felix hominum

Palm Sunday sermon notes: Turning Palms into Crosses

(edited repost:  Palm Sunday Sermon)

How is it that we turn palms into crosses?  Every year we try our best to take these long strips of palm branch and by some feat of engineering, we turn them into crosses.  We sometimes don’t fully understand what exactly we are doing.  We take these things which are supposed to be instruments of joyfulness and praise for Jesus, and we turn them into crosses, forgetting that this represents the very thing on which Jesus was crucified.  We usually never consider that strange custom that has evolved in the church over the years.  The very same things that are supposed to praise God, are turned against Jesus.  How does this palm branch turn into a cross?

It is easy to forget, as we wave a little cross, that it is an instrument of death.  We see that palm branch, we turn it into an empty cross, and we conveniently pass over the suffering and death in between.  The cross was not always empty.

This is the beginning of Holy Week. Today we started with shouts of Hosanna.  Next Sunday is Easter - the day of resurrection and shouts of Alleluia.  But we are not there yet.  Between the shouts of Hosanna and the shouts of Alleluia there is another shout:  “Crucify him, Crucify him.”  "’Why, what evil has he done? I have found in him no ground for the sentence of death; I will therefore have him flogged and then release him.’ But they kept urgently demanding with loud shouts that he should be crucified; and their voices prevailed.”  

    We have had two sets of readings this morning, each set painting a picture before us.  We started off the morning with a parade and shouts of joy.  The first picture is the “Palm Sunday” picture.  It is all about the crowds welcoming Jesus into Jerusalem with shouts of Hosanna.  The second picture we have today is the “Good Friday” picture.  It is about the same crowds shouting “Crucify Him” and about how Jesus endures the suffering of the Cross.

    What do we learn when we see these two pictures side by side?  We learn about love.  In the first picture we learn about how the crowds, and we, love Jesus.  Let’s call that “Palm Sunday” love.  In the second picture we learn about how Jesus loves the crowds – and us.  Let’s call that “Good Friday” love.  These two kinds of love – Palm Sunday love and Good Friday love, show us the difference between how we love, and how God loves.

(Palm Sunday Love)

    First there is the love which the crowds show to Jesus on Palm Sunday.  It is exciting, it is loud and it is a big show.  They welcome Him into Jerusalem with palm branches and songs and shouts of joy:  “Hosanna to the Son of David”.  They are welcoming Jesus as their King into the throne of David.  But within a few days that same crowd turns on Jesus.  When Pilate asks them what they want to do with this Jesus, this King of the Jews, they reply – “Crucify Him”.  What is wrong with this picture?  

    It is not lack of enthusiasm.  They were enthusiastic when they shouted “Hosanna to the son of David”.  Yet they were just as enthusiastic when they shouted “Crucify Him”.  If we think love is about putting on a big show, or just being enthusiastic, we need to think again.   The crowd was pretty enthusiastic when things were going well for Jesus.  Palm Sunday love is like that.  It loves when there is a good time to be had, and it stops loving when there are bad times to be had.  This way of loving changes with the weather, or with the circumstances. Status, appearance, health, reputation – all these things matter to Palm Sunday love.  Loving a person – any person, including Jesus, means you love them regardless of their circumstances.   You can love the person, or you can love the things around the person.   The crowds didn’t love the person of Jesus.  They loved the show, the power, the miracles, the idea that this man would be their king.

        It is a test of our love for any person – including God – whether we love them just for who they are, or we love them because of the stuff around them.  Not many people were left loving Jesus when he was being crucified, when everything glamorous and exciting was gone from him.  Jesus died alone.

    Is love about being “happy”, whatever we think that word means?  The Palm Sunday crowd is very happy to have Jesus around.  But they are also just as happy to have Him crucified.  This is the more difficult part of the problem.  Love is not about the crowds being happy.  And love is not about me being happy.  Too often we think that it is.  We think that love is supposed to be there for my sole benefit – that love is there to make me happy.  Palm Sunday love is self-serving.  It says “I don’t care what happens to you, as long as I am happy – that is what matters.”  It says “I will love you as long as I get something out of it.”  My happiness is the supreme goal of life.  And this kind of love says – “I will love you for as long as it is convenient for me, for as long as I am getting something out of it, as long as you make me happy – I will love you.”

    It is a test of our love for God and for each other.  Do we still love when we are not “getting something out of it?”  Do I love only when it makes me happy?  Am I more concerned about my own happiness than the happiness of the person I am supposed to be loving?  Love is not self-centered or self-serving.__

(Good Friday Love)

    Now let us think about the Good Friday picture.  What do we think we are seeing when we get a picture of the crucifixion of Jesus?  Do we think we are seeing a man suffering?  Yes, but more than that.  Do we think we are seeing the fulfillment of prophecy?  Yes, and more than that?  We are seeing a picture of love.  On Palm Sunday we see a picture of our love for God, on Good Friday we see a picture of God’s love for us.

How is Jesus’ love for us, different from our love for Him?

(Commitment)

    Six centuries before Jesus was born, the prophet Isaiah wrote some words describing the Messiah that God was going to send.  Here are the words Isaiah wrote about the Messiah who would come, and what that Messiah would be like:  

I gave my back to those who struck me, and my cheeks to those who pulled out the beard; I did not hide my face from insult and spitting.  The Lord GOD helps me; therefore I have not been disgraced; therefore I have set my face like flint.

“I have set my face like flint”.  

    What does that tell us about Jesus’ character? About his love?  It tells us about his determination.  He has a strength of willpower that says – I will do what I need to do.  Jesus shows us that the foundation of love is commitment.  He set his face like flint – against everything that will come his way.  _We get enthusiastic – but Jesus gets determined.  Good Friday love means commitment.  It means commitment regardless of the  circumstances.  Jesus is committed to us when the circumstances change.  He loves us when we are shouting “Hosanna” and he loves us when we are shouting “Away with this man.”  Jesus loves us when that love is not returned.  He loves us regardless of how we treat him.  He simply loves us.  He is not merely enthusiastic about loving us when things are great; he is committed to loving us when things are darkest, for us and for him.  He loves us when we shout “Crucify Him, Crucify Him.”   That is not only the darkest moment for Jesus.  It is also the darkest moment for us – when we cry out in rebellion against God.  

How does Jesus react to our treatment of him?  How did he react then?  “I gave my back to those who struck me, and my cheeks to those who pulled out the beard; I did not hide my face from insult and spitting.”   How does God react to our treatment of Him?  He puts up with it; he endures it – remember Jesus prayed while he was being led away for crucifixion – “Father forgive them, they do not know what they are doing”.  What happens when love faces a challenge?  That is when love is tested.  That is when we see what love is really made of  - is it Palm Sunday love, or is it Good Friday love?   That is when Jesus is tested.  Jesus prays forgiveness.

