Friends

My friend, Brian Day, has just published an article in Credo Magazine. You should check it out.

On the Eucharist

“So we approach to the mystical gifts and are sanctified, becoming partakers of the holy flesh and the honorable blood of Christ the Saviour of us all, not receiving it as ordinary flesh – God forbid – nor as that of a man sanctified and conjoined with the Word by unity of honor, or as one who had received a divine indwelling, but as truly life-giving and the Word’s own flesh. For being by nature, as God, life, when he had become one with his own flesh, he made it life-giving” (Cyril of Alexandria, The Third Letter of Cyril of Nestorius).

“Even as an act of the Church, therefore, the Eucharist is not to be regarded as independent act on our part in response to what God has already done for us in Christ . . . but as acts towards the Father already fulfilled in the humanity of Christ in our place and on our behalf, to which our acts in his name are assimilated and identified through the Spirit” (T.F. Torrance, Theology in Reconciliation).

“Author of life Divine, who hast a table spread,
Furnish’d with mystic wine and everlasting bread,
Preserve the life thyself hast given,
And feed and train us up for heaven” (John Wesley, Hymns on the Lords Supper of 1745)

“Come, Holy Ghost, thine influence shed, and realize the sign;
Thy life infused into the bread, Thy power into the wine.
Effectual let the tokens prove, and made, by heavenly art,
Fit channels to convey thy love to every faithful heart” (John Wesley, Hymns on the Lords Supper of 1745)

“In the Eucharist the church is always called to become what it eschatologically is” (William Cavanaugh, Torture and Eucharist).

“We know that real life is 'eucharist,' a movement of love and adoration toward God, the movement in which alone the meaning and the value of all that exists can be revealed and fulfilled. We know that we have lost this eucharistic life, and finally we know that in Christ, the new Adam, the perfect man, this eucharistic life was restored to man. For He Himself was the perfect Eucharist; He offered Himself in total obedience, love, and thanksgiving to God. God was His very life. And He gave this perfect eucharist life to us. In Him God became our life” (Alexander Schmemann, For the Life of the World).

Virtual Communion

About a week ago I received word about an online bible college class who decided to take communion online as a way of concluding their class time. I took this article and presented into the Missional Theology class that I have been in for a few weeks in hopes of raising conversations about the implications of having virtual communion and the discussion has been fruitful.

We talked about a lot of things. We talked about the Gnostic aspects of a disembodied Eucharist, and the individualism of taking the elements yourself and not receiving them from another person. We talked about the efficacy of the event, whether or not they actually had the Lord’s Supper. We asked whether or not we might call this missional even if it is not the sacrament of communion. And we talked about Baudrillard’s notion of hyper-reality, which is where I find the most helpful critique of virtual communion.

I am no Baudrillard scholar so I welcome (plead) for correction if I misunderstand him. In short, his notion of hyper-reality is when illusion becomes reality. So, when our current Eucharistic practices fail (and note that they fail because of the Church) to be sign, symbol, foretaste, and instrument (a la Lesslie Newbigin) of the Kingdom of God then the church will turn to virtual reality (hyper-reality) for meaning and for “the real.”

At best what online communion offers is a mirror in which we look at our own inability to truly (really) take the Lord’s Supper. We cannot embrace the practice of online communion. It reveals the error of our ways, where we need to make correction in reality because their only reality. The turn to hyper-reality is a turn away from the real.

context is freedom

"All the activity of the disciples is subject to the clear precept of their Lord. They are not left free to choose their own methods or adopt their own conception of their task. Their work is to be Christ-work, and therefore they are absolutely dependent on the will of Jesus. Happy are they whose duty is fixed by such a precept, and who are therefore free from the tyranny of their own ideas and calculations" (Dietrich Bonhoeffer, The Cost of Discipleship)

Email, the last hope

Do you know what will happen to your non-Christian friends when you get raptured? If you’re not certain, then why not have peace of mind with this new form of evangelism. It lets you reach out from beyond the heavens back into this stink-hole of a planet by way of technology, probably the same technology that will be used by the anti-Christ to manipulate most of human race that has been left behind, which is a sort of poetic justice in that Christians can use the very tool of the enemy towards his (because the anti-Christ in never a woman in the movies or the books) demise.

Don’t dilly-dally around! Pay the money for peace of mind. Surely the Kingdom of God is worth thirty pieces of . . . I mean $40. (Okay, that's a bit harsh on my part, I admit).

CAUTON: In case of rapture, this blog will remain unmoderated.

"How does it look from where you stand?"

“If the hermeneutics of conviction declares, ‘Here I stand,’ the hermeneutics of humility asks, ‘How does it look from where you stand?’ The false humility of deconstruction degenerates into a despair of language and of our ability to interpret. True hermeneutic humility, on the other hand, is willing to receive something from the other, from the text, and from other interpreters. Does humility before the test rule out a critical moment in which the reader assesses its context? Am I advocating hermeneutic fideism: ‘Love God, and read as you please’? No, for understanding must be tested. Christian interpreters must endure every test that critics care to throw at them. Testing and enduring: these are signs of rationality and humility alike. Interpreters should never idolize their interpretations. I am seeking a degree of interpretive confidence somewhere between pride and sloth – the humble conviction that stands firm, even while acknowledging that it is rooted on earth rather than looking down from heaven. We do not yet have absolute knowledge. Yet we do have adequate knowledge, enough to respond to the overtures of the Word. Our first reflex upon being addressed should be one of trust. We must at least be willing to hear the other rather than drown out its voice, even when its message is a potential threat to our way of being in the world” (Kevin Vanhoozer in Disciplining Hermeneutics, 159).

who ya gonna vote for?

