Wednesday, February 26, 2003
My roomate and I are getting set to teach a Sunday School class, thirteen weeks in total, entitled An Introduction to the Study of the Synoptic Gospels. One of the lessons will be on the identity of Jesus of Nazareth. As you look at what the Gospel writers do in identifying just who Jesus is, you see Jesus as identified with YHWH, Israel's God and Jesus as identified as Israel personified. Jesus lived out and recapitulates the narrative of Israel's history (it is in Jesus upon whom the end of the ages fell) and Jesus lived out the narrative of Israel's hope in YHWH, Israel's God, bringing God's deliverance (Kingdom of God) to Israel (new age/recreation), thus Jesus of Nazareth is at once both Israel's King, and Israel's Lord, and by consequence this Good News for Israel is Good News for the Gentiles. These thoughts are brought home by scholars Richard Bauckham (Divine Identity) and Tom Wright (Idenity of Israel personifed). I just find thinking about these things to drive me to my knees in awe at what the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ has done in and through Him, in the power of the Holy Spirit.
posted by Tom 9:38 PM | Discuss |
Saturday, February 22, 2003
One of the most fascinating aspects of the discussion about Norman Shepherd, as well as the comments made against Mark, Steve Wilkins, and others about them teaching or even coming close to heresy for their teaching, is that these claims are being made by some alligned with an eclessiastical communion that have standing juridical courts that are to make those decisions. For Dr. Pipa (whom I know from my Greenville days) to call a fellow PCA Pastor a heretic or make the claim that his teaching is heretical without going through the proper channels of Presbtyery and General Assembly is a violation of the Standards of the PCA. PCA ministers and officers are duty bound to follow the Book of Church Order in these matters. The charge of heresy must never be used flippantly or without a heavy heart. It must never be used as an ad hominem, as debating tactic to try to catch someone off guard. I don't mean to be a bore by bringing up the standards but to those who are ministers in the PCA, they are very important. The Book of Church Order requires, that a process against a minister of the Gospel shall be entered before the Presbytery of which he is a member. If the Presbytery of which he is a member refuses to act in the matter, other Presbyteries may request the General Assembly to assume original juridstiction and the Assembly shall do so (Chapter 34.1). As no minister ought, on account of his office, to be screened in his sin or slightly censured, so scandalous charges ought to not to be received against him on slight grounds(Chapter 34.2). Heresy and schism may be of such a nature as to warrant deposition; but errors ought to be carefully considered...(Chapter 34.5). By the way, the OPC another denomination in the tradition of the PCA also has courts to ajudicate these matters and Norman Shepherd was cleared by that court. All I can say is this; not one time have I seen Mark or Steve call anyone a heretic and not one time have they implied or impugned the doctrinal character of a fellow brother in our Lord Jesus Christ. I ask, as one who desires to someday become a member of the PCA as a minister of Word and Sacrament, that those bound to the standards of the Church follow its procedures.
