felix hominum

at least one reason why

I like to write sermons in coffee shops.

I'm meeting up with a fellow who lost his 14 year old daughter to cancer this week.

sermon notes Lent 1, Year B: Mark 1:9-15

[for year A notes Mk 4:1-11 click here]

In those days Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan.  And just as he was coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens torn apart and the Spirit descending like a dove on him.  And a voice came from heaven, "You are my Son, the Beloved; with you I am well pleased."

And the Spirit immediately drove him out into the wilderness.  He was in the wilderness forty days, tempted by Satan; and he was with the wild beasts; and the angels waited on him.  Now after John was arrested, Jesus came to Galilee, proclaiming the good news of God,  and saying, "The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God has come near; repent, and believe in the good news."

I love the image of the heavens being torn apart. It is worth meditating on for some time. Jesus' coming tears apart many things, and in the end, an encounter with Jesus tears me apart.  In a wonderful bookend to the gospel, I think of the veil of the temple being torn apart as well.  It seems that what happens to Jesus is a model for the rest of us - baptism, the heavens torn apart, and the Spirit descending.  We will see all of this repeated in the life of the church:  there is baptism and the descent of the Spirit recorded in the book of Acts. 

And a voice came from heaven, "You are my Son, the Beloved; with you I am  well pleased."

Now I've gotten on this band wagon before, but I think it bears repeating.  We tend to focus on the first part of the declarative statement:  "You are my Son".  Well enough, as it tells us of Jesus' identity.  But there is the second part:  Jesus is beloved of God before Jesus does anything - before the miracles, healings, teachings, sacrifice.  We who are baptized need to learn/yearn to hear that same voice.  Who you are comes before what you do.

And the Spirit immediately drove him out into the wilderness.

All I can say is that if you have tried to follow Jesus, chances are you've been driven into the wilderness.  Sometimes we do the driving ourselves.  But with Jesus it is the Spirit who drives him - in order to face temptation.  And it is in facing the tempter that we know the answer the demoniac's question:  "I know who you are... have you come to destroy us?"  I suppose it might also be an antidote to too much "purpose driven" stuff.  Jesus is definitely "Spirit driven"; but the results of being Spirit driven are not pretty.  They are difficult.

He was in the wilderness forty days, tempted by Satan; and he was with the wild  beasts; and the angels waited on him.

Two things, well, three.  Alright, four, but no more.  There is reality to the personality of evil.  Why is he with the wild beasts?  Are they friend or foe?  We have an image from the natural world (beasts) and we have the supernatural world (Satan, angels).  Physical and spiritual reality:  Jesus is at home in both.  Yada yada - Jesus was tempted, so he knows what it is like...  which reminds me a a joke I recently heard:  "the pastor's prayer:  Lord, grant me patience, and wisdom and grace in the trying times of my church, because is you grant me strength, I'll beat someone to death."  All that is to say is that Jesus does what I can't.  I like Oscar Wilde's take:  "The only sure way to get rid of temptation is to yield to it."  Seriously, though, I think we ignore the various kinds of existence, beings and realities at our peril.  Some take it too far, some don't take it at all.

Now after John was arrested, Jesus came to Galilee, proclaiming the good news of  God, and saying, "The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God has come near;  repent, and believe in the good news."

I like to think that God is a God of second chances.  That is the good news.  But of course if you have a second chance it generally means that you screwed up your first chance.  Repentance is the movement between the two:  from the screwed up first chance to the good news of the second chance, and third, and fourth...  The coming of the Kingdom seems to me to be like the episode of Jesus' baptism: it is about a declaration from God's side of the way things are.  At this point the good news is simply that the Kingdom has come.  Until we see that it's coming in and of itself is good news, we won't (I think) get a handle on the rest of the gospel.

A little exercise I use in lent for repentance: I look at the two great commandments, and ask how I have fallen short, and ask for grace to grow.  I'd list all my offenses, but there is not enough server storage space.  More after dinner, or next week.

lenten series: Bernard of Clairvaux

This year's lenten series will focus on the work of Bernard of Clairvaux.  Specifically, I'll be blogging through his "On Loving God".

Love is one of the four natural affections, which it is needless to name since everyone knows them. And because love is natural, it is only right to love the Author of nature first of all. Hence comes the first and great commandment, ‘Thou shalt love the Lord thy God.’ But nature is so frail and weak that necessity compels her to love herself first; and this is carnal love, wherewith man loves himself first and selfishly, as it is written, ‘That was not first which is spiritual but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual’ (I Cor. 15.46)

I'll be adding some background, and doing what one should do with good writers:  simply read their text.  So we will look through Bernard's treatment of love - from self centered to God centered.

