Today's sermon is entitled The Authority of Jesus.
(For lectionary aficionados, the sermon is not based on this Sunday's lectionary reading as I need a spare semon up my sleeve at the moment.)
12 August 2007
09 August 2007
08 August 2007
Link: Holistic Holiness
There is a really excellent post on the subject of Holistic Holiness by the President of Methodist Conference, Martyn Atkins over at the The President and Vice President of the Methodist Conference blog.
I am also glad to see Martyn and Ruby using this form of communication.
I like this post because I'm interested in how, as Methodists, we can be more conscious of our 'Methodist distinctives' whilst at the same time working ecumenically. (I think a heart for ecumenism is a modern Methodist distinctive, anyway.) As Martyn says, the idea that personal piety and good works must go hand and hand is absolutely core to Methodism.
I am also glad to see Martyn and Ruby using this form of communication.
03 August 2007
Gregory of Nyssa on Peace
Today's reading from Celebrating the Seasons is an extract from Gregory of Nyssa's work, On Christian Perfection.
'Christian Perfection' is a concept that is very much part of Methodist tradition and one which many other Protestants found difficult to accept in Wesley's time. I'm of the view (although not everyone agrees with me) that Wesley waivered on what 'Christian Perfection' meant and whether or not it was achievable in this life. Wesley almost certainly would have read Gregory of Nyssa's work. Gregory's view of 'Christian Perfection' seems very different from much of current Protestant tradition.
For those who argue that 'peace' was not at the heart of early Christian tradition, I think this extract is evidence that they are wrong. I was particularly struck how Gregory seems to equate salvation with the death of hostility - expressed hostility as well as 'spiritual' hostility. Gregory exhorts followers of Christ to 'become peace' in order to 'be true to the name of Christ we bear.'
Gregory writes:
'Christian Perfection' is a concept that is very much part of Methodist tradition and one which many other Protestants found difficult to accept in Wesley's time. I'm of the view (although not everyone agrees with me) that Wesley waivered on what 'Christian Perfection' meant and whether or not it was achievable in this life. Wesley almost certainly would have read Gregory of Nyssa's work. Gregory's view of 'Christian Perfection' seems very different from much of current Protestant tradition.
For those who argue that 'peace' was not at the heart of early Christian tradition, I think this extract is evidence that they are wrong. I was particularly struck how Gregory seems to equate salvation with the death of hostility - expressed hostility as well as 'spiritual' hostility. Gregory exhorts followers of Christ to 'become peace' in order to 'be true to the name of Christ we bear.'
Gregory writes:
'Christ is our peace, for he has made both one.' Since Christ is our peace, we may call ourselves true Christians only if our lives express Christ by our own peace. As the apostle Paul has said: 'Christ has brought hostility to an end.' So it is incumbent upon us not to allow that hostility to be resuscitated in us in any way at all; we must proclaim its death absolutely. God has destroyed it in a marvellous way for our salvation. Thus it is important that we do not allow ourselves to become resentful or to nurse grudges because these things will threaten the well-being of our souls. We must not stir to life by our evil actions the very thing that is better left dead in us.
But because we bear the name of Christ who is peace, we too are called upon to secure the end of all hostility. In this way what we believe with our minds will be professed in our lives. Christ destroyed the dividing wall and brought the two sides together himself, thus making peace. We too, then, should not only seek to be reconciled with those who attack us externally, we should also be actively seeking to reconcile the warring factions that rage within us, so that flesh and spirit are no longer in constant opposition. Then, with our minds stable and our flesh subject to the divine law, we will be refashioned into a unified creature, into men and women of peace. When the two have been made one, we shall experience peace within ourselves.
Peace may be defined as a harmony between opposing factions. When, therefore, the civil war in our nature has been brought to an end and we are at peace within ourselves, then we ourselves will become peace. Only then can we be true to the name of Christ that we bear.
02 August 2007
01 August 2007
Why I Kinda Like Liturgy
Why I Kinda Like Liturgy - Strange title?
