The Wesleyan Quadrilateral: Reason

 

The final authority in the Wesleyan Quadrilateral is Reason.  John Wesley and the Methodist movement is very much a product of the Age of Reason. Wesley contended that human beings were given an intellect as a gracious gift of God. God therefore expects us to use our minds, along with our other gifts, in ordering our faith. Remember the words of Mark 12:20, in which Jesus says, 

You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength. 

Jesus here indicates that the mental capacity is as valuable in faith as a person's spiritual ability. True faith is informed by a believer's ability to apply the discipline of reason to religious matters. There appear in news stories from time to time accounts of misguided individuals or groups who have taken an uncritical view of some isolated Scripture passage. They often lift these verses out of their biblical contexts. As a result, they take their interpretation to ludicrous or even dangerous extremes. This all takes place because they don't apply a little common sense — a little reason - -to their practice of faith. 

It is the power to reason which sets us apart from the rest of Creation. It is the ability to reason which marks the passage from immaturity to responsibility. The gift of reason helps human beings to use all the gifts of God in order to help us discern the presence of God.  

The peace of the Lord be with you.

The Wesleyan Quadrilateral: Experience

 

The third side of the Quadrilateral is experience. At first glance, this might appear to be the duplicate of Tradition. In point of fact, though, we use Tradition to talk about that storehouse of faith that belongs to all the Body of Christ Experience refers to the individual's own encounter with God. For there is a sense in which if every other person on the face of the planet shares one set of circumstances, but your situation is different, you are untouched.

In the same way, our heritage understands that each person's unique participation in the faith has validity and authority. Now, that experience will be tried over against the experience of others, or the church as a whole. But, the church claims that every person has it within themselves to make interpretations that are consistent with the individual's understanding of God.

You may remember how John Wesley described his Aldersgate experience in his Journal. It reads in part:

In the evening, I went very unwillingly to a society meeting in Aldersgate-Street, where one was reading Luther's preface to the Epistle to the Romans. About a quarter before nine, while he was describing the change which God works in the heart through faith in Christ, I felt my heart strangely warmed. I felt I did trust in Christ, Christ alone for salvation. And assurance was given me that he had taken away my sins, even mine, and saved me from the law of sin and death.

You find as you further read that Wesley gives his description for a couple of reasons. Of course, he wants to convey to you as reader the nature of his own experience. You know Wesley much better for having read this quite personal account of a very meaningful event in his life. But you also notice that Wesley is very intentional about describing certain aspects of this episode. He is conveying to the reader that much of what happened to him is similar to what others have undergone in their Christ- encounter. You find that it is similarity of occurrence that gives authority to experience.  

When we hear modern-day witnesses give their personal testimonies, there is no doubt that each person’s account is unique.  And yet, while the details differ the structure is often much the same.  It is not quite “ticking off  he boxes.”  But, having  touchstones with our history gives the witness a sense of authenticity.  I have been cynical in these spaces about the position of “it seems to me.”  However, a corporate perception of “it seems to us” can lend credence to an idea.  When enough people are able to say, “that is how I perceived it,” the authority of corporate experience kicks in.  If a report or view is not in step with the corporate experience, that does not necessarily disqualify that  witness, but it does justify further examination.   God is always doing new things.  But if some novelty appears to be far off the beaten track, the collective experience of the church is an important part of the discerning process.

 The peace of the Lord be with you.

The Wesleyan Quadrilateral: Tradition

 

I have been talking recently about the question of Authority in Bible study and in United Methodist thought.  The second leg of the so-called Wesleyan Quadrilateral is Tradition.  Now, I’ll have to admit that whenever I hear the word “tradition” my head fills with the voice of Tevye in Fiddler on the Roof singing that great song Tradition.

Who, day and night, must scramble for a living,
Feed a wife and children, say his daily prayers?
And who has the right, as master of the house,
To have the final word at home?
The Papa, the Papa! Tradition.
The Papa, the Papa! Tradition.

Who must know the way to make a proper home,
A quiet home, a kosher home?
Who must raise the family and run the home,
So, Papa's free to read the holy book?
The Mama, the Mama! Tradition!
The Mama, the Mama! Tradition!