(Self sacrifice, rather than self service)

    Whose happiness is Jesus concerned about as he is being crucified?  His own, or someone else’s?  Jesus is willing to endure suffering, and insults, and even death, for the sake of someone else’s happiness – yours and mine.  He did not turn back from suffering because he loved us.  Good Friday love is willing to endure the wrongs of others, to put its own happiness second place, for the sake of someone else.  We have nothing that we can give to God.  God is not in this for what “He can get out of it”.  He is “in it” because He loves us.  

Jesus’ attitude and his actions are not changed by other people’s reactions to him.  Our love is often changed by other people’s attitudes and reactions.  It is part of the “what do I get out of it” syndrome.  Jesus’ love for us does not depend on how well we treat him.  Look at what happens to him.  And look how he reacts.

    How do we get this new kind of love?  At best, most of us are caught between the two kinds of love – we perhaps admire the Good Friday love, but more often than not we practice the Palm Sunday love.  Good Friday love is great to see – in other people.   How do we grow in our love and move from one to the other?   Not by struggling to be better, or by making new resolutions to be a better person, or through he myriads of self help books that line the shelves of secular and sacred book shops.  It is a gift, as everything from God is.  It is the highest and best gift of all the gifts of the Spirit – and it is the only gift which will last. For that gift, let us pray.

the church at prayer

 

Coptic area, Old Cairo
photo Joe Walker, 2007

Partnering with the Council of the North, one parish at a time

Rita lives on the Red Earth Reserve, about three hours northeast of Prince Albert. There are around 2,000 people living on the Reserve, with a large population of children and youth. Rita herself has six children, 32 grandchildren, and 20 great-grandchildren. Many families on the Red Earth Reserve struggle with poverty, although Rita describes the conditions as “not too poor, compared to some other places.” St. Stephen’s Anglican Church, where Rita serves, is a small building that is only heated for services. “I often arrive first to start the fire,” she notes when asked about the cold winter days.

The people of St. Timothy’s Church in Edmonton were moved by a presentation at their Synod last year about the conditions of many Reserves, and that the clergy there are not paid for their ministry work. The ACW group of the church offered to become a partner with Rita and her work at Red Earth, and raised $500 to help out. When they challenged their congregation to match this amount, they were thrilled to see it more than triple!

From the diocese of Saskatchewan website.

I mention this for a couple of reasons.  First, I think it vitally important that local parishes have partnerships with other parishes.  And I do want to stress the word partnership.  This is a time when there is much fraction and division within our Anglican family.  And no, I don't bury my head in the sand (or snow, if you are more northern) and pretend that these difficulties do not exist, or that they are going to magically disappear any time soon.  But at the same time that need not prevent us from, well, loving our neighbours in the most practical and sincere ways we can.

Second, I wanted to thank all the members of St Timothy's, Edmonton, for supporting this work, and understanding that they are part of a larger family of Anglicans.  I suspect that many of us act as if we are a congregational style church. "Me in my small corner, and you in yours" - as the old hymn used to say.  But that vision of church is, I think, not true to the vision of Christ, nor of the apostles, nor of the Fathers.  And while we may not, as individual parishes, find ourselves able to solve all the questions of ecclesiological confusion, we are able, as individual parishes, to exercise our commitment to be part of the larger family.

Third, I think it is a visible reminder, not that such parishes as St Stephen's "need" parishes like St Tim's.  Rather, I really think it works the other way around.  We at St Timothy's would be poorer as a church without developing a partnership with a parish like St Stephen's.  Our diocesan Dean recently returned from a visit to another Canadian Council of the North diocese, and we think there might be more opportunities to share resources - human, spiritual, financial.

Draw your church together, Lord into one great company of disciples, together following our Lord Jesus Christ into every walk of life, together serving Him in His mission to the world, and  together witnessing to His love on every continent and island, through the power of the Holy Spirit.

John 12: 20-33 sermon notes Lent 5 Year B

sermon notes Lent 5 Year B, John 12: 20-33

Now among those who went up to worship at the festival were some Greeks.  They came to Philip, who was from Bethsaida in Galilee, and said to him, "Sir, we wish to see Jesus."

Apparently Philip was a "known accomplice" of Jesus.  How else could one explain the scenario that some Greeks, coming up for the festival, approach him in order to see Jesus?  I find this a fascinating dynamic as I try to imagine what it is that is happening in this scene.  Notice that they did not go right up to Jesus, these people who were looking to find him.  They first approached Philip and asked him about Jesus.  Apparently Philip was the type of person whom they could approach to find out about seeing Jesus.  Was Philip the kind of disciple who invited this kind of approach?  I mean, if someone was looking to get connected to Jesus, whom would they approach?

It seems to me that Philip has two qualities:  he is approachable and he is identifiable.  I believe that effective evangelism involves both.  There can be an error on either side.  One can be so "approachable" in a bad sense that one is merely accomodating to whatever the inquiry is.  Yet on the other side one needs to be cautious as to what "being identifiable" really looks like.  Apparently, in the case of Philip, the persons in question were sufficiently confident of his relationship with Jesus (in the obvious sense) that they were confident that he could lead them to see Jesus.  Philip, by inference, strikes me as having that combination:  he is approachable and yet he is unmistakably identified as one of Jesus' followers;  Philip can help others to see Jesus because he himself has seen Him, and walked with Him.  We cannot help others to look at someone we ourselves have not seen.

Philip went and told Andrew; then Andrew and Philip went and told Jesus.

Philip needs some backup - he gets Andrew, and then together they tell Jesus.  And it is here that Jesus really begins to answer the "wish" that was expressed.  What is it, really, to "see Jesus"?  Jesus addresses a similar question when he asked people about John the Baptist - "what did you come out to see?"  What is it that we think we will find when we "see Jesus"?  I'm not certain we are prepared for what we will find:

Jesus answered them, "The hour has come for the Son of Man to be glorified.  Very truly, I tell you, unless a grain of wheat falls into the earth and dies, it remains just a single grain; but if it dies, it bears much fruit.  Those who love their life lose it, and those who hate their life in this world will keep it for eternal life.

Do you still wish to see Jesus?  Perhaps he is a bit different from what you imagined.  If you gave up chocolate for Lent and thought you were doing okay, then how about the next step?  How about giving up your life?  This stark contrast between Jesus being "glorified" and the image of the insignificant grain of wheat falling and dying gives us a picture of Jesus. This is the Jesus whom we don't always want to see.  Perhaps the Greeks who were looking for him wanted to see the miracle worker, the spectacle, the teacher.  There is a sense in which "seeing" is merely observing.  And if they, or we, want to observe Jesus, here is what we get:  the glorious spectacle of death;  the sight of a grain of wheat being crushed into the dirt.

