Don’t mess with the liturgy just to keep it from getting stale!

C.S. Lewis – Letters to Malcolm, “Speaking Of”

“Novelty, simply as such, can have only an entertainment value. And [believers] don’t go to church to be entertained. They go to use the service, or, if you prefer, to enact it. Every service is a structure of acts and words through which we receive a sacrament, or repent, or supplicate, or adore. And it enables us to do these things best – if you like, it ‘works’ best – when, through long familiarity, we don’t have to think about it. As long as you notice, and have to count, the steps, you are not yet dancing but only learning to dance. A good shoe is a shoe you don’t notice. Good reading becomes possible when you need not consciously think about eyes, or light, or print, or spelling. The perfect church service would be one we were almost unaware of; our attention would have been on God.
But every novelty prevents this, It fixes our attention on the service itself; and thinking about worship is a different thing from worshipping…A still worse thing may happen. Novelty may fix our attention not even on the service but on the celebrant…It lays one’s devotion waste. There is really some excuse for the man who said, “I wish they’d remember that the charge to Peter was Feed my sheep, not Try experiments on my rats, or even, Teach my performing dogs new tricks.”
Thus my whole liturgiological position really boils down to an entreaty for permanence and uniformity…But if each form is snatched away just when I am beginning to feel at home in it, then I can never make any progress in the art of worship. You give me no chance to acquire the trained habit…”

I personally don’t understand why rhythm and repetition are necessarily seen as impassionate or devoid of power whether one is worshipping God or loving their spouse. Saying “I love you” each day or commanding the sun to arise and cross the circuit of the sky only to command it to go down on the westside most definitely isn’t a boring exercise just because it is done every single day. Aren’t sunrises and sunsets and vocal intonation slightly different each and every day? Isn’t there both continuity and diversity in rhythm and repetition?

Review: The Deliverance of God: An Apocalyptic Rereading of Justification in Paul:Intro & Chapter 1

In Douglas A. Campbell’s provocative tome, The Deliverance of God: An Apocalyptic Rereading of Justification in Paul, he sets out to demonstrate that the Western presuppositions, unacknowledged cultural commitments, have unwittingly constructed Paul’s gospel of salvation in its own image and as a result created theological idolatry and unnecessary exegetical conundrums. While Luther is the in-vogue and current classical whipping boy for such a critique, Campbell redirects the attack to a broader realm and addresses the nomenclature issue by labeling this nefarious Western system “the Justification Model.”

In his introduction he starts his critique with the a load of qualifiers, mentioning that for him to address the faults with this model, he cannot just jump to the exegesis but must lay out the presuppositions, lines of reasoning, root metaphors, and problems with the current system before he sets out a competing model. After Campbell gives a short introduction for how he came to his realizations, a map of his journey, if you will, he then speaks of “three classic interpretive conundrums” in the Western reading and understanding of Pauline thought. These conundrums include

1) a tension between a forensic / contractual justification (law & faith) Lutheran simul iustus et peccator perspective & a participatory / mystical union model.

2) the debate over what was the nature of 2nd Temple Judaism in which Paul lived and moved and had his being. Was this environment one of a legalistic rubric or one of badges of inclusion in the people of God, or of a different nature altogether? “Thus a second major interpretive scandal seems to hold that for the conventional construal of Paul’s justification texts – its distorted account of Judaism” That is, simply reading Judaism as if it were a “works” religion is a misunderstanding of the climate in which Paul was writing. Said differently, it was not as if the Jews of Paul’s day were committing the same errors as the Roman Catholics in Luther’s day.

3) Furthermore, in light of point (2) above and because of a multitude of other considerations, there remains important and unresolved debates over why he wrote his major deployment of Romans, when he wrote his important ancillary discussion in Galatians, or in relation to whom (Judaizers? of what kind?)

With all of these conundrums sketched out in brief, Campbell suggests that
“all three of these apparently unrelated problems are in fact generated by a common underlying cause…A single culprit seems to generate our difficulties, namely, a particular individuals – and so possibly also rather modern – reading of Paul’s justification terminology and argumentation that devolves into a conditional understanding of salvation (that is, salvation is granted in relation to individual actions). If therefore also construes Paul’s soteriology – at least as it is articulated in these texts – in fundamentally contractual terms” (3).

