The Needle, The Pot, and The Pen

Hoof Beats

2011-04-26T11:01:00.002-04:00

A poem from my depression last year. I just ran across it and wanted to post it here.

I mean really...
What's to love?

Nothing.

Here I am...slumped.

No one.

All alone without anything,
Or anyone
To call me their own.

No one.

All alone, abandoned, forsaken...

I cry out...

No one.

In the midst of this,
The hoof beats hasten.
(I hear them coming.)

Nothing.

Slumped in the dark...

Nothing.

I long, I yearn, I desire...

Nothing.

The hoof beats draw near,
They gallop upon me,
Tread ground around me,
Trounce next to me...

Something.

In the midst of this now...

Something.

The hoof beats...

Something.

I stand here...

Something.

Someone here has called me,
Has called me their own.

Someone.

I am someone
Out of this nothing, this no one.

Someone.

Here I am standing...

Someone.

I mean, really,
I've been loved.

9.9.10

Mockingbird Conference Preview: Freedom to Fail: A Conversation about Grace and Failure in Parenting (and being parented).

2011-03-07T08:00:00.000-05:00

On December 6, 2006, the doctor handed us an 8lb ball of pure fury that sounded more like a baby pterodactyl than, well, a human baby. Filled with romantic notions of being the perfect mom and dad (always calm, always gentle, always smiling), we headed home with our first born son. When he wasn't sleeping (which was scattered) he was screaming. Within two weeks after our son's birth, everything that we believed would be our parenting experience shattered. Our patience and energy levels were depleted, and our frustration and exhaustion levels were sky high. Rather than feeling nurturing, we felt resentful and angry; rather than going to him when he cried, I (Lauren) would crawl under the covers and cry. We couldn't do it; we couldn't be the perfect parents. We were plagued with guilt and convinced of our failure. We were failing, and our failure would be our son's undoing.

But the Gospel told us something different: that it wasn't all up to us or on our shoulders, that we were forgiven and justified apart from our actions. The Gospel put the lie to the equation that perfect parents = perfect children (or that perfection is possible in either party). The Gospel gave us freedom...freedom to be the parents we were--faults and strengths combined--with the freedom to fail.

In recognizing our own failures and faults in parenting, we were able to begin to forgive our own parents--who are (it turns out) as human as we are, faults and all.

This breakout session was developed out of this experience of feeling like a failure in parenting and the freedom that the Gospel message brings. Come and hear our experience; more importantly, we would love to hear yours.

To register, click here.

"The Siren Call of Temptation"

2011-02-03T06:07:00.009-05:00

(The following is written as an "...and this" response to something a good friend of mine (and someone I respect in "field") wrote over at his blog. Click here for excellent his post. Oh, and in case you are wondering what in the world an "...and this" response is...picture it this way...if we were in class together and my friend had just given a response to something that I really liked but sparked my own thought that would further emphasize his point, I would promptly raise my hand (or butt in) and say, "...and this..." adding more weight to the existing argument. So not only is this a new post, but I've skillfully invented a "response" category. Go me!)

I love classical music. It calms me, it always has. So, when my little Q man was born and all he did was SCREAM (okay, unfair...maybe 2% of the time he 'tried' to sleep), I quickly developed a habit of turning on the classical music...for me, really. So, more often then not, if you stop by our house in the middle of the day you will typically hear classical music (and, maybe, me yelling over the top of it...).

However, when I work out, it's a whole different story in music genre. Out goes Bach and in goes Rage Against the Machine; out with Mozart, in with Tool. Out with calm and in with energy. Now, since I've gotten married, my music purchases have reduced to nothing, so I highly depend on others to introduce me to new "work-out-worthy" songs. My brother-in-law left some cd's he had burned in our van, and I took to listening to them. And came across a few songs that I deemed worthy. One in particular caught my ear, so to speak: Jem's "Come on Closer".

(And, here's where my "...and this..." response to my friend's post kicks in.)

This song, simply put, is alluring. It draws you in. The effervescent high pitched notes play like candy on your musical tongue. You can't help but think that the introductory notes are the same notes that follow fairies around. They are sweet and enticing, "Come closer" they beckon..."come a little bit closer..." And you do. Add in the soft voice of Jem, assuring you that this is fine, this is good, this is what you want, this will make you happy. You are completely drawn in by the sirenic call.

But if you listen just a bit longer, the song unveils it's more primal undertones...the bass kicks in and, as the listener, you feel the lurking beast. And it's you that is its target. The song is not evidential sweet pixie dust of tinkling fairies looking only out for your benefit and amusement, but the alluring candy path leading Hansel and Gretle to the witch's oven. But you are already in and now the face of the beast has been revealed; however, you are powerless to fight it. It has won. And it doesn't back off, victorious; it remains and waits, lurking about you.

And now you're satisfied
A twinkle in your eye
Go to sleep for ten
And anticipating I will be waiting For you to wake again

You cannot fight this beast on your own; it will win...every time. To me, this song epitomizes the siren call of temptation, especially for those of us who struggle with addiction (for me, I struggle with food addiction issues). So, when I read (or hear) people make comments that addicts just need to "choose" to resist this 'temptation' I (with my friend) find it hard to restrain the lasers from my eyes. "Resist??!?!" I want to question, vehemently. "Resist this very thing that has all the power over me?" To me, statements like "just choose" do not fully grasp the nature and power of sin and temptation. Temptation is not a mouse; it's a very beautifully disguised dragon that lures you into it's cave only to shackle you to its wall with every intent of drawing from you your life. So again, I ask, "Resist this?!"

Resisting never works, in fact it makes it worse. You can't avoid temptation and you can't take it by the horns. Your only choice--like Pilgrim does with the Black Knight in Bunyon's Pilgrim's Progress--is to face it. And by facing it, you admit it to be what it is: more powerful than you. In that admission, you admit another thing: I am powerless. And in admitting your own powerlessness, you cry out for help. And the One who can defeat this thing that has power over you (and has actually already defeated it), rescues you.

Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I myself serve the law of God with my mind, but with my flesh I serve the law of sin. (Romans 7:24-25)

We are saved from death by Jesus' death. We are given new life because we, our very selves, are brought to death with Jesus in His death; and being like Him in His death promises us the new life that comes with His resurrection is also ours (Rom. 6:5). As an addict and as a Christian, I, myself, never have power over that which lurks to ensnare me and lure me back in to it's power, but the One who lives in me (in whom I also live) does have that very power; it is to Him that I turn every day all day, powerless and desperate, and find rest and freedom.

For a much earlier post written on something similar, click here. This was the post right before my theological conversion to L/G.

What's In A Name...

2011-01-28T18:55:00.003-05:00

I remember when I chose the name for my blog, I just loved it. I still do. Yes, it is a bit cumbersome and long, but it really fit.

I'm a stay at home mom who studies and writes about theology; what better then to describe my blog with the tools that I use: needles, pots, and pens. (Okay...I'll confess, I don't sew everyday, but I do have needles (both sewing and knitting and crocheting....wait, no, that's a hook....so I also have hooks). I do cook, so pots are appropriate. And, well, I type rather than pen anything, but I do use pens to underline when I'm reading.) It's what they call in biblical Hebrew a merism.

A merism is something quite like: land flowing with milk and honey. The milk and honey can be viewed as the exreme ends of a spectrum; thus, to say "a land flowing with milk and honey" is essentially saying a land flowing with everything from milk to honey. So, the name of my blog is a merism: it's not strictly needles, pots and pens, but these are the things that represent my world. Essentially, "The Needle, The Pot, and The Pen" should suggest everything about home and writing (and study).

But a hidden unknown fact about the title of my blog is that it is based on a portion of a poem by Anne Bradstreet (one of my favorite poets). Here is the stanza from the poem "The Prologue" from which I created the name for my blog:

I am obnoxious to each carping tongue
Who says my hand a needle better fits.
A poet's pen all scorn I should thus wrong;
For such despite they cast on female wits,
If what I do prove well, it won't advance--
They'll say it was stolen, or else it was by chance.

Anne Bradstreet is not only my hero because she is a fantastic poet, but also because she was not afraid to do what most thought more appropriate for a man to do: write poetry. She new the criticisms, but wrote in spite of them. She was a devoted wife and mother and educated and smart and prolific with her 'pen'.

Anne Bradstreet my hero and my inspiration.

To be a woman in theology is hard. To be an evangelical, faithful, believing, Christian woman AND embarking on a theological career is hard. There are more times then there are not that I feel the judgment from fellow Christians (either male of female): wouldn't your hand better fit a needle than a theological book?

I can't deny that I have been called to both worlds. I have. I love both my family and serving them, and I love Jesus and serving His people through studying and teaching His word. And I'm passionate that women, alongside men, are gifted to bring His message, the Gospel message, to others. Often, I feel alone. But I'm not. Not only do I have a couple of good friends who pursue similar objectives to mine, I also have women who have gone before me in history who what presuppositions have been put on women, like Anne Bradstreet.

So, there. You have it. A deeper look into why I named this blog what I did. It's a tribute to women who paved the way for women like me. And for that, I humbly thank them.

No.

2011-01-12T11:39:00.003-05:00

No.

It's a word that I care little for. Yet, it's a word that carries with it much weight; so while I care little for it, that does not mean that it does not effect me. It does. To be honest, I not only care little for the word, but I flat out hate it. Nothing brings me down faster than a no (and any of its ilk). Not only do I seriously dislike hearing 'no', I also dislike using it. I have children, thus, 'no' is a common word used in my house. "No, don't touch that", "No, don't do that"...no no no. NO. It's exhausting. It's exhausting not only using the word, but then dealing with the manifold repercussions of having used the words. Turns out, 2 and 4 year old boys don't like hearing 'no' all that much either.

But is 'no' all that bad? Should we avoid using 'no' to make things 'feel' better or 'sound' better? I remember when I used to baby sit and the fad at the time was not to say the word 'no' to the child to protect the child's self esteem. So you could not say 'no', but you could say 'you may not'. Okay. Hmmm. I guess I understand that the rattled of "NO!" can be harsh and scary, but is 'you may not' any more protective of a child's self esteem? Are you not, essentially, saying the same thing: this thing that you are doing is wrong...? I also remember there was a push in schools for teachers to stop using red ink to grade papers. (yes, it is okay to role your eyes here. i did.) The idea behind it was the same as the idea behind changing the way parents/care givers adjusted a child's behavior: red is harsh and judgmental and can affect the student's self-esteem. But has anyone smiled over, let's say, a pink"F' as opposed to a red one? "Ah, shoot, I got a 50% percent, but that's okay, it's pink! My GPA is now ruined, but at least it was ruined by a pink F!" yay! No. The fact is, an 'F' is an 'F' no matter what color is used to write it...let's just be honest here.

So, again, I come back to my question, is 'no' all that bad. Would it best to do away with 'no' totally? If I dislike 'no' so much, shouldn't I just get rid of it?

The answer to that is 'no'. As a caveat, this is by no means a full treatise on the subject, but just some thoughts; I'm sure there are wholes planted through out and that I need to think more on this. But for what it's worth, here's what I'm thinking thus far:

I'm a firm believer and supporter that the Gospel is a big 'yes' statement. It is. The Gospel is, in fact, a very firm 'yes' judgment in my favor. The Gospel is God for me (pro nobis, for those of you yearning for some Latin). The Cross event is fundamentally 'yes', a 'yes' to true humanity, to true life, to true you-ness (or me-ness, depending on the perspective of the reader), to true relationalness. The speech event that is the Gospel is the speech that brings you (the reader/hearer) to the very climactic 'yes' that is climax of the Gospel.

But, the reader/hearer must first be brought through the big, hard to swallow 'no'. In order to get to the yes, to the yes that is true life and true existence, the false life and sham existence need to be dealt with; by 'no' they are surely dealt with. The Cross is a 'yes' for us, but it is also a 'no'; a big whopping 'no' to the sinner. In this way, Barth is not incorrect to locate the Law and the Gospel in the cross (however, where Barth takes a dangerous turn, in my opinion, is to remove the dialectic between the law and the Gospel). The cross is the fulfillment of the consequences of the law. On the Cross Jesus suffers unrelationalness with the Father when the father turns his back on him (He is 'forsaken'). Jesus suffers the 'no', the very 'no' we deserved as sinners. And in His death he suffers the 'no'. (even here we can think of Jesus' victory over death as a 'no' to death thereby rendering it an impossibility for those who are in Him and partake in both His death and resurrection.) In this same way, we, being like Him in his death, suffer the no and are brought to death. (This is good news. So stay with me.) Because, we can't have new life unless that new life has been brought out of sure death. And being like Jesus in His death we will be like him in, we will partake of His resurrection (Rom. 6:5, Phil. 3:10-11). Partaking of His resurrection does not happen until we've heard the 'no'--our sham existence being rendered a death blow--and are lead through that 'no' (death) to the wondrous 'yes' (life).

Again, the ultimate message of the Gospel is 'yes' (and on this we should focus) but there is also a 'no'; a 'no' that we should not try to pretend is not there or sing "la la la" at the top of our lungs in order not to hear it. We need to first hear the 'no' because then we hear the 'yes' (the climax of the Gospel). This is one way to understand Law/Gospel preaching. That those of us who preach continually preach the message that brings the hearer through the no into the yes, through death into life. When we just preach the law we preach only the 'no', and the law will never (and can never) bring it's hearer to it's climactic point, it just says 'yes' or 'no' and since we all fail all the time, it renders only it's verdict 'no'. (And Grace/Gospel without the law just doesn't make sense.) The fullness of the Gospel actually brings us through the 'no' to it's rightful conclusion: 'yes to me, to you, to us.'

So what does this mean for us as in how we reprimand our children or grade papers? Well, I don't fully know; however, I say 'no' and I use 'red ink' when I mark. Primarily, because I know and do not expect the 'no' alone to change behavior. I can say 'no' because I have the other word, 'yes'; I'm not afraid of the 'no' because I've 'heard' yes. Having used a 'no' to my child's actions, I can in fact give them something more valuable: a 'yes' to them. In our house, with the ever present dialectic between law and grace, I want my children to know and understand that it's okay to fail and that my love for them is not contingent on anything than just because. And, as I grow into--eventually one day-- becoming a teacher, I will want this same dynamic and delicate balance for my classroom.

And in the meantime, as I fail (the 'no') I can be reminded by the Gospel that in light of my failures, God has spoken a 'yes'; and a sweet 'yes' it is in the midst of my failures.

The Gospel and My Depression

2010-12-16T09:00:00.000-05:00

Here is the transcript of a homily/testimony I recently shared at my seminary (12/3/10).

Tina’s email back in August asked people to share a testimony to what God is doing in their life. I was the first to respond to the email and was properly rewarded with picking any Friday I wanted. I thought for a moment, and surveyed my life: it was pretty bleak. So, I decided: well, I’ll pick a date well into the future, and by then, surely, things will look better. Well, here it is, December 3rd, and I still have nothing exciting to share…So, I’m still stuck looking for an answer to the question: What is God doing in my life? As I survey the historical landscape that has been my life for the past many months, I can only answer with this: I am being forced to reckon with the fact that I am human, andI am totally, utterly, and desperately needy for the Cross, for Jesus.

Let me explain:

I’m coming out of a season decked with many losses and failures, and enveloped by severe depression. In early April we lost Daniel’s Grandmother; 5 weeks later, my Grandmother; 5 days later our 9.5 week pregnancy. In June we lost our financial footing because of a van that couldn’t pass inspection. In September we lost a significant job opportunity that had given us great hope; a week after that, our other car was stolen for amusement and with the intent to destroy it. Finally, in October, I was confronted, boldly, with the reality that I was failing (and hurting, inadvertently) a dear friend and our friendship. All of this mixed in with months of struggle with my oldest son—who repeatedly hit me, threatened me (as much as a 3.5 year old can), and telling me he just flat out didn’t like me.

Losing and failing. Each one of these events that I was experiencing is normal and even tolerable; but, the cumulative effect and the weight of all of them at once…and…the depression that I was trying my best to ward off, finally won. I slipped into a very dark spot. I couldn’t take it any more. There was no joy in my heart and every heartbeat actually caused me physical pain. I cried every day, often crying myself to sleep. My mind fluctuated between the twin thoughts: “God has turned his face from you” and “you are a complete and utter useless failure.” And in that darkness, I gave up. At one point I curled up on a bare mattress in a room we are renovating and pulled a blanket over myself, and wished it would be over. Please just let it be over. I felt barely alive; I could barely breath.

And it’s from here, right here, from this very palpable darkness, this having given up, and rendered useless, this barely alive and barely breathing, that I can talk about the power of the Gospel preached. Because the Gospel preached to me—repeatedly--cut through that darkness; it boldly penetrated it—unashamedly and unabashedly, it burst in and seized me. It lay hold of my weak and feeble frame, my exhausted mind, my smoldering and bruised spirit and rescued me, and, maybe even more than that, the Gospel resuscitated me, it gave me faith, it gave me life. Throughout all of the darkness and despite the lack of any tangible assurance, I still believed in God; this very God who is merciful and unyielding in His love; who, by the life of His one and only Son, through the event of the incarnation and the cross, has declared “it will not always be so.” Darkness, depression, sorrow, suffering, grief, and pain have been given their verdict: no; and I mine: yes. Every Sunday, I heard the Gospel and I could not not raise my hands in praise and worship of this God who has done this great work for me and in me. By the power of the Gospel I was made one hundred percent aware of my total and utter and desperate need for the Cross, for Jesus; by the power of the Gospel, I’ve been made truly human because, by the power of the Gospel, out of sure death came new and true life, with the robust breath of faith.

“Wake me up inside…” (part 6): Karl Barth’s Doctrine of Reconciliation (iv.1.58) final

2010-12-15T08:00:00.000-05:00

(iv.1.58.4 cont.) In a final turn, Barth deals with the dependence of the individual on community and the community on individuals; of the Christian on the Church and the Church on the Christian. For, “there cannot be one without the other”. The Holy Spirit assembles and sustains the Church, Christianity, not as a heap of individuals functioning autonomously, but as a collective of confessing persons proclaiming the same truths each cognizant of their individual calls; this is the delicate tension between the “objective ascription” and the “subjective appropriation” of salvation. “Salvation is ascribed to the individual in the existence of the community, and it is appropriated by the community in the existence of the individuals of which is it composed”.*

The work of the Holy Spirit as the basis for community of individuals mirrors the three parts of the doctrine of reconciliation. 1. By the power of the Holy Spirit, the awakening power of the Word (about the atoning work of Jesus Christ as the divine verdict) is the “historical reality of the community”. When the divine verdict is heard by persons, “in their inner fellowship and there arises in their outward assembly a new humanity within the old”. Each person, each Christian is brought into the awareness and acceptance of the divine verdict and they are brought into faith and understanding; however, it is not this that makes up a community. Rather, a community is created by the divine verdict of God, “it is not that they know God, but that they are known by God” and that these persons know and understand God in this way. In its humanity the church is like any other human institution: feeble and weak; yet under the divine verdict and sustained by the power of the Holy Spirit it will never cease to be. 2. By the power of the Holy Spirit, the life-giving power of the Word of God (about the atoning work of Jesus Christ as the divine direction) is the “inner upbuilding of the community”. “When that direction is heard by men, these men are united in a common action, in a common action oriented by a commonly imposed obedience, and, we can and must also say, by a commonly given freedom”. By the power of the Holy Spirit, the church is lifted up, maintained, sustained, grows, and quickened; in light of the divine direction, the members live into this direction (Jesus and the Holy Spirit) and thus to be truly active and alive. 3. By the power of the Holy Spirit, the summoning power of the promise (about the atoning work of Jesus Christ as the divine promise and guarantor) is the power by which individuals are brought into community and sent out as witnesses to the world. “The Holy Spirit is the enlightening, and as the enlightening the summoning power of the divine promise, which points the community beyond itself, which calls it to transcend itself and in that way to be in the truth the community of God” as witnesses to that truth of God. The members can hope in the divine promise and the end in Jesus. By the power of the Holy Spirit, by means of this hope, the Church community is the light unto the world and its members become witnesses of this light.

By the proclaimed word and verdict of God, by His divine direction, and by His guaranteed promise (by Jesus Christ and by the power of the Holy Spirit) the community is made and dealt with, and then, and only then, does God deal with the individual.

The being of the Christian indicated by [faith, love, and hope] is a being in relation. Faith lives by its object, love by its basis, hope by its surety. Jesus Christ by the Holy Spirit is this object and basis and surety. And faith and love and hope in this relation to Jesus Christ are all primarily His work, and His work first in the community of God, and only then His work in the individual Christians….We shall speak correctly of the faith and love and hope of the individual Christian only when it remains clear and constantly becomes clear that, although we are dealing with our existence, we are dealing with our existence in Jesus Christ as our true existence, that we are therefore dealing with Him and not with us, and with us only in so far as absolutely and exclusively with Him.

Though individuals are called they are called into the one body of Christ. Humanity was created to be in community with each other and not in isolated parts, separated from each other. In fact, if one recalls Barth’s doctrine of creation, specifically III.i.41, one will see that the thrust of the creation of woman is to alleviate the isolation of man, “In Gen. 2^18-25 the second account of the creation is brought to its climax and conclusion…it has only one theme—the completion of the creation of man by the adding to the male of the female…Everything aims at the one fact, to wit, that God did not create man alone, as a single human being, but in the unequal duality of male and female. By the creation of woman, man’s loneliness (which is not “good”) is alleviated and he is drawn up out of his self and drawn toward another outside of himself; and, further, drawn into relationship with God. Isolated man is not good. Thus, Christians, called as individuals, are brought into fellowship not only with God and themselves but into fellowship with others who, too, are under and affirm the same divine verdict, divine direction, and divine promise. The Kenyan church’s liturgy gets it completely right: “Christ is alive forever. We are because He is”.** Therefore the restatement of Descarte’s axiom above [previously] is not fully correct. Rather, it should read, “Jesus is the perfect propitiation for my sins, therefore We are therefore I am” or “He acts and declares sovereignly, therefore He is, therefore We are, therefore I am.” Our post-modern belief that we can worship God apart from a community is false. Whether we like it or not, we are created and called to be in community, and the Church is a fundamentally important place for the Christian and non-Christian alike. For the Christian it is the source of fellowship and encouragement; for the non-believer it is the beacon of hope, the proclamation of Jesus and his reconciling work through His sacrifice on the Cross, through His atonement.

*This is same and contra Richard Hays’ ethical approach in his book, “The Moral Vision of the New Testament”. Hays over-emphasizes the community to the point that the individual is lost.

**Our Modern Services: Anglican Church of Kenya. Nairobi: Uzima 2008.

Last Picture taken by my friend, Josiah Miller (and used with his permission) http://www.flickr.com/photos/jomiller613/

White as Snow...

2010-12-09T10:00:00.000-05:00

The following is a piece I did for my school's Advent Devotional. It is based off of the readings for this past Monday (11/29) (according to the 1979 BCP), specifically Isaiah 1:10-20.

Isaiah’s words are a fitting opening for this season of Advent. In the first nine verses of chapter 1, Isaiah describes the rebellion and iniquity of God’s chosen people; they have not only strayed, they have rejected their God the Lord, the Holy One of Israel, and His commandments (v.4). Isaiah (vv. 10-15) describes the disgust God has over their many sacrifices, vain offerings, feasts. As a result, God turns from His people: “when you spread out your hands, I will hide my eyes from you; even though you make many prayers, I will not listen; your hands are full of blood” (v.15). God, as Judge, has delivered the divine verdict to the people: guilty.

But this is not the final word. Isaiah does not stop there at that word of death. “…though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow…” (v18 b). Among great transgressions, God assures His people through Isaiah: it’s not over, this isn’t the final word; there’s one more word to be spoken: the divine promise, the word of life. This word of life, this divine promise is Jesus Christ: the Incarnate God—the promised Suffering Servant (Is. 53)—Redeemer of the world. Jesus is the Word made Flesh (John 1:1-14) who will (by His life, death, resurrection, and ascension) be the perfect propitiation for the sins of the world, and evoke the very repentance commanded by God (vs. 16-17, 19-20; cf. also 1:27-28); through Him sins are atoned for, “though they are like scarlet, they shall be made white as snow” (v.18b).

Let us, during Advent, wait with Isaiah’s audience, knowing our guilt yet brimming with expectant hope at the fulfillment of the divine promise; let us watch with eager eyes for the birth of Jesus, the Word of Life.

Lord, as we enter into this season of Advent, press upon our hearts the gravity of our transgressions And drive us, Lord, to Your unfaltering promise with full and expectant hearts. Prepare our hearts to rejoice in the Word of Life: Your Son, our Saviour, Jesus Christ.

“Wake me up inside…” (part 5c): Karl Barth’s Doctrine of Reconciliation (iv.1.58)

2010-12-09T08:30:00.000-05:00

(iv.1.58.4 cont.) *There are three forms to Sin. 1. Sin negates the first form of grace of God: that “God gives Himself to us, He makes Himself responsible for our cause, He takes it into His own hand”. Sin transgresses the great first commandment: Love the Lord your God with all your soul, mind, body, and strength. Sin negates that Jesus, very God, humbled Himself to become human in order to take humanity to Himself; thus, it negates Jesus’ High-priestly office; this is the sin of pride. 2. Sin negates the second form of the grace of God: that “He wills and seeks us as we are, in our creatureliness, as men, that we may be raised to the status of [His] children”. In this second form, sin negates the divine direction and the divine ordering, and elevates humanity in the place of God as true King. Thus, sin negates Jesus’ kingly office; this is the sin of sloth. 3. Sin negates the third form of the grace of God: that “God does not act above our heads, he does not ignore us, but He addresses us and calls us”. In this third form, sin negates the divine promise and lies to humanity that “they know better”. Thus, sin negates Jesus’ prophetic office (as the Guarantor); this is the sin of falsehood.

