Preaching for a change

Two very different bloggers weighed in today on their blogs about how we grow spiritually through preaching. Tim Challies titled his post “The First and Primary Object” of preaching. Dr Dave Fitch posed his as a question, “How do Christians Grow and Mature?” Their titles seem to fit the perspectives they themselves come from.

What interested me though was not the coincidence of both offering their opinions about the same topic on the same day. Rather, I was surprised to find from two seeming opposites that there was more similarity between them than there were differences. They came at it from different angles of course—Challies appealing to the authority of Jonathan Edwards, Dr Fitch relaying the ideas of a friend in ministry, again, fitting for each—but they arrived at similar conclusions by my estimation. Here’s part of what each one said.

From Challies:

Like every other Christian, I have often sat enraptured in church, having my mind filled and my affections stirred. But sometimes after arriving home I can barely remember a word that was said. The same is sometimes true of books, Bible studies and conferences. What was so meaningful at the time may be nearly forgotten only a short time later, leaving me to question if it was really so important in the first place. This is not to say that nothing sticks in my mind. Certainly I do remember a lot of what I hear and what I read. But when I consider a 500-page book or a series of eight addresses and compare what I read or what I heard to what I now remember, it can be awfully frustrating. It can be discouraging.

But, according to Edwards, if I were to worry in this way I would be placing too great an emphasis on intellect while downplaying the importance of affections.

From Reclaiming the Mission:

When people come to our church from other established (probably bigger) evangelical churches, they often come looking for a communal, real, authentic, missional life with Christ and a church body. They find our liturgical forms of worship refreshing at first. But sometimes, if they don't GET what's going on, they become disillusioned. Our sermons do not always exposit word for word what the Bible means and then package some applications to go home with and do and improve your Christian life. They proclaim Truth (the reality of Jesus as Lord) out of the Biblical text and ask us to obey, submit and live under the Lordship of Christ for this day, this week, this year. We do have group Bible study time at 9 a.m. (newly reinstituted teaching for an hour teaching the Scripture that we are preaching), but the service itself is a time of formation before and into the Word of God. It is not a time of learning information for the purpose of attaining a certain competence (don't get me wrong, there's an important place for studying and knowing The Bible). Different assumptions about "How People Grow in Christ" undergird how we gather as a people, and the discipleship processes that come forth from that.

Personally, I was even more interested because I too have been thinking about preaching as a means of formation more than a means of information. Preaching is often simply a dynamically presented lecture, an entertaining conveyance of information. And while Bible knowledge is important (I chose my alma mater for that reason), I think what you love is more important than what you believe. I think what your love will inspire your actions more than your beliefs ever will. It’s important, then, to love the right things.

When my thoughts run in this vein, I always think of Donald Miller's words in the opening of Blue Like Jazz, "Sometimes you have to see someone love something before you can love it yourself." This, in my mind, is the task of preaching, or any Bible "education" for that matter. Preaching is an opportunity to show someone what you see, or Who you see, from where you stand. It's an opportunity to look upon Jesus in all his magnificence, generosity, or whatever it may be, and to help others to see him like that too. To stand and look and grow excited with anticipation. It isn't so much about having people leave saying, "Wow, I really learned something," although that's good. Rather, for them to walk away thinking, "Isn't Jesus amazing?" is to capture more than some available space in their brains. It's the kind of thing that makes you want more, want to believe more, want to be more like him. It's the kind of thing that changes you. It's hardly what we typically call knowledge. It's something more like love. Paul said something himself about those two things.

John Owen's Decalogue

Dr Carl Trueman, a youngish Brit from Westminster Seminary, presented the next paper on the English nonconformist John Owen. Among a number of interesting facts Trueman gave by way of background, he said that it is generally believed that Owen was a tutor to John Locke, the influential thinker and writer of the 17th century. In fact, Locke dedicates a poem of his to one “J.O.” whom many suppose to be John Owen.

Trueman argued that the social and political turmoil that served as Owen’s context was important background to understand in order to rightly interpret Owen’s writing and though.

For Owen, the Decalogue and the Torah are rooted in God’s nature, and are revelations of that divine nature. As such, they are nonnegotiable absolutes to be followed. This Law defines the structure of the relationship between Creator and creature, but the Law does not serve as the mechanism by which men come to God. Like others, Owen believed that the Natural Law is intuitively grasped by human nature, but was obscured to one degree or another by sin. Owen extended this reasoning to argue that all people are obligated to abide by the precepts of the Decalogue by virtue of their being creatures within the law of creation, or law of nature. The law is relevant to all by virtue of its structure with Creation, so the moral laws explicated in the Decalogue are binding for all people.

Owen’s “covenant of works” on the other hand was the Law given at Sinai, and it established a covenant community, which abided by this Law. This expressly given law was a result of grace, where a broken creation vaguely grasps the universal law. Breaking the “covenant of works” did not break the law of creation; it was still binding for all, including God’s covenant people. I’m not sure, but the Decalogue seems to be a sort of crux connecting the Natural Law, or law of creation/nature written on the human heart, and the Sinai Covenant. Thus, the “covenant of works” is still rooted in the law of nature, but is a outgrowth of it in a specific context.

The Decalogue thus served both to inform and to remind. It informed sin-broken hearts of the law that was programmed into them at their creation. It reminded God’s covenant people that the law of nature remained in tact even in the “covenant of works” was broken, and thus still binding.

In regards to uses of the Law, Owen seems to disagree with Luther and agree with Calvin that the Law does serve as moral guide. For the believer, the Decalogue has a primarily positive significance, outlining the moral response to God in matters of sanctification; this also seems to align with Calvin’s thought. It also served to “terrify sinners” and point them to Christ, not the Law, and reveal to them their need for a mediator between them and God.

Life in the Blue Room

This week I started substitute teaching again. It's like being a secret agent. You wake up in the morning to a phone call not knowing what school, subject, or grade level you will teach. (It's not that glamorous)

Through some nice connections at my other job I got to know some teachers and students at a local high school. So this week (and for the rest of the year) I was asked to sub consistently in the behavioral challenged classrooms.

My job was this week was to work in the "blue room." When kids get worked up in class they get send there to process their choices and talk with me about how to make their day better. It sounds a little corny but I think it works. They storm through the door frustrated sit down and after some cussing and threatening they begin to talk. And like most problems in our life I find out it has nothing to do with the teacher or their classmate. There is an issue at home. A lack of confidence. A desire to be respected. A feeling of ineptitude and discouragement.

So we talk about it. They fill out a sheet and go back to class. Some don't fill out a sheet but sit there the whole time cussing, threatening, and throwing books. But overall the blue room is a place of clam.

I think it would nice if we all could have a blue room.

The Greatest Commandment and the Greatest Sacrifice

In conjunction with the Decalogue Conference (previously, I mistakenly called it the Wheaton Theology Conference, which happens in the spring), Dr Cornelius Plantinga, Jr., president of Calvin Theological Seminary spoke Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday at Wheaton College’s chapel, in the Staley Lecture series. In keeping with the Decalogue, Dr Plantinga spoke about the Greatest Commandment, and the second which is like it.

Because the lecture series started before the Decalogue Conference commenced, occurred in the Edman Chapel instead of Barrow Auditorium like the rest of the Conference, and included the whole student body of Wheaton College, Dr Plantinga’s remarks were less academic than those restricted to the Conference. Understandably, the majority of his audience was not made up of scholars and conference attendees, so he tailored his presentation to fit. In all, it seemed out of place next to the rest of the Conference papers, but it was still valuable in its own right.

I watched Dr Plantinga’s messages from Barrows Auditorium, where a live feed was broadcast. It’s amazing how easily one disconnects from the presentation when the message becomes a televised event. At the end of Dr Plantinga’s first message, he invited the audience to stand for his prayer of benediction. Instead of participating, I found myself, initially, watching. If you’ve ever watched a preacher on television pray, you know the experience. Have you ever prayed with them? After some hesitation, and looking around at a few others already standing, I too stood, bowed my head and engaged as a participant instead of as an observer.

Dr Plantinga offered one brief but valuable metaphor toward the end of his second address to Wheaton College that I really appreciated. He was speaking, on a brief tangent, about giving one’s life in the cause of the Good News. It may have been in reference to Matthew 5:11 and the persecution mentioned there. He said, “We do not know if we will have to make the ultimate sacrifice because we are followers of Jesus. Before we learn calculus, we must learn arithmetic. We must first learn to show hospitality and love our neighbor in simple, daily practice.”