The song carries with it a common perception of tradition.  For many, the term means, “The way we have always done it.”  We have traditions that accompany holidays, birthdays, and vacations.  We eat certain foods, support certain sports teams, drive a particular make of automobile often out of “tradition.”

For the church, Tradition carries a different connotation.  I wrote in an earlier post about Scripture as authority.  Scripture is closed.  We are not going to add any other books to the Bible.  And I seriously doubt that any portion of holy writ will ever be excised.  So, in a sense, scripture is static.  It is unchanging.  It is set.  The church understands Tradition to be the ongoing revelation of God.  As times change, things arise that the Bible simply does not address.

I think all Christian groups would claim to be biblical at their core. But the children of Wesley realize that there are other forces, godly forces, which inform our interpretation of the Bible, or which guide us in our deliberations in those areas where the Bible does not contain explicit instruction. One of those is Tradition. Now, that's  Tradition with a capital "T". This is not talking about going to Grandma's House every Thanksgiving. Tradition is understood in the church as the ongoing revelation of God. Our comprehension is that God did not cease speaking to the church with the close of the Book of Revelation. Rather, God has spoken, inspired, led and revealed the Divine Will to Christians through the ages.

You know that we are part of a Creation that is constantly changing. For example, those of you who were receiving your education over ten years ago, did your vocabulary tests include the word "microchip?" Did your education include the concept of "information superhighway?"  I held a funeral recently for a man who grew up riding a horse-drawn carriage. He can remember the first automobile that ever drove through this county. And he died having seen people walk on the moon. In such a Creation, we desperately need the fresh, ongoing leadership of our God. As God is revealed to the Church rather than to individuals, we call that revelation Tradition. This would include the writings of the Patriarchs of the Church. It would include the work of the great Ecumenical Councils. It would even include, I hope, some of the deliberations of General, Jurisdictional, and Annual Conferences. Now, you might have to look hard to find that in some conference meetings I have seen. But I trust, by the grace of God, that it is there.

Tradition asks the question, "How has the church always viewed this?" We trust that the accumulated knowledge of the church has a kind of validity. Sometimes, that knowledge must change. "The world is flat.'* "The sun revolves around the earth." "Women just aren't called to preach." Errors, some of them of long standing, when exposed, must be addressed by a transformation of Tradition. Another way of saying that is, "We have been inspired by God."

Tradition includes the way we do things. It involves the liturgy of the church, our hymns, and approach to rites of passage and other transitions in our being. Tradition is not the acts themselves. That's tradition with a little "t". Tradition is how the way in  which we do things reflects the revelation of God.

It has been said, somewhat cynically, that the seven last words of the church are "We never did it that way before." We should certainly be cautious about becoming too entrenched in particular behaviors. But we must also remember that there are doctrines that have stood the test of time. Wesley's concept of Tradition keeps us from being swept away by every fad or novelty that comes along. Tradition in the church is the accumulated knowledge and revelation of two thousand years of faith history.  As we appeal to the authority of Tradition, we affirm that God still speaks, leading Kingdom people day by day.

The peace of the Lord be with you.

The Feast of Timothy and Titus

 

 

The church observes January 26 as the Feast of Saints Timothy and Titus.They were long-term companions of Paul who supported him in his southern European Missionary Journey.  Paul’s pastoral epistles to these figures, as well as some of Paul’s other letters and The Acts of the Apostles, provide insight into their work in the church’s early history.

Timothy came from the family of a Christian mother – Eunice – and a Christian Grandmother – Lois.  Acts 16:3 tells of his circumcision.  1 Timothy 1:18, 4:17 and 2 Timothy 1:6 recount his ordination by Paul with the laying on of hands.  He traveled with Paul and was present at the establishing of Churches in Corinth, Thessalonica, and Philippi.  He sometimes served as Paul’s representative in congregations when Paul himself was unable to be present.

