Liturgical Eye for the Evangelical Guy

History, Hooker, and Hope

2010-01-05T14:32:00.000-08:00

When it comes right down to it, my knowledge of Anglicanism is miles wide and inches deep. I cannot speak for long about the great figures of Anglicanism. I cannot quote form Hookers *Laws*, nor can I recite any of the Tracts. I know Cranmer only through the Prayer Book (and that but an echo). I quote Archbishop Temple all the time (“The church is the only organization on Earth that exists primarily for the benefit of its non-members”), but I probably don’t have the quote right, and I have no idea where it comes from.
Of modern Anglicans I can do a little better. With CS Lewis’s work I am very familiar. I have read much of NT Wright. But I remain mostly ignorant of the current occupant of Canterbury.

I can give the most tenuous of sketches of the broad sweep of Christianity in the British Isles. I cannot answer the question of whether Joseph of Arimathea really came to England, nor do I understand the political intrigue that surrounds the martyrdom of Thomas Becket. And who is in line to be the next Archbishop of Canterbury? I don’t know.

But I have two challenges to the learned among us.

First, defend if you can this worship of Hooker that goes on. Great man that he apparently is, why should *I* hold him in such high esteem? Unwashed member of the masses that I am, I would claim for Cramner, if any one, the honor of the “Founder father” of Anglicanism. But even that would be a mistake, for we have received Anglicanism as a gift from *all* those who have come before. Even the people who I would be in most serious disagreement have their part to play (I have in mind the 17th century Latitudinarians, who foster a Deism that I abhor, but who rightly remind us of the Humanism that is a part of the Gospel). It is well and good that Hooker should be an “Anglican prophet of reason” for us, But there are many prophets in our history who also must be heard (even the hard ones like Newman).

Second, don’t let us forget this broad sweep of history, especially in this time of conflict. Anglicanism has hit many rough patches before, where it appeared that this special gift would be lost. Near its founding, Anglicanism nearly lost its “catholic-ness” and in the 18th century almost lost its very faith in a powerful, active God. But God has been faithful, and I do not believe he will leave us now. Israel constantly forgot how the LORD had led them, and faced discipline because of their forgetfulness. Help us to not be like them!

Do Evangelicals REALLY have a place within TEC?

2009-10-03T17:36:00.000-07:00

While the argument rages about if units of the church below the level of province can sign on to the covenant, I want to again ask the question of if Evangelicals have a place within TEC.

Of late, Evangelical has come to have strong political overtones. Several figures have given strength to this view, individuals like James Dobson, Jerry Folwell, Tim and Beverly LaHaye, Phyllis Schlafly, and Gary Bauer (this list would also have to include politicians such as George W. Bush). With well organized ministries, these and other high profile Evangelical leaders have given the appearance that Evangelicals are most interested in regaining political power.

To counter this impression, a group of Evangelicals recently published an Evangelical Manifesto. Here is the center of the work:

Our first task is to reaffirm who we are. Evangelicals are Christians who define themselves, their faith, and their lives according to the Good News of Jesus of Nazareth.(Evangelical comes from the Greek word for good news, or gospel.) Believing that theGospel of Jesus is God’s good news for the whole world, we affirm with the Apostle Paulthat we are “not ashamed of the gospel of Jesus Christ, for it is the power of God untosalvation.” Contrary to widespread misunderstanding today, we Evangelicals should be defined theologically, and not politically, socially, or culturally.

The whole thing can be found here.

I say all this to lay the foundation that I want to speak of Evangelical as a theological label within the context of The Episcopal Church. It might be impossible for some to remove the political image from their mind, but my intent is not political.

There are a number of definitions for Evangelical. A history lesson could follow here, which might be edifying, but I haven’t the time for it. It should be noted that modern Evangelicalism arose as a counter to a more insular fundamentalism in the middle of the 20th century, but has deep connections with Evangelicals reaching back to founders of the Reformation (Billy Graham has often been credited with a major role in the modern movement, but other should also be noted. Among them are Carl Henry, Francis Schaeffer, and Harold Ockenga. The Institute for Advanced Christian Studies (IFACS) should also be mentioned.) The work of Robert Webber, Alister McGrath, Roger Olson, and Thomas Oden has taken modern Evangelicalism back even to the Church Fathers.