posted by Tom 3:54 PM | Discuss |
Wednesday, February 19, 2003
I have been thinking about the concept of regeneration. We so often think of it purely in some individualistic concept. I have checked my various systematic theologies and have not found "regeneration" under any eschatological scheme. Regeneration, however, is an eschatological act on the part of God that is anticipatory of the cosmic regeneration of all things, the new heavens and the new earth. We, the regenerated people of God, are the firstfruits of God's redeemed universe. The Jewish tradition, according to the Jewish Encyclopedia, saw the regeneration of all things as being tied to Israel. When YHWH would act for Israel and through Israel (Messianic imagery) He would bring about the regeneration of all things. The Rabbi's used Hosea 6:2 as evidence, which says, "After two days He will revive us; on the third day He will raise us up, that we may live before Him." Hosea speaking as Israel exhorts the people to come and return to the Lord. Before the return, however, it says Israel will need to revived (i.e. returned from exile because they are in exile) but on the third day they will be raised up (resurrected from exile, exodus language of return) that they may live before Him (in the presence of YHWH ie. the blessing imagery, the face of the LORD shining on Israel, when YHWH presence was upon Israel, Israel was not in exile but free). The language of being revived and then raised up on the third day sounds awfully familiar to a 1st century Jewish Man from the back waters of Galilee saying, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." Jesus' words must have made those questioners want to kill him. An attack on the Temple was an attack on God and yet Jesus is essentially saying that that Temple must go, for He is the Temple, the true embodiment of YHWH but before the Temple in Jerusalem goes to destruction, Jesus the true Temple must go to destruction but unlike that Temple in Jerusalem which will lay in ruins, His Temple will be raised up in three days. Hosea says that Israel will then live before God. Who has gone before us in ascenscion and lives before God? None other than Jesus of Nazareth who forever is exalted at the right hand of God, ever living to make intercession for us (temple language). These thoughts fill me with awesome wonder as I marvel at the depths and the riches of our God, who was faithful to His promise to overturn the sin of Adam, through the life, death (exile), burial and resurrection (exodus) of Jesus.
posted by Tom 10:14 PM | Discuss |
Sunday, February 16, 2003
I am reading a great book by Jacob Neusner on Judaism in the time of early Christianity, Judaism when Christianity Began WJK 2002 Neusner writes that all the various forms of Judaism in the 2nd Temple period saw Israel as the answer to Adam. The literature of the day all points to the fact that they saw themselves as God's answer to undo what Adam had done. They were the people in whom God would usher in the return from Exile. I find that fascinating as I think of what the Apostle Paul wrote in Romans 5 when he contrasts Adam and Christ. Paul's Adam-Christology is not some curve ball in the plan of redemption but in line with Jewish conceptions. Paul, most likely a Shammiate Pharisee, trained in that tradition would know of this teaching. Paul appears to be drawing on such teaching when he makes the Adam/ Christ comparison. Paul is saying, "Yes, Israel is the answer to Adam, and yes God has fulfilled His promises to our fathers. God has acted through Israel and on behalf of Israel in His Messiah, who is Jesus of Nazareth." That is why, it seems, Paul writes Romans 10 when he says that the Jewish people have a zeal for God but not according to knowledge because they have not recognized that her history devolved and fell into the lap of her Messiah, who was God's annointed representative to bear the burden of Israel and yes the world onto Himself. I really wish that at Seminary, especially with all the work that now exists on 2nd Temple Judiaism, we studied the theological world of Judiaism especially as it pertains to the time of Our Lord Jesus who lived within that world.
posted by Tom 9:22 PM | Discuss |
Friday, February 14, 2003
I am just sitting working on stuff for seminary. The classes began this week and I am taking 16 credits of which only 3 are hard and that is Hebrew 2 (I get the sweats about languages). Seminary is interesting. I have been to two, as well as attending Moody Bible Institute. Seminary is so vo-tech has so much "emphasis" on the "practical" that quite frankly it is boring. Aside from a couple of classes, you do not get beyond what the theologically interested laymen knows. Its like doing an RC Sproul tape series except you have to take a test and do a paper. If you have any theological love, and a passion to read books about theology and doctrine, if you have a desire to discuss and dialogue about the most devastating truth to burst upon the world, namely the Gospel of God concerning His Son, in the power of the Holy Spirit, you will feel left out at your average garden variety seminary, in terms of learning