And just in case you needed to know:

 

"The Zebra Cross dance is performed during rush hour in Jakarta, Indonesia. The dance is aimed at promoting traffic safety on the city's busy streets."  photo AP

From the BBC

The lenten challenge part one

Dear editor,
There are three tenets in the Christian faith that have always puzzled me. And I’m not being facetious. 1. How could John the Baptist baptize Jesus and what words could he use? 2. God the Father is supposed to have sent his only beloved Son to redeem mankind, but there’s no mention of God’s wife. 3. If the Holy Ghost impregnated Mary, wouldn’t that make Jesus divine on His father’s side and human on His mother’s? Maybe some of your readers can enlighten me.
William Bedford
Toronto

From the letters to the editor in the March edition of the Anglican Journal.

Dear Mr Bedford:  I'll have a latte before I begin my reply, in which I hope most graciously and charitably to ask your patience as we explore the possible answers to your questions.

ps, if you are a long time reader of the letters in the Anglican Journal, you will recall that it might just be one of Mr Bedford's favourite avenues of expression.

Difference is normal - disability in the Arab world

Ibrahim, Shafic, Ghassan, Ahmad, Kholood, Hamad, Marwan, Mayssa and Hanadi live their lives despite their disabilities and all they want is to be accepted and respected...

via the International Coalition on Abuse & Disability
& ht Winston of Black Riders

Ash Wednesday, 2009...

The Anglican Communion’s first Anglican-Buddhist Bishop was elected this week at a special convention of the Diocese of Northern Michigan. The sole candidate on the ballot, the Rev Kevin Thew Forrester received the support of 88 per cent of the delegates and 91 per cent of congregations, according to a diocesan news release.

The nomination of Fr Forrester sparked controversy last month, when the diocese announced that he was the sole candidate for election. Critics charged it was unseemly that a single candidate was chosen by the search committee --- which included Fr Forrester among its members --- to stand for election. Concerns were also raised about the suitability of a professed Buddhist who said he had received Buddhist “lay ordination” and was “walking the path of Christianity and Zen Buddhism together” being consecrated a bishop.

Known also by his Buddhist name, “Genpo” which means “Way of Universal Wisdom”, Fr Forrester holds progressive views on a number of traditional Christian doctrines. Writing in the diocese’s news letter he stated: “Sin has little, if anything, to do with being bad. It has everything to do, as far as I can tell, with being blind to our own goodness.”

read the whole article by George Conger at Religious Intelligence 

Speaking of people who are merely blind to their own goodness,

RUF leaders Issa Sesay, 38, and Morris Kallon, 45, were convicted of 16 of the 18 charges, while Augustine Gbao, 60, was found guilty on 14 of the counts...The last case to be held at the special court had heard how the rebel leaders were involved in the rape, mutilation and killings of civilians.  The three committed atrocities during the 1991-2001 civil war as senior commanders of the Revolutionary United Front (RUF).

Tactics favoured by the rebels included amputating hands and arms or carving the initials RUF into the bodies of their victims.  The RUF was notorious for using the so-called Small Boys Units - child soldiers forcibly recruited and issued with AK-47 assault rifles - who had a reputation for particular cruelty among the civilian population.

By the time the conflict ended, some 120,000 people had been killed while tens of thousands were left mutilated, their arms, legs, noses or ears cut off.

days in the wilderness

Judean wilderness
photo Joe Walker 2005

a season of prayer

Every Friday in Lent, from 9:30-3:00 pm.  A few of us are gathering to pray at St Timothy's.
8430 - 145 Street.  Drop in for the day or a part thereof.  If there are any more details, I'll update.

Two sexes 'sin in different ways'

Women are prouder than men, but men are more lustful, according to a Vatican report which states that the two sexes sin differently.

A Catholic survey found that the most common sin for women was pride, while for men, the urge for food was only surpassed by the urge for sex.  The report was based on a study of confessions carried out by Fr Roberto Busa, a 95-year-old Jesuit scholar.

from the BBC

Now I don't want to make too much of this, but it strikes me that there are interesting ways to interpret this.  Lust=makes an object of the other;  Pride=makes an object of the self;  Gluttony grabs it all to oneself, while Envy looks on at what Gluttony has grabbed;  Sloth feels no passion, while Anger feels excessive passion.

Of course, maybe men would have less problems with lust, you know, be a little more 'fulfilled' in their relationships, if they simply stopped being fat and lazy...

I'm just sayin'.

the Barnabas Initiative

It's a project in the Anglican Diocese of Edmonton, focusing on new ministry initiatives.  There is a website up and running (in its infant stages) where Thomas Brauer has begun to post a few items.  Head over and have a look.

St Mary's Nanoose Bay (BC) leaves ACoC

The parish has removed all links from their website pointing to anything "Anglican Church of Canada"-ish.  According to an Anglican Network in Canada news release, the parish has

voted overwhelmingly on Sunday, February 8, to come under the episcopal oversight of Bishop Donald Harvey, Moderator of the Anglican Network in Canada (ANiC), and under the Primatial authority of Archbishop Gregory Venables of the Anglican Province of the Southern Cone.

Now here is where it gets interesting:

St Mary’s rector, the Rev Guy Bellerby, met today with the bishop’s commissary from the Anglican Church of Canada BC Diocese to request an amicable arrangement that would enable the congregation to remain in the church building pending a mediated process. This is in the spirit of the request made by the Primates (leaders of Anglican Churches worldwide) at their recent meeting in Egypt. The Primate of the Anglican Church of Canada said earlier this week that he would like to participate in such a mediation process.

