A thought on today's gospel lesson

Fred Craddock in his commentary on the Gospel of Luke¹ in the Interpretation Bible Commentary series makes an observation on this week’s gospel lesson that the Revised Common Lectionary suggests.  The reading is Luke 9:51-62.  That text reads, in part:

When the days drew near for him to be taken up, he set his face to go to Jerusalem. And he sent messengers ahead of him. On their way they entered a village of the Samaritans to make ready for him; but they did not receive him, because his face was set towards Jerusalem. When his disciples James and John saw it, they said, ‘Lord, do you want us to command fire to come down from heaven and consume them?’ But he turned and rebuked them. Then they went on to another village.

James and John reflect the response of Elijah to those who opposed him.  Twice the prophet called down fire from heaven (2 Kings 1:9-12).  Jesus “rebuked” them, but they had already done the moral damage.

Craddock says, in relation to the response of James and John: “Is it not interesting how the mind can grasp and hold those Scriptures which seem to bless our worst behavior and yet cannot retain past the sanctuary door those texts which summon to love, forgiveness, and mercy?  Jesus rebukes James and John for an attitude of revenge and retribution, an attitude totally foreign to his ministry and theirs.”

I like that line.  I think it’s a tremendous insight.  And… I am sad to say that I see more than the occasional example of exactly what Craddock is talking about.  Not only do folks cherry-pick as they move through the Bible, but their selectivity in terms of what they sanction or how they act or what they believe a particular text empowers them to hate is extraordinary.

Lord, have mercy.

Christ, have mercy.

Lord, have mercy.

¹Interpretation A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching,

Louisville: John Knox Press, c. 1990

And also with you

 The late Hoyt Hickman, one of the Deans of modern United Methodist liturgical thought, wrote a book titled Worshiping with United Methodists.¹  In it, he sought to answer the question, “What is Christian worship?” He listed five principles that characterize Christian worship.  His second principle is: Active congregational Participation is crucial.

We have all been in worship experiences where the expectation of the congregation was that the people would sing a couple of hymns and put money in the collection plate.  Everything else that takes place is in the front of the sanctuary, inside the chancel (if the church arranges itself that way).  In these settings the worshipers are passive observers of activity carried on by the few: preacher, liturgist, musician(s), perhaps a few others.  This can be an entertaining stage show.  It has little to recommend it as worship.

Authentic worship involves everyone present.  In its purest form it is dialogical.  That is that there is a call-and-response element to the proceedings.  There might be a call to prayer, and then the people pray.  A service might include a sequence of invitation, confession, absolution and passing of the peace.  A prime example of this idea would be that a leader would read a scripture lesson or lessons, someone would preach a homily or sermon, and then the people would respond with an affirmation of faith, doxology, prayer, offering or some other act of commitment. 

This is to say that genuine worship involves the worshipers throughout the event.  The division is not necessarily 50-50 between leaders and congregation, but that is not a bad goal.  The people of God have come together to worship God, not to view a presentation.

The Lord be with you.

¹Nashville: Abingdon, 1996

The Second Article of Religion of The United Methodist Church

A further look at the United Methodist Church’s Articles of Religion -- as stated in a previous post:

The United Methodist Church has several sources that historically define its “doctrinal standards.”  These include the church’s Confession of Faith, the General Rules, John Wesley’s Explanatory Notes on the New Testament and Wesley’s Standard Sermons.  Also, in this roster of foundational documents are the church’s Articles of Religion.  In 1784 when the American Church was chartered, John Wesley provided these Articles for the church.  Wesley had composed 24 statements, and the American church added a 25th that was America-specific.  They have always been authoritative in Methodism and the church included them in its Discipline from 1790 on.  The second article is:

Article II — Of the Word, or Son of God, Who Was Made Very Man

The Son, who is the Word of the Father, the very and eternal God, of one substance with the Father, took man's nature in the womb of the blessed Virgin; so that two whole and perfect natures, that is to say, the Godhead and Manhood, were joined together in one person, never to be divided; whereof is one Christ, very God and very Man, who truly suffered, was crucified, dead, and buried, to reconcile his Father to us, and to be a sacrifice, not only for original guilt, but also for actual sins of men.