The reality of sin is true not in the sense of its own autonomous right, but as it is compared (or contrasted) or rather illuminated by the event of the divine “Yes” and “No” that is the event of the Cross. “The reality of sin cannot be known or described except in relation to the One who has vanquished it”. [In plainer words: we do not know we are really sinners until we see what has occurred in the event of the Cross.] Sin confirms Jesus as victor, because Jesus has the final word against it. “…the sinful No of man has been matched and opposed and destroyed by the divine Yes spoken by Jesus Christ even in the sphere of man and the world”. Jesus’ work of atonement is the victory of Jesus over sin. It is the “divine Yes” which has contradicted the “sinful no” of humanity, which is “maintained and fulfilled in the sphere of sinful humanity and sinful world”, and which vindicates “as the first and final word”. This tripartite understanding of reconciliation by Jesus Christ’s atonement lines up with the threefold grace of God (divine verdict, divine direction, and divine promise), the threefold nature of Christ (Jesus as God, Jesus as Man, and Jesus as God-Man), and the threefold being of humanity in Christ (faith/justification, love/sanctification, and hope/calling and teleological goal). In all three there is one common source, one common overlap, one common emphasis: Jesus Christ.

[Jesus] is the One who justifies, sanctifies, and calls. He is the High-Priest, King, and Prophet. In the whole event of atonement, justification, sanctification and calling, as grounded in the divine verdict, direction and promise, have as it were a central function. In them, in the understanding of grace under these concepts, it is still a matter of expounding the being and work of Jesus Christ as the Reconciler of the sinful world and therefore of sinful man with God.

In this tripartite (x³) understanding of reconciliation, humanity is dealing with not only what has occurred objectively in and by Jesus’ atoning work; but also with the subjective appropriation of the grace of God. In this subjective appropriation lie the gift, work, reception, and accomplishment of the Holy Spirit. The Spirit’s work is grounded in the teleologic orientation of the calling and work of Jesus Christ: as the Guarantor of truth. It is by the work of the Spirit that Christians are differentiated from non-Christians. While all maybe justified, sanctified, and called, not all have this distinguishing mark: that they can hear and see and understand all that and how God is for them, and what their true being is. By the power of the Spirit, sin is made known, need for something outside of the self is made known, hope is made known. “In this special sense Christians and only Christians are converted to him. This is without any merit or cooperation on their part, just as the reconciliation of the whole world in Jesus Christ is without its merit or co-operation”. By the power of the Holy Spirit and the work of Christ in the atonement the objective reality of humanity acquires a subjective reality. “[T]he same One and All is now in the eyes and ears and hearts, in the existence of these men, Christians, who are specially taken and determined by His Holy Spirit”. The Holy Spirit is by whom the whole of Christianity and all Christians exist.

*This is the second to last entry...and there was great rejoicing! :D

“Wake me up inside…” (part 5b): Karl Barth’s Doctrine of Reconciliation (iv.1.58)

2010-12-09T06:56:00.000-05:00

(iv.1.58.4 cont.) In the doctrine of reconciliation humanity is not only confronted with the positive side of the truths in Jesus Christ, but also the negative side of the truth of sin in the world initiated by humanity and its victim. By Jesus’ atoning work, God reconciles covenant breaking humanity to Himself by Himself. Consequently, the doctrine of sin is dealt with simultaneously and in conjunction to the doctrine of reconciliation. It is not of its own ontological identity as something that “exist[s] in and for itself” as a part of God’s creation; rather it is alien to the world (Rom. 5:12) and “exists and is in opposition to the will of God and therefore in opposition to the being and destiny of His creature”. Where God creates, sin destroys; where God says “yes”, sin says “no”; where God judges, sin serves. “In all its forms it exists and is only as that which negates and therefore as that which is itself negated, on the left hand of God, where God is saying Yes has already said No, where in electing He has rejected, where in willing He has not willed”. Sin is evil but it is also breaking the covenant and contradicting God, the rejection of the grace of God and therein the command to cling and the direction given; thus, sin is the denial of humanity’s true humanity.

Neither natural law nor a general idea of humanity can expose that humanity sins and transgresses and breaks the covenant with God. This fact and state can only be exposed by the Cross. The cross is the divine “Yes” to humanity in which lies the divine “No” to sin. The cross is the penultimate event that reveals humanity’s sinfulness. The Law fails to bring one to their complete understanding of their sinfulness, it is only by the Cross that one can be made perfectly aware of their transgressions against God and His covenant. Thus, the cross is The Law fulfilled, fully functioning in the way that the law was intended to do; the Cross is Law and Gospel. “It is in the knowledge of Jesus Christ as the revelation of the grace of God that we shall necessarily perceive step by step both the fact that man is a transgressor and the nature of the transgression in which the contradicts the grace of God and for the sake of which he is decisively contradicted by that grace”. Barth’s understanding of the cross as Law does not fully contradict Luther. While, yes, in Luther there is a stronger dichotomy between Law and Gospel, it is impossible to say that one can cleanly go through the bible and mark off “law” and “gospel” (cf. JDK’s Post here). There is room for an understanding that to some the Cross can be law: for it rejects the transgressor and causes condemnation but it also accepts the person. The Cross does illuminate our need and emphasizes our terrible state apart from it. Where Barth will differ from Luther in this regard is that Barth identifies the law with the earthly Jesus who is the paradigm of God’s holiness, rather than, as Luther does, identify the law with the Old Testament Law.*

*This was part of a critique offered to me by my professor for the class I wrote the paper for. Also, as a side note, my contention with Barth over Law/Gospel is that he doesn’t maintain the dichotomy between the two well enough; thus, the one could be confused for the other.

“Wake me up inside…” (part 5a): Karl Barth’s Doctrine of Reconciliation (iv.1.58)

2010-11-24T21:33:00.001-05:00

iv.1.58.4 Barth works out the threefold form of the Christological aspect of the doctrine of the reconciliation*. In and by Jesus, humanity is confronted with God. In Jesus, God—by becoming man—actively intervenes and takes up His cause—the covenant—“with and against and for man”. Jesus “is the authentic revealer of God as Himself God”. By Jesus one understands the Godhead because Jesus defines it and it does not define Jesus. “[Jesus] is God as he takes part in the event which constitutes the divine being” and He does this by becoming man. In this becoming man, God freely wills to condescend and bind and humiliate Himself in becoming like His creatures who are bound and takes them to Himself and takes upon Himself their penalty and judgment. “That is the nature and essence of the true God as He has intervened actively and manifestly in Jesus Christ”.

In the second form of the Christology of Jesus, humanity is confronted with God as Man, as human man. As a man, Jesus as God is subjected to the limitations as all humans are limited. He suffers as humans suffer. Just as He is fully God he is also fully Man (not part and part to create a whole). He is truly God as He is truly human and thus the triune God’s glory is in His humiliation. Yet, Jesus is a different human than we are, in that in His humanity He is the glory of God, and, thus, can be our mediator; but this must not be taken to consider Jesus as not fully human as we are: He is in complete equity with us. “To say man is to say creature and sin, and this means limitation and suffering. Both these have to be said of Jesus Christ…in correspondence with His true manhood”. His manhood is defined by Him, and Him alone. It is by His manhood that one knows true manhood: marked by suffering and limitation, yet exalted as the Godhead is humiliated. Jesus is fully God and fully man—two natures not two states—in His entire existence and the humiliation removes nothing and the exaltation adds nothing to Jesus Christ.

In Him it took place that while maintaining His true deity God became man, in Him to make His own the cause of man. In Him God Himself humiliated Himself—not in any disloyalty but in a supreme loyalty to His divine being (revealing it in a way which marks it off from all other gods). That is the secret of Christmas and Good Friday and the way which leads from the one to the other.

Jesus as fully man is the One who was lowly yet became exalted, who was bound yet is free, who was tempted yet without sin, who suffered yet ministred to himself and others, who died yet was resurrected, who is a servant yet is Lord. In Jesus Christ, humanity is true humanity: exalted, freed, unbound, without sin, with life; and, as a result, humanity that is outside of Christ—that is still bound and limited and lowly—is false humanity; just as gods who lack humiliation are false gods.

The third Christological aspect is Jesus as One as God-Man, this is the “source of the two first and comprehends them both”. Jesus Christ is “the Son of God who as such is this man, this man who as such is the Son of God”. Jesus as fully God and as fully Man must be held together as one. For it was by God (Christ) becoming fully human (Jesus of Nazareth) that reconciliation occurred between God and humanity once and for all.

A Christ who did not come in the flesh, who was not identical with the Jesus of Nazareth who suffered and died under Pontius Pilate, would not be the Christ Jesus—and a Jesus who was not the eternal Word of God, and who as man was not raised again from the death, would not be the Jesus Christ—of the New Testament.

In Jesus Christ of Nazareth—as the God-Man—is the intersecting point of the previous two Christological aspects of the reconciliation. He is the reconciliation: the Mediator and the pledge of the covenant. As God-Man, “Jesus Christ is the actuality of the atonement, and as such the truth of it which speaks for itself”. In pronouncing this Name, “Jesus Christ”, one pronounces the truth of God’s grace and turning toward man and the conversion of humanity to God, the truth of heaven and earth, the truth of God and Man being bound together. Humanity in Christ does not produce these truths of Jesus Christ, rather these truths encounter humanity in and by Jesus Christ and is humanity’s teleos. And, as humanity in Christ stands in relation to these truths, it stands as a witness to these truths and to the promise, the guaranty of its future in Christ.

*You will see in this section how Barth has folded in the threefoldness of humanity's being in Christ (iv.1.58.2).

The Unconditional Love...of Rats.

2010-11-24T21:31:00.000-05:00

Pastis gets it...well, sort of. Rat decides that he needs to get unconditional love from others. However, as Goat rightly points out, Rat cannot simply command others to unconditionally love him; that is very true. To say that one will offer unconditional love hinged on some sort of condition prior to giving that unconditional love, is, boldly, conditional love. And, as Goat states, "...no right thinking person is going to offer unconditional love to someone whose love is conditional". To have someone unconditionally love you, there can be absolutely no conditions. Goat is simply wise to point this out to Rat.

But here is the 'sort of' (if you will): the error is that true unconditional love expects nothing in return; this is what Paul Zahl calls: one-way love. One. Way. Not two ways. One-way love is freely given; it is offered apart from any hinging request or desire. There is no 'or else' or 'and' to one-way love. It is simply one-way, and it is relentless. One-way love stands firm because it expects nothing back. One-way love is not turning a blind eye to faults and failures, but the overarching and over-reaching statement that cuts through those faults and failures and declares us to be lovable when we, frankly, are not. This love declares yes, when everything else declares no. One way love is Gospel love, the love of God, the love demonstrated by the Cross.

And yes, we do love because we have first been loved (1 John 4:19). Yet, it is because that love, which loves us, is one-way, no-strings-attached, carrying with it no expectations; that is the love that causes us to love back (and to love others).

Follow Up: Response to the TMC Letter

2010-11-15T07:50:00.004-05:00

To read the letter I sent to The Midwife Center of Pittsburgh, please click here.

Here is the response letter I received from The Midwife Center's Board President (transcribed in full):

Dear Lauren:

"Thank you for sending your thoughtful letter regarding The Midwife Center's policy on not taking women who are planning c-sections. We would like you to know that this was not an easy decision for our organization to make. We recently reached capacity for our midwives to be able to handle all women seeking birthing care and we found ourselves having to turn away women who wanted to come here for pregnancy and birthing care. Because we are the only free-standing birth center in the region, the Board felt we needed to be available to the women who are planning to have their babies in the center and had to begin prioritizing our midwives' time. Although we strive to provide care to all women during pregnancy, we had to recognize that there are limits to our abilities.

"We appreciate you taking the time to share your thoughts and concerns and your continued support of The Midwife Center. At this time we are not able to change our policy on c-section births and hope you will understand our situation. i will share your letter with the Board as we continue to assess how we can best serve women and families in the region. Please know we are still here for your routine gynecological needs and truly wish we could handle more."

There are two things that need to pointed out here: first, the sincere and caring tone. I really felt 'heard' (or 'read'). Second, note the reason why he said they had to re-prioritize the midwives' time: because they are too busy. I find his honesty refreshing, since the front-office told me some bs about me needing to have an intimate relationship with my surgeon (such is the line that caused me to write my letter in the first place). I'm a reasonable person (or so I think), when presented with reasonable reasons (redundant as that sounds), I can be reasonable even when I don't agree or am 'upset' about those reasons. What drives me right over the cliff, straight into unreasonableness, is unreasonableness itself. To me (and I stress the 'to me' part, because others may have found the front office's reasoning to be reasonable and sensible), the front office gave me an unreasonable answer primarily because it came across to me (again, stressing the 'to me' aspect) as a lie. I don't like being lied to (who does, really?).

With that said, the Board President was a breath of fresh air and confirmed what I thought the main reason to be to reject me as a client (even though I've been a client for 2 + years now). Well, done, Mr. Board President....now tell the front office to say this to their clients who will need to have a planned c-section...please.

What to do now? No idea. I'm not sure I will go back to TMC for my general-wellness check ups...does it make sense to have two different care providers? Maybe it makes more sense to stick with the doctor who will in fact deliver my (next) baby (when/if ever that happens)...feel free to share thoughts...or to share your thoughts about this whole issue with TMC (if you happen to go to TMC for woman-care)...

yes, more on c-sections!

2010-11-05T20:45:00.002-04:00

okay, so I may be c-section obsessed...but, can you blame me? i've had two. although i've had two, i still feel that they are typically abused. now, this may seem that i simply say that while i 'need' them, others do not. i am not saying this. although, it is true, i physically cannot birth the heads that my husband has blessed our children with, i do not think that i should get them and others should not. my issue lies more with the over-use (or abuse) of this very beneficial surgery. too many women are being brought under the scalpel, when it could have been otherwise prevented. here is a GREAT article from the blog Birth Sense. 95% of this article is quoted from an OB who has a c-section rate of 10% (this is within range (actually, the mean average) according to the WHO recommendation for c-sections). Just to put this in comparison, the average percentage of c-sections in the states is about 30% (maybe more like 33%). In this article he lists 8 reasons why the c-section rate is so high...

click here for the article.

REMEMBER, this is from an OBGYN...not one of those hippy, crunchy, midwives (whom I love dearly).

“Wake me up inside…” (part 4): Karl Barth’s Doctrine of Reconciliation (iv.1.58)

2010-11-05T15:00:00.001-04:00

iv.1.58.3 In the short (!!) third section of section 58, Barth continues by discussing the “middle” point—“which both differentiates and comprehends [reconciliation]”—between looking up toward the reconciling grace (part 1) and down to the being of man in reconciliation (part 2): the atonement made in and by Jesus Christ. The atonement is “…the middle point the one thing from which neither the God who turns to man nor man converted to God can be abstracted, in which and by which both are what they are, in which and to which they stand in that mutual relationship”. That middle point is Jesus Christ; in Him and by His atoning work, God is turned toward humanity and humanity is converted to God: without Christ, there is no reconciliation, for both turning and converting are dependent on Him and His work. “[Jesus Christ] exists as the mediator between God and man in the sense that in Him God’s reconciling of man and man’s reconciliation with God are event”. Jesus functions in this role as the middle point, as the Mediator in a “comprehensive whole” neither his divinity nor his humanity out weighing the other . In reconciliation by Jesus, humanity is confronted with Jesus as Man, as God, and as the God-Man. With this Jesus, in this proposed three-foldness of Jesus, Barth will demonstrate how reconciliation has a threefold office and how all three offices must be held together to form the whole of who Jesus is as the middle point of reconciliation as the mediator (in part 4).

“Wake me up inside…” (part 3c): Karl Barth’s Doctrine of Reconciliation (iv.1.58)

2010-11-05T13:48:00.000-04:00

(iv.1.58.2 cont.) * Thirdly, Hope: The tertiary form of the being of humanity in Jesus Christ is “the positing and equipping of man as the bearer of the divine promise”, which constitutes Christian hope. And it is Christian hope which is the teleological** determination for humanity and the Christian in Christ. Christian hope is more than Christian vocation (the traditional protestant/Lutheran understanding of the result of justification and sanctification), it is the moment that the person is given the promise of God in Jesus Christ. The person is called along side their justification and sanctification, and thus given true hope, “…this being as such is a being under the promise, that the reality of the salvation given to man is as such the gift of this promise, that the Christian affirmation and appropriation of the divine gift is as such hope based upon and directed to this promise”.

However, this third form is not an end in itself, but only a beginning. In conjunction with faith and love, Christian hope signifies the teleological direction of the person in Christ: it is a looking forward to the activity of God (the promise). Justification (looking back to God’s activity in the divine verdict, faith) and sanctification (seeing God’s activity as present, love) have a teleological determination that is oriented toward the promise, hope (though hope is not an end in itself). “…it is in fact the case that the being of man in Jesus Christ is a being not merely in possession and action but also in expectation”, it is not only that God has made something of the person in Jesus Christ nor that He has caused them to walk before Him, but that He also “wills to make something of him, He has for him a purpose, an end”. [This purpose does not need to be found; it is realized in Christ, because Christ is our teleological ordering.] And it is this purpose and this end that is the promise of God. In to this promise of God, the Christian is “called”. Thus “calling” is part of Christian hope and part of the reconciliation of humanity to God.

But what is the “end” to which Christian hope/calling directs the person? It is toward the “actualization and preservation of the fellowship between God and himself established in the fulfillment of the covenant”. In other words, it is directed toward “eternal life”, to their “actual future with God”. But “with God” does not mean merged into or becoming like God; rather it is being fully human with God. The teleological end must coincide with the activity of God. Since God is the active ruler and humanity are those who were created to worship Him, to serve Him, to adore Him, the teleological end encompasses this as its foundation of the relationship, “To live under Him in His kingdom and to serve Him: it is here that all rest and joy and contemplation and adoration in the eternal life promised to man have their meaning and basis. It is the calling to this which is the telos of justification and sanctification”. The teleological end of humanity in Christ will not obliterate humanity’s creatureliness, but rather perfect it. The promise points to the end which will be the fulfilled relationship between humanity and God, where humanity will be an active subject in that relationship and fellowship with God (as a faithful worshiper (etc.)) of God, “a being in man’s own free responsibility with God for the cause of God”. Christians under the promise of the teleological end in Christ with God are the bearers of true hope: hope not only for their own futures, but the future of the whole world. The fulfillment of this teleological end will always be God’s activity toward us and not of our own. While we move toward this teleological end in the present, it is not by our ability or what we offer to God, but by the direction of the promise and the power of the Holy Spirit. The event of this promise and direction toward the teleological end is a permanent event (as are the divine verdict and direction).

The entirety of the promise (“its effective and authentic proclamation”) is Jesus Christ. Jesus, as eternal man, lives under the divine verdict of God, is placed under the divine direction, and lives into the divine promise. Thus, He, Jesus, is our teleological “pledge” and He is our direction. As Jesus (as fully man) lives in perfect relationship and fellowship with God, humanity has their direction in Jesus and, as such, are human as those who serve God as servants and worshipers and not as rulers. “In Him all this will be his rest and joy in God, his eternal contemplation and adoration of God”. To this future and promise—as well as to the divine verdict and to the divine direction—the person in Christ stands as a testimony to the world. In Christ, the person attests to the world that Jesus Christ is Lord, its Savior, and its future, its goal, its telos. It is on this reality of Jesus Christ as the future and Savior of the world that Christian hope is founded. It is both personal and private: the calling calls the individual, but it is not only the individual’s affair as they are called into community. In fact, one’s hope in Christ for their self directly affects their hope for others in Christ.

In this hope, humanity in Christ, confronted with the divine verdict and placed under the divine direction as an object, are made, by the Holy Spirit, alive and acting subjects [we are made 'subjects' having first been receivers and not initiators; we are made into subjects because we have first been encountered and confronted by an other who is over and against us].

"In the person of the Christian the world of men strives after and seizes the goal and future given to it in Jesus Christ….man lives not merely in the factuality of the decision made by God concerning his whole being, but also in the factuality of his own corresponding thoughts and words and works in relation to the service of God, conditioned for and directed towards that service, and in the perspective of that goal."

Thus, in Christian hope (as well as in faith and love) the Christian is substantially different from the non-Christian for they live by the promise, they are conformed to it, and they belong to the future reality of it. "They will know we are Christians by our love". Christians stand in the midst of the world of men and point beyond themselves to Jesus and His cross. We love unconditionally because we have been loved unconditionally; we help and reach out because we have been helped and reached out to; we work and act because we are grateful. Everything about the Christian points never to themselves and always to Jesus. We have been justified, we have been loved, and along side this we have hope (for today and for the future); in this way we stand as beacons, perpetually flashing, indicating to and directing others to solid ground.

*This is the last long post. (I promise!) In dealing with the three forms of the being of humanity in Christ, I wanted to keep each form together, which makes each of the three posts long and dense. But this way, you get the whole discussion of the one form here and now.

**Teleological (from the greek telos) pretty much means "end, purpose." So in this statement of Barth's, he is saying that the Christians end/purpose (teological ordering) is found in hope (hope that is directed toward Christ).

ooo...and this one, too

2010-10-21T12:51:00.003-04:00

Here is another great blog post (from the same blog in the previous post). It's about the top 10 common obstetric procedures not defended by science...very interesting! Click here to read.

2010-10-21T12:43:00.002-04:00

A Great Post on C-Sections over at Birth Sense. To read the article click here.

Here's a quote that gives the gist of the post:

"C-sections do save lives. They also cause increased loss of life in certain cases, and increased risks of complications. For this reason, it is important to ensure we are not causing unnecessary c-sections by routine interventions that create problems when used in normally progressing labors."

It's a great post the really illustrates the need to be vigilant about the use of c-sections and un-needed interventions that cause c-sections. Also, this post demonstrates that, in fact, everyone of the interventions and also the c-section, when used properly, save lives.

Gospel According to Pixar

2010-10-12T11:54:00.002-04:00

I "contributed" to a "compilation" with some others over at Mockingbird called: The Gospel According to Pixar". White Horse Inn (major FAV!) did an interview with the might editors of the study guide, David Zahl and Todd Brewer, on their blog. To check out the interview click here.

If you would like to order a copy of the study guide, click here.

It's a fabulous book; to say that is not a stretch ;D

“Wake me up inside…” (part 3b): Karl Barth’s Doctrine of Reconciliation (iv.1.58)

2010-10-08T13:00:00.002-04:00

(iv.1.58.2 cont.) Secondly, Love: In love, by the power of the Holy Spirit, the Christian is placed under and accepts the divine direction. The divine direction is the directing of humanity into freedom: by eliminating the old humanity and bringing to life the new humanity, humanity has peace with God, and, thus, is directed toward the kingdom of God. In the atoning work of Jesus in the act of reconciliation, humanity is told first, who they are and are not, and, second, “where we belong, where we have to be and live”. This being under and accepting of the divine direction is not synonymous to “obedience to the law”, because this term and its ilk “so easily give the impression of something which has not been already done, which has still to be done by the decisions and act which are demanded of man himself”. While there is “activity” required of the person in Christ as a new being and with a new direction, that person already exists in the kingdom of peace with God; thus, the person follows and confirms what has already been accomplished by God, accepts that they begin and end in this place, they “choose what has already been chosen and actualized”. This kingdom is the true kingdom of ends, ends not in themselves but in another, Jesus Christ (Contra Kant). In this kingdom we are directed outward (passionately, out of gratitude) toward another in whom (only) we have life and direction. Maybe Kant was not completely wrong, had he shifted his subject from us to Jesus he may have been right, for it is only Jesus who is the means and the ends in himself; to assign to humanity this trait is to deify (negatively) humanity and negate God. “…because it is in him that we are really free, He is Himself our direction, our guiding into freedom, our awakening to life in that freedom, our guidance to make use of it, our lord and King, and therefore in this sense too our reconciliation with God, the One who fulfills our conversion to Him”.

This process of being placed under the divine direction is typically understood as Sanctification. “Sanctification is the claiming of all human life and being and activity by the will of God for the active fulfillment of that will”. Sanctification cannot be separated from justification as if one could self-sanctify in order to fulfill one’s justification. Thus, sanctification and justification are found in the same source: Jesus Christ. It is only in Jesus Christ and being placed under the divine verdict and accepting the divine direction that one can take steps, do good works, even having a Christian ethic, all of it must bare witness to the atonement by Jesus Christ (not by man); none of it is sourced within us but within He who has already accomplished and chosen it. And just as faith is the proper response to God’s justifying action in Jesus Christ’s atoning work, love is the proper response to being put under and accepting the divine direction. Following justification and seeing and hearing and believing the negative and positive meaning and content of the divine verdict, the Christian, in the process of sanctification, is directed toward the one who does this reconciliation on their behalf, toward the one who passionately first sought after them, and is moved to great gratitude and love for the one who has done this.

"In general terms Christian love is the active human recognition of this proof of the love of God. It recognizes it by following it, imitating it, modeling itself upon it. It is the attitude in which man gives himself to reflect the divine attitude. That he can do this, that he can love, is his sanctification, his breathing and living in the place and atmosphere of freedom, his keeping of the covenant as a faithful partner. That he can love is the work of the Holy Spirit which makes man a Christian.”

Humanity, in Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit, imitates the one who has loved them first and because they in turn love Him.* Like a child putting the phone to his ear and mimicking or imitating what his mother does when she is on the phone, so acts humanity in Christ. The child adores his mother, watches her, examines her, and imitates her; and so does the Christian. When one is in love with Jesus, they will be hard-pressed not to imitate his activity; for God is active and humanity in Christ will be active, too. If God’s activity is made known to us by His ardent love for humanity, in imitation the person will reflect this love back toward Him (vertical) and outward to others (horizontal). “Christian love is at one and the same time love to God and love to the neighbour—and it is love to the neighbour because it is love to God”. Both the love directed vertically toward God and horizontally toward the neighbor by the Christian, is “free” and “pure” love (it is not done out of duty but out of gratitude). In other words, it is a one-way love, free from expectation and desire to manipulate the object of the love. It is love “just because” which does not seek any gain or posses ulterior motives, and it is this “just-because” one-way love that fulfills the law in Mark 12:29 and Romans 13:10. “It is obedience to God’s direction, the keeping of covenant faithfulness by man, the meaning of the whole ethos of the man reconciled and converted to God in Jesus Christ”.