At Wheaton, the mind inevitably jumps to Jim Elliot, Nate Saint, Ed McCully, Pete Fleming, and Roger Youderian and the sacrifices they made. All believers, I think, at one time or another ask themselves whether they would sacrifice their lives if put to it. But how much do we neglect to ask ourselves about the lesser things! Am I willing to love my neighbor or honor my parents? Am I willing to do less than give my all, and do that every day?

It is something like this idea that it seems Calvin may have been thinking when he argued that the Decalogue prohibits not just these terrible sins like murder and theft, but also “lesser” sins like anger and selfishness. And perhaps too, we are spurred toward this thinking too when Paul reasons that to break any part of the Law is to break the whole thing. And why Jesus says, you who are angry with your brother have already committed murder in your heart, you who have lusted after a woman have already committed adultery in your heart.

Perhaps the next time we ask ourselves whether we would be willing to make the ultimate sacrifice, we would do better to ask whether we are willing to give up something less? I fear I already know my answer.

Lancelot Andrewes' Decalogue

Unfortunately I missed the Thursday night lecture on the Jewish theologian Maimonides. If you are especially interested in the Decalogue Conference, you can hear all the lectures at www.christianethics.org.

The first lecture Friday morning was on Lancelot Andrewes. Never heard of him? Neither had I, but he is not a minor leaguer. Dr Jeffrey Greenman of Wheaton College used his survey of Andrewes’ views on the Decalogue to make an argument that Andrewes was in fact the first Anglican moral theologian, about 50 years ahead of later, more famous theologians cut from the same cloth.

Behind the Anglican’s Book of Common Prayer, Lancelot Andrewes’ spiritual classic Private Prayers is the most used book in Anglicanism. The influence of the Decalogue on these written prayers is apparent to an attentive reader. As a theologian, Andrewes was not an innovator, but more of an aggregator. He collected and compiled the ideas of his many predecessors and recapitulated them in his sermons and writings, and creating a comprehensive theology in doing so.

As for his work on the Decalogue, during his career at Pembroke Hall, University of Cambridge, Andrewes presented 110 academic lectures on the topic around 1585, while he served as catechist. This easily surpasses Calvin’s 200 weekday lectures, who “only” spent about 2 months in Deuteronomy.

Like Calvin, Andrewes not only understood the Decalogue to be calling for restraint but also inverted the commands and understood them as virtues to be espoused. That is, don’t just “not steal,” but also “give to others.” In Prayers, Andrewes referred to the prohibitions as “deprecation” and the directives as “comprecation.” Deprecation in prayer served as confession, while comprecation in prayer served to “interiorize” the Decalogue into the spiritual life. The Decalogue thus oriented spiritual life and conduct.

In keeping with normal interpretation, Andrewes had two tables, 1-4, 5-10. In his thinking the first table regards love of God (holiness) and the second regards love of neighbor (righteousness). The fourth command, while in the first table, was subordinate to the first three. Meanwhile in the second table, in moving from 5 to 10, Andrewes discerned a movement from common (general) to private (particular). For Andrewes, the Decalogue served as the true Christian Ethic, surpassing all others. The Decalogue was the foundation of Christian moral ethics.

Andrewes did weigh in on the argument surrounding the Sabbath. Is it universal or particular? Is it moral or ceremonial? Andrewes rooted the Sabbath commandment in the creation story, before the Fall, and so argued that the command was not ceremonial in nature but universal. The ceremonial law came only after the Fall.

Andrewes expanded the fifth commandment to apply to all relationships of superiors to inferiors, establishing a manner for living in the social hierarchy of his day. But this was not a matter of power for the leaders, but of responsibility to those whom they lead.

Andrewes was, in all, a very practical theologian, with a pastor’s heart. He was not concerned with treading new ground but with applying orthodoxy to daily living. His thinking echoed Calvin’s and was steeped in the church fathers and other medieval theologians. Like Calvin, and like later successors in moral theology and Puritanism, Lancelot Andrewes was comprehensive in his theology. Comprehensive more like a heavy blanket than a driving rain.

Luther and Calvin go head to head

All of the Q&A sessions were good, but the Luther/Calvin Q&A was the most interesting. A question was posed seeking to distinguish Luther’s views from Calvin’s on the uses of the Law. As I mentioned, Luther had two explicit uses of the Law, while Calvin added a third. The questioner suggested that Luther had a third use for the Law: to serve as a moral guide for the believer moving toward God.

To this Dr Wengert responded that Luther certainly did not have a third use of the Law, even while an early follower, Melanchthon, added a third.

“I don’t care if Luther acknowledged having one or not…” the questioner responded.

“Well, many do care,” Dr Wengert defended.

The questioner’s argument seemed to be that Luther implied a third use of the Law even if it was not expressly stated.

Finally, as good disagreements tend to do, the pivotal question finally arose: “Did Luther believe the Ten Commandments provided guidance for the Christian life?”

To this, Dr Wengert responded that for Luther, spontaneity arises from the Law to good works in daily life. This is what he meant when he said that the Christian life in the common life.

Another distinction that came up was the differing emphasis on purity. Luther broke with the earlier emphasis on purity, believing it was the result of God’s grace alone. Calvin saw purity as the means, not the end, that is, the believer must become holy before coming to God.

Was I predestined to post this?: Calvin's Decalogue

Despite Dr Susan Schreiner’s claim that there is “nothing more boring that John Calvin on the Ten Commandments,” she managed a lively presentation. While Luther called the Decalogue “God’s Hammer,” she said, John Calvin captured the feel of that hammering, “like a driving rain.”

From March 1555 to July 1556, Calvin preached every weekday, including Saturdays, through the whole Bible. (I think this is what it means to have a mind “steeped” in Scripture.) Much of June and July 1555 were devoted to expositing Deuteronomy, from which much of Calvin’s interpretation of the Decalogue was drawn.

For Calvin, the Decalogue was a form of the Natural Law, which is written on the hearts of men, even if it is obscured in a fallen conscience. Whereas Luther divided the Decalogue into 3 tables (or tablets), Calvin had 2. Whereas Luther had 2 uses of the Law, Calvin had 3: to reveal sin and drive sinners to Christ as sole mediator; to restrain unbelievers and so maintain civil order in society; and to make believers more holy by restraining their sinful impulses. This third use illustrates Calvin’s philosophy about dual nature of the believer’s heart: It is both righteous and sinful, justified and in need of sanctification.

Calvin departed from Luther in a number of other ways as well. Calvin emphasized purity and holiness more than Luther did, preceding the Puritans in this. He praised Moses, referred to the Decalogue as a law of grace, and believed that God rewarded those who obeyed the Law.

For Calvin the first table of the Decalogue consisted of the first 4 Commandments. In his thinking, this first table served to restrain men from idolatry and preserve pure and proper worship. True worship, he believed, means recognizing God’s right to have authority over us.

Calvin approached each command from 3 angles. First, he examined them as explicit prohibitions, but that prohibition encompassed actions that broke the same laws to a lesser degree. One example of this, I would think, would be that of anger as defying the prohibition to murder. The second angle was to endorse the opposite of the command as a virtue to be practiced. So “do not steal” became “give to others.” Finally, Calvin believed that a pure conscience was necessary for fulfilling the commands. This was achieved by examining minutely both the law and our consciences for failure to abide by these commands.

For Calvin, an ought could equal a can for a believer empowered by the Holy Spirit. Remember that Luther did not believe an ought does equal a can, although he did not delineate between believer and unbeliever. Calvin used Romans 2:6 to draw his distinction between “reward” and “merit” for obedience to the Law. In his view, good works were not a qualification for but a confirmation of salvation.

The Decalogue, for Calvin, is the true and eternal tool of the righteous. The substance of the ceremonial and moral law is unchanging, which he rooted in God’s own immutability (unchanging nature). God did not abandon the Old Testament. Calvin maintained a unity and sameness of substance between the Old and New Testaments. This unity explains Calvin’s affirmations of holiness and perfection.

Schreiner concluded her presentation be speculating about why the Decalogue has seen a resurgence of interest recently. She supposed that in a world where everything is relative and always changing, there is something attractive about an unchanging, natural, universal, moral ethic. She mentioned a movie titled Decalogue by a Polish director named Kieslowski, and quoted from another book titled I Am the Lord Your God.

