How long, O Lord, will you allow death to bear its ugly head?
How long will you let daughters bury their mothers, fathers their sons.
Grown men turn away from the casket in disbelief.
Mothers fall on their knees, helpless before their lifeless infants.
Their youngest sons walk into battle before other other mothers' sons.
The robe of righteousness is tattered from the millions it has covered,
The color of the embroidered cross grows faint.
Your body has become tasteless.
With every shovel of dirt your presence is hidden.
The world mocks the hopeful cries of your children.
Is it any wonder that the confidence of your children fades?
How long will you appear distant from the war this world wages?
We fight death with every ounce we have,
Yet are we crushed by the power you have granted it.
When death consumes those closest too us,
We proclaim your promise that it has no sting,
Yet deep wounds call into question the reality of our hope.
The world of the deceiver becomes believable.
How long, Oh Lord will you grant him reign?
When will fulfillment come -
The promise of two millennia?
Do not tarry.
Come quickly, Lord Jesus.
Sunday, August 5, 2012
Friday, July 20, 2012
Jonah
The little nissan sped past me. I made eye contact with the teenager at the wheel, his girl in the passenger seat. "Cheap show-off," I thought to myself. "I'm already going 10 over. I hope he gets pulled over." Have you ever noticed that everyone going faster than you on the road is insane and anyone going slower than you is an inconsiderate moron?
Only 10 seconds later a squad car zoomed past in the left lane, flipping on his lights as he pulled in between me and the 'moron.' My condescension was met with a convicting thought of Jonah. Did I really have a desire for a young guy to get pulled over, pay a fine, and be shamefully embarrassed in front of the girl he's probably hoping to marry - all because he was going 14 over instead of the much more reasonable 10? And who am I to be going 10 over in the first place? Its not like I was late for anything.
Now I know what you're thinking. No one thinks its wrong to go 10 over. Lets be honest, it would actually be quite inconsiderate to go the speed limit and slow down all the people behind you. I mean, who doesn't go a little over the limit, who doesn't cheat once in a while, who isn't at times just a little self interested at the expense of others, right?
I have these nervous dreams that I'm going to one day give an account of my actions and someone from the 12th century will ask me why I have so many instances of speeding on my inventory of naughty actions. But I have a more pressing nervousness that I will one day stand before a righteous judge who will allow me in to heaven by the grace of Christ, yet all the same allow me to walk with great sorrow past those destined for eternal punishment. Among them, I'm afraid I will see faces that I know - people on whom I refused to overflow the great grace that I had been given.
When Jonah’s warning reached the king of Nineveh, he rose from his throne, took off his royal robes, covered himself with sackcloth and sat down in the dust. This is the proclamation he issued in Nineveh:
Only 10 seconds later a squad car zoomed past in the left lane, flipping on his lights as he pulled in between me and the 'moron.' My condescension was met with a convicting thought of Jonah. Did I really have a desire for a young guy to get pulled over, pay a fine, and be shamefully embarrassed in front of the girl he's probably hoping to marry - all because he was going 14 over instead of the much more reasonable 10? And who am I to be going 10 over in the first place? Its not like I was late for anything.
Now I know what you're thinking. No one thinks its wrong to go 10 over. Lets be honest, it would actually be quite inconsiderate to go the speed limit and slow down all the people behind you. I mean, who doesn't go a little over the limit, who doesn't cheat once in a while, who isn't at times just a little self interested at the expense of others, right?
I have these nervous dreams that I'm going to one day give an account of my actions and someone from the 12th century will ask me why I have so many instances of speeding on my inventory of naughty actions. But I have a more pressing nervousness that I will one day stand before a righteous judge who will allow me in to heaven by the grace of Christ, yet all the same allow me to walk with great sorrow past those destined for eternal punishment. Among them, I'm afraid I will see faces that I know - people on whom I refused to overflow the great grace that I had been given.
When Jonah’s warning reached the king of Nineveh, he rose from his throne, took off his royal robes, covered himself with sackcloth and sat down in the dust. This is the proclamation he issued in Nineveh:
“By the decree of the king and his nobles:
Do not let people or animals, herds or flocks, taste anything; do not let them eat or drink. But let people and animals be covered with sackcloth. Let everyone call urgently on God. Let them give up their evil ways and their violence. Who knows? God may yet relent and with compassion turn from his fierce anger so that we will not perish.”
When God saw what they did and how they turned from their evil ways, he relented and did not bring on them the destruction he had threatened. But to Jonah this seemed very wrong, and he became angry. He prayed to the Lord, “Isn’t this what I said, Lord, when I was still at home? That is what I tried to forestall by fleeing to Tarshish. I knew that you are a gracious and compassionate God, slow to anger and abounding in love, a God who relents from sending calamity. (Jonah 3,4)
Thursday, July 19, 2012
Quiet
My faith has found a resting place,
Not in device or creed;
I trust the ever living One,
His wounds for me shall plead.
Not in device or creed;
I trust the ever living One,
His wounds for me shall plead.
I need no other argument,
I need no other plea,
It is enough that Jesus died,
And that He died for me.
I need no other plea,
It is enough that Jesus died,
And that He died for me.
Tuesday, July 17, 2012
Ashamed I Hear My Mocking Voice
"To sin by repeated omission is to scoff at the incarnate babe. To sin
by repeated commission is to mock the crucified Christ. To not daily
confess and repent unto righteousness, proclaiming the surpassing grace
of the Father, is to wallow in darkness as the light of redemption
passes by."
Sunday, July 15, 2012
Gregorian Chant
Its time for another book report!
