Saturday, November 22, 2008
In the meantime, my prevailing mood does entice me to rite about what I consider to be the LAMEST hero in the history of Marvel - Triathlon, aka Delroy Garrett.
He is entirely derivative (more on that in a minute) and his backstory is just silly:
A gifted young sprinter, Delroy Garrett, Jr. won three Olympic gold medals before he was exposed as a steroid user. Stripped of his awards and livelihood, Garrett sought new direction in the Triune Understanding, a philosophical movement that preaches the fulfillment of one's innate potential by balancing various aspects of environment and self. Developing a superhuman triple-powered physique, Garrett believed the Triune teachings had unlocked his latent powers, and he became the costumed hero Triathlon while serving as a celebrity spokesman for the Triune Understanding.Then the story gets all sorts of complicated with betrayals and misdirection and quasi-religious power abuse and so the story goes. He even has an "alternate earth" story.
This guy has been around a while and morphed a lot which means he is popular, but I flat out don't get it. He was clearly created to take pot shots at religion as devious and believers as duped idiots - his appeal seems based in his seeming desire not to be mainstream, sort of the perennial outsider. Maybe its not the character I dislike, but what he represents?
Anyway, he is derived both in appearance and in powers from this guy - 3D-Man. Now, maybe I show my age, but I like the pulpy, brightly colored appearance of the 3D-Man costume as compared the Triathlon's darker, less-conspicuous union suit. I mean, isn't this what comics are supposed to be, the garish, the overstated, and oh yeah, the genuinely heroic. The 3D-Man story was one of those staples of comicdom, two people coming together to make one hero, creating all sorts of interesting dilemmas in life management. And consider:
After a brief career as a costumed adventurer, Hal decided to retire the 3-D Man, partly because he was thinking about starting a family, and partly because he was afraid his brother's consciousness might somehow be lost during periods when Hal was the 3-D Man's dominant consciousness.Now that is heroism, particularly when compared to Triple-boy's completely self serving reasons for joining up with the "Triune Understanding," etc.
Technorati Tags:comics, comci books, comic art, triathlon, 3d-man, heroism
Generated By Technorati Tag Generator
Friday, November 21, 2008
What We Have Wrought
Fans of Christian music, listeners to Christian radio, watchers of Christian TV -- you're very attractive, did you know that?Obvious notion really, so why the revulsion? Is it my decidedly politically conservative leanings? Well, I am sure those that disagree with me are likely to contend such, but it really is not the case. There are two essential reasons I find this troubling
Sure, anyone who's been paying attention knows the Democrats have ramped up their outreach to religious voters in the past few years, but a concerted effort to reach into Christian Medialand has intensified recently and will continue beyond the November election.
- It reduces "Christians" to a demographic, and
- Being so reducing is a bit de-humanizing which is antithetical to Christ's ministry.
Looking at the first point, whether it be "Christian" media, or bookstore, or just "marketing" your congregation, being a Christian and being the church is about more than being a simple, definable demographic. For one thing, I would hope that someday the church would transcend traditional demographic groups. Whether they be racial, socio-economic, political ideology - faith in Jesus Christ should be held in a fashion where such concerns are secondary. Thus I think well functioning church would be so diverse that targeting in the fashion that is being described here would be impossible.
The other point here is that when we reduce being a Christian to a demographic, we tend to confuse conformity with the demographical definition with actually being a Christian. It seems to be that demographic conformity is little more than a sideways approach to legalism. I mean in Christianity is about what we are on the outside instead of becoming that which we were created to be, where is the difference between us and Judaism?
What's even worse is in this modern version of legalism, our conformity is not measured by our ethical behavior, even a misshapen ethics, but instead by our consumption - what we buy, listen to, and where we hang out.
My final objection to all this lies in the manipulative nature of it all. All the groups, that in the name of Christ, are attempting to be the recipients of our consumption do not look at us - they look at our characteristics, and attempt to use that analysis to control our behavior. Which points out two important facts. For one this consumptive model of Christianity benefits the seller far more than the consumer - is that really how the church is supposed to function? Secondly, the consumer is not a person. How does that compare with Christ's encounter with the Woman at the well?
Think about it.
Technorati Tags:marketing, christianity, demograqphics, true faith
Generated By Technorati Tag Generator
Friday Humor - painful pun edition
Well there was only one bank in town, in fact, it was just across from the coffee shop. A code 33 was an "armed robbery" but it was also just 11:58 AM and Josh and Big Hoss decided it was the dispatcher playing a joke on them. So they continued on enjoying their coffee break.
At 12:01 PM, they got a second call on their radio, "Repeat, Urgent, code 33 in process, man in bank dressed as a banana."
Realizing it was past noon, they rushed across the street, but arrived 30 seconds after the banana split.
Technorati Tags:joke, humor, friday humor, pun
Generated By Technorati Tag Generator
Thursday, November 20, 2008
But at least a month after he went public about it, this little post ran across the feed reader from BHT: (quoted in total)
Real Differences Between Catholics and EvangelicalsIf I am not mistaken, I sense a bit of admiration there for the the Catholic approach to some things. Which brings me to the point of my this post.
My wife spent an hour in the sanctuary today contemplating the Eucharist.
I spent an hour in the sanctuary fixing the projector.
There is usually something good in every situation - something to appreciate in other faith expressions. When we are confronted with situations like this we have a choice. We can focus on the problem, or we can learn to appreciate the good.