A history lesson tells us what Evangelicalism is in a narrative fashion. As the editors of Biographical Dictionary of Evangelicals (IVP, 2003) put it, it is the story “from John Wyclif to John Wimber…via John Wesley” (interestingly, Hooker is not in this volume, nor any of the Anglican Divines, except Cranmer). Another interesting historical look at Evangelicals is Mark Noll’s Between Faith and Criticism (Baker, 1986). Noll describes the evolving attitude of Evangelicals to Biblical Scholarship. This provides a useful perspective to make a historical definition of Evangelicals.

However, a historical descriptive approach will not work well, especially for those whose knowledge and/or experience of Evangelicalism and its history is limited. A more taxonomic approach will also better serve my apologetic ends. And for such an approach, almost every one turns to David Bebbington. He uses a definition that has four key critical components (and is therefore labeled the Bebbington Quadrilateral): conversionism, activism, Biblicism, and crucicentrism.

From Wikipedia:
• biblicism, a particular regard for the Bible (e.g. all spiritual truth is to be found in its pages)
• crucicentrism, a focus on the atoning work of Christ on the cross
• conversionism, the belief that human beings need to be converted
• activism, the belief that the gospel needs to be expressed in effort

With the exception of activism, each of the components seem to be an unwelcomed guest in TEC.

As I have argued elsewhere, a perspective that entails “all roads lead to God” is in conflict with crucicentrism (if you argue that “all roads lead to the Cross and therefore to God,” you are on the road to a Christian Universalism, that has a long pedigree, and I (although not even most Evangelicals) can live with that. And I especially like this quote, “All the roads on which are found truth, goodness, and beauty come from God, but only roads that go through the cross lead to God.”

The role of the Bible in discussions of human sexuality has laid bare the place of scripture in the various positions. I have yet to see an argument for a progressive view of human sexuality that contains scripture as a foundation. The basic appeal comes down to science and experience, and while these should be taken into consideration, from an Evangelical point of view, they cannot be the basis for a theology of human sexuality.

Conversionism may provide the grittiest point of conflict. It conjures up images of tent meetings and ecstatic worship. It gets dismissed as “mere emotion,” or, the kiss of death, pietistic. But drawing from strong images in Scripture and from the experience of people down the ages, Evangelicals insist that God can reach down into hearts and minds, the very core of our being, and make us into new people. Sometimes this seems to happen in an instant, and other times it may take years. Gordon Smith has shown how conversion is a highly complex phenomenon, bringing together many factors, human and divine.

But what seems to be most in dispute is the scope of who needs conversion. Evangelicals believe everyone needs conversion. While through history, some have required a “conversion experience,” the need for conversion, slow or fast, remains for all people. This is because of a foundational belief of Evangelicals: people are broken. I am not arguing for “Original Sin.” I don’t think that is necessary. When I hear, “For as in Adam, all die,” being the lowly bad grammarian that I am, I hear metaphor using a rhetorical figures of speech. We were created good, but now the Imago Dei is marred.

What Evangelicals argue is that the Cross is necessary precisely because it is the only remedy for our brokenness. But we also believe in the Resurrection. The Cross and Resurrection go together to make New Creation possible, first in people, but ultimately in the whole of Creation. The only way to get involved in New Creation, however, is to be made new! Hence the need for conversion.

An Evangelical views TEC’s position with respect to conversionism, Biblicism, and crucicentrism as one of at best benign neglect, or at worse, open hostility. I don’t think it would be realistic for us to believe that TEC will suddenly turn to these areas with gusto, but we would hope that at the very least, TEC would show that they understand what each means to us. Perhaps most realistically, we could hope that TEC would see that our activism (something that TEC seems to major in) is driven because of our commitment to the other three. To take away conversionism, Biblicism, and crucicentrism is to rip out the heart of our activism.

And it remains a point of sharp bitterness that evangelism, a core part of Evangelical activism, seems left in the cold by TEC. This is no doubt related to the issues raised by conversionism and crucicentrism. If people are not broken, then there is no need to hear the good news that they can be made new. Or if the good news is simply that they need to understood that God loves them “just as they are,” there is no need for the Cross (maybe only as some kind of example). Neibuhr’s is still the best answer to this:

A God without wrath brought men without sin into a Kingdom without judgment through the ministrations of a Christ without a Cross.