First of all, I want to explain that I'm writing this post from the context of British Methodism. If you happen to be an expert in the history of Christian liturgy or a Vestment Vixen, this post is definitely not for you. This post is my explanation into a denomination where I perceive that congregations generally don't have have much regard for formal, written liturgy and often look down upon it.
Secondly, I use the word 'kinda' because I want to explain what I think is good about formal, written liturgy. Often, I think, Christians assume that if one likes liturgy, one will also hate a service with extempore prayers and/or charismatic worship. I do not hate informal or extempore worship; For me, personally, these two forms of worship serve different purposes; I suspect that they may also reach different types of people and that some people are best reached by formal, written liturgy and others are best reached by extempore worship.
So here is why I 'kinda like' formal, written liturgy.
1) Most worship has 'liturgy' or ritual in it anyway. When I attended a church with informal worship, we always began with three praise songs, two which built us up into praise of God and one which quietened us down a bit to come before God in a prayer of approach. Believe it or not, that's actually liturgy. As are the words 'Oh Lord, we just want to come before you today and bless your holy name.' That's liturgy too. This is probably how the first ancient liturgies got written. People found patterns of worship and words that worked and these were repeated until they eventually got written down.
2) Formal, written liturgy has good theology and is well-written. This is important to me. I don't think I've had any 'bad theological experiences' in Methodism, but I've had them in other informal contexts. What can you do when someone says something in prayer or leading worship that is simply incorrect doctrinally? Not a lot, really. Also, in my experience, the theology expressed in informal worship almost invariably centres around 'having a personal relationship with Jesus' or possibly with 'healing' if it's a healing service. Both are well and good, but somewhat limited. Formal liturgy references all three persons of the Trinity and their work, Christian discipleship and stewardship as well as having a personal relationship with Jesus.
3) Formal, written liturgy links us with Christian tradition. I suspect that for many this might be an argument to abandon formal liturgy altogether! But I don't actually think that Church Tradition has gotten everything wrong all the time. When we use formal, written liturgy, we are not only linking ourselves with other Christian brothers and sisters who are saying those prayers right now, but we also link ourselves with our Christian brothers and sisters who went before us into glory.
4) Formal, written liturgy helps us to pray when we don't have the words to pray ourselves, especially those of us who have not been given the gift of speaking in tongues. People often testify to being held in the practice of prayer during times of emotional distress by saying the Daily Office. Also, one benefit of saying the daily office is that you get into the habit of praying whether you 'feel like' it or not.
I think that the number one criticism I hear of formal, written liturgy is that it is rote and insincere and done by people who don't 'really believe'. As someone who values liturgy and who believes and feels that she is 'really and sincerely worshipping' when she uses it, that can often be hard to hear. That said, I know I've certainly seen and heard liturgies where it appeared that neither the worship leader nor the congregation were getting much out of it. But I think that flags up a danger with respect to written liturgy. I don't think it's correct to say that all practice of formal liturgy must necessarily be insincere.
One of the things I love about Methodism is our 'wide church' approach. We are theologically wide and liturgically wide. I hope that Methodists can respect each other no matter what form of worship they prefer.
N.b. This post is not a criticism of any individual or any group in Methodism. I hope it's not perceived that way. It's been born of some discussion about 'worship styles' both on the internet and In Real Life.
First of all, I want to explain that I'm writing this post from the context of British Methodism. If you happen to be an expert in the history of Christian liturgy or a Vestment Vixen, this post is definitely not for you. This post is my explanation into a denomination where I perceive that congregations generally don't have have much regard for formal, written liturgy and often look down upon it.
Secondly, I use the word 'kinda' because I want to explain what I think is good about formal, written liturgy. Often, I think, Christians assume that if one likes liturgy, one will also hate a service with extempore prayers and/or charismatic worship. I do not hate informal or extempore worship; For me, personally, these two forms of worship serve different purposes; I suspect that they may also reach different types of people and that some people are best reached by formal, written liturgy and others are best reached by extempore worship.
So here is why I 'kinda like' formal, written liturgy.