“…neither we nor our distant progeny will live to see a new Christian culture in the Western world…. Modern persons will never find rest for their restless hearts without Christ, for modern culture is nothing but the wasteland from which the gods have departed, and so this restlessness has become its own deity; and, deprived of the shelter of the sacred and the consoling myths of sacrifice, the modern person must wander or drift, vainly attempting one or another accommodation with death, never escaping anxiety or ennui, and driven as a result to a ceaseless labor of distraction, or acquisition, or willful idiocy. And, where it works its sublimest magic, our culture of empty spectacle can so stupefy the intellect as to blind it to its own disquiet, and induce a spiritual torpor more deplorable than mere despair. … In this time of waiting, in this age marked only by the absence of faith in Christ, it is well that the modern soul should lack repose, piety, peace, or nobility, and should find the world outside the church barren of spiritual rapture or mystery, and should discover no beautiful or terrible or merciful gods upon which to cast itself.”

Who’s the driving rain now?

Word Up

My vocabulary is quite limited. Yesterday, through conversation or reading I ran into some new words that humbled me. I'm going to try to use them everyday this week. I'll be giving myself bonus points if I can use them all in one sentence!

insipid- without distinctive, interesting, or stimulating qualities; vapid:

thaumaturge -a worker of wonders or miracles; magician.

pugilism-The skill, practice, and sport of fighting with the fists; boxing.

Anybody have some words I should add to my vernacular this week? (Doppleganger is definitely in there!)

Doppleganger?

At the Decalogue Conference, I had this random woman come up and ask me if I had any family in Wisconsin. I don't, I told her. She told me I looked exactly like the band director at some high school in LaCrosse. I think she was referring to this guy. What do you think?

I'm tempted to write more about ego and identity, but I will not give in. I always take things too deep. Let's be superficial on this one.

Luther's Decalogue

The next set of papers were presented on Martin Luther and John Calvin. Dr Timothy Wengert presented the first paper on Martin Luther. Luther’s figure is imposing in any element of historical theology, and the same is no less true in the interpretation of the Decalogue. Luther moved us from Patristic and medieval theology, past medieval piety into Reformation theology.

Luther famously, I gathered, drew a distinction between Law and Gospel in his theology. For later theologians, this seems to be an important point of agreement or disagreement by which to discuss the Decalogue. Luther said that the Law was to the Gospel as the righteousness of this creation was to the righteousness of Christ.

For Luther, the Decalogue had two uses: the reveal sin in the individual’s experience, not just cognitively; and to establish a basis for civil order. For Luther, in the Decalogue an “ought” did not imply a “can.” That is, simply because one was commanded that he should do something doesn’t mean that he could carry it out apart from God’s enabling.

The first commandment for Luther struck at the heart of sin: unbelief. It demanded faith to replace unbelief in the hearer. Luther’s “faith” inevitably gave rise to so many good works that “self-chosen spirituality” was unnecessary. Luther made this argument, it seemed, in part to undermine the validity of monastic orders, which apparently seemed to function as artificial mechanisms for generating good deeds (Col 2:23).

The Liber Graduum and Aquinas made distinctions the moral lives of common Christians and those of “saints.” As far as I could tell, Luther rejected this division. He embraced the entirety of life as holy unto God. The Christian life is the common life. This is another reason why Luther rejected monastic spirituality. He supported this argument by focusing on the idea of the law written on the heart. This seemed to extract the Law from its contexts in Exodus and Deuteronomy.

While the Law revealed sin, it did not create faith. It pointed to Christ, but it did not do the positive work of moving them toward him per se. Instead, belief arises out of God’s mercy.

The Decalogue is famously imagined as being on two tablets. For Luther, the Decalogue was tripartite: 1-3, 4, 5-10. That is, he saw each tablet having distinct and different applications based on their purposes. He also placed these in a 4-tier hierarchy, from top to bottom: 1, 2-3, 4, 5-10.

Luther also weighed in with his interpretation on the fourth commandment. He argued that all days were sacred, or that different days were made sacred by different people. He believed that individuals should set aside a day as sacred unto God or consider all days sacred. This seems fitting in light of his desire to embrace the entirety of life, the common life, as holy.

Aquinas' Decalogue

Dr Matthew Levering from Ave Maria University presented his paper "Aquinas on the Decalogue" as we moved forward into the second millennium after Christ. Like many of the earlier church fathers, Aquinas saw the Decalogue as the Natural Law revealed to man. He argued, interestingly, that God delayed in its revelation in order to show man the futility in his own reason and its inability to grasp universal law. Whereas Irenaeus believed one purpose of the Decalogue was to prepare man for friendship with God, Aquinas said that part of its purpose was to establish man's relationship to God. However, I'm not sure how significant this difference is.

Dr Levering prepared 4 parts in his paper. The first, already mentioned, looked at the Decalogue as revealed natural law. Then, the second looked at the Sabbath commandment, a seemingly out-of-place command better suited to the ceremonial law. Next, he considered Aquinas' view on whether obedience to the law was meritorious, justifying the sinner before God. Finally, he intended to examine the question of whether God had violated his own Decalogue with a case like the sacrifice of Isaac. This fourth part was the primary "cargo" that was thrown overboard due to time constraints. Dr Levering promised to his dismay that this was indeed the most compelling part of the paper.

With the first part, Aquinas argued that the Decalogue was made up of such principles as would be ready for the mind of man to apprehend immediately. This is because, for Aquinas, not even sin can remove from man the natural law in its first principles. (This seems to me to arise from the idea in places like Jeremiah and Ezekiel where God says he will write his law on men's hearts.) On the other hand, Aquinas believed that sin could remove from man the ability to apply via reason those first principles in specific situations. Dr Levering was sure to point out that the Natural Law for Aquinas was not autonomous morality.

With the second part, on the Sabbath command, Aquinas reasoned that not every Word of the Decalogue belonged to Natural Law "in the same way." As far as I could discern, this meant that certain precepts are not accessible to natural human reason. I assume this takes us back to the first few statements made here: Man's thinking is futile and unable to grasp universal law on his own; but when revealed to him, man sees these precepts as though they were quite reasonable and sensible. In the case of the Sabbath, Dr Levering explained that worship is a reasonable activity since all men worship something, someway, somehow. The Sabbath command sanctifies this reasonable impulse by calling us to it. This line of thinking though doesn't explain another piece of the revealed Decalogue: the name of Yahweh. Dr Levering did not sort out this conundrum, nor was the issue raised.

Going further on the topic of the Sabbath, Dr Levering said that Aquinas follows Augustine and Origen in his understanding of the Sabbath's presence in the Decalogue. It is not primarily a ceremonial precept or an application of the Decalogue. Instead it captures a universal of creation, but at the same time functions within the covenant in particular. It is both universal and particular. It also serves to point backward to Creation in the 7th day, and forward to the elevation of Creation in Christ himself. So in the Sabbath command we see a function, for Aquinas, of the Decalogue--to elevate the Natural Law through the revealed law and bring out of Creation a covenant community.

The third and, unfortunately, final part of Dr Levering's paper dealt with the Decalogue and justification. Here he cited Matt 19:17 as an important text. For Aquinas, justification happened through the Decalogue only for those already in covenantal union with God. Hebrews 11:6 points more specifically to argue that full obedience to the Decalogue requires charity (love). Finally, the Law functions to draw man to God, while grace assists man in movement toward Him. Similar to Tertullian and the Liber Graduum, Aquinas conceived of individuals as finding two ways in the Christian life: "possessing" justice (character) or doing works of justice (action).

The Decalogue for the Early Church

The sessions at the Wheaton Theological Conference are broken into dual lectures. The second pairing combined the church fathers and the medieval theologian Thomas Aquinas. Dr Alison Salveson from the Oriental Institute at University of Oxford spoke on Origen and the Church Fathers. Then Dr Matthew Levering of Ave Maria University presented Aquinas’ perspective on the Decalogue. Due to technical problems, both lectures were a bit rushed. In the case of Dr Levering, the joke became that of “throwing cargo overboard.” As a result, what is an already heady topic for me became harder to follow, but I will do my best to outline their presentations.

In Dr Salveson’s examination, the treatment of the Decalogue was considered in various Greek, Latin, and Syriac works, with their authors where available. The first four from Greek were the Didache, the Letter of Barnabas, Justin Martyr, and Irenaeus. I’m sorry to have failed to grasp the central points on the first two.

In Justin Martyr though we see Decalogue equated with the Natural Law as a universal. However it is also conceived as being embodied somehow by Jesus. This sort of equation is something we will see throughout the church fathers. In a variety of ways they will connect Jesus to the Decalogue.

In his analysis of the Decalogue, Irenaeus didn’t make such a strong correlation with the Natural Law. Instead he said that the Decalogue is a reminder of the Natural Law. He argued that God “prepares man for His friendship through the Decalogue.” As for the rest of the Jewish Law, Irenaeus saw it as bondage.

