This passage occurs in the Narrative Lectionary, Year 4 Lenten cycle, most recently March 23, 2015
The RCL text for this week, focusing on the woman at the well, may be found here:
http://lectionarygreek.blogspot.com/2014/01/john-4-woman-at-well.html
Summary: This is a haunting and challenging passage for all of us. Jesus is being smacked in the face while Peter warms himself by a fire, denying Jesus. There is much law in this passage: How do we deny his lordship in our lives? But there is much Gospel too -- Jesus redeems Peter, in fact, he recreates the scene for Peter in John 21.
Some key words
η παιδισκη η θυρωρος ("servant girl, the gate keeper," 18:17) John sets up an amazing juxtaposition here. Peter is asked a question by a simple peasant child and he offers denial. Jesus is interrogated by the chief priest's father in law, surrounded by armed men. Even after having his face slapped, Jesus remains defiant; Peter is scared before any violence has been enacted. Ironically, Jesus tells them to ask those who have heard his words to serve as a witness (21:9). Peter is the first witness and fails...at least this time.
ανθρακια ("anthracite coal," 18). This minor detail is set beautifully within John's Gospel. Where will Peter be forgiven? At the breakfast coal fire (same word; the ONLY other time it appears in the whole Bible). Jesus goes right to the spot of Peter's denial to forgive Peter. He recreates the scene to forgive and redeem Peter!
ουκ ειμι ("I am not", 18:17) Peter twice says "I am not." This can be part of the statement "I am not a disciple." But existentially, Peter is saying something even more. He is nothing. When push comes to shove, he is nothing. He has denied Christ and in doing so, has denied himself of everything. Of course he is cold.
Tuesday, March 18, 2014
Tuesday, March 11, 2014
John 13:1-17
This passage occurs in the Narrative Lectionary Year 4 Lenten Cycle, most recently on Mar 16, 2014.
Summary for John 13:1-17: In this passage, Jesus asserts himself as a moral example and THE teacher, concluding with a challenging 'if' statement about blessings. Perhaps this law-filled message is a good one to hear during Lent -- our journey to the cross is not simply one of mild self-imposed discomfort. Rather, it is the difficult work of dealing with, if not healing, the sins of others in a caring manner. Admittedly, there is plenty of Gospel too, revealed in the extent of Christ's love for us in both the foot-washing and the foreshadowing of the cross. And yes, there's living water once again.
As I ponder this text within the context of Lent, I see the powerful interplay between faith, humilty and grace at work. We will not be able to serve others, certainly not blessed by it, until we become aware of grace, of Jesus Christ and his tremendous self-emptying love. I believe that only in acts of having our feet washed -- realizing that Jesus knows our sins, and still loves us and cares for us -- are we made into disciples. We cannot "accept" Jesus, but we learn to confess him as teacher and Lord as we encounter him in times of weakness and sin.
Key words
εις τελος ("completely", 13:1) Jesus hear says he will love the disciples "to the end," literally. It means more naturally "completely" but translators wanted to leave in this connection to Jesus words from the cross, "it is finished." If they really wanted to do that though, they should have translated this passage as "He loved them to the finish." A gift to my methodist friends: The phrase could also mean "into fullness" or "into perfection." (Love divine anyone!!)
τιθησιν (from τιθημι, "to place or lay down". 13:4) In John chapter 10, Jesus declared he is the Good Shepherd who lays down his life for his sheep. Here Jesus lays down his garments. I think this suggests his act of food washing is the beginning of his laying down his life for his disciples. (Indeed 13:3 gives the context for Jesus' actions)
βαλλω ("throw", 13:2 and 5). In vs 2, this verb appears in a brutal form: genitive perfect participle! The point is that the devil throws something into Judas' heart, namely greed, fear and hatred. Jesus, on the other hand, throws water into a basin. Water to cleanse, water to heal and water to make whole.
ο διδασκαλος ο κυριος ("THE teacher THE lord" 13:13,14) Every translator drops the article from both versus. Jesus is not just a teacher or a lord, but THE teacher and THE lord. This alone is worth preaching on.
Grammar
ει and εαν (if, 13:17) These words are best translated as "if." Both are used in John 13:17
ει you understand, you are blessed εαν you do these things.
The first ει means more "since" than "if" when it is paired with an indicative verb, as it is in this case. This is why the NIV gets it right by translating this "Now that you know these things"
εαν is more hypothetical and demands the subjunctive, as it is in this case.
But this if could also be translated as "when"; see John 11:10; John 12:32.
In short, the sentence could read:
"Since you understand this, you are blessed when you do these things."
Summary for John 13:1-17: In this passage, Jesus asserts himself as a moral example and THE teacher, concluding with a challenging 'if' statement about blessings. Perhaps this law-filled message is a good one to hear during Lent -- our journey to the cross is not simply one of mild self-imposed discomfort. Rather, it is the difficult work of dealing with, if not healing, the sins of others in a caring manner. Admittedly, there is plenty of Gospel too, revealed in the extent of Christ's love for us in both the foot-washing and the foreshadowing of the cross. And yes, there's living water once again.