I have just finished Gregorian Chant, A guide to the History and Liturgy by Daniel Sulnier. More a historical overview, so here is just a taste of what I found interesting:
1) You may be aware that Gregorian chant was originally closely associated with elevated speech. It is thus used for the two types of elevated speech that we encounter: God's word and our word directed towards God found mainly in Scripture and prayer. You've no doubt heard that the beginning of Genesis seems to be in a poem-like narrative which begs the question, did man's speech originate as closer to song than the speech of our day or is that merely evidence of musical association for the purpose of memory and transmission over generations of God-proclaiming-story-tellers. Ultimately, little is known about the first Gregorian chant. It seems that it may have been much more elaborate than historians once realized. We have some idea of notation, but we also have writings that indicate it was virtually impossible to learn except by hearing and repeating. This leads us to believe that the remaining notation may be severely unhelpful for true repetition of what was once done.
2) Vatican II placed an emphasis and goal-setting-outlook on the reintegration of Gregorian chant into liturgical celebrations. Presumably this stems from the idea that what was done in the early centuries is more correct. Side by side with Gregorian chant is the retranslation of the mass which has taken effect in RC churches all over the English speaking world. The retranslation was not done for the purpose of correcting any deviation from Scripture, but to more accurately translate the original Latin translation. Interesting for one who is trying to decide if seminary is necessary for Bible translation. Is it right to go and literally translate the word of God, or should one take an extra four years of education with the goal of more accurately discerning the theological issues that will be sure to arise on the linguistic table?
I have just finished Gregorian Chant, A guide to the History and Liturgy by Daniel Sulnier. More a historical overview, so here is just a taste of what I found interesting:
1) You may be aware that Gregorian chant was originally closely associated with elevated speech. It is thus used for the two types of elevated speech that we encounter: God's word and our word directed towards God found mainly in Scripture and prayer. You've no doubt heard that the beginning of Genesis seems to be in a poem-like narrative which begs the question, did man's speech originate as closer to song than the speech of our day or is that merely evidence of musical association for the purpose of memory and transmission over generations of God-proclaiming-story-tellers. Ultimately, little is known about the first Gregorian chant. It seems that it may have been much more elaborate than historians once realized. We have some idea of notation, but we also have writings that indicate it was virtually impossible to learn except by hearing and repeating. This leads us to believe that the remaining notation may be severely unhelpful for true repetition of what was once done.
2) Vatican II placed an emphasis and goal-setting-outlook on the reintegration of Gregorian chant into liturgical celebrations. Presumably this stems from the idea that what was done in the early centuries is more correct. Side by side with Gregorian chant is the retranslation of the mass which has taken effect in RC churches all over the English speaking world. The retranslation was not done for the purpose of correcting any deviation from Scripture, but to more accurately translate the original Latin translation. Interesting for one who is trying to decide if seminary is necessary for Bible translation. Is it right to go and literally translate the word of God, or should one take an extra four years of education with the goal of more accurately discerning the theological issues that will be sure to arise on the linguistic table?
Encountering Christ in the Words of the Mass
Here's a very brief summary of Encountering Christ in the Words of the Mass by Carstens and Martis
This book is formatted as a significant catechesis (my spell check is protestant and doesn't like that word) on the liturgy of the mass. The mass was revised recently to more closely translate that of the latin text. Interestingly this highlights the importance of tradition to the Roman Catholic Church, for the book is very clear that the reason for the new translation is to more closely follow tradition not to more closely follow Scripture (necessarily). Of course, the focus of mass is the eucharist and the outworking of the physical presence of Christ uniting Christ's body unto salvation. This is true on a highly thought out theological level and maybe problematically clear on the level of the laity. If its not clear in the book, its clear when one watches the dozens of people walking out of a Roman Catholic Church after they have received communion even though mass has not ended.
So here are some thoughts from a Protestant raised boy now working with the Roman Catholic Church.
1) The difference of values, background, and subsequent understanding is made apparent through reading. The book constantly takes for granted themes foreign to me, yet of which I do not have an immediate defense against. There are numerous examples in the book of orthodoxy that says something true without going beyond the limits of understanding. Of course, orthodox examples are challenging to me because I know that the average Catholic would understand the true statements in the book differently than I would.
2) I was reminded of the practices in my own tradition that are in place primarily because of the Catholic Church. For example, the words of institution over eucharist/communion is an antecedent of Roman Catholic Tradition. Yes, we have it historically in the gospels and the continuation of it in Paul, but it is never specifically commanded to take place in the way that it does (with the words of institution, weekly or monthly beyond the original practice of the yearly passover that was being celebrated).
3) The book argues that a principle aim of the gathered congregation is to give symbolic life to actual life. That is, in revelation we have a picture of right worship of the Lamb. The mass is to replicate the eternal reality as closely as possible, as the mass itself states before the gloria: "And so, with Angels and Archangels, with Thrones and Dominions, and with all the hosts and Powers of heaven, as we sing the hymn of your glory without end we acclaim: Holy Holy Holy Lord God of hosts..." Of course, the highlight of symbolism marking actual life is the eucharist. "For the Church, the liturgy's signs, symbols, sacraments, and sacramentals are truly, really, and actually full of Christ. To engage in the liturgy's signs, symbols, and sacraments is to encounter the living God." If its merely a memorial with absolutely no reality, Paul wouldn't warn us that it can cause sickness or even death for those who are eating in an unworthy manner. Yet on the other hand, is there really a substance in the host itself that disregards the accurate celebration of the partaker or the time of the celebration (as seen in adoration of the uneaten host)? More fundamentally: Do we see Scriptural evidence or even traditional evidence that this should be the principle aim of the gathered congregation?
