Lectionary - Lent 5C - Philippians 3:12-14

Not that I have already obtained this or have already reached the goal; but I press on to make it my own, because Christ Jesus has made me his own. Beloved, I do not consider that I have made it my own; but this one thing I do: forgetting what lies behind and straining forward to what lies ahead, I press on toward the goal for the prize of the heavenly call of God in Christ Jesus.

About three years ago, I wrote about my lack of natural running ability, which is a serious deficiency in a culture that values running and a lethal environment that sometimes demands it. In that article, I highlighted the importance of changing my routine when I become trapped in cycles of defeat in my running program. I suggested that this same strategy is helpful in life as well. If what you are doing doesn't work, try something else.

I've recently found the value in another strategy for physical training: visualizing the goal. When my mind tells me "you can't finish" or "you can quit now" or "man, I'm tired of this," I picture myself crossing the finish line. I can see myself in my mind's eye: head erect, full stride, feet striking the ground without pounding my knees, muscles pain free, breathing in rhythm with my pace, letting the refreshing wind hit my face, smiling with satisfaction at completing the run. This is not often what I actually experience as I cross the finish line. I am often sore in some part of my body, cold or hot, and fighting for breath.  Picturing success, however, helps me keep going when part of me wants to quit. It also helps my performance during the run itself; I start to run more like I picture myself running.

Read the rest of this entry »

I previously posted some doctrinal excerpts with regard to baptism from Wesley, Calvin, Luther and the Church of England. Let me now "borrow" some language from these historic documents to synthesize a brief baptismal affirmation of my own. If you care to refer back to the original excerpts, you should be able to see which parts I derived from the reformers.

Baptism is the sacrament of beginning in Christ.

Baptism is the initiatory sign by which God:

• incorporates us into Christ
• adopts us as heirs to the promises he made through Abraham, Moses and all the prophets
• establishes us in the covenant of grace founded on Christ's death and resurrection
• gives us the Holy Spirit
• unites us with Christ's holy Church in mission to all the world

In obedience to Christ's command, the church baptizes new Christians into the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Although baptism is performed by human hands, it is God's work, which he accomplishes by the power of his word. In the act of baptizing with water, the church both proclaims and believes the promise of God. Through the promise of God's word, the waters of baptism are powerful and effective. God's word to us in baptism is capable of accomplishing everything God intends. God's word and works bring salvation; they do not exclude faith, but demand faith.

God's promise in baptism includes:

• forgiveness of sins
• new birth from above in union with Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit
• communion with God's holy people in all places and ages
• empowerment by the Holy Spirit for holy living and service
• sure and certain hope of resurrection to eternal life in the age to come

Baptism sets the enduring pattern for Christian life and practice. In response to the gift of God, the old Adam in us should be drowned by daily repentance so that all sin and evil desires might pass away. In turn, a new person, who will live forever before God in righteousness and purity should daily come forth and rise from death.

Article 17 of the Methodist Articles of Religion states:

Baptism is not only a sign of profession and mark of difference whereby Christians are distinguished from others that are not baptized; but it is also a sign of regeneration or the new birth. The Baptism of young children is to be retained in the Church.

Wesley adopted this from the Church of England’s Article 27. The key words Wesley omitted are highlighted below.

Baptism is not only a sign of profession and mark of difference by which Christian men are discerned from other that be not christened, but is also a sign of regeneration or new birth, whereby, as by an instrument, they that receive baptism rightly are grafted into the Church; the promises of the forgiveness of sin, and of our adoption to be the sons of God, by the Holy Spirit are visibly signed and sealed; faith is confirmed, and grace increased by virtue of prayer unto God. The baptism of young children is in any wise to be retained in the Church as most agreeable with the institution of Christ.

I think Wesley’s version is poorer for omitting baptism’s role in incorporating us into the Body of Christ. Wesley's A Treatise on Baptism, however, is much broader in its affirmations:

By baptism we enter into covenant with God . . . .

By baptism we are admitted into the Church . . . .

By baptism, we who were “by nature children of wrath” are made the children of God ...
being “grafted into the body of Christ’s Church, we are made the children of God by adoption and grace.”

For more on the contemporary United Methodist understanding of baptism, see By Water and the Spirit.

Read the rest of this entry »

Those who followed my recent links to Peter Enns on Creation and Exodus will recognize the title of this post inverts Enns’ title: Adam is Israel.

In his series of posts, Enns argues (successfully, I think) that the author of Exodus intentionally described the birth of Israel in “creation” language and images drawn directly from the the first chapters of Genesis. The creation of Israel is a kind of “new creation.” So far, so good, in my opinion.