As Campbell moves forward with his challenge to the status quo, he goes through sketching out the Justification theory of salvation based both on its primary presuppositional and articulated argumentative propositions as well as the root metaphors that all work together to reinforce this model’s conclusions.

Consider his Summary of the Argumentative Progression [of the Justification Model] in Propositional Form:

The First Phase: The Rigorous Contract
1a. Humans are rational
1b. Humans are self-interested.
1c. Humans are therefore ethical, in order to be saved (and this is largely in relation to 1b.)
2a. God is omnipotent (and presumably also omniscient and omnipresent).
2b. God is just.
2c. 2a is known to everyone from the cosmos without.
2d. 2b. is known to everyone from the conscience within.
3a. The content of righteousness derives from God’s nature (see 2b).
3b. God’s ethical demands are revealed to Jews through written legislation.
3c. God’s ethical demands are known to everyone else innately (2b via 2d).
4. Reward and punishment will be apportioned by God (so 2a) in relation to individual’s fulfillment or not of God’s ethical demands (so 2b), that is, in accordance with righteous actions, which constitute righteousness, or their converse, and hence on the basis of desert. “If you do x, then you will be rewarded; if you do not, and/or do y, then you will be punished.”
The Future Eschatological Caveat
5a. The injustices of life on earth will be rectified by a final judgment at the end of the present age.
5b. Those dead will be resurrected in order to take part in the judgment (through 2a).
5c. The future age will be constituted in positive and negative states (again through 2a).
5d. God will determine on this “day” (through 2a) which state each individual will enter on the basis of desert (see 4, effected at 5a through 5b).
The Introspective Twist
6a. Humans are inherently sinful; that is, everyone violates God’s ethical demands (and probably often, in which case see also the supplementary “loop’ immediately following).
6b. Honest self-reflection notes the consistent production of unethical deeds (6a, apparent in the light of 3a through 3c).
6c. Such self-reflection concludes – in an accurate anticipation – that God’s final judgment will be negative (see 4, 5c, and 5d).
6d. Rational individuals are now afraid and desire somehow to avoid this inevitable consequence.
The Loop of Despair (Correct)
1’. Accordingly, individuals might undertake a renewed attempt to be righteous.
2’. This attempt, however, will also fail, as 6a continues, noted by 6b, and so the conclusion of 6c will be reiterated, leading to a strengthened 6d!
The Loop of Foolishness (Incorrect)
1a”. Resistant individuals perceive and claim themselves to be righteous.
1b”. They are in fact not righteous (no one is free from all so: so 6a).
2a”. Therefore, they are being dishonest with themselves, specifically, by underestimating their sinfulness and/or overestimating their rectitude.
2b”. Their judgment is ethically deficient (see 2a”).
2c”. This holds the more, the more ethical information they have (so Jews).
3a”. If they boast of their righteousness, they are liars and fakes.
3b”. If they invoke the name of God and religion, they are religious charlatans.
3c”. If they upbraid others and exhort others to imitate them, they are judgmental hypocrites.
3d”. If they continue this calculus this calculus and its behavior, they are irrational and obstinate, courting hell.
4”. They correct conclusion (obvious to the outsider): they doubly deserve the negative judgment awaiting them in 4-5d.
The Satisfaction of God’s Justice
7a. God redirects, generously, the punishment due sinners to Christ (who dies).
(7b. Christ, being sinless and divine, can offer limitless satisfaction through dying.)
7c. God redirects, generously, the perfect righteousness of Christ to sinners, who are now viewed as if it were theirs.
(7d. Christ, being sinless, supplies perfect righteousness.)
The Appropriation of Salvation
8a. God, again generously, stipulates a manageable criterion (see 6a) for accessing or appropriating these redirections, namely, “faith.”
8b. Individuals who have “faith,” and thereby access 7a (and perhaps 7c), technically fulfill the criteria of requisite punishment and perfect righteousness and will receive a positive evaluation (via 4) on the day of judgment (5a, 5b, and 5d), proceeding to the state of blessed eternal life (5c).