Paul had determined that Timothy’s circumcision was necessary for service in the community where Timothy began his ministry.  Paul decided, however, that Titus would not undergo that procedure in a significant withdrawal from Jewish tradition.  We find the entire account in Galatians 2:1-3.  Much of Titus’ work involved collecting the great offering for the Jerusalem church (2 Corinthians 8:16-17).  He was Paul’s designate to deliver Paul’s “painful letter” to the church at Corinth (2 Corinthians 7:6-7).  Paul appointed him bishop of the Church at Crete as we read in Titus 1:4-5.

So today is a day of celebrating and remembering two hard-working servants of the gospel in the church’s early days.  

The Feast of the Conversion of Saint Paul the Apostle

 

On January 25 the church commemorates the conversion of St. Paul the Apostle.  Most Christians are familiar with the bare bones of his story.  He was a Pharisaic Jew, well-educated, a Roman citizen and a zealous defender of his Jewish faith.  Acts 7 tells of how those who were stoning Stephen, the first Christian martyr, placed their coats at the feet of a young man named Saul

Saul procured permission from the Jewish hierarchy to arrest Christians and bring them to Jerusalem for trial.  While pursuing this mission on a trip to Damascus he had an encounter with the risen Christ and became one of the great champions of the Christian faith.  Saul of Tarsus became known as the Christian Apostle Paul after that.  Over the next twenty-plus years he engaged in missionary journeys, established local churches and wrote letters that would become Christian scripture.  He wrote more individual books of the New Testament than any other author.  He was martyred in Rome in about 56 A.D.

So on this day the church remembers how a great opponent of the church became one of its great apologists.  It gives thanks for the several congregations that he founded and nurtured.  It also recognizes the enormous literary contribution he made to the New Testament.  

Paul is an example of how even the staunchest adversary of the faith can become an exemplary believer under the grace of God.  

The peace of the Lord be with you.

The Wesleyan Quadrilateral: Scripture

 

In speaking of authority, John Wesley always began with Scripture.  In due course I will look at his writings concerning the authorities of Tradition, Experience, and Reason.  But Wesley always started with the Bible.  In considering the illustration of the Wesleyan Quadrilateral, it is important to note that this is not an equilateral figure.  The most important, the foundational concept, in the eyes of Wesley is Scripture.  He considered searching the scriptures to be a Means of Grace – one of those gifts of God whereby people are drawn close to the Lord. 

Wesley wrote in his Preface to Standard Sermons:  I want to know one thing the way to heaven; how to land safe on that happy shore. God Himself has condescended to teach the way; for this very end He came from heaven. He hath written it down in a book. O give me that book! At any price, give me the book of God! I have it: here is knowledge enough for me. Let me be "homo unius libri" (a man of one book).

Let me be quick to say that this statement of Wesley’s was one of priority.  Wesley was a learned man, a prolific author himself, and a great reader of books –both classic and contemporary.  His statement above is as if to say, “If I have only one book, let that book my Bible.”   In the style of his day, Wesley’s writings – and his sermons in particular – contain copious scriptural references.  On the matter of authority, Wesley believed that no behavior that could not be proven by scriptural direction was fit conduct for Christian people.

We remember that there are two volumes of writing that United Methodists claim as “Doctrinal Standards.”  The first is The Standard Sermons of John Wesley (sometimes referred to as John Wesley’s Sermons, or John Wesley’s Standard Sermons.)  The second work is lesser known but carries equal weight alongside the Sermons.  That work is John Wesley’s Explanatory Notes on the New Testament  (sometimes referred to as simply Notes.  This is a commentary on the whole New Testament composed by Wesley.  So important were his studies and observations on this part of the Bible that this publication is set forth as what United Methodists believe.

Now, there is obviously a caution to be observed in relation to cherry-picking (plucking a particular verse or portion of a verse in order to support a position), proof-texting (making a statement and then appealing to scripture for backing.  Genuine biblical examination will take a biblical verse or idea and look for life application, rather than taking a position and scraping through Leviticus and Obadiah for justification) or biblical literalism (First, remove the log  from your own eye... – Matthew 7:5). 