As I ponder this text within the context of Lent, I see the powerful interplay between faith, humilty and grace at work. We will not be able to serve others, certainly not blessed by it, until we become aware of grace, of Jesus Christ and his tremendous self-emptying love. I believe that only in acts of having our feet washed -- realizing that Jesus knows our sins, and still loves us and cares for us -- are we made into disciples. We cannot "accept" Jesus, but we learn to confess him as teacher and Lord as we encounter him in times of weakness and sin.
Key words
εις τελος ("completely", 13:1) Jesus hear says he will love the disciples "to the end," literally. It means more naturally "completely" but translators wanted to leave in this connection to Jesus words from the cross, "it is finished." If they really wanted to do that though, they should have translated this passage as "He loved them to the finish." A gift to my methodist friends: The phrase could also mean "into fullness" or "into perfection." (Love divine anyone!!)
τιθησιν (from τιθημι, "to place or lay down". 13:4) In John chapter 10, Jesus declared he is the Good Shepherd who lays down his life for his sheep. Here Jesus lays down his garments. I think this suggests his act of food washing is the beginning of his laying down his life for his disciples. (Indeed 13:3 gives the context for Jesus' actions)
βαλλω ("throw", 13:2 and 5). In vs 2, this verb appears in a brutal form: genitive perfect participle! The point is that the devil throws something into Judas' heart, namely greed, fear and hatred. Jesus, on the other hand, throws water into a basin. Water to cleanse, water to heal and water to make whole.
ο διδασκαλος ο κυριος ("THE teacher THE lord" 13:13,14) Every translator drops the article from both versus. Jesus is not just a teacher or a lord, but THE teacher and THE lord. This alone is worth preaching on.
Grammar
ει and εαν (if, 13:17) These words are best translated as "if." Both are used in John 13:17
ει you understand, you are blessed εαν you do these things.
The first ει means more "since" than "if" when it is paired with an indicative verb, as it is in this case. This is why the NIV gets it right by translating this "Now that you know these things"
εαν is more hypothetical and demands the subjunctive, as it is in this case.
But this if could also be translated as "when"; see John 11:10; John 12:32.
In short, the sentence could read:
"Since you understand this, you are blessed when you do these things."
Tuesday, February 18, 2014
John 7:37-52
This passage occurs in the Narrative Lectionary, Year 4, Lenten cycle, most recently Feb 23, 2014.
Summary:
There are a number of preaching directions that examination of this text offers. I think the biggest however is not simply a Greek work, but a Hebrew festival, namely, the feast of Tabernacles. Jesus turns it all around!
Key words (by key I mean I found them interesting):
κοιλια ("stomach" or "womb" 7:38) Elsewhere in John and throughout the Gospels/Acts, this word refers to womb. (See John 3:4 and the first encounter with Nicodemeus or Luke 1:41). In this case, it cannot be womb because Jesus isn't just talking about women; in fact, the possessive adjective here is "his"; "his womb" doesn't make sense. But what does make sense is "belly", certainly not heart (NRSV). This however, doesn't sound so good: "Out of a believer's gut will come living waters." But there might be something there to preach on!
χριστος ("Christ", 7:41) Just a simple reminder that messiah in Hebrew = christ in Greek = anointed in English. Calling Jesus the Christ is a huge confession of faith. But it is also an interesting play on cultures and languages, where "Messiah Joshua" becomes "Jesus Christ" if not "Joshua Christ" a mismash of cultural terms, which is happening again and again in John's Gospel.
σχισμα ("schism"; 7:43) Alas, there is division because of Christ. Always was and will be until Jesus comes again. See note on feast here
εορτη ("feast"; 7:37). This term appears a great deal in John's Gospel. John 2:23 Feast of Passover
John 5:1 Feast, perhaps Pentecost
John 6:4 Passover
John 7:2 Tabernalces
John 10:22 Hannakah
John 11+ Final passover of Jesus
In John 7, the focus is on the tabernacle. This concluded, on the last and great day, with a procession involving the proclamation of Psalm 118:25
"Save us, we beseech you, O LORD! O LORD, we beseech you, give us success!"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feast_of_Tabernacles
This perhaps gets at the heart of the division around Jesus. What is success? What do we want Jesus for? What do we want for a Messiah?
A number of other preaching directions also come about reflecting on what else is happening during this festival:
During Sukkot, two important ceremonies took place. The Hebrew people carried torches around the temple, illuminating bright candelabrum along the walls of the temple to demonstrate that the Messiah would be a light to the Gentiles. Also, the priest would draw water from the pool of Siloam and carry it to the temple where it was poured into a silver basin beside the altar. The priest would call upon the Lord to provide heavenly water in the form of rain for their supply. During this ceremony the people looked forward to the pouring out of the Holy Spirit. Some records reference the day spoken of by the prophet Joel.
