I just came inside and washed the dirt off my hands, dirt that I collected while rejoicing in the miracle of new life!
Kevin had called me away from the routine job of chasing dust bunnies out from under my bed to show me the first signs of spring, the fronds of grape hyacinth and crocus, as well as the leaves of tulips and daffodils. We walked around the house together delighting in being able to identify what was soon to come, the blooms of spring!
When what to our wondering eyes should appear among the bleached and withered leaves of last years tiger lilies?? Two glorious blooms; two tiny purple crocus straining to catch the warmth of the sun!
I cried, "Get a picture! Quick post it to the world, the first signs of new life! Spring is here!!" Then I grabbed my hand garden rake and proceeded to spend an hour clearing away all the dead stuff of last year's glory: the old dead weeds, the withered perennial geranium, the bleached lily foliage, the lifeless hosta and sedum. All the old had to be cleaned up, clipped back and cleared away, so that the new growth had free access to the sun!
As I bent and cleared and cleaned, my mind returned to the night before, when ladies gathered around a table and the Word to marvel at the miracle of Christ ~ resurrection life ~ John chapter 11. Here we saw Christ submit to the will of the Father and in allowing death to come, was able to reveal the glory of God in the life of Lazarus raised up from the tomb! We rejoiced in God's goodness and the hope we have of resurrection life as we believe in Christ. And then we were amazed that Christ asked the observers of this miracle to participate in it, to join in setting the raised life free from the bonds of death. They were told to remove the grave clothes of yesterday, so that he could be freed to live the life God had given him today.
As I stood in my garden, with dirt and death in my hands, I had to ask myself, am I willing to let go of the glory of last year’s life, last year’s victories, last year’s blessings, to rejoice in the new things God wants to do today?
Do I help others who have heard the voice of Christ and have been raised to new life remove the bonds of death, the old habits and fears of the past, so that they can fully enjoy the New Life, the Abundant Life that God has for them in the SON?
I thank God for the wonderful ways that He uses the things of this earth, the little glories, to teach about the Real Glories of Life in the Son!
May you be blessed as you willingly get your hands dirty, participating in the miracles of New Life that God has in store for you, for your family, for your church this year.
Invocation and assent: the making and remaking of Trinitarian theology.
Grand Rapids, MI: Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2008
224p.
ISBN
978-0-8028-6269-3, £15.99
Without question there has been a considerable resurgence of interest in the doctrine of the Trinity in recent decades. A growing list of English-speaking theologians—T. F. Torrance, Colin Gunton, Miroslav Volf and Stanley J. Grenz, to name but a few—have made creative use of certain ontological understandings of the Trinity to provide a foundation for their wider theological reflections and social ethics. More recently, The Shack, a bestselling work of fiction by William Paul Yong (that portrays God the Father as an African American woman among other things) has brought the doctrine of the Trinity back into popular discourse worldwide.
Upon first glance, one might be tempted to lump Jason Vicker's Invocation and Assent: The Making and Remaking of Trinitarian Theology into the same category of Trinitarian hysteria, but this would be a mistake. Invocation and Assent is, in fact, an historical study of the process through which the doctrine of the Trinity became neglected by Western theologians in the first place, with special emphasis on the role that late seventeenth-century English Protestant theologians played in its demise. Specifically, Vickers argues that the earliest (that, is pre-Nicean) "rules of faith" were liturgical in nature and had a specific function within Christian community ("Invocation") and these "rules of faith" where not specifically designed to answer ontological questions regarding the immanent Trinity that later creedal affirmations would require of them.
Following the Reformation, Protestant theologians in attempting to navigate a middle way between Catholicism and Unitarianism would come to replace such "rules of faith" with the entire canon of Scripture arbitrated by reason alone ("Assent"). Vickers points to archbishop William Laud (1573-1645), as a pivotal figure in this transition, who, in responding to Roman Catholic challenges regarding personal assurance of salvation, laid the groundwork for a new conception of salvation in English Protestantism. "Instead of salvation having primarily to do with the invocation of the trine God in repentance, demon exorcism, baptism and the Eucharist, and in worship thanksgiving and praise, it now had to do with the cognitive or rational activity of giving assent to propositions contain in or deduced from Scripture" (p. 45). This was further enforced by writers such as John Locke, who set in motion a "minimalist way of thinking about Christian doctrine" as an irresolvable puzzle. Not surprisingly, Vickers (a professor of Wesleyan studies at United Theological Seminary in Dayton, Ohio) discovers that despite the marginalization of Trinitarian theology in scholastic circles, Trinitarian worship was revitalized in English Protestantism during the eighteenth-century through liturgical means in the hymns and prayers of Charles Wesley.