Then Jesus turns to us:  those who live their life lose it, and those who hate their life in this world will keep it for eternal life.  Jesus will not stand to be merely the object of "seeing".  You cannot merely look at him and understand.  Instead, Jesus invites us onto the same path. You cannot see Him without following Him.  That is the core of His message.  We will never see Him for who He is, unless we are willing to follow in his path.  He cannot be "observed" from a distance.  "You wish to see Jesus?"  Then begin by losing your life, as He did.  "Whoever serves me must follow me, and where I am, there will my servant be also."

This is the hard stuff which separates being a Christian from being a mere observer of the Christian religion.  Personally, I'd rather go with something a bit softer, but you know, Lent and all that.  At any rate, if we follow Jesus, we follow him all the way to the cross.

It was at this particular point that I was thinking of something entirely different for another post.  You know that scene from "300", where the Spartans come across the rest of the Greeks?  The other Greeks say - Hey Leonidas, looks like we have more soldiers than you...  And the Spartan leader simply begins asking them - you there, what's your profession?  And then the replies come out - baker, carpenter, whatever...  He then turns to the Spartans - "What is your profession?"  Of course his point is clear:  the Spartans are soldiers, that is their identity, as opposed to the other Greeks, who simply put on the identity of soldier in this time of war.  And so 300 Spartans, who know their primary identity. are worth more than 3000 other Greeks who simply try to be soldiers when the need arises.  I sort of was going to do a post on this topic, but thought I would throw it in here.  Jesus challenges us:  what is your primary identity?  The analogy is not perfect, but I do think it is apt.  300 Spartans - committed and loyal to their leader are worth more than a thousand Athenians who are soldiers of convenience.  And do we in our churches see the two groups?  Give me a few Spartans over numerous Athenians any day.  But I digress.

lenten series: Bernard of Clairvaux On Loving God, pt 5

So then in the beginning man loves God, not for God's sake, but for his own. It is something for him to know how little he can do by himself and how much by God's help, and in that knowledge to order himself rightly towards God, his sure support.

But when tribulations, recurring again and again, constrain him to turn to God for unfailing help, would not even a heart as hard as iron, as cold as marble, be softened by the goodness of such a Savior, so that he would love God not altogether selfishly, but because He is God?

Bernard of Clairvaux - On Loving God ch. ix

In the first degree of love, we love God for "self's sake".  That is, we love God for what God can do for us.  We are pleased to receive God's benefits and blessings, and as we do so we are drawn to love Him.  But will we still love God when "tribulations, recurring again and again" break upon us? This is the movement from loving God because of His benefits presently enjoyed, to loving God because of His care for us in the midst of troubles.  As Bernard puts it, can we begin to love God simply "because He is God"?

Bernard also gives us a way of approaching hardships in life.  They are redeemable in that we begin to seek God despite them.  It is analogous to the marriage vow of loving "for better, for worse".  The test of love does not come in the better, in comes in the worse.  The analogy breaks down when we realize that it is not the Beloved who has become worse, only the circumstances of our lives.  It is God's presence in hardship and despite hardship which begins to fashion in us a newer and deeper degree of love. 

Let frequent troubles drive us to frequent supplications; and surely, tasting, we must see how gracious the Lord is (Ps. 34.8). Thereupon His goodness once realized draws us to love Him unselfishly, yet more than our own needs impel us to love Him selfishly: even as the Samaritans told the woman who announced that it was Christ who was at the well: `Now we believe, not because of thy saying: for we have heard Him ourselves, and know that this is indeed the Christ, the savior of the world' (John 4.42). 

This is a fairly interesting use of the story of the woman at the well.  In a figurative interpretation, Bernard says that our "need" functions like the woman - they announce to us the presence of Christ. Then a deeper part of us replies that we can see and love God better; not simply because our needs announced that they were being looked after.  Loving God for the sake of our "needs" impels us to love selfishly;  we will love only as long as our "needs" are met.  But as God meets those needs He also draws us onward in a place of "troubles".

I don't find it clear from the text that God creates the troubles, merely that He uses them for this higher purpose.  Nor is it clear that God's response is merely to change our circumstances again to what they were.  Rather, the goal seems to be to recognize God's goodness in the midst of hardships.  And I might say, from my own limited experience, that is quite a leap to make.  But worth it if it is made...

Lenten post series on Bernard of Clairvaux here

Which, btw, seems to missing post #4, but that is a mystery which I will need to address another time...

the rock churches of central Cappadocia

The early Christian communities of Cappadocia.  I think the thing which most strikes visitors is the contrast between the sheer rock and stone of the exterior, and the rich decoration of the interior.  The first shot shows the beginning of the internal structure;  it was exposed after earthquake damage.  I think this to be an apt symbol for the life of the monastic and the hermit.  From a purely external point of view, all one sees is the harsh discipline of the ascetic life.  But within, hidden from view, is the rich spiritual life of one who devoted to Christ.

For sale: Professional Goaltending Equipment

Barely used...

Call the Colorado Avalanche for details.

Special Olympics: top bowler challenges Obama

A bit of a response to President Obama's "mis-speak" during his appearance on Leno.

Special Olympics offers to send bowler to White House

COREY WILLIAMS
Associated Press
March 20, 2009 at 1:36 PM EDT

ANN ARBOR, Mich. — The Special Olympics Michigan president said Friday she'd welcome the opportunity to send the nonprofit's top bowler to the White House.

U.S. President Barack Obama made an offhand remark on The Tonight Show Thursday comparing his bowling to “the Special Olympics or something.” He quickly apologized and told the Special Olympics chairman he wants to have some Special Olympic athletes visit the White House to bowl or play basketball.

Kolan McConiughey, who is cognitively impaired, has bowled five perfect games since 2005, said Special Olympics Michigan President Lois Arnold.

“It would be an honour for him to bowl with the president of the United States,” Ms. Arnold said.

Mr. McConiughey said Friday it's been that long since he last bowled a low score like Mr. Obama's 129, and challenged the president to a bowling match.

“He bowled a 129. I bowl a 300. I could beat that score easily,” Mr. McConiughey said in the Colonial Lanes bowling alley in Ann Arbor.

article at the Globe and Mail

I'm writing to the embassy...

To:  The Anglican Church of Canada
Re:  Your "blog" Vision 2019

Sir:

I have received word that one of the comments under my care has been held "in moderation" for over 1 week.  In this time I have had no assurance that my comment "in moderation" has been properly cared for, nor has this comment been allowed (under the terms of the Silicone Valley Convention) to communicate with other comments in your Vision 2019 "blog".