In addition to this linear logical progression, Campbell argues that two root metaphors or fundamental images supply the glue, if you will, to hold the above progression together. In essence, “Justification theory begins with a particular image of humanity and a particular image of God”(30). He states that the key metaphors and their additional metaphorical layers can be summarized in propositional form as follows:

I. A conception of humanity as individual, rationalistic and self-interested. We begin our analysis with “philosophical man” – humans as fundamentally cognitive. I discerns first II.
II. A conception of God as an authority figure of strict justice. Philosophical man discerns the existence of God as a strict authority figure – his basic divine attribute is retributive justice. II is discerned by I.
I’. Humanity’s self-perceived ethical incapacity. Humans attempt to be ethical in light of II, but only repeatedly transgress, and realize this: I’ layers I in the light of II.
II’ A compensatory mechanism of satisfaction, namely, Christ’s atonement. Christ’s death pays the appropriate compensation for all these transgressions, and any more that may or do occur: II’ responds to I’ on behalf of I and the standards of II.
I”. A stipulated criterion of salvation’s appropriation, namely, faith. Salvation is grasped by individuals through an act of belief that takes place in some relation to Christ: I”, possible for anyone within I but constrained by I’, activates II’ for anyone so inclined. (As an action, it also corresponds to other actions taking place within I and I’.)

If nothing more, Campbell has laid out a fairly decent summary of what will be his opponent. With a few exceptions, this overall outline is not a straw man. A few points that I’d want to address is whether the Justification model does indeed place as much emphasis on knowledge as mere rational or intellectual assent. Faith as a form of knowledge and love as an epistemology are also high aspects of the Justification model. Indeed, I’d argue that the later aspect is the “knowledge” that is eternal life, the love of God that is lived out with childlike faith. In addition, the high emphasis on God as oppressive judge with justice being the defining or driving element of God’s character is pushing the point too far. While, let’s say the Reformed community, certainly emphasizes the holiness of God and thereby His perfect justice, this is the same community that teaches that all covenant children, marked and in covenant with God in their baptisms, are loved by the Father, and so taught from their earliest years the love of their Father for them. The emphasis here is surely on the gracious love and promises of God to His people.

While there are a plethora of minute issues that I might have a few disagreements with, the Introduction and first chapter have me hooked to see where Campbell is going to go with his critiques, and more interestingly, what his positive proposals and his exegesis in light of those proposals might reveal about the Pauline corpus and in particular the doctrine of justification.

The blaspheme that caused the tear

In the gospel according to Matthew (26:57-68), we are told that when Jesus was brought before the religious leaders being falsely accused, he did not address any of the charges. Finally, the high priest “adjures Jesus by the living God” whether he was the Messiah, the son of God. At this, Jesus finally responds but in a way that seems somewhat cryptic, in that when he has finished speaking the high priest tears his robe calling Jesus’ comments blaspheme. What is so blasphemous about his claim?

Jesus said,

“You have said so. But I tell you, from now on you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power and coming on the clouds of heaven.”

This answer is a quote from the seventh chapter of Daniel, where the prophet sees a vision where,

“behold, with the clouds of heaven there came one like a son of man, and he came to the Ancient of Days and was presented before him. And to him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him; his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom one that shall not be destroyed.”

Let us make a few observations before we tie this strange claim to the charge of blaspheme. Notice first that the “coming on the clouds” is not to earth but “to the Ancient of Days.” This is an ascension trip. Notice too that the son of man receives “dominion, glory, and a kingdom” that is “everlasting, shall not pass away, nor be destroyed.” This is ultimate kingly status. For the Hebrews, there is only One Creator and only One ultimate King, and this One does not share His glory with another. And yet, this son of man is receiving “glory” and a “kingdom.” In addition, this giving of a kingdom is so “that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him.” This later phrase, “serve him” is sometimes translated “worship.” Either way, the son of man here is receiving what only belongs to YHWH, to the One God alone.

Going back to Jesus’ claim to be the Messiah (you have said so), and to his claim that he is the son of man that Daniel is referencing seems to indicate that he was YHWH, about to receive glory and service that belong to the One God alone. The high priest made the connection that we so often overlook. Hence the tearing of the robe and the charge of blaspheme.

