Home » 2009
Yearly Archives: 2009
How, precisely, does one bring up the Messiah so he turns out right? Jeanie Miley (who is on a roll!) lays it out for us:
The popular song “Mary, Did You Know” confronts us with the possibility that perhaps she didn’t have the full picture of Jesus’ life when he was born. Sometimes when I teach about this, people get upset about the idea that Mary might have learned who he was a little at a time, but mostly I think the upset is more about having a long-held cherished belief challenged. There’s just something about that Christmas story that we love, and we don’t much want anyone tampering with our ideas about it, and yet I keep wanting to ask, “Mary, what did you know? And when did you know it?”
Since I believe that Jesus was fully human and fully divine, however, I keep on asking the questions about what it was like for him and for his family as he grew up in a real family, a neighborhood, a group of friends. I wonder if there was sibling rivalry. Did Joseph scold him? Were there times when Mary was frustrated with him, besides that time at the Temple when he was twelve, of course, and showed himself to be unusually precocious. That Mark relates in his gospel that at one time when Jesus was drawing such a crowd because of what he was doing, his family went to get him and to take charge of him, saying that he was out of his mind pretty much convinces me that Jesus’ family learned who he was in increments.
There is one thing I know for sure, and it is this: The depth of compassion and empathy, sensitivity and love that Jesus revealed isn’t developed in a child who is made to believe he is entitled, special and above the laws of others. In fact, one of the worst things that can happen to a child is to be made the center of the parent’s world or made to feel that she is better than other, and if anyone who is reading this needs evidence for this, read the newspapers and watch the news. Terminal uniqueness is not a quality that promotes the kind of Savior Jesus became.
Read it all, then come back and enjoy this brief musical interlude:
Nazareth existed in the time of Jesus after all. They just found the remains of a first-century house there.
An archaeological excavation the Israel Antiquities Authority recently conducted has revealed new information about ancient Nazareth from the time of Jesus. Remains of a dwelling that date to the Early Roman period were discovered for the first time in an excavation, which was carried out prior to the construction of the “International Marian Center of Nazareth” by the the Association Mary of Nazareth, next to the Church of the Annunciation.
According to the New Testament, Mary, the mother of Jesus, lived in Nazareth together with her husband Joseph. It was there that she also received the revelation by the Angel Gabriel that she would conceive a child to be born the Son of God. The New Testament mentions that Jesus himself grew up in Nazareth.
In 1969 the Church of the Annunciation was erected in the spot that the Catholic faith identified with the house of Mary. It was built atop the remains of three earlier churches, the oldest of which is ascribed to the Byzantine period (the fourth century CE). In light of the plans to build there, the Israel Antiquities Authority recently undertook a small scale archaeological excavation close to the church, which resulted in the exposure of the structure.
(H/T: Claude Mariottini)
We talk about the Ten Commandments, and when we do I always think about how God asked this young Jewish girl to put herself in the position of being censured and shunned, at the least, and even stoned to death because of the perception that she was breaking the law.
What was God up to, seemingly breaking his own rules to accomplish something so grand?
What was he doing, asking this young girl to put herself in the position of appearing to be scandalized by breaking the laws of her people?
Later, Jesus scandalized the religious culture of his day and turned the values of his day upside down, eating with prostitutes, touching the unclean, lifting up the downtroddent and making friends with women. He befriended the lowly, the outcast, the littlest and the least, and whenever the woman caught in adultery was brought to him, he dealt with her with unusual sensitivity, compassion and forgiveness. I’ve wondered if Jesus’ compassion was born out of a memory of hearing stories of his mother’s plight.
Good words from my favorite Baptist contemplative, Jeanie Miley:
When I was growing up, Mary the mother of Jesus was consigned to a minor role, not because her role was minor, but because in my tradition there was a fear of the worship of Mary. That fear of Mary and the neglect of her story sort of oozed and leaked over into other attitudes and practices within my religious tradition, but ’tis the season to focus on other things, I think.