Second photo taken by a good friend Josiah Miller (http://www.flickr.com/photos/jomiller613/).

*Great article by John Webster on imitability where he attempts to proffer a 'middle ground' between those who argue for being 'able' to do good works and those who argue that we are 'not able' --he essentially says yes to both and offers 'imitation' as a solution: our works attempt to imitate Jesus (what Jesus did), we imitate Jesus because we love him and in imitating him we acquire some of His 'characteristics'; yet it is to be certain that we imitate Him out of our love for Him and not out of duty or obligation. See: “Christology, Imitability and Ethics”. Scottish Journal of Theology. Vol 39: 309-326.

When Disbelief Yields...

2010-10-05T09:15:00.005-04:00

This song isn't a hard one to figure out. When it's your heart that is broken, when you are the one who receives the loss, you bear the bulk of the burden of sorrow. While the other persons seems to be just fine, you are in pieces, 'still alive...but...barely breathing'. In this sorrow, in this 'barely breathing' you are pushed to desperation; the pain and heartache is too much...you will do anything because you are desperate: you may just pray to a god you have never believed in.

"I'm still alive but I'm barely breathing
Just prayed to a god that I don't believe in
Coz I got time while she got freedom
Coz when a heart breaks no it don't break even"

And this is why I love this song: because it perfectly captures that very desperate spot we are all in apart from Christ and His Cross. We come broken, weary, worn-out, starving, thirsty...desperate to His Cross. Our hands are empty and are hearts are broken, we offer nothing but our pain and failures. We are barely alive and barely breathing. We come not of our own volition, but because we have no where else to go, no where else to turn. We are pushed to the very edge of ourselves. On that edge, in that moment, the only thing we can do is pray. On that edge, in that moment disbelief yields to something much more substantial: hope.

The First Sermon and The Second

2010-10-01T21:32:00.001-04:00

From gensiolutheran.com:

"Now the first sermon, and doctrine, is the law of God. The second is the gospel. These two sermons are not the same. Therefore we must have a good grasp of the matter in order to know how to differentiate between them. We must know what the law is, and what the gospel is. The law commands and requires us to do certain things. The law is thus directed solely to our behavior and consists in making requirements. For God speaks through the law, saying, “Do this, avoid that, this is what I expect of you.” The gospel, however, does not preach what we are to do or to avoid. It sets up no requirements but reverses the approach of the law, does the very opposite, and says, “This is what God has done for you; he has let his Son be made flesh for you, has let him be put to death for your sake.” So, then, there are two kinds of doctrine and two kinds of works, those of God and those of men. Just as we and God are separated from one another, so also these two doctrines are widely separated from one another. For the gospel teaches exclusively what has been given us by God, and not – as in the case of the law – what we are to do and give to God."

- excerpt from Martin Luther, ‘How Christians Ought To Regard Moses’

“Wake me up inside…” (part 3): Karl Barth’s Doctrine of Reconciliation (iv.1.58)

2010-10-01T13:59:00.001-04:00

(iv.1.58.2) Barth continues by discussing ‘The Being of [Humanity] in Jesus Christ”. If being is found only in reconciliation through the atoning work of Jesus Christ, then Christians represent being in humanity. Therefore, to speak of Christians we can only speak of them in Jesus Christ because they only exist in Him. In this their “peculiar being”—being beings in Jesus Christ—Christians reflect the reconciliation between God and humanity and stand as the representatives of this reconciliation and being therein. Others, though they may be inheritors of the work of Christ, are not representatives in their existence because they lack obedience to the Holy Spirit, open ears and eyes, experience and knowledge of reconciliation by atonement and the new directional change, and their confession of Jesus Christ.

[This is a rather complicated way to say: everyone exists and is in and outside of Christ; but, true humanity is only found in reconciliation through the atoning work of Jesus Christ, therefore Christians represent true humanity. Barth’s if-then logic here is simple. The complication lies in the insinuation that outside of Christ, others do not exist, which is what he is not saying. Rather, using Eberhard Jüngel, those outside of Christ live a sham or false existence.] Thus, to discuss what it means to be a being of [true] humanity we can only truly speak of the Christian.

The being of humanity in Jesus Christ has three aspects: faith, love, and hope. Firstly, Faith: In faith the Christian, by the influence of the Holy Spirit, subjects themselves* to the verdict proclaimed by God: they affirm, acknowledge, and accept the verdict. This verdict has both a negative and positive meaning and content. In the negative, the verdict “disowns and renounces”. The old being is the thing that is renounced and disowned by the verdict of God. This old man has ceased to be. God “could not, and would not, tolerate and have him any longer. He could and would only do away with him”. By this divine word, the existence of the being as a sinner and transgressor are put behind them, the person will not be this transgressor ever again. [Meaning, this person will not be known/defined as this transgressor.] This divine word is “forgiveness”, which designates not God’s change in disposition toward humanity, but rather the radical acknowledgement of the judgment of humanity’s rejection by God in its transgressions. The old being is fully and completely rejected and has no future. By being a Christian, one subjects themselves and affirms this negative meaning and content of the divine verdict.

The positive meaning and content of the divine verdict is the verdict “which recognizes and accepts”, “it declares that God receives man, and that man in accordance with his election and institution as a covenant-partner—can confess himself a faithful servant of God, His recognized friend and well-loved child”. And this, like the negative content and meaning of the verdict, is executed once and for all, neither to be reversed nor repeated. In reconciliation by the atoning work of Jesus Christ the new being has a future only as the righteous one of God in Jesus Christ. Humanity, in Jesus Christ, is affirmed and accepted in their possibility (righteousness) over their actuality (transgressions); and in Jesus Christ and by his atoning work in reconciliation, the possibility of humanity takes on actuality: this event actually happens [it is true] and it is for real and is forever.

*It is important to note that this ‘subjection’ is not to be seen as cooperation with the Spirit (which we will investigate later in the series); rather, it’s the necessary response when your eyes see and your ears hear the truth of the Gospel message.

Last two photos taken by a good friend Josiah Miller (http://www.flickr.com/photos/jomiller613/).

Much Needed Humor...

2010-09-30T12:45:00.000-04:00

Since I love all things "justification" ...

And, yes, I'm a firm believer in "justnachofication" (HT Tina Locket).

Another Great One from "Pearls Before Swine"

2010-09-27T10:16:00.002-04:00

“Wake me up inside…” (part 2c): Karl Barth’s Doctrine of Reconciliation (iv.1.58)

2010-09-24T12:00:00.002-04:00

(iv.1.58.1 cont .) In this movement and declaration of reconciliation through the atonement through Jesus Christ, God does not merely “proffer” a possibility, but actually seizes us and turns us back to Him. In this movement and declaration of reconciliation through the atonement through Jesus Christ, we deal with the fulfilled covenant. In Him, the breach is healed, humanity’s being against God is altered, and the offense and misery of humanity is removed. In Him, humanity is the faithful covenant partner and the one brought to glory by God to demonstrate His glory. In reconciliation, humanity is brought out of nothingness (being apart from the Grace of God) by the fact that God is everything, and brought into everything-ness “in his own place, on his own level and within his own limits”. In the atonement of Jesus Christ, humanity is newly created into a subject confronted by God who freely makes Himself the divine object.

“In Him a new human subject was introduced, the true man beside and outside whom God does not know any other, beside and outside whom there is no other, beside and outside whom the other being of man, that old being which still continues to break the covenant, can only be a lie, an absurd self-deception, a shadow moving on the wall—the being of that man who has been long since superseded and replaced and who can only imagine that he is man, while in reality he is absolutely nothing. Yes, the atonement is the filling of this abyss of nothing, of human perdition. And it is by the abyss of divine mercy that that other abyss is filled. It is this pure divine mercy which fills the abyss, the mercy which we have to recognize and adore in this act of God, the mercy which we have to seek a fresh every morning, the mercy for which we can only ask and reach out as beggars, the mercy in relation to which we can only be recipients. By the grace of God, therefore, man is not nothing. He is God’s man.”

To be a Christian is to be God’s person, this is the truth of the reality of the reconciliation through the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the Cross. By faith the person is made new, the old has passed away; those by faith who believe will not perish but will have eternal life. In this new reality the Christian has peace with God in all certainty. “[The] alteration in the human situation has already taken place. This being is self-contained. It does not have to be reached or created. It has already come and cannot be removed”. On this solid foundation of the new and assured being of humanity that cannot be removed, humanity operates both in rebellion and in obedience. In rebellion, humanity’s activity will conflict with their new creation, their possibility. In obedience, the activity will merely stem from the foundation on which they are placed: the new creation, possibility coming to fruition. In reconciliation, humanity is never separated from the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ; and it is purely in this “Other One” [Jesus Christ]—different and strange*—where we have this firm foundation on which to live, to look anywhere else would be to look to an unreality.

*Barth's language here is reminiscent of his language in the Doctrine of Creation, specifically to the event of the creation of woman which draws man out of loneliness into relation with an other (woman) who is different and strange (yet similar) to himself (ref. CD iii.1-4, specifically: iii.1.41).

"Wake me up inside..." (part 2b): Karl Barth's Doctrine of Reconciliation (iv.1.58)

2010-09-17T12:20:00.001-04:00

(iv.1.58.1 cont.) Reconciliation is truly God’s activity alone. There is no cooperation between humanity and God; God is the one who crosses the “abyss” distancing them. God “gives himself to him* as his God, as the One who did not and will not cease to be his God, the God of sinful and carnal man”. Reconciliation is the fact that the distance has been crossed once and for all; and in this initiation by God humanity “finds himself accused… humbled … judged by his God, but also and primarily received by Him and reclaimed as His possession and hidden in Him and sustained by Him and addressed and treated as His friend and indeed His child”. By the grace of God and His activity and declaration toward us—“grounded in itself and [being] known only by itself”—and the atonement which has taken place, and the covenant that has been re-established by God, humanity can have peace with God.

The whole of reconciliation is completely dependent on God’s activity and not on what humanity did, do, or will do; it comes to humanity from above independent of what occurs below. “When man is asked concerning his righteousness or holiness of truth, he can only point to this utter lack of all these things and then at once point away from himself…to Jesus Christ”. In God’s movement toward humanity and humanity’s recognition of their pitiful state and need for reconciliation by something outside of themselves (revealed to them and encouraged to confess by the Holy Spirit), lie the roots of faith, love, and hope.

“Christian obedience consists in this, and its joy and certainty rest and renew themselves on this: that by the grace of God this is the relationship of God with man” (emphasis mine). And this grace is the one grace of God, the one, complete—subjectively and “divine objectivity”—Grace of God that is given to needy, receiving humanity as a free gift of God’s free will and choice to initiate through reconciliation by the atonement made through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. “…[Humanity] is and remains always a recipient, a state in which he not only does not cease but can never do more than begin (and he will always be a beginner) to beg and to reach out for it in his poverty , in order that in that poverty he may be rich”. Humanity cannot cling to grace and say “mine” using it as an objective stepping stone to move off from; rather, humanity clings to God in desperate need and receives His complete Grace as the basis and source for its entire existence.

* Barth uses the male pronouns to talk about "humanity". When I am summarizing Barth in my own words, I will use "humanity". However, when I quoted Barth, I chose to keep the male pronouns to prevent the quotes from becoming unruly with brackets and, thus, impeding reading.

“Wake me up inside…” (part 2a): Barth’s Doctrine of Reconciliation (iv.1.58)

2010-09-10T14:45:00.000-04:00

(iv.1.58.1): Barth begins by discussing the “Grace of God in Jesus Christ.” Barth explains that reconciliation offered to us by Jesus Christ is the “fulfillment of the covenant of grace, as in the covenant of grace itself, we have to do with a free act of the grace of God” (79). God is not bound to what has gone before, thus, in reconciliation He makes a “new start” because He is the “free subject” of the reconciliation (79). In the act of reconciliation “[God] acts to maintain and defend His own glory” (79). God is not forced by any external factor to maintain and defend His glory in this specific way; he is unconstrained to act in this fashion (79). While God could—in all senses of right—have left humanity in their sinful filth and regarded the covenant as broken and invalidated, He does not (79). It is purely His will to reconcile humanity through Jesus, it is His undetermined choice to continue the covenant with humanity (80). It is in this free, unbound choice of God that humanity has the assurance of its permanence, “They will see the connexions and in them they will find the constancy of God, the divine will which is preconceived and unalterable and which is therefore necessary and triumphant in this happening” (80). Through this free choice and God’s free will, by its eternal and inflexible nature, God’s grace is made manifest and God’s glory defended, which is His mercy. By the atonement and, thus the reconciliation of humanity to Himself, God demonstrates that He is a God of grace and mercy (80). Essentially, atonement by the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ is God’s pure speech-act, a declaration that He is not any other god, but the One God, this very God who is of this kind (80).

The atonement is the starting point for knowledge about God, humanity, and what sin is, “[it] is the place and the only place from which as Christians we can think forwards and backwards…It is here that Christian preaching and instruction and pastoral care and dogmatics and ethics can begin with their own Yes and No, their pro and contra” (81, italics Barth). As an event that has happened, that is eternal and inflexible it never becomes incapable of being our starting point, “our knowledge can never get beyond it” (81). In the atonement we are faced with the eternal and inflexible (and gracious) command: “to realize fearlessly and indefatigably in all its aspects the possibility of life and knowledge given us with the atonement made in Jesus Christ” (81). All of our knowledge grows forth from this event and we are encouraged and directed in this way in all our knowing (81). There is no other starting point or fount of knowledge. We cannot change our axiom from the atonement to something else; thus, Descartes’ “I think therefore I am” is a blind and audacious attempt to escape the reality of the atonement as the essential starting point. Essentially, Descartes is wrong; one cannot know themselves from within them but only from the eternal, inflexible, sovereign event outside of oneself on one’s behalf. So, we should say, “Jesus is the perfect propitiation for my sins, therefore I am” or “He acts and declares sovereignly, therefore He is, therefore I am.” In God’s sovereign action and declaration of the atonement, He is the one who crosses the distance between humanity and Him. By the atonement, God’s being is made manifest by His activity.

…the one who constantly surpasses himself in His constancy and faithfulness, and does everything in order, who could not be more powerfully holy and righteous than when by His Word and in His Son He calls us who are His enemies His children, when He causes us to be His children because in His freedom to do that He is truly the Lord. Reconciliation is God’s crossing the frontier to man: supremely legitimate and yet supremely inconceivable—or conceivable only in the fact of His act of power and love (82).

In Decartes’ formula—having our starting point as ourselves “I” and our activity “Think” directed back toward ourselves “therefore I am”—causes humanity to be stuck in an isolated and vicious cycle within ourselves, reducing our being to a temporal and flexible event alienated from God’s grace and mercy. Our thinking does not make anything concrete, but God’s sovereign declaration and activity is truly creative and permanent (“God said, let there be light and there was light” (Gen 1: 3)). In reconciliation, in the atonement, we come face to face with God and hear the declarative word and see His self-determined action of grace and mercy; and we are drawn out of ourselves to Him and we become: justified, lovable, His forever.

“Wake me up inside…” (part 1): Barth’s Doctrine of Reconciliation (iv.1.58)

2010-09-03T12:15:00.000-04:00

Karl Barth’s Doctrine of Reconciliation is the crescendo of the symphony that is his Church Dogmatics. Specifically, in this small (!) section (iv.1.58), one can begin to see how Barth is going to pull his entire theology together through the one moment, the one solitary and essential event of the atonement. He has woven together the previous three doctrines into this one doctrine of Reconciliation. IV.1.58 presents Barth at his absolute Christological best (and at his most un-universalistic). Barth’s doctrine of reconciliation not only emphasizes the triunity of God, but demonstrates how that triunity is expressed in God’s Grace toward humanity, in the being of humanity in Christ, in Jesus, in sin, and in individuality and community. Everything outside of the divine verdict, divine direction, divine promise, outside of faith, love, and hope, outside of Jesus as God, as Man, as God-Man, according to Barth, ceases and is negated; outside of Christ, humanity ceases to be humanity and becomes nothing (we’ll tease this out later). Barth’s doctrine of reconciliation puts fire into the desperate and needy sinner’s heart that burns so passionately, that they (I) can’t help but cry out,

“Save me from the nothing I’ve become!” This series is a mere attempt at summarizing what Barth said in this one section (iv.1.58), while communicating the same passion Barth communicates to his reader. This series will be an interaction with Barth’s train of thought and attempting to see the ways he links together the different parts as he does. In this series, I will simultaneously summarize and interact with Barth’s material and only Barth’s material (as in, I’m not incorporating those who have written on Barth); this is just Barth.

The Hidden God

2010-08-31T17:09:00.003-04:00

The following is an excellent excerpt from Forde on Gnesio. I found it to accurately describe the proper place of the theologian and of theology (and a corrective to theology that attempts to define God outside of the ONE proclamation). Theology must first correlate to the proclamation, must stem from the proclamation, must start with the proclamation; for the proclamation is the revealedness of God. As Forde writes, "Theology cannot unmask God".

"God not preached is the absconder, one who hides behind the naked abstractions, and there is nothing theology as such can do about that because theology is a collection of abstractions. It is only in the concrete proclamation, the present-tense Word from God, spoken “to you” the listener, that the abstraction is broken through for the moment and God no longer absconds but is revealed. This is what theologians with too few exceptions through the ages have either failed or refused to see. When the distinctive correlation between systematic theology and proclamation is overlooked, the theological impulse will of necessity be to attempt the impossible to go to work on the abstractions, to attempt to remove or see through them, to tear the mask from the face of the “hiding” God. When the proclamation is not heard, there is no other recourse. One attempts, against Luther’s frequent caveat, to “peer into the hidden majesty of God.

"...Instead of the “I love you,” of the almighty one, we hear a lecture on a God who is in general “love.” The “solution” only creates an even greater problem. Instead of a word from God we hear theological opinions about God. We go out of the frying pan and into the fire! Recall our lover who at the crucial moment claims, “Of course, I love everybody!” or even perhaps “I am love,” instead of saying, “I love you!” What is the beloved to say or do about that? If the message is merely that God is love in general, then everything is turned back on us. “If God is love, what is the matter with me? Why am I such an unloving clod?” The generality, the abstraction, whatever its place, only turns on us because it can never do the job of the concrete, self-revealing proclamation. Theology simply cannot unmask God."

Via Forde’s Theology is for Proclamation, pp. 17-20.

To read more, click here.

My Letter to TMC

2010-08-30T13:14:00.002-04:00

TMC: The Midwife Center of Pittsburgh. Some of you (friends) may know that the last time we were pg (m/c may 18, 2010), TMC required me to find an Obstetrician (one whom the recommended) for the pg because I was (or was going to be) a third time c/s (c-section). This is a letter I wrote addressed to the president of the board of TMC and which I also sent to the front office. I sent it last week, and am sure it is there by now...so I can post it here (not that TMC is reading my blog (does anyone read it? ;), but out of respect...).

Dear Mr. Quick,

I am Lauren R.E. Larkin and a client of The Midwife Center. I am writing this letter to express a “complaint” about a practice of TMC: refusing to see clients requiring a third c-section (c/s).

Let me say first (it is vital that this letter be read in this light): I am a devoted TMC client and an advocate of the midwives’ superior and loving woman-care. Their care is by far the best care I have ever experienced (which was from two other care providers in the Pittsburgh area). They value not only the process of pregnancy, labor, and birth, but also the whole woman. Even the front office staff is remarkable: friendly, loving, patient, and approachable to all that enter the office. I love TMC, full heartedly.

Let me also say that I understand why TMC would have such a policy concerning c-sections (stated above). A woman who has had two previous c/s is going to have a third c/s. It makes sense that TMC would not want the risk and legality issues involved with c/s clients. It makes sense that TMC would believe that since they are not catching the baby nor will be involved with the surgery, that they would want the client to foster a similar relationship that they have with the midwife with the potential surgeon performing the surgery. All of these reasons make sense.

Thus, I do not voice my complaint solely because things did not go my way; but, rather because of my great admiration and respect for TMC. My complaint is more of a plea to please revisit this policy, and consider whether it is truly the best decision for the client. While I do understand the actual and possible reasons for not seeing third time c/s clients, I want to tell you my side of it…tell you why I cried and had a tantrum—a tantrum that would make any three year old proud—when I was told I had to leave TMC during this last pregnancy (late April 2010).

As is already implied in this letter, I have had two previous c/s. The experience between the two c/s was radically different. The first c-section was with an Ob/Gyn group and I knew all the doctors in the practice, having seen them during checkups. The second c/s was with TMC and was the result of a failed VBAC. The doctor who delivered my second son I had met that morning, briefly. According to the logic behind the TMC policy on caring for third time c/s clients (stated above), the first c/s should have been the better experience, because I knew my surgeon. However, the reality is that the second one was by far the better experience. This contrast had nothing to do with my familiarity with the surgeon. Rather, it was my midwife, Kathy, who made the experience of the second c/s less traumatic. I had less depression and fewer feelings of failure with the second c/s than with the first.

How did Kathy make the difference? How did Kathy, who was not performing my c/s nor catching my baby, make that c/s less traumatic for me? She was there. When my husband could not be there in the beginning of the surgery, she was. She held me still while I got my spinal. When Jack was extracted from my womb, my husband left me to be with him (this is our choice: the baby who cannot be with me and be comforted by his mother gets the next best thing: dad’s voice), Kathy stood in. Kathy stood next to me, held my hand and calmed me, telling me that I had not failed. She told me things about my baby that I would not have known about him until an hour or so after he was born: how many toes he had and how many fingers, what color his hair was, how big his umbilical cord was, his size, his looks, everything (even his male parts!). Women who have c/s—those who value natural birth and the beauty of those early moments with the baby after its birth—do not get to hold their baby, they do not get to count the toes and fingers, to examine the hair and facial features. We have to wait. And that, as a mother, is a very hard thing to do—hard and sad. But Kathy’s presence minimized that sadness. When my husband left the OR with Jack, I would have been by myself. Alone. But I wasn’t. Kathy stayed with me. She continued to talk with me and reaffirm me. I did not feel alone because someone I knew well was there with me, holding my hand and talking with me. My first experience lacked the “Kathy” aspect. When my husband left to be with my first son, Quinn, I was alone. I was left alone with my fears and concerns: what was happening to my baby, what did he look like, how many toes, how many fingers…had I failed?

A c/s will always be an impersonal and traumatic event (no matter how well you know your surgeon or how planned it is). While it is life saving, it is an unnatural and invasive procedure. A c/s cannot be compared to a natural birth and must be approached differently. Just “knowing” my surgeon does not make that procedure better or more intimate. In fact, when that screen goes up, separating one from the surgeon, all intimacy flees. You cannot see your surgeon and she cannot see you. They are not there looking into your eyes, telling you its okay. In fact, it is not even their role at that moment; they need to be swift and precise, cool and focused, in order to give top care to the woman and the baby.

All this to say: being at TMC and having a midwife made my second c/s less traumatic. I, personally, do not need to have an intimate relationship with my surgeon. When I first met with the OB who was going to deliver our third baby, I told her my apprehension in having to get to know another doctor just to have a c/s. Her response: “Well, you don’t ever have to talk to me or get to know me.” And, she’s right. Intimacy is needed in cooperative births, where the woman and the midwife/doctor work together; but in a c/s there is no cooperation. She just needs to do her job well; I only need to trust her skill. We don’t, as she said, ever have to get to know each other.

Because we did lose this baby at 9.5 weeks, we do not have to think about having a third c/s at this time. But if/when we get pregnant again, we wish we could have a choice about our care.

Thank you for taking the time to read this letter. Again, I write this letter with the utmost respect, admiration, and love for TMC.

Kindest Regards,

Lauren R. E. Larkin

cc: The Front Office, TMC

Cars

2010-08-27T08:45:00.004-04:00

(this is part of a larger work published by Mockingbird: "The Gospel According to Pixar"; to order The Gospel According to Pixar click here)

General Plot: Lightening McQueen is the new rookie race car on the block that is stealing headlines with every race. He’s super fast and he knows it. He’s a one man show and vocalizes it. When his pit crew ditches him, he doesn’t care…He’s headed to California to race the final race (between the King--the current Dinoco Spokescar--and Chick) to decide who will win the treasured Piston Cup and become Dinoco’s new spokescar. But on his way to California and a following a string of unfortunate events, Lightening McQueen finds himself on a barren stretch of road in a little town, Radiator Springs. In the midst of this misfit community, of eccentric cars--who do not know or care who Lightening McQueen is--Lightening McQueen will come to experience community and, thus, love, like he never could before being an island of one. The local Judge, Doctor, and former hot-shot race-car, Doc Hudson (aka The Hudson Hornet) will be swept up in McQueen’s experience; McQueen will force Doc to face his past, which remains desperately hidden, and encourages him out of hiding into community. This community and this love will significantly alter the way McQueen (and Doc) see life…to the point of sacrifice.

Gospel Plot:

“Oh, the places you’ll go! There is fun to be done!
There are points to be scored.
There are games to be won.
And the magical things you can do with that ball
will make you the winning-est winner of all.
Fame! You’ll be famous as famous can be,
with the whole wide world watching you win on TV.
Except when they don’t.
Because, sometimes they won’t.
I’m afraid that some times
you’ll play lonely games too.
Games you can’t win
‘cause you’ll play against you.
All Alone!
Whether you like it or not,
Alone will be something
you’ll be quite a lot”
Dr. Seuss, Oh The Places You’ll Go.