For Wesley, and for his spiritual heirs, Square One for Christian thought and discipleship behavior is always asking the question, “What does the Bible say?”  And that doesn’t mean, “What does an isolated verse say?”  Those small, out-of-context readings have been used to defend slavery, anti-Semitism, the oppression of women and a host of other undesirable behaviors.  Literalists who employ such a methodology need to ask themselves, “Have I ever eaten barbeque?  Have I ever worn a garment made of two different fabrics?  Have I ever done any labor on the Sabbath?”  If a person is going to claim some of the Bible literally, they are stuck with the entirety of scripture.  If they are going to claim room for interpretation, then other students of the Bible deserve the same consideration.  People will sometimes ask me, “What is the biblical position on… such-and-such subject?”  My answer is, “Well, you start with ‘In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth…” and you conclude with “The one who testifies to these things says, ‘Surely I am coming soon.’ Amen. Come, Lord Jesus!  The grace of the Lord Jesus be with all the saints. Amen.’ "  It takes a familiarity with all that is in between to make an informed statemen.

The Bible is a complex document.  It cannot be plumbed in a sitting.  Or a lifetime.  But its basic tenets form the foundation of our faith.

The peace of the Lord be with you.

Who says so?

 

 They went to Capernaum; and when the sabbath came, he entered the synagogue and taught. They were astounded at his teaching, for he taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes. Just then there was in their synagogue a man with an unclean spirit, and he cried out, ‘What have you to do with us, Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come to destroy us? I know who you are, the Holy One of God.’ But Jesus rebuked him, saying, ‘Be silent, and come out of him!’ And the unclean spirit, throwing him into convulsions and crying with a loud voice, came out of him. They were all amazed, and they kept on asking one another, ‘What is this? A new teaching—with authority! He commands even the unclean spirits, and they obey him.’ At once his fame began to spread throughout the surrounding region of Galilee.
-- Mark 1:21-28

This reading is the coming Sunday’s gospel lesson (The Fourth Sunday after the Epiphany Year B) according to the Revised Common Lectionary (RCL).  There’s a lot of good stuff here.  But something catches my eye that is only peripheral to this text.  It is in the next-to-last line: They were all amazed, and they kept on asking one another, ‘What is this? A new teaching—with authority!  The idea in question is “authority.”

The matter of authority is important in Christian thought.  It relates to the doctrine of Inspiration, of Ecclesiology, and personal decisions.  In a nutshell, the idea of authority asks the question “Who says so?”  Is it God?  Is it the church?  Is it my neighbor?  Is it what I think?  Really, who says so?

John Wesley dealt with the question a number of times.  His thought was systematized in the 1960s by United Methodist theologian Albert Outler.  Though Wesley never used the term, the scheme of Wesleyan theology that deals with authority is something that Outler coined “The Wesleyan Quadrilateral.”  The four sides of that figure represent Scripture, Tradition, Experience and Reason.  All four are necessary, Wesley argued, in determining the authority of a doctrine or idea.

“Authority” is fast becoming an outdated concept.  So many people appear to be abandoning questions like, “What does the Bible say?” or “What does my church teach?” in favor of the egocentric proclamation “It seems to me.”  How did we get to the place where individuals believe that they know all – or all they need to know – in consideration of very important ideas?  These ideas lead to behaviors.   Behaviors define individuals.  “Who says so?” is a vital question to be asked – and answered.

In soon-to-be-published posts, I will consider each of these authoritative ideas of Wesley’s and how they are still a good place to start in our deliberations.

I've Got a Secret

The Revised Common Lectionary (RCL), this year concentrates its attention on the gospel readings from the Book of Mark.  There are several themes and devices that we find in Mark more than in any other gospel.  For example, the word “immediately” occurs in this gospel 41 times.  There is a sense of urgency as Jesus moves from place to place.

Another idea unique to this gospel is how Jesus will perform a mighty act or issue some marvelous revelation and then caution those who are present not to tell anyone about it.  That seems counter to what we think about in terms of witnessing or testimony.  You would think that as Jesus moves about and does these marvelous things that he would want the report – the good news – to be spread to as many people as possible.  But Jesus taught counter to this.  In biblical studies scholars call this idea “the Messianic Secret.”  The concept has evolved since it was first put forth in 1901.  But at its core the concept carries with it the notion that Jesus does not want news about him to spread because he is a miracle-worker.  He rejects the idea that everyone will think of him as a sideshow or as a short-cut to healing and feeding.    Jesus ever desires that people come to him not in search of personal gain, but in a quest for spiritual truth and the knowledge of God.