1) Most worship has 'liturgy' or ritual in it anyway. When I attended a church with informal worship, we always began with three praise songs, two which built us up into praise of God and one which quietened us down a bit to come before God in a prayer of approach. Believe it or not, that's actually liturgy. As are the words 'Oh Lord, we just want to come before you today and bless your holy name.' That's liturgy too. This is probably how the first ancient liturgies got written. People found patterns of worship and words that worked and these were repeated until they eventually got written down.
2) Formal, written liturgy has good theology and is well-written. This is important to me. I don't think I've had any 'bad theological experiences' in Methodism, but I've had them in other informal contexts. What can you do when someone says something in prayer or leading worship that is simply incorrect doctrinally? Not a lot, really. Also, in my experience, the theology expressed in informal worship almost invariably centres around 'having a personal relationship with Jesus' or possibly with 'healing' if it's a healing service. Both are well and good, but somewhat limited. Formal liturgy references all three persons of the Trinity and their work, Christian discipleship and stewardship as well as having a personal relationship with Jesus.
3) Formal, written liturgy links us with Christian tradition. I suspect that for many this might be an argument to abandon formal liturgy altogether! But I don't actually think that Church Tradition has gotten everything wrong all the time. When we use formal, written liturgy, we are not only linking ourselves with other Christian brothers and sisters who are saying those prayers right now, but we also link ourselves with our Christian brothers and sisters who went before us into glory.
4) Formal, written liturgy helps us to pray when we don't have the words to pray ourselves, especially those of us who have not been given the gift of speaking in tongues. People often testify to being held in the practice of prayer during times of emotional distress by saying the Daily Office. Also, one benefit of saying the daily office is that you get into the habit of praying whether you 'feel like' it or not.
I think that the number one criticism I hear of formal, written liturgy is that it is rote and insincere and done by people who don't 'really believe'. As someone who values liturgy and who believes and feels that she is 'really and sincerely worshipping' when she uses it, that can often be hard to hear. That said, I know I've certainly seen and heard liturgies where it appeared that neither the worship leader nor the congregation were getting much out of it. But I think that flags up a danger with respect to written liturgy. I don't think it's correct to say that all practice of formal liturgy must necessarily be insincere.
One of the things I love about Methodism is our 'wide church' approach. We are theologically wide and liturgically wide. I hope that Methodists can respect each other no matter what form of worship they prefer.
N.b. This post is not a criticism of any individual or any group in Methodism. I hope it's not perceived that way. It's been born of some discussion about 'worship styles' both on the internet and In Real Life.
29 July 2007
A Blog for 'The Methodist Recorder'???
OK, I'm flummoxed. There is a relatively new blog in cyberspace entitled The Methodist Recorder.
For those who are not 'in the know', the Methodist Recorder is a weekly newspaper for the British Methodist Church. Something like The Church Times, except that The Methodist Recorder doesn't have competitors in the way that The Church Times has The Church of England Newspaper.
Anyway reading through The Methodist Recorder blog, I'm inclinded to think that it is a wind-up. However, it's using the logo and the address of The Methodist Recorder.
Wondering what others think?
For those who are not 'in the know', the Methodist Recorder is a weekly newspaper for the British Methodist Church. Something like The Church Times, except that The Methodist Recorder doesn't have competitors in the way that The Church Times has The Church of England Newspaper.
Anyway reading through The Methodist Recorder blog, I'm inclinded to think that it is a wind-up. However, it's using the logo and the address of The Methodist Recorder.
Wondering what others think?
25 July 2007
The Religious Right
Caveat: This is meant to be an expression of personal opinion. I hope I reason fairly well. I do not, however, make any representation that my opinion has any sort of 'academic' or 'objective' basis. It is merely opinion from observation.
What is the 'Religious Right' and does it have anything to do with being a 'born again' Christian? Indeed does the American 'Religious Right' have anything to do with British Christianity? I think not for a number of reasons.
First of all, I don't think that the 'theology wars' as they are raging in US and UK Christianity are perfectly contiguous. There does seem to be one central issue (homosexuality), and there are intersections between the two battles but I don't think that there is perfect symmetry. That is, I don't think that 'conservatives' or 'liberals' on both sides of the Pond are necessarily battling for all the same things. Show me a conservative Christian in the UK, for example, who is in favour of the death-penalty. There might be an individual or two out there (there always is) but this is hardly a loud voice in conservative British Christianity.