Moving on to some Latin writers, Dr Salveson looked at the Decalogue in Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, and Origen. For Tertullian the Decalogue is the written form of a preMosaic, unwritten, natural, and universal law that was applicable from Adam to the present. He rejected it as a “yoke of works”—or action—but maintained that it was a “yoke of moral discipline”—or restraint. The seems to portend later ideas about works and temperance, in my very humble analysis.

Clement argued that the Mosaic Decalogue “defines sins in a way conducive to salvation” and “must be observed.” He also offers his equation connecting the Decalogue with Jesus: Decalogue = iota (jot) = Name of Jesus. This, he says, is the “jot that will not pass away.” However, Clement refused that the higher meaning (Jesus as the embodiment) eliminated the literal meaning (Decalogue as law) but instead affirmed both to be true.

Next, Origen posited that Moses himself embodied the Law of God. He believed that the Decalogue was necessary for human discipline in a way much like the 10 Plagues of Exodus. They both served to chastise the disobedient.

Finally, Dr Salveson reviewed some Syriac documents (please forgive my gloss over of the geographic nuances of these texts). Specifically, she discusses the Didiscalia Apostolorum, Aphrahat, Ephrem, and Liber Graduum. Here I recognized what appeared to my perception as some interesting previews for later beliefs.

The Didascalia Apostolorum interpreted the Law of Moses as coming from Jesus, having spoken through Moses, followed later by Jesus himself speaking directly to us. Thus, this grants Jesus’ the authority to state, “You have heard it said…, but I say….” The D.A. offered a “simple law”: “Do not do to others what you don’t want done to you.” This was primary, followed then by the “second law” of ceremonial observances. And again, another equation: Yod = Ten = Decalogue = Jesus. While this logic may seem irrational to our sensibilities, I thought of similarly confusing--but apparently esteemed--logic in the Gospels (Matt 22:31-32).

Aphrahat picks up the ideas of Tertullian in dividing the Decalogue from the other laws of Moses, considering the 10 Words to be the life-giving light yoke while the other laws function as punishments. The 2 Greatest Commandments (to love God and love others) stand above the law according to the Aphrahat. This leans toward answering Dr Block's question about the prioritization of the Decalogue beside the Law. And similar to commonly held ideas today, the Aphrahat argued that observance of the Decalogue functioned as proof of faith.

Next, Ephrem weighs in on the relationship between the Decalogue and Natural Law saying they are identical. The remainder of the Mosaic Law, he says is instead meant to address the Decalogue in contingent circumstances, that is, in application. This seems to be similar to our own practices, allowing us to set aside the various portions of the Law as culturally bound. Again, this is one way the problem is answered that Dr Block raised on the prioritizing of the Decalogue in relation to the Law. Ephrem begins to set the stage for more modern interpretations like Luther and Calvin (to come) by distinguishing a Covenant of Justice and Covenant of Grace in the functions of the Decalogue and Law.

Finally, the Liber Graduum brings about an early, rather blunt, formulation of ideas that seem to crop up later. It presents a two-tiered concept of the Christian life: those who are Christians and those who are serious Christians. In the terms of the Liber Graduum, these two tiers are the Just and the Perfect. The Just follow the Golden Rule, the Decalogue, and the “minor” Law of Justice. Meanwhile, the Perfect are more serious and follow the “major” Law of the Perfect, the 2 Greatest Commands, and imitate Christ by taking up their crosses and forsaking all. The Just do the minimum amount necessary to be acceptable to God. The Perfect go above and beyond in their commitments to Christ and the Decalogue. Even in this later theological development, the equation inclincation hangs on: Yod = 10 = Decalogue (and Jesus represents the higher Perfection of the Decalogue). This equation corresponds in some way to the two-tiered system of the Liber Graduum.

The 10 Words in the New Testament

In our examination of the Decalogue through the centuries, Dr Evans moves us from the Old Testament into the New Testament and gives us a review and analysis of the use of the 10 Words in the world and writings of the New Testament. He outlined where in the NT the 10 Words appear, being alluded too, presupposed, or directly quoted. A few major texts include Jesus' conversations in places like Matthew 5, Mark 10, Luke 16, and John 9; Paul's rhetoric in Romans 7 and 13, 1 Corinthians, Ephesians 4 and 6, Colossians 3, and 2 Timothy; and James’ discussion in James 2 and 4.

He then reviewed how the Decalogue appeared implicitly and explicitly in the teachings of various people: John the Baptist, Jesus and his half-brother James, and Paul. In summary, the first 3 of the 10 Words are never subject to a controversy in the conversations of the New Testament. Rather Yahweh's existence, monotheism, and an anti-idolatry sentiment were accepted and assumed in Jewish culture and writing of the day. It was commands 4-7 that became subjects of major controversies among the Jewish religious leaders and with Jesus, especially Sabbath observance, adultery, and honoring parents.

The divorce controversy appears in Matt 10:2-9, where Jesus’ interpretation of Deut 24:1-4 differs strongly from the Pharisees’. He ties his interpretation to Gen 1:27 and 2:24. The Sabbath controversy (healing and plucking heads of grain) is one in which Jesus argues that the Sabbath is meant “to benefit, not burden, humanity.”

Evans makes an interesting connection from James 4:3, 8 to Matthew 7. He argues that James seems to root his statement that “you do not have because you do not ask” in Jesus’ teaching to “ask and you will receive.” This, it seems, is Jesus’ answer to the sin of coveting. Thus Jesus is saying, “Instead of coveting, ask in prayer for what you desire.” This certainly hit home for me.

This covetousness, Evans goes on, is in some views the root of all sins: the desire, or lust, for the illicit. Philo and The Life of Adam and Eve have this sort of outlook.

Evans then posed for us a seeming contradiction between Jesus and Paul. In Mark 10:17-22, Jesus seems to say obey the Law and you will live. But Paul says in Romans 7, the Law brings death and that men can agree with the law but cannot comply by their own strength. But, Evans points out, the rich young ruler goes away sad after his conversation with Jesus, and his real sin is only implied but never addressed: covetousness. Thus, this story actually affirms Paul’s argument: The rich young ruler could not follow the Law under his own power, and was still guilty of coveting.

In the Q&A time, a few more interesting bits came out. There was a discussion of the references to the Decalogue in Mark, where “defrauding” is placed beside “adultery, false witness, theft” and the like, even though it does not appear with them in the Decalogue. Dr Block noted that “defrauding” is a major theme in Deuteronomy so that Mark seems to be interpreting Deuteronomy by adding “defrauding” to his own list. This was an area for further study.

Dr Block argued that the Decalogue is separate from the Natural Law specifically because of its “vertical elements.” That is, the first three commands are revealed to men, not apprehended through reason, to enable men to relate vertically to God. This, he argued, is the distinguishing mark of the Decalogue from other ancient Near East suzerain-vassal treaties, which have stipulations similar to the Decalogue’s latter 7 commandments.

Both Dr Block and Dr Evans agreed that the Gospels seem to rely primarily on the Decalogue in Deuteronomy instead of the one in Exodus, given the distinctives between them and how they are reflected in the Gospels.

Finally, in considering the function of the Law according to the New Testament, James 2:10 was considered, and the question was asked, “What does it mean to ‘obey the Law’?” The answer: The Law reveals man’s imperfection and inability to follow the Law. Dr Block stated then, “The Law is made for the righteous man.” That is, “it is not a way out of Egypt. It is a way after Egypt.”

Big Questions about the 10 Commandments

I'm on the rainy campus of Wheaton College today and tomorrow for the Wheaton Theology Conference. This year's conference is "Reading the Decalogue through the Centuries." It is primarily about the interpretation of the 10 Commandments in the Christian Tradition since Jesus.

This morning we had lectures by Dr Daniel Block and Dr Craig Evans, followed by a Chapel talk from Dr Cornelius Plantinga. Dr Block's paper was titled, "Reading the Decalogue Right to Left: The Ten Principles of Covenant Relationship in the Old Testament." In Hebrew, text is read from right to left in contrast to English. This title was somewhat reactionary to a deconstructionist interpretation by David Clines in a paper titled "Reading the Decalogue Left to Right."

Both Dr Block and Dr Evans required much of their listeners, as, I think, is expected in a scholarly conference of this sort. Their focus is on content, not presentation, and I immediately recognized that this conference would exceed my basic exposure to and knowledge of the 10 Commandments.