more and more and discussing the theology that you have been reading on your own. It is pedantic, painfully so. Classes are redundant. I have taken a five points of Calvinism class (now I understand that some seminarians need to be exposed to it maybe having not heard of them or taught them) but why not give the student who knows them and can articulate them the chance to test out? Can anyone say MONEY! I know people will accuse me of cynicism but is it really cynicism or fact? I am taking a Pastoral Ministry class that is virtually identical with my Pastoral Counseling class, a Christian life in the modern world class, that is virtually the same as the Christian in the world class I have to take, a principles of discipleship class that is identical with the Christian education in the Church class I am taking. I feel like Bill Murray in Ground Hog's Day (no exaggeration LOL). The Evangelism class I am taking is for all intents and purposes the same as the class I took at Moody (even the same books Hybels and Middleburg on Being a Contagious Christian and Packer's Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God). The Missions class I took at Moody looks awfully familiar here in seminary, yes the reading is practically the same, Ruth Tucker's from Jerusalem to Irian Jaya to a life of William Carey, Judson, Livingstone, Hudson Taylor. Again I understand that there are seminarians who have never been exposed to this stuff but can't those who have taken such classes get credit for them? You see the crediting agency for seminaries is ATS and they allow seminaries to take up to 10% of their students without an undergraduate degree. The problem lies not with them but with many seminaries desire to give the appearance that they are offering a "bona fide" Master's level education so they can put on brouchures that they are accredited by the "secular" world so you have seminaries who want accredidation from such and such regional body, I gather it looks good even if the substance is about as deep as a puddle. The problem is these accrediting agencies do not understand the culture and purpose of the seminary. If anyone at an ATS accredited seminary wanted to pursue further academic work, they will be able to do so without the other accrediting agency, so as long as the degree is in line with their masters work. If I ever have the privilege of getting married and having children and a son of mine wants to go to say a Moody Bible Institute (which by the way offers an excellent well rounded program) I would ask him if he is considering seminary and let him know that seminary will become awfully boring for him if he attends Moody because his basic Bible work would not carry over. Anyway, I know I sound like a whiner but it is frustrating especially when you actually attend churches and hear sermons over and over again in a denomination that is confessionally Reformed, that center around three steps to humility, what is your new name, services that included the salute to the American flag and messages on patriotism, prayers that thank the Father for dying on the cross, and you sit in class and hear stuff that a decent Sunday school lesson could offer you, and you wonder what exactly is the purpose of seminary!!!
Now that I got that off my chest, I can go back to writing my papers LOL.
posted by Tom 1:02 PM | Discuss |
Wednesday, February 05, 2003
I am posting a paper that I just finished on Ruth. The paper's main thrust is to show that the story of Ruth is not a story about three characters who do good things but a story of Israel's God, Yahweh, and His redemption. It is easy to treat the biblical characters in a manner much like Aesop's fables and thus easy to get the proverbial timeless truths. I would appreciate feedback on the paper, if any. The footnotes are not included because I am clueless on how to copy and paste them.
Thesis
The story of Ruth presents a narrative of Yahweh who acts redemptively.
Approach of the paper
The paper will point out five considerations as to why the story of Ruth should be viewed as a narrative about Yahweh who acts redemptively. In brief the five points are as follows:
• An injustice is done to the portrayal of the individual characters if the story is viewed as an exemplary foil for their moral qualities.
• The OT en mass has an underlying meta-narrative of God's redemption in which it makes sense to look at the individual narratives through that paradigm.
• The form of the entire story of Ruth evokes the imagery of God's paradigmatic act of redemption: the exodus.
• Every petition made by the main characters invokes Yahweh, is redemptive in nature, and is granted.
• The story of Ruth is framed by a divine inclusio that places the entire narrative within the paradigm of a narrative of God's redemption.
Injustice is done to the portrayal of the individual characters if the story is viewed as an exemplary foil for their moral qualities.
The first point as to why one should view Ruth as a story about Yahweh, who acts redemptively, is because the alternative of looking to the story as an exemplary foil does such injustice to the narrative portrayal of its characters.