I will be more than curious to see how the mediation process mentioned will work itself out.

Thinking of buying Valentine roses?

"Make sure they're not stained in blood"

Also, if you need 'advice', you can always try Christian Nymphos.

"I was going to tell you not to let your armpits smell,
and to see that your legs were not rough with bristles." 
Ovid, Ars Amatoria III, (Art of Love)

Six weeks of Sheer Hell!!

or, how one of our Lenten study groups will be reading Dante's Inferno.  We will also try to squeeze in some purgatory in there, and maybe paradise after Easter.

On Good Friday

I want to do an evening of acoustic blues.

Seriously.

Virgil the Aeneid, pt 15: Book VIII: the real end of the Trojan War

see entire series on Virgil's Aeneid here

One of my favourite minor characters in ancient literature is Mezentius, who pops up at the beginning of book VIII of the Aeneid.  He is introduced simply as one “who held the gods in scorn” (VIII.9).  I mean, that’s a great T shirt for the ancient world.  I mean, put that on the side of the atheist buses and then you’ve got something to work with.  I wonder if Mezentius is alive and well today?  After Virgil introduces a small cast of such shady characters, we see an image of Aeneas which can be contrasted both with  Mezentius and also with Turnus.  Aeneas, pondering the choices which lay before him, is thinking about what to do next:

This way and that he let his mind run, passing quickly over
All he might do, as when from basins full of
Of unstilled water, struck by a ray of sun
Or the bright disk of moon, a flickering light
Plays over the walls and corners  (VIII.28)

Now compare that image with how Virgil has described Turnus in the previous book.

Then driven wild, shouting for arms, for arms
He ransacked house and chamber.  Lust of steel
Raged in him, brute insanity of war,
And wrath above all, as when fiery sticks
Are piled with a loud crackling by the side
Of a caldron boiling, and the water heaves
And seethes inside the vessel, steaming up
With foam, and bubbling higher…  (VII. 633)

Aeneas is contemplative; and he is like light which comes from a celestial source (the ray of the sun, or the moon).  Turnus is mad; source of power is “from below” – a fire raging. 

With this rational, contemplative posture, Aeneas is ready to finally end the Trojan War.  You thought it was finished when Brad Pitt was polished off?  Nay.  Now Aeneas heeds the prophecy of the god Tiberinus (VIII.50) and hears that he will see certain and sure signs (the white sow & sucklings  - alba) that this is where his hearth gods will lodge.  He is told by the god that “Anders that rose among the gods have passed” and that now is the time to “Address your prayers in proper form to Juno”.  He is to seek out Evander, a Greek, as his ally in war.

This is the real end of the Trojan War.  Not when there is merely a stop of hostilities, but when Greek and Trojan can unite under one banner to found the new city of Rome.  The cause of the war was the anger of the gods, and now that anger has passed.  Aeneas will offer sacrifice to Juno (VIII. 115) – the very goddess who was insulted by the actions of the Trojans in times past.  She has long been the bitter enemy of the Trojan remnant, and now Aeneas will prepare to honour her.  This is the real end of the war that was fought at Troy.

Evander’s city is a curious one.  I’d like to devote another post to it if I get the chance.  When Aeneas comes to him they are celebrating a feast to Hercules, a son of the Jupiter.  Curious, I say:  they celebrate more the human accomplishment than the divine.  Evander’s description of his city and their feast to Aeneas is interesting:

No empty headed
Superstition, blind to the age-old gods
Imposed this ritual on us, and this feast
This altar to a divine force of will.
No, Trojan guest, we carry out these rites
Renewed each year, as men saved from barbaric
Dangers in the past…  (VIII. 248)

This is something different, I think, than the “typical golden age”.  They celebrate the human accomplishment of Hercules (son of a god though he was).  They see the past as barbaric, they are moving beyond such rustic and dangerous things.  Moderns might be tempted to say that they are “evolving”.  Hercules defeated the monstrous Cacus (who is worthy of a post of his own.  Suffice to say for now that if you look at the description of Cacus' crime, you can see that he is a self admitted thief and defies reason and rationality - 275ff).  and now the feast is to Hercules who is "the Greatest" (361).  Evander's city celebrates the power of human effort and accomplishment over the forces of nature and irrationality.  It is to this foundation that pious Aeneas must join himself in war.

In a very off topic side twist, Peter Rollins argues that wars are really conservative, and never violent enough.  That is, they never go far enough in their violence to actually change the order and structure of things.  I suggest that Virgil's insistence on this aspect of the Aeneid - namely that Trojan and Greek must wage war as allies in order to establish a new order of things, is in one sense precisely what Rollins is talking about. 'Course he would, I suspect, argue that a non violent way would be better (and more to his point).  But this is not a conservative war which Aeneas will wage - it is not fought to preserve anything, but rather to birth something entirely new in the world:  Virgil's vision of empire, a true enternal city.

sermon notes Epiphany 6, Year B, Mark 1: 40-45

A leper came to him begging him, and kneeling he said to him, "If you choose, you can make me clean."  Moved with pity, Jesus stretched out his hand and touched him, and said to him, "I do choose. Be made clean!"  Immediately the leprosy left him, and he was made clean.