In the New Testament, Jesus attended the Feast of Tabernacles and spoke these amazing words on the last and greatest day of the Feast: "If anyone is thirsty, let him come to me and drink. Whoever believes in me, as the Scripture has said, streams of living water will flow from within him." (John 7:37-38 NIV) The next morning, while the torches were still burning Jesus said, "I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life." (John 8:12 NIV)
http://christianity.about.com/od/biblefeastsandholidays/p/feastofbooths.htm
Textual criticism:
The actual reading of John 7:39 regarding the "coming" or "existenance" of the Spirit is really interesting. There are three to four common ways the ancient texts read:
"the spirit was not yet"
"the Holy Spirit was not yet"
"the Holy Spirit was not yet upon the them"
"the Holy Spirit was not yet given"
The reading "the spirit was not yet" has the best internal evidence, but a number of the manuscripts line up behind the final two readings. Many of the readings have corrections suggesting that many were not comfortable with the original! Therefore, I agree with the NET assessment (which uses the "not yet given") translation
"Although only B and a handful of other NT MSS supply the participle dedome,non (dedomenon), this is followed in the translation to avoid misunderstanding by the modern English reader that prior to this time the Spirit did not exist. John's phrase is expressed from a human standpoint and has nothing to do with the preexistence of the third Person of the Godhead."
Back to me: In John 1, the Spirit is already existing (John the Baptist sees it). So I don't think we can really argue that the Spirit doesn't exist in John's Gospel before the resurrection.
Summary:
There are a number of preaching directions that examination of this text offers. I think the biggest however is not simply a Greek work, but a Hebrew festival, namely, the feast of Tabernacles. Jesus turns it all around!
Key words (by key I mean I found them interesting):
κοιλια ("stomach" or "womb" 7:38) Elsewhere in John and throughout the Gospels/Acts, this word refers to womb. (See John 3:4 and the first encounter with Nicodemeus or Luke 1:41). In this case, it cannot be womb because Jesus isn't just talking about women; in fact, the possessive adjective here is "his"; "his womb" doesn't make sense. But what does make sense is "belly", certainly not heart (NRSV). This however, doesn't sound so good: "Out of a believer's gut will come living waters." But there might be something there to preach on!
χριστος ("Christ", 7:41) Just a simple reminder that messiah in Hebrew = christ in Greek = anointed in English. Calling Jesus the Christ is a huge confession of faith. But it is also an interesting play on cultures and languages, where "Messiah Joshua" becomes "Jesus Christ" if not "Joshua Christ" a mismash of cultural terms, which is happening again and again in John's Gospel.
σχισμα ("schism"; 7:43) Alas, there is division because of Christ. Always was and will be until Jesus comes again. See note on feast here
εορτη ("feast"; 7:37). This term appears a great deal in John's Gospel. John 2:23 Feast of Passover
John 5:1 Feast, perhaps Pentecost
John 6:4 Passover
John 7:2 Tabernalces
John 10:22 Hannakah
John 11+ Final passover of Jesus
In John 7, the focus is on the tabernacle. This concluded, on the last and great day, with a procession involving the proclamation of Psalm 118:25
"Save us, we beseech you, O LORD! O LORD, we beseech you, give us success!"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feast_of_Tabernacles
This perhaps gets at the heart of the division around Jesus. What is success? What do we want Jesus for? What do we want for a Messiah?
A number of other preaching directions also come about reflecting on what else is happening during this festival:
During Sukkot, two important ceremonies took place. The Hebrew people carried torches around the temple, illuminating bright candelabrum along the walls of the temple to demonstrate that the Messiah would be a light to the Gentiles. Also, the priest would draw water from the pool of Siloam and carry it to the temple where it was poured into a silver basin beside the altar. The priest would call upon the Lord to provide heavenly water in the form of rain for their supply. During this ceremony the people looked forward to the pouring out of the Holy Spirit. Some records reference the day spoken of by the prophet Joel.
In the New Testament, Jesus attended the Feast of Tabernacles and spoke these amazing words on the last and greatest day of the Feast: "If anyone is thirsty, let him come to me and drink. Whoever believes in me, as the Scripture has said, streams of living water will flow from within him." (John 7:37-38 NIV) The next morning, while the torches were still burning Jesus said, "I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life." (John 8:12 NIV)
http://christianity.about.com/od/biblefeastsandholidays/p/feastofbooths.htm
Textual criticism:
The actual reading of John 7:39 regarding the "coming" or "existenance" of the Spirit is really interesting. There are three to four common ways the ancient texts read:
"the spirit was not yet"
"the Holy Spirit was not yet"
"the Holy Spirit was not yet upon the them"
"the Holy Spirit was not yet given"
The reading "the spirit was not yet" has the best internal evidence, but a number of the manuscripts line up behind the final two readings. Many of the readings have corrections suggesting that many were not comfortable with the original! Therefore, I agree with the NET assessment (which uses the "not yet given") translation
"Although only B and a handful of other NT MSS supply the participle dedome,non (dedomenon), this is followed in the translation to avoid misunderstanding by the modern English reader that prior to this time the Spirit did not exist. John's phrase is expressed from a human standpoint and has nothing to do with the preexistence of the third Person of the Godhead."
Back to me: In John 1, the Spirit is already existing (John the Baptist sees it). So I don't think we can really argue that the Spirit doesn't exist in John's Gospel before the resurrection.
Tuesday, February 11, 2014
John 6:35-59
This passage occurs in the Narrative Lectionary, Year 4, Lenten cycle, most recently Feb 16, 2014.
Here is a link to another John 6 post on the bread of life:
http://lectionarygreek.blogspot.com/2012/08/john-63541-51.htm
The themes of John 6 manifest themselves in every portion of the chapter. This conclusion just drives home a few points, again, stated in the rest of the chapter (if not the whole book!). A few ideas for sermons:
- eternal life is a present (its a gift):
Jesus says that he will give διδωμι (6:51) the bread of life. Everlasting life is a gift.