Sadly, some who have not spent a lot of time with this gospel try to explain Jesus’ attitude as a kind of “reverse psychology.”  Their position is that if Jesus tells them not to do something, their human nature dictates that they go and do it.  There are certainly instances of this behavior occurring – Mark 7:36 and 8:30 being examples.  But there is never a report of this psychological mumbo-jumbo being at the heart of Christ’s motivation.  Jesus’ miracle-workings grow out of his being the Christ of God.  But miracle-worker is not who Jesus is.  Jesus’ task is never to serve the desires of people.  It is to point the way to God.

Two thousand years later some folks still haven’t learned this lesson.  They view Jesus as a leveler of scores and a provider of wants.  They speak of Jesus as a nationalistic Christ who favors one nation over another, or who elevates a particular ideology over the rest.  “Personal Lord and Savior” gets corrupted into “supporter of what I think.”

Mark’s Gospel concerns itself with answering the question, “Who is Jesus?”  Is he the Christ?  Yes.  Is he the Son of God?  Yes.  Is he the deliverer of humankind?  You bet.  Is Jesus one whose mission is to be exclusive and to favor only a few of those whom God created?

Not so much.

The Name Game

 

In the gospel reading for this past Sunday, John 1:43-51, Jesus called Phillip to follow him.  Phillip, in turn, found a friend – Nathaniel – and told him, “We have found him about whom Moses in the law and also the prophets wrote…”  When the two came to Jesus, the Lord said, “Here is truly an Israelite in whom there is no deceit!” Nathanael asked him, ‘Where did you come to know me?’ Jesus answered, ‘I saw you under the fig tree before Philip called you.’ Nathanael replied, ‘Rabbi, you are the Son of God! You are the King of Israel!’

We are accustomed to the “call stories” of Peter & Andrew and James & John.  Jesus is on the shore of the Sea of Galilee and calls these fishers and calls them, saying, “Follow me and I will make you fishers of people.”   The account in John of the summons of Phillip and Nathaniel are a bit less familiar to most of us.  I’ll talk about “call” and “response” in another post.  The thing that interests me in this moment is the number of titles for Jesus that this small reading contains.  In the nine verses of John 1:43-51 we have no less than five different titles referring to Jesus, not including his name.  Phillip calls him “(the one) about whom Moses in the law and also the prophets wrote.”  Nathaniel uses the terms “rabbi,” “Son of God,” and “King of Israel.”  Jesus himself makes reference to himself as “the Son of Man.”

That’s a pretty heavy menu of designations.  It is important to note that no one description takes in the entirety of who Jesus is or what it is that Jesus does.  But, these (and others) overlap and interlock and eventually they give us a complete picture of who Jesus is.  We can certainly add others: “Lord,” “Savior,” “Master,” “Redeemer,” “King of kings,” “Lord of lords.”  The list is practically endless.  Together these show the extraordinary nature of Jesus of Nazareth.  We might be more comfortable with some of these terms than with others.  But, somewhere in the roster of titles we find that one designation that describes our own touchstone with Christ.  It might be helpful for us to explore them all.

The peace of the Lord be with you.

The Confession of St. Peter

The Christian calendar observes the Confession of St. Peter on January 18.  Matthew, Mark and Luke each report (with varying degrees of detail) the time in which Jesus asks his disciples what the crowds are saying about him.  He then asks the disciples themselves about their opinion.  At that point Peter makes his Confession – his affirmation – of the Messiahship of Jesus.  The synoptics variously report Peter’s words as:

Matthew 16:13-20 -- “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”
Mark 8:27–30 -- “You are the Messiah.”
Luke 9:18–20 -- “The Messiah of God.”