The church packs a lot into this article.  The early portion is an almost painfully careful Trinitarian statement that builds on the first article.  The nature of the Trinity has always been confusing for the church.  The greater church has struggled to find its balancing point in affirming the co-equal essence of all three Persons.  It is frequently the case that other elements in a personal or denominational theology weight one member – Father, Son, Spirit – to the detriment of the other two.  Or, some groups “demote” the role of one – usually the Holy Spirit – and emphasize the Person or function of the other two.  In this article Methodism tries to say all it can say without going in circles.  For John Wesley, faith in the co-equal members of the Trinity as well as in the unified whole was an essential element in Christian belief.

The conclusion of Article Two is a statement of function rather than essence.  It is a reminder of what it is that Jesus accomplished – and continues to accomplish – in his atonement.  The credal elements of “suffered, crucified, dead, buried” take in much of the fulness of the Wesleyan understanding of Jesus’ presence in the world.  We should not let the concluding statement elude us, either.  Jesus’ sacrifice was sufficient to remove “not only original guilt, but also for actual sins.”  That Jesus’ act removed the nature of original sin is again a cornerstone belief for Wesley.  But the statement further reminds us that Christ’s efficacy is ongoing, that Jesus’ death addresses our daily individual sins as well.

Article Two addresses, in a fairly succinct fashion, two foundational ideas for Wesley and the Wesleyan tradition.  One cannot comprehend Wesleyan belief or Methodist doctrine without an understanding of the precepts of this Article.

The Color for the Day

I capitulate.

That leaves the taste of old vinegar in my mouth.

But I give in.  Not give up, but give in.

The paraments, my stole and other appointments in our sanctuary today are green.  It is the color of life.  It symbolizes continuity.  It is the color prescribed by United Methodism (and most of the Christian Church) for ordinary time.  And so, green it is.

You have to understand, that through my childhood and even into the early days of my ministry, The Methodist Church and later The United Methodist Church observed a season of Pentecost that began on Pentecost Sunday and continued through the summer, terminating the last Sunday in August.  Then began the season of Kingdomtide, which carried on to the Sunday prior to the beginning of Advent.  In terms of color, red was the color prescribed for the Season of Pentecost, followed by Green for Kingdomtide.

With the advent of the work of the Consultation on Church Union (COCU) and the liturgical reform movement within United Methodism (which resulted in the issuance of a new Book of Worship in 1992), The UMC discarded the former color scheme and moved to one color – green – for “The Season After Pentecost (United Methodist Kingdomtide)”  With certain exceptions (All Saints’, Reformation Sunday and a couple of others) green is the color of the day.

While the church does not impose these color usages on local congregations (I have been a part of local churches that only had one set of paraments, and therefore only had one color option), this is the accepted denominational “way of doing things.”  I capitulate.  I can no longer in good conscience stand up firmly for the church rubrics with which I am comfortable, or with which I agree, while discarding policy I don’t like.  So green it is.

Green is the color of denominational choice throughout Ordinary Time (so labeled because we count the Sundays with Ordinals rather than with Cardinal Numbers).  So as a sign of my ordination and in symbol of my solidarity with the liturgical practices of my church (with which I do agree on just about every other count), I go green.

Ordinary green.  And that is not a comment on the numbering system.

The peace of the Lord be with you.

Of the Connection and Connections

For anyone who does not know a lot about the way Methodists do things, we are a connectional church as opposed to a congregational church.  Congregational churches carry on most of their business in a church-by-church basis.  That means that they secure their pastors through their own local process.  They self-determine their resources.  They may pool their finances for certain ministries, but this is truly on a volunteer basis.

United Methodist churches are connectional, in that bishops and district superintendents deploy pastors.  United Methodist churches contribute a set percentage of their budgets to collective ministries in the local, regional, national and global levels.  Methodists also support a number of hospitals, educational institutions and local ministries of various kinds by collectively funding those endeavors.

United Methodist ministers work with what is essentially a one-year contract.  Each year the pastor confers with bureaucrats and with their local congregation to decide whether they will remain in a certain ministry setting for another year or whether they will be deployed to a different location.  So, it is the nature of the beast that a pastor establishes relationships and then moves on and leaves those things behind.

It happens that certain parishioners come to mean a lot to the pastor, and then the pastor goes to another field of service, leaving those layfolk to the care of another minister.  Much less discussed are the connections that pastors make with other United Methodist pastors.  Preachers establish relationships through lunch- or coffee groups.  They may gather regularly for study sessions.  There are clergy who find a great deal of support in occasional (or regular) contact with neighboring pastors.  So, when this time of year comes around (moving day in our conference is June 23 this year), a pastor may stay in place but have some or all of a colleague group go away.  So, the irony is that a person who is part of a fairly large group can stay in place and yet find themselves on an island.