After sternly warning him he sent him away at once,  saying to him, "See that you say nothing to anyone; but go, show yourself to the priest, and offer for your cleansing what Moses commanded, as a testimony to them."  But he went out and began to proclaim it freely, and to spread the word, so that Jesus could no longer go into a town openly, but stayed out in the country; and people came to him from every quarter.

I want to start at the end.  Silence and proclamation - which one do we choose, and why?  it is fascinating to consider why Jesus asks him to say nothing until he has fulfilled the law.  There is a line in the Psalm appointed for today (Psalm 30) which highlights this:  "You have turned my mourning into dancing; you have taken off my sackcloth and clothed me with joy, so that my soul may praise you and not be silent."  It seems to me that our final response is one of expression, not silence.

But now back to the beginning:  I think the leper showed either great desperation or great courage, or perhaps a combination of the two.  The leper comes close enough (we are not told how close) to be heard and seen by Jesus.  Like some of the other healings and exorcisms early in Mark's Gospel, the one being healed does not question whether Jesus can heal.  It is a question of what Jesus will do.  Those are tough kinds of prayers:  I believe you can do it, God;  but will you choose to do it?

(insert lunch break here...)

Lunch has been accomplished.  Now, the OT reading is about another leper - Naaman.  What really strikes me abou these two lepers (Naaman and the leper in the gospel) is just this:  It takes Naaman forever to make up his mind and act, while it takes the leper in the gospel all of about 10 seconds to decide what to do.  Simple as that.  Here's some thoughts: The story of Naaman takes a great deal of space, probably one of the longer readings we have had in church.  It takes Naaman quite a while to decide what to do – what choice to make.  Naaman had a particular problem that he wanted fixed – he had leprosy.  He sent and found out from the prophet Elisha what he needed to do:  Go and wash seven times in the Jordan, and he would be made clean.  Simple enough;  but look at Naaman’s response:

“But Naaman became angry and went away, saying, "I thought that for me he would surely come out, and stand and call on the name of the LORD his God, and would wave his hand over the spot, and cure the leprosy! Are not Abana and Pharpar, the rivers of Damascus, better than all the waters of Israel? Could I not wash in them, and be clean?" He turned and went away in a rage.”

First, he became angry and he went away.  After all that, he decides to get angry and leave.  Why?  Because he had decided beforehand how God should heal him, and he doesn’t like the news he has received.  Naaman starts to give an explanation of why he got so angry.   Notice Naaman’s  objection  “I thought for me he would surely….”  And that is the first part of his problem.  Naaman thought to himself – “Surely for ME  this God would do something special – something different, something big and impressive!!!”   Second,  Naaman thought that God should treat him differently – that there should be some recognition of what an important person he was.   It’s as if he were saying to God “Don’t you know who I am?  I am Naaman the commander – a very important person.”  Thirdly, Naaman thinks he could improve on God’s methods of curing him.  After all, he says, aren’t all these rivers of Damascus better than that polluted old Jordan River?  And couldn’t I just go there instead?  

But his servants approached and said to him, "Father, if the prophet had commanded you to do something difficult, would you not have done it? How much more, when all he said to you was, 'Wash, and be clean'?"  So he went down and immersed himself seven times in the Jordan, according to the word of the man of God; his flesh was restored like the flesh of a young boy, and he was clean.

It took Naaman a long time to make his choice, and it was the right choice in the end, because how else could he be cured?  Some might say that Naaman took the hard way rather tan the easy way. 

“A leper came to him begging him, and kneeling he said to him, "If you choose, you can make me clean."
“ Moved with pity, Jesus stretched out his hand and touched him, and said to him, "I do choose. Be made clean!"

Now that story really takes all of about 10 seconds to read out, and about that same amount of time for the leper to be healed.   First we had Naaman, now we have this leper.  You tell me who picked the easy way and who picked  the hard way to get better.  The nameless leper did something which Naaman was not wiling to do – to leave the choice up to Jesus – leave the choice up to God.  This leper is not interested in making any decisions on his own.  Listen to what he says to Jesus:  “If you choose, you can make me clean.”  And the emphasis here is on “YOU CHOOSE”.  The leper thinks to himself – “If I leave the choice up to God, if I let Jesus in on my decisions, if I trust HIS choices, maybe things will go better for me.”

We weigh a lot of things when we make decisions.  And the bigger the decision, the more we try to take time in order to take in everything that we can.  You make a major purchase, like a car or a house, and you probably spend at least a little bit of time thinking about it.  People decide on careers, relationships, all sorts of things.  And we have our own ways of making decisions.  Very few, if any of us, would be like the leper.  Very few of us would simply look at Jesus and say “YOU CHOOSE”. 