- eternal life is present
The verb εχω ("have", 6:54) is in the present tense: "The one who eats/drinks HAS eternally life CONTINUALLY" is how this passage should read. There is a dimension of eternal life that includes the resurrection of the dead, but this is not when life begins.
I think also worth dwelling on here is that the eternal life comes through the flesh and blood, the bread and the wine. Jesus uses earthly things, even broken things, to give eternal life. To get to eternal life, we've got to get into earthly life, to put it another way. Much to ponder and many directions here for a sermon!
- eternal life is a presence
Jesus says that those who eat μενω ("abide", 6:56) in him. This is a key theme in the Gospel of John, in fact, one of the opening questions -- where are you abiding? (John 1:38). Eteneral life is the same thing as staying with Jesus. So what does eternal life look like? Well, it looks/feels like that amazing feeling of knowing that we are in the presence of God.
Here is a link to another John 6 post on the bread of life:
http://lectionarygreek.blogspot.com/2012/08/john-63541-51.htm
The themes of John 6 manifest themselves in every portion of the chapter. This conclusion just drives home a few points, again, stated in the rest of the chapter (if not the whole book!). A few ideas for sermons:
- eternal life is a present (its a gift):
Jesus says that he will give διδωμι (6:51) the bread of life. Everlasting life is a gift.
- eternal life is present
The verb εχω ("have", 6:54) is in the present tense: "The one who eats/drinks HAS eternally life CONTINUALLY" is how this passage should read. There is a dimension of eternal life that includes the resurrection of the dead, but this is not when life begins.
I think also worth dwelling on here is that the eternal life comes through the flesh and blood, the bread and the wine. Jesus uses earthly things, even broken things, to give eternal life. To get to eternal life, we've got to get into earthly life, to put it another way. Much to ponder and many directions here for a sermon!
- eternal life is a presence
Jesus says that those who eat μενω ("abide", 6:56) in him. This is a key theme in the Gospel of John, in fact, one of the opening questions -- where are you abiding? (John 1:38). Eteneral life is the same thing as staying with Jesus. So what does eternal life look like? Well, it looks/feels like that amazing feeling of knowing that we are in the presence of God.
Tuesday, February 4, 2014
John 4:46-52
This passage occurs in the Narrative Lectionary, Year 4, Lenten cycle, most recently Feb 9, 2014.
Summary: Did the faith produce the healing? Well, the Greek suggests that belief in Jesus' word only comes after the boy has been healed. In this way, the word produced both the healing and the faith. On the otherhand, the father demonstrates his faith by going to Jesus in the first place. I don't think this story solves this age old conundrum. I don't think it is meant to be solved. What I find more interesting is that Jesus never proclaims the son healed; rather he says the son is alive. I think there are many cases where are ministry isn't about offering people the healing they want, but giving them life, amid grief and illness.
Lastly, I cannot figure out why "go down" appears three times in this passage.
Key words:
βασιλικος ("royal", 4.46) This adjective is related to the word for king. The NET Bible claims this official must have been related to or working for King Herod. The suggests that the person going to Jesus is willing to engage in risky business. While Herod has not set out against Jesus, Jesus has already upset the temple in Jerusalem and shortly will have people coming after him to kill him.
ζη ("live", 4:50, 51, 53, present tense for of ζαω) I don't know how the translators mess this one up. Every single time the verb is in the present tense: You son is alive. There is nothing future about it. Jesus says and it is so. This is really important because it shows that the healing is not based on the faith of the person. When is the healing accomplished. When Jesus says so. Why? This question is not answered here.
ηρωτα ("ask" imperfect form of ερωταω, 4:47) The man continually is asking for Jesus help here; a sign of faith or despiration?
ιασηται ("heal" aorist form of ιαομαι, 4:47) This verb is not as common as I expected in the Gospels, a few times here and there, mostly in Luke and only once in Mark. It comes into English as psychiatry. I think it is a deep question: Is it our mission, or Jesus' mission, to offer healing? Healing is almost always thrust upon Jesus, the only exception being his command that the disciples go and heal (Luke 9.2). Even here it comes after the proclamation of the Word. To put it another way, healing (and the sick) will come with the proclamation of the Word. The words intnetion is not healing as we see it, but life. I think this opens up more doors -- what is living? How can be sick still have life? In fact, the text next says he was healed of all his problems, just that the fever left him, he was better and he was living.
πιστευω ("believe", throughout this section, including 4:50) This verb means trusting. In this case, trust doesn't produce following Jesus, it creates a situation in which someone can walk away from Jesus. Again, most times we think of trust as creating a situation of moving closer to Jesus, but in this case, the faith creates a situation of letting go, letting go of his anxiety about his son, letting go of his need to be next to Jesus.
καταβαινω ("come down," 4:47,49, 51) Okay, I cannot figure it out. This word appears three times in this story. It appears big time in John 6 (the true bread from heaven). And then it stops. It is as if the incarnation reaches its high point in John's Holy Communion story (chapter 6) and then he is done going down. I'd like some more thoughts on this.