Speaking of questions, here are some that I'm thinking of as I finish the book:
a) I think I have some grasp of the protestant stress that Scripture can be the only infallible rule of faith and also the Roman Catholic rebuttal that tradition inherently guides our translation and understanding of Scripture. How much then, are we to continue the traditions of the church merely because we don't have a reason to not. That is, maybe coconuts are the only thing available for the celebration of the eucharist on a given day in a foreign land, but doesn't that detract something from our understanding? More generally speaking, though Paul does not command the celebration of the eucharist, do we not rightfully continue to celebrate because it is a clear tradition? Though I hope we are not close to this being popular, I have heard of those who advocate potlucks without words of institution because it accomplishes the same purpose of the "love feast." So if a tradition does not conflict with Scripture, might it not be wise to continue its practice wholeheartedly?
b) How important is emphasis? I continue to be faced with examples where varying tradition have different emphasis. The action itself is not wrong, but the emphasis seems misleading sometimes. For example, my church emphasizes the community that takes place in the foyer after church. to scuddle out after communion would be horrendous. Yet, its not like the same people are making a point to be admonishing and encouraging throughout the week, its just something we do from 1200 to 1215 on Sunday and don't you dare skip it. Take for example how many Catholics place a significant emphasis on being a kingdom of priests. They seek to mediate through prayer in what a Protestant might consider an entirely unevangelistic way. To overstate it: A Protestant church might pray for the salvation of a nations president. A Catholic church would pray for the just and right decisions of the president entirely abstract from his own state of salvation. Now I don't think the Catholic church doesn't care about the presidents salvation or that the Protestant church doesn't care about the presidents actions. It shows however the difference in the way emphasis effects practice. Closer to Scripture, consider how a Protestant might ask a Catholic how it is right to designate so much thought to Mary. Whether a theology hinging on one verse of Scripture is right or wrong, do we really see the emphasis in Scripture or tradition that we now see in the Catholic church?
I pray we are reminded once again that we are utterly dependent on Christ not only for salvation but for faith in His work, understanding of his teaching, and the power to carry out his commission.
This book is formatted as a significant catechesis (my spell check is protestant and doesn't like that word) on the liturgy of the mass. The mass was revised recently to more closely translate that of the latin text. Interestingly this highlights the importance of tradition to the Roman Catholic Church, for the book is very clear that the reason for the new translation is to more closely follow tradition not to more closely follow Scripture (necessarily). Of course, the focus of mass is the eucharist and the outworking of the physical presence of Christ uniting Christ's body unto salvation. This is true on a highly thought out theological level and maybe problematically clear on the level of the laity. If its not clear in the book, its clear when one watches the dozens of people walking out of a Roman Catholic Church after they have received communion even though mass has not ended.
So here are some thoughts from a Protestant raised boy now working with the Roman Catholic Church.
1) The difference of values, background, and subsequent understanding is made apparent through reading. The book constantly takes for granted themes foreign to me, yet of which I do not have an immediate defense against. There are numerous examples in the book of orthodoxy that says something true without going beyond the limits of understanding. Of course, orthodox examples are challenging to me because I know that the average Catholic would understand the true statements in the book differently than I would.
2) I was reminded of the practices in my own tradition that are in place primarily because of the Catholic Church. For example, the words of institution over eucharist/communion is an antecedent of Roman Catholic Tradition. Yes, we have it historically in the gospels and the continuation of it in Paul, but it is never specifically commanded to take place in the way that it does (with the words of institution, weekly or monthly beyond the original practice of the yearly passover that was being celebrated).
3) The book argues that a principle aim of the gathered congregation is to give symbolic life to actual life. That is, in revelation we have a picture of right worship of the Lamb. The mass is to replicate the eternal reality as closely as possible, as the mass itself states before the gloria: "And so, with Angels and Archangels, with Thrones and Dominions, and with all the hosts and Powers of heaven, as we sing the hymn of your glory without end we acclaim: Holy Holy Holy Lord God of hosts..." Of course, the highlight of symbolism marking actual life is the eucharist. "For the Church, the liturgy's signs, symbols, sacraments, and sacramentals are truly, really, and actually full of Christ. To engage in the liturgy's signs, symbols, and sacraments is to encounter the living God." If its merely a memorial with absolutely no reality, Paul wouldn't warn us that it can cause sickness or even death for those who are eating in an unworthy manner. Yet on the other hand, is there really a substance in the host itself that disregards the accurate celebration of the partaker or the time of the celebration (as seen in adoration of the uneaten host)? More fundamentally: Do we see Scriptural evidence or even traditional evidence that this should be the principle aim of the gathered congregation?
Speaking of questions, here are some that I'm thinking of as I finish the book:
a) I think I have some grasp of the protestant stress that Scripture can be the only infallible rule of faith and also the Roman Catholic rebuttal that tradition inherently guides our translation and understanding of Scripture. How much then, are we to continue the traditions of the church merely because we don't have a reason to not. That is, maybe coconuts are the only thing available for the celebration of the eucharist on a given day in a foreign land, but doesn't that detract something from our understanding? More generally speaking, though Paul does not command the celebration of the eucharist, do we not rightfully continue to celebrate because it is a clear tradition? Though I hope we are not close to this being popular, I have heard of those who advocate potlucks without words of institution because it accomplishes the same purpose of the "love feast." So if a tradition does not conflict with Scripture, might it not be wise to continue its practice wholeheartedly?
b) How important is emphasis? I continue to be faced with examples where varying tradition have different emphasis. The action itself is not wrong, but the emphasis seems misleading sometimes. For example, my church emphasizes the community that takes place in the foyer after church. to scuddle out after communion would be horrendous. Yet, its not like the same people are making a point to be admonishing and encouraging throughout the week, its just something we do from 1200 to 1215 on Sunday and don't you dare skip it. Take for example how many Catholics place a significant emphasis on being a kingdom of priests. They seek to mediate through prayer in what a Protestant might consider an entirely unevangelistic way. To overstate it: A Protestant church might pray for the salvation of a nations president. A Catholic church would pray for the just and right decisions of the president entirely abstract from his own state of salvation. Now I don't think the Catholic church doesn't care about the presidents salvation or that the Protestant church doesn't care about the presidents actions. It shows however the difference in the way emphasis effects practice. Closer to Scripture, consider how a Protestant might ask a Catholic how it is right to designate so much thought to Mary. Whether a theology hinging on one verse of Scripture is right or wrong, do we really see the emphasis in Scripture or tradition that we now see in the Catholic church?