Naaman takes a long and roundabout way to get to his goal, because he does not like God’s choices.  The leper in the gospel simply leaves all the choosing up to God.  And most of us probably fall somewhere in between most of the time. 

When we make our choices in life – whether big or small, we need to be more like the leper in the Gospel.  We need to invite Jesus into our decisions.  We do that through prayer, through reading the Scriptures to get insight into how he views life, and through being humble enough to accept good advice when it differs from what we ourselves think is best. 

If the decision is important (and most of them actually are) Jesus will make himself just as clear to us as he did to the leper.  Jesus is interested in all our choices – big and the small.   He says “I do choose – be made clean”. 

sermon notes - Transfiguration, Mark 9, (Matthew 17)

This week's year's option for the last Sunday after Epiphany will be the feast of the Transfiguration.  The story occurs in all 3 synoptic Gospels, with some variation of details.  See Luke 9:28 and Matt 17.  A coupling can easily be made with other readings and images from scripture.  Exodus 24:12-18 tells us the story of God giving the Commandments (lit 'words') from Sinai.  A comparison of the words from the two mountains can make a good start.  The new word from the mountaintop is that Jesus is the Beloved, and to listen to him is the key to the new commandment.  2 Peter 1:16-21 makes reference to the transfiguration "on the holy mountain" (this is the new Sinai?), and the letter says something of the nature of revelation.  Matthew's version is rather fuller than Mark's version, so we will start there:

Matthew 17:1-9

1 Six days later, Jesus took with him Peter and James and his brother John and led them up a high mountain, by themselves. 2 And he was transfigured before them, and his face shone like the sun, and his clothes became dazzling white.

Mark's 9 version: 

2 Six days later, Jesus took with him Peter and James and John, and led them up a high mountain apart, by themselves. And he was transfigured before them, 3and his clothes became dazzling white, such as no one on earth could bleach them.

We have a setting like that of Sinai - a sort of divine revelation on a mountaintop.  A note on the geography.  Tabor, the traditional site of the Transfiguration, is lush, (Mt. Hermon is a strong possibility, and it is a source for the Jordan...streams of water).  The traditional site of Sinai (or any other site you might want to suggest as plausible) is mountain desert.  I find it an interesting geographic contrast to think about - both Tabor and Hermon are so geographically different from anything in the Sinai, north or south...   What exactly goes on when Jesus is "transfigured"?  It is not merely the same as what we think of as being "changed".  Essentially, who Jesus is on the "inside" is made physically manifest on the "outside".  His physical appearance tells us something about his identity.

The Year B OT reading comes from 2 Kings 2:1-12, the story of the taking up of Elijah.  Like the Transfiguration, it is a story about seeing something "unearthly";  Elisha sees Elijah for who he has become in God:  "a chariot of fire and horses of fire separated the two of them, and Elijah ascended in a whirlwind into heaven".  And in Mark's version of the Transfiguration, Jesus and his disciples go on to talk about the "coming of Elijah" in the next pericope.

Most of us want "change" on the outside;  God wants change on the inside.  Remember that when Moses came down from the mountain, "his face shone".  This is rather like a spiritual sunburn - Moses reflected God's glory.  It was not something which came from within, but something that came from without.  In the person of Jesus, the glory that was hidden within is now made manifest.

[4] And there appeared to them Elijah with Moses, who were talking with Jesus. [5] Then Peter said to Jesus, ‘Rabbi, it is good for us to be here; let us make three dwellings, one for you, one for Moses, and one for Elijah.’ [6] He did not know what to say, for they were terrified.

Moses and Elijah - representing the law and the prophets bearing witness to who Jesus is.  Meanwhile, Peter does what too many of us tend to do:  when God is doing something amazing, we focus on building projects.  Now it doesn't of course have to be a building project, but when Jesus makes his presence known, that is what we should pay attention to.  If God is at work, don't get bogged down in the wrong things.  We can be like Peter when we spend our time and energy on the "externals" - the mere trappings of church - and then we can miss out on the presence of Jesus in our midst.

[7] Then a cloud overshadowed them, and from the cloud there came a voice, ‘This is my Son, the Beloved; listen to him!’ [8] Suddenly when they looked around, they saw no one with them any more, but only Jesus.

[9] As they were coming down the mountain, he ordered them to tell no one about what they had seen, until after the Son of Man had risen from the dead.

Church of the Transfiguration/ Mt Tabor/ Israel/ 2007

UPDATE:  lunch is now well finished.  Now where was I?  Oh yes, the Transfiguration.  There is something to be said for learning to see the glory in Christ.  Parallel to this is learning to see the glory in each creature made in the image of God.  To see Jesus for who he really is should have a profound effect.  Likewise, seeing every other human being as a creature made in the image of God should also have a profound effect.

The voice from the cloud is an echo of the voice heard at Jesus' baptism.  It speaks not only of Jesus' identity, but also of his relationship to the Father.  And then there is that little addition:  "Listen to him."  If the Israelites were to listen to Moses and the revelation from the old mountain, how much more are to listen to Jesus, and the revelation from the new mountain. 