Dr Block's paper meant to give us an understanding of the 10 Commandments in the context of the Old Testament. Here are some highlights. First, "commandments" is not the best designation for the Decalogue. They are first and foremost the "Words of Yahweh." Secondly, they would be better designated as the "10 Words" or the "10 Principles" than as the "10 Commandments." His point here was that the Decalogue is primarily communicative before it is legislative. In other words, God is in conversation with us his people before he is a law giver handing down obligations to be obeyed. The 10 Words are not so much "enforceable law" as they are "covenant policies," a "framework within which we live."

Dr Block investigated a few questions in his paper: "Is the Decalogue a summary of the Torah?" He also asked, "Who is the Decalogue for?" He argued that the 10 Words are for the "heads of household." Thus, the Decalogue outlines the responsibilities that he (head of household) had to care for and lead his household. The Decalogue wasn't intended to empower the man to govern (patriarchy) but to limit the power with which he lead (patricentrism). The 10 Words were meant to prevent the head of household from abusing his power, thus protecting the covenant community and, more immediately, the head's family and neighbors.

This is a profound interpretation. Patriarchal rule is a charge that antagonists level against much of the Christian activity in society. But in actuality, the 10 Words were meant to prevent such abuses of power and control. This view has implications for concepts like adultery, divorce, and property, all of which we see later in Jesus' conversations in the Gospels. On this subject, Dr Block summarized it with a powerful statement: "Leadership exists for the sake of the led, not the interests of the leader."

A final question Dr Block addressed is, "Does the Decalogue have greater authority than the rest of the Torah (the Law)?" Along with a corresponding question: "Is the Decalogue permanent and unalterable in contrast to the rest of the Torah?" In essence, his answer, as I understood it, was "no."

The follow-up question we're faced with is whether we treat the 10 Words in the same way we have treated the rest of the Law (as temporary [cultural] and alterable), or whether we extend to the Law the same permanent and unalterable status we give to the 10 Words? There is not an easy answer.

That is why, then, we have a "Reading of the Decalogue through the Centuries." Men and women have answered this question in different ways throughout the centuries. Dr Block set up the problem well. I'm looking forward to hearing the answers that have been offered throughout history.

The President-Reflect

I've been saying for 9 months that Obama would be our next president. One reason I believed this was that his story fulfills our desire for a movie-script presidency. He rises from humble obscurity to national glory. Movies influence American culture and ideals in deep, powerful ways. We want our president to embody all that. Obama did. We voted for his movie.

Last night, after Obama's victory speech, my roommate and I sat watching, and listening to the music. "I feel like I'm watching a movie," he said.

I agreed. In unison, we both pointed to the television and directed, "And...roll credits."

It seems we weren't the only ones experiencing movie-quality history. The Suburban Christian points to the MTV Movies Blog, regarding the soundtracks that captured the moments of McCain's concession and Obama's ascendancy:

Movie lovers might have noticed that each man chose music from a Washington movie to play while walking offstage after their respective speeches. And, not for nothing, but we think they both made the perfect choice.

Consider: McCain left the Arizona stage to part of Hans Zimmer’s score from “Crimson Tide.” (This part, actually.) The 1995 Tony Scott film focused on a career Navy man (Gene Hackman), labeled a maverick by some, who is stripped of his authority and ultimately beaten by a young black guy, somewhat new to the scene (Washington).

Then there was Obama, who left the stage to the strings of Trevor Rabin’s score from “Remember the Titans.” The 2000 Disney/Bruckheimer joint? It followed an African-American coach who brought together whites and blacks to win a championship.

The music was appropriate for these national moments because those movies do embody something of this national story.

At the outset I said that movies influence American culture and ideals. Perhaps its not the movies that influence our ideals but that our ideals that are embodied by our movies. Perhaps it is not a vision given to us but a mirror held up to show us what we hope for. Perhaps both our movies and our president are reflections of who we are as a people.

Ultimately, it works both ways. Our movies and presidents mirror us, but those mirrors also change us. We look into the mirror to know ourselves better, and what we see and learn there changes how we live and what we choose.

Today, now that we see ourselves a bit more clearly, we need not gaze like Narcissus forever at our own reflection. Rather, we should go and live and choose as we ought in light of those reflections. The mirror can only show us who we are, but we must choose who we will become. We must choose and act, not just watch and wait.

Otherwise, to remain gazing at our own reflection will change us. And it is not the kind of change we can believe in. Whether we stand and admire or stand and despise, we will not simply see a reflection anymore. We will have become the reflection in the mirror. Then there will be nothing left of the people standing in front of the mirror. We will be false fronts and green-screen images of ourselves. And when the mirror shatters, as they all do in the end, we will find that we have broken with it.

I'm Voting. I'm Voting For...

I'm going to vote this election. Even if I think the system has it faults it still is a way to be political. It might not be the most ethical method of engagement but within these confines there is an opportunity to engage the world. For some that is a non-vote, for me it is a vote.

So who am I voting for? I debated whether or not to post this. I thought about my future work in the ministry and how this post could haunt me for years, etc, etc. But that is the problem. Who we vote for has become so individual. So I am going to open it up because I want to be challenged, positively criticized and engaged on these issues. I am very limited and these are just my views. I'm open to others. So let me hear it.

The past 3 days I've done meticulous research. I stupidly put this off until the last minute so my homework has taken a back seat! I am voting third party because the two party system is defunct. Obama and McCain are both good candidates but I don't like this form of "democracy."

So I have been debating between Ralph Nader, Cynthia McKinney, and Bob Barr. I love Nader and McKinney's (Green Party) focus on social issues. But the trump for me is Barr's focus on a smaller government (Libertarian Party) that provides an opportunity for people, not the government to intervene.

I think social issues are incredibly important but believe the people (more Libertarian/Barr), not the government (more Green/McKinney and Independent/Nader), should lead the way. (Specifically, the people should be the church).

Here is what I feel on the issues. Maybe this can help you if you are up in the air or ignorant (like I admittedly am).

What I like (for the most part)
Health Care- I like the idea of universal health care (Nader/McKinney) but I don't know if single payer health care is the best method. We all pay money to the government who then in turn regulates how that is distributed. I think Bob Barr's proposal to largely remove the government out of the health care industry makes better universal health care more possible. Especially because they encourage charitable organizations to step in and fill the void.

Social Security- Again I like the idea that elderly people are provided for, which has become the function of social security (Nader/McKinney support). Barr supports privatizing social security which worries me about those who can't personal provide. But what I like is that it encourages personal stewardship and (like Barr says) it encourages charities and people to help one another out.

Education- Barr wants to let local agencies and state governments have control of education. This would reform No Child Left Behind and place the power in the hands of the parents. I don't know if child vouchers would necessarily solve the problem of the inequality of education but I don't think that letting a centralized government distribute the resources is going to solve the crisis. Smaller scale is more effective and I think states should work with existing public schools/teachers unions to make education more effective.

Environment- Barr says that global warming is a myth. I don't know if it is a myth or not but I do know that we need to clean up the environment. He is right in saying that global warming has been abused as a platform for both Democrats and Republicans. Barr doesn't want the government to invest money into alternative forms of energy. Instead he wants people to invest into alternative forms of energy and to use the resources we have here. That's cool.

Oil- He believes that we should use the oil that is here in the United States. I suppose this is an option but what I like better is that the government, according to Barr, shouldn't be as controlling about our oil use/production. He instead wants to let the states impose regulations.

Iraq- He wants the U.S. out of Iraq. I agree. He wants us to cooperate with the U.N. in being invovled in the Middle East. I agree.

Foreign Policy- He believes that humanitarian aid is our best foreign policy. Not military intervention. I agree.

Abortion- From what i have read he is personally against it. But he recognizes that it is difficult to legislate morality so the answer isn't as simple as pro-life or pro-choice.

Social Justice Issues- They want to eliminate welfare, government subsidized housing, food stamps, etc. Instead they want to rely on " supportive family, church, community, or private charity to bridge the gap." I like that .

My Concerns
Guns-He doesn't want gun owners to register their weapons and is fairly lax about any regulations around weapons. For me, I think the less guns the better.

Crime-Barr is pushing for more jails and capital punishment. We have a lot of people in jail right now and instead of putting money for more bars I think we need to put more money into making bars uncessary. They want to eliminate over crowding of the prisons by lessening the laws on drug trafficking/use. I'm up in the air but I like that they are focused on eliminating the root causes of crime. As for capital punishment I'm not a big fan.

Flip-Floper- He was once a Republican but now a Libertarian. He has flipped on a lot of issues and I question why he is even registered as a Libertarian. But the diversity of the party is nice. It includes a lot of independents, ex-Republicans/Democrats and they work hand in hand with the Green Party.