A post script here should include a mention of Pentecostalism. Evangelical pnematology has been nearly as anemic as Evangelical ecclesiology. I am profoundly grateful for the rise of a new understanding of the Holy Spirit among Evangelicals, in large measure due to Pentecostals and Charismatics (I think a strong case can be made that this was something originally integral to Evangelicalism that was lost in the conflict with Existentialism and Modernism. But that is for another time). I am also glad to see a reproachment between Evangelicals and Catholics, especially seen in the work of the late Richard John Newhaus and Charles Colson.

I hope this is useful for people whose understanding of Evangelicals is limited. And I hope it begins to open doors of empathy to the Evangelical perspective, and how we grieve the current state (from our perspective) of TEC.

Where to NOT look for help

2009-01-09T07:33:00.000-08:00

Psalm 121 Levavi oculos
1 I lift up my eyes to the hills; *
from where is my help to come?
2 My help comes from the LORD, *
the maker of heaven and earth.

This psalm seems to be referring to the "high places" in Israel that were used for cultic worship. The psalmist says these places are not places for true help. The only real salvation comes from the One True God.

What are my personal "high places?" Where do I look for help instead of the LORD?

My brain power is one such place. My place in society is another. My academic credentials is yet another.

But I desire to see that none of these will do. I want Jesus alone!

What are your high places?

I am an Anglican!

2008-08-11T10:01:00.000-07:00

A friend asked me why I stay an Anglican.

The answer is that I believe that Anglicanism best weaves together the major strands of Christianity - Catholic, Charismatic, Evangelical, and Liberal - together.

Simply put:

Catholic - An emphasis on Tradition and a high view of the Church
Evangelical - The centrality of Jesus' life, death, and resurrection
Charismatic - The Holy Spirit and his gifts
Liberal - The human element

It should be noted that if you lack a Charismatic or Liberal component, you have a Christianity that is incomplete. If you lack the Evangelical or Catholic components, you have something that is not Christian at all.

The American Anglican church has almost entirely lost the Evangelical part while the Liberal piece dominates. This is not good! This leaves you with an identity that is completely determined by a human perspective (It is ironic that in places that are dominated by the Charismatic perspective, while being theoretically God-centered, they often become just as anthropocentric as the Liberals!) .

Anglicanism has gone through periods where each part has been in the ascendancy, but on the whole, Anglicanism can hold these together. I contend that this is the true "via media." I pray that we can return to a place there all four are included.

Unconditional

2008-07-28T09:18:00.000-07:00

Did you know that God loves you unconditionally? That is, he loves you with out conditions - there is no standard and no qualifications that you have to meet before God can love you.

Many people have trouble with this. We think that any thing that is free must not be worth much. So if God's love is worth having, then we have to pay for it somehow. Or we don't think God could love us - for whatever reason - because we don't measure up or are so beyond his love.

If either of these apply to you, I urge you to change your mind. For the first, God's love is truly free and you must come to believe it. God's love is worth having, but is so great that we could never afford it. It is a gift - open your heart and receive it.

For the second, you might need for God to first heal you of some hurt. Strictly speaking, none of us are worthy of God's love. That is why God's love had to come in the form of of Jesus' Cross. Our worthiness is not the primary issue. The issue is that God made us and we are his. His loves his Creation - including you! Ask God to heal anything that keeps you from opening to his love.

There is a funny thing about God's unconditional love: we have to accept it unconditionally. This might be the hardest thing of all - because of Jesus' Cross. Many of us want to say that we are basically good. But to accept God's love unconditionally means we have to accept the form it comes in - a cross.

At the intersection of God's love and who we are, we find the Cross. It may be a paradox, but accepting God's love unconditionally means repentance. Repentance is the only possible response when we see the vastness of God's love and our true condition.

I pray that you will be enveloped by God's love!

Body Worship on a rollercoaster

2008-07-17T17:42:00.000-07:00

Romans 12 says an amazing thing: "Present your body...which is your spiritual worship!

We think our bodies have nothing to do with us. Even CS Lewis said we were souls with bodies. But we are whole people. And God calls us to "present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God..."

Acceptable to God! Wow!

I had a taste of this riding "Wild Thing," a roller coaster at Valleyfair, an amusement park near us. It has a 200 plus foot first drop. When we got there in the morning, I went straight to Wild Thing. I rode in the back (the best place to ride a coaster). On the way up, I felt a bit nervous (it is a long way up!).

