All Posts By

Robert

Dec 31
0

Lent and Other Such Practices…

By | Cleric Listens | No Comments

I was recently in the company of an evangelical youth pastor who made a comment that is au courant in many Christian circles, but nevertheless wrong and destructive. The topic was the observance of Lent and other such “relics” from the past, and of course he was against it. “Where in the Bible,” he protested, “does it mention Lent?” At first glance, he’s got a point. If you construe “Biblical” as meaning “mentioned in the Bible,” then Lent is not Biblical. Then again, a lot of other things then are not Biblical, including you and me. If we were to think a little, which may be hard for evangelicals, we might learn that Lent and many other ancient traditions are actually in complete agreement with the thrust and purpose of the Holy Scriptures. Let me explain.

The continued relevance of the season of Lent can best be appreciated by reading the Gospel lection for the first Sunday in Lent, Year C, Luke 4:1-13. This is the story of Christ’s temptation in the desert, his first action after being baptized by John the Baptist. The devil attacks Jesus along three lines. First there is the physical: do what your body says demands, in this case eat food. Surely none of us is familiar with temptations of a physical nature. Then there’s the spiritual angle: worship amiss: deny God’s authority. Note that the devil says all the kingdoms of the earth have been given to him, and Jesus does not deny this. When Adam obeyed the devil instead of God, all the earthly property over which he was steward were given to the enemy. Finally, there’s the intellectual attack: the devil even quotes Scripture, but misconstrues the clear intent. Note that the devil knows his Bible, probably better than most Christians. For all these challenges, Jesus does the same thing; he quotes Scripture himself to refute the enemy. He cites the Bible to show that obedience to the devil is in every case contrary to God’s express will.

Now we have to ask ourselves, why was the devil interested in tempting Jesus? The clear answer is that if he could get him to do the his bidding, Jesus would be diverted from fulfilling his divine destiny. Jesus could experience comfort and success in every way imaginable; physical satisfaction, the adulation of the world, and he could justify it all by an errant reading of Scripture. But more importantly, he could avoid the Cross, with all its agony and shame. In other words, if the enemy could get Jesus to do any of these things, he would divert him from his divine mission of redeeming a sinful humanity. He could either obey the devil or his Father, but he could not do both.

Now you will say, I’m glad he knows his Bible, because he resisted temptation and was able to institute God’s plan of redemption. He has succeeded and with regard to our justification, there’s nothing left to be done. As Jesus said on the Cross, “It is finished.” And in fact many people operate as if Jesus has done it all, and there’s nothing left for us to do. There is no longer anything that is out of bounds morally. As Oswald Chambers says derisively, “Christ died for me, I go Scot free.” But the only problem with this very popular conclusion is that this Gospel lesson is accompanied by an Epistle lesson, Romans 10:8b-13. To be sure this lesson mentions justification, but it also mentions something else: salvation. Whereas most people tend to conflate and confuse these two terms, thinking that Paul is just repeating himself, he’s is in fact drawing a distinction between them, saying they’re not the same.            If you examine the two accounts of the last judgment in Mt. 25 and Revelation 20 you notice something peculiar: they don’t mention our sins, the bad we did. They mention something else entirely, the good we either did or did not do. Thus we see that while being forgiven is essential, it’s not the end of the matter. In addition to being forgiven for doing wrong, we need to be empowered to do right. We are forgiven by the death of Christ, he is the Savior of all. But we also need to be empowered by his ongoing life, and clearly, he is NOT the Lord of all. Forgiveness is universal, there’s not limit to the power of the blood of Christ. But salvation is particular, we can refuse to have Jesus as our Lord. This is where the temptation of Christ comes in, and why we have this Gospel lesson at the beginning of Lent. The devil failed to deter Christ; He fulfilled his mission. So now the devil turns his attention to you and me, so that he can get us deterred from our mission. If he can derail us in fulfilling our part of the equation, it doesn’t matter that he failed in the desert. There is absolutely no difference if we are condemned for our sins, or condemned for doing nothing with our lives. So that’s why the devil, having failed with Jesus, comes after you and me. He wants us to cling to sin, not that we might be judged for having done wrong, but so that in clinging to it we grieve the Holy Spirit and end up an empty pod. He tells us to do what our body demands, he invites us to worship him instead of God, and he gets us to read Scripture with our desires in mind, instead of God’s clear intent. In other words, he does to us exactly what he did to Jesus, and unlike Jesus, many of us fail.

So what we see is that the temptation of Christ is not just relevant to Jesus in his role as the Son of God, it’s also relevant to us in his role as the Son of Man. It’s something he went through in history to be sure, but it’s also something we have to go through in our personal history. If churches abandon historically validated practices like the observance of Lent, they run the risk of producing Christians who will fail when tempted as Jesus was. Resistance to the enemy is not developed overnight. That’s why we must have an annual observance that develops our minds and character so we can prevail when attacked. Historical churches do these things because they have proven helpful across the millennia. They may not be Biblical in a superficial sense, but they are Biblical in that they make the Biblical story come alive in our day and age.