My Dad is asking for folks to post who they are going to vote for in November and five reasons why. If you got a few moments, head over their and offer your thoughts.

missional theology, deconstruction, and paul

This is the epistle reading from lectionary this week.

“(1) Think of us in this way, as servants of Christ and stewards of God’s mysteries. (2) Moreover, it is required of stewards that they be found trustworthy. (3) But with me it is a very small thing that I should be judged by you or by any human court. I do not even judge myself. (4) I am not aware of anything against myself, but I am not thereby acquitted. It is the Lord who judges me. (5) Therefore do not pronounce judgment before the time, before the Lord comes, who will bring to light the things now hidden in darkness and will disclose the purposes of the heart. Then each one will receive commendation from God” (1 Corinthians 4:1-5).

It is becoming overwhelmingly apparent to me that the church just needs to not take itself so seriously. In other words, we make it harder on ourselves than it has to be. I am thinking about the marks of the church (one, holy, catholic, and apostolic), particularly the call to unity, or oneness. Could it be that the church has been trying to secure unity in the wrong way? Could it be that the church has been trying to come together on issues that were never meant to be agreed upon across the board? I am thinking particularly about structural patterns in local churches, but I am sure there are a variety of things one could discuss. In other words (with Paul) our unity lies in the gospel and the transforming call for responsibility. Our task is not about imposing our own culturally conditioned assumptions about the way things are in the world on other people, as true as they may be. Rather, as we the church face the freshness and challenge of each new day we are called to hold up our assumption with open hands to God and one another and ask (plea) for guidance and direction.

“The calling of the church to be missional – to be a sent community – leads the church to step beyond the given cultural forms that carry dubious assumptions about what the church is, what its public role should be, and what its voice should sound like. Testing and receiving our assumptions and practices against a vision of the reign of God promises the deep renewal of the missional soul of the church that we need. By daily receiving and entering the reign of God, through corporate praying for its coming, and longing for its appearance, and in public living under its mantle, this missional character of the church will be nourished and revived” (Darrel Guder, Missional Church, 109).

I am not necessarily trying to advance the cause of a Missional Theology. That leads us down the very road of absolutism and institutionalism that Missional Theology is hoping to steer the church away from. However, the basic premise (of this quote) indicates something that should always remain true: the gospel perpetually challenges all our assumptions until it is on earth as it is in heaven.

coulrophobia

I received an interesting forward today in my email. I am not sure if the person who sent it was supporting the content of the forward or if they were just passing it on to everyone. I suspect the person does support the emails content. In any case it got me thinking about a few things.

The content of the email was about Barak Obama refusing to solute the flag (you can find a ton of stuff on youtube regarding this matter). The email quotes Obama saying,

“As I've said about the flag pin, I don't want to be perceived as taking sides . . . There are a lot of people in the world to whom the American flag is a symbol of oppression. And the anthem itself conveys a war-like message. You know, the bombs bursting in air and all. It should be swapped for something less parochial and less bellicose. I like the song 'I'd Like to Teach the World to Sing.' If that were our anthem, then I might salute it.”

To begin, I was given no indication as to where and when Obama said this. The quote has no source.

In any case, I want to consider this quote based solely on its own terms (words): (1) What if a Christian president took office not based on sides (America vs. the world)? (2) What if it’s true that the American flag is a symbol of oppression? We might about this in terms of war or global capitalism, if not just the shear ability to waste all our resources with a thought. (2) What if Obama wants to move America beyond its identity as a war-driven nation? Is he not aloud to critique or even protest and still be nationalistic? (3) Would it not be refreshing to see the president of the United States be driven by world peace through a common song/harmony?

To top is off this is what the person followed up with in their own words after this quote in the email:

“Yes, ladies and gentlemen, this could possibly be our next president!! I, for once, am speechless. He has absolutely NO pride in this country!!!!! This is outrageous!!!! He doesn't deserve to be [a] dogcatcher!!! (Oh, sorry dogcatchers, I mean you no disrespect.) LET'S SEND THIS CLOWN DOWN THE ROAD KICKING ROCKS!!!! Forward this to EVERYONE YOU KNOW.”

I suppose I am doing exactly what he wants. However, if someone comes across this on this blog I would hope that they might explore some of the other posts and consider the person (me) who wrote them as nonsupporting and that they might think critically about the content (of the email and my blog).

To clarify, I am not arguing in favor of Barak Obama. I am not in agreement with the content of his defense regarding this matter for a variety of theological reasons that I won’t go into now. I only offer this post as an attempt to expose some of the ignorance (with all due respect) of the church (and yes the email provider is a Christian) to think critically about these matters. To think about them in light of the gospel that challenges every assumption about the way things are in the world, even the Church. We all stand under the (loving) judgment of Jesus Christ who never wants to silence the other. Both Obama and his email opponent stand to be called into question by the gospel. Let’s see more of those emails flying around that speak with love and humility and respect to those who disagree in hopes that both sides might be called into question by the gospel because the Kingdom belongs to God, not His church.