I pray we are reminded once again that we are utterly dependent on Christ not only for salvation but for faith in His work, understanding of his teaching, and the power to carry out his commission.
Wednesday, June 27, 2012
Living is leaving; The life of a saint
The pastor and writer Frederick Buechner speaks of a conversation, miles away from his church congregation, in his summer house near the top of a small mountain in Vermont with the hills turning lavender and the horses swatting flies with their tails. In the conversation someone asked him "Why on earth do you ever leave this place?" He goes on to theologize why indeed we ever leave such places; why does the human constantly feel impelled to leave a wonderful setting and move on to a new adventure.
Why would someone like myself go to spend four years in one of the best communities that I could imagine let alone experience in person? Why would I leave the cherished relationships of mentoring adults and encouraging peers in a strong healthy church? Why would I leave the late night conversations with brilliant minds concerning the universe, human nature, and our creator God? Why would I leave friends with whom I have not only built beautiful memories but also by whom I am well-known and thus encouraged, admonished, and discipled in an unparalleled way?
Buechner wishes that he could answer with the obligation to return to his congregation. That "there is enough of the puritan in all of us to make us feel a little guilty about living a life that is too easy and peaceful, especially in a world where there is little ease and little peace." But none of the answers truly respond to the question "Why do we ever leave?"
The sermon is one that really challenged me, and I want to share a bit of Buechners conversation with you: "Whether we all know it and acknowledge it or not, we are all voyagers on the same sea, and I suspect that the stories that describe our vayages best are ones like Moby Dick, Huckleberry Finn, Don Quizote, and the Odyssey, or any of the fairy tales taht show a man starting out on a high adventure, not always sure what his goal is or what grim hazards he willl meet on the way to it but sure only that the prize at the end of the road will be worth more than whatever it costs him to reach it. We are Captian Ahab out to find the great white whale, and Huck floating down the Mississippi on his raft toward freedom. We are Odysseus lashed to the mast as the sirens sing their song, and we are Frod the Hobbit, in Tolkiens The Lord of the Rings, daring alll the horors of Mordor to get rid of his terrible burden. Jesus himslef tells stories like these. There is the merchant who spends his life searching for fine pearls until finally he comes across one of such splendor that he sells all the rest to buy it. There is the man who is walking through a field somewhere when to his amazement he discovers a great treasure buried there and then "in his joy," Jesus says, sells all that he has to buy that field."
The point is that we are all seeking to be what Buechner refers to as "saints." God is making us "to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ." I don't know if I will ever have a completely satisfactory answer for why I would leave 20 or so of the people that I count very dearest to me, knowing that I will likely never continue any of those relationships to any significant depth. And I don't even expect that God will refill the chasm created by those lost relationships. Depression? No. I have no doubt that in time my love will be wholeheartedly devoted to new relationships. But I am equally convinced that I will never be glad that it was deemed right to leave my best friends.
I learn that living is leaving. Becoming a saint is constantly moving. Buechner caps the story: "The woman who asked me the question would have been justly horrified if I had answered her by saying, 'I leave here to become a saint,' and I would never have had the courage to say it even if it had occurred to me at the time, but in a way I believe it is the truth for us all. Beneath all our yearning for whatever glitters brightest in this world lies our yearning for this kind of life."
Why would someone like myself go to spend four years in one of the best communities that I could imagine let alone experience in person? Why would I leave the cherished relationships of mentoring adults and encouraging peers in a strong healthy church? Why would I leave the late night conversations with brilliant minds concerning the universe, human nature, and our creator God? Why would I leave friends with whom I have not only built beautiful memories but also by whom I am well-known and thus encouraged, admonished, and discipled in an unparalleled way?
Buechner wishes that he could answer with the obligation to return to his congregation. That "there is enough of the puritan in all of us to make us feel a little guilty about living a life that is too easy and peaceful, especially in a world where there is little ease and little peace." But none of the answers truly respond to the question "Why do we ever leave?"
The sermon is one that really challenged me, and I want to share a bit of Buechners conversation with you: "Whether we all know it and acknowledge it or not, we are all voyagers on the same sea, and I suspect that the stories that describe our vayages best are ones like Moby Dick, Huckleberry Finn, Don Quizote, and the Odyssey, or any of the fairy tales taht show a man starting out on a high adventure, not always sure what his goal is or what grim hazards he willl meet on the way to it but sure only that the prize at the end of the road will be worth more than whatever it costs him to reach it. We are Captian Ahab out to find the great white whale, and Huck floating down the Mississippi on his raft toward freedom. We are Odysseus lashed to the mast as the sirens sing their song, and we are Frod the Hobbit, in Tolkiens The Lord of the Rings, daring alll the horors of Mordor to get rid of his terrible burden. Jesus himslef tells stories like these. There is the merchant who spends his life searching for fine pearls until finally he comes across one of such splendor that he sells all the rest to buy it. There is the man who is walking through a field somewhere when to his amazement he discovers a great treasure buried there and then "in his joy," Jesus says, sells all that he has to buy that field."