Now, the connection – and mission and ministry – doesn’t grind to a halt because of the wants of a particular local pastor.  But this is one of those years when a large number of my local fellow clergy are moving on to other flocks.  Their new congregations will enjoy them a lot.  But I’ll miss them.

This is the word of the Lord

The late Hoyt Hickman, one of the Deans of modern United Methodist liturgical thought, wrote a book titled Worshiping with United Methodists.¹ In it, he sought to answer the question, “What is Christian worship?” He listed five principles that characterize Christian worship.  The first is “God’s word is primary.”  Hickman maintains that it is through the essential element of encountering the word of God that the worshipers discern who God is.

Throughout authentic worship the faith community reads the word.  It proclaims the word through (though not exclusively by) preaching.  Then the church engages in one or more responses to the hearing of the word.  He makes the further point that scripture is not only for the preaching moment but for other elements as well.  In gathering words, prayers, offertories, benedictions and other locations throughout the worship event Bible-based language increases the gravity of worship.

If it is true that encountering the word of God is a vital part of our worship (and I believe it is), then it might be that the community of faith should heighten its efforts to do a better job of handling the word.  This is not a blanket criticism of preaching.  I believe that most pastors take the task of proclamation seriously most of the time.  We have varying gifts, and the judgment is not on “how well a preacher does,” but on the faithfulness of “how conscientious that preacher has been in a given instance.” 

All preachers can testify that there are weeks when weddings and funerals and hospitals and administration and all the rest have crowded study time.  It happens.  It is also the case that our perspective can be skewed by how much effort we believe we have expended.  There is not a preaching minister in the world who hasn’t stepped down from the pulpit on a particular Sunday and thought, “Well, they can’t all be gems,” only to have congregants respond as if the preacher had delivered the Sermon on the Mount.  It is also true that we come out of the worship experience occasionally with the reflection of, “Well, that was a good one.  That’s about the best I can do.”  Then, as we greet people at the door, there is a uniformity in their response which goes something like, “Good morning, pastor.”  As I say, it happens.

I once heard Fred Craddock remark on William Sloane Coffin when Westminster John Knox Press published Coffin’s collected sermons.  Craddock said, “When Bill was prepared, he was the best preacher in the English-speaking world.  Of course, Bill wasn’t always prepared.”

The caution I would offer is not on preaching itself.  It is on the way that leaders handle other elements – particularly scripture-related elements.  I have heard preachers read their text as if they couldn’t wait to get through with it so that they could get to the business of preaching.  I have also heard leaders, lay and clergy alike, stumble through lessons as if it were written in a foreign language.  Sure, if you read Acts 2 or Romans 16 (which are both extensive lists of complicated proper names) that takes a little extra work.  But it is no surprise that these readings are part of the day’s liturgy.  I heard David H. C. Read say in a gathering of preachers, “I experience two categories of preachers when they read scripture in worship.  There are those who act as if they have never seen it before.  Then there are those who act as if they wrote it themselves.”

All I am saying is that, if the treatment of God’s word is of primary importance in worship, let’s take the time to do it right.  Read it (beforehand) aloud.  Get a since of the syntax.  Pause in the appropriate places.  Emphasize the meaningful words.  Handle it so that when we say, “This is the word of the Lord,” people can believe it.

¹Nashville: Abingdon, c. 1996.

About Wisdom

For this week the Revised Common Lectionary suggests for the first reading of the day Proverbs 8:1-4, 22-31.  That text reads:

Does not wisdom call,

   and does not understanding raise her voice?

On the heights, beside the way,

   at the crossroads she takes her stand;

beside the gates in front of the town,

   at the entrance of the portals she cries out:

‘To you, O people, I call,

   and my cry is to all that live.

Wisdom’s Part in Creation

The Lord created me at the beginning of his work,

   the first of his acts of long ago.

Ages ago I was set up,

   at the first, before the beginning of the earth.

When there were no depths I was brought forth,

   when there were no springs abounding with water.

Before the mountains had been shaped,

   before the hills, I was brought forth—

when he had not yet made earth and fields,

   or the world’s first bits of soil.

When he established the heavens, I was there,

   when he drew a circle on the face of the deep,

when he made firm the skies above,

   when he established the fountains of the deep,

when he assigned to the sea its limit,

   so that the waters might not transgress his command,

when he marked out the foundations of the earth,

   then I was beside him, like a master worker;

and I was daily his delight,

   rejoicing before him always,

rejoicing in his inhabited world

   and delighting in the human race.