It is Matthew alone who reports Jesus’ response, both in terms of revelation and in passing Kingdom responsibility along to Peter.  But for all of the synoptic writers this is clearly a watershed moment not only for Peter, but for the church as well.

In modern times The Confession of Peter has been related to The Week of Prayer for Christian Unity.  The Faith and Order Movement of the World Council of Churches and the Anglican Friars of the Atonement have each advocated a time of uniting prayer since the early 20th century.  The week has moved around the calendar a bit, but the church now designates the week as taking place January 18 – 25.

 Peter’s profession is that of all Christians.  No matter what their views on other ideas and doctrines great and small, it is the affirmation, “(Jesus is) the Christ,” that gathers Christian believers together.

Of Psalms, Hymns and Spiritual Songs

I had a conversation with a pastor friend the other day in which my friend spoke of a couple in her congregation that had ceased to attend worship in that church.  Upon contact they told the pastor that they were attending another church, and that the reason was that this other group sang “the old songs” in worship.

 My discussion with this pastor speculated on some of the possible reasons why these folks had chosen an alternative to their long-time fellowship.  One is as likely as the other, and we’ll never know for sure.  But for the moment I am going to take this couple at their w

At first glance it seems a small thing.  How many songs/hymns does the average congregation sing in a weekly worship service?  Three?  Four?  Factor in an anthem, maybe a choral introit, a prelude, a postlude and an offertory and the musical opportunities do begin to stack up.  But truth be known, I don’t think I have ever heard anyone say, “Well I just got tired of the constant new music during the offering and I decided to go somewhere else!”  So, what is at issue is three, maybe four singing events per week.

 It is easy to dismiss such a small percentage of all the goings-on in worship.  But in many worship orders the singing is one of the few opportunities for congregational participation that Sunday morning offers.  Some churches may include a unison Affirmation of Faith.  Many pray The Lord’s Prayer together.  We ask the folks in the pew to put money in the plate when we take up the Offering.  But a given congregation may not do all these things every week.  Other participatory acts may be infrequent at best.

So, hymn-singing is one of only a handful of non-passive elements in many of our churches.  If the few chances for people to join in are made up of the unfamiliar or the uncomfortable, it is a fair criticism to say, “I am more comfortable somewhere else.”  This would be especially true, I think, in a setting where the change in music had been abrupt.

Music often touches the heart in a way that prose cannot.  I am not speaking of mere “feel good” moments.  Music is evocative.  It can transport us to times and places from which we are far removed.  I remarked in a sermon recently that people can think of times when they have buried loved ones more than fifty years ago.  They can’t quote a single verse of scripture from that day, nor do they remember any word that was spoken.  But often they recollect every piece of music that was played or sung.

Church music is one of those “all things to all people” topics.  It is difficult to include A Mighty Fortress is our God and Bringing in the Sheaves in the same service.  But in a time of fragile balance, most of the churches of which I am aware could benefit from being more intentional in their consideration of their music.

I hope my friend’s folks come back.

Crossing the Rubicon

It was on this day in 49 B.C. that Julius Caesar and his XIII legion crossed Rubicon River, an act of insurrection that initiated the Roman Civil War.  Caesar had concluded his governorship in Gaul, and was returning to Rome.  The Rubicon River marked the northeastern boundary between Cisalpine Gaul and Italy.  It was illegal for a general to come into Italy with his army.  Caesar's act forced the Roman consuls and many members of the Roman Senate to seek safety outside the city.  Caesar would eventually become "dictator for life" as a result of these actions.

Caesar is reported to have said "alea iacta est " (the die is cast) at the time of his crossing.  He recognized that, having crossed the river illegally, that there was no retracting his action.  Thus, "crossing the Rubicon" is idiomatic for passing a point of no return.