Summary: Did the faith produce the healing? Well, the Greek suggests that belief in Jesus' word only comes after the boy has been healed. In this way, the word produced both the healing and the faith. On the otherhand, the father demonstrates his faith by going to Jesus in the first place. I don't think this story solves this age old conundrum. I don't think it is meant to be solved. What I find more interesting is that Jesus never proclaims the son healed; rather he says the son is alive. I think there are many cases where are ministry isn't about offering people the healing they want, but giving them life, amid grief and illness.
Lastly, I cannot figure out why "go down" appears three times in this passage.
Key words:
βασιλικος ("royal", 4.46) This adjective is related to the word for king. The NET Bible claims this official must have been related to or working for King Herod. The suggests that the person going to Jesus is willing to engage in risky business. While Herod has not set out against Jesus, Jesus has already upset the temple in Jerusalem and shortly will have people coming after him to kill him.
ζη ("live", 4:50, 51, 53, present tense for of ζαω) I don't know how the translators mess this one up. Every single time the verb is in the present tense: You son is alive. There is nothing future about it. Jesus says and it is so. This is really important because it shows that the healing is not based on the faith of the person. When is the healing accomplished. When Jesus says so. Why? This question is not answered here.
ηρωτα ("ask" imperfect form of ερωταω, 4:47) The man continually is asking for Jesus help here; a sign of faith or despiration?
ιασηται ("heal" aorist form of ιαομαι, 4:47) This verb is not as common as I expected in the Gospels, a few times here and there, mostly in Luke and only once in Mark. It comes into English as psychiatry. I think it is a deep question: Is it our mission, or Jesus' mission, to offer healing? Healing is almost always thrust upon Jesus, the only exception being his command that the disciples go and heal (Luke 9.2). Even here it comes after the proclamation of the Word. To put it another way, healing (and the sick) will come with the proclamation of the Word. The words intnetion is not healing as we see it, but life. I think this opens up more doors -- what is living? How can be sick still have life? In fact, the text next says he was healed of all his problems, just that the fever left him, he was better and he was living.
πιστευω ("believe", throughout this section, including 4:50) This verb means trusting. In this case, trust doesn't produce following Jesus, it creates a situation in which someone can walk away from Jesus. Again, most times we think of trust as creating a situation of moving closer to Jesus, but in this case, the faith creates a situation of letting go, letting go of his anxiety about his son, letting go of his need to be next to Jesus.
καταβαινω ("come down," 4:47,49, 51) Okay, I cannot figure it out. This word appears three times in this story. It appears big time in John 6 (the true bread from heaven). And then it stops. It is as if the incarnation reaches its high point in John's Holy Communion story (chapter 6) and then he is done going down. I'd like some more thoughts on this.
Tuesday, December 17, 2013
Reconversion of Britain
A Post-Christendom model for mission:
They exist!
While the efforts of the early Church, especially those recorded in Scripture, will always serve as the primary inspiration for all missionary efforts of the Christian church, their example has certain limits. Most saliently, the first Christian missionaries encountered a pre-Christian world; this is a very different context than the post-Christendom world in which many American churches operate. The people we seek to reach with the Gospel know about Christianity know at least something, good or bad, about the faith. My hope is to identify, examine and learn from successful missionary efforts in post-Christendom contexts. In this post I will focus on the reconversion of Britain in the early middle ages.
Basic Historical Background: Pagans, popes and monks
Like much of the Roman Empire, the island of Britain was converted to Christianity in the first centuries after Christ's death and resurrection. As the Roman Empire fell and contact with the Britain isles greatly abated during the 5th century AD, much of Britain reverted back to paganism. Various factors caused this, but chief among them was the invasion and migration of pagan German tribes into Britain who took over the country (the name England is from the "Angles", one of these German/Anglo-Saxon tribes). By the time Pope Gregory sent St. Augustine to England in 596 to do missionary work, Augustine found an incredibly weakened to non-existent church, especially in the south and eastern parts of Britain. Yet over the next century, Roman and Celtic missionaries would initiate the reconversion of England.
Cultural Adaptation and Leadership
Every missionary in ancient Britain, Celtic or Roman, was involved in the very complex struggle of confronting and employing culture in their efforts to spread the Gospel. Two examples of this show the uneven terrain of this evangelical endeavor:
These are but two small examples that show the rich dialogue between Gospel and culture during the re-Christianization years.
What stands out in the example of Britain’s reconversion is not simply the adaptation of Gospel to culture but the leadership of the church within the culture. The cultural artifacts and learning of the Christians, from their books to their architecture, truly impressed the pagan kings. The Christian missionaries during this time, often monks, were on the forefront of architecture and book creation. What Bach would be to music one millennia later, these monks were to book creation and ornamentation in their day.
Ironically, the monastic movement away from the world provided time for learning that propelled the church to the foreground of the culture. Is it possible for the church to use some sort of neo-monasticism for the purposes of art? The St. John's Bible seems like a modern example of effective use of arts for evangelism. If we are not going to re-create monasteries, a greater willingness to engage the arts, broadly defined, seems like a helpful, if not necessary strategy for missionary work. These missionaries took risks to engage and lead the creative side of their culture; we need to as well.