Now, I need to confess a problem here - I have a lot of Baptist in me and sometimes I see these situations not in terms of differences, but in terms of right and wrong. What breaks that right and wrong barrier down for me, as it seems to in Spencer's case is relationship. My love for the other generally overrides, eventually, the intellectual objections that I hold so dearly and the barrier drops, at least a little bit, for the sake of the relationship.
But there are any number of situations where there is no relationship, or at least a relationship worth caring about. There are a couple of times where I see this work out practically. One is where the other remains in the abstract. For example, many Evangelicals in some regions of the nation simply have never met a Mormon, so they could hold onto political bias against a candidate like Mitt Romney, while those of us here in the west find Mormons a bit hard to avoid, and form relationships with. This situation is usually easy to deal with. Yes, yes, Mormons have theology problems, but they are good people, good citizens, and seeking God in a real fashion.
The other one is much harder- that is when the person on the other side of the table really is a jerk. Relationship simply is not possible.
Do we walk away? Do we hold our bias? Do we start a war? What do we do? What do we do when there is no relational attraction to overcome our bias's and intellectual objections?
Well, I have not figured out how to yet, but this I know - God found us pretty repulsive and yet He found His way to the cross for our sake.
Technorati Tags:bias, repulsion, relationship, love
Generated By Technorati Tag Generator
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
No really, why?
Mark Daniels reflects that there are a lot of reason why people claim Christianity, but only one right reason
Sometimes, Luther says, people followed Jesus for the wrong reasons. Rather than seeing Jesus' ministry as a sign that Jesus was the long-awaited Savior of the world, they saw Jesus as a means to getting what they wanted: a good meal, a chicken in every pot, and a Maserati in every garage. (Or the first-century Judean equivalent of a Maserati, anyway.)The right reason, Mark Says:
There's nothing wrong with a full belly, of course. Or with peaceful neighborhoods and nations. Or with health. Or a Maserati. Or any other good and happy thing that may bless us physically or psychologically.
But none of these things last forever, which is why Jesus goes on to tell the crowd, "Don't waste your energy striving for perishable food like that. Work for the food that sticks with you, food that nourishes your lasting life, food the Son of Man provides. He and what he does are guaranteed by God the Father to last" (John 6:27).
We follow Jesus to have a reconciled relationship with God, to submit to the reclamation project to which all followers of Jesus must surrender, the object of which is to turn us into truly human beings who live as truly human beings were meant to live, in love for God and love for neighbor.When such points are brought up, I often hear the rejoinder, "But Jesus died for MY sins!" Interesting how that emphasis works out, isn't it?
God loves us completely, fully, and individually, but He did not do this for us. He did what He did because His creation was flawed and He wanted it fixed, and that was the only way He could fix it like He wanted it. We were, in one sense, just part of a much bigger deal.
One of the many miracles of God is that unlike any of us, He can do something on a big picture level and track every detail, so in fact He knew He was saving each of us individually. But make no mistake, we are simply part of a much bigger deal.
Much of what it means to be a Christian is about finding our place in that much bigger deal. Have you ever though about it in those terms? It's not about what we want, it's about where we fit.
But the amazing thing - the truly amazing thing is that once we find where we fit, we will find we have what we want. Anything we think we want that is not complimenting where we fit is a false desire and once we find where we fit, the desire will fade away.
Which brings me to an interesting point. Most of us have been told at some point in our lives we will not get everything we want. We are reconciled to that. But have we sacrificed the desire itself?
Maybe that is where we need to start with God. Instead of "OK God, I know I will never get the Ferrari I want. I give that to you." How about we pray, "God take away my desire for a Ferrari? In fact God why not just take away all my desires, leave me only with a desire for you?"
Scary, I think.
But I think we will be surprised if we do this and we mean it.
Technorati Tags:desire, plan, place, humility
Generated By Technorati Tag Generator
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Is It Over?
On Outreach magazine's 2008 list of the largest 100, even the smallest says more than 7,000 people attend. But some of the biggest, including Joel Osteen's Lakewood Church in Houston, with 43,500, showed slight declines.Pretty slight evidence in my book, particularly when the same article cites that the number of churches having "mega" status is growing pretty quickly. Of course, that is coming on the heels of losses from the more mainstream, moderately sized churches:
"The megachurch story is not really about growth, it's about shifting allegiances. People want to feel good about who they already are," says Philip Goff, director of the Center for the Study of Religion and American Culture at Indiana University in Indianapolis. "If church is too challenging or not entertaining, they'll move on."The trend is just too obvious. People move from town square and malls with smaller stores to Wal-Mart, they move from smaller churches to mega-churches. There is an undeniable cultural shift.
But let's go back to the article for a bit. There really is not much news in there - it's an argument. A clear attempt to spin some statistics as an excuse to make the case against the mega-church, no transformation, no depth, etc. You've read them all here before because I agree with them. Needless to say, I got all excited when I started the piece. I was hoping to use it to once again pile on to the mega-church trend, but when I got into the depths of it I had an unusual visceral reaction.
Given that the evidence in support of my view was testimonial and not statistical, my reaction was to shrug and think, "I need to figure out how to cope with this trend instead of buck it." And if you think about it, that is a dilemma that has faced people deeply transformed by Christ WITHIN the church since the beginning. Cope or buck? It's the question that drove the formation of many orders inside Catholicism - it drove the Reformation - it drives the continual reshuffling of the denominational tiles we see today.
I sit here, staring at my computer trying to formulate a response to the question I just posed and I have none. I look over the history of the church and I see right and wrong answers to the question in so many events - I find myself unable to use that data to determine which point in history we are in NOW.