This comment was sent in good faith on March 12, 2009.  The comment itself was unarmed, and was a member in good standing of the Anglican Church of Canada.  It was baptized and confirmed in the Diocese of Edmonton, and had served faithfully on two local internet parish councils.  While I understand that some care needs to be taken in assigning server space, I anticipate that the comment under consideration has felt excluded from the conversation, and will most likely need extensive pastoral counseling when and if it is ever released back into cyberspace.

I am therefore writing what is known in the business as a "Strongly Worded Letter" to the Queen, and expect that you will take the appropriate action.  If by chance you have permanently deleted my comment, or have somehow found it offensive, let me offer the following by way of replacement:

“I have been called both “fundamentalist” and “pietist” by unsympathetic readers, since they put me in an already-closed slot in their minds, to which they had relegated the use of the Bible. They did not read me carefully enough to be aware that my reading of the scriptural texts was post- and not pre- critical.”
The Politics of Jesus Revisited (1997) John Howard Yoder

I suspect that there are a number of people for whom the appearance of any opposition to SSB on biblical or theological grounds needs to be reduced to a charge of "fundamentalism/literalism", but that is simply not the case.  There is simply a failure to admit that one can hold such a view in a post-critical age.

Indeed, I have found that this episode has caused me such personal anguish that I must break my Lenten fast, and seek solace with a 1998 Pinot Noir.

Yours truly, etc

from a cafe in Istanbul

photo©Joe Walker

sermon notes Lent 4, Year B, John 3:14-21

Related: 
Year B Lent 1
Year B Lent 2
Year B Lent 3
Year B Lent 5

Near Mt Nebo, Jordan
photo © Joe Walker 2005

And just as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up,
that whoever believes in him may have eternal life.

On a clear day, with clear vision, you can just make out Jerusalem from there.  I'll add some text in a day or two.

The story of the bronze serpent is found in Numbers 21: 4-9

The people spoke against God and against Moses, ‘Why have you brought us up out of Egypt to die in the wilderness? For there is no food and no water, and we detest this miserable food.’ Then the Lord sent poisonous serpents among the people, and they bit the people, so that many Israelites died. The people came to Moses and said, ‘We have sinned by speaking against the Lord and against you; pray to the Lord to take away the serpents from us.’ So Moses prayed for the people. And the Lord said to Moses, ‘Make a poisonous serpent, and set it on a pole; and everyone who is bitten shall look at it and live.’ So Moses made a serpent of bronze, and put it upon a pole; and whenever a serpent bit someone, that person would look at the serpent of bronze and live.

The bronze serpent pops up again in 2 Kings 18:  [Hezekiah] removed the high places, broke down the pillars, and cut down the sacred pole. He broke in pieces the bronze serpent that Moses had made, for until those days the people of Israel had made offerings to it; it was called Nehushtan. 

It is a fascinating event.  It is one of those biblical stories which leaves modern consciousness reeling to find an explanation for the whole episode.  The serpent is both the agent of destruction and the agent of healing.  The very thing which brings death also, in another context, brings life.  But the passage from 2 Kings gives some food for thought:  is there a tendency to turn to, and worship, the means of salvation, instead of the God of salvation? 

At any rate, it would appear a completely absurd invention on the part of God to have this particular sign as the means by which the obstinate & complaining company of the Israelites were to be healed.  It is here that I think of the typology of the cross.  If it is absurd to think of looking upon the bronze serpent, then it is also absurd to think the same of looking to the crucified Jesus.  This is, I think, the first instance of what Paul will later call the foolishness of the cross.  God is completely capable of arranging things in such a manner that they look, well, quite strange.  But that is God's call, not mine.

Jesus picks up this story and reveals it to be typology, that is, an event which has a significance beyond itself.  This is different from treating it as allegory, but we can get into that later.  I suspect this typology can work in a few ways.  We see the obvious connection intended between the serpent "lifted up" and Jesus "lifted up".  The serpent is a thing both of death/judgment and life.  As is Jesus:  in the passage from John he clearly intends that there be redemption, but there is talk of evil/judgment. 

Thinking back to modern-day Jordan, where the memorial of the bronze serpent is, you can see into the "promised land" on a clear day.  I've stood there a few times over the years.  It is a marvellous act to look at the serpent, and then to realize that as you gaze, you are looking toward the promised land.  It is a sort of living geographical typology.  When we look to Jesus on the cross, as despised as a serpent, we can see past the cross toward the resurrection, the place of salvation.

ed - today (as I write this) being the feast of St Joseph, I think I'll honour my patron with a modestly extravagant lunch... back in a while.

And just as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that whoever believes in him may have eternal life.  "For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not perish but may have eternal life.  "Indeed, God did not send the Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.

Those who believe in him are not condemned; but those who do not believe are condemned already, because they have not believed in the name of the only Son of God.  And this is the judgment, that the light has come into the world, and people loved darkness rather than light because their deeds were evil.  For all who do evil hate the light and do not come to the light, so that their deeds may not be exposed.  But those who do what is true come to the light, so that it may be clearly seen that their deeds have been done in God."

As a Lenten passage, this text speaks of redemption out of judgment.  Notice that the source of the judgment here is not Jesus, but ourselves.  The "exposing power" of light (a favourite theme in John) is used to show the contrast between good and evil.  While many might be tempted to end the message after the comforting words of v 16, the text we have continues on.  Judgment seems to be based solely on this:  what (or whom) do you love? Darkness prevents sight, prevents one from "looking" at what has been lifted up.  Darkness ends in the choice not to look upward. 

There is always (at least for me) a struggle with how to address the element of judgment in such texts.  It is certainly good news that Jesus' purpose is not to condemn, but rather to save (from ourselves?).  And yet I sense that it is not the case that Jesus cannot condemn (he has lots of harsh words in the gospel), but rather that there is no need for evidence other than our own deeds in order to do so. 

Route with few bumps:  stick to an allegorized harmony of the two stories...look to God...look to Jesus on the cross, no matter how absurd it may seem.  Look upward.  God loves the world. Yada Yada Yada...

Route with bumps:  the agent of judgment/death is also the agent of salvation.  This is why Jesus brings in the reference.  The means of salvation may appear abhorrent, but it is the only means.  It meant, for Jesus, becoming the serpent ("he became sin who knew no sin") in order to bring healing.

There's a mission field in your own backyard

I’m excited about planting seeds, and so I’m watching the local weather forecast these days.  And for good reason:  it’s all tied to my latest long term mission project.  Fortunately I don’t have to raise too many funds for travel with this project;  just walk about 15 feet past our garage.  You see, there’s a mission field right in your own backyard.  Or at least there is in mine.