The reading is interesting in that it anthropomorphizes Wisdom.  Proverbs 1:20 characterizes it as a female.  This lesson pictures Wisdom as being present with God at the time of Creation.  It has given some folks more than a little trouble as they have tried to figure out the imagery and reconcile it with their own Trinitarian theology.  There is a position that holds that Wisdom is the Old Testament designation for the One we know as the Holy Spirit.  This is difficult to support at best.  Other attempts at explanation have Wisdom as being an angel.

I would remind folks of the rich imagery that the biblical writers – and the Old Testament authors in particular – tend to employ.  That Wisdom is admirable and wondrous is something that the writers describe with a wide arsenal of description.

Some will remember the flash-in-the-pan controversy of a couple of decades ago surrounding “Sophia.”  Sophia is the Greek for wisdom.  There were folks in this time period who characterized Sophia as “the goddess,” and even elevated this being to the level of the Holy Trinity.  The movement was a tempest in a teapot, but it had a lot of traction in its limited run.

The Jewish rabbis imaged Wisdom as being from the beginning, but in no way on a par with God.  There came a time, according to their teaching, when Wisdom came to dwell in the tents of the Children of Abraham.  Wisdom became The Law and continues to abide with the Chosen People.

A word to the wise: scripture itself is not going to contradict orthodoxy.  There may be some question as to how many animals Noah took aboard the ark, or what might have been the sequence of created things.  But Holy Writ is not going to be unspecific about the nature of God.  That is the heart of wisdom.

On Methodism's Articles of Religion

The United Methodist Church has several sources that historically define its “doctrinal standards.”  These include the church’s Confession of Faith, the General Rules, John Wesley’s Explanatory Notes on the New Testament and Wesley’s Standard Sermons.  Also in this roster of foundational documents are the church’s Articles of Religion.  In 1784 when the American Church was chartered, John Wesley provided these Articles for the church.  Wesley had composed 24 statements, and the American church added a 25^th that was America-specific.  They have always been authoritative in Methodism and the church included them in its Discipline from 1790 on.

The first of these statements is:

Article I — Of Faith in the Holy Trinity

There is but one living and true God, everlasting, without body or parts, of infinite power, wisdom, and goodness; the maker and preserver of all things, both visible and invisible. And in unity of this Godhead there are three persons, of one substance, power, and eternity—the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.

I have referenced this recently, (those comments are here) and I don’t want to repeat myself.  I would make an observation that is not so much on the content as the place of this article in the entire document.  I think it is significant that a roster of statements that includes interpretations of scripture and the sacraments and the church that the initial paragraph addresses the Trinity.  Sure, you have to start somewhere, but isn’t this an interesting place to begin?  The article does not go into a lot of detail, so there is not a great opportunity for dispute.  It is a simple, almost elegant declaration of faith in God and what the church has historically taught about God. 

Wesley wrote (and preached) extensively on the Trinity.  Affirmation of the Trinity is one of the few essentials upon which Wesley was insistent.  So, it is here that Methodism begins. 

The Birth of John Wesley

John Wesley 1703 - 1791

It is the birthday of John Wesley in 1703.  I have rehearsed Wesley’s biography frequently lately as we have recently observed his conversion and his last sermon.  But given the nature of these thoughts, it seems a disservice to pass his birthday unnoticed.  So, happy birthday, Father Wesley.

On The Holy Trinity

Today is Trinity Sunday.  It is an observance that dates back over a thousand years.  It observes a doctrine that is among the most confusing in all of Christianity.  We use the formula “in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit” in much of our liturgy.  But when it comes to clear understanding – or to explaining it to others – we frequently come up short.  The church has never come up with an accurate analogy.  We try to say, “The Trinity is like,’ or “You can compare the Trinity to…” but in the end, it all falls flat.  The church itself admits that The Holy Trinity is a mystery.  It also flatly states that belief is different from understanding.  We may not fully comprehend, but we are bound to believe.

In the history of the church, many of the great heresies have been Trinitarian in nature.  Some of the false teachings that had their day are:

Adoptionism -- The belief that Jesus was born only as a human (not divine) and that he was a very virtuous man, and was later adopted as “Son of God” when the Spirit descended on him at His

baptism.