I'm Probably Republican/Democrat/Libertarian/Green/Indpendent
The Libertarian Party is notorious for having people of opposite extremes in the party. I like that. I'm not the biggest fan of Bob Barr but I support the movement of the party's position. I really feel like I could vote for McKinney, Nader, even Obama and McCain and be comfrotable with a lot of their policies.

Conclusion
I don't think this party is anti-community. Yes, it wants to put the power back in the hands of the people. But I don't see "people" as being individuals, but as a whole. People worry that without the government intervening to distribute wealth, provide for social needs, and regulate our spending than we become more individualistic. For me, I see less government as opening up the doors for us to use our resources to bless people. That means it's up to me, not the government, to legislate how my money, resources, and time provide for the well-being of everyone.

Links
All the Canditates on all the Issues. Un-Biased Websites...

-www.votesmart.org
-www.glassbooth.org (great website)
-http://www.procon.org/

Libertarian Party
-www.lp.org

Stock Market Spirituality

I'm an introvert by nature. Recently though, I've been wondering if I'm becoming more of an extrovert. When I compare myself to who I was 4 years ago, there seems to be some evidence that this could be.

One quality of extroverts is the tendency to talk before thinking. They sort of learn what they think along with everyone else, as they hear themselves saying it. This happened to me Thursday.

Before I go into that though: I've claimed in the past that I'm terrible at coming up with metaphors. I would love to be good at drawing analogies to explain my ideas or argue my viewpoint, but I'm just not good at coming up with analogies in the moment. This is frustrating because if I pause to brainstorm one, it's too late. Someone else jumps in and the conversation runs in another direction. Anticipating this, I'll panic and blurt out, "Well, it's sort of like...," hoping something will come in the meantime. Invariably, I end up sounding foolish ("'Seems,' madam? Nay, it is. I know not 'seems'"), filling in the blank with the first thing that comes to mind, which turns out to be something like "a kitten" or "cerebral palsy." Exactly.

So, carpooling home yesterday, I found myself talking like an extrovert and sounding like an analogy microwave.

"I think that a lot of people my age approach spirituality the way investors approach the stock market. Everyone's wondering what the next big bubble will be that will help them stay on top. But that's the exact reason we're faced with this financial crisis. We're so concerned with the next big thing that we don't have a long-term strategy for investing toward growth. We have this idea that spirituality is about getting to the next big high before too long. Too long and we'll find ourselves in a desert. We can't endure any sort of sustained downturn or valley. We need to be worried about planting and growing, not uncovering the next spiritual moment."

I was already mixing my metaphors.

My carpooling compadre said, "I think our faith might be better off if more of us had gardens. We need to think about spirituality less in terms of commerce and more in terms of cultivation."

I agreed. I think that's a transition that we struggle to make in our 20s. We've experienced a lot of bubbles in our spirituality so far, bolstered mostly by hormones and broadening experience. Now, we're into a sustained pattern of adulthood, and figuring out what a faithful spirituality looks like by contrast is something we're forced to explore or abandon. Exploring what faith will look like over the next 50-60 years is daunting. But it's especially daunting if we believe we have to keep boiling up a zeal and fervor of spiritual bubbles.

When we shop around for the best bubble, it becomes a spree that's dictated, seemingly, by luck. We have no active role in making the big find for our spirituality except to search, sometimes desperately. But when we think of it like a garden, we can be much more proactive. A lifetime's worth of activity in fact. And yet there's also much that is out of our control as well. The apostle of analogies captured it this way. "One person plants the seed. Another waters it. But God makes it grow." I think that says it all.

Defining the Decade

Certain images and events capture the spirit of a decade. "The Roaring Twenties" had it flappers. The 60s had Woodstock. The 70s had "Saturday Night Fever". The 80s had RunDMC, ratted hair, and rolled jeans. The 90s had Nirvana and The Matrix.

So last night I was thinking about what would capture this our first decade in the 21st century. These were a few things that came to mind.

My sister and brother-in-law love this show. And we agreed that "American Idol" will definitely have a part in defining the decade.

No doubt. The iPod changed, well, everything.

9/11. Those numbers will never mean the same thing again.

Facebook is the quintessence of Web 2.0. I don't know yet if Facebook has been around long enough to be a defining element of the decade. But its pervasiveness, the way it's changed how we think and talk ("Adam can't quit thinking in Facebook status updates."), makes a strong case for it.

"Google might take over our lives. And I think I'm okay with that," I heard someone say. Some think they're changing how we think. They're organizing the world's information. It would be hard to exclude them from this list.

We're in a huge political season, so I'm not going to explore that realm except to say that President Bush certainly was hugely influential on this decade, but I think Barack Obama will be more of an icon for the decade in our memories.

What about music or television or movies? Have they been overshadowed by these other giants?

Things Worth Remembering

A few weekends ago I had the chance to visit my maternal grandmother. The last time I saw her, she was in an apartment at a Presbyterian Manor living semi-independently. She had been living there since before my grandfather’s passing four years earlier. The apartment was an end unit with a private entrance, a patio and a few plants and, inside, wall hangings from the home they’d first retired to before I was born. The familiar smells of that house were gone. They were replaced with the smells of medication and industrial-strength cleaning solvents. The framed cross-stitch, family photographs, and ceramic lamps fit like laughter at a gravesite.

This time, we parked along the half-circle drive, and entered through the main doors. To the left, the receptionist desk was empty. I followed my parents to the elevator. We filled it as best we could, equidistant from each other, leaning against the walls the way you do in an elevator. “I always have to prepare myself for this,” my mother said looking at my father as we rode to the second floor. I realized I should perhaps prepare myself as well.

The door opened. My mother turned down a long hallway. In a dim commons area with couches and a large television, cluttered with wheelchairs and walkers, a Nicholas Sparks movie was playing, and those not watching it outnumbered those who were. We passed to the left a small nurses’ station. A door on the right was open and a Notre Dame football game was just under way, the announcer’s voice blaring on the television.

Dad and I stood in the hall while Mom knocked on the door. “Let me make sure that Grandma’s dressed,” she said to us. It was four in the afternoon.

Each morning in my real life, I charge out the door, dressed for the day with work or women on my mind. I navigate erratic traffic patterns and at work make dozens of decisions based on a variety of considerations. I coordinate my social calendar via emails and Facebook, update my status with something witty and vague, and cross off line items from my to-do lists. After work I grab some food, find some friends or a good book, surf the Internet or the TV channels, or fulfill some obligation I’ve committed to.

Here, in this assisted living facility, real life isn’t defined by what they do. Real life here requires assistance. Not unlike the rest of the world, only more obviously.

The hallway is wide and clear of any obstacles. There’s a handrail along both walls, for stability. I stood thinking how depressed this place was. Clean, orderly, and blandly decorated. It lacked anything like what we call life. Yet the people there represented long lives of experiences, and perhaps even a hard-earned wisdom that comes with those lives. I wonder if wisdom is perhaps blandly decorated.

But wisdom it seems has left my grandmother. “They’re moving her to the Alzheimer’s unit,” my mother had written me the week before. “It's sad, because it's the very place she never wanted to go.” That’s where my grandfather was at the end. “Just pray that the Lord will take her home,” mom instructed me.

Now, we were visiting her the weekend before they moved her. She was in good spirits and in a bit of clarity. When we walked in, she was sitting in a folding chair talking on her rotary-dial telephone. I looked around her small room. The narrow single bed sat in the middle with a soft-colored quilt tucked in neatly around the edges. On it, I noticed faded stains that reminded me of a coastline on a map. A small dresser and vanity mirror stood in the corner next to a recliner and a lamp, and the telephone. There were pictures of all her children and their families. Even outdated photos, but memories nonetheless.

To the person on the other end, she was saying, “Well, it’s Sharon and Brad, and…” she looked at me with a look that could’ve been mistaken for fear but I think was simply complete unknowing.

I smiled, “Adam. Sharon’s son.”

“What? Oh,” and then to the telephone, “Adam. Yes.”

She talked for a few minutes then handed the phone to my mother. It was Mom’s younger brother. “Yes, it’s us,” she said to him, affirming that we indeed were here in the room. It wasn’t my grandmother’s brain playing tricks on her.

“You have a nice room here,” I said.

“Oh, yes. It’s okay. I wish Daddy could stay in here too, but he stays in another room.” Pause. “I don’t think I’ve ever been in his room though.” She’d raised nine children. She’d referred to her husband more often as “Daddy” than anything else in all those years.

Mom hung up the phone and turned to her mother. “How are you mom? You look good.”