 

Dec 31
0

Through Their Eyes

By | Cleric Comments | No Comments

Nobody, and I repeat, nobody, is a bigger supporter of the current administration’s approach (Bush 43) to containing the criminal and military agenda that Islamic fundamentalism presents to the West than I. Say what you will, since 9/11/01 there have been inconveniences, costs and anxiety, but there has been no attack on U.S. soil. President Bush and the American military have successfully transferred the battlefield from these shores back to where it belongs, the Middle East and Afghanistan. For this victory, and it can be called nothing less, we should be grateful. That said, I think it begs the more important questions of how this agenda developed in the first place, why it appears to enjoy popular support in the Muslim world, and how it can be diffused in the future.

In what may be news to some, pan-Arab military expansion is nothing new. When offered a choice between the effete and overly intellectual Christianity of the 7th century and Mohammed, most residents of North Africa and the Levant chose the latter. While Christianity was arguing about the person of Christ and the nature of the Trinity, Mohammed offered a chance to fight, to win, and to have sensual, if delayed, rewards. Until the defeat of the Ottoman Turks in the First World War, a large, aggressive and ideologically unified Arab block was a real, if distant, threat to the West. The difference today is not that Islam has recently sprung to life, but that modern communication and transportation have reduced the distance between the West and it.

That brings us to the present day, and the misunderstanding and outright antagonism that separates the Muslim and “Christian” worlds. Nowhere is the incomprehension on our part greater than in the area of Arab perception. How is it, we ask, that Islamic fundamentalists seem to enjoy widespread support for their actions amongst their compatriots and coreligionists? After 9/11, it was reported that Osama was the new nom du jour for newborn baby boys across the Arab world. Polls also indicate that many Arabs believe in conspiracy theories that put the responsibility for the attacks on the U.S. government and military, not on Al Queda or Arabs at all. Coupled with this, the reluctance or inability of Iraqis to embrace the principles of democratic government and religious tolerance when freely offered is the source of profound consternation to all Americans hoping for an end to the civil disturbances in that country. How can we have so misjudged the expectations and abilities of a people we are, at great cost to ourselves, trying to help?

The fact is, the pious Muslim looks at all things through a religious lens. Because of this, Islam is a religion of strong behavioral strictures that makes Christian temperance seem lilly-livered by comparison. A classic example was the luncheon engagement offered to Ibn Saud of Saudi Arabia by Winston Churchill as the latter passed through Cairo on his way back from brokering the conclusion to WWII. Churchill was told that the Saudi head of state would not tolerate the use of alcohol or tobacco in his presence. Winston recounts the following: “I…said to the interpreter that if it was the religion of His Majesty to deprive himself of smoking and alcohol I must point out that my rule of life prescribed as an absolutely sacred rite smoking cigars and also the drinking of alcohol before, after and if need be during all meals and in the intervals between them.” Triumph and Tragedy, pp. 397,8. Even we in the West can adopt the stereotype, a prime example being the film Robin Hood, where Robin’s Mohammedan companion is portrayed as possessing piety, self-control and scientific knowledge, while the Christian is likened to the dissipated Friar Tuck, whose passion is beer and the excessive consumption thereof.

Personally, I’m on Winston’s side on the debate about what God thinks about the desirability of having a drink, but you get the point. On more important moral issues, however, I tend to side with the Turk. Do Muslim nations practice abortion as we do, sacrificing 1.29 million humans a year as retroactive birth control? Guttmacher Institute, Year 2002. They are rough on their women, but do they have the same levels of sexual exploitation, rape and venereal disease as more “advanced” Western societies where women are “free?” Look at us; we swill alcohol, import illegal drugs in scandalous quantities, provide the world with pornography, watch gambling on television, abuse those in authority and blaspheme the God we claim to obey. Is it any wonder Muslims want no part of us as a culture? What we consider freedom, they deem license, and I’m not so sure they don’t have the more accurate view.

So as we lament the lives lost on September 11th and all those who continue to perish in the Iraqi civil war, let us try to see life through the eyes of those we’re trying to help. Why mourn the thousands, when we are careless with the millions? Why ridicule the backwards Bedouin who has not experienced a Renaissance or an Enlightenment, when we use those blessings to discount all that might be termed moral, just, and eternal? I don’t believe God deals with civilizations on a strict quid pro quo basis, but He might start, and who could blame Him? Is He speaking to us through the voice of the Muslim fanatic? He may well be. I’ve come to believe it’s easier to please God with good behavior and bad doctrine, than with good doctrine and bad behavior. The prophet Isaiah warned against trusting in horses and chariots and ignoring God almighty. We need to continue to be vigilant with our military and security response to the threat of Islamic fundamentalism, but we can’t ignore the valid critique that these same extremists offer of our culture as a whole. We would be right to heed Isaiah’s warning in our own day.

• The Rev. Robert McLeod

Father McLeod is an Episcopal priest, and is the author of Everything You Know is Wrong: The Case for a New Reformation.