My late grandfather was a gospel singer.  One of his favorites was "I Have Decided (To Follow Jesus)" which was written about 150 years ago by Simon Marak.  With some variations, the lyric is:

I have decided to follow Jesus
I have decided to follow Jesus
I have decided to follow Jesus
No turning back, no turning back


Though none go with me, I still will follow
Though none go with me, I still will follow
Though none go with me, I still will follow
No turning back, no turning back


My cross I'll carry, till I see Jesus
My cross I'll carry till I see Jesus
My cross I'll carry till I see Jesus
No turning back, no turning back


The world behind me, the cross before me
The world behind me, the cross before me
The world behind me, the cross before me
No turning back, no turning back

This is a gospel song of conviction.  It is not a sweeping theological statement that covers the entirety of the faith.  I understand that the world has a lot of what we might call "backsliders."  But for this writer, for this singer, coming to faith is a crossing of the Rubicon.  For all its consequences, the writer himself has charted his course.  And there's no turning back.

The peace of the Lord be with you.

A Living, Breathing Bible

In our church Bible studies this week, we looked at John 8:1-10, which chronicles the story of the woman apprehended "in the very act of adultery."  I'm not going to spend time today dealing with the various curiosities within this pericope.  But I want to make an observation about the entirety of the the narrative.   

That observation is that these verses appear in a variety of formats in the several English translations that I consult.  Some versions have these verses in brackets [ ].  Others present the story in italics.  Some have verses 1-2o in a smaller font.   Yet others omit the reading from the body of the text altogether and include it as a long footnote.  In each case, there is a footnote that says something like "these verses are not contained in the oldest manuscripts" or "some ancient authorities omit these verses."

When these notes are pointed out, that observation confuses some people, and even threatens a few.  Many church folks understand scripture to be static, being written in a particular place and a specific time, then being preserved unchanged forever.  Even a brief look at much of the Old Testament and the New Testament demonstrate that this is just not the case.

I am kind of heartened by such an example.  The idea that scripture has an aspect of being a living, breathing, adapting thing helps accentuate its relevance to me.  It has the exact opposite effect than being threatening or confusing or faith-opposing.

So, thank you, biblical translators, for presenting the content and the intent of The Word of God.

The peace of the Lord be with you.

Chalking of the Doors

There is a charming seasonal custom that dates back into the history of the church that is known as “The Chalking of the Door.”  It has its roots in a time before there were any concerns of denominationalism, and so it was simply a practice of “the church.”  Modern-day Catholicism continues this practice, but it also has adherents in other communions as well.

It is, at root, a house blessing.  With chalk (symbolizing a common, ordinary substance and being a material that does no lasting damage to the door) the participants mark a series of symbols on the door.  This year the markings would look something like “20 † C † M † B † 24.”  The numerals are the first and last pairs of numbers that together mark the current year (2024).  The crosses are an invocation of Christian blessing.  The letters C M B indicate two things.  They are the first letters of the traditional names of the Wise Men from the East who visited the Baby Jesus in Matthew 2:1-12 (Caspar, Melchior and Balthazzar).

The letters are also the initials for the phrase Christus mansionem benedicat, which means, “May Christ bless this house.”  These blessings are part of a simple ritual that includes seasonal hymns or carols and a responsive or antiphonal invocation.  The blessing frequently includes reference to the Wise Men visiting the house of Jesus, Mary and Joseph, paying homage and offering gifts.  This accounts for the practice of annually blessing homes on or near the Day of Epiphany.

So, for all of us, in 2024 may Christ bless our houses.

Ordinary Time

Today is the first day following the Feast of the Baptism of the Lord.  As such (by most reckonings) it was the first day of Ordinary Time.  This is the liturgical season that begins immediately following the Baptism feast and it runs through Shrove Tuesday, or the day before Ash Wednesday (March 6 in 2019).

The church calls this time after The Epiphany Ordinary Time.  (I addressed those unusual days between Epiphany and The Baptism in a post dated January 11.)  This period gets its name from the way that we number the days during this time.  We do not designate this stretch ordinary because we label this time as somehow common or dull.  Rather, the church employs this designation because of the nature of the numbering of these days.  Instead of using cardinal numbers (one, two, three) it utilizes ordinal numbers (first, second, third).  So, we call this coming Sunday, February 20, The Second Sunday After The Epiphany.