Cognizant that his study has only begun to unravel some of puzzling aspects of how Trinitarian theology has evolved, Vickers concludes his study with a chapter on the "The Work of Trinitarian Theology Today" where he attempts to lay some ground rules for future endeavors pasted on the history of the doctrine.
It would be fair to say that Invocation and Assent successfully demonstrates that the disconnection between Trinity and Christian life in English Protestantism preceded Friedrich Schleiermacher's influence and is largely due to combination of Sola scriptura and hyper-rationalism in the late seventeenth century. It also fills an important gap in the literature, which should be of interest to anyone studying the development of Trinitarian theology, as well as those studying the context into which eighteenth-century evangelicalism took root.
For those of us Protestants who wish to recover a wider ecclesiology and avoid some of the dangers of the sola Scriptura approach, however, it remains to be seen whether the "canonical theism" which Vickers alludes to in this book and advocates elsewhere (see William J. Abraham, Jason E. Vickers and Natalie B. Van Kirk, eds. Canonical Theism: A Proposal for Theology [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008]) can ultimately avoid the kinds of abuses which spawned Protestantism to resort to such principles—but at least we can thank him for pointing out a number of historical pitfalls in this study so as not to repeat them.
Suppose that I invite you to my cottage for a weekend of relaxation and water sports and when you get there, you find this well appointed lake front summer home set in a picturesque rustic setting.You enjoy the weekend.However, you hear several weeks later that I have been arrested.The wonderful weekend was a sham.It was not my property.In fact, I had stalked the owners, observed the patterns of their comings and goings and scheduled “my weekend” with my friends when I knew they were out of the country.
I open with this scenario to concretize the multi-dimensional impacts that are in play when a pastor plagiarizes material and uses it in either written or spoken communication. Plagiarism is not a new phenomenon.Material from books and commentaries have been plagiarized by previous generations, but the ability to cut and paste wonderful resources made accessible by the internet makes plagiarism very easy and tempting.And, the internet also makes it very easy for plagiarism to be detected.
What is plagiarism?The Macmillan dictionary defines it as “the process of taking another person’s work, ideas, or words and using them as if they were your own.”It’s the last eight words of the definition that need our special attention. The first part of the definition readily implies that other people’s work is available to us.Often their work is novel, imaginative, gripping, insightful and just what one needs to make a point memorable in the audience’s mind.It’s not wrong to use their material; in fact, using it is a compliment!The ethical issues arise when we do not acknowledge something that is not original with us.
What are the ethical issues associated with plagiarism?Using my opening scenario to concretize the topic, let’s think them through.(But first, let me admit here that what follows is a summarization of material that I have read online.Links will be provided below.)
Plagiarism is stealing.The cottage was not mine to use.In a premeditated way, I picked it out and decided to find a way to use it without being caught.While the time frame on the decision to co-opt someone else’s creative work is only minutes compared to the amount of time required to “case” a cottage, the same choices are made.It’s looking for something to steal and then deciding to do it.
Plagiarism is cheating – others and myself.If I really want a cottage to share with my friends, I need to experience the healthy pride of ownership that comes from sacrifice and saving.Plagiarism is finding an easy way to impress others – which is an issue of pride or an unhealthy need for approval or acceptance.
When I take short cuts by being overly dependent on the work of others, this laziness indicates a lack of self discipline that will ultimately stunt the development of my own giftedness as a communicator. Even worse, if I do not myself read, reflect, enter into, and wrestle often with the story of the scriptures, I do not speak out of the fullness that comes with regular personal encounters with God’s word and my spiritual authority to speak God’s word does not mature.
Plagiarism is deception.If you had found out that the weekend at the cottage was all a pretentious sham, you’d have some real misgivings about my character and would probably begin to wonder what else in my life is not as it appears.No one likes to be lied to.If I plagiarize, it’s sobering to think of the potential for cynicism about me and my ministry when my listeners, using a search engine, find out that “my messages” that were such a blessing were actually stolen off the internet.Passing off other people’s work as my own is deceit. My listeners are deceived about my actual ability.What’s more, if I persist and accept their applause for the stolen goods that I’m handing out, self-deception fed by narcissistic pride may take hold of my soul.
Admittedly, the questions of how and when to give credit are not easily answered.Space does not permit the exploration of those important topics, but there are good discussions on this at the links listed below.
Just for the record, I promise that I won’t invite you to a cottage that I don’t have permission to use.
In a popular YouTube video, a bridegroom, much to the surprise of his bride and the minister, stops the wedding to change his Facebook status.
A nervous giggle ripples through the crowd. But, in a weaker moment, have we all not been enslaved by technology? How many windows are simultaneously open on our computers?Skype, MS net, Facebook, e-mail, chat might all be available while we are catching the latest episode of Big Bang, texting on our iPhone, and doing research on the net.