But when I got to the top, I put my hands up (standard roller coaster position) and I realized that that was exactly the posture I was frequently using to praise God! So the whole ride I was yelling at the top of my lunges, praising God!

Don't wait to ride a coaster - you can praise God with your whole self right now. But the next time you ride one, remember: Arms up!

And go to my Facebook profile, too!

2008-07-17T17:40:00.000-07:00

Here!!!

Go see Andy Crouch's video!

2008-07-17T17:37:00.000-07:00

Here!

Repentance

2008-06-28T05:24:00.000-07:00

Nancy and I have long had an intuition about why Lutherans have so much trouble with calling people to repentance and faith. Any thing that looks like it is a "good work" is suspect.

The problem can be traced to the Lutheran emphasis on God's grace. Now in general, this is a good thing! God's grace is sweet.

But to center on grace is to get stuck on the question of how God reaches out to us. The more important question is the question of why.

And the answer of why God reaches out to us is because He loves us! Just bask in that for a moment. He loves YOU!

You will find that if you do that, you will find yourself asking how did God show his love. And the answer to that question is that God sent Jesus to live and die for us. And why did Jesus have to die for us? Because we are sinners.

It is the central paradox of Christianity: God loves sinners. The holy, righteous God loves us who are sinners. Amazing love, indeed!

There is then nowhere to go except to repentance. Because God loves us, we repent of our sin. We turn to God and He cleanses us from our sin.

We are deeply thankful to have had grace baked into our bones. But we are thankful that God loves us and has brought us to repentance.

No more rubber grapes!

2008-06-27T13:57:00.000-07:00

Jesus tells his disciples in John 15 that if he abides in them and they in him they will produce much fruit.

It is not clear what that fruit is. Is it the fruit of the Spirit or is it the fruit of new lives in the Kingdom? Both, probably.

Ever seen a bunch of rubber grapes? They can look just like the real thing. Makes a nice table decoration. You move them when it is time to put out the turkey the 1st grader made at school for a Thanksgiving decoration.

We spend much of our time making rubber grapes in our lives. By ourselves, that is all we can do. But that is not what Jesus wants. Rubber grapes can not produce real wine. Our efforts are not enough.

I don't want to make any more rubber grapes. I want real wine. I want the power of God to flow through me, a branch, and produce real fruit. Real fruit that will nourish me and those around me. Real fruit of changed lives, people brought into the Kingdom of God.

I won't settle for anything less.

Not anymore.

Ergo, ego

2008-05-21T13:45:00.000-07:00

I thought that my ego would be of help in writing a blog. I've got so much to say, and it is really good stuff. I'll wow them with my wisdom and insight.

But a friend pointed out the problem: I want to impress, so the writing has to be good, but I don't want to take the time to write well - perfectionism wins! Ego -> Perfectionism -> Procrastination!

We are all so about ourselves. (Enough about me, lets hear what you think about me!)

The same friend then reflected on how we think about sin. When we sin and get mad, are we mad that we have let God down? That we have not loved our neighbor as ourselves? How often are we mad just because we messed up? We get mad at ourselves. Because it is, after all, all about us!

Sin will no longer have purchase in our lives when we are able to repent of it, and then completely let it go. I long for that kind of freedom - freedom even from myself!

I'm an atheist.

2008-05-20T12:45:00.000-07:00

I really am an atheist!

I find that more and more often I say "I don't believe in that god, either."

A god that sits up in the clouds.
A god who is a heavenly accountant.
A god who causes evil.
A god who is at my beck and call.
A god who looks much like Charelton Heston in *The Ten Commandments*
A god who is aloof.

We don't know God. We often think that we can list what God is like. Then we Christians compare Jesus to that list, often changing Jesus to match the list.

We know God because we know Jesus. Jesus has shown us the Father.

More Holy Saturday

2008-03-22T11:46:00.000-07:00

Now the Word had fallen silent, and the water had run dry,
The bread had all been broken, and the light had left the sky;
The flock had lost its shepherd, and the seed was sadly sown,
The courtiers had betrayed their king, and nailed him to his throne.
O sabbath rest by Calvary, O calm of tomb below,
Where the grave-clothes and the spices cradle him we did not know!
Rest you well, beloved Jesus: Caesar's Lord and Israel's King,
In the brooding of the Spirit, in the darkness of the spring
(Extract from the Easter Oratorio, Lichfield Cathedral, words by Tom Wright )

Holy Saturday

2008-03-22T08:47:00.000-07:00

We are faced on Holy Saturday with the most puzzling thing. God died and is resting in a tomb. How indeed can this be?

