their advice.

“You…who laid the foundation of the revolt must submit to the presbyters (presbuterois) and accept discipline leading to repentance, bending the knees of your heart.  Learn how to subordinate yourselves, laying aside the arrogant and proud stubbornness of your tongue.  For it is better for you to be found small but included in the flock of Christ than to have a preeminent reputation and yet be excluded from this hope” (1 Cl 57.1-2).

Notice that last line, which is huge.  It is a commentary on Hebrews 13.17 – to not have leaders watching over one’s soul is not a good thing; there is not much hope outside of the elder-led flock.  One more:

“Let the flock of Christ be at peace with its duly appointed presbyters (presbuteron). ….These are things that those who live as citizens of the commonwealth of God – something not to be regretted – have done and will continue to do” (I Cl 54.2, 4).

Later, Cyprian would say similar things, just to name one other father who knew what church order and institution meant.  I find it quite odd that these “leave-church-as-institution” people always talk about kingdom, but fail to realize that kingdom is polis langauge, and where there is a King, there is order, leadership, and submission.  This is God’s order, not something foisted onto the church by some unChristian brutes a long time ago.

NOTE: For similar authority language as 1 Clement above, see Ignatius’ Epistle to the Ephesians, 2.2, 4.1, 5.3; Ignatius’ Epistle to the Magnesians ch. 2, 13.2; Ignatius’ Epistle to the Trallians ch. 2; and his Epistle to Polycarp 6.1.  Finally, check out Polycarp’s Epistle to the Philippians 5.3b.

(Above quotes taken from Michael Holmes’ fine editorial work in The Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English Translations, Third Edition [Grand Rapid: Baker, 2007])

shane lems

sunnyside wa

A Non-Institutional, Unorganized Church?

I just finished reading a book that utilizes a “trendy” font, talks about Jesus, kingdom, The Shack, missions, Starbucks, and even Lunesta.  The authors are younger guys with goatees.  It is true, these guys should be Emergent, but they are not.  Instead, they got together to write a book telling why and how the institutional, organized church is a great thing, a blessing from God (blemishes and all).  If you’re paying any attention to the broader church scene in America, you know that many want religion and Jesus without the church.  Here are a few responses to that attitude from Why We Love the Church.

“I’m… glad that my church is ‘organized.’  I’m glad I know where to put my toddler on Sunday morning.  I’m glad somebody was institutional enough to think through topics for a Sunday school class or two.  I’m glad my pastor, rather than just freewheeling it, cares enough to study Scripture and a bookshelf full of dead authors to give me real spiritual food each Sunday.  I’m glad somebody leads a social outreach ministry to those less fortunate in our area.  I’m glad somebody…makes sure the kids are learning something biblical in their classes.  It is, at its most basic, organized religion.  And I love it” (p. 24).

“My observation is that as people grow tired of hearing about the atonement, salvation, the cross, and the afterlife, they grow tired of church.  Because the more that sin and redemption and heaven and hell recede into the background, the more the church becomes just one thing among several options for making a difference in the world…  There’s a danger that when people get disinterested in the gospel, they get disinterested in the church.  And once they leave the church, they’ve left the only institution whose mission aims for eternity and whose gospel is truly good news” (p. 51).

“The church-is-lame crowd hates Constantine and notions of Christendom, but they want the church to be a patron of the arts, and run after school programs, and bring the world together in peace and love.  They bemoan the overprogrammed church, but then think of a hundred complex, resource-hungry things the church should be doing.  They wish the church could be more diverse, but then leave to meet in a coffee shop with other well-educated thirtysomethings who are into film festivals, NPR, and carbon offsets.  They want more of a family spirit, but too much family and they’ll complain that the church is ‘inbred.’  They chide the church for not doing more to address social problems, but then complain when the church gets too political.  They want church unity and decry all our denominations, but fail to see the irony in the fact that they have left to do their own thing because they can’t find a single church that can satisfy them.  They want leaders with vision, but don’t want anyone to tell them what to do or how to do it” (p. 88).

As a pastor, I’ve heard the “church-is-lame” excuses before, and to be honest, I’ve thought of a few myself.  Why We Love the Church was helpful for me; even pastors need to be reminded about the necessity of the institutional church. Go get this book: it is easy to read, theologically sound, and very much worth giving to others for Christmas.  Thanks, guys, for not being Emergent.  I’ll forever look differently upon goatees!

shane lems

sunnyside wa