What must I do to be accepted?

According to Acts 10:34 the answer is to fear God and do righteousness.

Consider this portion of the puritan Matthew Henry’s words on this matter:

Acceptance cannot be obtained on any other ground than that of the covenant of mercy, through the atonement of Christ; but wherever true religion is found, God will accept it without regarding names or sects. The fear of God and works of righteousness are the substance of true religion, the effects of special grace. Though these are not the cause of a man’s acceptance, yet they show it; and whatever may be wanting in knowledge or faith, will in due time be given by Him who has begun it…

Where does this leave the inclusive / exclusive debate concerning those outside the Christian faith? Are the saved by grace as a result of Jesus’ righteousness apart from their lack of knowledge of his name or work? Thinking it through.

On the nature of fruit…spiritual and otherwise

Recently, as I was struggling with the notion of the evidence of God’s work in a person’s life when the reality of life rhythms struck me. You can tell a tree by its fruit. But fruit only comes around for a little while each year. The little that I know concerning botany is that a fruit/vegetable bearing tree/plant does not bear fruit all of the time. There are seasons where the fruit-source is dormant, hidden in the potentially sap-filled branches. Flowers appear and eventually give way to the juicy meat of vegetation flesh. For some reason, I had never taken the analogy over to the spiritual realm and considered that the fulness of spiritual fruit may not always be hanging heavy and low on a stocked full branch. There may be seasons where the fruit is being prepared. If the analogy could be taken a step further, it would be a bad thing if the tree did not produce fruit, year after year, but if there was a dry period, it may be wise to wait and see if the tree produces fruit after a bit of cultivation and pruning. All in all, the notion of not having non-stop fruit is of encouragement to this particular tree.

The Faithfulness of the Jesus

While it is by grace through faith, lived out with full trusting confidence in God and his promises, i.e., faithfulness, that we are saved, few folks recognize that the formula of being “saved by faith” has boiled the issue down to leave out Christ Jesus. It is by His faithfulness that we are saved, this not of ourselves, lest any man should boast.

Considering the faith of Jesus for a moment, it seems that the incarnation must have taken quite a bit of faith prior to its occurrence, whereby the Son of God made Himself a little lower than the angels for a time, taking on human flesh and hoping and trusting the Spirit and the Father that He would live a righteous life, even unto the cursed death on a cross, and then be raised from the grave three days later.

Without placing them in order of “most significant” or “most difficult”, the incarnation seems to be up there with the willing atoning sacrifice.

Imagining in Worship: Icons and Teddy Bears

C.S. Lewis commented on objects of worship in a fascinating way when he compared icons with teddy bears. Consider:

A particular toy or a particular icon may be itself a work of art, but that is logically accidental; its artistic merits will not make it a better toy or a better icon. They may make it a worse one. For its purpose is, not to fix attention upon itself, but to stimulate and liberate certain activities in the child or the worshipper. The teddy bear exists in order that the child may endow it with imaginary life and personality and enter into a quasi-social relationship with it. That is what ‘playing with it’ means. The better this activity succeeds the less the actual appearance of the object will matter. Too close or prolonged attention to its changeless and expressionless face impedes the play. A crucifix exists in order to direct the worshipper’s thought and affections to the Passion. It had better not have any excellencies, subtleties, or originalities which will fix attention upon itself. Hence devout people may, for this purpose, prefer the crudest and empties icon. The emptier, the more permeable; and they want, as it were, to pass through the material image and go beyond.

I might add, for a minor modification that while the image ought “not have any excellencies, subtleties, or originalities which will fix attention upon itself,” it is certainly not wrong, but very possibly beneficial that the image have “excellencies, subtleties, or originalities” which will highlight nuances and perspectives of the event or person it is depicting.

Cleaning up or making more mess?