The phrase "this is my beloved..." connects the two episodes of baptism and transfiguration in the person of Christ.  And I suppose that we are to see the connection in ourselves:  as we are called in baptism to be beloved of God, so we are also called to be, well, not exactly transfigured yet, but changed.  And there is a pointing forward in the reference to the resurrection to the renewed body, the resurrected life, the fully transfigured life which will be given to us in God's grace.  It is only after death and resurrection that the final transfiguration takes place. 

That whole fear thing throws people for a loop, eh?  The disciples fear simply the sound of the voice; I wonder if they comprehended at the time what the words were actually saying? [When confronted with an actual religious experience, most men retreat into "Home Depot" mode...]

All too often we castigate these expressions of fear on the part of humans as some sort of divine bullying - as if the disciples' fear was God's fault.  It is entirely possible, and I think more likely, that human fear at the manifest presence of God is rather an indication of problems within ourselves, rather than in God.  Jesus touches and reassures:  do not be afraid.

This passage is a fitting end to the Epiphany season - we have followed Jesus from birth, to early childhood, to baptism - all events which gave us insight into who he is.  The Transfiguration gives us a "final" glimpse of who he is.  The season of revelation is complete.

It was here about 8 years ago

at this retreat center that I received a phone call from my wife, telling me that what was supposed to be a routine ultrasound turned up a picture of our unborn child suffering from congestive heart failure.

Since I'll be there on silent retreat for the next few days, I wrote this post ahead of time, and set it to publish at the time of the mid-morning Eucharist.  It was just before the service.  Got a message to call home, which I did. 

At communion we prayed for my wife and child.  Across the way from the main retreat house there is a simple, small monument entitled "To the Unborn".  I visit it every time I come here.  God met me there in a particular way 8 years ago. 

SJ is now a grade 1 student, ballet enthusiast & beginning skater, living with Down Syndrome.  Maybe I'll bring her here someday, and we'll both meet God together.

Eucharisto - I give thanks.

if you really want to understand about tax collectors

I've seen a lot of press in the blogs about Ted Haggard.  If you don't know who he is, you don't have to.  But if you do, imagine Jesus inviting Ted Haggard to be one of the 12.  No, not inviting him before, inviting him now.

I think then it might begin to dawn on us.

Bruce Dunbar: Eye Candy: at the Common Sense Gallery

Bruce Dunbar: Eye Candy
Solo exhibition of work by long-time Edmonton artist Bruce Dunbar.
Opening Reception with Artist in Attendance
1-4pm, Saturday, February 21, 2009
Common Sense: 10546 - 115 Street, Edmonton Alberta Canada.

via North Edmonton Sculpture Workshop

you who know yourself to be God

I have a fairly modest library on the subject of prayer, and it is a source of much wisdom and advice.  It is difficult for a fellow disciple to provide a full and satisfactory answer to the the request "Teach us to pray".  I have had many experiences of prayer, and one central discipline of prayer, which I can consciously recall over the past two decades. 

I've prayed with charismatics praying in "tongues".  I myself have never experienced that particular thing, though the charismatic Christians with whom I've prayed have also offered what Paul would call "an interpretation", and that was both good and beneficial.  I've also prayed with some folks whose "language of prayer" is rather like the speaking in tongues business, but at an altogether different level.  Praying among a community of persons with intellectual disabilities is an experience in and of itself, and it is something which I find continues to shape my views on prayer and communion with God. 

My own discipline of prayer consists mainly of the daily offices taken from the Anglican Book of Common Prayer.  Morning and evening.  Set forms of prayer.  A way of reading Scripture.  Daily confession.  Daily absolution.  Reminders to pray for those whom I would naturally forget.  And "common" prayer - praying with the communion of saints.  After praying the daily offices for over 20 years (yeah, I started doing it as an undergrad), I find that such a thing continues to shape and form my faith and, indeed, my life.

With all of that as foundation, there is also that occasional expression in and of prayer when my soul is moved in a different way, and, recognizing my own limitations (tower of babel), I have on more than one occasion addressed my prayer to "You who know yourself to be God".
Yes, yes, I know, I know.  It will be almost impossible to convey how this form of prayer is really a conclusion to Christian piety.  Yet this is the place where, through the repeated formative practice of daily common prayer, I am sometimes led.  It is a place of (to steal a phrase) 'penitential adoration' - which doesn't mean what you might think it means.  It is a place of joyful penance (which probably sounds like a happy trip to the dentist).  In the same way, there is a place for a deeper knowledge of God which cannot be expressed using the formative prayer, although it is based upon it, and would not happen without it.

Be still, and know that I am God.

BTW, I'll be on a silent retreat for the next couple of days, which is probably just as well.  If you see a post or two it will most likely be the fancy-shmancy typepad feature which lets you publish a post at a time of your choosing.

committing to the unknown

The mystery of man and woman in marriage is, according to St Paul, something to think about in regard to the relationship between Christ and the church.  Now I have a few people with whom I'm doing "pre-marriage counseling", which for the most part consists of coffee and conversation. 