I am torn. The usual response to such dilemma is, "Be true to the Lord, rely on Him, and do the best you can." But I have a visceral repulsion to such a response becasue it is about me, and the issue is not about me, its about things larger than me and where I fit into them and what I am called to do in their context.
But let's rephrase that usual response - "WAIT!" That's all, just "wait." Sometimes God is doing something that I simply have no role in at the moment. In other words, it's not about me - I don't count right now. And perhaps that's the real problem, I think I am supposed to count, I want to count.
Only God counts.
Technorati Tags:megachurches, discussions, battles, self-denial
Generated By Technorati Tag Generator
Monday, November 17, 2008
Jesus IS Lord!
Jesus Christ is real, present, speaking, and worthy of my obedience.Although I must note that such a summary while accurate is inadequate to convey the wonderful prose that proceeds it. I recommend you read the whole thing. I cannot do it justice by pull quotes, and I lack the writing skill to describe it without seriously diminishing its impact.
I reflect on how often we want Jesus to be something - anything - other than Lord, Master, Creator, King. We want Him to be friend, intimate, buddy, helper, maybe even lover, but we never seem to want Him to be LORD.
We fear that word "lord" for in it we think we hear oppression and diminution. And in a sense we are right, for anyone other than Jesus Christ who assumes that role will express it in exactly that way. Churches try to be dukes in the lord's name and then they oppress and suppress and take advantage of. Preachers claim lordly authority and they embezzle and provide false hope. Governments assume the old feudal role of lord and make us grist for the mill.
Only God, only Christ is worthy of the title and the role. Our distrust to ask Christ to be Lord is buried in pretty good root causes - BUT - Christ is up to the task. He does not bring oppression or suppression to the job, He brings freedom.
Sometime in your life I bet you have used a knife for a screwdriver. I am sure the job got done, but it probably involved more effort than it should have and the knife probably got a little mangled in the process. However, if as "lord" of the house I decree that knives may only function in knifely roles, have I oppressed the knife or have I freed it to do and be what it best does and is? I think the knife is probably happy with me lordly decree.
There are two essential lessons we need to learn. First we need to learn ourselves. We're like the knife - we are not created to be screwdrivers, or lords. Secondly we need to know our God - He will never ask us to be other than what we were created to be. We will find happiness in His decrees, if we will but abide by them.
Technorati Tags:jesus, lord, trust
Generated By Technorati Tag Generator
Sunday, November 16, 2008
Sermons and Lessons
Theodore Parker, American divine and reformer, was born at Lexington, Mass., in 1810. He was educated at Harvard and graduated from the Divinity School of that University in 1836. The following year be was ordained pastor of Roxbury Christian Church, and first attracted attention by his sermon on the “Transient and Permanent in Christianity,” preached in 1841. This sermon was ultimately the cause of his practical exclusion from the Unitarian body, and in 1846 he became minister to the Twenty-eighth Congregational Society in Boston.
In this pastorate he became well known to all denominations from the remarkable sermons he preached for seven years in Music Hall. He died of consumption at Florence, Italy, in 1860. His powerful intellect and vigorous eloquence were exhibited in the many controversial sermons he preached, both as a believer in the nonsupernaturalism of present Christianity and as a practical humanitarian. He figured as one of the leading abolitionists of New England.
Heaven and earth shall pass away; but My words shall not pass away. - Luke 21:33.
In this sentence we have a very clear indication that Jesus of Nazareth believed the religion He taught would be eternal, that the substance of it would last forever. Yet there are some who are affrighted by the faintest rustle which a heretic makes among the dry leaves of theology; they tremble lest Christianity itself should perish without hope. Ever and anon the cry is raised, “The Philistines be upon us, and Christianity is in danger.” The least doubt respecting the popular theology, or the existing machinery of the Church; the least sign of distrust in the religion of the pulpit, or the religion of the street, is by some good men supposed to be at enmity with faith in Christ, and capable of shaking Christianity itself. On the other hand, a few bad men, and a few pious men, it is said, on both sides of the water, tell us the day of Christianity is past. The latter, it is alleged, would persuade us that hereafter piety must take a new form; the teachings of Jesus are to be passed by; that religion is to wing her way sublime, above the flight of Christianity, far away, toward heaven, as the fledged eaglet leaves forever the nest which sheltered his callow youth. Let us therefore devote a few moments to this subject, and consider what is transient in Christianity, and what is permanent therein.
In actual Christianity, - that is, in that portion of Christianity which is preached and believed, - there seems to have been, ever since the time of its earthly Founder, two elements, the one transient, the other permanent. The one is the thought, the folly, the uncertain wisdom, the theological notions, the impiety of man; the other, the eternal truth of God. These two bear, perhaps, the same relation to each other that the phenomena of outward nature, such as sunshine and cloud, growth, decay and reproduction, bear to the great law of nature, which underlies and supports them all. As in that case more attention is commonly paid to the particular phenomena than to the general law, so in this case more is generally given to the transient in Christianity than to the permanent therein.
It must be confessed, though with sorrow, that transient things form a great part of what is commonly taught as religion. An undue place has often been assigned to forms and doctrines, while too little stress has been laid on the divine life of the soul, love to God, and love to man. Religious forms may be useful and beautiful. They are so, whenever they speak to the soul, and answer a want thereof. In our present state some forms are perhaps necessary. But they are only the accident of Christianity, not its substance. They are the robe, not the angel, who may take another robe quite as becoming and useful. One sect has many forms; another, none. Yet both may be equally Christian, in spite of the redundance or the deficiency. They are a part of the language in which religion speaks, and exist, with few exceptions, wherever man is found. In our calculating nation, in our rationalizing sect, we have retained but two of the rites so numerous in the early Christian Church, and even these we have attenuated to the last degree, leaving them little more than a specter of the ancient form. Another age may continue or forsake both; may revive old forms, or invent new ones to suit the altered circumstances of the times, and yet be Christians quite as good as we, or our fathers of the dark ages. Whether the apostles designed these rites to be perpetual seems a question which belongs to scholars and antiquarians, - not to us, as Christian men and women. So long as they satisfy or help the pious heart, so long they are good. Looking behind or around us, we see that the forms and rites of the Christians are quite as fluctuating as those of the heathens, from whom some of them have been, not unwisely, adopted by the earlier Church.