I know the early church fathers shied away from language like "God died." Many had a Greek notion of God that included impassibility. God could not experience something like pain and death.

But we believe that Jesus was in fact God. And Jesus died. Somehow God is able to even experience death!

The first disciples were not thinking like this. They were hiding. They were devastated. They had absolutely no hope. John (the only disciple to be a eyewitness) would have reported to them that he had seen Jesus die. Blood and water came out of the wound in his side.

No hope.

We move too quickly to Easter. We need to stop and ponder this deep mystery of Jesus/God in the tomb. We know how the story ends, but we will only fully appreciate the wonder and glory if we first dive deep into the sorrow and grief of that first Saturday.

In many ways we live in Holy Saturday all the time. We live between our own death and our resurrection. Yes, Jesus' resurrection power is at work in us now, but Paul said he didn't think the present suffering worth comparing with the glory to come. We still hurt, friends and loved ones die. There is no justice, the guilty go free, the innocent are condemned.

Too many in our world are like those first disciples. They have no hope. But by living our Holy Saturday lives grasping the full measure of sorrow and remembering Jesus' words that he must rise again, we can bring real hope to our world. We walk with others through their pain, but knowing that Sunday morning with it's completely unexpected joy is close at hand.

Always tragic

2008-03-18T08:36:00.000-07:00

I said before that death is bad. It is.

A friend of mine is dying. He is roughly my age. His death will be tragic.

A five year old girl here in Minnesota died from complications of the flu. Her death was tragic.

My dad was 86 years old when he died last September. His death was tragic.

We have a visceral reaction when a young person dies. As a parent it does not bear contemplation to consider one's children dying. It is an unbearable pain to even think about, let alone experience.

When my dad died, many people said, when they learned he was 86 that "well he lived a long life." I thank them for their concern, but the assumption that because he was old, his death is not so bad, I reject.

Death is always tragic.

God did not intend for us to experience death. Death is the result of our sin. It is NEVER good.

And God is going to fix it all. In the Resurrection, death will be done with. Death will not get to keep any of it's prey. God's victory will NOT BE PARTIAL. It will be complete.

So I pray for William and his family. And I place all my hope in the Resurrection.

Music to my ears

2008-03-17T13:45:00.000-07:00

Luther said, "He who sings, prays twice." He was on to something - music has a special quality to it. People have thought so for a long time. The expression "The music of the spheres" comes for the idea that the stars in the sky were attached to a giant sphere and that the music of the "Prime mover" is what made the sphere move.

During the Reformation, when almost all other arts were denigrated, music remained in a place of acceptance. It was believed that music was "more spiritual" than other art forms.

We really do only see what we want to - because music is a very physical thing. Whether it is produced by violins and cellos, or by a larynx, it takes some physical item to produce it. It takes a physical substance like air to take music (sound) from on place to another. And it takes the physical ear to translate sound waves into something we can hear. (Mozart seems to have been an exception - music for him seemed to be something that "lived in his head." It would be interesting to know more about how he related to the physicality of music)

Turns out that the part of the brain that helps us hear and the part that helps us move are connected. Tapping your foot when you hear music is not just natural, it is the way you were made (so I wonder how we can stand still as we sing many of the hymns at church).

I propose that music is not the most spiritual of the arts, but rather is a place where spirit and matter come together in a sacramental way. We are "embodied souls" and music speaks to us at the very joint between that reality.

Free like a kite

2008-03-05T11:18:00.000-08:00

We worship freedom. We want as many choices as possible (just go to the supermarket if you don't believe me). Anything that threaten our freedom is resisted and attacked.

But there is no such thing as unlimited freedom. All our civic freedoms have responsibilities attached. We have free speech, but we cannot yell "fire" in a crowded theater. Likewise, in our whole lives, freedom is constrained.

We are like kites. A kite is designed to soar high in the sky. But if you remove the string, it can not longer fly, but will flutter away, and eventually hit the ground. The sting seems to hold it back, but in fact is essential to the kites ability to fly.

Our bodies seem to hold us back. We can't fly, even like kites with out technological help. We can only be in one place at a time, and to be in a different location takes effort, and great effort if we want to travel around the world.

We can only know so much. Some can know quite a lot! But still a limited amount.