We have a modest house on a reasonably sized lot.  Every winter for the past number of years we’ve continued one of those great Canadian traditions:  the backyard rink.  In an era when fewer and fewer neighbours get to know each other, the backyard rink is a magnet for kids (and their dads) to get together.  Nothing beats a game of dads against kids on a backyard rink. It comes complete with the requisite hot chocolate and “running up the score” on some fathers who just can’t quite seem to stop the puck from going in the net. I suppose some might think it unfair that one net is only four feet wide, while the other net happens to be the entire width of the Dads’ end of the rink. You can almost hear the ground itself cry out:  “I am CANADIAN”.  It’s a place where you can build community, build relationships, and find a relaxed venue in which to share some things – including your faith – with your neighbours.  Sometimes mission is just that simple.

Which brings me back to the weather forecast.  In spring, summer and fall the big rectangle at the side of the garage serves as a vegetable garden. I think this year we will try to host a bit of a community garden.   Neighbourhood corn boil anyone?  Let the neighbours bring the butter, and you can be the salt of the earth.

I’m excited about planting seeds.

speakeasy

is happening on March 29 at 7pm, 8420 - 145 St.  I'm not entirely certain what it will involve, but here are some of the things I expect:

some Charlie Parker transcribed for guitar, with piano & percussion.

some kind of crunchy stuff under your feet.

some sort of drink.

Vision 2019: why my comments are lost in the limbo that is the Anglican Church website

Comment 1:

Bob Bettson, Dauphin says:
March 11, 2009 at 3:30 pm

I afraid this post is an example of the kind of extreme rhetoric which is disrespectful of our Primate and our Bishops. There has been all too much of this during the current debate. If the poster thinks the church leadership is apostate, he doesn’t know what he is talking about. These are faithful servants of Christ and the church trying their best to deal sensitively with difficult issues at a difficult time.

The writer thinks no motion should have even gone forward on blessing of same sex unions because scripture clearly has spoken. The writer should know many of us believe scripture has not spoken in the way he thinks. Instead we believe that it is selective literalism of the kind that the Anglican Church has never embraced which brings about such an extreme position.
Those of us who remain in the Anglican Church of Canada are followers of Christ and believers in the word. We celebrate the Eucharist Sunday by Sunday, preach the Gospel, care for the sick, study the Bible. How dare Frank W. judge us all and declare those faithful Bishops, clergy and lay people who remain in the church as apostate.

Property matters have nothing to do with greed. The churches have been built and maintained for years by faithful Anglicans. They don’t deserve to be taken by literalist/fundamentalists who have little grasp of our Anglican tradition of diversity and tolerance. The pattern of parishes leaving and trying to keep the building seems to rely completely on having a literalist/fundamentalist incumbent who has conditioned the people with many years of anti-Anglican rhetoric.

Comment caught in Limbo:

Joseph Walker says:

Your comment is awaiting moderation.

March 12, 2009 at 10:18 pm

Bob, with all due respect, I find that your use of the literalist/fundamentalist “nom de terror” is precisely the kind of “extreme rhetoric” which you say is disrepectful.

I tend to think that there is a third option, perhaps best articulated by John Howard Yoder: “I have been called both “fundamentalist” and “pietist” by unsympathetic readers, since they put me in an already-closed slot in their minds, to which they had relegated the use of the Bible. They did not read me carefully enough to be aware that my reading of the scriptural texts was post- and not pre- critical.”

John Howard Yoder: “The Politics of Jesus Revisited” (1997)

Perhaps my comment did not meet the suggested criterion:

Vision 2019 welcomes a range of contributions to the "Tell us your story" project--from affirming to critical. Comments are monitored, however, to ensure that a respectful conversation can take place. We ask that you be relatively brief and that your language be respectful to others. You must also provide your name, place of residence (city or town is adequate) and parish.

If so, then I heartily apologize.

If, however, the problem seems to be that after 5 days no one at head office can decide whether or not the suggestion that there is a post-critical reading of the text which is neither literalist nor fundamentalist can be posted publicly, well, then, my work is done here.

Or just beginning.

(I wonder if the literalists/fundamentalists are people like this,(BA,MA,MRel,ThD) who also seem to be this.)

the Sheepcat: "A Changed Heart"

...I came out to my friends and family. The column on gay and lesbian issues I wrote in the mid-80s was one of the first of its kind in a student newspaper in Canada. I represented the Waterloo student group on Toronto's Gay Community Dance Committee, which organized fundraising dances at the (Lord, have mercy!) Masonic Temple. I joined in countless marches and demonstrations for gay rights. You've heard of disco bunnies, who spent all their time on the dance floor; my lover's roommate aptly pegged me as a "Movement bunny."

...I realized I needed to examine whether gay sex was compatible with living a life wholly devoted to Christ. I finally concluded that it wasn't, at which time the break I'd been taking from sex with guys turned permanent.

I came to think of myself as a celibate gay man and later to renounce altogether the gay identity that had once been fundamental to my self-image.

From the Sheepcat's blog.  This selection is from "part 1".  There is also a "part 2" and he writes that a "part 3" is coming soon. 

I've known the Sheepcat (both online and in person) for several years and consider him a friend.  Blessings in Christ.

Jon Buller, I never said thank you

Canadian musician Steve Bell was in town recently with a few friends:  jazz pianist Mike Janzen & singer/songwriter Jon Buller.  The local date of the tour also included some numbers by the newly signed Kerri Woelke. 

I love Steve Bell's easy story-telling style.  He weaves music and memories together.  I was tempted to say "at his performances", but I have never had the sense that his shows/concerts are performances.  He has an unmatched stage presence. 

I was really delighted to hear Jon Buller again.  I had the privilege of working with him many years ago for a one-off weekend event in Winnipeg - he provided the music for a regional event & I think I came up some sort of talks/events, under the auspices of some great folks from the local Anglican diocese.  I had never listened to his music prior to that event, and picked up a couple of his CDs.  One of his songs has had a special place in my heart for a long time.  It was just around the time that we received the news that SJ was suffering from congestive heart failure in the womb, among many other probable medical difficulties.  Shortly thereafter we received new that SJ also was likely to live with Down Syndrome, should she come to term.

We went home and my wife went to sleep.  I remember wanting to pray, but not knowing where to begin.  For some reason I put on one of Jon's CDs, and played a track called "Lord How Excellent".  It is based on Psalm 8

When I look at your heavens, the work of your fingers,
   the moon and the stars that you have established;
what are human beings that you are mindful of them,
   mortals that you care for them?

O Lord how excellent is your name in all the earth.

The song itself speaks of praising God in the midst of difficulties, remembering that there is healing in the act of praise.  Jon helped me through that night, and many nights to come.

Thank you.