Because Ash Wednesday is a moveable feast (an observance that does not occur on the same date each year), ordinary time will be of varying duration from year to year.  Ash Wednesday can fall anywhere between February 4 and March 10, though the two extremes of the range are very rare.  The last time Ash Wednesday was on February 4 was 1818 and will next occur in 2285.  The most recent time Ash Wednesday fell on March 10 was in 1943 and will next occur in 2038.  So, the duration of ordinary time is between four and nine weeks.  In the modern liturgical usage, the first Sunday in Ordinary Time is The Feast of the Baptism of the Lord and the last Sunday is The Feast of the Transfiguration.  Obviously, there are two more days in the season before Lent begins on Ash Wednesday.

Ordinary time carries with it emphases on mission (begun with the narrative of the Wise Men visiting the infant Jesus) and spiritual growth.  The liturgical colors of the season are white (for the feast days) and green (signifying new, eternal and abundant life) for the rest of the season.  The New Revised Common Lectionary (NRCL) offers gospel texts that reveal the nature of Jesus Christ (in keeping with the Epiphany theme).  The epistle readings address the topics of spiritual gifts and the character of the church (in an examination of spiritual growth).

We can be deceived by looking over our shoulders at Christmas and ahead to Easter so that we think that ordinary time is a “down time,” a respite between major occurrences where nothing of significance takes place.  But it can be an extraordinary time, where the church addresses some of its most formative ideas.

What a great time.

The Feast of The Baptism of the Lord

You would think that this Feast Day would be straightforward.  Jesus goes to the Jordan.  John baptizes him (with or without a lot of dialog, depending on which gospel account you are reading), the heavens open, the Holy Spirit descends in (some sort of) bodily form and a voice speaks.  It is the inauguration of Jesus’ public ministry.  Celebrate!  Give thanks!  End of story.

And yet, almost from the very beginning there were teachers who were proclaiming Christian baptism in the exact same terms as the baptism offered by John.  Their call was to John’s baptism, not that of Jesus and the church.  There are people within the larger church who do this same thing today.  They use John language to talk about what they call Christian baptism.

But what was John’s proclamation?  “Repent!  Renounce your sins!  Make way for the coming of the Lord.  Prepare yourselves for the Messiah, the Christ, the one who will save you from your sins.”  Let’s be clear: “get ready” is not the same thing as “Have faith.”  There are those who claim that their belief system can trace its lineage all the way back to John the Baptist.  They say that with pride.  I don’t get it.  What has John done for them lately?  John’s baptism?  You can have it I say.  John didn’t save You.  You are not John’s disciple.  Nowhere in scripture do you hear a call to proclaim, “John the Baptist is Lord!”  Why then would you want to embrace John’s baptism?

It is true that the larger church has muddled the significance of this Sacrament through the years.  To this day there is no uniformity of opinion as to what the Rite means.  Some communions see baptism as a literal washing away of the stain of sin.  Others see it as an act of professing faith in making ready to join the church universal or a particular congregation.  This is what is meant by “believer’s baptism.”  Some congregations won't even recognize  the baptism performed by other congregations within their fellowship.  The idea is, "If we haven't baptized you, then no one has baptized you!" 

The United Methodist Church (and others) define baptism as an initiation into the Body of Christ and a claiming of the individual into the family of God.  Again, like many other groups the United Methodist Church practices the baptism of infants, with parents or sponsors taking the vows on behalf of the candidate until such time as the individual can affirm those promises for themselves.

I have a book in my library with the provocative title Baptism: The Water that Divides by Donald Bridge.  The work itself is a bit murky, but what a great title!  That which designs to unite believers is in fact one of the great points of contention within the church.  For something that Christ commanded, and that the church has normatively required from its beginnings, there is no consensus among the major faith groups as to what this means at all.

I won’t enter the discussion about the amount of water that constitutes baptism.  I leave that issue grieving that people will split families and even congregations over what amounts to a measuring cup.

So, owning that this action of the church has no foreseeable resolution, I simply commend the day as an extraordinary one in the life and ministry of The Lord Jesus. It is worthy of our notice and our commemoration.  There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to the one hope of your calling, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is above all and through all and in all. –Ephesians 4:4-6

Lord, haste the day…