Any one, who traces the history of what is called Christianity, will see that nothing changes more from age to age than the doctrines taught as Christian, and insisted on as essential to Christianity and personal salvation. What is falsehood in one province passes for truth in another. The heresy of one age is the orthodox belief and “only infallible rule “of the next. Now Anus, and now Athanasius, is lord of the ascendant. Both were excommunicated in their turn, each for affirming what the other denied. Men are burned for professing what men are burned for denying. For centuries the doctrines of the Christians were no better, to say the least, than those of their contemporary pagans. The theological doctrines derived from our fathers seem to have come from Judaism, heathenism, and the caprice of philosophers, far more than they have come from the principle and sentiment of Christianity. The doctrine of the Trinity, the very Achilles of theological dogmas, belongs to philosophy and not religion; its subtleties cannot even be ex¬pressed in our tongue. As old religions became superannuated, and died out, they left to the rising faith, as to a residuary legatee, their forms and their doctrines; or rather, as the giant in the fable left his poisoned garment to work the overthrow of his conqueror. Many tenets that pass current in our theology seem to be the refuse of idol temples, the offscourings of Jewish and heathen cities rather than the sands of virgin gold which the stream of Christianity has worn off from the rock of ages, and brought in its bosom for us. It is wood, hay, and stubble, wherewith men have built on the corner-stone Christ laid. What wonder the fabric is in peril when tried by fire? The stream of Christianity, as men receive it, has caught a stain from every soil it has filtered through, so that now it is not the pure water from the well of life which is offered to our lips, but streams troubled and polluted by man with mire and dirt. If Paul and Jesus could read our books of theological doctrines, would they accept as their teaching what men have vented in their name? Never, till the letters of Paul had faded out of his memory, never, till the words of Jesus had been torn out from the book of life. It is their notions about Christianity men have taught as the only living word of God. They have piled their own rubbish against the temple of truth where piety comes up to worship; what wonder the pile seems unshapely and like to fall? But these theological doctrines are fleeting as the leaves on the trees. They -
Now green in youth, now withered on the ground;
Another race the following spring supplies;
They fall successive, and successive rise.’’
Like the clouds of the sky, they are here today; tomorrow, all swept off and vanished; while Christianity itself, like the heaven above, with its sun, and moon, and uncounted stars, is always over our head, though the cloud sometimes debars us of the needed light. It must of necessity be the ease that our reasonings, and therefore our theological doctrines, are imperfect, and so perishing. It is only gradually that we approach to the true system of nature by observation and reasoning, and work out our philosophy and theology by the toil of the brain. But meantime, if we are faithful, the great truths of mortality and religion, the deep sentiment of love to man and love to God, are perceived intuitively, and by instinct, as it were, though our theology be imperfect and miserable. The theological notions of Abraham, to take the story as it stands, were exceedingly gross, yet a greater than Abraham has told us, “Abraham desired to see my day, saw it, and was glad.” Since these notions are so fleeting, why need we accept the commandment of men as the doctrine of God?
This transitoriness of doctrines appears in many instances, of which two may be selected for a more attentive consideration. First, the doctrine respecting the origin and authority of the Old and New Testaments. There has been a time when men were burned for assert¬ing doctrines of natural philosophy which rested on evidence the most incontestable, be¬cause those doctrines conflicted with sentences in the Old Testament. Every word of that Jewish record was regarded as miraculously inspired, and therefore as infallibly true. It was believed that the Christian religion itself rested thereon, and must stand or fall with the immaculate Hebrew text. He was deemed no small sinner who found mistakes in the manuscripts. On the authority of the written word man was taught to believe impossible legends, conflicting assertions; to take fiction for fact, a dream for a miraculous revelation of God, an Oriental poem for a grave history of miraculous events, a collection of amatory idyls for a serious discourse “touching the mutual love of Christ and the Church”; they have been taught to accept a picture sketched by some glowing Eastern imagination, never intended to be taken for a reality, as a proof that the infinite God spoke in human words, appeared in the shape of a cloud, a flaming bush, or a man who ate, and drank, and vanished into smoke; that He gave counsels today, and the opposite tomorrow; that He violated His own laws, was angry, and was only dissuaded by a mortal man from destroying at once a whole nation, - millions of men who rebelled against their leader in a moment of anguish. Questions in philosophy, questions in the Christian religion, have been settled by an appeal to that book. The inspiration of its authors has been assumed as infallible. Every fact in the early Jewish history has been taken as a type of some analogous fact in Christian history. The most distant events, even such as are still in the arms of time, were supposed to be clearly foreseen and foretold by pious Hebrews several centuries before Christ. It has been assumed at the outset, with no shadow of evidence, that those writers held a miraculous communication with God, such as He has granted to no other man. What was originally a presumption of bigoted Jews became an article of faith, which Christians were burned for not believing. This has been for centuries the general opinion of the Christian Church, both Catholic and Protestant, though the former never accepted the Bible as the only source of religious truth. It has been so. Still worse, it is now the general opinion of religious sects at this day. hence the attempt, which always fails, to reconcile the philosophy of our times with the poems in Genesis writ a thousand years before Christ. Hence the attempt to conceal the contradictions in the record itself. Matters have come to such a pass that even now he is deemed an infidel, if not by implication an atheist, whose reverence for the Most High forbids him to believe that God commanded Abraham to sacrifice his son, - a thought at which the flesh creeps with horror; to believe it solely on the authority of an Oriental story, written down nobody knows when or by whom, or for what purpose; which may be a poem, but can not be the record of a fact, unless God is the author of confusion and a lie.