A CBC documentary talks about a “biochemical payoff” which means we become addicted to the emotional buzz of something “new.” We need that buzz! We even cultivate characteristics that are disconnected from consequences and other aspects of whole personhood – an aspect of addiction.Leading neurologist, Gary Small, claims that at least 10% of youth meet the clinical definition of addiction to technology.We blog, we click, we chat – all so quickly – that we start disassociating ourselves from the consequences.We remove ourselves from the filters that we would normally use in three dimensional relationships, that is, non-social-networking relationships. Meeting House Pastor, Bruxy Cavey says “We cultivate the non-filtered, quick reacting, impulsive ‘me’ that characterizes the ‘virtual me.’”
Cavey reminds us that disembodying the physical world from the spiritual world is actually Gnostic heresy.Christian, Hebraic, and Jewish thinking affirm that we are whole people and what we do physically affects us in other realms. So, we want to be careful not to unwire our minds in unhealthy ways.1 Thes 5:8 urges us to have sober minds, minds that connect us to the consequences and actions of our physical beings. In his series on technology, Bruxy coined the phrase, “the more we live virtually – the more we virtually live.”
In the book of Galatians, Paul says, “For freedom Christ has set us free. Stand firm, therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery…”God paid a high price for us, so that we are not enslaved to this world (1 Cor. ).
Nicholas Carr, in his book The Shallows, provides evidence that our minds are changing because of the influx of technology.Carr claims that the technologies we use, find, store, and share can literally reroute our neural pathways.He builds a case that technology carries an intellectual ethic, which is a set of assumptions about the nature of knowledge and intelligence. Carr says:
The printed book served to focus our attention, promoting deep and creative thought. In stark contrast, the Internet encourages the rapid, distracted sampling of small bits of information from many sources. Its ethic is that of the industrialist, an ethic of speed and efficiency, of optimized production and consumption--and now the Net is remaking us in its own image.
In whose image has God created us?Researchers tell us that because of technology, our brains have been changing.This was the case even in 400 BC.Socrates felt strongly that if writing became the norm, people would lose their ability to memorize.And they did!En masse, we lost certain memory skills when we started writing; but, we gained others. With every new technology our minds have changed and adapted, from the alphabet to maps, to the printing press to clocks…
As much as we think we are good multi-taskers, the CBC documentary on technology corrects our self-deception.We have a perception that we are getting more done; however, partial attention to many things actually shrinks the brain and causes memory loss.When we switch tasks, our brain has to shut down to start a new task so it is actually taking us longer to do anything.
In one study, a clown on a unicycle rides through a university court.Sixty percent of people listening to music noticed the clown.Only 25% of people on their cell phones noticed the clown.Seventy-five percent of people on cell phones missed a clown on a unicycle circulating in their personal space!This is called “intentional blindness”.Researchers tell us we are destroying our central resource.We are destroying our ability to focus.
God asked the question of his people through Isaiah – ‘Why are my people enslaved again?... they become fair game for anyone and have no one to protect them and take them back home…” That`s why we have each other in the body of Christ. The body of believers gently helps us stay in check with each other, away from technology, and to recalibrate with God`s word.Christ has set us free from the yoke of slavery.
Christian thinker, Henri Nouwen, speaks in a published journal about finding that break from a form of “buzz.”He writes:
… I realized that I was caught in a web of strange paradoxes.While complaining about too many demands, I felt uneasy when none were made.While speaking about the burden of letter writing, an empty mailbox made me sad.While fretting about tiring lecture tours, I felt disappointed when there were no invitations. While speaking nostalgically about an empty desk, I feared the day on which that would come true.In short: while desiring to be alone, I was frightened of being left alone.The more I became aware of these paradoxes, the more I started to see how much I had indeed fallen in love with my own compulsions and illusions, and how much I needed to step back…
How are we going to step back, disengage, and become aware of those things that may be enslaving us?This just might be one of those things requiring us to be counter cultural. This just might be one of those things putting us in the 25% of those who notice.
As Paul wrote to the Corinthians, according to The Message, “Just because something is technically legal doesn't mean that it's spiritually appropriate. If I went around doing whatever I thought I could get by with, I'd be a slave to my whims.” 1 Corinthians 6:12
The question one reviewer on the CBC documentary asks at the close of his article is a good one: “Can we manage the technology around us or will we let it manage us?”
In the early days of Methodism, "a connexion" was the term used to describe a loose network of Methodist societies and the preachers who over-saw them. Generally centred around a key leader (so one might refer, for instance, to "Lady Huntington's Connexion," or "John Wesley's Connexion") these networks provided spiritual leadership, mutual encouragement, accountability, and financial support to the various Methodist works scattered around England.