The point is that we are all seeking to be what Buechner refers to as "saints." God is making us "to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ." I don't know if I will ever have a completely satisfactory answer for why I would leave 20 or so of the people that I count very dearest to me, knowing that I will likely never continue any of those relationships to any significant depth. And I don't even expect that God will refill the chasm created by those lost relationships. Depression? No. I have no doubt that in time my love will be wholeheartedly devoted to new relationships. But I am equally convinced that I will never be glad that it was deemed right to leave my best friends.
I learn that living is leaving. Becoming a saint is constantly moving. Buechner caps the story: "The woman who asked me the question would have been justly horrified if I had answered her by saying, 'I leave here to become a saint,' and I would never have had the courage to say it even if it had occurred to me at the time, but in a way I believe it is the truth for us all. Beneath all our yearning for whatever glitters brightest in this world lies our yearning for this kind of life."
Thursday, May 31, 2012
A theologian speaks about a musician
A short compilation of writings on Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart seem out of Karl Barth's normal subject matter. 8936 pages are used to display his monumental Church Dogmatics. He has, however, altered a musicians perspective on the life and work of Mozart. I was one that has discounted Mozart as "fluff," "repetitive," and "predictable." I must reconsider. Here are just a few of my favorite quotes:
"I even have to confess taht if I ever get to heaven, I would first of all seek out Mozart and only then inquire after Augustine, St. Thomas, Luther, Calvin, and Schleiermacher. How am I to explain this? In a few words perhaps this way: our daily bread must also include playing. I hear Mozart - both younger and older - at play. But play is something so lofty and demanding that it requires mastery. And in Mozart I hear an art of playing as I hear it in no one else. Beautiful playing presupposes an intuitive, childlike awareness of the essence or center - as also the beginning and the end - of all things. It is from this center, from this beginning and end, that I heard Mozart create his music."
And I must attribute my first reminder that music is play to Susan Heninger. I have often credited
her with the knowledge that the hard work of excellent musicianship is ultimately "play."
"I am one of those Protestants of whom Mozart is supposted to have once said that we probably could not properly understand the Agnus Dei, qui tollis peccata mundi. Pardon me - Mozart probably knows better now. Still, I don't want to trouble Mozart with theology on this point..."
And finally a quote that I think most musicians will acknowledge paints beautiful verbal picture with accurate insight:
"Once upon a time I formulated my notion [of the state of music in heaven] this way: it may be that when the angels go about their task of praising God, they play only Bach. I am sure, however, that when they are together en famille, they play Mozart and that then too our dear Lord listens with special pleasure."
"I even have to confess taht if I ever get to heaven, I would first of all seek out Mozart and only then inquire after Augustine, St. Thomas, Luther, Calvin, and Schleiermacher. How am I to explain this? In a few words perhaps this way: our daily bread must also include playing. I hear Mozart - both younger and older - at play. But play is something so lofty and demanding that it requires mastery. And in Mozart I hear an art of playing as I hear it in no one else. Beautiful playing presupposes an intuitive, childlike awareness of the essence or center - as also the beginning and the end - of all things. It is from this center, from this beginning and end, that I heard Mozart create his music."
And I must attribute my first reminder that music is play to Susan Heninger. I have often credited
her with the knowledge that the hard work of excellent musicianship is ultimately "play."
"I am one of those Protestants of whom Mozart is supposted to have once said that we probably could not properly understand the Agnus Dei, qui tollis peccata mundi. Pardon me - Mozart probably knows better now. Still, I don't want to trouble Mozart with theology on this point..."
And finally a quote that I think most musicians will acknowledge paints beautiful verbal picture with accurate insight:
"Once upon a time I formulated my notion [of the state of music in heaven] this way: it may be that when the angels go about their task of praising God, they play only Bach. I am sure, however, that when they are together en famille, they play Mozart and that then too our dear Lord listens with special pleasure."
Monday, May 21, 2012
Keeping God's Earth
This book has altered my perspective.
I've grown up with a disinterested view of environmentalism. It's not that I didn't think recycling wasn't valuable or more blatantly that the earth was made for humans and we might as well get what we can out of it as fast as possible. No, I didn't think in those terms, but I have been apathetic.
Following the demanding lines of "The Treasure Principle" and "Discipleship," this book leaves no wiggle room for practical application. You can disagree with the exegesis, but if you accept the exegesis you are forced into rigorous demands for a new way of life. In this case, a way of life that is more concerned about the Biblical Perspective on the Global Environment.
I suppose its easy to be disinterested in the environment that I call home. I have a new respect because of the global perspective. For example, the average U. S. resident is responsible for 176 gallons of water use per day. In Africa, per capita water use is 10 gallons (with a wide range above and and going as low as 3 gallons per day) and many of those people have no access to sanitary water. Me using less water for my shower might not help them, but selfless efforts like this do, and they show the love of the church for the human race that God has created.
The demand of the book, however, is not found in its explanation of man's needs. The demand is found in the Scriptural mandates to care for the earth. God has given every thing for our food (Gen. 9), but He has not taken away our mandate to act as stewards and gardeners. Block argues that even the imago Dei is less an image of selfish dominion and more and image of caretaking stewardship, for the Lord who will one day return and ask what we have done with the talents he has given us.
My perspective is changed. I'm not convinced that man can or should stop global warming. I'm not convinced that paper is better than plastic. But I am convinced that stewardship is my responsibility, possibly one of my primary responsibilities.
I've grown up with a disinterested view of environmentalism. It's not that I didn't think recycling wasn't valuable or more blatantly that the earth was made for humans and we might as well get what we can out of it as fast as possible. No, I didn't think in those terms, but I have been apathetic.
Following the demanding lines of "The Treasure Principle" and "Discipleship," this book leaves no wiggle room for practical application. You can disagree with the exegesis, but if you accept the exegesis you are forced into rigorous demands for a new way of life. In this case, a way of life that is more concerned about the Biblical Perspective on the Global Environment.