Now, this idolatry of the Old Testament has not always existed. Jesus says that none born of a woman is greater than John the Baptist, yet the least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than John. Paul tells us the law - the very crown of the old Hebrew revelation - is a shadow of good things which have now come; only a schoolmaster to bring us to Christ; and when faith has come, that we are no longer under the schoolmaster; that it was a law of sin and death, from which we are made free by the law of the spirit of life. Christian teachers themselves have differed so widely in their notion of the doctrines and meaning of those books that it makes one weep to think of the follies deduced therefrom. But modern criticism is fast breaking to pieces this idol which men have made out of the Scriptures. It has shown that here are the most different works thrown together; that their authors, wise as they sometimes were, pious as we feel often their spirit to have been, had only that inspiration which is common to other men equally pious and wise; that they were by no means infallible, but were mistaken in facts or in reasoning, - uttered predictions which time has not fulfilled; men who in some measure partook of the darkness and limited notions of their age, and were not always above its mistakes or its corruptions.
The history of opinions on the New Testament is quite similar. It has been assumed at the outset, it would seem with no sufficient reason, without the smallest pretense on its writers’ part, that all of its authors were infallibly and miraculously inspired, so that they could commit no error of doctrine or fact. Men have been bid to close their eyes at the obvious difference between Luke and John, the serious disagreement between Paul and Peter; to believe, on the smallest evidence, accounts which shock the moral sense and revolt the reason, and tend to place Jesus in the same series with the Hercules and Appollonius of Tyana; accounts which Paul in the Epistles never mentions, though he also had a vein of the miraculous running quite through him. Men have been told that all these things must be taken as part of Christianity, and if they accepted the religion, they must take all these accessories along with it; that the living spirit could not be had without the killing letter. All the books which caprice or accident had brought together between the lids of the Bible were declared to be the infallible Word of God, the only certain rule of religious faith and practice. Thus the Bible was made not a single channel, but the only certain rule of religious faith and practice. To disbelieve any of its statements, or even the common interpretation put upon those statements by the particular age or church in which the man belonged, was held to be infidelity, if not atheism. In the name of Him who forbids us to judge our brother, good men and pious men have applied these terms to others, good and pious as themselves. That state of things has by no means passed away. Men who cry down the absurdities of paganism in the worst spirit of the French “free thinkers” call others infidels and atheists, who point out, tho reverently, other absurdities which men have piled upon Christianity. So the world goes. An idolatrous regard for the imperfect scripture of God’s word is the apple of Atalanta, which defeats theologians running for the hand of divine truth.
But the current notions respecting the in¬fallible inspiration of the Bible have no foundation in the Bible itself. Which evangelist, which apostle of the New Testament, what prophet-or psalmist of the Old Testament, ever claims infallible authority for himself or for others? Which of them does not in his own writings show that he was finite, and, with all his zeal and piety, possessed but a limited inspiration, the bound whereof we can sometimes discover? Did Christ ever demand that men should assent to the doctrines of the Old Testament, credit its stories, and take its poems for histories, and believe equally two accounts that contradict one another? Has He ever told you that all the truths of His religion, all the beauty of a Christian life should be contained in the writings of those men who, even after His resurrection, expected Him to be a Jewish king; of men who were sometimes at variance with one another, and misunderstood His divine teachings? Would not those modest writers themselves be confounded at the idolatry we pay them? Opinions may change on these points, as they have often changed - changed greatly and for the worse since the days of Paul. They are changing now, and we may hope for the better; for God makes man’s folly as well his wrath to praise Him, and continually brings good out of evil.
Another instance of the transitoriness of doctrines taught as Christian is found in those which relate to the nature and authority of Christ. One ancient party has told us that He is the infinite God; another, that He is both God and man; a third, that He was a man, the son of Joseph and Mary, born as we are; tempted like ourselves; inspired as we may be, if we will pay the price. Each of the former parties believed its doctrine on this head was infallibly true, and formed the very substance of Christianity, and was one of the essential conditions of sa1vation, though scarcely any two distinguished teachers, of ancient or modern times, agree in their expression of this truth. Almost every sect that has ever been, makes Christianity rest on the personal authority of Jesus, and not the immutable truth of the doctrines themselves, or the authority of God, who sent Him into the world. Yet it seems difficult to conceive any reason why moral and religious truths should rest for their support on the personal authority of their revealer, any more than the truths of science on that of him who makes them known first or most clearly. It is hard to see why the great truths of Christianity rest on the personal authority of Jesus, more than the axioms of geometry rest on the personal authority of Euclid or Archimedes. The authority of Jesus as of all teachers, one would naturally think, must rest on the truth of His words, and not their truth on His authority.