But what is the 'Religious Right'? Let me quote one blogger who identifies as 'Religious Right' rather than quoting the myrid pejorative definitions of 'Religious Right' in cyberspace. This particular blogger thinks that the 'Religious Right' hold as core to their belief system that human beings have a God-given right to life, liberty and private property.
My whole objection to this approach is that it's not even Christian, let alone 'born-again Christian'.
First of all 'rights language' is hugely problematic in the context of orthodox Christianity. I believe (and someone more informed than I can correct me if I'm wrong) that rights language is based in Enlightenment humanism and not Christianity. It might be a reasonable secular translation of the Christian concept of prevenient grace; a secular humanist can hardly quote Psalm 139 or say that God loves everyone equally. But 'I have rights' is an ontological concept - about my very being - that belies what the bible tells us about our original sinful nature. In Christian terms, none of us has rights, but God does offer his love, forgiveness and salvation (grace) to everyone.
The other issue that have a huge problem with as a Christian is the idea that every human being has a right to individual property and individual wealth. This philosophy is the antithesis of the great commandment to love God and love one's neighbour and to be our neighbour's keeper. The love of individual property and the belief in an individual's 'right' (sic) to amass as much wealth as he or she likes is at the heart of the idolatry of American culture.
Note that I'm not talking about 'what economic system works best in a secular context'; that may very well be the political right to individual ownership. But I hope that this is the kind of pragmatism that I believe will be eliminated in The Kingdom when we are all able to follow God's commandments in perfect obedience.[1] My objection is that, in my experience, 'the right to invididual ownership' is truly viewed as a core spiritual value by both the Religious Right and much of American culture. I think it's genuine idolatry.
You'll hardly be surprised that I agree that 'The Religious Right is neither'. As someone who considers myself 'born again' and as someone who believes that the concepts of 'New Birth' and 'The New Creation' are absolutely central to Methodist spirituality and tradtion, I honestly believe that 'The Religious Right' is sub-Christian. Dare I invoke the famous statement: 'There I stand. I can do no other.'
[1] For the avoidance of doubt, I do not believe in 'works-based salvation'. I believe that The New Creation is eschatological and founded on the life, death and resurrection of Jesus. The Kingdom is 'not yet' but it is also 'here and now'. The 'Religious Right' also disagrees with the 'the here and now' bit.
What is the 'Religious Right' and does it have anything to do with being a 'born again' Christian? Indeed does the American 'Religious Right' have anything to do with British Christianity? I think not for a number of reasons.
First of all, I don't think that the 'theology wars' as they are raging in US and UK Christianity are perfectly contiguous. There does seem to be one central issue (homosexuality), and there are intersections between the two battles but I don't think that there is perfect symmetry. That is, I don't think that 'conservatives' or 'liberals' on both sides of the Pond are necessarily battling for all the same things. Show me a conservative Christian in the UK, for example, who is in favour of the death-penalty. There might be an individual or two out there (there always is) but this is hardly a loud voice in conservative British Christianity.
But what is the 'Religious Right'? Let me quote one blogger who identifies as 'Religious Right' rather than quoting the myrid pejorative definitions of 'Religious Right' in cyberspace. This particular blogger thinks that the 'Religious Right' hold as core to their belief system that human beings have a God-given right to life, liberty and private property.
My whole objection to this approach is that it's not even Christian, let alone 'born-again Christian'.
First of all 'rights language' is hugely problematic in the context of orthodox Christianity. I believe (and someone more informed than I can correct me if I'm wrong) that rights language is based in Enlightenment humanism and not Christianity. It might be a reasonable secular translation of the Christian concept of prevenient grace; a secular humanist can hardly quote Psalm 139 or say that God loves everyone equally. But 'I have rights' is an ontological concept - about my very being - that belies what the bible tells us about our original sinful nature. In Christian terms, none of us has rights, but God does offer his love, forgiveness and salvation (grace) to everyone.