Now that I’ve got some history at putting away childish things and attempting to grow up, I”m incredulous about that fear of Mary. When I expressed to my spiritual director, Bishop Mike Pfeifer, that there were some in my tradition who held to the idea that sin came into the world through a woman, he quickly said, “But, Jeanie, the Savior also came into the world through a woman.”
That statement he made poured the oil of grace over a painful wound in my soul.
By all means, read it all.
When this post by Barry Strauss showed up in my feed reader, I wondered what in the world a classical historian who has written about the Trojan War, the Battle of Salamis, and Spartacus’s slave revolt might have to say about the Jewish Festival of Lights. He really hits the nail on the head:
Chanukah commemorates a miraculous victory in a war in 167 B.C. A Greco-Macedonian kingdom, centered in what is today Syria, had tried to outlaw the Jewish religion in its homeland in Judea and to replace it with Hellenic culture. Many Jews, in fact, supported that goal. But that is no surprise, because Hellenism had enormous appeal.
Hellenism seemed to have everything going for it. It was up-to-date, sophisticated, and intellectually satisfying. It offered wealth, health, art, and glamour. It represented the entrance ticket to an imperial civilization. Hellenism offered the opportunity to think big.
Judaism sat at the opposite end of the scale. It was old, small, and poor. It had no empire. It had nothing to offer except faith, trust, love, and strength. But those things, it turns out, are items that the human heart cannot do without.
So the miraculous happened. A small band, burning with faith, went on to defeat an empire.
Read it all.
C. Michael Patton of Parchment and Pen lays out his opinion about how essential various elements of Christian belief really are, relatively speaking. James McGrath of Exploring our Matrix disagrees, claiming that many of Patton’s most essential doctrines are only found in the Johannine literature.
James is right to wonder where Christian conduct fits into Patton’s schema. As it stands, it isn’t really there at all, and that is surely a distortion of the gospel. The Great Commandment to love God and love one’s neighbor surely fits somewhere on a list of Christian essentials! At the same time, if you believe that salvation is by faith and not by works, can you really claim that any kind of behavior is “essential for salvation”?
I would respectfully disagree with James, however, that most of these essentials (at least in the “essential for salvation” category, are “supported primarily or exclusively by appeal to the Gospel and Letters of John.” Here are Michael’s top-tier essentials:
- Belief in God (there is no such thing as an atheistic Christian)
All issues pertaining to the person and work of Christ:
- Belief in Christ’s deity and humanity (1 John 4:2-3; Rom. 10:9)
- Belief that you are a sinner in need of God’s mercy (1 John 1:10)
- Belief that Christ died on the cross and rose bodily from the grave (1 Cor 15:3-4)
- Belief that faith in Christ is necessary (John 3:16)
I think you can make a case for Christ’s deity and humanity from Hebrews, and Michael himself appeals to a Pauline passage, the confession that “Jesus is Lord.” I know that verbiage is not conclusive, but it does tend to point in the direction of divinity, as do several of Jesus’ parables in the Synoptic Gospels (I’m thinking in particular of the Wicked Tenants, and the implications about the identity of “the son” who shows up at the end). the “Johannine thunderbolt” in Matthew 11:27, while also not conclusive, does seem to suggest that more people than merely John had at least an embryonic awareness that Christ was divine. As to the fact that humans are sinners in need of God’s mercy, honestly, what books of the Bible don’t teach that this is the human condition? And what New Testament books don’t teach that Jesus died and was raised to new life? The final item is the most problematic because, although the New Testament is pretty clear that all people are called to faith in Christ, I think humility requires us to admit that we may not have enough information to declare what God does with those who are not in a position ever to have meaningfully heard the gospel. Clark Pinnock’s A Wideness in God’s Mercy is helpful here.
I don’t object in principle to naming one’s doctrinal “essentials,” and I would much prefer they be arranged in a hierarchy of one kind or another because that seems to foster much more fruitful dialogue with those who believe differently. And this is true even though I understand full well that you and I are going to disagree about where certain items belong in the pecking order.