Bernard of Clairvaux - On Loving God, pt 3

Chapter V

Of the Christian's debt of love, how great it is

From the contemplation of what has been said, we see plainly that God is to be loved, and that He has a just claim upon our love. But the infidel does not acknowledge the Son of God, and so he can know neither the Father nor the Holy Spirit; for he that honoureth not the Son, honoureth not the Father which sent Him, nor the Spirit whom He hath sent (John 5.23). He knows less of God than we; no wonder that he loves God less.

Or, to put it in a positive way, the degree to which one truly loves is dependent upon the degree to which one truly knows the object of love.  For Bernard, loving God more fully involves knowing God more fully - as Father, Son & Spirit.  Now I tend to agree with Bernard on this point.  We use the word "love" in such a variety of ways, but my suspicion is that for many it has a modern-romantic connotation which reduces it to a certain kind of feeling.  In this case we are talking about Bernard's first degree of love, in which we love for what we can get out of it.  This is not necessarily a bad beginning point, but it is only a beginning point.

I am reminded of the variety of young couples with whom I've discussed marriage.  In many ways, such a venture is really committing yourself to an "unknown";  you can only more fully love as you more fully come to know the beloved.  It is at this beginning stage, this first degree, that there is plenty of opportunity for "errors in loving", if I can use the phrase.  For I might love partly the real beloved, and partly my illusion or impression or constructed version of the beloved.  It is as true of human beloveds as of the Divine Beloved.  I may love God in part, and then in part I may love my mistaken understanding of God, or my illusion or impression of who God is.  Growth in love is tied to knowing - truly - the Beloved.

It is this sort of thing which is meant in the promise that we will know fully, even as we are fully known.  This deeper knowing which is part of deeper loving is not a modernist "knowledge", in the sense of information about a subject.  Bernard uses extensive imagery from the Song of Solomon in this treatise;  this is an intimate knowing. 

all posts in lenten series: Bernard of Clairvaux here

sermon notes Lent 3, Year B, John 2:13-22

Related: 
Year B Lent 1
Year B Lent 2
Year B Lent 4
Year B Lent 5

The Passover of the Jews was near, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem. In the temple he found people selling cattle, sheep, and doves, and the money-changers seated at their tables. Making a whip of cords, he drove all of them out of the temple, both the sheep and the cattle. He also poured out the coins of the money-changers and overturned their tables. He told those who were selling the doves, ‘Take these things out of here! Stop making my Father’s house a market-place!’ His disciples remembered that it was written, ‘Zeal for your house will consume me.’ The Jews then said to him, ‘What sign can you show us for doing this?’ Jesus answered them, ‘Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.’ The Jews then said, ‘This temple has been under construction for forty-six years, and will you raise it up in three days?’ But he was speaking of the temple of his body. After he was raised from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this; and they believed the scripture and the word that Jesus had spoken.

It is worth considering this passage in light of the OT reading this week:  the ten commandments from Exodus.  Both of these readings have to do with, well, "holiness".  Holiness is perhaps not a terribly popular concept.  I think it shares that place with other Lenten-ish things like self-denial, sacrifice, repentance from sin, and other the other fun stuff which makes me say "Have a miserable Lent".

The 10 words from Exodus are about holiness of a people;  and here it seems that Jesus is concerned with holiness of a place.  But there is that wonderful play on words (lost to his hearers) about the new temple - the temple of his body.  And by extension, Paul will later pick up on this same theme - we are a new "temple", just as we are a new people.

What is Jesus doing when he "cleanses the temple"?  What is YWHW doing when he "cleanses" a people?  By Jesus' time, sacrifice had become more of an industry, not unlike a certain amount of what I see passing for "Christian" marketing of products today.  There are any number of shelves in certain bookstores which should simply be overturned, but maybe that's just me.  At any rate, we have the several layers of holiness - people and place.

How seriously does Jesus take sin? Or perhaps the question should be framed more positively, how seriously does Jesus take holiness?  "Zeal for your house will consume me".  There would be both a positive and negative way of imitating Jesus on this point.  Zeal and passion for the worship and holiness of God should be a feature of the Christian life.  Zeal and passion for the building (for the building's sake alone) should not.  What is the proper "zeal" a Christian should have for her/his place of worship?

As a Lenten passage, one can envision Jesus turning to us - each of us as "temple" - and saying to us:  "Remove these things from yourselves".  We are God's temple, and just as Jesus was fairly ferocious in cleansing the temple in Jerusalem, so he will also be fairly ferocious in cleansing the new temple - his people.  This is the image of the work of repentance:  inviting and allowing Jesus to drive out from us those things which make our souls a marketplace instead of a temple of the living God.  It is zeal for us which drives Christ to do this work in us.

more later...  in the meantime, go read this little piece, (which talks of Jesus taking over in his own person the functions of the Temple) h/t PPCP

also, some semi-obscure numerology on 46 from St Augustine, among more enlightening comments in his tractates on John

I suspect that one of the overlooked dynamics of this episode is the reaction of "the Jews" who ask Jesus for a sign:  What sign can you show us for doing this?  It would appear that if the proper sign is forthcoming, then there is a justification for the action.  There is not an automatic assumption that what Jesus is doing is completely outrageous, merely that he is doing it without proper authority.  In this reading perhaps Jesus is not alone is seeing a problem with the practices in the temple precincts; only he takes action, while others do not.  To pull in another thought, this is a bit of an example of what Peter Rollins might refer to as retroactive justification.  Truly revolutionary acts are only justified later; in this case, at the resurrection. 

My 9 year old suggested that I talk about the month of March on Sunday - in like a lion, out like a lamb.  Which, when you think about it, kind of fits at least one pattern in Jesus' life...

Quote of the day: Michael Spencer in the CSM

Christian music, publishing, and media has produced a culture of young Christians who know next to nothing about their own faith except how they feel about it.

from this article
Michael Spencer is known to bloggers as the Internet Monk

Russ B - let me take you for lunch

So the national church thought it a good idea to solicit public opinions regarding the Vision 2019 project.  And that it would be a good idea to post these up on the national website.  You can add your own story to the mix.  One in particular caught my attention, mostly because the author is from my own hometown.  Anyway, Russ B, if you are out there, send me an email - I'd like to take you out for lunch sometime.

Dear Anglicans,

I was interested to see on your national church website that you are engaged in something called “Vision 2019″, and that you wish to hear from church members about “your community, your local church, your theology, your worship, your passions, your dreams, your nightmares”.
I am no longer a church member, although that fact in and of itself might be of interest to you.

Let’s start.  “My community”.  I was raised in the diocese of Caledonia, but have since then lived in the dioceses of New Westminster, British Columbia and Edmonton (but have never been a church member during the time I’ve lived in Edmonton).