The other issue that have a huge problem with as a Christian is the idea that every human being has a right to individual property and individual wealth. This philosophy is the antithesis of the great commandment to love God and love one's neighbour and to be our neighbour's keeper. The love of individual property and the belief in an individual's 'right' (sic) to amass as much wealth as he or she likes is at the heart of the idolatry of American culture.
Note that I'm not talking about 'what economic system works best in a secular context'; that may very well be the political right to individual ownership. But I hope that this is the kind of pragmatism that I believe will be eliminated in The Kingdom when we are all able to follow God's commandments in perfect obedience.[1] My objection is that, in my experience, 'the right to invididual ownership' is truly viewed as a core spiritual value by both the Religious Right and much of American culture. I think it's genuine idolatry.
You'll hardly be surprised that I agree that 'The Religious Right is neither'. As someone who considers myself 'born again' and as someone who believes that the concepts of 'New Birth' and 'The New Creation' are absolutely central to Methodist spirituality and tradtion, I honestly believe that 'The Religious Right' is sub-Christian. Dare I invoke the famous statement: 'There I stand. I can do no other.'
[1] For the avoidance of doubt, I do not believe in 'works-based salvation'. I believe that The New Creation is eschatological and founded on the life, death and resurrection of Jesus. The Kingdom is 'not yet' but it is also 'here and now'. The 'Religious Right' also disagrees with the 'the here and now' bit.
14 July 2007
Jesus Meme
Over at Perspectives, Crystal has tagged me for the Jesus Meme.
The rules are that those tagged will share 5 things they "love" about Jesus. Then they must choose 5 others to tag. I'm going to break the last rule as I'm on holiday at the moment. I'm also feeling 'blogger's block' in case anyone hasn't noticed!
1) I love Jesus because he is my brother, God incarnate. I love the incarnation because, to me, it means that God cares enough to 'get alongside' humanity.
2) I love Jesus because he is my Saviour. Not content to simply 'get alongside' humanity, the incarnate second person of the Trinity came to save us from our own sinful natures.
3) I love Jesus because he teaches me how to be fully human. By both word and example Jesus sets the example for how God means humanity to be.
4) I love Jesus because he teaches me how to love. Jesus displays a love that is practical and real, a love that perserveres through thick and thin.
5) I love Jesus because he is a healer; his healing love displays the heart of the Father. If we have seen Jesus, we have seen the Father.
The rules are that those tagged will share 5 things they "love" about Jesus. Then they must choose 5 others to tag. I'm going to break the last rule as I'm on holiday at the moment. I'm also feeling 'blogger's block' in case anyone hasn't noticed!
1) I love Jesus because he is my brother, God incarnate. I love the incarnation because, to me, it means that God cares enough to 'get alongside' humanity.
2) I love Jesus because he is my Saviour. Not content to simply 'get alongside' humanity, the incarnate second person of the Trinity came to save us from our own sinful natures.
3) I love Jesus because he teaches me how to be fully human. By both word and example Jesus sets the example for how God means humanity to be.
4) I love Jesus because he teaches me how to love. Jesus displays a love that is practical and real, a love that perserveres through thick and thin.
5) I love Jesus because he is a healer; his healing love displays the heart of the Father. If we have seen Jesus, we have seen the Father.
04 July 2007
30 June 2007
Jesus - Suffering Servant, not Conquering Messiah
Here is another excellent commentary on tomorrow's gospel reading, this time from Preaching Peace.
Some people are quite concerned to say that God forgives us only after his anger at our sin and / or his anger at sinners has been satisfied by the death of his Son. I do not agree with this view and may therefore be representing the view unfairly because it's not my own. As I see it, people who believe this are worried that those of us who don't hold to their view don't believe that sin is a serious thing.
The reason that I have a problem with this view is that I believe that Jesus was quite clear that he came as the Suffering Servant and not as the conquering Messiah. Tomorrow's Gospel reading actually makes that quite clear.
Sin is very serious indeed. The problem is that the idea that violence can be conquered by violence just plays into the 'worldly' agenda in my view. The great myth that our human nature would love us to buy into is the myth that if only my enemies could be destroyed, peace will reign in my heart. It will do. Temporarily. Until I find another person or group to hate.