There once was a naïve and spoiled young man who was given the laborious task of cleaning the family pool. Yes, this family had their very own oasis right in their back yard. The pool had become green and was slowly fading to black. Each week, the young man’s father modeled methodically how to swipe the sides and bottom of this pool but in these last days had transferred the task to his son, who happed to be board a lot. A few times the young man had gone out and attempted to do his duty. He set up the cleaning hose and extended the pole. He began to run the vacuum down one side of the far wall and noticed that all he was accomplishing was stirring up the water so that he could no longer see the bottom of his pole. And so he stopped. The young man figured that he was doing more harm than good and so put away the cleaning gear, and left the pool to its doomed stagnant place in this world.

p.s. – not about my boys

Systematizing Mankind … throwing my hat into the mud

Could it be then that the classic Protestant debates will one day dissolve and fade to black? In an attempt to systematize mankind, allow me to throw my hat into the mire of debates.

In the great debates concerning the nature of humanity, election, and salvation, people are placed into various categorical camps. Unless one goes the direction where in the end all humanity will be restored unto God, man may be broken into two categories, the redeemed and the lost, the saved and the damned, the righteous and the wicked, you get the point.

But within these categories, is it possible for there to be subcategories that may lend to some of the confusion in Christian circles concerning whether a person “can lose their salvation”? Besides the fact that the formation of that question has reified an act, the question can be put more pungently,

Can those who have been regenerated and unified with and in Christ Jesus, being sealed with the Holy Spirit, been justified as they stand in Christ, ultimately not be saved at the day of judgment for having been cut from the Vine for lack of abiding, continuing in faith, or producing no fruit?

What if there are those who have been regenerated who persevere and those who do not? Those who persevere are shown to ultimately be the elect for God preserved them. And at the same time there are those who never were regenerate in the first place, paid for and yet unredeemed, and never intended by God to be redeemed? In addition to these categories, there are those outside of the Church whom are saved by grace according to the purpose of God’s call? The last possibility would certainly fall within the realm of unordinary, as the Westminster Confession would say, nonetheless left as a possibility in the sovereignty and grace of God Almighty.

Such a construct would make sense of Jesus’ words that He will loose none of His sheep, for whom He laid down His life, while those branches of His that do not produce fruit will be cut off and thrown into the fire. Likewise, this fits with Paul’s language in Romans 5 about those who have been justified, reconciled, and still not yet saved from the wrath of God with regards to time. And again, making sense of Peter’s language about those who were destine for destruction all the while affirming John’s claim that Jesus is the propitiation, the one who has turned back the wrath of God, for the whole world.

Could it be then that the classic Protestant debates will one day dissolve and fade to black? In light of the above breakdown, we could say that at the same time we are considered righteous in Christ, and this not of ourselves, but by being forensically declared righteous, we stand as such by union with Christ, thus affirming a judicial declaration of God about Christians while not falling into the error of reifying righteousness and so having to beam it / impute it into a cosmic bank account. And so Rome, Luther, and Westminster get placed in their historical context and the debate arises out of the mired disputes.

In addition, these affirmations above claim that God is sovereign and has chosen before time individuals who are ultimately His, and who will share the fullness of joy in His presence eternally, recognizing that man must be born again not by human will but by God. At the same time, there are those who have been sanctified and have shared in the power of the age to come, by having been brought to life and filled by the Holy Spirit, given the gift of faith, have spurn that gift, thrown it out, quenched the Spirit’s power and have a form of godliness that never produced fruit, stumbled so far as to have fallen from grace, as they were destined to do. The T.U.L.I.P. still stands while the reprobate and apostate falls.

Transformed Sexes – the godly manliness of women. or ?

For us men and for our salvation he came down… In the incarnation of God, throughout his sojourning on this earth, in, by, and because of his suffering, death, burial, and resurrection, all the way to the point of his victorious ascension, the world we live in was transformed, flipped upside down.

In the beginning, it was evening and morning, the first day. After the resurrection, the world begins anew each morning, and so it can be said, “It was morning and evening, the first new day.”

Along these lines, with regards to the nature of the sexes, St. Chrysostom makes the following declaration as he expounds upon the women at the cross of Christ: “But the women stood by the Cross, and the weaker sex then appeared the manlier so entirely henceforth were all things transformed.”

Then again, the notion that the women were being more manly than the men, sounds to me more along the lines of the Fall…”and she gave also some to her husband who was with her.”