Dr. Seuss is right, alone is something we are quite a lot. We have all been alone. Like Lightening McQueen, we’ve either isolated ourselves intentionally by alienating others on our way to the top; or, unintentionally, like Doc Hudson, by keeping others at a distance, safeguarding our past failures and our present brokenness. Our plans succeed and we are abandoned, left alone, isolated by those who were once close to us; until…

Until something else happens, something meets us from outside of ourselves; even when we are trying like to heck to avoid this very thing.

Eventually we “break down” (McQueen) or we become “found out” (Doc). Being alone is not the final word. At that very intersection of success and brokenness, stands the message of one-way love. At that intersection stands the Cross. McQueen is not left alone, lonely at the top. Doc is not left isolated by his past failures. Something outside of both McQueen and Doc draws them out of themselves; and, thus, into community. Someone loves them by no merit of their own. Mater loves lightening McQueen for absolutely no reason but “just because”. This is one-way love. As Mater’s one-way love flows into McQueen, McQueen can finally love someone else beside himself (Sally, for example). When love is poured in, love pours out. McQueen renovates the town for Sally as a gift, but only after Mater loves him and calls McQueen his “best friend”. The entire band of misfits in Radiator Springs embraces McQueen, and McQueen in turn—against everything that McQueen had stood for—embraces them. And, in light of this one-way love, Doc is affected. Doc is confronted by McQueen and is drawn out of reclusion and back into community (and the spotlight!). McQueen and Doc have true friends and a true family that love them for no reason; and it’s a love that is neither merited by achievements nor conditioned by failures. Mater, Ramon, Flo, Sally, Guido, Luigi, Big Red (etc) love them “just because”, no strings attached.

The Cross: As with many Pixar movies it is not only about giving the audience a warm and fuzzy feeling at the end of the movie and some sort of implausible mandate: Now Go Love! Pixar never leaves us with a feel-good un-substantial ending. Nearly always, there’s one more scene to be played. One more message to communicate: one-way love leads to sacrifice. In the final scene McQueen is racing the best race of his life. He’s implemented the tricks he learned from Hudson, he’s got his best crew: his new family. McQueen is, literally, back on top and rather invincible. He is posed to defeat the annoying and conceited Chick. Everyone is rooting for him. As he is rounding the last turn toward winning his first Piston Cup, something terrible happens. The King has a devastating crash that renders him unable to cross the finish line of his last lap, of his last race, in his last Piston Cup.

(play video from 0.00-8.10) McQueen slams on his breaks, inches prior to crossing the finish line. A moment later Chick goes whizzing by and celebrates his win. Meanwhile, McQueen, still not crossing the finish line, backs-up and goes to King’s side. But it’s not to see if King’s okay; it’s to help King cross the finish line, to allow him the dignity of finishing his last race. McQueen sacrifices his career (he will even sacrifice the Dinoco spokes-car slot for his family of misfits) and comes in not second place but last…dead last. Pixar understands the power of love; and that the power of that love has an appropriate end: sacrifice. This is the Gospel message; this is the message of true, divine, one-way love; this is the message of the Cross. Through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the Cross, we, by faith, are no longer alienated from God, no longer alone, but are in communion with God himself (Col 1:19-22). The one-way love of Christ pours into us and, subsequently, out of us toward others. The church, the body of believers, ideally becomes the created community (out of/comprised of the broken, out of/comprised of the misfits) drawn together by this one-way love—from God for each-other. By one-way love, our possibility is given priority over our actuality (contra Aristotle). Our achievements and our failures no longer rule over us with condemnation—we are not defined by them but by God’s word: beloved; and this ‘word’ makes room for true and real transformation, it causes us to love others as we are loved.

It's Sad...Because It's Often True...

2010-08-25T06:32:00.003-04:00

Day of Hope

2010-08-19T14:49:00.003-04:00

August 19th is the Day of Hope (for more information click here). Today, I remember...

What They Remember...

2010-08-09T16:22:00.003-04:00

Just now I was talking with Quinn, my oldest son (3.5). I asked him: while you have your snack do you want to color a picture for so-and-so who are expecting a baby soon? This is the conversation that occurred:

Me: Quinn, do you want to color a picture for Mr. So and So? He and his wife are expecting a baby...Mr. So and So's wife is pregnant with a baby boy!

Quinn: Sure, I'll color a picture. [There's a thoughtful pause, then he says to me] You don't have your baby any more...it left.

Me: That's right Quinn.

Quinn: But don't worry, it'll come back! Yeah, I lost my baby sister, but I'll get my baby sister back [sounding very confident].

Me: [chuckling] Thanks, Quinn.

I'm perpetually amazed at what he remembers and how he's processed it. I also love the fact that he's set on "baby sister"...I guess it's sort of like...Jack's up in my grill all the time, surely a baby sister won't do that. Oh Quinn...she may not be up in your grill, but your friends will be hitting on her...There is no easy alternative, sweet little man.

Not by Deeds...

2010-08-07T09:33:00.004-04:00

Here is a portion from a GnesioLutheran daily email I receive:

When the sinner comes to faith in Christ, or in the Gospel, he is at once justified before God by his faith. Since the Gospel offers him the forgiveness of sins gained by Christ for the whole world (objective justification), the acceptance of this offer, by faith, is all that is needed to accomplish his subjective justification… Subjective justification is meant when Paul says Rom. 3:28: “Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith.” “By faith” and that means, as Scripture expressly states, “without the deeds of the Law.” Natural man cannot conceive of such a thing as the divine method of justification; he knows only a justification by works. Scripture therefore is intent on inculcating upon a man the truth that any and all works of the Law are excluded from justification. Rom. 3:28: “Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith, without the deeds of the Law.” Gal. 2:16: “Man is not justified by the works of the Law.” All works, works of any kind or description, are excluded. Neither the “good” works of unbelievers, such as those of the Pharisees, nor the truly good works which flow from faith, such as those of faithful Abraham, can justify a man before God. It is a method of justification unheard of among men. But Scripture tells us why God justifies men without the Law and the works of the Law. he does it (1) because He wants men to be sure of the forgiveness of sins (Rom. 4:16: “Therefore it is of faith that it might be by grace, to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed.”); and (2) because He wants man to glory not in himself, but in God’s entirely unmerited grace in Christ (Eph. 2:9: “Not of works, lest any man should boast”; Eph. 1:6-7: “To the praise of the glory of His grace, wherein He hath made us acceptable in the Beloved, in whom we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of His grace”). God’s method of justifying men by faith is indeed a wondrous one. We may easily lose sight of its wonderful character, since it is so familiar to us. But Luther is right when he says: “It is a great thing to hold and believe in sincere faith that all my sins are forgiven and that through such faith I am righteous before God. That is certainly a wondrous justice and far different from the justice of all jurists, all learned and wise men of this world.” (St. L. XIII:2495.) But this “wondrous” justice of justification by faith is based on that “wondrous” fact that God has reconciled the world unto Himself by Christ’s vicarious satisfaction, that in His heart He has forgiven their sins and offers this forgiveness, this righteousness, in the Gospel. One cannot present the doctrine of justification by faith without constant reference to the universal, objective justification.
Via Pieper’s Christian Dogmatics, vol.2, “Justification by Faith, Without the Deeds of the Law”

Just had to pass this part on...One day I'll post something "original" but for now...tried and true will work just fine!

Greek Passage

2010-08-05T08:10:00.004-04:00

Here is the Greek passage I was working on today:

ouvc o[ti avfV e`autw/n i`kanoi, evsmen logi,sasqai, ti w`j evx e`autw/n( avllV h` i`kano,thj h`mw/n evk tou/ qeou/( o]j kai. i`ka,nwsen h`ma/j diako,nouj kainh/j diaqh,khj( ouv gra,mmatoj avlla. pneu,matoj\ to. ga.r gra,mma avpokte,nnei( to. de. pneu/ma zw|opoiei/Å

It's from 2 Cor. 3:5-6. Roughly translated:

"Not that we are adequate of ourselves to reckon anything as of/from ourselves but our qualification [is] from God, who also made us sufficient servants of [the] new covenant, not of the letter* but of the Spirit; for the letter kills/deprives of spiritual life, but the Spirit gives life/makes alive"

Thought i would share.

*'letter' here is in reference to "alphabet" letters, not a letter. The word in the greek when used in the plural is rendered book/letter/epistle, as in "many[alphabet] letters". I originally had 'book/letter' as a translation for the singular (as it is in this verse) which is incorrect...here, in the singular, it is 'letter' as in one alphabet letter. in the next verse (7) will use the Greek word in the plural.

Theologian of Glory

2010-07-30T07:36:00.003-04:00

Here's (another) Gnesio Post from FB that I just loved. It's short and excellent at giving an overview (albeit brief) of the theologian of Glory and the differences therein with the Theologian of The Cross:

"1. The Law advances human beings on the path of righteousness (Thesis I).
␣ Luther's opinio legis.
␣ "Why Bad Things Happen to Good People?" (Rabbi Kushner) is the wrong question! What is the assumption behind this question? Good people deserve good things.

2. The human will is free (Thesis 13) ␣ Theologian of glory thinks that we can at least prepare for grace (Forde, 50).
␣ "It would be safer, we think (the ultimate blasphemy!), if we made the decision ourselves-at least a little bit!" (52).

3. Theologian of glory identifies suffering with evil
␣ "Identification of suffering with evil has the further result that God must be absolved from all blame" (84). The theologian of glory attempts to accommodate God to his view of what is good. "We adjust our doctrine of God to fit our glory projects" (89).

4. Theologian of glory attempts to accommodate the Law either by antinomianism or legalism.
␣ Antinomianism is "fake theology" (Forde says elsewhere) for when the Law is not ended in Christ it simply comes back in the form of a legalized gospel. Remember Agricola!
␣ Legalism assumes that if one knows the Law, he can do it. Example: Rich young ruler who comes to Jesus knows the commandments!

5. Theologian of glory assumes that practice makes perfect (see Thesis 25)
␣ Luther draws a contrast between Paul and Aristotle. For Aristotle, righteousness comes from doing, from the practice of virtue. For Paul, righteousness comes by the hearing of faith.
␣ "Works performed on the premise that one is going to become righteous thereby are not good to begin with. They defend us against the goodness of God. They are not done for the neighbor but for the glory of the self. Works that can be called good, however, flow from righteousness as from an overflowing vessel, not as into an empty one waiting to be filled" (Forde, 105).
␣ Luther: "Therefore I wish to have the words 'without work' understood in the following manner: Not that the righteous person does nothing, but that his works do not make him righteous, rather that his righteousness creates works. For grace and faith are infused without our works. After they have been imparted, the works follow" (Forde, 106).
␣ Excursus: Vocation in light of the theology of the cross. Freedom of the Christian: Faith and Love. Life outside of oneself in faith toward Christ and in love toward the neighbor. Post-Communion Collect

6. Theologian of glory assumes that justification by grace through faith alone will lead to moral laxness.
␣ Attempts to solve this problem by "putting teeth into the Gospel" or failing to let the Gospel stand on its own two feet (see Walther).
␣ "Here is a drastic parting of the ways with a theology of glory. The Christ of the cross takes away the possibility of doing something. The theologian of glory might be able to follow to the point of accepting the truth that Christ has fulfilled all things, but then that will have to be used as motivational fuel to make sure the law gets its due. Thepoint is precisely that the power to do good comes only out of this wild claim that
everything has already been done" (110). ␣ Luther in his treatise of 1520 On Good Works: "When I exalt faith and reject such works without faith, they accuse me of forbidding good works. The fact of the matter is that I want very much to teach the real good which spring from faith" (quoted in Leaver, Luther on Justification, 43)

␣ Note Paul Gerhardt's will: "In his last will and testament Paul Gerhardt reminds his only son, still living after all his other children had died: 'Do good to people, even if they cannot pay you back because….' The reader expects that the sentence will continue with: 'God will repay you.' However, Paul Gerhardt frustrates that expectation by continuing: '…because for what human beings cannot repay, the Creator of heaven and earth has already repaid long ago when he created you, when he gave you his only Son, and when he accepted and received you in holy baptism as his child and heir" (Bayer, "Justification as Basis and Boundary for Theology" Lutheran Quarterly Autumn 2001, 276)."

-excerpts from John Pless, 'The Theology of the Cross as Pastoral Care'

Law and Gospel

2010-07-20T09:01:00.000-04:00

"When Law and Gospel are improperly distinguished both are undermined. Separated from the Law, the Gospel gets absorbed into an ideology of tolerance in which indiscriminateness is equated with grace. Separated from the Gospel, the Law becomes an insatiable demand hammering away at the conscience until it destroys a person. When Law and Gospel are properly distinguished, however, both are established. The Law can be set forth in full-scale demand, so that it lights the way to order and through the work of the Spirit drives us to Christ. The Gospel can be declared in all of its purity, so that forgiveness of sins and deliverance from the powers of death and the devil are bestowed in the presence of our crucified and risen Lord" - Posted on FB/Gnesio by Dr. Jim Nestingen

A Place for Ethics?

2010-07-07T06:22:00.003-04:00

Check out this post from Gnesio Lutheran (from 7/6), click here.

Here's a quote:

"We should note that there is a certain exuberance in the language here. “Faith obtains” what law commands. Through faith Christ is in us. We fulfill everything through him since he was made ourse through faith. The theologian of the cross simply will not back off from this and, when challenged, drives it home all the harder. To the theologian of glory the language seems utterly hyperbolic at best and at worst quite dangerous. What will happen to moral earnestness if people get wind of the claim that through faith all has been fulfilled in Christ? The temptation is always to fall back on the law, either in its original sense or perhaps in some new sense, like a “third use.” But the theologian of the cross knows that there is no way back. So Luther here pushes the language to the limit and will not back off. He knows that if there is faltering here, all will be lost" (emphasis mine).

Something I've been thinking about lately (because of comments on a final paper returned to me from the past semester): If the law is fulfilled in Christ (and Christ dwells in us and we in Him), and there is no need for cooperation for the fulfillment of the law or in the growth of our sanctification, where is the place for ethics? What role does ethics play (if any)? How does a Lutherican (such as my self) answer these question? How does someone who has been studying ethics for the past year as a Lutherican answer these questions?

I don't know...at least not yet. I'll keep thinking about...I have some thoughts...but they are too rough to put down for public consumption.

Missing Spice?

2010-06-30T08:08:00.011-04:00

N.T. Wright’s book, Simply Christian, is a love filled attempt to provide a description of what Christianity is about being an explanation to Christians and commendation to non-Christians (ix). Every page pours forth love. There is no mistaking it: Wright is a faithful, wise, and sincere lover of Jesus Christ and he communicates Jesus’ love to others magnificently. Last week, we covered the first four chapters that discuss the echoes of justice, the quest for spirituality, the desire for relationships, and the draw of beauty. This week, the reading took us further into the Bible story. Wright, in chapters 5-7, walks the reader through who God is and what His relation to Heaven and Earth is (pantheism? Panenthies? Or Overlapping, Interlocking?); who Israel is and what they believed and hoped for; and, finally, Jesus and the coming of God’s kingdom. In chapters 8-10, Wright covers a description of who Jesus was (and is), the Holy Spirit, and the effecting work of the Spirit in the life of the believer (living by the Spirit). For the purposes of this paper, I will be focusing on chapter 8: “Jesus: Rescue and Renewal”. There will first be a summary of the chapter, followed by a critique of Wright’s understanding of Jesus’ awareness of his divinity and what I believe to be a lack of discussion of God’s wrath and the Cross.

Wright begins by attempting to answer the question “why did Jesus’s followers hail him as Messiah?” especially since he didn’t act like the expected Messiah (106). Jesus was not a military leader nor did he instigate any military uprisings (intentionally) (106). There was no mention of rebuilding the Temple (106). He spoke with knowledge and wisdom (like a prophet) and he did miraculous works; but, according to Wright, this is not enough to call him the Messiah (107). The Messiah, it was believed in Jewish tradition, would be a Ruler, a mighty king like David, the one who would lead “the triumphant fight against Israel’s enemies” (Wright 107). Jesus was none of these. Rather, He suffered and died; and this, says Wright, His followers could never have understood, no matter how many times Jesus told them (107).

Jesus was a royal and suffering servant, as it was recorded in Isaiah. “…it is in Isaiah…that we find …God’s coming kingdom, the renewal of creation expressed not least in remarkable healings, the power of God’s ‘word’ to save and restore, the ultimate victory over all the ‘Babylons’ of the world, and the figure of the Servant itself” (107-8). What was not understood about the Messiah was that in order for evil to have its true end, the Messiah, the propitiation for sins, had to suffer the result of sin: death; and be resurrected to defeat it. Wright phrases it this way, “God’s plan to rescue the world from evil would be put into effect by evil doing its worst to the Servant--that is, to Jesus himself--and thereby exhausting its power” (108).

Wright then turns his attention to Jesus and his relation to the Temple. As we know from the bible, Jesus attacks the Temple (for example, turning over tables) with the intent to challenge “…in the name of Israel’s God, the very place where God was supposed to live and do business with his people….God would destroy the city and the Temple, and would vindicate not the Jewish nation as a whole, but Jesus himself and his followers” (109). The enemy was not Rome, “but the powers of evil that stood behind human arrogance and violence, powers of evil with which Israel’s leaders had fatally colluded” (110). The rescue was coming, “not from mere political enemies, but from evil itself, from the sin which had enslaved them. His death would do what the Temple, with its sacrificial system, had pointed toward but had never actually accomplished” (110). Jesus was the intersecting point of the in-breaking of the kingdom, turning what people considered truth on its head, just as he had done to the merchant tables in the temple. He would be the unexpected royal and suffering Messiah (110). Nothing could have prepared his followers for this: not anything from the history of paganism nor the “puzzling, shadowy prophecy” in the Old Testament (Wright 111). Wright puts it excellently, “The death of Jesus of Nazareth as the king of the Jews, the bearer of Israel’s destiny, the fulfillment of God’s promises to his people of old, is either the most stupid, senseless waste and misunderstanding the world has ever seen, or it is the fulcrum around which world history turns….Christianity is based on the belief that it was and is the latter” (111).

The next item on Wright’s agenda is Jesus’ resurrection from the dead, and, subsequently, the rise of Christianity. He writes, “…we are talking here about resurrection, not resuscitation” (112). He poses two theories that attempt to contradict the reality of Jesus’ resurrection. The first is “cognitive dissonance”, which is, “the phenomenon whereby people who believe something strongly go on saying it all the more shrilly when faced with contrary evidence” (112). Wright explains how this theory fails by using the example of self-proclaimed Messiah, Simeon ben Kosiba, who was killed by the Romans in AD 135 (ref. 106), “nobody went around afterward saying he really was the messiah after all, however much they had wanted to believe that he had been” (112). The second is the argument that the concept of “resurrection” was a common characteristic of religions in the ancient Near East. “Dying and rising ‘gods,’ yes…But--even supposing Jesus’s very Jewish followers knew any traditions like those pagan ones--nobody in those religions ever supposed it actually happened to individual humans“ (113). Wright, I think, comes to the correct conclusion about Jesus’ resurrection and the rise of the church, “…the best explanation…for the rise of Christianity is that Jesus really did reappear, not as a battered, bleeding survivor, not as a ghost…but as a living, bodily human being” (113). A bodily resurrection it was; for had it not been (had it been “Ghost” like), Jesus’ well-read Jewish followers would have described his body as a shining star, the way the righteous appear at the resurrection in Daniel 12:3 (113). Jesus’ interaction with Thomas (plus other examples) indicates that His body was real in His resurrection.

Believing the resurrection is not an easy thing to do, especially considering our post-modern, skeptic, science based worldview (Wright 114). Believing, says Wright, requires a worldview switch. “Sometimes, to make sense of the actual evidence before us, we have to pull our worldview, our sense of what’s possible, into a new shape. That is the kind of thing demanded by the evidence about Easter” (114). Believing in the resurrection is more than just the comforting thought of an afterlife, which, according to Wright, has been the significant “wrong turn” by Western Christendom (114). Wright explains, “Resurrection isn’t a fancy way of saying ‘going to heaven when you die.’ It is not about ‘life after death’ as such. Rather, it’s a way of talking about being bodily alive again after a period of being bodily dead. Resurrection is a second-stage after ‘life after death’” (115). Postmortem life: ‘life In other words, since Jesus has been raised, God’s kingdom has been ushered in, “and that means we have a job to do. The world must hear what the God of Israel, the creator God, has achieved through his Messiah” (114-5). The resurrection is one more event of heaven and earth intersecting and interlocking (Wright 115). By the resurrection of the Suffering God--one who really does know our pain and anguish--the world and humanity have been renewed and revived, lifted up and given new breath, with a commission to go and “make new creation happen in the world” (Wright 116).

The final portion of the chapter deals with Jesus divinity. Jesus is, according to Wright, not merely an echo but the actual voice, “a voice which speaks of rescue from evil and death, and hence of new creation” (116). Historically, Wright explains, those who followed Jesus “had never imagined that a Messiah would be divine” (116). However, the early Christian Church adhered to Jewish monotheism while affirming that Jesus was divine; this occurred not many centuries later after much thought and contemplation, but within a single generation of the event of the Cross, resurrection, and ascension (Wright 117).

Though the early Church was aware of Jesus’ divinity, Wright explains that Jesus was not (118). What Wright argues is “…not to diminish the full incarnation of Jesus but to explore its deepest dimension, is that Jesus was aware of a call, a vocation, to do and be what, according to the Scriptures, only Israel’s God gets to do and be. That, I believe, is what it means to speak about Jesus being both truly divine and truly human(118). Wright explains, “The closer we get to the cross, the clearer the answer we get to the question, Who did Jesus think he was?” (118). The closer we get to the Cross the better we see Jesus as fulfilling what God wanted to do: return Israel to himself, to judge and to save, assuming authority over the Temple (Wright 118). Did Jesus, who had this divine sense of vocation ever think he was mad? Wright affirms, “certainly”; yet,

“Jesus was certainly shrewd enough to be aware of the possibility of delusion. But …he was sustained not only by his reading of scripture, in which he found so clearly the lines of his own vocation, but also by his intimate prayer life with the one he called Abba, Father. Somehow, Jesus both prayed to the Father and took upon himself a role which, in the ancient prophecies, was reserved for YHWH--that of rescuing Israel and the world. He was obedient to the Father, simultaneously doing what only God can do” (118-9).

Wright closes by emphasizing that Jesus was not aware of his divinity as you and I are aware of our gender or the temperature outside (119). Jesus’ awareness was closer to a deep awareness of a vocation; like I know I want to be a professor, Jesus had a deep knowledge, “a powerful and all-consuming belief…that within the very being of God there was a give-and-take, a to-and-fro, a love given and received. Jesus seems to have believed that he, the fully human prophet from Nazareth, was one of those partners in love” (119).

Wait. What? What did he just say?

It’s not often I get to see an overlap between 1990’s British Teen-Pop with 2000’s British Brilliance. Recently, I was listening to the Spice Girls all time chart busting tune: “Wannabe” (don’t judge). This song explains what it takes to be their “lover”: essentially, you have to be accepted by their friends. But there’s more to the song. The songwriters want to tell you what they really want, (really, really, really want). But they don’t. Essentially, they say, “I’m gonna tell you what I want and it’s “zigazig ha”. Wait. What? I don’t know what that even is. I, the listener, am dragged along thinking I’m gonna know, finally, what they really want…yet I end up disappointed with nothing really explained. I’m left with “zigazig ha”.

This is how I feel here, with N.T. Wright’s understanding of Jesus’ awareness of His divinity. Wright seems to explain Jesus’ awareness of His divinity as an hyper-enlightened man who intuitively got his vocation right. “Zigazig ha”. While I appreciate Wright’s ability to play-up Jesus’ humanity, he simultaneously down-plays (in a significant way) Jesus’ divinity. With the events of the Transfiguration and Jesus’ Baptism rattling around in my head, I cannot help but be confused by Wright’s language. How could Jesus’ experience, at His Baptism, when the dove floated down from heaven with God’s voice booming above, “This is my son. My chosen one. Listen to him” (Luke 9). Or, certainly, if not at His baptism Jesus would have had an awareness (the real awareness) that he was divine (though also human) at the Transfiguration. In addition, throughout Jesus’ ministry, he knew he had the power to forgive sins, which only God could do; and He said that if you’ve seen Him (Jesus) you’ve seen the Father. Not to mention all the people recorded as referring to him as the Lord, as in God. All of this indicates that at some level Jesus was aware of his divinity in more of an active way than just a deep knowledge of a vocation. I feel that Wright has given his reader “zigazig ha”.

Yes, I am attempting to be comical (Wright’s writing is significantly better than the Spice Girls;’); yet, I feel that what Wright has done at many penultimate moments within his book is drop his reader short of really understanding something truly beautiful, truly brilliant. For instance, in chapter 8, there is virtually no discussion about Jesus being the sacrifice to end all sacrifices, the one upon whom God would fully unleash His wrath. Wright correctly identifies Jesus as the Suffering Servant--suffering for the world because of sin; yet, he seems hesitant to make reference to God’s just wrath over sin and how Jesus is the perfect propitiation, the Judge judged in our place. This is one of the primary points of the Cross: we are the ones who failed, we are the ones who deserve God’s wrath, yet, through Jesus’ sacrifice on the Cross God’s wrath is fully mete out, fully satisfied, once and for all. By faith in Jesus we are justified, pronounced “not guilty”, and able to stand in God’s presence (in Christ, not on our own); this is the message that I need to hear daily. This is the message I long to hear in Wright’s book, but I don’t.

"Better Than a Hallelujah"

2010-05-24T20:57:00.005-04:00

As a Christian, I often feel the heavy weight of putting my best foot forward no matter what is happening in my life. Because I believe in Jesus Christ, I should always be happy and praising God at every moment. The problem is, it's not true; I don't feel that way all the time. In the midst of sorrow and suffering I want to throw my bible rather than read it; I want to cry rather than praise; I want to scream "why?!" rather than give thanks. Even after about six years of biblical and theological study, when I'm hit with sorrow and suffering my heart still breaks, I still cry out and weep and, some times, even doubt.