Arianism -- The belief that Christ was the first and most eminent of God’s creations, but still a created being;

Ebionitism -- The belief that Jesus was human with special charismatic powers.

Macedonianism -- The belief that the Holy Spirit is a created being.  

Modalism -- The belief that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are merely “modes” of the one Godhead, not distinct Persons.

Partialism -- The belief that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are “parts” of the one God. Only together are they God. They are not each fully God in themselves.

Tritheism -- The belief that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are three separate gods, sharing one substance, but not one being.

In some ways this list is the tip of the iceberg.  But, as I said, these are some of the thoughts that gained some traction in their day.

There is something to be said for spending a little time with these positions.  For, if we can understand what the church says the Trinity is not, perhaps through elimination we can embrace something of what the Trinity is. 

 (When the Methodist movement in America became a church in 1784, John Wesley provided the American Methodists with a liturgy and a doctrinal statement, which contained twenty-four "Articles of Religion" or basic statements of belief. These Articles of Religion were taken from the Thirty-Nine Articles of the Church of England—the church out of which the Methodism movement began—and had been the standards for preaching within the Methodist movement. When these articles were voted on by the American conference, an additional article was added regarding the American context, bringing the total number of articles to 25. These articles became the basic standards for Christian belief in the Methodist church in North America. First published in the church's Book of Discipline in 1790, the Articles of Religion have continued to be part of the church's official statement of belief.  -- United Methodist FoundationalDocuments) 

In The United Methodist Church, the very first Article of Religion is Article I — Of Faith in the Holy Trinity

There is but one living and true God, everlasting, without body or parts, of infinite power, wisdom, and goodness; the maker and preserver of all things, both visible and invisible. And in unity of this Godhead there are three persons, of one substance, power, and eternity—the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.

Now, that is not a bad statement as far as it goes.  But it does not plumb the depths of Trinitarian Theology to a very deep extent.

And, truth be known, that is ok.  Seekers can find plenty of literature on the subject.  It may be that the Article says all that it has to say, not so much to explain in detail, but to point the believer in the proper direction.  If it goes any further, it almost entraps itself into “Well, it’s kinda like…” or “you can sorta compare it to…” and thus fall into error.  That’s where we came in.

Of Pentecost and Pentecostals

I am still thinking about The Day of Pentecost.  That’s not a bad thing.  It is an extraordinarily important day in the life of the church.  In fact, for the first several hundred years of church history Pentecost, not Easter, was the great spring festival.  The gift of the Holy Spirit and the universality of its importance overshadowed even the Celebration of the Resurrection in the liturgical life and practice of the church.  So, it is a day that deserves more than passing mention.

I must admit, though that it is also a day that confuses us a bit.  We hear words like “Pentecostal” and we think of enthusiasts and speaking in tongues and somewhat fundamental theological positions.  These are not always accurate assessments, but this is what frequently comes to mind.  Mainline Christianity has allowed the more emotion-driven arm of the church to highjack terminology that rightly belongs to all of us.  We are all “Pentecostal” if we are Trinitarian at all.  We do not subordinate the Holy Spirit to the other Persons of the Holy Trinity.  We do not isolate God-people as “Creatorists.”  We do not cede the name of Jesus to the few.  So, why should “Pentecostal” be a description that puts middle-of-the-road Christians ill at ease?

I understand that there is a certain avoidance of “guilt by association.” A lot of hard-core, right-wing folks who identify themselves as Christians sometimes take extreme religious and political stances with which moderates and liberals are uncomfortable.  Some thinking seems to take the position of “If that is Pentecostal, then I want no part of it.”

A similar avoidance response can be found in regard to the “speaking in tongues” phenomenon that many Pentecostal groups exhibit.  This is odd, because the linguistic miracle of Acts 2 was that the peoples of the known world heard the gospel proclamation in their own native language.  It was a miracle of understanding, of comprehension, and of unity.  The glossolalia, the speaking in ecstatic (and unintelligible) languages of 1 Corinthians 12 and of modern Pentecostal practice is the polar opposite of anything that occurred on the biblical Day of Pentecost.  To label practitioners of “speaking in tongues” as Pentecostal from a biblical point of view is inaccurate at best.

So, I am on a campaign to re-habilitate “Pentecostal.”  Because, even lacking the gift of speaking in tongues, I am one.