There are two thoughts which I find important, perhaps the most important, to share.  First, I find it is often the case with young people of faith that they hope that by being married, they can (insert your terms here) do more of God's work; that they can, as a couple be of more use to the kingdom, than if they remain single.  That is, they see the marriage as a means to another end, albeit a noble means and a noble end.  What I try to get across is that I think the marriage itself is the witness, the further work, by which God will speak to their world.

The second point is this:  in taking a marriage vow you are essentially committing yourself to an unknown.  You are committing yourself not to who the person is (that is usually the enticement to marriage), but rather you are committing yourself to whomever the person will become.  And that is to commit yourself to an unknown.

Now what has this to do with Christ and the church?  Well, is it not possible to commit oneself while recognizing at the same time that we are committing, joining ourselves, to an "unknown"?  This works two ways.  Of course we can say that we know something of God, of Jesus.  But we also sign on to who he will reveal himself to be more fully, and that is the unknown.  On our side, I think we also must learn that when we enter this faith, we ourselves are committing to become whatever he wishes us to be - which again is an unknown.  Paul once tried to persuade us that if anyone is in Christ, that person is a new creation.  Not merely a renovation of the old one, but a new creation.  We (or at least I) generally tend to go for the renovation idea - redemption is not really about "new creation";  it is more about transforming who I already am, with all the things which I believe contribute to my identity.  But what would it be like if the offer really was to be a "new creation" - something entirely new born out of the imagination of God?  I think that is the possibility to which we submit ourselves when we truly desire to be "in Christ".  We commit ourselves to becoming something we have not yet even imagined.

Peter Rollins & the Shrine of the Book

There is a wonderful museum in Jerusalem containing the Shrine of the Book.  It houses the oldest "bible" in the world.  It is a testament to the place of sacred text, sacred word, in the life of Judaism, and by extension, to Christians who hold to a sacred text. 

Now Pete didn't say anything about the Shrine of the Book yesterday, but I want to raise it as a point of departure for what we might say or not say about a sacred text (revelation), our relationship to it, and its place in our relationship with God.  One of Pete's themes has been something along the lines of this (my phrasing):  the necessity of moving beyond language.  And by extension, moving beyond a way of reacting to sacred texts.  What I sense in some of Pete's approach is Wittgenstein - a theory of language and logic and reality.  To put it briefly, let us say that language is a ladder by which we climb to reach God.  That is, in one sense, a traditional understanding of what we mean by written revelation in the form of our scriptures.  Except, Wittgenstein says, when you get to the top, in order to progress any further, you need to sort of cast the ladder off.  True enough in one sense:  the fullness of God is beyond language to comprehend - at least language as we use it.

But in all of this there I also have a sense that what is missing is wrestling with the presupposition that language itself is the the way in which revelation occurs for a community.  It is different than simply saying "God 'spoke' to me".  On the one hand language is inadequate to describe God, yet I suggest that a defensible starting point is that we are creatures for whom language is a necessary part of knowing and loving God.  We are zoon logon politikon, as the Greeks would say. We are animals who use language and live in cities:  language and community are related.  Added to this, we have the use of language/thought used in language to describe or express the internal life of God.  The prologue to John's gospel uses the "language of language" (are you following that?) to describe God's internal relationships.  The word was God.  So one of my points in yesterday's conversation was this:  our use of language is really an imitation of, an image of, something which is already expressed in God:  the relationship between the One and the Word.  As such, it remains with us - we need to continue to use language, because it is part of our imaging of God's own internal life.

house, somewhat falling, Turkey

photo Joe Walker 2008

Theolojazz tonight with Peter Rollins

at Dewey's, on the U of A campus.  The format will be back and forth between Peter and the Elphida Trio.  Starts at 8:30 pm.  If you are looking for parking, use the HUB mall parking lot.  Campus maps here.

My dinner with Peter Rollins

consisted of Thai food, but I think tomorrow someone is going to arrange for some home grown western Canadian bison (sorry to the vegetarians in the crowd).

Anyway, Peter arrived safe and sound and the temperature here in Edmonton was a balmy 5 degrees today.  There was a point at which I thought we might be in an Arctic cold front, with dips down to -30 or so.  But apparently the weather patterns pushed all the cold air masses away from us and over toward Saskatchewan and Manitoba.  To which I say: simply shows where divine favours lay...

I'm looking forward to things starting up tomorrow (schedule here).  There were 5 of us at dinner tonight:  Peter, Darrel Muth, Eric Ohlman, Jim Robertson & me (I thought putting a hyperlink to my own blog would be superfluous, instead, I just talked about myself for the rest of the sentence). 

Wide and varied conversation;  some covering of last minute details, some personal introductions, some discussion of the various ways in which we relate to God and one another, some talk of Jean Vanier's notion of "community of the heart".  With that in mind, I was reminded of what an odd placement of things.  Earlier in the day I'm looking at a text for teaching math to people with Down Syndrome, and later in the evening I'm thinking about the relationship between faith and postmodernity.  But it's all there in a previous post on Aquinas and Bonaventure (at least in embyo form).  Anyway, all this is to say that we need to examine and form our faith communities in ways which connect people to God and to one another which engages the whole person.  I'll say more about that when I know more about it.