We are finite.

And we rebel at that finitude. We tell stories of a humanity that transcends limits (I just watched the first two seasons of Heros. It is a show about people that have extraordinary abilities - like flying, or invisibility.).

And of course we fight against death, the ultimate reminder of our limits.

But God made us as limited beings (though he never meant death to be one of those limits). We try to be free, but we cut the strings that allow us to fly. We need to embrace our limits as a good thing, and then enjoy the view as we soar in the sky of our God given freedom.

Death Bad

2008-03-03T07:12:00.000-08:00

Our culture has gone out of its way to hide death. One still hears stories of wakes at home with the body present, where the family and friends prepared the body themselves. Now we have a vast industry to take care of our dead.

Did you know that the city of San Francisco has no cemeteries within the city limits? The city fathers thought this would help the city grow, so they moved all the dead to the suburbs!

We don't use the words "dead" or "died." We say the deceased "passed away." They've gone "to a better place."

We say that "death is just a part of life."

Ironically, we glorify death in our portrayal of it in the media, especially movies. Scenes of death give us an immediate rush, but we don't have to suffer the long term consequences. Long term exposure to scenes of violent death harden us further to deaths presence.

But as Christians, we must not let the culture carry us along. We must return to a basic fact about death - it is bad. It was not God's intention for us to die. It is the result of sin.

And nothing will be ok until death is finally done away with. Jesus' resurrection is the foretaste of death final absolute defeat, but it will only be finally gone when Jesus returns and the whole Creation is renewed.

Saint Bridget of Kildare

2008-02-01T06:47:00.000-08:00

This time water, next time fire?

2008-01-30T08:08:00.000-08:00

"The world is going to burn, so why should I care about it?"

These or similar worlds are often said by Christians when talking about Creation. If the world is going to be destroyed, we don't really need to worry about it.

Western Christianity has been deeply affected by the idea that there are two "things": the spiritual and the material. The material is viewed as at best a temporary good, but more often as something not good. It is the spiritual that is the real good.

There is no question that there is something wrong in Creation. The Fall "broke" Creation. We see death and decay all around.

But the God who created, and placed his stamp of approval on Creation in the Incarnation is not going to throw Creation away. His plan is to remake it!

18 I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory about to be revealed to us. ¹⁹For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the children of God; ²⁰for the creation was subjected to futility, not of its own will but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope ²¹that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to decay and will obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. ²²We know that the whole creation has been groaning in labour pains until now; ²³and not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the first fruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly while we wait for adoption, the redemption of our bodies. (Roman 8 18-23)

The whole gospel of John is a story of New Creation (It begins "In the beginning and ends with a "man" in a garden!). Rev 21 portraits a new Jerusalem.

God's plan of redemption encompasses the whole Cosmos!

Philip Yancey on Incarnation

2008-01-26T13:06:00.000-08:00

Philip Yancey writes an interesting article in Christianity Today. He asks, "Would Christmas have come even if we had not sinned?"

Whereas Aquinas viewed the Incarnation as God's remedy for a fallen planet, his contemporary saw much more at stake. For Duns Scotus, the Word becoming flesh as described in the prologue to John's Gospel must surely represent the Creator's primary design, not some kind of afterthought or Plan B. Aquinas pointed to passages emphasizing the Cross as God's redemptive response to a broken relationship. Duns Scotus cited passages from Ephesians and Colossians on the cosmic Christ, in whom all things have their origin, hold together, and move toward consummation.

Read it all here.

The Incarnation of the Son

2008-01-23T10:47:00.000-08:00

Christians are often accused of believing irrational things. Sometime I'll comment on who gets to define rational.

But one thing Christians believe that really does push us to understand is the idea of the Incarnation. Incarnation is a big word that signifies the idea that God became human. We believe that Jesus is God.

How can God be both a helpless baby and at the same time keep the Universe in order? I don't know.

Many of the arguments that Christians have with various cults (especially Jehovah Witnesses) revolve around this question. A very powerful part of Christian history is the story of the Arians, who believed that Jesus was not God. Present day Christians debate with atheists about Jesus being God.

These are all very important things.

But the flip side of the question is just as important: Jesus was human. There has been a strain of Christianity that denies the humanity of Jesus. Maybe he just looked human. Maybe the fact that he is human is not as important as the fact that he is God.