Necessity of One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
It is striking to observe that the re-conversion of Britain was not done by the British church. In the Eastern part of Britain, where paganism had taken root, the church was far too weak for mission work. In the West where the church still had strength, one must wonder if a certain degree of prejudice and fear existed about mission work into the Anglo-Saxon territory in the East; after all, these were the cruel conquerors! Regardless of the reasons, Britain on its own would not have converted back to Christianity.
The strong evidence from the British experience during this time is that, yes, foreign missionaries are necessary for the re-Christianization of a population. Given that we cannot create foreign missionaries who will re-Christianize America (although we can pray for them), we can increase our contact with churches from around the globe.
Economic Security
Monasteries were founded with a spiritual purpose: the pursuit of discipleship through rigorous and often communal living. They ultimately ended up becoming centers of culture, learning and apostleship. I suggest this was not simply a spiritual fruit, but a by-product of economic realities. Monasteries afforded a huge economic benefit to the Christian church.
Monasteries afforded the church the resources necessary for its thriving, especially in relationship to its clergy. First, monasteries provided a way to circumvent the lack of bishops (that needed cities!) and still recruit, train and ordain clergy. Second, absent an urban upper or middle class, the church could now fund itself and allow for the resources for the flourishing of the arts and learning (a pax monachica of sorts). While their economic clout would only grow over time, in the first decades monasteries were already giving the church the money, time and stability it needed. Lastly, the economics of monasteries were not only conducive to generating learning, faith and culture, but the unit proved it could be duplicated. Missionary work was done, in large part, first by the spreading of monasteries, not churches. Monasteries were a winning economic model in a post-Roman Empire world, where churches no longer had state support.
As we lose our privileges in a post-Christendom world, we need to consider ways to reconfigure ourselves for greater economic stability. Only a church that can figure out a way to afford its buildings and clergy will be able have the resources necessary for mission. This may come about through the cooperative models that share clergy across buildings; models that do not require buildings; or more radical changes in how clergy are trained; or even most radically, models that do not require significant, if any clergy altogether. Regardless, we should be prepared, if we are to thrive for mission, to engage in stewardship, not just of people in the pews, but the very way we organize for ministry.
To sum it all up
To conclude, Britain was reconverted in the early middle ages. This reconversion was led by monks and monasteries. I suggest their witness challenges us to:
I should stop here, but…
A few other points, unrelated to my previous points, that I want to put out there: · Christians in the mission field did not always cooperate with each other.
Works Consulted
St Augustine and the Conversion of England, an anthology edited by Richard Gameson. Great Britain: Sutton Publishing, 1999.
Augustine of Canterbury. Deanesly, Margaret. London: Nelson Publishing, 1964.
How the Irish Saved Civilization. Cahill, Thomas. New York: Doubleday, 1995.
The world of King Arthur. Snyder, Christopher A. New York : Thames & Hudson, 2000.
http://www.wikipedia.org/ for Patrick, Gildas, Aiden and Columba
While the efforts of the early Church, especially those recorded in Scripture, will always serve as the primary inspiration for all missionary efforts of the Christian church, their example has certain limits. Most saliently, the first Christian missionaries encountered a pre-Christian world; this is a very different context than the post-Christendom world in which many American churches operate. The people we seek to reach with the Gospel know about Christianity know at least something, good or bad, about the faith. My hope is to identify, examine and learn from successful missionary efforts in post-Christendom contexts. In this post I will focus on the reconversion of Britain in the early middle ages.
Basic Historical Background: Pagans, popes and monks
Like much of the Roman Empire, the island of Britain was converted to Christianity in the first centuries after Christ's death and resurrection. As the Roman Empire fell and contact with the Britain isles greatly abated during the 5th century AD, much of Britain reverted back to paganism. Various factors caused this, but chief among them was the invasion and migration of pagan German tribes into Britain who took over the country (the name England is from the "Angles", one of these German/Anglo-Saxon tribes). By the time Pope Gregory sent St. Augustine to England in 596 to do missionary work, Augustine found an incredibly weakened to non-existent church, especially in the south and eastern parts of Britain. Yet over the next century, Roman and Celtic missionaries would initiate the reconversion of England.
I will focus on what we can learn today from the
efforts of these missionaries. It is
especially worth considering the roles of monasteries in this reconversion
effort since nearly all of the missionaries were monks. These communities of spiritual ‘escape’
became centers of outreach. This causes
us to ask a question: Should we be founding
monasteries today? I am not convinced of
this, but I am convinced that our congregations today can learn a great deal
from these monastic efforts.
Every missionary in ancient Britain, Celtic or Roman, was involved in the very complex struggle of confronting and employing culture in their efforts to spread the Gospel. Two examples of this show the uneven terrain of this evangelical endeavor:
·
The Celtic monks were able
to make huge strides in terms of limiting slavery. But they themselves engaged in armed combat,
supporting their local chieftain and monastery benefactor against his
adversaries.
·
Anglo-Saxon kings believed
themselves descendents of Woden (Odin).
A conversion to pure Christianity meant a loss of their family’s divine
status; thus they sent their children to enter royal monasteries and became
saints, restoring the family's divine lineage.
Often Christian scribes left Woden in the family genealogies, even years
later.