His argument leads him to the parallel stories of Adam and Israel in which Enns finds the following pattern:

Israel’s history as a nation can be broken down as follows:

• Israel is “created” by God at the exodus through a cosmic battle (gods are defeated and the Red Sea is “divided”);
• The Israelites are given Canaan to inhabit, a lush land flowing with milk and honey;
• They remain in the land as long as they obey the Mosaic law;
• They persist in a pattern of disobedience and are exiled to Babylon.

Israel’s history parallels Adam’s drama in Genesis:

• Adam is created in Genesis 2 after the taming of chaos in Genesis 1;
• Adam is placed in a lush garden;
• Law (not to eat of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil) is given as a stipulation for remaining in the garden;
• Adam and Eve disobey and are exiled.

From this, Enns concludes:

Adam is the beginning of Israel, not humanity. . . . In other words, the Adam story is really an Israel story placed in primeval time. It is not a story of human origins but of Israel’s origins. . . . We are quite justified in concluding that the Adam story is not about absolute human origins but the beginning of one smaller subset, one particular people. The parallels between Israel and Adam that we see above tell us that the particular people in mind are Israel. Adam is “proto-Israel.”

Writing at Biologos, Enns expends a good bit of effort addressing those who take the first chapters of Genesis as a scientific explanation of human origins, a topic in which I have absolutely no interest. My concern is this: why did the author of Genesis use the pattern of Israel’s history in telling the story of Adam?

This is Enns’ answer to that question:

Some might object that Genesis 1-11 deals with universal matters, not merely one people: the entire cosmos created in Genesis 1, the flood, the disbursement of the nations after the flood. Absolutely. No question there. But the point is this: after the creation of humanity in Genesis 1, Genesis 2 begins to tell the story of “proto-Israel.” In other words, Israel was not a latecomer, coming into existence only in the exodus. Israel was always there as God’s specially chosen people since the beginning.

The parallelism that Enns sees here is intentional, I think, but Enns turns the authors’ intent on its head. Let me suggest an alternative answer: Israel is God’s new creation, but it  shares an Adam-like rebelliousness that is characteristic of all humanity. Those who belong to the people of Israel also belong to the larger family of Adam.

Read the rest of this entry »

G. K. Chesterton writes in Chapter 2 of Orthodoxy (1908):

Modern masters of science are much impressed with the need of beginning all inquiry with a fact. The ancient maters of religion were quite equally impressed with that necessity. They began with the fact of sin - a fact as practical of potatoes. Whether or no man could be washed in miraculous waters, there was no doubt at any rate that he wanted washing. But certain religious leaders in London, not mere materialists, have begun in our day not to deny the highly disputable water, but to deny the indisputable dirt. Certain new theologians dispute original sin, which is the only part of Christian theology which can really be proved. . . .

The strongest saints and the strongest skeptics alike took positive evil as the starting-point of their argument. If it be true (as it certainly is) that a man can feel exquisite happiness in skinning a cat, then the religious philosopher can only draw one of two deductions. He must either deny the existence of God, as all atheists do; or he must deny the present union between God and man, as all Christians do. The new theologians seem to think it a highly rationalistic solution to deny the cat.

Or, to put it more succinctly, it is widely reported that when The Times asked Chesterton for an essay on the theme, "What's wrong with the world," Chesterson simply wrote back:

Dear Sirs,
I am.
Sincerely yours,
G. K. Chesterton

Sounds right, but Chesterton also wrote a substantially longer reflection on the same subject, which can be found here: What's Wrong with the World.

Lectionary - Lent 3C - Luke 13:1-9

At that very time there were some present who told him about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices. He asked them, "Do you think that because these Galileans suffered in this way they were worse sinners than all other Galileans? No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all perish as they did. Or those eighteen who were killed when the tower of Siloam fell on them--do you think that they were worse offenders than all the others living in Jerusalem? No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all perish just as they did." (Luke 13:1-5)

I don't think that Jesus' teaching in Luke 13:1-5 is about when bad things happen to good people or about the unpredictability of life or the about the inevitability of death. I think Jesus is speaking more like an Old Testament prophet at this point. Pilate murdered Galilean insurgents while they were worshiping in the temple? You think that's bad. You ain't seen nothing yet. Just wait. Unless you turn this nation around, God's judgment is coming. A few dead Galileans will be chump change. The Romans are coming and you are all going to die.

Read the rest of this entry »