The early Church fathers realized that Jesus had to be fully human if humanity was to be fully saved. For Jesus to be tempted just as we are, he had to be completely human (sorry Dallas Willard, Jesus didn't have "God's mind." This is Apollinarism that was rejected by the church) .

But for my money, there is a much deeper reason to consider the Incarnation. What does Incarnation say about Creation? The Creator becomes a part of His Creation. This is the great "Stamp of Approval" on Creation. God who said of Creation, " Very Good," reaffirms his position with the Incarnation.

Made by the Three

2008-01-16T08:19:00.000-08:00

I have to admit that I am a Creationist.

I believe that God created the world. After all, the Nicene Creed says "I believe in God the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth." I am not a "young earth" creationist. I think Intelligent Design is not yet science (but good theology!). I believe that the Universe is around 16 billion years old.

To get caught up in the question of how God created is to miss the much more important questions of Who and Why. More on the why at another time (the whole point of this blog). The Who is God. But which God?

The Nicene Creed goes on to say about Jesus "Through him all things were made." The Father is creator, but so is the Son! (Col 1:15)

Then it is not surprising that the Spirit is involved in creation as well. The Spirit hovers over the face of the deep in Gen 1:2. The close association of the Spirit with the breath of God suggests the Spirit's involvement when God breaths into Adam.

So it is not just some philosophical "god" that creates, not a "First principle" or "Prime mover." But God, the God of Abraham, Issac, Jacob. God - Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

If it is the Trinity that is creator, that has vast implications to the answer to the question of "Why?" And it makes a big difference as to God's continuing relationship to the Creation.

I love my wife!

2008-01-14T18:16:00.000-08:00

My wife nancy is a good blogger. Here is a recent post. Go read it.

I'm naked!

2008-01-14T07:40:00.000-08:00

And the man and his wife were both naked, and were not ashamed. (Gen 2:25)

Then the eyes of both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made loincloths for themselves. (Gen 3:7)

In a very short while Adam and Eve go from having no problem being naked, to needing to cover themselves. Why is this? What about "The Fall" makes nakedness bring shame?

I think generations have assumed it was about sex. Augustine in his *City of God* makes a tentative connection. And in our present sin-soaked culture, it seems obvious shame from nakedness is because of our sexuality.

But I have a suggestion for a different reason our primordial parents were ashamed of their nakedness after their disobedience. Yes, sex is affected by the Fall, but deeper than that, *ALL* of Creation is affected by the Fall. A fracture runs through the whole of the Cosmos, and it runs right through the human frame.

Eve and Adam now see in their own bodies a reminder of their disobedience. Their bodies (and ours) somehow show (well they do wear out, and we die!) the signs left from the Fall. And God says to Adam that he shall return to the ground, becoming again the dust out of which he was made. A ground that has been cursed because of Adam.

Chrysostom says "...They were clad in that glory from above which caused them no shame. But after the breaking of the law, then entered the scene both shame and awareness of their nakedness." This glory was striped from them - indeed from all Creation. And Creation itself stood naked.

But God would not leave it so! A Creation he declared very good, he takes costly steps to redeem!

First post - "Really"

2008-01-10T12:58:00.000-08:00

Here is the first post for my blog.

I am going to write about spiritual things, so if that offends you, don't read them!

To start with one basic idea, I don't believe the world can be broken into the "natural" and the "supernatural." There is only "reality."

Science is not the only, not even the best way, to know reality. You need things like imagination, and character. We have to become people who *can* know reality (even scientists must be trained).

Knowing reality is ultimately impossible without reality's creator - God. Our ability to see reality is limited to our senses without God's help. But the Real that is beyond our senses is not unrelated to the Real our senses can experience. It is all one "Reality." The material world is infused with the "spiritual."

We refer to the bread and the wine of Holy Communion as sacraments. This is because in their own reality, they carry the reality we cannot taste with our tongue. Indeed, a "outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace." Over time I will have more to say about how this is so.

But now I want to say that I believe that this is true for all of Creation. I am not talking pantheism. God remains transcendent. But Creation ministers to us God's grace. God [I am going to try to refrain from using the masculine pronoun, mostly to remind us that God IS transcendent] made it good, he made it for his own purpose, but also made it to bless us.

I will need to say about the goodness of Creation later.

1	I lift up my eyes to the hills; * from where is my help to come?
2	My help comes from the LORD, * the maker of heaven and earth.