The story of Ruth is arguably one of the best structured narratives in all the OT. As a story it is carefully knit and its composition is tightly and exceptionally controlled. The story is approximately five pages long in most bibles which makes it sufficiently brief to easily read but amply full enough to allow for a considerable amount of literary packaging. The author is undeniably skilled at employing a variety of techniques including suspense, dialogue, characterization, repetition, ambiguity, wordplays, and inclusio to produce a most impressive work of art. One ought not to be surprised to find, upon exegetical inspection, a certain level of complexity and texture involved in how the scenes are presented and a variegated and multifaceted spectrum of how the characters are portrayed. Thus, if one grants that the story has all the telltale signs of creative and intricate packaging, then we should be willing to see a certain level of roundedness and complexity to its character portrayal as well.
To view the main characters as uncomplicated flat presentations of a simple form of godliness and unquestionable moral integrity is to give rather ‘thin interpretations' to the characters. If someone comes to the story of Ruth presuming that this or that character will always act in certain predictable ways then we can safely assume that they are perilously close to not seriously appreciating the story on its on terms and the literary complexities and packaging it contains. Therefore, when one tries to ascertain overarching themes within the story they should be leery of approaches which settle upon flat or simplistic character presentation.
Each of the three main characters are, in my opinion, presented as having variegated and complicating elements to their persona. The character portrayal of each of the primary characters is, in its general portrayal, undoubtedly quite positive, however; each of them have aspects to their presentation that rounds their portrayal out in more complex and nuanced directions also.
• Boaz. The kindly, pious, altruistic, and paternal Boaz demonstrates virtually no interest in his familial responsibilities to Naomi prior to Ruth's nighttime visit. Nor are we ever told why he has not volunteered his help earlier in the narrative. Why does he offer to redeem Naomi's land only after it has been tied to Ruth in connection to marriage?
• Naomi. The loving and motherly Naomi nearly renders Ruth invisible and inconsequential at the end of chapter 1 when she bemoans that she is empty. What are we to make of Naomi's values if she desperately tries to dissuade Ruth, along with Orpah, from following her into the land of Israel's God? Is not Naomi's scheme, involving Ruth in the highly suggestive nighttime encounter, suspect? Also, Naomi is not merely content to lament and grieve about her situation; she claims that her impoverished situation is the way it is because the Almighty has acted against her.
• Ruth. The fiercely loyal Ruth who places herself in a bond of solidarity with Naomi acts contrary to the instructions Naomi gave to her for her nighttime visit with Boaz. Ruth was, according to Naomi, to take her lead from Boaz but instead takes matters into her own hands. In a scene in which the narration is filled with numerous provocative double entendres Ruth refuses to wait for Boaz to tell her what he wants. Ruth, in contradistinction to the instructions she was given, takes control of the situation by making it exceedingly clear that she is interested in marriage and entices Boaz to take her as his wife.
I am, therefore, of the opinion that any reading of the story of Ruth which places its primary understanding of the text as a story of the moral constitution of the human characters is misguided and implicitly denies the literary skill of its author and the depth, roundedness and complexity of its character portrayal. An understanding of the story of Ruth as a foil of the morality of its characters is fundamentally flawed. Thus, a considerable injustice is done to the portrayal of the individual characters if the story is viewed in such an exemplary manner which, in turn, ought to point the interpreter in another direction when looking for an overarching purpose concerning what the story is concerned about.
The OT en mass has an underlying meta-narrative of God's redemption in which it makes sense to look at the individual narratives through that paradigm.
The second point, as to why one should view Ruth as a story about Yahweh, is because of how well such an understanding fits the underlying meta-narrative discernable in the OT en mass.
It has been claimed by many that there exists an underlying unity throughout the Scriptures. A fundamental means by which the OT scriptures demonstrate an underlying unity is in the way the various stories in their multifaceted ways retell or comment upon a single fundamental story about Israel's God, the condition of the world, and Israel's place as God's people within that world which I would summarize as follows:
The God of Israel was the creator of the universe. That creation suffered from the infection of evil and death. God promised that he would at some future time destroy evil and death, deliver his people and do so through the auspices of Israel.