But these emotions are not signs of disbelief or unfaithfulness.

Rather, they are the desperate and honest cries of a broken heart. Cries that demonstrate my humanity and my deep need for something bigger and beyond myself. In sorrow and suffering, I am backed into a corner, all my abilities and strengths rendered useless. I am broken. I am needy. I am helpless. In sorrow and suffering, I fall down before the Cross and plead for help and am made fully aware of my finitude and my inability to do anything else.

Why Does This Have To Be So Hard.

2010-03-26T09:54:00.002-04:00

On a good note, I did just find out that a dear friend of mine, her husband was recently accepted in to the PhD program that he wanted to get into...super excited and doing virtual back-flips for him and them! Super cool.

*sigh*

...this also makes me think and, I'll admit, navel gaze just a bit. Why does the thought of doing doctoral work seem so hard? Maybe a better way to phrase the question is like this: "Why does it appear easier for some to go do doctoral work but I'm plagued with so many issues and choices and decisions?"

I can't even comprehend moving our family somewhere to get a doctorate if my husband did not first find a job. But that never seems like the issue with my male friends who decide to go somewhere to get a doctorate. I haven't heard many of those wives telling me..."I hope i find a job!" or "We can't go until I have work" They are all young like me(ish) and have young kids like me. It just seems to be expected that they'll stay home with the kids. But the dialogue between me and my husband about me doing continued graduate work is different...very.

Why?

It's not that my husband isn't supportive of me getting more education (provided I'm not a perpetual student and do have an "end" and "vocation" in mind); in fact, he's very encouraging. I actually do not even have the gumption to assume that my husband would just uproot his job (which provides very well for us) and move because I wanted to and felt called to get another degree. In conjunction to this, there is an underlying, unspoken judgment that it would just be ridiculous to ask him to leave his job to do something so crazy (not to mention ask him to stay home with the kids). But it's rarely thought ridiculous if he's the one uprooting his family to move whether it's to another town, state, or, even, country. Actually, in many instances, it's seen as the right thing to do for a man in order to further his career or obtain the right career.

This might be part of the reason why it all feels so hard.

Another is the sensible v. spontaneous aspect. Jointly, my husband and I err on the side of sensible. Why would we move somewhere that could not provide us with the job and living situation that we have here, right now? Why would we take on debt (a lot of it) and put ourselves in a worse financial situation? But there is an assumption (and I'll admit that I've actually wondered this) that by being "sensible" we are not "trusting God". To pick up and leave and throw caution to the wind is to really trust God. To be spontaneous as Christians is to really demonstrate how you are so trusting God for everything. But is there a place for being "sensible"? Are we really not trusting God because we have a burden in our hearts that uprooting the family (i.e. the kids) is being a poor steward of what we've been given or that we would be putting our desires or "talents" ahead of our children's need for security? Sometimes I wonder if our debt culture has given Christians the ability to glorify spontaneity and has tarnished the concept of being sensible stewards of what you've been given.

With that said...I'm not condemning anyone who's made the spontaneous decision...rather, just wondering why I feel so darned plagued about things that don't seem to really weigh heavily for other people. Why can't we just move and figure it out? I mean, I am a MBTI "P"...and it's large one...so I'm prone to say, "LET'S JUST DO IT! WHAT FUN!??!" But then the other side says: wait a minute...you have young boys who need you, you might get pregnant again, you should wait until ALL of your kids are in school full-time, you shouldn't ask your husband to leave his job that gives us a debt-free life....

But I do want to shout: WHY DO I HAVE TO WAIT?!!??!

I just don't know why it feels so difficult...beer me patience, Lord. Beer me patience.

Facebook, blech.

2010-03-24T05:45:00.004-04:00

You know...Facebook has been really great. I have really appreciated so many attributes about what it offers me: continued friendship with friends who have moved, pictures, videos, reconnection with lost friends, life updates, funny links, etc. All these things are great.

The downside to Facebook is that it's a rotten venue to discuss heated things like Theology, politics, even parenting (to name a few). The reason for this downside reason: FB cannot--no not EVER--communicate emotion or true need correctly.

The part that I find the most sad about FB is that the negatives outweigh the positives for me.

Is there anything advantageous to posting something I am feeling right at this moment, whether in my status update or as a comment to a post? Can I truly discern what a friend is trying to communicate by their status? Does anyone benefit if I contribute to a political discussion? Do I really need to post this "one thing" that aligns with my belief (political or theological) but may be of offense to someone else?

FB might be a community but it's a false one. To be a true community there must be intimacy. I'm not talking about romantic intimacy but intimacy that involves vulnerability. Vulnerability is only possible when i am confronted (face to face, in person) by another person who calls me (an "I") "thou", thus, i am both "thou" and "I" at the same time; simultaneously, the other person experiences the same dual identity (both "I" and "Thou"). By intimacy I am challenged by this other person, and pose the challenge back (not in a challenge like a duel, but as in someone not me). I can accept them, reject them, hurt them, encourage them, offend them (etc.).

With FB I can reject or accept with no real concern for ramification: I operate only as an unchallenged "I", so I say what I want without having to think about what the other person may or may not say or respond with. With FB, I cannot read or hear the other person (their body language or their voice), so I'm left with what I think and my own interpretation of that other person's statement. I am, via FB, an isolated monad.

In real community, I act but in conjunction with being able to see the other person (or hear them). If I say something to a friend in dialogue with him in person, I can tell--almost immediately--what he thinks or how my words have effected him. If he says something to me, I can tell if he is "just" talking something out or in need of encouragement. When he responds to something I've said, i can tell if he finds my "comment" funny, irritating, nonfactual, interesting, or, even, just blah. From this point of complete dialogue, I can adjust myself and my comments or words--I am operating as an "I" and a "thou" because I am actually confronted with another. I can discuss things like politics or theology in person because I can continually gauge what the other is thinking, and--often but not always--I'll alter or adjust what I'm saying in order not to offend (or continue the offending).

Also incorporated within this "I"/"thou" duality is the concept of "listening". As a "thou" I listen and do not talk. FB (as well as email and Chat) breakdown the listening component of a relationship. As long as I am not actually confronted by another I do not have to listen (or even feign listening)....ever. I operate independent of anyone else...completely independently.

But, as anyone might wonder, why in the world am I on this soap-box so early in the morning? Well...I confess, I read a friend wrong and offered "words" (good ones) because I thought they wanted those type of "words". But, I was wrong and I feel guilty for that. But not only this instance, but others, too. I've lost a good friend within the last year because of a stupid argument where I thought he was joking and he thought I was serious. I have anxiety over people's political posts (one's I agree with and disagree with) and the subsequent dialogue that occurs (btw, it's never a good dialogue and typically always defensive). I've been insulted--unintentionally--and have insulted others--unintentionally. It's never ended well when I enter a theological debate on someone's status or link. This is just to name a few.

What will I do? (as I'm sure you are in suspense wondering.) I don't know. But it may involve tapering back my FB involvement significantly. Maybe I'll just stick to my FB games (Mousehunt and Scrabble, with the occasional Bejeweled Blitz excursion). Maybe I'll ignore my newsfeed. Maybe I'll quit FB altogether. I don't know...but I do know that I'll spend more time trying to "listen" and not "speaking".

Lenten Devotional Post: The Immoral Brother

2010-03-05T15:05:00.006-05:00

The following is a Lenten Devotional piece I did for my school's Lenten Devotional. It is based off of the readings for this past Wednesday (according to the 1979 BCP), specifically 1 Cor 5. I have decided to (and have finally gotten around to) posting it here.

I read and am grateful that I’m not the object of Paul’s harsh words in 1 Corinthians 5. I am an observer, shaking my head, whispering, “Tsk, tsk, tsk” as Paul strongly exhorts the Corinthian Church to expel the immoral brother. His sin is a wretched one: he has taken his father’s wife as his lover. I, a faithfully married woman, am free from Paul’s accusations. I can sit back, relax, and observe; Paul is not talking about me.

And then, 5:11: “But now I am writing you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat” (emphasis mine).

Convicted. His words invade me, penetrating every part, weighing heavy on my conscience. I now see myself described and addressed. I am, in reality, an immoral person. My thoughts betray me, for they are wretched; my actions, evidence against me, for they are self-focused. Even my dreams remind me that I will not be judged innocent. I slander, I have idols, I am greedy, prideful, prone to anger…

It is not the absence of immorality, but the presence of repentance, remorse, and regret that is the dividing line between me and the one who is to be expelled. I am not the brazen faced, seductive woman of Proverbs, lurking around the corner eager with alluring words (Prov. 7, 9). Rather, I am the woman caught in adultery, dragged before the Temple elders in shame, accused correctly of my sins, hoping beyond all hope that someone greater than I am will have mercy. Just when the stones should be thrown, they are not; they drop (John 8:1-11). Jesus intervenes, silences my correct accusers, and I lay weeping at His feet, grateful and filled with love for Him who saved me. Because I have been loved by this One, I am not judged immoral, worthy of death as I should be; rather, I am judged righteous, and receive, undeservedly, what I shouldn’t -- life.

Lord, during this time, turn our stony, proud, deceitful, betraying hearts into ones that love You; hearts that weep, in love and extreme gratitude, for what it is You have saved us from. Move passionately within us, stir us up, cause us to rejoice over and to love You with every part of our being.

The [Not] Cheerful Giver

2010-02-26T16:49:00.007-05:00

click the image to enlarge it

Bill Keane gets one right! I typically do not like Family Circus (it's saccharine sweet portrayal of humanity and family life leave me with a headache); however, this one caught my attention. PJ (the youngest member of the Family Circus) nonchalantly tosses his coin in the offering basket; he thinks nothing of it. But then the offering basket moves to the next row, and PJ realizes the permanence of his actions: he has truly given his coin away. At this realization, PJ lets out a a rather large tantrum. He waves his arms, points at the basket, and [I imagine] he shouts out: "Hey, that's MY coin!" or "I want MY coin BACK!"

Reading this comic strip I resonate not with the slightly exasperated parents dealing with their tantruming child; but, rather, with PJ. I nonchalantly offer my offering and tithe and think nothing of it. But, as the ever encroaching end of the month and zero balance sneaks upon me, my heart tantrums as I realize the permanence of my charitable actions: I want MY coin BACK! My fallen nature and humanity is exposed: I am not the cheerful giver I thought I was, it turns out.

Let's call a spade a spade.

I'm broken and in desperate need of the Cross.

"Monsters, Inc." and One-Way Love

2010-02-05T15:45:00.008-05:00

General Plot: Monsters, Inc. is about two monsters, Sully and Mike, who work for the Monsters, Inc company. Sully and Mike encounter a little girl, “Boo,” who has snuck into the Monster world from the human world via her closet door. Human children are considered a great health risk to monsters and could possibly cause death. Together, with a host of other monsters, Sully, Mike, and (the one of the villains) Randall work to collect “screams” from children. The more the monsters can make the children scream, the more energy they collect. This energy is what powers Monstropolis (Monster City, literally). Sully and Mike spend the whole movie trying to get her back to her world, keeping her safe from the evil intents of Randall and Mr. Waternoose, CEO of Monsters, Inc. During the process of trying to get Boo home safely, Sully discovers that Boo’s laughter is ten times more powerful than her screams. After Sully and Mike defeat Randall and Mr. Waternoose, Monsters, Inc., changes from a “scare” factory to a “laugh factory”.

Gospel Plot: The powerful emotion of love drives the story line of Monsters Inc. But it’s not a saccharine sweet love, it’s a deeper, heart satiating, other-worldly love. It’s the love of the Gospel Message: the lover loving the unlovable. Paul Zahl writes in his book Grace in Practice, “Grace is love that seeks you out when you have nothing to give in return. Grace is love coming at you that has nothing to do with you. Grace is being loved when you are unlovable. It is being loved when you are the opposite of lovable” (36). Boo loves Sully. She loves him for no reason. She loves him even when he does everything in his power to get rid of her. She loves him even though he is a monster, an unlovable, scary, horrible creature.

This is the beating heart of it. Grace is directed toward what the Scripture calls ‘the ungodly‘ (Romans 5:6). Not just the lonely, not just the sick and disconsolate, but the ‘perpetrators,’ the murderers and abusers, the people who cross the line. God has a heart--his one-way love--for sinners (Zahl 38).

(view from 1:10 to 4:27) Her love for him is true transformative love; her love for him makes him lovable (not in deed, but just because by her love she renames him as lovable). She has no expectation of him, no thought that he should reciprocate; just pure one-way love. She just loves him. “This is the heart of love: it comes to me form outside myself” (Zahl 37).

The rest of the movie demonstrates how Boo’s love for Sully causes his heart to change. He loves her because she first loved him. Sully will risk everything--himself, his best friend, his job--to keep this child, this contaminated, filthy, potentially murderous child safe; even if it means that in order to keep her safe he needs to cut off all contact with her: he will willingly send her home and shred the door, disconnecting them forever. Love is the single most powerful force, more powerful than fear and intimidation. But the ramifications of Boo’s one-way love for Sully does not end with Sully, it converts the Scream factor into a laugh factory because laughter is more powerful than screams; because love is more powerful than intimidation.

The Cross:

(view from 4:38 to 6:00) This closing scene is the lens through which the movie should be viewed. Keeping this end in mind, the movie points to the message of one-way love in the Gospel, and the sacrifice offered by Jesus on the Cross. The movie could haven ended with a bunch of happy monsters making kids happy, but it doesn’t. There is one more thing that needs to be mentioned, there is one more act in the story that needs to be told: the Cross. It is this act of the story that separates the Christian message from all the other religious messages in the world. This is the scene that separates Monsters, Inc., from all other “feel-good” movies. Had this portion of the biblical story been excluded from the movie, the audience would have been left with a good feeling and a saccharine exhortation that falls flat within 10 minutes of having left the theater: now, go love! The Cross imagery at the end tells the audience the source of true, one-way love: Jesus Christ. “We love because he first loved us” (1 John 4:19). He, the Lover, has loved us and renamed us as lovable. We are not capable of drumming up one-way love, we must receive it; and we can only receive it from, in, and through the One who went through all that wood for us because He loved us.

MBird Conference!

2010-02-03T12:01:00.002-05:00

In April, Mockingbird is hosting their annual conference in NYC. Having gone to the past two, I can speak from experience that it is not only edifying but also entertaining (a rather rare combination, honestly). Anyone can come: L/G, G/L, L/G/L, Undecided, etc... If you have been interested in seeing what Mockingbird is about (yes, it is more than a blog) this is a great opportunity to come check it out: come hear a speaker and lump it in with an amazing trip to NYC.

Click "here" for event information.

Honestly, you will not be disappointed.

Francis Watson (primarily) and Jono Linebaugh (secondarily)

2010-01-24T15:19:00.003-05:00

Below is a comment I posted to a friend's blog post on Mockingbird (LGF),which was a post quoting Francis Watson's book, Paul and the Hermeneutics of Faith. I'm a huge fan of Watson. Huge. I highly recommend his work. However, he's dense; but then there is Jono Linebaugh (one to keep your theological eye on) who seems to effortlessly interpret Watson for the average reader (myself). I highly recommend taking the time to delve into and wade through Watson, and, if needed, try to access Linebaugh's article in Trinity School for Ministry's academic journal for an "interpreter's guide" if you will. If Watson's name sounds familiar to regular readers of my blog, it's because this is the scholar I've wanted to study under for a while...and I actually applied to Durham's doctoral program to study with him in 2008. However, I was--let us say--deferred to the Masters program rather than accepted to the doctoral program. Yet, as hard as I try, Watson's ideas and areas of focus keep resurfacing in my current (as in 2009/10) studies and are--dare I readmit it--extremely integral--**sigh**. I've blabbered on long enough...

So, without further adieu, I post a Watson quote below...please enjoy...as I did.

Here is ONE of my favorite quotes from an article, by Francis Watson, entitled: "Christ, Law and Freedom: A Study in Theological Hermeneutics", in the book God and Freedom: Essays in Historical and Systematic Theology
ed. by Colin Gunton

"There do not appear to be any necessary limits to the canonical process in which the Law of Moses is supplanted by additional books; an increasing number of supplementary books need not pose a threat to the centrality of the Law. Thus, distinctively Christian books (including Gospels and letters) could have been added as a fourth element to the existing threefold canon comprising law, prophets and writing, in such a way that the primacy of the law was maintained. had Paul's opponents' account of Christian identity been accepted, a canonical structuring of this kind would have been a logical consequence

"On the other hand, Paul's assumption of the ultimate and universal significance of Jesus Christ has as its logical consequence a rejection of the foundational status of the law of Moses and its replacement by Jesus Christ as the centre of the Christian canon. Thus the 'New Testament' is not a fourth element added to the threefold Jewish canon founded on the Torah but a new foundation that entails a radical restructuring of the Jewish canon so that it becomes a new, unheard-of entity, the Christian 'Old Testament'. this canonical restructuring is foundational for Christian identity; it is difficult to imagine how the decision could be reversed, so that the Gospels were reduced in status to secondary elaborations of the Torah, because it is difficult to imagine how such a revision could possibly be regarded with the Christian community as adequate to the ultimacy and universality of the truth-claim it hears with the Gospels. Paul's decision participates in a canonical process whose effects have proved to be enduring"

pg. 99-100

in conjunction to this, I'd recommend not only reading Watson, but if you can, getting a hold of Jono Linebaugh's article in TSM's journal: "Paul’s (Re)Reading of Israel’s Scripture (2 Corinthians 3:6b-14)". Linebaugh does a great job putting Watson in understandable, clear, and readable terms, while also offering a lot of original, scholarly, brilliant thought.

My Deleted Amazon.com Book Review Comment

2010-01-24T13:32:00.002-05:00

Below is a post I wrote for an Amazon.com book review (written by one of my favorite reviewers JR) that I posted but then quickly deleted from the book review because I lacked confidence in the review. However, because I know so few people read my blog...I feel safer here...hee hee hee. Anyway, here it is...I am responding to someone who is saying that there is subordination within the Creation story...etc...

Enjoy!

Weiling: please, in exegetical detail, show how women are under the authority of men in Gen 2:18-24. Specifically, explain why in Gen 2:24 the man seeks after the woman, and leads Karl Barth to conclude: "This description of the being of man and woman [Gen 2:24] is hardly expected immediately after their description of their becoming. In the first two statements at least everything seems to be topsy-turvy, and even in the third it is different from what was previously intimated. Man is now the follower and adherent of woman, and the two are an absolute unity. We may well ask what has happened to the emphasized supremacy of man" Karl Barth III.i.41 (304)."

there is no heirarchy in the creation story according to Gen 2:24 and in correlation to Gen 1: 27. It is a shame to read Gen 3 back into Gen 2. The disobedience on Eve's part RESULTED in her subjection to man, to her husband...it is NOT part of the original creation...that is why it is called a curse. In Jesus (ref. Luke 10: 38-42) we have a picture of Jesus restoring woman to an "alongside" state of man and not an "alonside-but-don't-forget-you-are-still-under-my-authority" state.

If you would like to talk roles or "funciton" than that is a different story. As I am a married woman with children I stay home, because both my husband and I believed it was the best thing. I nurtured the lives within my womb and feed them from my breast. I am the primary care giver to children based on my maternal function--one that is natural and one that I chose. We BOTH believed it was best for me to stay home. BOTH. BELIEVED. I highly doubt that my husband would decide that for me if I was completely against it; his discernment being: how is this demand laying down my life for my wife and family? A marriage is not about one having the ultimate authority...one shouldn't be able to gaze upon a marriage and say, "ah...now there is the leader and there the follower"; but, rather, one should look upon a marriage and say "I see but one body". A marriage is circular, the man feeding into the woman and the woman feeding into the man. while my marriage may have all the markings of a "patriarchal" marriage--my husband goes to work and I stay home--it is completely interwoven. It is completely one. there is no one who touts authority over the other. I serve him and he serves me. Headship is that he is my "face" in public, it is by his name that I am known...not that he has authority over me. It is by my presence and being that I bring him glory; he is, like all men, glorified by a woman. headship is less about authority and MORE about being glorified...and that glorification in matrimony will take on severely personal and different modes and temperaments and characteristics. You or another man may not be able to live with me as a wife (while I stay at home I also am strong willed and opinionated and am working on my second masters degree in theology)--I've had some say this to me--however, my husband sees in me his "help-meet", his "glory." In fact, he's bluntly told me that he DOES NOT WANT ME TO BE LIKE THOSE WOMEN who ascribe to the patriarchal, male-authority system. I started my marriage that way (in the patriarchy/male-authority system), and almost ruined it. Think of Prov. 31:28-29: her husband rises and calls her blessed: "many women do noble things, but YOU surpass them all" (emphasis, mine). There is individuality between people, men, women, AND marriages.

I think the point being that the emphasis on male authority in marriage and women needing that authority is a product of fundamentalist, literalistic understanding of marriage and the role of women. There is nothing in Gen 1 or 2 that exhibits such a need. There is nothing in the Gospels. Even in Paul, it is still highly contested as a particular rather than a universal. In Christ, as we are moved by the Gospel--the message of Jesus life, death, resurrection, and ascension--there is no need for a reapplication of the "Law". As a woman who hears the message of the Cross daily, I have no issue laying down my life for my husband and my children. The same goes for my husband. The same goes for my relationship to any other human being--I feel the weight of the Spirit on my heart to bear the burden of my neighbor and to love them like I do my own body or family. The only issue I have is when submission and obedience to MEN gets appropriated as Law...which is not the Gospel. In Christ, we are free...BOTH men and women are freed from the law and it's curses. Gal 3:28.

I think that there is extreme and real fear in "freedom" resulting in "chaos". What I know is that my husband has a very devoted wife and mother of his children in her FREEDOM and not as a result of his authority. We, mutually, lay down our lives EVERYDAY for each other, in a circular and not linear fashion. My husband is who I glorify in my being, in my strength, in my ability, and, dare I say, in my individuality from him; he is glorified by me in my presence. He is not glorified in HIS AUTHORITY OVER ME...but in my presence and in my alleviation of his loneliness.

I think JR has a lot of good questions...and critiques of what was just put forth. If you would take a look at the Greek in Ephesians, you will note that the word that is used to describe the submission of wives to their husband is GREATLY different from the word used to describe obedience of slave to master or child to parent. It is offensive to compare women to children.

Yes, JR. you are right in your response about the new understanding (and previously condemned heresy) that Jesus is inferior to the father. Must we go down this road again? **sigh**

This is my life....fer real.

2010-01-14T12:26:00.001-05:00

Wednesday Morning Humor...why not?

2010-01-06T09:59:00.001-05:00

This little funny came to me this morning from my theology/philosophy professor:

One of my favorite stories is the one about the guy who dies and goes to Hell and is getting a tour. Behind one door Satan shows him Stalin. Behind another he sees Hitler. Behind another door is Casanova. Finally, they walk by a cell in which they see a monk sitting on a bench, shaking his head, and moaning.

“Whose that?”, asks the new visitor to Hell.

“Martin Luther,” the devil replies.

“Luther!?? How did he get here?”

“Good works.”

Random Musings

2009-11-25T16:26:00.002-05:00

Here are some random thoughts:

1. I recently heard a friend of mine talk about listening (which was based on a course he and his wife took while in seminary). It was awesome. He told us about some bad patterns that we typically make when we are listening to someone: 1. give advice (primarily, unsolicited, but includes solicited); 2. express opinions (again, emphasis on unsolicited but would also include solicited); 3. asking questions (unrelated and related); and 4. telling our own personal stories that are similar ("i had that experience, too!").

No joke, I truly do three out of four things REGULARLY. I give advice, I express opinions, and I tell my own personal story (mostly unsolicited, too). I am consistently bringing the conversation back to me. Turns out, I'm a completely narcissistic jerk looking for every opportunity to talk about me...glorious me!

Oh, hello fallen humanity, turns out I AM one of you...even after almost 5 years of higher learning in theology. Sort of debunks theology of glory, doesn't it...

2. Do not pee in a shower that is draining slowly. not saying i did...just saying don't do it.

3. Children are great, really. i love having them and my world would be severely dull if i did not have my boys. but really, and I want to stress this, just because i'm female doesn't mean: 1. that I love babies (as in younger than 6 mos); 2. that i am naturally inclined towards patience or gentility or offering comfort (because, oh man, I am not...still waiting for my momtological change); 3. that i can't play rough with the kids and that I'm consistently nervous when my husband does (only some times...but these are the fruit of my womb, and my womb worked really hard...and holds grudges...so be SOMEWHAT careful with the fruit); 4. that I can't stand to hear a baby cry, which i can stand because I hear it all day and ignoring is my coping mechanism and it's also how i get papers written...; and 5. that i don't ever imagine my life AC (after children) and that I won't know what to do with myself when they go to school...'cause I have a list of exactly what I will do and it's what gets me through the multitude of tantrums, screaming, poop-filled diapers, willfulness, etc.

4. I wish I could convince my son, Quinn, who is three, that when he yells and screams, "MOMMY I AM CALM!!!" I am not convinced.

5. When (or if) I get preggers again, I want NO ONE to tell me that maybe this is my "calm" baby. I want to have no such hopes and be prepared for the worst. 2 intense babies means that in all likely hood number 3 will also be intense.

6. My favorite facebook game is mousehunt. It's fun and it's passive, so you don't lose interest after playing it for three weeks...although, the down side is that it takes three weeks to get interested...so, take that as you will.

7. The doggie book by sandra boynton is my LEAST favorite book my children have. I will do everything possible not to read it to them...even if it means i have to feign laryngitis or actually do housework.

8. Speaking of housework, I am not a domestic goddess...more like a domestic back-seat driver: i'm really good at sitting around, pointing out what needs to be done, and not doing anything about it myself.

9. I wish I had superpowers...for real. I think I watch too much "heroes".

and, finally,

10. I have the best husband, boys, parents, brother and sister, in-law family, and friends in the whole world. I really could never have dreamed that i would be so blessed. For all of these people, I am beyond thankful.