Opinions respecting the nature of Christ seem to be constantly changing. In the three first centuries after Christ, it appears, great latitude of speculation prevailed. Some said he was God, with nothing of human nature, His body only an illusion; others that He was man, with nothing of the divine nature, His miraculous birth having no foundation in fact. In a few centuries it was decreed by councils that He was God, thus honoring the divine element; next, that He was man also, thus admitting the human side. For some ages the Catholic Church seems to have dwelt chiefly on the divine nature that was in Him, leaving the human element to mystics and other heretical persons, whose bodies served to flesh the swords of orthodox believers. The stream of Christianity has come to us in two channels, - one within the Church, the other without the Church, - and it is not hazarding too much to say that since the fourth century the true Christian life has been out of the established Church, and not in it, but rather in the ranks of dissenters. From the Reformation till the latter part of the last century, we are told, the Protestant Church dwelt chiefly on the human side of Christ, and since that time many works have been written to show how the two - perfect Deity and perfect manhood - were united in His character. But, all this time, scarce any two eminent teachers agree on these points, however orthodox they may be called. What a difference between the Christ of John Gerson and John Calvin, - yet were both accepted teachers and pious men. What a difference between the Christ of the Unitarians and the Methodists, - yet may men of both sects be true Christians and acceptable with God. What a difference between the Christ of Matthew and John, - yet both were disciples, and their influence is wide as Christendom and deep as the heart of man. But on this there is not time to enlarge.
Now, it seems clear that the notions men form about the origin and nature of the Scriptures, respecting the nature and authority of Christ, have nothing to do with Christianity except as its aids or its adversaries; they are not the foundation of its truths. These are theological questions, not religious questions. Their connection with Christianity appears accidental; for if Jesus had taught at Athens, and not at Jerusalem; if He had wrought no miracle, and none but the human nature had ever been ascribed to them; if the Old Testament had forever perished at His birth, - Christianity would still have been the word of God; it would have lost none of its truths. It would be just as true, just as beautiful, just as lasting, as now it is though we should have lost so many a blessed word, and the work of Christianity itself would have been, perhaps, a long time retarded.
To judge the future by the past, the former authority of the Old Testament can never re¬turn. Its present authority can not stand. It must be taken for what it is worth. The occasional folly and impiety of its authors must pass for no more than their value; while the religion, the wisdom, the love, which make fragrant its leaves, will still speak to the best hearts as hitherto, and in accents even more divine when reason is allowed her rights. The ancient belief in the infallible inspiration of each sentence of the New Testament is fast changing, very fast. One writer, not a skeptic, but a Christian of unquestioned piety, sweeps off the beginning of Matthew; another, of a different church and equally religious, the end of John. Numerous critics strike off several epistles. The Apocalypse itself is not spared, notwithstanding its concluding curse. Who shall tell us the work of retrenchment is to stop here; that others will not demonstrate what some pious hearts have long felt, that errors of doctrine and errors of fact may be found in many parts of the record, here and there, from the beginning of Matthew to the end of Acts? We see how opinions have changed ever since the apostles’ time; and who shall assure us that they were not sometimes mistaken in historical as well as doc¬trinal matters; did not sometimes confound the actual with the imaginary; and that the fancy of these pious writers never stood in the place of their recollection?
But what if this should take place? Is Christianity then to perish out of the heart of the nations, and vanish from the memory of the world, like the religions that were before Abraham? It must be so, if it rest on a foundation which a scoffer may shake, and a score of pious critics shake down. But this is the foundation of a theology, not of Christianity. That does not rest on the decision of councils. It is not to stand or fall with the infallible inspiration of a few Jewish fishermen, who have writ their names in characters of light all over the world. It does not continue to stand through the forbearance of some critic, who can cut when he will the thread on which its life depends. Christianity does not rest on the infallible authority of the New Testament. It depends on this collection of books for the historical statement of its facts. In this we do not require infallible inspiration on the part of the writers, more than in the record of other historical facts. To me it seems as presumptuous, on the one hand, for the believer to claim this evidence for the truth of Christianity, as it is absurd, on the other hand, for the skeptic to demand such evidence to support these historical statements. I can not see that it depends on the personal authority of Jesus. He was the organ through which the Infinite spoke. It is God that was manifested in the flesh by Him, on whom rests the truth which Jesus brought to light, and made clear and beautiful in His life; and if Christianity be true, it seems useless to look for any other authority to uphold it, as for some one to support Almighty God. So if it could be proved - as it can not - in opposition to the greatest amount of historical evidence ever collected on any similar point, that the Gospels were the fabrication of designing and artful men, that Jesus of Nazareth had never lived, still Christianity would stand firm, and fear no evil. None of the doctrines of that religion would fall to the ground; for, if true, they stand by themselves. But we should lose - oh, irreparable loss! - the example of that character, so beautiful, so divine, that no human genius could have conceived it, as none, after all the progress and refinement of eighteen centuries, seems fully to have comprehended its lustrous life. If Christianity were true, we should still think it was so, not because its record was written by infallible pens, nor because it was lived out by an infallible teacher; but that it is true, like the axioms of geometry, because it is true and is to be tried by the oracle God places in the breast. If it rest on the personal authority of Jesus alone, then there is no certainty of its truth if He were ever mistaken in the smallest matter, - as some Christians have thought He was in predicting His second coming.