I suppose its easy to be disinterested in the environment that I call home. I have a new respect because of the global perspective. For example, the average U. S. resident is responsible for 176 gallons of water use per day. In Africa, per capita water use is 10 gallons (with a wide range above and and going as low as 3 gallons per day) and many of those people have no access to sanitary water. Me using less water for my shower might not help them, but selfless efforts like this do, and they show the love of the church for the human race that God has created.
The demand of the book, however, is not found in its explanation of man's needs. The demand is found in the Scriptural mandates to care for the earth. God has given every thing for our food (Gen. 9), but He has not taken away our mandate to act as stewards and gardeners. Block argues that even the imago Dei is less an image of selfish dominion and more and image of caretaking stewardship, for the Lord who will one day return and ask what we have done with the talents he has given us.
My perspective is changed. I'm not convinced that man can or should stop global warming. I'm not convinced that paper is better than plastic. But I am convinced that stewardship is my responsibility, possibly one of my primary responsibilities.
Saturday, May 19, 2012
Why I'm Voting for Scott Walker
I recently overheard a neighbor complaining about the fact that soon our parks will be gone and our roads will be in disarray because the government is stopping spending money. "Just you watch and see, if the [republicans] have their way it will happen."
I mourned. Not because he's wrong. Because he's absolutely right and he thinks its wrong. His "recall Walker" and "recall Fitzgerald signs" were recently replaced with two democratic candidates. He spends money to keep them lighted and visible 24/7. I'll shoot straight and admit that he has one of the best reasons I can think of for being so adamant about his views: He has worked for the government his entire life. I don't want to work for the government for my entire life. It's called socialism, and I think it's a poor system of government.
Anyway, as I was saying, he's exactly right. For years, we've been spending money we don't have. And when we don't personally have it, we call the government thinking they can help us. For generations, our forefathers worked their butts off, until at a critical time in each of our histories, someone made the call to move to the land of opportunity. Now that we are here, we are personally responsible for the fact that it will soon be gone. I don't want my children to have to work their butts off for my grandchildren who will have to move to a new land of opportunity because I destroyed this one. Maybe it will mean that I have to live within my income. Maybe it will mean that I will actually have to work a little harder if I want a little more. I have one of the best qualities of life on the planet; as much as I think my car and my books and my kayak is important. I like the public parks, but if we don't have enough money I think we will be able to do without them. We can hang out in our backyards with our children- at least they're not working 12 hours a day in horrible conditions... yet.
This message was paid for by www.blogspot.com, a website that... I'm not really sure how they make their money. Ironically, its not the government. But its probably making money for more than its inventor. Its probably raking in funds and jobs for the investors and companies that advertise somewhere on its domain. This message was brought to you on a macbook paid for by my father. Not, mind you, by choice, but rather because the government allocated his funds towards a program that paid for a significant portion of my computer. The money probably would have paid for all of the computer if it didn't have to go through the IRS and countless other bureaucratic positions. I was happy that the same government paid for a significant portion of my school bill, but come to think of it, I bet the money would have paid for my entire school bill if it didn't go through the same process as the computer money.
I mourned. Not because he's wrong. Because he's absolutely right and he thinks its wrong. His "recall Walker" and "recall Fitzgerald signs" were recently replaced with two democratic candidates. He spends money to keep them lighted and visible 24/7. I'll shoot straight and admit that he has one of the best reasons I can think of for being so adamant about his views: He has worked for the government his entire life. I don't want to work for the government for my entire life. It's called socialism, and I think it's a poor system of government.
Anyway, as I was saying, he's exactly right. For years, we've been spending money we don't have. And when we don't personally have it, we call the government thinking they can help us. For generations, our forefathers worked their butts off, until at a critical time in each of our histories, someone made the call to move to the land of opportunity. Now that we are here, we are personally responsible for the fact that it will soon be gone. I don't want my children to have to work their butts off for my grandchildren who will have to move to a new land of opportunity because I destroyed this one. Maybe it will mean that I have to live within my income. Maybe it will mean that I will actually have to work a little harder if I want a little more. I have one of the best qualities of life on the planet; as much as I think my car and my books and my kayak is important. I like the public parks, but if we don't have enough money I think we will be able to do without them. We can hang out in our backyards with our children- at least they're not working 12 hours a day in horrible conditions... yet.
This message was paid for by www.blogspot.com, a website that... I'm not really sure how they make their money. Ironically, its not the government. But its probably making money for more than its inventor. Its probably raking in funds and jobs for the investors and companies that advertise somewhere on its domain. This message was brought to you on a macbook paid for by my father. Not, mind you, by choice, but rather because the government allocated his funds towards a program that paid for a significant portion of my computer. The money probably would have paid for all of the computer if it didn't have to go through the IRS and countless other bureaucratic positions. I was happy that the same government paid for a significant portion of my school bill, but come to think of it, I bet the money would have paid for my entire school bill if it didn't go through the same process as the computer money.
Friday, May 18, 2012
Love and Respect
"When Nehemiah led his men in rebuilding the wall and fighting off the enemy, he urged them to 'fight for your brothers, your sons, your daughters, your wives' (Nehemiah 4:14). Something in a man longs for his wife to look up to him as he fulfills this role. And when she does, it motivates him, not because he is arrogant, but because of how God has constructed him. Few husbands walk around claiming, 'I'm first among equals.' The husband with goodwill knows this isn't his right, but it is his responsibility. She, on the other hand, possesses something within that thirsts to be valued as 'first in importance.' Nothing energizes her more! She is not self-centered. God placed this in her by nature."