Happy Thanksgiving.

Johnny Cash, "Hurt", and Eberhard Jungel

2009-11-12T05:43:00.004-05:00

I've spent a lot of time lately thinking about ontology and ethics as a topic for the thesis requirement of my master's degree. An essay by Eberhard Jungel, "Humanity in Correspondence to God" (thanks for the recommendation, Todd), and Johnny Cash's rendition of "Hurt" have been more than inspiring. Here, I've combined quotes from Jungel's essay with Cash's video. I believe the two to work well together driving home the point that when we see the Cross, we realize that all that we have been building up for ourselves is dirt and that we've fashioned mud idols (in the likeness of ourselves) to validate ourselves. Thus, the subsequent desperate cry of the stony heart turned flesh, shocked into life by the exposed Love of the Cross: "if I could start a million miles away, I'd keep myself, I'd find away" (powerfully demonstrated by Cash's video).

(NOTE: I know DZ posted this video earlier with some comments, a long time ago, but for the life of me cannot find it on the MBird blog...if anyone knows where it is, please let me know...I'll post the link here).

"...the universality of the creator must make us, as those who are open to God, being who open themselves to the world and to ourselves. The eschatological new being, by reference to which theology decided what ought properly to be called human being, is that man in whose historical existence God defined himself and, in the act of his self-definition, also defined us: the man Jesus. It is fundamental to a Christian understanding of God and humanity that we neither advance a view of humanity on the basis of a preconceived understanding of God, nor advance a view of God on the basis of a preconceived understanding of humanity--even if it be humanity's indefinability. Rather, judgments about God and humanity can only be made on the basis of one and the same event. For Christian faith, this event is God's identity with the life and death of the one man Jesus, revealed in the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead....For the category of the 'image of God' is identical with the historical name Jesus Christ. The person called by that name is humanity in correspondence to God" (132).

"On the basis of the actuality of this one man who corresponds to God, it is true that the humanity of all human persons consists in corresponding to God. This one man is essential for all. The Christian faith relates all persons to this one man, however, not only ontologically but also existentially, for unlike this one man, all other human persons do not de facto corresponds to God. There had to be a new man, so that humanity could attain its end. But this new man does not exist in correspondence to God solely for his own sake. Rather, in his being a decision is taken about all, in that this one man who corresponds to God brings into that correspondence all who do not correspond to God" (133).

"Paul calls this event in which we are brought into correspondence with God through the being of Jesus Christ justification. Thus Luther (in The Disputation Concerning Man) correctly saw that justification is the real definition of human being. Justification by God can be regarded as definitive of human being, since it releases us from the clutches of human action, without denying that the concept of our being includes our actions. To put the matter in a different way: in the event of divine justification, human nature, threatened by itself, is affirmed by God against its constant perversion into abnormality. And so justification is an event of ontological relevance" (133).

"Justification is...a relational concept...Humanity in correspondence to God is thus defined relationally....Ontologically, we are in no way grounded in ourselves. We cannot come to ourselves without already being alongside another" (133).

"Nevertheless, ontically we wish to ground ourselves in ourselves. We are ruled by the will to self. This is demonstrated in the dominance of the will over the capacity for hearing. The will which cannot hear is the will to self-grounding. Correspondingly, all relations are reduced to a relation to the self as...an unshakable foundation of truth. Identity as self-identification is the anthropological postulate of humanity ruled by the will to self" (133-4).

"The Christian faith understands this ontic tendency towards self-grounding as sin. For faith, identity as self-identification is the mark of one who is losing him or herself. For according to faith's understanding of the matter, we never find ourselves in ourselves. In ourselves we cannot come to ourselves. We come to ourselves when we come to someone other than ourselves. 'Whoever would save his life will lose it; and whoever loses his life...will save it' (Mk 8.35)" (134).

Excerpt from a Recent Paper

2009-11-08T15:17:00.002-05:00

Here is an excerpt from a paper I just wrote on Person and Being by W. Norris Clarke. It's a small treatise that explains and builds on Thomas Aquinas' understanding of Person and being. I only reviewed the first two chapters of the book. These are my concluding thoughts about the book and, primarily, Clarke's/Aquinas' understanding of Free Will.

These two chapters are very dense with philosophy about being and person. Had it not been for my independent study on Moral Philosophy, I may have felt over-whelmed and intimidated by this apologetic. With that said, I believe Clarke does a great job of showing that the being is not an “isolated monad” (Newbigin) but a being in communion with others (necessitating self-communicative action, receptivity, and order), and affirming that the soul and the body are both necessary for our “journey”.

What causes me pause--and frankly where I drastically part ways with Clarke (and Clarke’s understanding of Aquinas)--is the concept of Free Will. Essentially, I need Clarke to define his starting point. If his starting point is the Garden, prior to the fall, I can swallow his understanding of free will. I can even entertain his understanding of Free Will if he is purely describing human nature in a vacuum--without the effects of sin and the fall acting upon the person. However, if Clarke is attempting to describe a here-and-now reality for humanity, I’ll have to boldly reject this idea, in all respect of course. From my own historical journey, thus far, with Christ, I know that my will is not free. Even if I choose to do something that other’s and myself may say is good--because it has a good result--there are deeper desires operating within my pride that motivate me to do such a good thing (i.e. applause). Thus, if my choice is motivated by pride then I’m not choosing the good but choosing to satisfy my pride. If my will is influenced by my pride, then I am not free to choose good yet, apparently, free to choose what satisfies my pride. If my will is only free to operate in one way, then my will is not truly free because it is not free to choose either true good or to satisfy my pride. Also, even if I do choose the good under obligation--I do the right thing even though I really want to do the “wrong” thing--this is not freedom of choice but obligatory choice and is not free--as is a choice to do something out of love without the previous mental conversation about whether or not I should do the good thing (I would define this as spontaneous and unknown-to-me acts or “glimpses” of a future reality). This is the tension Paul writes about in Romans 7:14-25.

In light of the Cross, this tension between will and spirit, the desire for the good and the inability truly to do the good, is not dissipated, but rather heightened. As my eyes have been opened to the treachery of my sin by the Cross, I am more aware, daily, of how I treacherous I truly am. As I walk with Christ, I grow in this awareness; and, simultaneously, in the knowledge of my need for the Cross. As I gaze upon the Cross, Christ crucified for my sins, I am freed from the traitorous actions of my will--past, present, and future--and know that I am no longer bound to death; and am injected with the real, present hope that there is a future reality (in the Resurrection) of freedom from the tension. For Clarke to potentially be advocating a “here and now” reality of Free Will and an ability to do Good, is, in my opinion, a sure road to condemnation, burn-out, and eventual turning-away from the Cross because of one’s continual failure to be able to do/choose to do good and, consequently, continual doubt about whether or not one is truly saved because of this inability. I speak from experience.

The Law, The Gospel, and Gordon Ramsay

2009-09-30T16:26:00.009-04:00

"Hell's Kitchen". "Kitchen Nightmares". You either love him or hate him, but Gordon Ramsay, London chef extraordinaire, will not leave you feeling indifferently toward him.

Watching just one episode of "Hell's Kitchen" (any one episode from any of the 6 seasons), will adjust your perspective on being treated, well, poorly...by anyone. Chef Ramsay can make any boss look sweet and cuddly. He berates, insults, and belittles the contestants desperately clinging to some hope that they'll be the ones chosen to be the head-chef at the next posh restaurant. It is evident that Ramsay has a standard, and that standard is perfection. And, there's hell to pay if the standard isn't achieved. Pun intended.

I'm an avid "Hell's Kitchen" watcher--first introduced to the series in 2007. There is nothing I technically gain from watching the show, except--maybe--the gratitude that I'm not employed by such a man and that my toddlers don't yell at me (quite) like that. I'm hooked. I'm simultaneously embarrassed for the contestants as they endure, weekly, Ramsay's bouts of temper and disdain for their existence, but I don't want him to stop (what will he do next?)...it's so horrible but I can't look away.

Last year, my husband introduced me to the other of Chef Ramsay's TV shows: "Kitchen Nightmares". Oh Boy, I thought. This is gonna be good! Chef Ramsay going out into the public (with "real people") to "fix" restaurants and turn them from their horrible ways. Ooooo, what ever will he say?! "Kitchen Nightmares" is very similar to "Hell's Kitchen" in that Ramsay is just as volatile and angry, but there is a twist: at some point in nearly every episode, Gordon Ramsay will stop insulting and demanding perfection from the restaurateurs and will, lovingly, connect with them at a deeper level. He'll focus in on the main problem (which is never only behavior) and pour love into it, mending it, healing it. It's here where the viewer (me) can see real changes start to happen.

For some time, I could not put my finger on it: is Gordon Ramsay Law or Grace? He comes in and changes happen. What was causing the changes? In the midst of watching an episode recently, it hit me. Gordon Ramsay, as seen in "Kitchen Nightmares", is Law AND Grace. He's the law: he comes in and says, essentially, "You're failing! This is Horrible!" (In fact, he may have actually said those very words.) But then, part way through the episode, he draws them back in through Love and Grace. Not that he pours out praise for them-- not that type of love--but he expresses true concern for the real issue: the heart. Most of the central characters in the episodes have a strained marriage, or a fractured Father/Son relationship, or are brothers at odds, or are chefs who've lost the passion and reason for why they're even in this business. Chef Ramsay takes the time to address these heart matters. Then, and only then, do changes start happening.

Here are my two favorite "tear-jerking" episodes (they're about 45 minutes in length, so watch them when you can):

and

In Honor of My Husbands Birthday

2009-09-11T16:01:00.002-04:00

This is my favorite poem by my favorite author: Anne Bradstreet (a woman before her time).

To My Dear and Loving Husband

If ever two were one, then surely we.
If ever man were lov’d by wife, then thee.
If ever wife was happy in a man,
Compare with me, ye women, if you can.
I prize thy love more than whole Mines of gold
Or all the riches that the East doth hold.
My love is such that Rivers cannot quench,
Nor ought but love from thee give recompense.
Thy love is such I can no way repay.
The heavens reward thee manifold, I pray.
Then while we live, in love let’s so persever’
That when we live no more, we may live ever.

Anne Bradstreet © 1678

Book Review: Deliverance to the Captives

2009-09-01T08:53:00.003-04:00

This book is a collection of sermons and prayers by Karl Barth delivered to the inmates of Basel prison. This is the most clear and easy to understand of any Barth book I've ever read. In fact, I'd say that would be a great place to start. It is his theology wrapped in laymen's words. The chapters are short. His sermons (and prayers) are Grace filled; each one pointing to the Cross, each one proclaiming God's love, each one delivering the message of freedom to those (us) in captivity.

Here are some quotes:

"We are not asked to extend the right hand of fellowship to the Lord God. There is no need for it whatever. The gesture is bleated. He holds us by our right hand, he takes us seriously where it counts to be taken seriously. This is our situation....God proves himself as Mr. Essential by letting us be essential in his sight, by holding our right hand with his right hand. We are not even asked where to put our right hand. Impossible to hold on to him in a non-essential, off-handed way. Our right hand is not longer free. He holds it! It is already in his own hand!" (18).

"Above all, don't think and say of me who happens to preach this sunday semon: 'Well, what idle talk! He did no wrong that brough him before the judge. He has no prison term to serve. He may walk freely whever he likes and, what is more, he is a professor of theology and as such presumably a convinced Christian if not a half-saint. What idle thought and talk is this, "My hope is in thee?"'

Once more, none of this! Do you know what a convinced Christian is? A convinced Christian is one who knows a little better than others do that we all, without exception,k have done so much wrong that we are to appear before the judge not once, but throughout our life. And mind you, he is the highest ranking and most sever judge there is, and we shall have to expiate for what we have been, thought, said and done. A convinced Christian knows precisely that in reality no one walks freely wherever he likes! Let me read another passage form the same 39th Psalm: 'When thou dost chasten man with rebukes for sin, thou dost consume like a moth what is dear to him; surely every man is a mere breath!' Surely every man--this is what a convinced Christian knows. Only then and on this ground he may and he even must confess 'My hope is in thee', he may and he must bear witness to others that they are equally free to hope in God" (53).

"'You, really you shall be my people!' [Lev. 26:12] Such as you are now, not as future saints or angels" (65).

"The Gospel of God means...the the good news does not contain any instruction about how the world fares or should fare. It is neither a bird's eye view of the world, nor a platform for the world. It is the good news of what God is, wants and does, and is, wants and does for us. Jesus' coming as the bearer of this gospel of God is the even of Christmas" (69).

"This is reconciliation: his damnation our liberation, his defeat our victory, his mortal pain the beginning of our joy, his death the birth of our life. We do well to remember that this is what those who put him to death really accomplished" (80).

"Christian community exists only where the promise is heard and believed. The promise is given only to crucified criminals, who are utterly compromised before God and before men, who move relentlessly toward the end and cannot escape this destiny by their own doing. For men like these Jesus died. And mark this: precisely these, and these only ar worth to go tot he Lord's Supper" (83).

"No one should come afterwards and say: 'He preached today that we ought not to grumble, but ought to bless the Lord!' We ought to? This is not what I have preached. What I have preached is not a law, not a charge, not a chore to which you must submit. If someone joins in the hymn and daily blesses the lord, he is not in duty bound to accomplish something, like panting uphill in search of an ideal. On the contrary, he will speedily and merrily walk downhill. He may do so, not in some kind of freedom he did or could gain by himself, but in the freedom which springs from the source of all freedom, from him, the one great and fee Lord....God does not load us with a burden; we are the burden which he was willing to take upon himself, which he now bears. And his bearing us up certainly includes his bearing with us. God might very well find us unbearable, perhaps not least because off our grumbling. Grumbling, we really cast an odd figure. he could very well act accordingly and drop us. Yet he refuses to do so. he is the might Lord, ready and strong enough to bear with us, with you and me, and actually bears us" (157).

An Interesting Point of View!

2009-09-01T08:43:00.004-04:00

This is from a blog that I've started following in my google reader (click "here" for the complete post).

It's an amazing quote, and--as the author of the blog points out--is a bold argument! The blog post being quoted below is a post looking at a book, Charles Murray’s Human Accomplishment: The Pursuit of Excellence in the Arts and Sciences, 800 B.C. to 1950. Personally, I like the way the author of the blog concludes...but I won't spoil that for you...you can read it.

"Genius and Gender

In an attempt to leave no stone unturned, Murray is bold enough (or foolish enough) to consider why so few woman populate his rankings. Legal and educational inequalities throughout much of history provide part of the answer. So do societal pressures and limited opportunities. But Murray offers one more explanation: motherhood. His argument has an interesting twist to it.

"Exceptions exist, but, as a rule, the experience of pregnancy and birth appears to be a more profoundly life-altering experience for women than becoming a father is for men. So closely is giving birth linked to the fundamental human goal of giving meaning to one’s life that is had been argued that, ultimately, it is not so much that motherhood keeps women from doing great things outside the home as it is men’s inability to give birth that forces them to look for substitutes” (287, emphasis mine)."

Read that last line two or three times. It is a bold argument. Could it be that motherhood, instead of preventing women from achieving some great purpose, is actually the accomplishment of something great already? It is a thought worth pondering.

Cheer up guys, at least one of your child's parent is a genius."

Any thoughts? I found it such a unique way to look at motherhood and success (as in extra-domestic achievements).

"Are You there Jesus? It's Me, Woman.": Order, Submission, and Headship

2009-08-27T07:28:00.006-04:00

This is part "four" in a four part series. For the introduction to the series, first part on creation, second part on the fall, and the third part on Jesus, click here, here, here, and here, respectively.

In the previous post of this series, we looked at Luke 10:38-42 and the reality of the restoration of woman to God. We can now evaluate (or re-evaluate) submission and headship derived from Paul and his letters.

The Created Order. Man is not completely man without the creation of and the initiated relationship with woman (Gen. 2:18-24). Though he was man prior to the woman’s creation, it was not until her creation that he was able to know that he was man—man in relationship with woman and, by experience of this relationship, in relationship with God. The same holds true for woman—without the creation of and received relationship with man, woman is not woman. It takes a Thou to emphasize the I. “You are; therefore, we are; therefore, I am” (Les Fairfield). So, is there inherent hierarchy implied by the order of creation? The order of the relationship between man and woman is both inequitable [dissimilar] and non-interchangeable [‘A’ and a ‘B’, not an ‘A’ and an interchangeable, equal (similar) second ‘A’] (Barth III/iv 168). “A precedes B, and B follows A. Order means succession. It means preceding and following….[but] it does not mean any inequality between those who stand in this succession…”(III/iv 169-70, emphasis mine). In terms of A and B, A not being greater than B in value, we see that A is not truly A without B and vice versa. B follows A, not because it is inferior but because A was/is first.

Submission. The emphasis on submission within the NT (1 Cor. 14:34; Col. 3:18; Eph. 5:21, 24; 1 Tim. 2:11; Tit. 2:5; 1 Pet. 3:1)is not “…to be conceived on the analogy of the relationship between subject and prince, subordinate and superior, or chattel and owner…” (Barth III/iv 172). In fact, “In [Eph. 5:22] there is no absolute decree enjoining women always to take, or to be bound to, an inferior place. On the contrary, the call to [submission] is qualified…by the overarching exhortation which calls for mutual [submission]…” (Marcus Barth 621). A woman submits not because of man’s authority, but because of Christ’s authority; both submit to this same authority. “It is not saying too much to comment that in so far as man in his sphere is obedient to the direction of the same Lord of the same [authority] he ipso facto

subordinates himself to woman” (Barth, III/iv 172). As both submit to Christ’s authority, both man and woman submit to each other—Love flows into love flows into love. A woman so overwhelmed by the Christ inspired love of a man will love in response. Much like the woman in the Song of Solomon “…awaits her lover’s coming and the ever-new experience of his love with fear and trembling¹” (Marcus Barth 649-50)².

Headship (1 Cor. 11:2-16)³. Commonly, the word translated as “head”, “headship”, or “male headship” is defined as “authority”—and, in some circles, defined as “source”. However, there is a third way to look at the term “head” (and its related terms). Head contains the notion of “that which is glorified”. When looking at the relationships Paul uses in verse 3⁴—Chris the head of man, man the head of woman, God the head of Christ—one may notice that one part of the coupling is the person/being that is glorified and that the other part is the agent by which the glorification occurs (i.e. woman glorifies man, man is glorified by woman). This glorification is not the realization of a selfish desire for glorification by the one in detriment to the other. Rather, there is mutual reciprocity within the relationships (Thiselton 804). As one is glorified so is the other part (Thiselton 804). In other words, to take the example of Christ as the head of man—Christ is not glorified out of selfish motive, but to the contrary, his glorification is inseparable from his own sacrifice. In the same way, the other relationships enumerated in this verse are inextricably linked to a sacrifice made on the part of the party being glorified.

In Ancient literature, head was often applied to the most honored or prominent part (Keener 92; also, Barth III/iv 173-4). One could even use the terms: preeminent, foremost, and synecdoche (representative) for a whole for the translation of head, “The public face is linked with responsibility and representation in the public domain, since head is both the part of a person which is most conspicuous and that by which they are most readily distinguished or recognized. These aspects feature more frequently and prominently in first-century Greek texts than either the notions of ruler or source… (821, emphasis Thiselton’s). Each of the secondary (not inferior) parts of the relationships glorify their corresponding primary parts “by which they [the secondary aspects] are most readily distinguished or recognized” (Thiselton804). Knowing Jesus, we know God; knowing woman, we know man; knowing redeemed man we know Jesus. If head is translated in this way, there is reciprocity and mutuality between the two parts of the relationships (including man and woman), rather than subjection as manifested in the curse. In this passage, Paul draws his audience back to the Garden of Gen. 2 and proclaims: As it was then, so it is now…again.

She watched as he approached her from across the room. When he neared, he extended his hand to her. She stood still and didn’t respond. He smiled and asked, “Will you?” She looked inquisitively at him and, slowly, put her hand in his. He gently wrapped his fingers around hers and pulled her toward him. The music played in the background; they started to move. Slowly. She felt awkward at first pulled up against him participating in a motion, nearly unfamiliar to her; he seemed to know what to do and guided them both. She followed and eventually picked up the beat and the rhythm, familiarity of this interaction returned to her mind and heart. She had done this before. She raised her head from starring at her feet to look into his eyes. Their glance interlocked and they began to move as one…as if they were truly one. She smiled and let her head dip back and laughed as he twirled her. It had been years, but they were once again dancing.

Nice.

2009-08-25T21:20:00.002-04:00

From a blog that I recently ran across by reading a different blog...

Light and Easy, No?
I’m not for a minute advocating a cheap grace or an easy-believeism. But the yoke still is easy, right? And the burden still is light, is it not? The danger–and it’s a danger I’ve fallen foul of in my own preaching–is that in all our efforts to be prophetic, radical, and missional, we end up getting the story of Pilgrim’s Progress exactly backwards. “Come to the cross, Pilgrim, see the sacrifice for your sins. Isn’t that wonderful? Now bend over and let me load this burden on your back. There’s a lot of work we have to do, me and you.” A cross, yes. Jesus said we would have to carry one of those. But a cross that kills our sins, smashes our idols, and teaches us the folly of self-reliance. Not a burden to do the impossible. Not a burden to always do more for Jesus. Not a burden of bad news that never lets up and obedience that is always out reach.

No doubt some Christians need to be shaken out of their lethargy. I try to do that every Sunday morning and evening. But there are also a whole bunch of Christians who need to be set free from their performance-minded, law-keeping, world-changing, participate-with-God-in-recreating-the-cosmos shackles. I promise you, some of the best people in your churches are getting tired. They don’t need another rah-rah pep talk. They don’t need to hear more statistics and more stories Sunday after Sunday about how bad everything is in the world. They need to hear about Christ’s death and resurrection. They need to hear how we are justified by faith apart from works of the law. They need to hear the old, old story once more. Because the secret of the gospel is that we actually do more when we hear less about all we need to do for God and hear more about all that God has already done for us.

"Hello, Woman. It's Me, Jesus.": Jesus, Mary, and Martha

2009-08-20T07:02:00.006-04:00

This is part "three" in a four part series. For the introduction to the series, first part on creation, and second part on the fall, click here , here, and here respectively.

The Gospel of Luke. One of the major themes of Luke’s Gospel is the reality of the restoration of the marginalized and the oppressed of society (1:52), offering a new lens through which to look upon the world (Green 11). Through Jesus, God actively intervenes within the world; not simply making an entrance, but—through His life, death, resurrection, and ascension—actively restoring humanity to Himself. Simeon’s blessing, in Lk 2:29-35, is an allusion to the Septuagint (Is. 49:6) and is being used to verify that the restoration of

Israel

to God is through Jesus (Tiede 285). The book of Acts (13:47, 26:23, and 28:28), also composed by Luke, uses the same allusions to Is 49:6—first to the twelve (Acts 1:12-26) and then to all nations under heaven (Tiede 286). In Acts 15:16 and in Luke 13:13, when talking about the rebuilding of the tent of David and the healing of the blind woman, respectively, Luke uses the Greek word translated as get straight, which is typically used to denote the concept of Restoration in Christ¹. To read the Gospel of Luke is to read about the temporal/physical manifestation of restoration of humanity to God through Jesus.

Bearing in mind this theme in Luke’s Gospel, it is important to notice the way in which women are given a significant place in the narrative—not just as interesting characters in a story, but as direct participants with Jesus and the disciples and recipients of His abundant, overflowing love. “In the first century, women were kept very much in their place. But Luke sees them as the objects of God’s love and he writes about many of them” (Morris 41). The Gospel illustrates Jesus radically departing typical social conventions while extending God’s mercy to women (Culpepper 24-5). “…[H]e specifically includes women among those for whom the coming of the kingdom is good news and points to the inauguration of a new community in which freedom, dignity, and equality may be realized” (Culpepper 24-5).

Mary and Martha and Jesus (Lk 10:38-42^{2, 3, 4}). In this passage, Luke tells of a specific interaction between Mary, Martha, and Jesus and points out the two differing actions of the two women—Martha welcomes Jesus into their home, and Mary sits at Jesus feet while he teaches. An important aspect of this passage is the Greek word that is translated as, “who sat at…”, which not only describes Mary’s actions but also describes her directly—“the one who is at Jesus’ feet.” Mary—as this “one”—sits in the place reserved for disciples. “That a woman has this position is somewhat unusual… Jesus’ ministry breaks molds...” (Bock 1040).

The picture is that of a rabbi instructing his pupil. The extraordinary feature is that the pupil is a woman. Judaism did not forbid women to be instructed in the Torah. But it was very unusual for a rabbi to “lower himself” to this. In the social system of the time women were a ‘rejected’ group, and Luke pays considerable attention to the acceptance which Jesus accords them (Ellis 162).

In Luke 10:39, we have an image of the in-breaking/restoration event for women: Jesus stooping so low to teach Torah to a woman.

As Mary sits, Martha is dutifully fulfilling her culturally assigned role, but too distracted to focus on Jesus, the incarnate Word of God (Culpepper 231). Jesus lovingly addresses her (“Martha, Martha…” v.41), and expresses his concern. Yet, just at the moment when one might expect Jesus to tell Mary to help her sister, He doesn’t. Rather, he subverts the traditional social role (v.42a). The love of God and harkening to his Word trumps everything else. Mary exemplifies what it means to be so enraptured by Jesus and so consumed with His love that her love for Him pours out—not from her own source of love or striving, but in response to the One who is the Source of all love. Mary, in love, can do nothing else but listen to Him and be in His presence—this is the “good portion” (v.42b). She placed herself at His feet, and disregarded the typical role first century Jewish society had carved out for her. Green writes,

What is this ‘one thing,’ this ‘better part’ Mary has chosen? She is fixed on the guest, Jesus, and his word; she heeds the one whose presence is commensurate with the coming of the kingdom of God. With Jesus’ presence the world is being reconstituted, with the result that…Mary (and, with her, those of low status accustomed to living on the margins of society) need no longer be defined by socially determined roles…(437).