Re-visiting the Tower of Babel

The Old Testament reading for this past Sunday, the Day of Pentecost, is Genesis 11:1-9, which is the story of the building of the Tower of Babel.  As Old Testament reading for the day, it is background for the linguistic miracle at Pentecost.  As God confused the language of people in the primeval stories so God unifies people as those in Jerusalem hear the gospel proclamation “each one heard them speaking in the native language of each.”  (Acts 2:6)

I have always been curious about the proper name – Babel – in this story from a chicken-or-egg perspective.  Did the Hebrew word come into the English language as a cognate, or did English scholarship impose a term on its translation?  Or is it an interesting (and confusing) accident? 

Turns out that there was a Babylonian tower temple north of the Marduk temple, which in Babylonian was called Bab-ilu (“Gate of God”).  The Hebrew form is Babel, or Bavel. The similarity in pronunciation of Babel and balal (“to confuse”) led to the play on words in Genesis 11:9.   This is according to The Encyclopedia Britannica.

So, problem solved.

I still marvel at the way scripture comments on itself.  One of the oldest tales in scripture finds its reflection in a work that dates to the aftermath of the destruction of the Second Temple.  In like fashion, as the Acts 2 narrative progresses it interprets Joel 2, that some scholars date to the eighth century BCE.  These are long periods of separation to be sure.  But sometimes the work of scripture takes a long time to percolate.

The Feast of Barnabas

Today is the Feast of St. Barnabas.  He has an important place in our history because it was he who introduced Paul into the apostolic company while they were still afraid of him.

Barnabas’ birth name is Joseph.  He was a native of Cyprus and a Levite.  He was a champion of the Gentile Mission of the early church, alongside Paul.  In Acts 4 he sells a field and contributes the money to the Jerusalem church.  He also gained a reputation as a preacher.  The apostles named him Barnabas, which means “son of encouragement.”

Acts 9 relates his introducing Paul to the believers at Antioch and stands up for the genuineness of Paul’s conversion.  Alongside Paul, he argued against the requirement that Gentile converts first become ceremonial Jews before the Council at Jerusalem.  Barnabas took John Mark with him back to Cyprus as a missional partner after Paul rejected John Mark for not showing the desired perseverance Paul expected of missionaries (Acts 15).  Luke reports in Acts 11:24 that Barnabas “was a good man, full of the Holy Spirit and of faith.”  Tradition credits him with the founding of the Christian Church at Cyprus.  He is said to have been stoned to death in Salamis in 61 AD.  However, this is not among the oldest of traditions associated with Barnabas.

Thoughts on The Day of Pentecost

We have just observed the Feast of the Day of Pentecost.  Big day.  Great day.  But, as we examine the text critically, logistically and descriptively, we have a problem.  When you hear the Pentecost story and visualize it in your mind, what does it look like?   I ask this because the description is a bit confusing.  I think a lot of us see the first part of the story happening in the upper room.  But Acts does not say that these disciples were hiding.  Kinda hard to hide 120 people.  If we move backward a bit, Acts 1 has the account of the selection of Matthias as the replacement for Judas.  This takes place in an upper room, but there is no indication that they are hiding, or in fear.  There is also a break in the telling.  The election of the new member of the Twelve seems to have taken place pretty close to the time of Jesus’ Ascension.  That event is forty days after Easter. 

Our story today commences with the notation, “When the day of Pentecost had come, they were all together in one place.”  Pentecost is fifty days after Passover, which coincides with Easter, so it is ten days more or less after the last event in Luke’s narrative.  In verse 2, the sound of the great rushing wind fills the entire house where they were sitting.”  Is it the same house?  Is it the same room in the same house?  We just don’t know.

Then, the noise of the wind and the disciples’ testimony draws a crowd.   And Peter addresses the people.  Have they come inside?  Or have Peter and the rest gone outdoors, perhaps even to a different location?  Is Peter speaking from the front porch?  We just don’t know – not from the biblical account.

When the people come together, they are identified as religious pilgrims who have come to Jerusalem to participate in the Feast of Weeks.  So, coming from all points between Jerusalem and Rome, the people represent a lot of languages.  And, everyone who came to wherever the apostles were heard the gospel in their native language.  But anyone who was in the city for the feast would have spoken Aramaic (the language of the Jews) or Greek (the common language of the Roman Empire).  Then again, when Peter speaks, he addresses “Men of Judea, and all who live in Jerusalem…”  So, he understands the audience to be not travelers, but residents.  So again, they would not require speaking in other languages in order to understand the apostolic proclamation. 