In his book, "Love and Respect," Dr. Eggerichs seeks to exegete and discuss the reason that Paul writes in Ephesians 5:33, "Each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband." He considers it no coincidence that the husband is to love and the wife is to respect. His argument is then that Western contemporary culture has not correctly distinguished between the two and couples are unable to obey Ephesians 5:33 without such a proper understanding. He argues that the husbands greatest desire is for his wife to respect him. Dr. Eggerichs even points to statistics that suggest a man would rather hear his wife give a list of reasons that she respects him than a list of reasons that she loves him. On the other side, a wife's greatest desire is for her husband to love her. She wants him to roll out the red carpet for her, not out of respect but as evidence that she is of first importance to him and is dearly loved.
In a world where the church is reacting to proper and improper modes of feminism, "Love and Respect" has clarified the desires of husbands and wives and has given a new framework to discuss the ways that those desires can be fulfilled. I'm thankful to have read it before marriage is anywhere near my horizon.
In his book, "Love and Respect," Dr. Eggerichs seeks to exegete and discuss the reason that Paul writes in Ephesians 5:33, "Each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband." He considers it no coincidence that the husband is to love and the wife is to respect. His argument is then that Western contemporary culture has not correctly distinguished between the two and couples are unable to obey Ephesians 5:33 without such a proper understanding. He argues that the husbands greatest desire is for his wife to respect him. Dr. Eggerichs even points to statistics that suggest a man would rather hear his wife give a list of reasons that she respects him than a list of reasons that she loves him. On the other side, a wife's greatest desire is for her husband to love her. She wants him to roll out the red carpet for her, not out of respect but as evidence that she is of first importance to him and is dearly loved.
In a world where the church is reacting to proper and improper modes of feminism, "Love and Respect" has clarified the desires of husbands and wives and has given a new framework to discuss the ways that those desires can be fulfilled. I'm thankful to have read it before marriage is anywhere near my horizon.
Thursday, May 17, 2012
The right tool
Scraping duct tape residue off a window is not a fun task. Poor thoughts were running through my mind concerning the people who thought it was a good idea to hang the window signs with duct tape. "I wish they were hear to see what a problem they've caused." "I'd make them take it off, so they'd never dare do it again." "Here I am again, cleaning up someone else's mess." "Why didn't they take a moment to use the right tool for the job - masking or scotch tape."
Even goo gone was helpless against the little dots stuck from last summer. What a pain. After dozens of minutes, I decided to take my chance and put a paint scraper to the window. I figured it wouldn't help, and worse that it would in some way damage the window. I was totally wrong. Come to find out, it was exactly the right tool for the job, leaving me with the task complete in a matter of seconds. Literally felt like cutting butter - not even that hard stick of butter that you get from the fridge and is extra hard to put on the toast. No, were talking about butter thats been in the cupboard for a few hours.
Thanks God, for the reminder of the importance of the right tools. Just like the right words are so much more effective whether in a speech, a note of encouragement, or a careful admonishment. The extra minutes that it takes to research and obtain the right tools is so worth the end result.
Even goo gone was helpless against the little dots stuck from last summer. What a pain. After dozens of minutes, I decided to take my chance and put a paint scraper to the window. I figured it wouldn't help, and worse that it would in some way damage the window. I was totally wrong. Come to find out, it was exactly the right tool for the job, leaving me with the task complete in a matter of seconds. Literally felt like cutting butter - not even that hard stick of butter that you get from the fridge and is extra hard to put on the toast. No, were talking about butter thats been in the cupboard for a few hours.
Thanks God, for the reminder of the importance of the right tools. Just like the right words are so much more effective whether in a speech, a note of encouragement, or a careful admonishment. The extra minutes that it takes to research and obtain the right tools is so worth the end result.
Thursday, April 26, 2012
Monday, March 26, 2012
The shepherd throws stones just outside the ranks of sheep
grazing along the hillside. From a distance one can watch with amusement as the
act scares the sheep just enough to grab their attention and push them back
towards the flock. The gracious action is mixed up with terror and
admonishment. The sheep on the inside are safe only because those on the edge
are guiding them, guided themselves by the stones and rod of the shepherd.
In the daily life of the church, those considered leaders
are found wandering. Perversion, infidelity, and hypocrisy are discovered repeatedly
and the sheep on the edge that have been lovingly reoriented toward the savior
meet the scornful eyes of the sheep on the inside that have been protected from
similar harm.
We do not realize that we would be Judas, save the grace of
God. We scorn the leading sheep and in doing so, scorn the care of the Shepherd
himself. Seeing the continual work of Christ, we trade it for the lust and
pride of thirty silver coins. Is it no wonder that every day his
lovingkindness, literally pursuing love, must be in action on our behalf. Because
of Christ we are like Peter: boastful in ourselves, found constantly rejecting
the name of Christ, yet pursued by his love to be reunited with the church. For
those on the outside, that pursuing love is seen is stones falling all around.
For those on the inside, that pursuing love often comes through the care of the
leading sheep guarding us from wandering.
Look down from heaven and see,
from your holy and beautiful habitation.
Where are your zeal and your might?
The stirring of your inner parts and your
compassion
are held back from me.
16 For
you are our Father,
though Abraham does not know us,
and Israel does not acknowledge us;
you, O LORD, are our Father,
our Redeemer from of old is your name.
and harden our heart, so that we fear you not?
Return for the sake of your servants,
the tribes of your heritage.
18 Your
holy people held possession for a little while;
our adversaries have trampled down your sanctuary.
19 We
have become like those over whom you have never ruled,
like those who are not called by your name.
Oh that you would rend the heavens and come down,
that the mountains might quake at your presence—
2 as
when fire kindles brushwood
and the fire causes water to boil—
to make your name known to your adversaries,
and that the nations might tremble at your
presence!
3 When
you did awesome things that we did not look for,
you came down, the mountains quaked at your
presence.