These doctrines respecting the Scriptures have often changed, and are but fleeting. Yet men lay much stress on them. Some cling to these notions as if they were Christianity itself. It is about these and similar points that theological battles are fought from age to age. Men sometimes use worst the choicest treasure which God bestows. This is especially true of the use men make of the Bible. Some men have regarded it as the heathen their idol, or the savage his fetish. They have subordinated reason, conscience, and religion to this. Thus have they lost half the treasure it bears in its bosom. No doubt the time will come when its true character shall be felt. Then it will be seen that, amid all the contradictions of the Old Testament, - its legends, so beautiful as fictions, so appalling as facts; amid its predictions that have never been fulfilled; amid the puerile conceptions of God which sometimes occur, and the cruel denunciations that disfigure both psalm and prophecy, - there is a reverence for man’s nature, a sublime trust in God, and a depth of piety, rarely felt in these cold northern hearts of ours. Then the devotion of its authors, the loftiness of their aim, and the majesty of their life, will appear doubly fair, and prophet and psalmist will warm our hearts as never before. Their voice will cheer the young, and sanctify the gray-headed; will charm us in the toil of life, and sweeten the cup death gives us when he comes to shake off this mantle of flesh. Then will it be seen that the words of Jesus are the music of heaven sung in an earthly voice, and that the echo of these words in John and Paul owe their efficacy to their truth and their depth, and to no accidental matter connected therewith. Then can the Word, which was in the beginning and now is, find access to the innermost heart of man, and speak there as now it seldom speaks. Then shall the Bible - which is a whole library of the deepest and, most earnest thoughts and feelings, and piety, and love, ever recorded in human speech - be read oftener than ever before, - not with superstition, but with reason, conscience, and faith, fully active. Then shall it sustain men bowed down with many sorrows; rebuke sin, encourage virtue, sow the world broadcast and quick with the seed of love, that man may reap a harvest for life everlasting.
With all the obstacles men have thrown in its path, how much has the Bible done for mankind! No abuse has deprived us of all its blessings. You trace its path across the world from the day of Pentecost to this day. As a river springs up in the heart of a sandy continent, having its father in the skies, and its birthplace in distant unknown mountains; as the stream rolls on, enlarging itself, making in that arid waste a belt of verdure wherever it turns its way; creating palm groves and fertile plains, where the smoke of the cottager curls up at eventide, and marble cities send the gleam of their splendor far into the sky, - such has been the course of the Bible on the earth. Despite of idolaters bowing to the dust before it, it has made a deeper mark on the world than the rich and beautiful literature of all the heathen. The first book of the Old Testament tells man he is made in the image of God; the first of the New Testament gives us the motto, Be perfect as your Father in heaven. Higher words were never spoken. How the truths of the Bible have blest us! There is not a boy on all the hills of New England; not a girl born in the filthiest cellar which disgraces a capital in Europe, and cries to God against the barbarism of modern civilization; not a boy nor a girl all Christendom through, but their lot is made better by that great book.
Doubtless the time will come when men shall see Christ also as He is. Well might He still say, “Have I been so long with you, and yet hast thou not known me?” No! we have made Him an idol, have bowed the knee before Him, saying, “Hail, king of the Jews!” called Him “Lord, Lord!” but done not the things which He said. The history of the Christian world might well be summed up in one word of the evangelist - ”and there they crucified him”; for there has never been an age when the men did not crucify the Son of God afresh. But if error prevail for a time and grow old in the world, truth will triumph at the last, and then we shall see the Son of God as He is. Lifted up, He shall draw all nations unto Him. Then will men understand the word of Jesus, which shall not pass away. Then shall we see and love the divine life that He lived. How vast has His influence been! How His spirit wrought in the hearts of His disciples, rude, selfish, bigoted, as at first they were! How it has wrought in the world! His words judge the nations. The wisest son of man has not measured their height. They speak to what is deepest in profound men, what is holiest in good men, what is divinest in religious men. They kindle anew the flame of devotion in hearts long cold. They are spirit and life. His truth was not derived from Moses and Solomon; but the light of God shone through Him, not colored, not bent aside. His life is the perpetual rebuke of all time since. It condemns ancient civilization; it condemns modern civilization. Wise men we have since bad, and good men; but this Galilean youth strode before the whole world thousands of years, so much of divinity was in Him. His words solve the question of this present age. In Him the Godlike and the human met and embraced, and a divine life was born. Measure Him by the world‘s greatest sons - how poor they are! Try Him by the best of men - how little and low they appear! Exalt Him as much as we may, we shall yet perhaps come short of the mark. But still was He not our brother; the son of man, as we are; the son of God, like ourselves? His excellence - was it not human excellence? His wisdom, love, piety, - sweet and celestial as they were, - are they not what we also may attain? In Him, as in a mirror, we may see the image of God, and go on from glory to glory, till we are changed into the same image, led by the spirit which enlightens the humble. Viewed in this way, how beautiful is the life of Jesus! Heaven has come down to earth, or rather, earth has become heaven. The Son of God, come of age, has taken possession of His birthright. The brightest revelation is this of what is possible for all men, - if not now, at least hereafter. How pure is His spirit, and how encouraging its words! “Lowly sufferer,” he seems to say, “see how I bore the cross. Patient laborer, be strong; see how I toiled for the unthankful and the merciless. Mistaken sinner, see of what thou art capable. Rise up, and be blest.”
But if, as some early Christians began to do, you take a heathen view, and make Him a God, the Son of God in a peculiar and exclusive sense, much of the significance of His character is gone. His virtue has no merit, His love no feeling, His cross no burden, His agony no pain. His death is an illusion, His resurrection but a show. For if He were not a man, but a god, what are all these things? What His words, His life, His excellence of achievement? It is all nothing, weighed against the illimitable greatness of Him who created the worlds and fills up all time and space! Then His resignation is no lesson, His life no model, His death no triumph to you or me, who are not gods, but mortal men, that know not what a day shall bring forth,, and walk by faith “dim sounding on our perilous way.” Alas! we have despaired of man, and so cut off his brightest hope.