The narrative unfolding of this redemptive story-line can easily enough be mapped out in its broad contours. The beginning of the redemptive meta-narrative has the call of the patriarchs set against the backdrop of creation and the fall. Abraham, is thus, seen as an answer to the problem posed by Adam. The subsequent descent of the Jews into Egypt is, likewise, set against the dramatic rescue under Moses' leadership to form another climax of the story line of fall and redemption. Neither of these stories of the rescue of God's people in the form of an exodus from their fallen conditions proved to be sufficient to complete the story. Instead, these exodus stories would pose a puzzle that would fuel the creative imagination of many Jewish people to come: why if God had rescued his people and placed them in their own land, how was it that everything was not apparently right with the world.
Now, if this perspective of the OT en mass is on target, then one would naturally suspect that the story of Ruth, in part or whole, could be mapped out within that unfolding meta-narrative. This is, in fact, exactly what one discovers upon an analysis of the details of the text. The literary evidence suggests, at least to some extent, that the author of Ruth encouraged his readership to place the contents of the story within a larger paradigm. The narrator of the story of Ruth explicitly places the events of that story as a redemptive-historical bridge between the time of the Judges and the Davidic monarchy.
Two of the temporal indicators within the text which are significant regarding this historical-redemptive perspective are the opening and closing of the story:
In the days when the Judges ruled (1:1)
Now these are the descendants of Perez: Perez became the father of Hezron, Hezron of Ram, Ram of Amminadab, Amminadab of Nahshon, Nahshon of Salmon, Salmon of Boaz, Boaz of Obed, Obed of Jesse, and Jesse of David. (4:18-22)
The first of these temporal indicators places the story within a particular era of Israel's history. Viewed exclusively from a temporal perspective, the era is so broad as to render it as a near indefinite segment of time making it akin to: once upon a time. If, however, the author of Ruth understood the era primarily through the textual embodiment of the era within the canonical work Judges, then, the era was understood not as a vacuous time ranging from Joshua through Saul, but instead, as an era loaded with significant theological freight. This era was full of frightful social and religious chaos, marred by repeated bloody battles and internal instability. The warp and woof of the era was one of recurring disobedience to God's covenant stipulations and struggles as to how Israel would live out its vocation as the people of Yahweh within the promised land. Thus, if the author of Ruth is taking his cue about the era of the Judges from the canonical work, by that same name, then one can be relatively confident that the opening line should be understood as more of a theologically freighted evaluation of the times, than just a mere temporal or chronological indicator.
The second temporal indicator of note, as stated above, is at the story's end and provides the narrative its conclusion. It seems clear enough that the genealogy compliments the theologically fraught temporal introduction. The birth of Obed obviously functions to reverse the immediate misfortunes of Naomi's family but, a conclusion in the form of a genealogy, points to something larger being at issue. The genealogy serves to point the contents of the story toward to another era; the Davidic monarchy. The genealogy sets the story in a broader context than just the immediate family of Naomi and Elimelech to also include the embodiment of the entire nation; King David. Thus the book of Ruth is spliced into the thread of redemptive history at both ends, by the way it begins and by the way it concludes.
Thus, the story of Ruth does not merely bridge the time of the Judges to the monarchy chronologically but, more importantly, it bridges the era theologically. Just as Abraham was an answer to Adam, Moses an answer to Egypt, David is here understood as an answer to the Judges. David and his monarchy would be a new Abraham, a new Moses, in that it would provide a solution to the problem that the world experienced in Adam, in Egypt and also in the era of the Judges.
The form of the entire story of Ruth evokes the imagery of God's paradigmatic act of redemption: the Exodus.
The third point as to why one should view Ruth as a story about Yahweh, who acts redemptively, is because the form of the entire story evokes Yahweh's paradigmatic act of redemption: the exodus.
Yahweh's redemptive activities, for the majority of the story, focuses on the deliverance of Elimelech's family from the mundane yet real need for food, land, and a linage. The form in which this story takes follows the exile/exodus plot motif. Exile/exodus was the quintessential motif used to present how Yahweh had acted redemptively in the past and served also as the crucial backdrop for how Yahweh was expected to act in Israel's future.