A "connection" today, of course, is terminology we use in the field of telecommunications. A computer needs a "connection" to access the world-wide-web, and "connectivity" is a measure of its "capacity for interacting with various computer platforms, systems and applications." As Rob Clements, a contributor to this blog, pointed out: it's curious how much of the terminology from early Methodism is employed today in the world of Social Media.
Well: whether or not John Wesley would want to "like" us on Facebook (we hope he would, but who knows?), we'd like to welcome you to The conneXion, a new blog dedicated to encouraging theological dialogue from a Free Methodist ethos. The name the conneXion is meant as an allusion both to our old Methodist roots and to the new digital forum we're working in.
All of this by way of introduction: The conneXion is an online symposium of theologians and pastors from the Free Methodist Church in Canada who share a passion for God's Word, a heart for God's People, and a desire to promote theological reflection in the local church. At the conneXion, you will find articles, resources, reflections and general musings about theological issues that impact the Free Methodist Church in Canada and/or the Church universal.
We hope you will find these challenging, stimulating, encouraging and/or illuminating, and that you will feel free to join us as we explore God's Truth together.
I've been thinking a lot these days about the levitcal cities of refuge described at the end of the Book of Numbers (chpt 35).
In case it's been a while since you waded through the Book of Numbers, let me refresh your memory. It's right at the end of the desert wanderings, and the new generation of Israel is about to enter the Promised Land, Israel's ancient inheritance. So the Lord gives Moses instructions about the boundaries of Canaan, and some general directives on divvying up the land to the 12 tribes. Namely: they are to assign the land by lot to the nine and a half tribes of Israel entering Canaan (keeping in mind that two and a half tribes have already received their inheritance on the east side of the Jordan).
But then Numbers 35 reminds us that the tribe of Levi isn't going to be getting an allotment in Canaan because, as 18:20 has already indicated, Aaron (and by extension, the whole tribe of Levi with him) will have no inheritance in the land. Instead, the Lord himself is going to be the priestly tribe's inheritance among the Israelites. Rather than receiving a portion of the land, Levi is to receive simply "towns to live in from the inheritance of the [other] Israelites." These towns are scattered evenly throughout the Promised Land, seeding (in effect) a priestly presence in-and-among the whole people of God.
You can read in Joshua 20:1-9 how this command is carried out, but what strikes me here is that the Lord specifically identifies six of the Levitical towns as "cities of refuge, to which a person who has killed someone may flee." The idea is quite simple: in the case of murder, tribal codes of the sort especially prevalent among a nomadic society like Moses' Israel would require a blood relative to maintain tribal honour by avenging a murdered family member (see Genesis 34 for dark evidence that such codes were well known among nomadic Israelite society).
But such tribal customs and the violent blood feuds they inevitably perpetuate are deeply at odds with a civil society like the one Israel will become, as she stands at the threshold of the Promised Land and looks ahead to her future. In civil society, justice must be carried out by an impartial assembly according to a standard code of law; retaliation and vigilantianism has no place in a society governed by God's Shalom.
So God sets aside six of the Levitical towns as cities of refuge-- cities of asylum to which an accused killer can flee until he has stood trial and his case has been heard; and cities of shalom, where the innocent can escape the tribal custom of honour killings.
Now, I don't want to read too much into this, but here's what I can't get off my mind today: the priestly tribe had no inheritance in the land other than a special place in the Lord's plan to mediate his Shalom to the people. And with this inheritance came the cities of refuge; and with them came a calling to be a people among whom the accused found shelter, where the guilty found asylum and the harried found refuge until God's Shalom had obtained in their lives (in this case in the form of a fair and impartial trial).
And you can't reflect on all this very long before you remember that 1 Peter 2:5-9 specifically identifies followers of Jesus Christ as the priesthood of believers that the tribe of Levi prefigured and foreshadowed in the Old Testament. And if it's true, what Peter says about Christians there, and it's true what Numbers says about the inheritance of the priestly tribe here, then it would mean that in Christ we have inherited a calling to be "cities of refuge." Our communities are to be places where the accused, the guilty and the harried can find shelter so that the Shalom of God can obtain in their lives (in this case in the form of the unmerited, all-gracious justification of God through faith in Christ); what's more, this calling specifically and directly precludes any material inheritance "in the land" (i.e. the comfort, wealth, privilege and security that such an inheritance would have meant for an ancient Israelite).
And the obvious questions are staring me in the face: am I part of a community of faith that has traded in the wealth and security of its "inheritance in the land" for the privilege of being a "city of refuge" like this? And harder still: Am I willing to belong to such a community of faith? And hardest of all: what's my role in helping my church be the city of refuge that God in Numbers 35 is calling it to be?
I just came inside and washed the dirt off my hands, dirt that I collected while rejoicing in the miracle of new life!