The only way to achieve peace is to become peacable and act peacfully.
Why do I keep going on about this and why do I think it's important? Well, first of all, there is currently a debate going on about 'theories of atonement'. In plain English, Christians are discussing how it is that we come to be reconciled with God. Why does God forgive us?We reject Jesus self-identification [as the Suffering Servant] too when our Christology sacrifices Jesus on the altar of the violent God. Some espouse a Christology in which God has a wrathful (if temporal) relationship with Jesus; a Christology that demands propitiation; a Christology wherein Jesus is scapegoated by God as well as by us. This Jesus gets even in the end, brings justice through violence, “his terrible swift sword.” To the extent that we claim all or part of this Christology, we stand rebuked as well.
Some people are quite concerned to say that God forgives us only after his anger at our sin and / or his anger at sinners has been satisfied by the death of his Son. I do not agree with this view and may therefore be representing the view unfairly because it's not my own. As I see it, people who believe this are worried that those of us who don't hold to their view don't believe that sin is a serious thing.
The reason that I have a problem with this view is that I believe that Jesus was quite clear that he came as the Suffering Servant and not as the conquering Messiah. Tomorrow's Gospel reading actually makes that quite clear.
Sin is very serious indeed. The problem is that the idea that violence can be conquered by violence just plays into the 'worldly' agenda in my view. The great myth that our human nature would love us to buy into is the myth that if only my enemies could be destroyed, peace will reign in my heart. It will do. Temporarily. Until I find another person or group to hate.
The only way to achieve peace is to become peacable and act peacfully.
29 June 2007
Threats of Judgement: an evangelising tool?
Both in real life and in blogdom, the issue has come up of whether or not threatening unbelievers or heretics with God's judgement is a way of focussing the mind. Some seem to argue that God's judgement is real and therefore should be cited. Others argue that threats of judgement will get the attention of people and possibly convert them where proclamations of God's grace might not.
On that subject, there is an interesting statement mad by Fred Craddock in his Commentary on Luke regarding verse 54 of this Sunday's Gospel reading, Luke 9:51-62.
Craddock writes:
On that subject, there is an interesting statement mad by Fred Craddock in his Commentary on Luke regarding verse 54 of this Sunday's Gospel reading, Luke 9:51-62.
Craddock writes:
Jesus' disciples remember quite well scriptural precedent for calling down heaven's fire (II Kings 1:9-10), but they have forgotten the recent words of Jesus: when on a mission, acccept the hospitality offered you. If none is extended, shake the dust off your feet and move on (9:1-6). Is it not interesting how the mind can grasp and hold those Scriptures which seem to bless our worst behavior and yet cannot retain past the sanctuary door those texts which summon to love, forgiveness, and mercy? Jesus rebukes James and John for an attitude of revenge and retribution, an attitude totally foreign to his ministry and theirs.If the apostles were called to leave judgement to the Lord, then I believe we are too.
23 June 2007
Peace Blogger Interview
Michael Westmoreland-White is the founder of the Peace Blogger webring and he has been interviewing members of the ring.
He has just published a Peace Blogger Interview with yours truly.
He has just published a Peace Blogger Interview with yours truly.
18 June 2007
Sermons - Law, Faith & Grace / Storm at Sea
I preached two sermons yesterday which I've published over on my sermon blog:
Law, Faith and Grace
and
Storm at Sea
16 June 2007
11 June 2007
Is it PSA? Or not?
In the post below, I recommended Myron S. Augsburger's article Justice in Forgiveness.
Some comments have been made to me elsewhere (i.e. not on this blog) to the effect that the article: 1) Does support Penal Substitutionary Atonement; 2) Does not support Penal Substitutionary Atonement.
Perceptions are interesting. For anyone who thinks that communication through language is easy or that communication of ideas is straight-forward, here's a great example of how people might have very different ideas.
What do you think? Does the article support PSA or not?
Some comments have been made to me elsewhere (i.e. not on this blog) to the effect that the article: 1) Does support Penal Substitutionary Atonement; 2) Does not support Penal Substitutionary Atonement.