“My local church”.  Well, the parish in which I was raised was dissolved and the property sold by the bishop of the day in order to raise money to (I swear I’m not making this up) repair the dry rot afflicting his cathedral in Prince Rupert. The Anglicans in my home community have dispersed, variously to the United Church, Catholic Church or (in many cases) have abandoned faith communities altogether.  Nice work...

Russ B, Edmonton

Russ's contribution can be found in full here

lenten series: Bernard of Clairvaux - On Loving God pt 2

Text online at CCEL

Why should anyone love God?  Why should you or I love God?  This is the question which provides the starting point for Bernard of Clairvaux's treatment of love.  There is a movement, a growth in love, according to Bernard of Claivaux.  We begin love in a rather "self-serving" fashion, and by grace we progress to there we realize that "the reason for loving God is God Himself". 

You want me to tell you why God is to be loved and how much. I answer, the reason for loving God is God Himself; and the measure of love due to Him is immeasurable love. Is this plain? Doubtless, to a thoughtful man; but I am debtor to the unwise also. A word to the wise is sufficient; but I must consider simple folk too. Therefore I set myself joyfully to explain more in detail what is meant above.

It is interesting that Bernard takes into account a self-serving beginning point on our part.  Loving God is both reasonable and profitable.  Now neither one of those considerations might appeal to us.  Those who are familiar with the prosperity gospel might cringe at the second, and fans of Dawkins would cringe at the first.  Loving God as something "reasonable" - ultimately rational, yes, but also reasonable in the sense that this activity is proper to our nature.  And profitable?  Well, we might conjure up the image of Jesus lamenting that the crowds were following him because they had their fill of the loaves, not because they wanted to become his followers.  Our culture might be more susceptible to seek God for the wrong kind of "profit" - a purely material gain.  But as Bernard points out, the greatest gift which God gives to us is simply God Himself

We are to love God for Himself, because of a twofold reason; nothing is more reasonable, nothing more profitable. When one asks, Why should I love God? he may mean, What is lovely in God? or What shall I gain by loving God? In either case, the same sufficient cause of love exists, namely, God Himself.

And first, of His title to our love. Could any title be greater than this, that He gave Himself for us unworthy wretches? And being God, what better gift could He offer than Himself? Hence, if one seeks for God's claim upon our love here is the chiefest: Because He first loved us (I John 4:19).

Chapter 1

This then is the beginning point - we love something or someone because of their "loveliness", or because of what we can gain from loving them.  This dynamic is often all too apparent in human relationships.  Whether such a beginning point is flawed I leave for others to decide. Bernard refers to this kind of loving in chapter VIII, wherein "a man love's God for self's sake".  However, it is a deficiency of love to let it remain at that level.  The goal is to love for the pure sake of the beloved.

all posts in lenten series: Bernard of Clairvaux here

Are people teachable?

I recall being in the midst of an uncomfortable conversation between a student and a faculty member some time ago.  The student was complaining about something, the exact nature of which I have forgotten, but it involved something about the "equality of opinion".

The faculty member replied that the student did not yet realize that there are others out there who have thought longer and more deeply upon the subject matter, and therefore there was no "equality of opinion".

just sayin'.

Lent

goes by fast

prayers for Michael Hawkins

By the Grace of God
Michael William Hawkins
will be consecrated the
Twelfth Bishop of Saskatchewan
on Ember Friday
the Sixth of March, Two Thousand and Nine
at seven o’clock
in Sacred Heart Cathedral, Prince Albert.


The Synod of the Anglican Diocese of Saskatchewan
requests your prayers and presence.

Installation in the
Cathedral Church of Saint Alban the Martyr
Prince Albert
Saturday the Seventh of March
at eleven o’clock

We will keep you and the diocese in our prayers.

Thomas Brauer: "Mission by the verse"

guest posting by Thomas Brauer of the Barnabas Initiative

A word...

There's a word which gets thrown about to describe dominant modes of thought, or structures of behaviour - that word is "Paradigm".  And I love that word.  Not just the way it sounds (talk about a money word!), but what it describes.  Tucked neatly between Paradiddle, and Paradise, the Canadian Oxford  Dictionary gives three uses for Paradigm, but I'll list only the first two.

1. (noun) an example or pattern followed; a typical instance.

2. (noun, in Philosophy) a mode of viewing the world which underlies the theories and methodology of science etc. in a particular period of history.

In 1962, Thomas Kuhn coined the term (now used ad-nauseum) "Paradigm Shift" in his book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.  As we likely all know, paradigm shift refers to the significant changing of dominant world views, patterns of behaviour or of belief, or understandings of structures, systems or approaches.  Despite the now rampant use of the term, paradigm shift is still helpful, as it is a concise and direct way of speaking of dramatic theoretical or perceptual changes.

And paradigm shift is just as useful in our discussions of the changing face of Mission in the Church, as it was for Kuhn in his discussion of the changing face of science.  Indeed, in one the great missiological histories, David Bosch uses the term directly in the subtitle.  That book is, of course,Transforming Mission: Paradigm Shifts in Theology of Mission, (1991, Orbis Books).  It is from one of Bosch's chapters that the discussion following will stem...

...but first, a little personal recent history. 

Of late, I've been having a lot of conversations with people about Mission and the Fresh Expressions movement (for obvious reasons).  And guaranteed, in 80% of those conversations, the subject of the Great Commission comes up.  You know the great commission, don't you?  Matthew 28:18ff, "Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age." (NIV)  Now it's not a problem that the great commission should come up, it's just that I'm not certain that it is the most helpful text on which to hang our missional hats any longer, at least not in mission to a post-modern context.  And so I say this, in these conversations, and the look of shock and horror that often greets me makes me fear that I've somehow accidentally trodden on someone's kitten.  So I thought it time to explain a little more formally why I'm not certain that the Great Commission is the best "biblical paradigm" for mission to most of the contemporary West, and what, instead, I believe is becoming a more dominant paradigmatic text for our time and place in mission history.  Now back to David Bosch.

Eras of mission...

Bosch is a very helpful fellow.  By taking the paradigmatic approach to analyzing the history of missiology, he has been able to condense 2000 years of mission into eras, and to analyze those eras in terms of dominant approaches and theories of mission.  And he has done this, in one short section of the book, by scripture verse.  That is to say, Bosch has looked at the historical paradigms of mission, and attempted to understand them in light of missional verses of the Bible (pp. 339ff.).  Now Bosch is the first to say that in not all cases are these paradigmatic biblical texts necessarily widely known or publicized as the raison d'etre of mission of the day.  In some cases, these texts speak to the nature of the way in which mission was carried out, and were applied in hindsight, but in either case, it is a helpful exercise.  I've taken the liberty of condensing his work into the following handy-dandy table.