The typical Hebrew convention of using exile/exodus motifs when telling of his redemptive activities may be seen in the opening scenes of story of Ruth. Three feature make this particularly noticeable: the use of return language, the use of a famine to progress the story, and Yahweh sustaining his people in a foreign land.
In the first chapter of Ruth the repeated use of the verbs return (Vv. 6,10,15,22), turn back (Vv. 11,12,16), go/gone back (Vv. 7,8,15) all point to the imagery of a return from exile. The approximately four hundred instances of the term return in the OT signal the importance of this motif in the Bible. That the narrator goes out of his way to state that Ruth returns to Bethlehem alerting the reader to understand the term in the larger context of exile/exodus.
The story also reports how famine, one of the worst menacing scourges known to human existence, threatens the family of Elimelech with death and extinction. Indeed, death does overtake Elimelech and his two sons which leaves the further continuation of Elimelech s family a virtual impossibility without some kind of redemptive intervention on his behalf. Yahweh is, in fact, presented as providing just this sort of redemption. Yahweh's redemption of this family is advanced with a famine, thus, evoking the multiple of other stories in which God furthered his redemptive plans with famine.
The story also promotes an exile/exodus motif as it places the family of Elimelech in the foreign land of Moab (1:1-2). Yahweh is thus presented as further advancing his plans for the family of Elimelech by evoking the myriad of stories in which God furthers his redemptive plans by safe-housing his people in a foreign land. This may be seen, in particular, when one compares the story of God sustains the family of Elimelech (Naomi and Ruth) in a foreign land with the offspring of Abraham in Egypt.
The story of Ruth is framed by a divine inclusio that places the entire narrative within the paradigm of a narrative of God's redemption.
The fourth point as to why one should view Ruth as a story about Yahweh, who acts redemptively is that the contents of the story are framed by an inclusio consisting of Yahweh's redemptive activity.
The redemptive activity of Yahweh, framing the story of Ruth, is observable in a divine inclusio it uses to present two explicit acts of direct redemptive activity. The narrator directly posits God s redemptive management of the story at two key points: one at the story s beginning and one at the story s end. Thus, the author of Ruth placed a theological frame of redemption around the entire narrative.
The first report is found in 1:6 where the narrator tells how Yahweh gave his people food after the famine:
Then she started to return with her daughters-in-law from the country of Moab, for she had heard in the country of Moab that the Lord had considered his people and given them food. (1:6)
The narrator here provides the reason as to why Naomi returns to Israel. The manner in which the narrator presents the reasons for Naomi's return is specifically designed to raise the hopes and expectations of the readers that Yahweh had been faithful to his covenant by acting redemptively toward the needs of his people. This first part of the divine inclusio casts Yahweh as having an intervening redemptive presence over the activities within the story right from the outset.
The second report of Yahweh intervening redemptively is in 4:13:
So Boaz took Ruth and she became his wife. When they came together, the Lord made her conceive, and she bore a son.
This report forms the second half of the theological inclusio that the author uses to frame the story. The narrator tells how God gave Ruth conception after her marriage. This divine gift of conception recalls the redemptive experiences of Israel with regard to the exceptional conceptions of notable matriarchs within Israel's redemptive-history. Just as Yahweh was redeeming Israel through the exceptional conceptions of the wives of the patriarchs so here the reader is to see Yahweh redeeming Israel now through the union of Boaz and Ruth. All this affirms that the climax of the story is the result of the redemptive workings of God throughout the story which lead up to this climatic moment.
Several petitions made by the main characters invoke Yahweh to act redemptively.
The fifth point as to why one should view Ruth as a story about Yahweh, who acts redemptively is because throughout the entire flow of the story Yahweh is appealed to by the characters to act redemptively.
