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:

“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)

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.

I need no other argument,
I need no other plea,
It is enough that Jesus died,
And that He died for me.

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."

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?

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.