We are not going to resolve this conundrum today.  But we have to admit that there is cause for head-scratching here.  This is not to deny or refute any portion of the narrative.  It is probably the case that Luke was relying on multiple sources (he states plainly in his introductions that he himself is not an eyewitness) and has made little effort to reconcile those voices.  Also, it needs to be said that none of these things carry great weight in the story.  But, the more we know about text and context, the greater our opportunity for understanding.

I wonder what it looked like?

We are what we sing -- yet again

It is a valid observation that I am a bit hard on that category of hymnody that many people call “Praise Music.”  That is not a great descriptive title, because it describes – intentionally – contemporary Christian music with simple melodies and simpler lyrics.  The music tends to be highly repetitive and to concentrate on a single, simple idea.

I would contend that “A Mighty Fortress is our God” and “Holy, Holy, Holy” are praise music.  That contention muddles rather than clarifies the discussion, however.

I am a child of my time.  “My time” admittedly pre-dates contemporary Christian music. The contemporary music of “my time” was “And They’ll Know We are Christians by our Love” and “He’s Everything to Me.”  (I will still put the merits of these pieces up against a lot of what I hear today, but that is an observation for another time.)  Still, there are some truths that guide evaluation of our religious music.  Here are some things that come to mind.

A piece of music immediately disqualifies itself as worthy of consideration if it contains the phrase “we just…”  The writer believes it to be a confession of humility and simplicity.  But, the term means “merely,” “only,” “barely,” “quite” and even “almost.”  So, it is “We barely praise you…” or “we almost adore you?”  Even worse, writers employ the phrase as if it were a comma, or when they need another syllable or two in order to fill out a not-so-poetic line.

A piece of music immediately disqualifies itself if it appropriates a stanza of “Amazing Grace” as part of its content.  I reluctantly exclude a handful of well-done medleys.  But, write a song or cover a classic.  Don’t rely on the power of a marvelous free-standing lyric because a contemporary composer can’t find the words to carry the freight.

A piece of music immediately disqualifies itself if it actually makes no grammatical sense.  The stringing together of pious phrases that contain either nouns or verbs, but not both, is a violence to both the language and to the faith.

A piece of music immediately disqualifies itself if it cherry-picks a small portion of scripture out of context and uses it to try to make a case for an issue/topic that doesn’t exist in the larger biblical reading at all. 

A piece of music immediately disqualifies itself if it appropriates Hebrew or Greek words (especially names/titles for God) that are unfamiliar and not self-explanatory.  Note to the lyricist: OK, you found a Bible commentary and learned a new word.  Interpret its use or file it away. 

A piece of music immediately disqualifies itself if it employs a six-word or less phrase and repeats it four times (or more) without any other intervening lyric.  Singing “God is great; great is God,” repeatedly ceases to be praise.  It becomes a monotony that dulls the senses and assaults the soul.  A burden (“There is a Balm in Gilead”) or a refrain (“Blessed Assurance”) is one thing; blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, we just blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah has no meaning, no power and no praise.

We need music in our worship.  We need music in our souls.

Real music.

We are what we sing -- again

Yesterday I commented on the hymn “And Are We Yet Alive,” and to a much lesser extent “O for a Thousand Tongues to Sing.”  Both of these hymns (texts by Charles Wesley) play an important part in the history of the Methodist movement.  This is not only because they are hymns that we frequently use in worship, and therefore that the great majority of Methodists know (or at least recognize).  These texts are also important because they serve to carry the freight of traditional Methodist theology.

Charles Wesley wrote an average of 10 poetic lines a day for 50 years. He wrote 8,989 hymns.  He wrote hymns that taught and reinforced understanding of the basics of scripture and of Methodist theology.  In “And Are We Yet Alive” for instance, according to The United Methodist Church’s Discipleship Ministries website:

The original four stanzas represent a progression through the Wesleyan "way of salvation." The first stanza reminds us that God's prevenient grace has been present with us, preserving and protecting us even in our absence from one another; the second that God's justifying grace has saved us from sin and imputed to us his righteousness. In the third stanza, we see that God's redeeming grace has saved us and starts the work of regeneration in us. The final (omitted) stanza reminds us that God's sanctifying grace continues to work in us until the day we finally meet Christ, moving us from our imperfect state to entire sanctification.

The measure of great church music is that it transports the heart and mind heavenward.  Great music is not a theological treatise, that aims at the intellect only.  But neither is it mindless repetition that purposes to create feeling to the neglect of understanding: (O come, come, come, come, come, come, come, come, come… to the church in the wildwood).