And on a further note, while I've had the invitation to sit in with the Elphida trio for Friday evening's theolojazz, I've yet to decide. It's pretty tempting, though.  I recently adjusted the Seymour Duncan pickups on the archtop...

just confirmed Epsilon for an evening

and who or what is Epsilon?

Epsilon is a contemporary vocal ensemble consisting of five members with extensive backgrounds in jazz, classical, and choral music.

their website, their facebook

Sunday March 15th at 7PM, at our place: 8420 - 145 street
more details to follow

two guys died in the year 1274

One was St Thomas Aquinas:

I answer that, It was necessary for man's salvation that there should be a knowledge revealed by God besides philosophical science built up by human reason. Firstly, indeed, because man is directed to God, as to an end that surpasses the grasp of his reason: "The eye hath not seen, O God, besides Thee, what things Thou hast prepared for them that wait for Thee" (Isaiah 64:4). But the end must first be known by men who are to direct their thoughts and actions to the end. Hence it was necessary for the salvation of man that certain truths which exceed human reason should be made known to him by divine revelation. Even as regards those truths about God which human reason could have discovered, it was necessary that man should be taught by a divine revelation; because the truth about God such as reason could discover, would only be known by a few, and that after a long time, and with the admixture of many errors. Whereas man's whole salvation, which is in God, depends upon the knowledge of this truth. Therefore, in order that the salvation of men might be brought about more fitly and more surely, it was necessary that they should be taught divine truths by divine revelation. It was therefore necessary that besides philosophical science built up by reason, there should be a sacred science learned through revelation.
(Summa - Prima Pars)

the other was St Bonaventure:

The source of sacred Scripture was not human research but divine revelation.  This revelation comes from the Father of Light from whom the whole concept of fatherhood in heaven and on earth derives.  From him, through Jesus Christ his Son, the Holy Spirit enters into us.  Then, through the Holy Spirit who allots and apportions his gifts to each person as he wishes, we receive the gift of faith, and through faith Christ lives in our hearts.  So we come to know Christ and this knowledge becomes the main source of a firm understanding of the truth of all sacred Scripture.
(On Understanding Scripture: Prologus: Opera Omnia 5, 201)

If you ask how such things can occur, seek the answer in God’s grace, not in doctrine; in the longing of the will, not in the understanding; in the sighs of prayer, not in research; seek the bridegroom not the teacher; God and not man; darkness not daylight; and look not to the light but rather to the raging fire that carries the soul to God with intense fervour and glowing love. The fire is God, and the furnace is in Jerusalem, fired by Christ in the ardour of his loving passion.
(Journey Into the Mind of God: Cap. 7,1 2.4.6: Opera Omnia, 5, 313)

Do you see a difference between the two approaches?  I like putting these two authors side by side.  You can certainly see a difference in approach (although Bonaventure as well had his share of structured writing).  There are parts of me which resonate with Aquinas' approach to the subject of theology and scripture, and parts which resonate with Bonaventure's approach.  Yet the two are saints in the same church.  I believe that they essentially (a good Aristotelian word) are saying much the same things, or at least things which complement each other.

University of Calgary: pro-life students charged

Students who oppose abortion have been charged with trespassing in an ongoing dispute with the University of Calgary.

"In a blatant attack on the spirit of free speech, the University of Calgary has issued summons to bring its own students ... for expressing their beliefs," said Campus Pro-Life president Leah Hallman.

University administrators had asked the club to turn billboards featuring graphic images of aborted fetuses inward, so those who didn't wish to see them could pass. But students refused to make the change during their two-day protest on the campus at the end of November.

More than two months later, three students have been charged with trespassing and three others are expecting summonses.

Hallman said her group intends to plead not guilty during their first court appearance Feb. 27.

Edmonton Journal

Interestingly, the way one uses words is all part of it, isn't it?  For my own post title I used "pro life", but the Journal article uses "abortion foes" in its headline...

Anglican Primates' Meeting: a "fog of confusion"

The 2009 Primates’ Meeting in Alexandria, Egypt, has opened in a fog of confusion with little expectation the five day meeting will resolve the Anglican crisis...the primates appear exhausted and frustrated, unsure of their authority within the Anglican Communion and the purpose of the meeting.

article by George Conger, at religious intelligence

Paul Feheley, Principal Secretary to the Primate, is accompanying Archbishop Fred Hiltz to the Primates' Meeting in Alexandria, Egypt.  He has a report here.

I've never had the opportunity to worship in the Anglican church in Alexandria, but I have some wonderful memories of worshiping with the congregation in the Anglican cathedral in Cairo.  If I dig out a pic or two I'll post them.  There is also an article at the Anglican Journal, in which we learn that the Archbishop of Canterbury was greeted by the Coptic Pope, Shenouda III.  Personally, I think the Copts are where it is at.