“Well, I’m good, probably better than I look,” the wrinkles at the corners of her eyes were like parentheses, letting us in on the subtext. We laughed. Her good sense of humor had not changed.

She touched her hair with a fragile, discolored hand. She always did that when attention was directed toward her. Her other hand lay in her lap clutching a folded tissue. She was sure to use and reuse the same tissue, a habit started out of harder times. She folded her hands around it again and placed them in her lap.

“Are you in school then?” she asked, looking at me.

“Nope. I’m working full time. I live in Chicago.” I explained what I did, and she listened politely.

My parents explained that my other grandmother’s birthday had brought us to Kansas this weekend and that we were only visiting for an hour or so. Grandma asked if we were staying to have supper with her, but we already had plans, my mother explained.

For a bit, our conversation turned to her shoes. Typically, she wore small, neutral-colored flats. But she was wearing forest green Crocs.

“I don’t suppose they’re the kind I like,” she said as though she were drawing that conclusion about someone else based on what she had learned about them. She looked at them more closely and seeing the holes in them. “I couldn’t even wear these outside if it were raining. My feet would get all wet!”

She was certainly correct, ever the pragmatist. How could one explain to someone so disengaged that these shoes were “cool,” and that for that reason they were worth having? We resorted instead to more pragmatism: “They are quite light weight, aren’t they?” But the absurdity of the shoes remained. It amazed me how quickly we can see things from a new perspective and recognize how misguided our own perspective seems in that light.

She turned to me again and asked about school. I explained that I had a full time job and lived in Chicago. She was attentive. When I explained exactly what I did, she pondered it to herself for a few moments.

“He loves to read just like Daddy did,” Mom said to Grandma.

“Oh. Yes,” Grandma recalled. Her words were always simple and stark. “We should go visit Daddy while you are here too. But,”—a moment’s pause—“I guess Daddy’s not living anymore, is he?”

I wondered how many times a day Grandma realized that. The blunt sadness for her seemed only diminished by a sort of vague familiarity. It was like the coat rack in the room. When she was not looking at it she did not think about it, but whenever her attention fell upon it, she recognized it for what it was.

“Well, mom, we need to be going,” my mother began wrapping up our visit. “I’m planning to come back tomorrow to see you again, okay?”

We all stood, and my mother hugged her. Then my father. With a fragile hand she hugged his neck and pecked his cheek, her glasses askew in doing so. It was very labored and mindful.

When she hugged me I was surprised by her strength. It was not frail or weak or half-hearted. With a hand near my face, she pecked me on the cheek with her parched lips.

“It was good to see you again,” I told her.

She gathered her cane and shawl, then her purse.

“Are you going to go out with us?” Mom inquired.

“Yes. I’m hungry. I think supper should be shortly. Will you be staying for supper?”

“No, mom, we have to leave, but you’re welcome to walk out to the elevator with us.”

In the hallway, she took hold of the rail and put her hand in my arm. We made our way slowly, past the nursing station. The TV volume of the football game had been turned down considerably, if not off. In the commons, slumped on the couch was a women my grandmother wanted us to meet, “Tantelisean.” We said it was very nice to meet her. The conversation lulled.

“Here. You stay here, Mom,” my mother directed her to seat on the couch. “We need to leave now.”

Grandma accepted this. She gave each of us a hug again, in the same order, with pecks on the cheeks for Dad and me. It was with the same meaning and care that she hugged and kissed us, glasses askew. I laughed to myself at the adsurdity, but it spoke of something else: wisdom. It was wisdom not built on a sound mind. The Alzheimer’s had claimed that. It was wisdom woven into a habit of character. It was in the shabby repetition of goodbyes that I witnessed a wisdom built upon years of choosing. Now with all those memories cut out from underneath, what remained was this expression of love.

We eased ourselves toward the elevator, waving again.

“Tantelisean,” my mother informed me on the elevator, “was her aunt who she was close to when she was a little girl. She thinks that woman is her Tantelisean.” Then to my father, “She was in many places today, wasn’t she? In different moments she was in her childhood, then at home with Daddy, then in school, then here. She lives always in the present moment though.”

Running with a Name

I have to share the bad with the good. Today I ran a 5k. I was so excited about my last race I decided to do one more. If that race was titled "Joyful Surprises," this race is titled "A Disappointing Effort."

I still managed 4th place but added a whopping 2:25 onto my time! It was cold and there were about 20 more turns on the course and I have never felt my body lock up like it did during the race and all the guys I talked to said their times were a bit slower too.

But, excuses aside, 2:25 more! Come on.

My previous race time would have placed me 1:30 before the guy who won today. Even when I ran a 5k last week to train I beat today's time (18:30).

What was the difference? Honestly, I ran the race with the goal to win. That was my motivation and I knew I could do it. But about halfway through the race the guys who finished 1 and 2 pulled away from me and I ran ran the last 1.5 miles all by myself.

The previous race I ran with/beside somebody at all times. I moved from pack to pack, individual to individual. They gave me a goal to shoot for, a purpose, a challenge. But today there was nobody there to spur me on. Today with about 400 yards to go another guy overtook me and I just let him go. The drive wasn't there. My body didn't have it. I finished and wanted to re-run the race.

But, really, what was the difference? Purpose. My goal was to win the race, which I probably should have done. The previous race all I wanted was to beat 18:00, and did! That morning I just wanted to run, I just wanted to finish strong, to do my best, to have pleasure.

Last night I watched Chariots of Fire, and this quote kept bouncing around in my head today, "I run in God's name, let the world stand back and wonder."

Warning and Notice: Public Blog Confession: Winning became about my name, not God's.

This isn't about me being "real," or "authentic" or gaining sympathy, or getting more attention through a blog. (It does feels good to share my frustrations and failures, Catholics are on to something with confession).

This is a prayerful reminder for myself and for you to live in God's name.

Vote, Unless You Are A Moron.

You'll know my view on this image when you are done reading.

O.k. here it goes. I'm laying it out there. This post is months overdue and been going for months in my head. Being that it is really late and I feel an obligation to post I apologize about the lack of scholarship involved.

This year the issue for me isn't who to vote for. The issue is am I even going to vote in the first place. Why? Well Dave Fitch and Mark Van Steenwyk tell it better. I can give gobs of reasons why I am dismayed with the American political system. I truly think to even get into a position where someone could be elected the President of the United States requires an ethics and perspective that is counter to Christ. Plainly put, I think the system is corrupt. (But even though it is corrupt it is better than most and I am grateful for that) Just because voting is my right as a citizen does not make it my responsibility. (I have the right to carry arms but it isn't my responsibility). Having the right to vote gives me the luxury (an amazing luxury only available because of what others have done) to choose whether or not I want to participate. I have not forgotten that my forefathers were spurred on by a vision for democracy. Their actions are so close to my heart but those actions do not obligate me to vote. Rather, they give me the opportunity to do so, and for that I say "thank-you."

This is my concern. Voting has become too big. There are countless ways to be political. There are countless ways that you are political everyday without realizing it. Where do you shop? Where do you buy gas? Did you support a cause? Did you share your views on the elections today? What kind of music did you listen to today? Did you recycle? Did you give to the poor? Did you carpool today? Check out this creative list.

My concern is that voting has become the way to be political. instead of being a spoke on the wheel it is the wheel. As a result we have decreased and neglected the other ways to be involved in the political process. I can write a blog, ride my bike, shop locally, preach at church, read about current issues, pray, BUT if I don't vote than I'm neglecting my duty. I think going into the polls on November 4th, voting, and getting a sticker doesn't make you political. What makes you political is how you live your life, even if that means being a moron.

How Not to Vote

It’s a tough decision this election. A lot of the friends I’ve asked still haven’t decided. I’ve shared their frustration. I find my inclinations to be “gut feelings” instead of informed opinions. I wonder if gut feelings are typically the voter’s guide.

There is plenty of discussion about not voting too. Al Hsu reviews a book about it at The Suburban Christian. Dave Fitch is arguing for it at Reclaiming the Mission, but he’s been challenged on it. Stanley Hauerwas entertained the idea in a recent interview with The Other Journal. But others believe voting to be a God-given civic (even sacred) duty.

The Economist published a series of articles on the major election issues, and it seems even-handed and without an obvious bias (i.e., “fair and balanced”). The Economist is a British magazine, so it’s less entrenched in U.S. political biasism. Its conclusion is a good, brief summary. If you don’t read anything else, read that, but each of the articles in the series is also very readable and worthwhile. If you’re like me in the gut feelings predicament, I encourage you to feed your brain from The Economist’s menu.