Jesus affirms that this choice will not be taken away from Mary (v.42c), and simultaneously affirms Mary’s “radical violation of Palestinian social roles” (Culpepper 232). This is not a one time event.

Sin disrupted humanity’s relationship with God and nature and disrupted the relationship between man and woman (Gen. 3:14-17). The in-breaking of God’s kingdom through Jesus, restored what sin destroyed. Jesus, fully God and fully male, reaches down and grabs the hand of the woman and lifts her up. She is taken out of the subjection to man and returned to his side; and this restoration is sealed with a promise that it “will not be taken away from her.”

"Are You there Jesus? It's Me, Woman.": The Fall, The Hope, and The Glimpse

2009-08-13T07:27:00.013-04:00

This is part "two" in a four part series. For the introduction to the series and the first installment on creation, click here and here, respectively.

The Fall. The fall disturbed humanity’s relationship to God, thus, the relationships between humanity and nature, and man and woman were also disturbed. In Gen. 3:16 we read, “To the woman he said, ‘I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children. Your desire shall be [against]¹ your husband, and he shall rule over you.’” Prior to the Fall man and woman walked side-by-side, both reveling in the difference and similarities of each to the other. After the Fall, Eve was thrown into subjection to Adam, and Adam was placed over Eve. Neither of these positions is inherent in the creation, they are products of the fall.

“There can be no doubt that the condition of man as fallen from God is betrayed first and foremost by the fact that it is the condition of secret and open, conscious and unconscious, organized and unorganized shame at the relationship between man and woman; the condition in which one or other of the constituent elements in the order of this relationship is either over-emphasized or neglected, so that the whole order as such is lost” (Barth, III/i 309-11).

As Woman loses her freedom, so too does Man. Woman is no longer free to reign and rule creation alongside man, and man stands alone to wrestle against the earth. Relationships disintegrate. Chaos resumes. Shame reigns. God’s very creation: stained and distorted.

The Hope. Because this man and woman were made in the image of God, we can rest assured that the Fall does not have permanent effects upon this man and this woman or upon us as men and women. Even in the power of the Fall and the Curses the image remains, and it is the hope. Barth writes,

“…[humanity]² may grasp and hold this hope because [humanity] is God’s image and likeness, and because [humanity] was originally blessed, and is still blessed in spite of the fact that the blessing has been turned into a curse…[and] God is faithful to Himself and work and Word; that the creation of man as male and female, and therefore in the image and likeness of God, is not overthrown by the episode of the fall, but remains…” (III/i 190).

In Gen. 15 we read, “‘I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel’”(emphasis mine). The curse will not always be fact; chaos will be put in order; shame will not always reign. As God is faithful to His word and faithful to Himself, we know that his image, male and female, will be saved. Humanity will not be saved by their own doing or efforts, but solely by God’s desire for a restored relationship and a restored creation. And, in this restored relationship with God rests the hope of the restored relationship between man and woman.

The Glimpse in Proverbs 31. Rather than as a check list of what to look for in a woman or wife, we should look to the woman in Proverbs 31 for hope—the hope of full restoration: restoration of woman to God and the restoration of the relationship between man and woman. It is my contention that she is an expression of the hope for the reversal of the curse of Genesis 3. The hoped for reversal that would be completed in the coming Messiah—the Messiah to whom all of the Old Testament points. The poem would draw those who heard it back into the garden, when woman walked alongside man and they communed together in the presence of God, as co-vice-regents of the earth. The Proverbs 31 Woman is fighting a battle, not just keeping house. The warfare imagery throughout the poem leads us, the reader, to see a woman who is fighting against the chaos established by the fall. The Proverbs 31 Woman is pointing back to Eve, and at the same time pointing forward—through the chaos of the fall—to Christ.

She awakes early, and greets the near dawning sun; her arms are strong, she has full confidence of who she is—better yet, in her creation. She looks about the room; her feet hit the floor. She glances over her shoulder, and casts her glance—recognition intertwined with love—and she watches him sleep soundly. She stands, stretches, and walks to the closet door to remove the purple, silk robe from the door hook; she dons it. Tying the sash around her waist, her glance is drawn to the frost-covered window. She approaches the glass and presses her hand against the pane; winter is loosing its chilly breath upon the earth, she smiles. Hers is a warm house; the cold is suspended outside. Evidence of melt from the heat off her hand is left on the glass; she has left the room while he sleeps, restful.

Let The Air Out.

2009-08-07T13:38:00.007-04:00

Recently, I read a post on Mockingbird aptly discussing the concept of "Grit" as a means to success and how that concept radically fails in so many ways. It was a really great post. The author appropriately deduces the following thought:

"For all those able-bodied workers trapped in unemployment until ??, those imprisoned by their family’s expectations, regenerate Weight Watchers quitters, those barred because of differing language or race, those living with a lingering sense of guilt for blogging at work—what’s labeled as a challenge is, more realistically, a complete impossibility. Kind of a joke, actually."

In essence she, the author, is saying that there are certain things that a little "grit", "elbow grease", "nose to the grind stone" just cannot hurdle all challenges.

And then, a day later there was an awesome post on Reinhold Niebuhr. The author of the post made some brilliant correlations between what Niebuhr said and our current economic crisis, the election of Obama, and the idea of "creative despair" (I'd recommend reading the comments of the post for these insights by the author of the post). Here's a quote from Niebuhr (from the post, the bold parts from the author of the post):

But it cannot be denied that historical circumstances may be more or less favourable to the inducement of the 'Godly sorrow' which worketh repentance. There are periods of hope in history in which the Christian faith would seem to be irrelevant, because history itself seems to offer both the judgment and the redemption which the Christian faith finds in the God who has been revealed in Christ. There are other periods of disillusionment when the vanity of such hopes is fully revealed. We have lived through such centuries of hope and we are now in such a period of disillusionment. The centuries of historical hope have well nigh destroyed the Christian faith as a potent force in modern culture and civilization. We do not maintain that the period of disillusionment in which we now find ourselves will necessarily restore the Christian faith. It has merely re-established its relevance. There is always the alternative of despair, the 'sorrow of the world', to the creative despair which induces a new faith.

The really striking line for me is "We do not maintain that the period of disillusionment in which we now find ourselves will necessarily restore the Christian faith. It has merely re-established it's relevance." Brilliant. Really.

This post and the one before it, I feel, are suggesting similar ideas: we aren't completely capable "to get over" everything and in moments of "disillusionment" (or the awareness of the previous disillusionment) we are, at least, open to the relevance of religion; open to the idea that maybe there is something bigger than me that I can rely on, depend on.

But now you are wondering...where the HECK are you going with this?

Okay, to the point...This morning, while I was working out, I read the "Editor's Note" in my magazine: Real Simple. Here are some clips:

"I hail from a long, accomplished line of do-it-yourselfers. When I was growing up, there seemed to be no project that was beyond the capabilities of my parents--from creating a terraced garden in our front yard to steam-cleaning draperies to building a pen for the dog. It rarely made sense to pay a professional when you could actually DIY

...

"...I became the anti-DIYer. oh, sure, I made the requisite curtains for my sons' nursery and painted a bedroom or two. But beyond that, I found it far preferable to pick up the phones and hire someone to seal my driveway/prune my trees/slipcover my furniture.

"But lately I've begun to reconsider my position on DIY. Like most everyone else in this country, I am reexamining my spending....Which leads to self-reliance I didn't know I had. Which leads to the belief that I can change the headlight in my car instead of paying a mechanic..."

Wait, what? No...we don't want self-reliance. I know, that's the most un-American, un-Conservative thing an American Conservative can say. But hear me out: Self-reliance is, in my opinion, the enemy to the Gospel. As we believe that we can do it ourselves, the more we will believe it, the more the Cross looks like a "moral guide" or a "good example" rather than what it is: the realization that I can't do it and that God, in Jesus, had to.

In one swipe of the pen (or keyboard?), the editor of real-simple dismantled two brilliant posts on human-INCAPABILITY and creative despair opening the eyes to the Cross. DIY is what we want to hear. DIY is live and well and it's infiltrated the Gospel message (see this post on semi-pelagianism); we don't need any more puffing up or "empowering" our pride in us...we need to let the air out.

"Are you there, Jesus? It's me, Woman": Creation

2009-08-06T05:25:00.005-04:00

Everything hinges on this moment: WALL-E’s encounter with Eve. Before this, WALL-E’s life is, well, stagnant, plain, boring, and lonely. His sole purpose being: make cubes of garbage. Then he meets Eve. After this encounter with Eve (aptly named; well done, Pixar!), his world flips: there’s now community, purpose, reason, love, and a bunch of infatuation. Everything changes for WALL-E. He’s drawn out of himself and toward another; so much so that he is willing to venture into the wild unknown for her.

“'It is not good that the man should be alone.'” In Adam’s isolation and loneliness, he was neither a good image nor a good goal of creation (Gen 2:18), “Then the LORD God said, ‘It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him” (emphasis mine). Karl Barth writes that Adam’s isolation and loneliness were not good because God, Himself, is not in isolation but is in community as the Trinity; and, because God will deal with both male and female in history, not solely with the male alone (III/i 289-90, emphasis mine). Thus, Adam’s completeness—the alleviation of his loneliness and isolation—and his relationship with God hinged on an other. An other similar yet different; some thing like him but not him.

Enter Eve. It was only in the presence of woman that man could feel the comfort of familiarity and the mystery of difference—the animals were all too different, there was no point of intersection for relation. “Everything aims at the one fact… that God did not create man alone, as a single human being, but in the [dissimilar] duality of male and female” (Barth III/i 288). He was drawn out of himself and toward God by her similar and different presence. Her creation was from him, but he had nothing to do with it. She made his heart thump with joy and love and a lot of curiosity. Her presence caused his reality to alter. Her presence created community; a community God would enter into relationship with (as noted above). As it was then, so it is now--community is comprised of both men and women. Thus, in any setting the image of God is fulfilled within the communion (communing) of both sexes together.

“'This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh…'” She is his helper¹ not because Adam’s laundry was building up or because his house a mess; there was none of this in the Garden. She is his helper because she can do the one thing that he could not do for himself (nor could any animal do for him): save him from isolation and loneliness. “The whole story aims at this exclamation by man. In this…alone, the creative work of God reaches its goal, for only now has man really been given the necessary help designed by God” (Barth III/i 291; emphasis, mine). Thus, man exclaims and proclaims “Thou!” to his I.

The completion of all creation described here, i.e., the completion of man by the creation of woman, is not only one secret but the secret, the heart of all the secrets of God the Creator. The whole inner basis of creation, God’s whole covenant with man…is prefigured in this event, in the completing of man’s emergence by the coming of woman to man (III/i 294).

It is here, in this outstanding moment—looking on as Adam embraces Eve and she receives him—where we see the faint outline of the Cross. Once again, humanity will be isolated and alone, separated from God; and, once again, God will do the one thing we couldn’t do: save us.

She smiles, a welcoming invitation to him and only to him. His arms embrace her as his eyes had done moments earlier. She relaxes under his pressure and returns his embrace with one of her own. The others stare at this man and woman fused—with jealousy, disgust, or hope. He whispers to her, “‘This one at last Is bone of my bones And flesh of my flesh’…‘You surpass them all.’”

From Judgment to Ethic

2009-07-29T10:56:00.012-04:00

A friend of mine forwarded to me a link to a blog post that stunned me. The author of the blog received an email from one of her readers. Here is a portion of the email:

“… you know God calls women to take care of the home. Proverbs 31 says: She watches over the affairs of her household.….You always seem to be on the computer or reading or studying … Maybe … God's…telling you to give it all up and be a stay at home wife. As a stay at home wife myself I know the rewards of making dinner for my husband every night and having a clean house…I see Mr. Newlywed does the cooking. That isn't really his job. ….Corinthians tells us we are not to be concerned with the matters of the world and just with our husband. You seem to concern yourself with many things outside of your marriage.…You are obviously concerned with things other than your husband....Do you even think about what he wants for the two of you?

“…sometimes what we love doesn't matter. God doesn't want women to work outside the home. Women just do it to prove themselves and show they can be like men. Why do so many women feel they need to be masculine?…I think you need to step back and think.…Don't you want to be home and watch your children grow up?...

“I'm just asking you to pray on it. You seem sensible and a good Christian. This is just my chance to preach the Word to you. Maybe even help you understand your calling. You can always email me with questions…I can help you fill your idle time with chores, volunteering, and cooking.”

There are two issues that come to the surface with this email: 1. “helpful advice” is a form of judgment; and, 2. there is a pre-determined ethic of “womanhood” being assumed. I’ll briefly address both issues.

1. While I can give the author of the email the benefit of the doubt and say, “Sure; I’m sure you meant this in love”; I cannot agree that this is what the author did in the end. Rather, an email like this cannot come across as loving because it is heavily drenched in judgment. The gist of the email: “You are not doing this...You are failing that...You are missing the mark” and, my personal favorite, “You should be godlier…more like me”. Judgment and accusation cloaked as love. “Preaching the Word” as pointing out shortcomings. Self-promotion and pride disguised as “I’m here to help.” Advice, specifically unsolicited advice such as this email, will have the opposite effect intended by the advice giver. While the giver will claim, “I did it in love, to correct your path, to set you straight”, the receiver will feel that biting wound of judgment, failure, and shame. The giver feels better, and the receiver feels worse (props to A. Zimmerman for his awesome sermon on Sunday).

2. The author of the email has a pre-determined ethic of womanhood; it is clear that there are certain characteristics that comprise what a Christian woman is: she is a stay-at-home-wife/mom, she does the cooking/cleaning, her primary concern is her husband and home, and she volunteers. Anything that strays from this “norm” is “masculine”, selfish, inconsiderate, misguided (meaning, not guided by the Holy Spirit through prayer), and insensible to the point of being a “bad” Christian.

This type of ethic isn't limited to the "Christian sphere; it's a universal experience that imposes itself on all women. I’m left asking: where is this ethic of womanhood coming from? Was woman created for the previously mentioned assumptions? Or, is there more to her creation? Is submission, in Christ, just a reiteration of the curse Genesis 3:16? Or, is submission something else completely, resembling Genesis 2:18-24? Does Jesus affirm this archaic, assumed ethic of womanhood? Or, does He do something radical by means of restoration? Is Paul promoting a stringent boundary on what a woman can do? Or, is he more progressive—though not a feminist—in his understanding of woman and woman in Christ? It is these questions that I would like to discuss in a four part series: “Are you there Jesus? It’s Me, Woman.”

Ah, the lovable "Family Circus"

2009-07-15T13:33:00.003-04:00

Here's a comic strip from this past Sunday's Comics:

There are two things you should no about me: 1. I, in general, don't like the "The Family Circus" comic strip, unless someone else ("Pearls Before Swine") is making fun of it; and 2. I'm not a raving femenist, so I'm typically pretty tolerant of a lot of stuff.

So, with those things stated...this cartoon is ridiculous and offensive.

This is why:

1. Really...the baby...the baby is helping productively? Jack Jack is almost 1 and, ummm, how do I put this lightly, destroys a garden and doesn't weed it (he can also destroy cell phones...so if you are looking for a reason to get that fancy-shmancy new iPhone....). Was Bill Keane around when his kids were growing up? Ridiculous.

2. Who sends their young son up a tree to prune it. Maybe back in the early 1900's but, really, today? Ridiculous.

3. Okay...the men. Take a look. The two men are casually leaning against the fence. Drinking...I'm assuming...beer. Now, looking closer, I can only assume that the "Dad" didn't even start working. His shovel is leaning against the fence far away, no where near the plot of dirt. One of the kids is busy in active labor with Dad's gloves on. I'm also assuming that since there is no beer in the wheelbarrow coming out, that the other guy brought it. But only brought one extra...for the Dad. So, while he's "taking a break" before he has even started and throwing back a cold one, his family labors on. Ridiculous.

Finally, 4. Look at the "mother". She's at the same level as the children. In fact if you are scanning the image, your eyes go first to the men and then you go to the children...and then you see the mom. As if the message was, "moms/women...just one of the kids." Frankly, I think that her only furrowing her brow at her husband's turned back is not reality and definitely not the way this strip should've ended. There should have been a third frame...one with one of those cute doted lines--the ones Keane is so fond of--that leads the reader down a path of where the mom would go...like through the back door, out of the front of the house, into the car, and to her fellow-neo-feminist friend's house so they could kick back a few cold ones without the "kids" around. Offensive.

Honestly, "Family Circus", get a grip on reality.

"No Sign of Good Works"

2009-07-15T08:24:00.004-04:00

(please double click the image to enlarge)

Stephan Pastis, once again, displays great acumen about human nature. Through Rat's attempt at a children's book (feeble as it is), Pastis acknowledges a fundamental truth about human nature: there is no such thing as a purely altruistic act.

Elly loves Henry and loves giving gifts. She is keenly observant to all his stated (and maybe unstated) needs; and, as Henry's birthday draws near, she goes to the ends of the earth to find the perfect gift to express, "I love you, Henry!" Now, if the "story" had ended there, we could accuse Rat of allegory, or at least, some well-trodden attempt at rephrasing the Gospel message and move on, relatively unaffected. But, Rat's story does not end there, it goes on (praise the Lord). Elly's love for giving gifts isn't altruistic, but, deep down, self serving: she expects Henry to show her the (exact) same love that she showed him. So, when Henry shows up with just a plain old gift for her birthday, she...well...stomps him to death. So now we stand and, rather than accuse Rat, we applaud Rat for his brilliant insight into the sickness of humanity: pride, so puffed up by "good" works, will become resentful when due reward is not received for those good works.

I'll rely on Gerhard Forde to close, "Never mind that when we look to ourselves we find no sign of good works. Never mind our fears and anxieties. We are looking in the wrong place. Look to Christ. He has done it all. Nothing will be gained by trying to shore up the Old Adam. Christ leaves nothing for the old Adam and Eve to do" (On Being a Theologian of the Cross, 110).

Manhunt..."Out for the Kill!"

2009-06-18T15:02:00.005-04:00

Genesis 3:16 (ESV):
"To the woman he said,
'I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing;
in pain you shall bring forth children.
Your desire shall be [against [1]] your husband,
and he shall rule over you.'"

An alternate translation for the Hebrew word that is translated as "for" in 3:16c is "against" (ref. ESV translation). I've opted for the "against" translation because it draws a stronger correlation between the curse here in Genesis and this song, "Manhunt".

I don't know what is more disturbing, Kamon's understanding of the relationship/courtship between men and women, or the penultimate lyric at the end of the song: "I'm out for the kill." This statement, alone, typifies the "against" in Genesis 3:16. She's looking not only to reverse the gender roles, but to subject men to the very thing she feels (and many women felt) women were subjected to. She's not gonna be hunted, she gonna hunt. Kamon is very blunt: she's out for total domination over man--and possible extinction.

Kamon subverts feminine equality and liberty to a twisted (even warped?) understanding of interchangeability--so much interchangeability that the other gender is extinguished by the other. There is no need, in Kamon's view, for man or the communion with man outside of domination.

From Karl Barth's Church Dogmatics, Book III, Vol. IV, Section 54, "Freedom and Fellowship", Chapter 1, "Man and Woman"

"The position to which we were directed as the true and distinctive position for each sex is for each man and woman whether within marriage or without, a position which is open to its opposite. One cannot occupy it, nor fulfill the requirement of fidelity to one's sex, without being aware of woman if one is a man, or of man if a woman. And openness to the opposite is not an incidental and dispensable attribute of this position; it constitutes its very essence. All the other conditions of masculine and feminine being may be disputable, but it is inviolable, and can be turned at one into an imperative and taken with the utmost seriousness, man is directed to woman and woman to man, each being for the other a horizon and focus, and that man proceeds from woman and woman from man, each being for the other a centre and source. This mutual orientation constitutes the being of each. It is always in relationship to their opposite that man and woman are what they are in themselves" (163).

Book Review: Darkness Is My Only Companion

2009-05-05T14:16:00.005-04:00

Kathryn Greene-McCreight's Darkness Is My Only Companion is an astounding account of her battle with mental illness (severe depression and bi-polar disorder), with the final chapters filled with resources for those who are suffering from mental illness/depression, and suggestions for those who have friends, loved ones, clergy, and parishoners who suffer from mental illness/depression.

Greene-McCreight's ability to verbalize-- with amazing acumen--her experiences, offers the reader the chance to engage with that very tumultuous and almost-despairing existence. Almost-despairing. Darkness brims with the expectant hope in the power of the Triune God. While the reader is cast upon the undulating sea of depression and mania that is coursing through this one woman, this one woman is consistently returning to the hope in the One, Almighty, Powerful God, the Source of comfort for the afflicted, the Hidden in our Suffering Abba Father. The author does not leave the reader only in her experiences; thus, this is not a book only about experience. The author is a continual beacon pointing to Jesus Christ and the Cross; thus, the book is about Jesus and His love.

Kathryn Greene-McCreight has her finger on two points of sensitivity about mental illness within the church. First, generally, Christians view mental illness as a direct result of bad-actions/lack of actions. As an ordained minister and a PhD in theology, one would naturally expect that she would be the least likely candidate to suffer, especially from mental illness. She knows her Bible, she knows her Doctrine, and she loves--evident through every page--Jesus and knows that He loves her. In spite of all this knowledge and love, she still suffers; thus, she asks the necessary question: Why am I still suffering? To this question, the church, in general, has failed to provide an adequate answer. The common, Christian advice given to those Christians who suffer from all forms of depression and other mental illness is: read your bible more, be rejoiceful, repent of your sins, evaluate the effectiveness of your quiet time (or start a quiet time). Mental Illness/Depression is seen as the result of one's own actions; thus, correct the action and rid oneself of the nasty result. The stage is now set for the overwhelming introduction of guilt on top of one's illness.

Second, admitting and seeking clinical help for mental illness/depression is a source of shame. I'm left questioning: Why? Using Greene-McCreight's words to answer,

"...we are ashamed to admit that we can't handle illness, especially mental illness, on our own. It can be devastating blow to one's sense of self, after all, to admit to mental unrest. But when we have a bad cough we are usually not similarly ashamed. Why, when we are mentally ill, should we not react with the same dispatch in calling the doctor as we would when we find a lump in the breast....But what makes us think the Christian can or should be able to handle such difficulties alone, much less any other diffiuclty? The assumption that one can go it alone is at heart Pelagianism....Pelagianism shrank the grace of God" (146).

Kathryn is a sufferer, and points other sufferers to the One Who Suffered and is present in our suffering.

Darkness Is My Only Companion should be on everyone's bookshelf from pastor to layperson.

--Lauren R. E. Larkin, Post Partum Depression sufferer.

Ministry in the Power of the Holy Spirit

2009-04-22T14:17:00.002-04:00

The Rector of my home church, St. Paul's Darien, is teaching a non-credit class at Trinity School for ministry on Ministry in the Power of the Holy Spirit. Here is a link to a brief description:

click here and scroll to the bottom of the flyer, the description is in the lower left corner.

This is a non-credit course and only costs $50. The course is offered through Trinity School for Ministry, running from June 8-10, 2009.

From experience, The Rev. Christopher Leighton is one of the most grounded and charismatic leaders in the church. He is also one of my theological mentors (side note). I attended St. Paul's Darien for a couple of years--this is where I gained my start in theology and Christianity, under his tutelage (and that of The Rev. Dan Morgan)--and also was given the chance to work on staff for two summers as a Youth Ministry Intern; thus, I was able to witness The Rev. Christopher's leadership as guided by the Holy Spirit. He is a man who is submitted to and in love with Jesus; it's beautiful. I doubt one could find a higher degree of erudition combined with this passion for Jesus and the Power of the Holy Spirit.

If you are curious about the role of the Holy Spirit in your ministry or even in your life as a Christian, I highly recommend taking this class...There really is no one else I would feel as sure of and as comfortable recommending.

Book Review: Better Than My Dreams

2009-04-17T15:19:00.003-04:00

Disappointment is real and we all encounter it. We each have dreams that fall to the ground and shatter into a million pieces (or so it seems). And, somewhere along the way, we've been told that these disappointments and shattered dreams aren't supposed to be; however, they still are a fact of life. Paula Rinehart, in Better than My Dreams: Finding What You Long For Where You Might Not Think To Look, addresses suffering and loss and it's place in the life of a Christian.

Place?

That seems offensive to some...where is there a place for suffering in a Christian's life. I mean, really, aren't we supposed to live victoriously, have a life marked with the accolades of victory? Well, I guess, as long as you define the 'victory' as Jesus' victory over death and sin and the accolade the cross we bear as we walk His path; I guess not if you mean that we are supposed to have lives that are never marked by suffering or loss or hurt or disappointment or shattered dreams and are all happy all the time.

Paula really puts her finger on the sensitive point, the hurting point: pride. She writes,

"Lots of us suffer form an inflated picture of what it means to live a lie that matters. I know I have. You assume that if God is writing your story, then surely something great will come of it. It's like one of Lily Tomlin's stand-up comedy lines: I always though I would grow up to be somebody, but I found I should have been more specific.

"The real problem, I believe, is in what we are prone to call great. We look at the children Jesse Copeland touched through the years and see the profound impact. But I don't think it ever felt great to Jesse. She just answered the simple call of God to remain where she was and love children who came her way. She offered biscuits and a nurturing heart, and God did his work.

"It's no different for us. The irony is that whatever our gifts are, they feel ordinary in side our own skin--like, what else is new? You encourage others because you love doing that. Or you study and teach because you love seeing the light come on in other people's eyes. Or you direct a corporate board with exemplary ethics because that what it right. You do what you do because God has laid his hand on your life--and because you can. But it rarely feels special or extraordinary" (165-6).