The redemptive activity of Yahweh is observable in that petitions are made invoking Yahweh to act redemptively and those petitions are granted:
But Naomi said to her two daughters-in-law, "Go back each of you to your mother's house. May the Lord deal kindly with you, as you have dealt with the dead and with me. The Lord grant that you may find security, each of you in the house of your husband." Then she kissed them, and they wept aloud. (1:8-9)
May the Lord reward you for your deeds, and may you have a full reward from the Lord, the God of Israel, under whose wings you have come for refuge!" (2:12)
He said, "May you be blessed by the Lord, my daughter; this last instance of your loyalty is better than the first; you have not gone after young men, whether poor or rich. (3:10)
Then all the people who were at the gate, along with the elders, said, "We are witnesses. May the Lord make the woman who is coming into your house like Rachel and Leah, who together built up the house of Israel. May you produce children in Ephrathah and bestow a name in Bethlehem; and, through the children that the Lord will give you by this young woman, may your house be like the house of Perez, whom Tamar bore to Judah." (4:11-12)
In every chapter Yahweh is called upon to act in ways that were understood by Israel as acts of redemption. In each of these instances the petitions to Yahweh is granted. Undoubtedly the reader is to understand that it is Yahweh who is granting these petitions which invoked his name. The basic scheme is relatively straightforward :various characters are in need of redemption, others petition Yahweh for that redemption to take place, the characters are latter redeemed. The implication, likewise, is relatively straightforward: Yahweh acts redemptively in the story of Ruth.
Conclusion:
There are least five major considerations one should bear in mind when seeking to articulate what the story of Ruth is about. The first consideration was that injustice is done to the literary complexity of the characters if it is viewed as an exemplary foil. The second consideration was that the story is part of a collection of literary works (the OT) that seem to exhibit an overarching meta-narrative about Yahweh's redemptive activities. The third consideration was that the form of the story evokes Yahweh's paradigmatic act of redemption in the exodus. The fourth consideration was that the entire content of the story is framed in by an inclusio consisting of Yahweh's redemptive activity. The fifth consideration was that the entire flow of the story has Yahweh being appealed to in order that he might act redemptively.
posted by Tom 1:05 AM | Discuss |
Monday, February 03, 2003
Well it is early Monday morning and I just got home from working at the homeless shelter. One of the great problems in much of the church is slothfulness when it comes to praying. I have heard one too many prayers addressed to God that are quite frankly blasphemous and from what I gather it does not seem to bother many people. For instance, I have heard elders constantly pray, at the setting apart of the bread and wine (sadly grape juice), "Father we thank you for having borne our sins on the cross...." "Dear Heavenly Father, we thank you for the judgement you took in our place..." "Dear Father we thank you for going to the cross and giving of your body and blood..." I wish I was using hyperbole. I wish I was making this stuff up but tragically I am not. Now I do believe that the men who have uttered these prayers do not realize the words are using but that is my point. It is lazy theology, plain and simple, and that is the best thing you can say about it because if it is not then these individuals might well be heretics. I compare this lazy, and slothful theology to a baseball game where the players in the field throw to the wrong base, fail to hit the cut off man, or when a player loses count of the outs and gets thrown out at third base with two outs. It is inexcusable. The major difference is we can excuse the baseball player for his mental faux paus, but should we allow such slothful attitudes on the part of our elders!!! This is another reason why a structured service that is blatantly Trinitarian in its language is not only helpful but needed in our churches. As Christians we must remember to have distinctly Trinitarian prayers. For us to talk about God apart from Trinitarian language is nonsense. Maybe just maybe we could actually write out our prayers and construct them prior to saying them. I know that some may say that the Spirit is often "quenched" when we pray with written prayers. I, however, doubt that the aforementioned prayers thanking the Father for dying on the cross were inspired by the Spirit of the living God...begging the question, who does inspire such nonsense?
Well I apologize for my rant but I just had to get that off my chest!!!
posted by Tom 12:33 AM | Discuss |