The Economist neatly layed out for me the major issues of this election: economic plans for the economy, health care, energy and the environment, values, foreign policy (including Iraq and Afghanistan), regulation and trade, education, crime, immigration, and the candidates themselves.

These categories they had given me were, according to them, the most important election issues I should consider. But I realized that I should be receiving my priorities from elsewhere: What priorities does Jesus expect me to vote for, and would his priorities be achieved through these platforms?

Essentially, what I’m saying is, before I can form an opinion about any election issue or political platform, I need to understand what Jesus promotes.

As one example, someone asks Jesus what the most important command is from the Law of Moses. Jesus responds, “Love God. Love people.” Okay, so how does that priority inform my stances on, say, foreign policy or on immigration? Does it at all? Maybe Jesus’ priorities can’t be achieved by a governmental body at all. Can a governing body relate to God or to people and love them? If not, then what does it matter who I vote for or what the government does?

Well, I think most would agree that government action does affect the individual and how the individual relates to others and even to God (consider China). But the translation from “Love God. Love people.” to my stance on tax cuts for the rich versus the poor may not be so clear cut.

Loving God and people is something I can get my arms around and act on. Meanwhile, figuring out how to accomplish it with my vote seems much more complex, and less certain to succeed. Yet, having been bombarded by an election that has lasted nearly 2 years on the 24-hour news stations, it’s easy to misalign my priorities with the pundits and believe that when I exit that polling booth on November 4 I can go home and wait for the results.

Manning Up

Props to Chaka for taking up my challenge and coming clean about his man crush.

“He lives in fame that died in virtue's cause.”

from Men's Journal's "It Ain't Easy Being This Mellow"


"The standard musician motivation," says Johnson's agent Tom Chauncey, "is 'I want to be big, I want to be famous,' and that is so not Jack. He stays who he is, how he lives. He doesn't lose his priorities. He will not tour from November to January, when the waves are good."

"I'm a pretty unlikely celebrity," Johnson says. "I'm a pretty normal guy. I never really had dreams of being famous."

It's a suspect claim for a guy who has been organizing his own bands since high school, but it's consistent with the Hawaiian surf-culture ethic of humility: Never show even the slightest ambition, lest you be ridiculed. But the remark also reveals some genuine discomfort he feels toward the loss of privacy and control that has come with his increasing fame. "At some point," he says, steering the conversation toward a subject he's more eager to discuss — his environmentalism — "I realized you can either talk about all these personal things and let people into your life, or you can try to direct all that attention onto things that you're interested in. Not just pushing the attention away from me, although that's positive, too."


from Conde Nast Traveler's "Matt Damon's Good Work Hunting"

[Matt] Damon also feels that celebrity brings with it an opportunity to do good. "You start to feel a level of responsibility to direct attention to things that actually matter more than to silly things like who you're dating." ...

Damon talks about Africa with a passion that comes from spending time there. Never once during our conversation does he plug or even talk about a movie project. The actor says that his trips have made the solutions real to him, brought them to life. In Tanzania, for instance, he visited a clinic and spoke with a 21-year-old mother with a baby in her arms. The child was slack-jawed, his head lolling back and forth. "I thought he was going to die right in front of me," Damon says. When he asked if there was something he could do, the child's doctor said the baby was going to be fine: He had already received life-saving anti-malarial medicine. Damon spoke with the mother, who lived on less than a dollar a day in a village that was a two-hour walk away from the clinic, and learned that her other child had died from malaria. "Then I realized that because of President Bush's malaria initiative, this baby had survived," says Damon, referring to Bush's 2005 pledge to increase malaria funding by $1.5 billion over five years. "American taxpayer money saved this baby's life."

...

Damon says he hopes the next president will urge a new era of service in America. He is encouraged that both John McCain and Barack Obama have promised to travel to Africa and step up aid to the continent. "We are about to turn a wonderful corner and close this chapter of aggression, where the only American face that people see on foreign soil is the face of a soldier," Damon says. "As well-meaning as that soldier is, that sends a certain message. But when you go to a country and see your fellow Americans feeding people or getting clean water or saving their lives, you are really seeing the best of us. We are exporting the best of who we are—and who we should be."

In the News

Never before have I posted on current issues in society. I tend to avoid these conversations because my lack of knowledge. But a larger reason is that it tends to aggressively divide people. You agree with me and we are on a "team." You disagree and we are on competing or opposite "teams." I don't write this stuff to argue or divide but to share. Feel free to share back at me or feel free to wait until I post again.

These thoughts aren't exhaustive...

Gas prices- I paid $3.25 a gallon today and felt proud. The receipt is taped to my windshield and I took a photo of the price with my phone (not true). Of course I am glad to see gas prices go down but what I appreciated about the increase was that it caused people to re-evaluate their lives. More carpooling, more efficient cars, less pollution, etc. When you drive around look at how many people are driving by themselves. Over 90% of the time it is just me in my car with my bike in the backseat. I know $4.00 is a lot for a gallon of gas but what about the value of people and the environment? If you want to know where I stand on the whole global warming issue it is...I don't know. I saw Gore's documentary and have read the counter arguments. Was it good propoganda? Was it a hot button issue to swing votes? Maybe. But what it comes down to is that a lot (not all) of the suggestions for stopping global warming are just good. Whether or not global warminig is actually happening the choices to burn less fuel and cut back on consumption are part of being good stewards of God's earth.

The United States Economy- So 2 months ago I opened up an IRA. (Yeah, I don't have a career and am thinking about retirement :) ) One of my friends casually called this "conservative." I called it being a good steward of what is given to me. If that makes me conservative than o.k. I'm not hoarding money to have a nice nest egg so I can retire early and live in Florida. This isn't a control move based on worry and anxiety. Rather, I want to make practical steps to better my future. Just like I made practical steps by going to college, traveling to Scotland, going to Seminary, taking a shower this morning, brushing my teeth, and by not eating hotdogs. Back to the IRA...I haven't looked but know my money is disappearing. The economy is in shambles but what I love is that the economy of God isn't.

Voting- I have wanted to write a post on voting for a long time. Hopefully it will happen before the election. All I'm going to ask is, "what are you hoping for?" "What are your expectations?" I strongly believe that we need to consider how much we have invested into the United States political process.

Going to Church in Congo

Another post about my trip is up at Hope for Congo. Here's an excerpt:

Inside, there were wood benches mostly, but we were sat in the second and third rows, in mismatched plastic, patio chairs. The pastor and other church leaders greeted us with handshakes. As they shook our hands they touched their forearms with their opposite hands, a gesture of respect. I took my seat in a baby blue armchair. The floor was dirt. I studied the ants climbing up and down the wall near a beam supporting the tin roof overhead. The sunlight slipped between the top of the wall and the roof.

I thought about the sanctuary of my church back home. It is a new building, and I had heard it once described as a “fully controlled sound and light environment.” Here, muffler-less cars grumbled past in the street behind us. Drums and cymbals carried across the street from what I presumed to be another church. The bed sheets looked like sails as the air pressure vacillated in and out of this space.

Read more at Hope for Congo blog.

Get Some Fresh Air

I am spoiled because my job requires me to work outside. I just want to challenge you to go outside today because it is beautiful. Don't go into your house right away when you get back from work. Take a walk around the block. Or spend a few moments extra in creation before you hunker down this evening.

If you don't live in the Chicago area you won't get to enjoy our great weather. But nevertheless, go outside today, and enjoy.

My Love Life

Let's get personal, shall we? I went to a wedding this weekend and the conversation at the reception turned to relationships and dating. After some jokes and general ribbing I was asked about my "love life." So here is an update on love in my life.

I love family, friends, good health, school, soccer, laughter, sleeping, quietness, the country, the city, books, used books, church, music, bananas, cereal, reunions, comebacks, free music, shared meals, Denison Witmer, Mr. Potato Head, worship, dreams, suspenders, concerts, conversation, bicycles, monkeys, pens that write smooth, brown sweaters, the smell of rain, running, sports, God, photography, my blanket on my bed, big trees with lots of leaves, jokes, stories, light blue tuxedos, hiking, talcum powder, Mom's Sunday roast, comics, caramel candy, Necco wafers, traveling, phone calls from friends and family, Sleeping at Last, warm showers, drinking water, good music, long yawns, candles, Sunday afternoon naps, orchestras, plays, gardens, the Pittsburgh Pirates, change, stability, good ol Baptist hymns, Scotland, fireflies, miracles, testimonies, the Bible, red circles, kids, old people, good beverages, Cool Hand Luke, memories, Jesus, Pittsburgh Steelers,

and people who read this entire list.