I love that part. That which we were created to do rarely feels extraordinary or special; but, rather, natural. In a culture where everyone and everything is "gifted" or "special" or "talented", where no one "loses" or "comes in last" or "fails", Rinehart's words stop me in my place. Wait, what? When I'm operating in my "gifts" I may not or will not feel special? Isn't that a freeing word? When the feeling of awe and the energy of inspiration ware off, it doesn't mean that you are no longer doing what you were created to do--because gifting and operating in those gifts can feel more like "of course" rather than "ah ha!":

"There's an awful ordinariness that goes with any sort of gift or calling. It tests your motivation and strains your nerves. Or as Flannery O'Connor, author of some the last century's best Sourthern novels and a woman who died in her thirties from lupus, once wrote, 'You do not do art the best you can for art's sake, but for the sake of returning to the invisible God your increasing talent to use or not to use, as he sees fit'" (Rinehart 167).

God is in control...even in the suffering and even in the success. Suffering isn't for not, it produces fruit...though that fruit is often hard to see and pain can make it difficult to even look for fruit. But we don't have to "look" for fruit...God does love us, but that doesn't mean that we will be exempt from suffering and loss and broken hearts and dashed dreams. Everthing is in the hands of the Almighty.

The Amighty Creator does not need us--there is nothing that He has so hinged on us that if we fail His plan fails. His plan, His work is an ALREADY event with current and future manifestations...we, the humans, the created, are only along for the ride (Rinheart 167-8); and, this ride will bring us through storm and sun.

Recommendation: Although there were some points of slight semi-pelagian influence, I think they are washed out by the stronger message of suffering as part of our life and Jesus with us in that suffering as the One Who Truly Suffered. I recommend this to read if you are finding yourself in a season of disappointment and loss.

Book Review: Hello Cupcake!

2009-04-15T09:39:00.002-04:00

Check out: these cupcakes!

If you like baking and have a creative flare, I highly recommend Hello Cupcake!, by Karen Tack and Alan Richardson. These designs are completely "doable". There are plenty of great holiday and birthday designs, as well as designs that say, "Yeah, I was bored and thought (fill in the blank) would be fun!" Plus, if you are in the never-ending, always-exhausting competition of being the "BEST MOM ON THE BLOCK"--as I am...praise the Lord my block is primarily old people--then why not solidify that title...make cupcakes that look like Dogs! Or, Van Gogh's "Starry Night" (honestly, I don't know if I'm that ambitious...but my pride tempts me to want to try)!

Seriously, the techniques and tools used for making the cupcakes are really simple. I highly recommend this cook-book, esp. if you are geared toward baking and artistic expression.

Some Days

2009-04-09T14:57:00.002-04:00

There are just some days when things just seem or are pretty bad. And then, almost out of the blue, someone--your husband--says, "Hey, you should listen to this Bill Mallonee song"--almost out of the blue...you are married to a Bill Mallonee Uber Fan. And you think, "I guess, I mean he says this all the time." So, you do listen. And you hear the beautiful message of Easter and you know that you are not alone, that this isn't permanent, and that you are forgiven and that there is hope that you can forgive and be forgiven by others. You hear love. And, just like that, the day is just that less bad. And you love that Uber Fan all the more.

Coming Out of Hiding

To find the lyrics on the MySpace page, look in the bottom left portion of the window (in the section "Work Progress Administration: General Info").

"She Is Love"

2009-04-07T18:16:00.003-04:00

A good friend of mine [shout out to Nate Lee] introduced me to this song.

I love it.

Because I've never encountered a song that echos the Love of the Cross so well.

It doesn't even matter if the "she" in the song is a "real" woman or the feminine that is wisdom (Prov. 8; as wisdom is the fear/love of God (Prov. 1:7)); because, Love, described as such, is never separate/can never be separated from Jesus and the Cross. Love is the Cross; and, the Gospel, which is the proclamation of the Cross, is all love and all "Yes". St. Paul, in 1 Corinthians 13:4-8, writes, "Love is patient and kind; love does not envy or boast; it is not arrogant or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice at wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth. Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things". In the Cross we are in the realization of this love, this true love, this truly all "yes".

Be ye prepared to enter into this Easter week.

"I've been beaten down, I've been kicked around,
But she takes it all for me.
And I lost my faith, in my darkest days,
But she makes me want to believe.

"They call her love, love, love, love, love.
They call her love, love, love, love, love.
She is love, and she is all I need.
She's all I need.

"Well I had my ways, they were all in vain,
And she waited patiently.
It was all the same, all my pride and shame,
And she put me on my feet.

"They call her love, love, love, love, love.
They call her love, love, love, love, love.
They call her love, love, love, love, love.
She is love, and she is all I need.

"Cause when that world slows down, dear.
And when those stars burn out, here.
Oh she'll be there, yes she'll be there,
They call her love, love, love, love, love.
They call her love, love, love, love, love.
They call her love, love, love, love, love.
She is love, and she is all I need,
She is love, and she is all I need,
She is love, and she is all I need."
(lyrics: click here)

Something Random, Something Funny

2009-03-17T10:29:00.002-04:00

(click the image for a larger view)

I laughed and laughed...so I thought I would share!

Book Review: Woman: An Intimate Geography

2009-03-02T13:31:00.005-05:00

Woman: An Intimate Geography, by Natalie Angier, is an absolute must read...a must read for Women, definitely; but, also, I would even recommend it for men to read--married men. It is a brilliant masterpiece.

Angier is a gifted writer. Her sentences are fluid, informed, and entertaining. She says things and phrases things in ways I would not be able to even if I had spent hours planning. She is a "feminist"; but, she is not angry, does not hate men, and loves being a woman. This is the kind of woman I would love be around.

Angier's book starts at the ground level and works its way up through woman: the intricacies of female anatomy--the who, what, why, where, when, and how--right through to the heart, the brain, and out into society where women encounter other women and men. This book is not about stereotypes--although many stereotypes are dealt with--and, it is not about woman being better than or inferior to man--the sexes are not pitted against each other. Angier presents Woman: plain and complex, simple and intricate, beautiful and homely, passive and aggressive, clean and dirty, and freed and bound.

The one major contention I have with the book is the heavy dependence on the theory of evolution. Where she can't explain something by evolution's terms, she just shrugs her shoulders--never once considering a Divine Author, an Intelligent Designer. And, while I greatly appreciated and learned a lot from the constant comparison of humans to certain types of apes, I have a hard time swallowing the idea that I can learn a lot more about myself from watching a female rhesus monkey. Yes, I learned a lot about those chimps and monkeys, and found that there were some "correlations", but, at the end of the day couldn't help but think, "Uhhh...but I'm a human." Though a Chimp's DNA encoding might be similar to ours by 99% (Angier 15), that small 1 % carries a lot of weight and makes a huge difference: we're not that similar.

In spite of that one minor, minor contention (I can't stress how minor it is), the book is high on my list of "must-reads". This will do for you, as a woman--Christian and not, alike--what all those other "women" books fail to do: breath life into your weary, tired bones. Angier proclaims on every page: it's effing great to be a woman; let's celebrate!

The following is from my amazon.com review: "NOTE: I just read some reviews that gave this book a poor rating, and some of them seemed to have credence and I appreciate the concern they expressed; and, this is why i have given the book a four star rating and not five. It seems there may be some argument over Angier's data and her examination of that data. However, it is still a great read, as long as we take it for what it is: an interesting book written by a woman and not a scientific text book for biology class."

More than Buddy Jesus

2009-02-20T16:02:00.005-05:00

A Couple of weeks ago, Quinn came home from his CBS class with a handout that is geared toward the parents. Appropriately, it is called, "Parents Home Paper." I think I've written on one of these papers before, so there is no need to go into length about the paper.

Here is a quote from the sheet:

"[Jesus] approaches us differently, individually, but He does approach us because He loves us dearly and knows that the best thing He could ever do for us is to help us find Him as our best friend....You see, a Friend doesn't force His way in. A Friend knocks but waits for the 'Hello There. Won't you come closer?'"

Our very own Buddy Jesus. Awesome.

But...

NO.

The best thing is not being our best friend; the best thing was being our greatest lover, the lover who submitted to the fate of the cross as the perfect propitiation for our sins. John 3:16 doesn't say, "For God so longed to be best friends with the world..." but, rather, "For God so loved the world..." He is more than our best friend, he is our relentless, patient, long-suffering lover.

This love is there whether or not we say, "Come on in!"--a misappropriation of Rev. 3:20, "'Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and eat with him, and he with me'". This love is a gift; just as our faith is a gift. 1 Cor. 1:26, we were called into faith; this isn't something we drum up from the inside. Our faith is given to us and is not manufactured by our strength. Rev. 3:22, "'He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.'" It's not about us letting Him in, it's about Him calling us into faith, into restoration, into love. If we have ears to hear, we will hear (Rev. 3:22).

To close, I will say that the "sheet" in question certainly said some decent things that I agree with. Quinn is only 2, so I'm not too worried that he's becoming semi-pelagian just yet; and, maybe, Jesus as "best friend" is the best way to explain Jesus' relationship with you, a two-year old. Personally, I think it's never to early to start talking about the cross and raising little theologians of the cross.

Interesting Article from the Pittsburgh Trib

2009-02-18T12:14:00.002-05:00

I recently did a book review on the book: Multiple Bles8ings; a book about a mom who gives birth to six babies, conceived by IVF. In recent news, we have read and heard about a woman in CA who has given birth to 8 babies, which is just an addition to her already existing set of 6. This article hits on some of the points that I made in my book review (posting it so you can read it helps me feel not that far off in left field).

To read the article please click here.

I would like to say: although I do agree with the thoughts of the article, I am simultaneously aware and understand the desire (and the strength of that desire) to have children that are of your own "stuff". As a Theologian, I wrestle with the ethics behind IVF and the human condition; as a woman, I completely understand and cheer on my friends who want to have babies but are running up against brick walls with the "old fashioned" style of conception.

I wish to offend no one.

This is so AWESOME!

2009-02-16T21:21:00.004-05:00

Okay, so every now and then I peruse my reviews on amazon to find out how many people found them helpful and if there were any comments... So...I checked out my review of "The Fruit of Her Hands" by my fav. Ms. Wilson. WHOA! Granted the review was, how you say, "scathing"?, but this exchange was hysterical. First I will show you the three responses that were there...you have to read them together because the I believe (with some evidence) that they are building off the first "angry" response. After I read the responses, I responded; and, I have recorded those responses after the reader responses (numbered accordingly).

First reader response:

H. Mathena: "This review sounded like it came from a very angry and bitter woman searching for something, but this book just fueled that anger. I wonder if the reviewer gleamed anything from the book or is just angry at the world in general... If she is this angry at home, I doubt her husband wants to spend any time with her and I would dare say she and her husband fight a lot if she get this annoyed about one simple book. I would also dare to say that the marital bed is fought about often.
I will be praying for this reviewer.
I would advise her to read "Created to be his Help Meet" by Debit Pearl... but it would just make her angry as well."

Second reader response:

JR Corry: "What a condescending and ignorant comment, clearly from someone who'd rather believe that women are meant to obey and serve their hubbies. Mathena: you know nothing about this reviewer and your indication that she's probably bitter in general is one of the most pitiful assumptions I've ever seen. Grow up and get your nose out of other people's lives; your judgement is catty, unChristian, and decidedly snarky."

Third reader response:

Ryan Setliff: "I am glad we're not married Lauren. ;-)"

Response number 1 to H. Mathena:

"I appreciate your honest opinion of my writing; and, appreciate your very frank assumptions about my being and person. The general problem with your assumption is that you are not taking in to account my fours years of Seminary training in biblical studies, primarily, studying the Proverbs 31 woman and Jesus' relations with women, as well as a little dabbling in Paul. I would like to say that although the book did make me angry--as you so astutely noted and pointed out--I'm not an angry person. I am passionate--a trait I believe I get from my Greek ancestry--but not angry...well, not at most people, just at the authors who purport such an archaic and curse-based understanding of women. As for my relationship with my husband, which is frankly none-of-your-business, it is great. After asking him if he would like me to be like the women in these books (i've read many), he has plainly said: no, I want a strong woman who is capable without me. With that said, he is the strong leader of our growing family; he is the kind and loving father of two brilliant, energetic, and gifted boys; and he is the love of my life. With my life service to him as the home-keeper, child-bearer, "put-my-dreams-on-hold" to raise the children, I try desperately to show him this love. He is definitely the head of this household, as my life causes him to be gloried. My existence alleviates his loneliness. With what gifts God has given me, I am able to send him out into the world to be our synecdoche head...the piece of the body that represents this entire family. What you don't know about me, I wish I could show you...that although I wrestle with my existence as a woman, I am an extremely proud woman who loves being one. What I won't stand for is negligence and harm done to other women by women. You, among others, are touting the oppressive party line; I proclaim freedom to the captives (ref. Karl Barth), you and yours just keep women jailed in their cells, while you are swallowing the key. A woman's submission (and a man's, too...and yes IT IS mutual) is not subjection but oblation...a pouring out of ones life in response to love and not as an outcome of beating the flesh into order and hierarchy. Dear, dear H. Mathena, while I am not a perfect human and while, yes, my husband and I fight occasionally and I get irritated with those "little blessings" of ours, I am a woman who, at the end of the day (even after a very tired one like today) holds my head up high as a stay-at-home-mom and a supportive, effective, strong wife. My house is clean, orderly, decorated to the best of my ability; my children clean, fed, taken care of; I garden; I sew, crochet, and knit (horribly); I read my bible every day (because I want to, and use the Word to read to my baby for nap times); I have a Masters degree that I completed with baby in sling; I do the laundry and ironing (which I hate, yuck...ironing...yuck); I manage the bills and finances; I make dinner and make sure there is enough to make lunch for my husband; I even do some teaching on the side (but rarely); and, I do some in-home writing and editing for our church. Yet, in all of that I am a big sinner, big big big sinner and all that stuff just feeds my pride. It's in my mess, it's in heaps of laundry, unkempt children, forgotten dinners, "i-don't-know" lunches, and "drat...i didn't record that ATM w/d" where I see Jesus, Jesus Crucified for my horribleness...I see Jesus and His Grace and me being undeserving of it. It's there that I see the love of my husband...when I'm about to tear our my hair over the 2 year old...when he comes home and brings roses because I'm having a bad day and I told him. It's there that I see the love of my son even though he's going through a rough patch right now because I sat and watched Elmo with him and ignored the chores. I really think that if you completely buy into what Ms. Wilson is saying, you miss those moments because you are so self-absorbed with your own righteousness. Marriages and families are not formulas where one solution fits all...they all look different. Ms. Wilson, and I take it you, too, don't see this and don't believe it. This is a sad state of affairs.

"I will certainly take your reading suggestion under advisement and add it to my list of books that I would like to read on my blog; however, you are probably right, it just might make me angry...kinda like you are after reading my review...huh?

"Again, thank you for your honesty."

The second response to JR Corry:

"Dear JR Corry...simply, Thank you. Although, I am sure I did come off seeming angry in this review...but, I am a little...at these books, at least. But, again, thank you."

The third response to Ryan Setliff:

"Probably, I am glad, too!"

Dare I say I got under some skin? WOW...just plain old wow. Yes, the review was too long...I think it's the length and the sarcasm that make H. Mathena call me angry and bitter. Oh, well...she's praying for me, I guess I'll be better now.

To see the "real" exchange and an special, late appearance from Daniel: click here (for Daniel's post, scroll to the bottom of the comments). Yes, I do have the best husband!

So, what did you think of all that?

"You Break Wind"

2009-02-09T16:28:00.002-05:00

(Click for Larger Image)

Primarily, just because it's Monday, and who doesn't need a laugh on Monday.

Secondarily, I think this comic drives home a good point, although a point probably not intended by Mr. Pastis. Here, Rat intends to "help" Pig with his rather co-dependent love letter--I doubt Rat intended the comical result, although I'm sure he was quite pleased! Rat's message was simple: make bold some words to really communicate what you are feeling. Some of us might have taken the words, "complete", "ever", and "are", to name a few, to make bold. However, Pig doesn't do this. He selects, "You," "break," and "wind." The first thing your eyes read, when the letter reaches Pig's girlfriend, Pigita, is the sentence, "You break wind". Good job, Pig...Your message of love became lost in your botched attempt to make it "more".

And this brings me to my point--again, probably not Mr. Pastis': is the message of the Cross, the simple proclamation of the Cross being botched in our attempts to make it "relevant", "fancy", and "appealing"? Richard B. Hays, in his commentary on First Corinthians (1:18-31, specifically), writes,

"Wherever we find Christian faith presented in slick, high-tech, high-gloss images, as though it were a product to be marketed, we should ask ourselves immediately whether the gospel that is being proclaimed here is the word of the cross or whether it is some form of human boasting through image manipulation" (37).

In our attempt to proclaim the gospel, the Cross, Christ crucified in modern and tangible ways, are we, instead, saying something different? Are we pointing to something other than the Cross--albeit unintentionally? Is it possible for the proclamation of the Cross to become lost with too much human meddling? Are we leaving people with a good laugh, an interesting story, a neat parallel, rather than the Cross and their dire need for it?

I just wonder...In my attempts at proclaiming, "Christ, very God of very God, was crucified in your stead because you, we, were unable to keep the Law" I might just be saying, "You break wind".

Book Review: Three Treatises

2009-02-03T13:40:00.004-05:00

This is a great book--despite the rather boring yet highly descriptive title. It's the translation of Luther's Three Treatises: "To the Christian Nobility of the German Nation", "The Babylonian Captivity of the Church", and "The Freedom of a Christian".

The first treatise, "To the Christian Nobility of the German Nation", is thick and not one that I recommend for any "lay-person"--a group of which I am a part--to slog through. I won't say don't read it...but it's thickly "historical" rather than "applicable"--to say things bluntly. One will get a good dose of Luther's unceasing wit and sarcasm and, doubly unceasing, his passion for the Gospel. But, again, while it is filled with important History about the grassroots of the reformation and a good peak into Luther's complex brain, it's not a "grab-a-cup-of-hot-chocolate-and-curl-up-on-the-couch-on-a-rainy/snowy-day" read.

The second treatise, "The Babylonian Captivity of the Church", is amped up a bit. Here, one really can become engrossed with Luther and his arguments against the Catholic Church's designated 7 sacraments: The sacrament of Bread, the sacrament of Baptism--which has a pleasing section on "vows", the sacrament of Penance, Confirmation, Marriage, Ordination, and The Sacrament of Extreme Unction. While he affirms both the Sacraments of Bread and Baptism, it is clear that he is regrounding them in Scripture. While not strictly from these two sections, I will proffer some quotes from that I enjoyed:

In regards to "vows": "Indeed, the menial housework of a manservant or maidservant is often more acceptable to God than all the fastings and other works of a monk or priest, because the monk or priest lacks faith" (203).

From the section on "Marriage" where Luther addresses the "Roman Despots" who "dissolve and compel marriages as they please" (225), thus, creating laws as they see fit:

"This I do know, that no state is governed successfully by means of laws. If the ruler is wise, he will govern better by a natural sense of justice than by laws. If he is not wiase, he will foster ntohgin but evil through legislation, since he will not know what use to make of the laws nor how to adapt them to the case at hand, Therefore, in civil affairs more stress should be laid on putting good and wise men in office than on making laws; for such men will themselves be the very best of laws, and will judge every variety of case iwth a lively sense of equity. And if there is knowledge of the divin law combined with natural wisdom, then written laws will be entirely superfluous and harmful. Above all, love needs no laws whatever" (226-227).

Later on, from the same section--Luther is addressing, here, the "laws" for annuling a marriage.

"Thus you may learn, from this one question of marriage, how wretchedly and desperately allthe activites of the church have been confused, hindered, ensnared and subjected to danger through the pestilent, ignorant, and wicked ordinances of men, so that there is no hope of betterment unless we abolish at one stroke all the laws of all men, and having restored the gospel of liberty we follow it in judging and rgulating all things. Amen" (232).

The third treatise, "The Freedom of a Christian", is the penultimate work in this group of three--according to me. This section is a "must read" for any Traditional Reformation Christian. This treatise sings the song of liberty to sickly ears; nay, dying ears. The soul is refreshed and bounds with energy while reading. Luther plainly--plainly as Luther can--puts his revolutionary (or not so revlolutionary but Gospel centered) ideas into layman's terms. This treatise is Luther's letter to Pope Leo X and is a typical "defense" style writ. He's clearly defended his approach to the Gospel and how he sees Justification by faith as the central theme for the Christian's understanding of the Gospel, just as St. Paul did a couple of millenia ago.

Now, if I typed out all the quotes that "jumped" out at me, I'd retype the whole treatise right here, and steal any impetus you may have to go out and buy it...So, I'll select a few "teasers":

"It is clear, then, that a Christian has all that he needs in faith and needs no work to justify him; and ifhe has not need of works, he has no need of the law; and if he has no need of the law, surely he is free from the law" (284).

"...for if Christ is a bridegroom, he must take upon himself the things which are his bride's and bestow upon her the things that are his....Thus the believing soul by means of the ledge of his faith is free in Christ, its bridegroom, free from all sins, secure against death and hell, and is endowed with the eternal righteousness, life, and salvation of Christ its bridegroom" (286-7).

"You see that the First Commandment, which says, 'You shall worship one God,' is fulfilled by faith alone....This cannot be done by works but only by the faith of the heart. Not by the doing of works but by believing do we glorify God and acknowledge that he is truthful" (288).

"What man is there whose heart, upon hearing these things, will not rejoice to its depth, and when receiving such comfort will not grow tender so that he will lvoe Christa s he never could by means of any laws or works? (293).

"This is the place to assert that which was said above, namely, that a Christian is the servant of all and made subject to all. Insofar as he is free he does no works, but insofar as he is a servant he does all kinds of works....Nevertheless the works themselves do not justify him before God, but he does the works out of spontaneous love in obedience to God and considers nothing except the approval of God, whom he woul dmost scrupulously obey in all things" (294-5).

"So the Christian who is consecrated by his faith does good works, but the owrks do not make him hoier or more Christian, for that is the owrk of faith alone. And if a man were not first a believer and a Christian, all his owrks would amount to nothing and would be truly wicked and damnable sins" (297).

"We must bring forth the voice of the law that men may be made to fear and come to a knowledge of their sins and so be converted to repentance and a better life. But we must not stop with that, for that would only amount to wounding and not binding up, smiting and not healing, killing and not making love, leading down into hell and not bringing back again, humbling and not exalting. Therefore we must also preach the word of grace and the promise of forgiveness by which faith is taught and aroused. Without this owrd of grace the owrks ofthe law, contrition, penitence, and all the rest are done and taught in vain" (300-1).

"This is a truly Christian life. Here faith is truly active through love [Gal.5:6], that is, it finds expression in works of the freest service, cheerfully and lovingly done, with which a man willingly serves another withou hope of reward; and for himself he is satisfied with the fullness and wealth of his faith" (302).

"Although the Christian is thus free from all works, he ought in this liberty to empty himself, take upon himself the form of a servant, be made in the likeness of men, be found in human form, and to serve, help, nad in every way deal with his neighbor as he sees that God htrough Christ has dealt and still deals with him. This he should do freely, having regard for nothing but divine approval" (303-4).

Great quotes. Simply, great quotes. Let them breath life back into a weary and parched soul. Let them draw your eyes back to the first Love: the Cross. I don't think I can read these words enough!

This is a book that I highly recommend, if only for this last treatise. It's an excellent place to start on a journey of all things Luther--one of the most influential theologians.

God is Not an Attachment Parenter, or a Traditional Parenter.

2009-02-02T15:21:00.005-05:00

So, I just finished reading a friend's new post on her blog about some of her friends who are writing a book about parenting. It's something "new". But, when I read the description, I'm prone to say that it's a form of APing, a relative. Now, I'm not a supporter of AP and my hairs stand on end when I hear people talking about it. But the REALLY interesting thing that I noticed was that this book is aresponse to what the authors feel is the dominate parenting style: traditional.

Wait...what?

Wait...you, as an AP "type" parenter feel that you are in the minority? No, I, as a traditional parenter, am in the minority? How can you be in the minority, too?

This is crazy.

There seems to be a bigger issue here. Is it possible that both sides are yelling so loud that neither side is able to listen to the other? I mean, another book promoting "AP" type ideals is not something I see the world needing (Isn't Dr. Seers Prolific enough? Hasn't guilt and failure been spread thick enough...especially in the Church?). But these two women feel that it is needed. Apparently, they have encountered the strong arm of the TPs--traditional parenters. Maybe, many TPs--like me--have been so wounded by the theories of APing that we speak-out, and boldly, against APing, leaving those who do this style of parenting wounded in our wake. In the same way, APs have treated TPs. Everyone is lashing out and trying to defend their "style" their "choices". No one is sinless in this; no one is guiltless.

I don't know what the solution is. I just realized that both "sides" of parenting feel persecuted, to use a strong word, by the other. Both "groups" are responding out of wounding. I dislike APing with a passion because it drove me very close to severe depression. My husband worried about my safety and our children's. It was a very unhealthy place to be for our whole family, so APing was abandoned. As a parent, if asked advice about parenting, I would never recommend APing or anything like it. And, on the AP side of things, I know that there are similar stories about trying to use TP styles and failure and misery.

I think the long and the short of it is this: no one style of parenting should be set against--negatively--another type. It is fine to point out the differences, this is welcomed. There are pros and cons to BOTH parenting styles. In the end we are still dealing with "theories" here...theories that change all the time. We should remain elastic in our parenting but true to who we are as parents. Will I feel more comfortable around those who parent like me, well...sure. Will I seek to be informed about my parenting style,while having healthy disagreement where I see there needs to be some? Yeah. Will I occassionally have a good chuckle over something that an AP did that I disagree with? Yeah, I'm completely sinful and APing makes me laugh...sometimes...when it's not making me cry from depression. Will I support my friends who are APers and still hang-out with them and love them? Yeah...I won't always know how to support them, but I'm always here for them and bursting with love for them and their children. I pray that they would say the same.

Man, I'm on some "Unity" kick..."Can't we all just get along..."