Perceptions are interesting. For anyone who thinks that communication through language is easy or that communication of ideas is straight-forward, here's a great example of how people might have very different ideas.
What do you think? Does the article support PSA or not?
10 June 2007
Thankfulness 2
I don't have any profound thoughts, just an experience to share with the 'ether'.
I've been privileged to find a Spiritual Director, something that has been a great help to me since I started in formal full-time ministry in September 2006. I remember that at our first session, we talked about thankfulness to God. After years of studying, I was feeling incredibly thankful for the privilege of being a full-time minister.
The theme of thankfulness came full circle at my last 'session' with my Spiritual Director when I said that God had put in on my heart to ask for the grace of thankfulness and to try to cultivate thankfulness. So this is something that I have been praying about.
Now I don't know how prayer 'works' and I don't know how this sort of prayer 'works'. Some may say that this kind of prayer - praying for a thankful heart- is simply a matter of mind over matter, or visualisation; they might say that praying for thankfulness is an indication of already being thankful. I don't know. I don't quite see it that way.
All I know is that, at the moment, God has opened my eyes to all sorts of things to be thankful for. This is not a 'knowledge thing'. It's a 'heart thing'. And I know that we can't always base our faith and our trust in God on feelings. But right now, I'm thankful to God for a sudden wave of thankfulness.
I've been privileged to find a Spiritual Director, something that has been a great help to me since I started in formal full-time ministry in September 2006. I remember that at our first session, we talked about thankfulness to God. After years of studying, I was feeling incredibly thankful for the privilege of being a full-time minister.
The theme of thankfulness came full circle at my last 'session' with my Spiritual Director when I said that God had put in on my heart to ask for the grace of thankfulness and to try to cultivate thankfulness. So this is something that I have been praying about.
Now I don't know how prayer 'works' and I don't know how this sort of prayer 'works'. Some may say that this kind of prayer - praying for a thankful heart- is simply a matter of mind over matter, or visualisation; they might say that praying for thankfulness is an indication of already being thankful. I don't know. I don't quite see it that way.
All I know is that, at the moment, God has opened my eyes to all sorts of things to be thankful for. This is not a 'knowledge thing'. It's a 'heart thing'. And I know that we can't always base our faith and our trust in God on feelings. But right now, I'm thankful to God for a sudden wave of thankfulness.
Sermon - Trinity Sunday
I've just published last week's Sermon for Trinity Sunday on my sermon blog.
I had another baptism today, in a different church than the baptism a fortnight ago. Today's sermon was simply a reworking of that sermon and so I will not publish it on the sermon blog.
I had another baptism today, in a different church than the baptism a fortnight ago. Today's sermon was simply a reworking of that sermon and so I will not publish it on the sermon blog.
Forgiveness & Atonement
I just got my issue of The Living Pulpit - several months late due to not living in the US. (Grrr, but that's another story. It's still well worth getting.)
The current (April - June) issue is on the subject of atonement and I'm extremely pleased that the editors have chosen Dr. Myron S. Augsburger's article Justice in Forgiveness to publish in full on the internet.
In my part of the cyber-world, I've been having discussions with one person on how there can be no justice without retribution and another person thinks that it's our repentance that calls forth God's forgiveness. I think this article answers both of those questions.
The article also answers the question of 'blood' - although I suppose it will not satisfy those who thinks that God demands a literal, physical sacrifice of blood before he will give.
My favourite idea - and one which I will have to mull over - is the idea of God saying (in Augsburger's words):
The current (April - June) issue is on the subject of atonement and I'm extremely pleased that the editors have chosen Dr. Myron S. Augsburger's article Justice in Forgiveness to publish in full on the internet.
In my part of the cyber-world, I've been having discussions with one person on how there can be no justice without retribution and another person thinks that it's our repentance that calls forth God's forgiveness. I think this article answers both of those questions.
The article also answers the question of 'blood' - although I suppose it will not satisfy those who thinks that God demands a literal, physical sacrifice of blood before he will give.
My favourite idea - and one which I will have to mull over - is the idea of God saying (in Augsburger's words):
I care more about you than about what you have done. I really love you, and I will move beyond the issue to the person.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