4 From
of old no one has heard
or perceived by the ear,
no eye has seen a God besides you,
who acts for those who wait for him.
5 You
meet him who joyfully works righteousness,
those who remember you in your ways.
Behold, you were angry, and we sinned;
in our sins we have been a long time, and shall we
be saved?
6 We
have all become like one who is unclean,
and all our righteous deeds are like a polluted
garment.
We all fade like a leaf,
and our iniquities, like the wind, take us away.
7 There
is no one who calls upon your name,
who rouses himself to take hold of you;
for you have hidden your face from us,
and have made us melt in the hand of our iniquities.
we are the clay, and you are our potter;
we are all the work of your hand.
and remember not iniquity forever.
Behold, please look, we are all your people.
Wednesday, February 22, 2012
Was Jesus Lutheran?
Hear reference to the Pharisees in church and it is almost certainly a negative statement. We associate them with hypocrisy and the death of the Messiah, and consider them even worse than the gentiles. However, it might be wrong to overlook the sheer amount of time that Christ interacted with the Pharisees and the logical conclusions of his condemnation of their particularities. For one, the sheer amount of Gospel space designates the amount of time that Christ must have interacted with this Jewish group. Mind you, we are reading from the perspective of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Would it not be safe to say that their memory of Christ primarily involved conversation with and life among the Pharisees? Second we cannot say that the Pharisees are the arch-enemy. Luke notes in chapter 13 that at one point the Pharisees even warned Christ of Herod's intent to kill for the sake of saving Christ's life. Lancaster notes in his book King of the Jews:
How ironic is it that we so quickly condemn the Pharisees! Isn't that one of their most often critiqued sins - hypocritical condemnation and self-righteousness?
Once again Christ stands transcendent over our faulty distinctions and presuppositions. In our box of guilt by association, Christ is guilty. There must be something wrong with our box.
After all, He told us to obey everthing they say:
The Pharisees themselves were never far from Yeshua theologically or geographically. He was often a dinner guest in their homes, and they were often critics of His ministry. At times, some Pharisees vehemently opposed Him. On other occasions, they cheered Him on while He thwarted the Sadducees or nailed home a point of Torah.
How ironic is it that we so quickly condemn the Pharisees! Isn't that one of their most often critiqued sins - hypocritical condemnation and self-righteousness?
Once again Christ stands transcendent over our faulty distinctions and presuppositions. In our box of guilt by association, Christ is guilty. There must be something wrong with our box.
After all, He told us to obey everthing they say:
| |||
Wednesday, February 8, 2012
Fancy meets Fun
Ready for a new P, B and J? Try your favorite peanut butter and jelly on slices of Cranberry or Cinnamon Twist bread. Outstanding in the collegiate lunchbox.
Thursday, February 2, 2012
Monday, January 23, 2012
Reading the Bible for all its worth
"Has it every bothered you, as it has bothered me, that not a one of the last judgment scenes in the Bible reads the way it is supposed to read! We expect the Bible to describe the last judgment this way: The Lord will say, those who have believed in me come stand on my right and hand and those who did not believe in me go to outer darkness. But the Bible never paints the picture that way. It is always, instead, the books will be opened and "each person was judged according to what he had done" (Rev. 20:12-13).
If I could challenge you to read one sermon, it very well might be the one from which this excerpt is taken. Check it out at: http://sermons.faithtacoma.org/Scripture/Introduction.htm
Part 2 is just as challenging: http://sermons.faithtacoma.org/Scripture/Introduction%20No.%202.htm
"The fact of the matter is, my brethren, it is as clear to me as can be that the redemptive-historical men and the law-grace men, had they been standing over Matthew's shoulder or James' shoulder, or the shoulder of many other a biblical writer, would have suggested that they put things differently than they did. We want, rather, to let God decide what we need to hear, how we need to hear it, and with what emphasis. And if that means that we must hold together convictions that are not easily held together, if it means we must work both in thought and in life to be faithful to truths that must be held together with might and main, well, then, so be it. It is the nature of reality that it should be so and so the nature of true faith in Christ and God."
Praise God for his grace which has freed us from the power of sin's consequence as well as the power of sins dominion in our lives today! We are no longer slaves to sin, but slaves to righteousness!
Thursday, January 5, 2012
Perspective change
Ten car crashes every minute makes our heads spin. Start throwing out such statistics and our perspective become quickly grave. We can't comprehend the numbers of children starving to death today any better than we can comprehend our governments debt. When we look at those numbers it would be right to stand for a moment in the atheists shoes. Is this evidence of a good God? How do we change our perspective? The answer is by doing just that: change your perspective. It is the fool who says in his heart there is no God. The average person breathes about twenty thousand times each day, and not one of those breaths can be attributed to skill, talent, or even knowledge of how to breathe. Yet not one of those is taken aside from the grace of a loving Creator. Smarter men will tell me that the brain makes 100 million MIPS (computer instructions per second). For comparison, a nice 2011 personal computer with Intel Core i7 Extreme makes 177,730 MIPS. Look at those numbers people. Your brain has the capacity to... not to mention the creativity... Is it a holy paradox that your body is 65% water, but the minute we go under water and it enters our lungs we drown? What will it take for our words to be filled with praise and our thoughts to be overflowing in gratefulness? Every 44 seconds someone dies of heart disease. As for you, your heart will pump 1900 gallons today without your conscious thought. In fact, even with your incredible 100 million MIPS brain, you couldn't consciously stop your heart from beating.
"Great is Thy faithfulness!" "Great is Thy faithfulness!"
Morning by morning new mercies I see;
All I have needed Thy hand hath provided—
"Great is Thy faithfulness," Lord, unto me!
Morning by morning new mercies I see;
All I have needed Thy hand hath provided—
"Great is Thy faithfulness," Lord, unto me!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)