These are but two small examples that show the rich dialogue between Gospel and culture during the re-Christianization years.
What stands out in the example of Britain’s reconversion is not simply the adaptation of Gospel to culture but the leadership of the church within the culture. The cultural artifacts and learning of the Christians, from their books to their architecture, truly impressed the pagan kings. The Christian missionaries during this time, often monks, were on the forefront of architecture and book creation. What Bach would be to music one millennia later, these monks were to book creation and ornamentation in their day.
Ironically, the monastic movement away from the world provided time for learning that propelled the church to the foreground of the culture. Is it possible for the church to use some sort of neo-monasticism for the purposes of art? The St. John's Bible seems like a modern example of effective use of arts for evangelism. If we are not going to re-create monasteries, a greater willingness to engage the arts, broadly defined, seems like a helpful, if not necessary strategy for missionary work. These missionaries took risks to engage and lead the creative side of their culture; we need to as well.
It is striking to observe that the re-conversion of Britain was not done by the British church. In the Eastern part of Britain, where paganism had taken root, the church was far too weak for mission work. In the West where the church still had strength, one must wonder if a certain degree of prejudice and fear existed about mission work into the Anglo-Saxon territory in the East; after all, these were the cruel conquerors! Regardless of the reasons, Britain on its own would not have converted back to Christianity.
Irish monasteries and the children (Aidan, Columba,
to name a few) would begin to make inroads into the Britain, Scotland and Wales,
especially in the West. Furthermore, Pope
Gregory the Great sent the Italian monk Augustine to England to begin the
process of conversion of the Eastern part of the Island. Moreover, the main Christian contact of
Augustine in England was the King’s recently arrived wife, who was from France.
To put it simply, Britain was
reconverted by people from outside of Britain.
This was also true of Ireland, as Saint Patrick was British (who grew up
in the Western part of the Island where Christianity and Roman culture remained
stronger).
This forces us to ask ourselves a few hard
questions:
·
Will the reconversion of
America require missionaries from other countries?
·
What kind of prejudices
might we have that inhibit us from trying to reconvert our neighbors, or more
likely, those who are different than us?
The American church is notorious for being homogeneous within
congregations.
·
Does the difficulty of
cross-cultural apostolic work require a non-native who paradoxically
understands something less yet more about a new culture?
The strong evidence from the British experience during this time is that, yes, foreign missionaries are necessary for the re-Christianization of a population. Given that we cannot create foreign missionaries who will re-Christianize America (although we can pray for them), we can increase our contact with churches from around the globe.
Economic Security
Monasteries were founded with a spiritual purpose: the pursuit of discipleship through rigorous and often communal living. They ultimately ended up becoming centers of culture, learning and apostleship. I suggest this was not simply a spiritual fruit, but a by-product of economic realities. Monasteries afforded a huge economic benefit to the Christian church.
Britain’s 5th century church broke down in large
part because of clergy shortage. As state
support of Christianity stopped, as cities fell, the whole system of training,
ordaining and funding clergy stopped working.
No rulers, no money; no cities, no cathedrals; no bishops, no priests. The opposite proves the point: those areas where the church continued to
flourish in the British Isles were those which saw the rise of house churches,
located in the villas of local aristocrats.
Monasteries afforded the church the resources necessary for its thriving, especially in relationship to its clergy. First, monasteries provided a way to circumvent the lack of bishops (that needed cities!) and still recruit, train and ordain clergy. Second, absent an urban upper or middle class, the church could now fund itself and allow for the resources for the flourishing of the arts and learning (a pax monachica of sorts). While their economic clout would only grow over time, in the first decades monasteries were already giving the church the money, time and stability it needed. Lastly, the economics of monasteries were not only conducive to generating learning, faith and culture, but the unit proved it could be duplicated. Missionary work was done, in large part, first by the spreading of monasteries, not churches. Monasteries were a winning economic model in a post-Roman Empire world, where churches no longer had state support.
As we lose our privileges in a post-Christendom world, we need to consider ways to reconfigure ourselves for greater economic stability. Only a church that can figure out a way to afford its buildings and clergy will be able have the resources necessary for mission. This may come about through the cooperative models that share clergy across buildings; models that do not require buildings; or more radical changes in how clergy are trained; or even most radically, models that do not require significant, if any clergy altogether. Regardless, we should be prepared, if we are to thrive for mission, to engage in stewardship, not just of people in the pews, but the very way we organize for ministry.
To sum it all up
To conclude, Britain was reconverted in the early middle ages. This reconversion was led by monks and monasteries. I suggest their witness challenges us to:
·
Engage, even lead, in the
culture, learning and arts
·
Connect with other churches
around the world
·
Find sustainable models of
ministry
I should stop here, but…
A few other points, unrelated to my previous points, that I want to put out there: · Christians in the mission field did not always cooperate with each other.
·
Homebase and missionaries
in the field didn’t always agree
·
The way from Paganism back
to Christianity was a long and uneven road
Works Consulted
St Augustine and the Conversion of England, an anthology edited by Richard Gameson. Great Britain: Sutton Publishing, 1999.
Augustine of Canterbury. Deanesly, Margaret. London: Nelson Publishing, 1964.
How the Irish Saved Civilization. Cahill, Thomas. New York: Doubleday, 1995.