Our worship time is too short, its opportunities too precious, to fritter away on meaningless verbiage.  Fred Craddock used to say that “We don’t get nourishment by chewing, but by chewing food.”  He was talking about preaching.  But it works for church music as well.

We are what we sing

The Memphis Annual Conference has just concluded its 180^th – and penultimate – session.  Our pre-conference materials indicated that the full opening session’s initial congregational hymn would be “O for a Thousand Tongues to Sing.”  Now, it takes a lot for me to say anything discouraging about this hymn.  It is far and away my favorite piece of church music.  But not for opening Annual Conference.

The first hymn that a conference session sings traditionally is “And Are We Yet Alive.”  I won’t say that this has been universally so, but I believe that it won’t miss that mark by much.  The hymn is, in part:

And are we yet alive,

and see each other's face?

Glory and thanks to Jesus give

for his almighty grace!

Preserved by power divine

to full salvation here,

again in Jesus' praise we join,

and in his sight appear.

What troubles have we seen,

what mighty conflicts past,

fightings without, and fears within,

since we assembled last!

Yet out of all the Lord

hath brought us by his love;

and still he doth his help afford,

and hides our life above.

Then let us make our boast

of his redeeming power,

which saves us to the uttermost,

till we can sin no more.

Let us take up the cross

till we the crown obtain,

and gladly reckon all things loss

so we may Jesus gain.

The depressing and even combative language has its root in John Wesley’s use of this hymn by his brother Charles as a hymn sung as part of the opening of society meetings and then of annual conferences.  The warfare is sometimes spiritual, but sometimes literal.  Methodists had a reputation as “enthusiasts.”  It was a status that more traditional church folks did not appreciate.  Their expression of that disapproval sometimes took a violent form.  As Methodist spread in the American frontier, the dangers of the wilderness were very real.  “And Are We Yet Alive” was a genuine expression of thanksgiving for the preservation of circuit riders.

Well, as our conference session commenced, the planning committee was “overruled” by the presiding bishop, and the bishop preserved the tradition for another year.

That’s how to start an Annual Conference.

The Ascension of the Lord (observed)

Today is the Seventh Sunday of Easter.  It is the last Sunday in the season prior to Pentecost, which concludes the Great Fifty Days.  But much of the church also observes today as “Ascension Sunday.”  Ascension Day, of course, occurs forty days after Easter.  But the feast falls on a Thursday, so most congregations do not celebrate the event on Ascension Day proper.

So, many churches will tip their hats to the occurrence today.  I suspect that a number of congregations do not spend a lot of time considering The Ascension because we don’t know what to do with it.  Luke’s Gospel and the Book of Acts carry accounts of Jesus’ departure from the Earth.  But that having been said, a lot of people are at a loss to comment further.  It carries a bit of the conservative “The Bible says it.  I believe it. That settles it” approach.  Truly, what else is there to say.  Not many evangelistic messages carry with it an exhortation to “Grab hold of that ol’ Ascension faith.”  It’s hard to say – without a lot of other unpacking – “Jesus ascended, why don’t you?”

But I read a commentary once (and I would never be able to find the reference again, nor identify the source) in which the writer said that The Ascension was the necessary conclusion to the gospel narrative.  We can’t go to Jerusalem today and see Jesus.  A story where the resurrected Jesus disappears after having made a handful of revelations and then the church never hears from him again doesn’t pack a lot of punch.  But if Jesus bodily ascends before witnesses after telling them that he will return, well then, you’ve got yourself a story.  That is not to say that the commentator believes The Ascension to be a fiction.  The position is more that Jesus’ departure in this way is fitting, even appropriate.

Our credal language also offers some insight.  The Apostles’ Creed, for instance, reads in part:

          (Jesus) suffered under Pontius Pilate,

          was crucified, dead and buried;

          the third day he rose from the dead;

          He ascended into heaven

          and sitteth at the right hand of God, the Father Almighty;

          from thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead…

Grammatically, the flow of the creed hinges on the Ascension statement.  All of the language up to that point has been past tense.  But, the consequence of “He ascended into heaven” is that Jesus now sits at the right hand of God.  From that station Jesus’ activity moves into the future: “from thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead.”

With The Ascension we move from past event to present activity to future hope.  From our credal point of view, it is The Ascension that moves our faith from history to present-day reality and coming fulfillment.

So, I hope some of our folks spend some time with this day’s celebration.