Jan 31
0

Proposed Creedal Affirmation for the Third Millennium

By | Cleric Plans | No Comments

The Christian Church affirms the major theological formulations of the historic ecumenical Councils of the past, specifically those of Jerusalem (30 AD,) Nicea (325 AD,) Constantinople (381 AD,) Ephesus (431 AD,) Chalcedon (451 AD,) and Constantinople (553 and 680 AD.) It denounces those of more recent convocation, especially Nicea (787 AD,) Trent (1545-63 AD,) and Dort (1618-9 AD.) It also affirms and accepts the texts of orthodox creedal statements, specifically the Apostles’ Creed, the Nicene Creed, and the Creed of Saint Athanasius, the Quicunque Vult.

In order to more fully and accurately propound the claims of Jesus of Nazareth, the Church also affirms the following:

    • God the Father does not judge a sinful and rebellious humanity. He sent His only Son to save humanity (John 5:22.)
    • Jesus of Nazareth, known as the Messiah or Christ, does not judge a sinful and rebellious humanity either. He voluntarily went to the cross to save humanity (John 12:47.)
    • The sacrificial death of Jesus Christ in or around 30 AD in Judea has justified and reconciled a sinful and rebellious humanity to the one, holy and righteous God. This applies to all people, of all races and religions, of all ages and circumstances, in all times and all places. There is no need for further forensic action or sacerdotal observance to complete or complement this objective and historic reality. Each person has, through the express will of the Father and the obedience of the Son, been placed “in Christ.” Jesus Christ is the Savior of the whole world (I John 2:2.)
    • All that is required of each person to maintain this state of peace and reconciliation is to submit to Jesus Christ as the living Lord (John 15:9-17.) For the individual who has not heard the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ, this is done through obedience to the requirements of the moral law written on their hearts and attested to by their conscience (Romans 2:14,15.) The human conscience is an adequate if imperfect guide to behavior in the absence of an active Christian witness. For those who have heard the objective facts of the Christian Gospel, obedience to the dictates of the Holy Scriptures is required, and a higher standard of judgment is applied (Luke 12:47,8.)
    • The arbiter of moral rectitude and divine judgment are the words of Jesus Christ as recorded in the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments known as the Bible (John 12:48-50.) The Bible was written by human authors under the sufficient control and inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and constitutes the Word of God. Chief among its requirements is that we show mercy to our fellow man, as we ourselves have been the recipients of mercy from God (Mt 18:23-35.) To ignore, discredit or distort the words of the Bible is to commit the only sin deemed unforgivable by our Lord Jesus Christ, as it constitutes

blaspheming the Holy Spirit (Luke 12:10.) God’s wrath falls on those who reject His plan of salvation through willful disobedience.

  • Humans, lacking any capacity for obedience to God or positive moral action in and of themselves, nevertheless have a responsibility before God and each other. Our responsibility is that we recognize our incapacity for obedience and positive response to the Gospel, and to defer to the authority of the risen Christ, in the person of the Holy Spirit. Our task is negative, to get out of the way, and let God do in us what we cannot do ourselves. We cannot be saved by works, but we can be damned by them.
  • God endorses and uses secular authority to complement the work of His Spirit on earth. Those who are governed by the direction and power of the Holy Spirit will of necessity be good citizens, striving to create order, harmony and beauty in the world. Those who are not submissive to and obedient to the guidance of the Spirit must of necessity submit to the dictates of legitimate earthly and secular authority, as they are God’s tools to bring about peace, order and useful industry. Those who rebel against legitimate authority in any way are rebelling against God Himself (Romans 13:1-7, 1 Peter 2:13-17.)
  • God does not require subscription to any ideological, sociological or cultural formulae beyond conformance to the behavioral norms represented by the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20:3-17, Acts 15:1-29.) God does not require ritualistic or sacerdotal observance (1 Samuel 15:22-23, Psalm 40:6-8, Psalm 51:16-17, Proverbs 21:3, Isaiah 1:11-20, all of Isaiah 58, Isaiah 66:2-6, Jeremiah 6: 20-21, 7:21-29, Hosea 6:6, Amos 5:21-24, Micah 6:6-8, Zechariah 7:4-10, Matthew 9:13, Matthew 12:7, Mark 12:33, 1 Corinthians 7:19b, and Hebrews 10:8.) God does not endorse sectarian or denominational religion in any way (Acts 8:14-17.) Religions, whether folk or formal, are useful to the extent that they contribute to the restraint of wickedness and serve as building blocks for communicating the more accurate truth about the condition of humanity apart from God and God’s sovereign and gracious actions to achieve rapprochement.
  • There is one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church. All who are recognized as deacons, presbyters or bishops in any expression of that Church are to be accepted and recognized as possessing valid Holy Orders by all Christians. No expression of the Church may impose creedal, sacerdotal or cultural requirements for membership beyond those behavioral norms contained in the Holy Scriptures and affirmed by this Ecumenical Council: sexual purity, avoidance of idolatrous practices and avoidance of actions which are injurious to the lives of other Christians.