Though dominant among evangelicals in the late 19th century, and throughout the 20th century, the Great Commission by no means has been the universal directive of mission in Christendom.  I believe that it was particularly appealing to the 'modern era' evangelical Church because it was a clear, concise directive, an order from on high, and a signally efficient rule by which to measure one's missional activity.  One HAD to be in favour of such-and-such a mission endeavour because it was Jesus' last command!

A new era in mission in the West...

However, I think we're entering a time when the Great Commission will no longer be the dominant scriptural paradigm for mission in the West.  Under the Great Commission model, the approach taken (no fault of the verse, this is just how people tended to do it) tended towards one of "Make 'em Disciples, get 'em in the pews," and the job was done.  Being made a disciple was taken care of by the simple repetition of something like "the sinner's prayer", and (maybe) baptism.  Then you were done, and the missional endeavour moved on to the next heathen down the block.  I'm certainly using hyperbole here, and most would never believe this is what they were doing in mission.  However, I have witnessed just this approach to mission more often than I care to count.  And it wasn't always bad. In the modern era western world, this approach worked well.  People were looking for a way to be that was clear, and understandable.  If you were already a Christian, you knew you needed to make disciples and have them baptized.  If you were not yet a Christian, but were being 'courted' by a mission, you knew that you were being invited to leave behind one way of life (which was bad) for another way of life (which is good), and you knew that you had a clear choice to make.

Sadly, it don't work like that no more.  Society has changed, and the world view of most people in the contemporary West no longer supports the existence of a clear and concise good/bad split to life.  Rather, most see all ways of being on a continuum, and most people don't believe that extremes of Good and Bad are achievable - "all things have good to them, and all things have bad to them, so what's the fuss?" might be the cry of this age.  Just look at the prevalence of the colloquial phrase "It's all good!"  The missional paradigm of the modern era, rooted on the Great Commission, was one of bringing in.  Making disciples.  It was about an outward action with an inward focus - that is to say, the Church reached out to the non-Christian in order to bring them into the Church. 

However, we are now solidly in the post-modern era, and this approach is no longer acceptable in the eyes of the people the Church would seek to reach.  The missional paradigm of this era is (will be?) one of going out.  What is being sought by contemporary society is an inward action with an outward focus - which is to say that the missionary to the contemporary western society looks to live out the transformed life of Jesus Christ for themselves, and finding that life of transformation within, they also find themselves compelled to reach out to others in a way which expresses Christ within them.  In this way, the contemporary westerner will at once witness a new way of living, and respect the missionary for living it out.  This will be attractive, but the non-Christian will be drawn to the person of Christ first, not to the Church.  Mission in this context is almost entirely relational, and avoids (almost entirely) the call to believe certain statements of truth (this is a stage which may come much later, just not at the initial stage of mission).  Here, mission becomes a way of being, not a way of speaking or doing.

A new scriptural paradigm...

What then is the scriptural paradigm that matches this new mission context, and new mission approach?  Well, I believe we've come full circle back to the patristic era, and we are once again missioning under John 3:16: "For God so loved the world that he gave His only begotten son...." This is about the incarnation, and about the divine sacrifice.  Meeting people exactly where they are in their need, and sorrow, and joy, and excess, and being willing to die for them, to give up ourselves for them.  This is only possible if we are ourselves living the transformed life of Jesus Christ.  Unless we, the individuals, the women and men of the Church, are willing to be transformed by Christ, and to live out that life in the midst of the people with whom we share our society, then we will have nothing to say to that society.  No longer are people willing to listen to us talk at them ABOUT Jesus.  They are willing, though, to witness us live with them IN Jesus.  People will now reject being considered "disciples in waiting", they want simply to be individuals to be loved to the point of incarnation and sacrifice.  Mission in the contemporary West can no longer understand the world as being made up of 'believers' and 'no-believers' where we behave differently depending on to which group the person we encounter belongs.  Mission in this context requires only one way to live, and that is to live for Christ to the point of dying to all else, no matter to whom we are speaking, or for whom we are serving.  It is now for us to get out and live it.

 

Bernard of Clairvaux - On Loving God, chapter 1

"Have a miserable Lent."  I'm trying to make that the new greeting for the season, sort of a go-between to "Merry Christmas" and "Happy Easter"

This year's Lenten series will focus on Bernard of Clairvaux's vision of the 4 stages of love as found in his work "On Loving God".  The work itself is not overly long - more like an extended essay.  But it should be read slowly and deeply and prayerfully.

The best way to read an older text is just to read it.  There are many other aids and commentaries and such out there, but I suggest it that it would be a mistake to begin with the commentaries rather than the original.  I'll add some comments as we go along...

free mp3 @ Books should be free

plain text at CCEL

Latin text here

You want me to tell you why God is to be loved and how much. I answer, the reason for loving God is God Himself; and the measure of love due to Him is immeasurable love. Is this plain? Doubtless, to a thoughtful man; but I am debtor to the unwise also. A word to the wise is sufficient; but I must consider simple folk too. Therefore I set myself joyfully to explain more in detail what is meant above.

We are to love God for Himself, because of a twofold reason; nothing is more reasonable, nothing more profitable. When one asks, Why should I love God? he may mean, What is lovely in God? or What shall I gain by loving God? In either case, the same sufficient cause of love exists, namely, God Himself.

And first, of His title to our love. Could any title be greater than this, that He gave Himself for us unworthy wretches? And being God, what better gift could He offer than Himself? Hence, if one seeks for God's claim upon our love here is the chiefest: Because He first loved us (I John 4:19).

Ought He not to be loved in return, when we think who loved, whom He loved, and how much He loved? For who is He that loved? The same of whom every spirit testifies: 'Thou art my God: my goods are nothing unto Thee' (Ps. 16:2, Vulg.). And is not His love that wonderful charity which 'seeketh not her own'? (I Cor.13:5). But for whom was such unutterable love made manifest? The apostle tells us: 'When we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of His Son' (Rom. 5:10). So it was God who loved us, loved us freely, and loved us while yet we were enemies. And how great was this love of His? St. John answers: 'God so loved the world that He gave His only-begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life' (John 3:16). St. Paul adds: 'He spared not His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all' (Rom. 8:32); and the son says of Himself, 'Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends' (John 15:13).

This is the claim which God the holy, the supreme, the omnipotent, has upon men, defiled and base and weak. Some one may urge that this is true of mankind, but not of angels. True, since for angels it was not needful. He who succored men in their time of need, preserved angels from such need; and even as His love for sinful men wrought wondrously in them so that they should not remain sinful, so that same love which in equal measure He poured out upon angels kept them altogether free from sin.

all posts in lenten series: Bernard of Clairvaux here

all the colours of the rainbow

that would be a selection of belly dancing outfits in the Grand Bazaar, Istanbul

photo Joe Walker 2008