The crusaders of both fundamentalism and liberalism (be they caped or otherwise) have a problem with hierarchies of belief. The fundamentalists put everything in the top tier so that any—and I mean any—deviation in any matter throws you into the category of a godless unbeliever: using a Bible other than the KJV, women wearing pants, men going too long between haircuts, you name it. But I have observed liberals put everything (at least of a doctrinal nature) in the bottom tier so that any—and I mean any—affirmation of doctrinal certainty is met with disdain if not open hostility. We moderate Baptists fully understand the first danger, but we have sometimes been so zealous to distinguish ourselves from fundamentalists that we have resisted admitting to any doctrinal non-negotiables.
For what it’s worth, I am much more amenable to the logic behind Catholic hierarchy of levels of teaching within the church, even though of course I would disagree with many of their specific conclusions. Also, it must be kept in mind that this hierarchy is an “in-house” schema, not strictly intended for ecumenical concerns or activities. Even so, I have found it helpful. Bishop Raymond Lucker discussed these various levels of teaching in an interview in The American Catholic back in 2001. Here is my summary with comments:
1. Divinely-revealed truth, which requires faith and assent. The opposite is heresy. In Catholicism, this is the category for such things as the Trinity, the Incarnation, the resurrection, love for God and for one another (hurray for orthopraxis!), the real presence in the Eucharist, the immaculate conception of Mary, etc. Obviously, as a Protestant I’m only willing to place in this category things for which I can find a firm, unambiguous biblical foundation.
2.Definitive non-revealed truths, defined as matters of faith and morals that “even though not revealed themselves, are required to safeguard the integrity of the deposit of faith, to explain it rightly, and to define it effectively” and having a “necessary and intrinsic relationship to the truths of faith.” These truths require firm assent and acceptance. The opposite is error. Examples include principles of natural law, seven sacraments, and a host of social-justice issues (human dignity and equality, condemnation of racism and sexism as evil, etc. Hurray again for orthopraxis!). I think I would put the Trinitarian and Christological formulations of the fourth and fifth centuries in this category: they are not explicitly biblical, although I believe they have a firm basis in what the Bible does unambiguously teach. Most social-justice issues probably still belong here, although I would promote some of the more basic or foundational ones to the first category.
3. Authoritative but non-irreformable teaching, also called “authentic but not infallible.” These are doctrines “to aid a better understanding of Revelation and make explicit its contents or to recall how some teaching is in conformity with the truths of faith.” Here there seems to be an admission that things are not entirely clear, and that in fact we may eventually come to a different conclusion. This level of teaching requires “religious submission (respect, obedience) of will and intellect” and religiously grounded obedience. The opposite is dissent. Here Lucker lists examples including biblical criticism, evolution, the formula for the sacraments, teachings about (against) artificial birth control, and teachings about (against) the ordination of women, etc. I expect my list would look somewhat like his, although viewed from the opposite direction!
4. Disciplinary rules, which require obedience. The opposite is disobedience. Examples include rules for fasting, feasts of obligation, and celibacy of clergy. Again, my list would be similar, but transposed into a congregationalist key. I defer to my (local) church’s rules, customs, and procedures about using the liturgical calendar, how the Lord’s Supper is celebrated, decision-making processes, “chain-of-command”-type issues, and the like.
5. Theological opinion, which invites agreement. (The shift from “requires” to “invites” is significant, I think.) The opposite is difference of opinion, and sometimes the church will issue a warning about certain differences of opinion that could lead to error. Examples include the existence of Limbo and the specific applications of various moral principles. I would place end-times speculations, the authorship of various books of the Bible, beliefs about the genre of Job, Jonah, or Esther, and other speculative issues here. In a free-church context, this is bound to be a very large category—and the freer, the larger!
6. Pious practices and devotions, which invite imitation and encouragement. The opposite is personal preference. Examples include praying the rosary, going on pilgrimages, and other forms of private devotion. This is pretty self-explanatory. I would include here things that may fit well in one person’s life of discipleship that should not be imposed upon another’s: a personal quiet time, devotional reading, making the sign of the cross, particular acts of charity or service, etc.
This schema does not have a category for “beliefs necessary for salvation.” If you really want one, here it is: “If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved” (Rom 10:9).