In respect of doctrines as well as forms, we see all is transitory. “Everywhere is instability and insecurity.” Opinions have changed most on points deemed most vital. Could we bring up a Christian teacher of any age, from the sixth to the fourteenth century, for example, though a teacher of undoubted soundness of faith, whose word filled the churches of Christendom, clergymen would scarce allow him to kneel at their altar, or sit down with them at the Lord’s table. His notions of Christianity could not be exprest in our forms, nor could our notions be made inelligible to his ears. The questions of his age, those on which Christianity was thought to depend, - questions which perplexed and divided the subtle doctors, - are no questions to us. The quarrels which then drove wise men mad now only excite a smile or a tear, as we are disposed to laugh or weep at the frailty of man. We have other straws of our own .to quarrel for. Their ancient books of devotion do not speak to us; their theology is a vain word. To look back but a short period, - the theological speculations of our fathers during the last two centuries, their “practical divinity,” even the sermons written by genius amid piety are, with rare exceptions, found unreadable; such a change is there in the doctrines.
Now who shall tell us that the change is to stop here; that this sect or that, or even all sects united, have exhausted the river of life, and received it all in their canonized urns, so that we need draw no more out of the eternal well, but get refreshment nearer at hand? Who shall tell us that another age will not smile at our doctrines, disputes, and unchristian quarrels about Christianity, and make wide the mouth at men who walked brave in orthodox raiment, delighting to blacken the names of heretics, and repeat again the old charge, “He hath blasphemed”? Who shall tell us they will not weep at the folly of all such as fancied truth shone only into the contracted nook of their school, or sect, or coterie? Men of other times may look down equally on the heresy-hunters, and men hunted for heresy, and wonder at both. The men of all ages before us were quite as confident as we, that their opinion was truth, that their notion was Christianity and the whole thereof. The men who lit the fires of persecution, from the first martyr to Christian bigotry down to the last murder of the innocents, had no doubt their opinion was divine. The contest about transubstantiation and the immaculate purity of the Hebrew and Greek texts of the Scriptures was waged with bitterness unequaled in these days. The Protestant smiles at one, the Catholic at the other, and men of sense wonder at both. It might teach us all a lesson, at least of forbearance. No doubt an age will come in which ours shall be reckoned a period of darkness, like the sixth century, - when men groped for the wall, but stumbled and fell, because they trusted a transient notion, not an eternal truth; an age when temples were full of idols, set up by human folly; an age in which Christian light had scarce begun to shine into men ‘s hearts. But while this change goes on, while one generation of opinions passes away, and another rises up, Christianity itself, that pure religion, which exists eternal in the constitution of the soul and the mind of God, is always the same. The Word that was before Abraham, in the very beginning, will not change, for that Word is truth. From this Jesus subtracted nothing; to this He added nothing. But He came to reveal it as the secret of God, that cunning men could not understand, but which filled the souls of men meek and lowly of heart. This truth we owe to God; the revelation thereof to Jesus, our elder brother, God’s chosen son.
To turn away from the disputes of the Catholics and the Protestants, of the Unitarian and the Trinitarian, of old school and new school, and come to the plain words of Jesus of Nazareth, - Christianity is a simple thing, very simple. It is absolute, pure morality; absolute, pure religion, - the love of man; the love of God acting without let or hindrance. The only creed it lays down is the great truth which springs up spontaneous in the holy heart, - there is a God. Its watchword is, Be perfect as your Father in heaven. The only form it demands is a divine life, - doing the best thing in the best way, from the highest motives; perfect obedience to the great law of God. Its sanction is the voice of God in your heart; the perpetual presence of Him who made us and the stars over our head; Christ and the Father abiding within us. All this is very simple - a little child can understand it; very beautiful - the loftiest mind can find nothing so lovely. Try it by reason, conscience, and faith, - things highest in man‘s nature, - we see no redundance, we feel no deficiency. Examine the particular duties it enjoins, - humility, reverence, sobriety, gentleness, charity, forgiveness, fortitude, resignation, faith, and active love; try the whole extent of Christianity, so well summed up in the command, “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind; thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself”; and is there anything therein that can perish? No, the very opponents of Christianity have rarely found fault with the teachings of Jesus. The end of Christianity seems to be to make all men one with God as Christ was one with Him; to bring them to such a state of obedience and goodness that we shall think divine thoughts and feel divine sentiments, and so keep the law of God by living a life of truth and love. Its means are purity and prayer; getting strength from God, and using it for our fellow-men as well as ourselves. It allows perfect freedom. It does not demand all men to think alike, but to think uprightly, and get as near as possible at truth; not all men to live alike, but to live holy, and get as near as possible to a life perfectly divine. Christ set up no Pillars of Hercules, beyond which men must not sail the sea in quest of truth. He says, “I have many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Greater works than these shall ye do.” Christianity lays no rude hand on the sacred peculiarity of individual genius and character. But there is no Christian sect which does not fetter a man. It would make all men think alike, or smother their conviction in silence. Were all men Quakers or Catholics, Unitarians or Baptists, there would be much less diversity of thought, character, and life, less of truth active in the world, than now. But Christianity gives us the largest liberty of the sons of God; and were all men Christians after the fashion of Jesus, this variety would be a thousand times greater than now; for Christianity is not a system of doctrines, but rather a method of attaining oneness with God. It demands, therefore, a good life of piety within, of purity without, and gives the promise that whoso does God’s will shall know of God’s doctrine.
Technorati Tags:sermon, lesson, theodore parker
Generated By Technorati Tag Generator