The world of King Arthur. Snyder, Christopher A. New York : Thames & Hudson, 2000.
http://www.wikipedia.org/ for Patrick, Gildas, Aiden and Columba
Tuesday, December 10, 2013
Isaiah 55:1-11
This passage occurs in the Narrative Lectionary Year 4, Advent cycle. It also appears in the Easter Vigil and at other points in the RCL.
Summary: This passage picks up with a number of great Advent themes: Hope, repentance, waiting for God's fulfillment. For those who still remember the days of Advent III being about joy, there is much joy in this passage, including God's delight, even pleasure, in his word being fulfilled.
To make it really simple: Part of the joy of Christmas, part of why it gives us such peace, joy and hope is because it is so sensory! Light a candle and sing a song!
Key Words:
חסד (kased, "loving-kindness," Isaiah 55:3) This word is a tough one to translate. The idea is steadfast and undeserved love. I think those who have been walking through the narrative lectionary may be able to communicate finally what is going on: God is faithful through every step and every level of human disobedience. This is not simply a God who hangs in there, but hangs in there four centuries finally only to hang himself for the sake of humanity.
נפש (nephish, "soul", Isaiah 55:2-3) For those of us living in a world formed by Greek ideas, we hear soul and we think the wispy part of our lives that floats up to heaven. But actually, the word "soul" here in Hebrew means living being. This is clearly identified by the context here that includes eating, drinking and listening. The soul, even if one wants to move into Greek territory of a distinct soul from body, is not separate but intimately connected.
נתנ (nathan, "give", 55:4) The prince is not made, but the prince is given. I think this is an important reminder about the nature of leadership. Leaders aren't made, they are given by God.
מצוה (mitzvah, "command", 55:4) In this case, the leader is given with a particular purpose, to command them. He is not a commander in the grammar here; he will command the people. But this word command is related to God's command for the people. This seems to harken back to Isaiah 2, then when all the nations of the Lord stream to God and learn his law.
תפצ (kephitz, "delight", 55:11) God does not simply intend for his word to be fulfilled but to delight him. I think this is a great way to end the passage, with God having great joy, even pleasure and delight in his word.
Key word we had two weeks back (in Jeremiah 37)
מחשבה ("makhashaba"; "thoughts, devices, or plans"; 29:11): I am always worried about the word plan in the Bible. It can quickly make both humans and God into a fatalistic machine. The word translated plan here can be mean plan, but it can also mean thought or device/plot:
NRS Psalm 92:5 How great are your works, O LORD! Your thoughts are very deep!
NRS Isaiah 55:8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are your ways my ways, says the LORD.
NRS Proverbs 16:3 Commit your work to the LORD, and your plans will be established.
NRS Lamentations 3:61 You have heard their taunts, O LORD, all their plots against me.
As the TWOT indicates: "The basic idea of the word is the employment of the mind in thinking activity. Reference is not so much to "understanding" (cf. bi^n), but to the creating of new ideas." What further attests to this is that the LXX translates this as λογισμος, which means thought or reason. I do not disgree that God has plans for the people. In this case, Jeremiah has very clear prophecies about 70 years. But the OT word for plan in many cases means something softer than "calculated plan" and more like "creative and reasoned thoughts" that have as their end peace and hope.
Summary: This passage picks up with a number of great Advent themes: Hope, repentance, waiting for God's fulfillment. For those who still remember the days of Advent III being about joy, there is much joy in this passage, including God's delight, even pleasure, in his word being fulfilled.
To make it really simple: Part of the joy of Christmas, part of why it gives us such peace, joy and hope is because it is so sensory! Light a candle and sing a song!
Key Words:
חסד (kased, "loving-kindness," Isaiah 55:3) This word is a tough one to translate. The idea is steadfast and undeserved love. I think those who have been walking through the narrative lectionary may be able to communicate finally what is going on: God is faithful through every step and every level of human disobedience. This is not simply a God who hangs in there, but hangs in there four centuries finally only to hang himself for the sake of humanity.
נפש (nephish, "soul", Isaiah 55:2-3) For those of us living in a world formed by Greek ideas, we hear soul and we think the wispy part of our lives that floats up to heaven. But actually, the word "soul" here in Hebrew means living being. This is clearly identified by the context here that includes eating, drinking and listening. The soul, even if one wants to move into Greek territory of a distinct soul from body, is not separate but intimately connected.
נתנ (nathan, "give", 55:4) The prince is not made, but the prince is given. I think this is an important reminder about the nature of leadership. Leaders aren't made, they are given by God.
מצוה (mitzvah, "command", 55:4) In this case, the leader is given with a particular purpose, to command them. He is not a commander in the grammar here; he will command the people. But this word command is related to God's command for the people. This seems to harken back to Isaiah 2, then when all the nations of the Lord stream to God and learn his law.
תפצ (kephitz, "delight", 55:11) God does not simply intend for his word to be fulfilled but to delight him. I think this is a great way to end the passage, with God having great joy, even pleasure and delight in his word.
Key word we had two weeks back (in Jeremiah 37)
מחשבה ("makhashaba"; "thoughts, devices, or plans"; 29:11): I am always worried about the word plan in the Bible. It can quickly make both humans and God into a fatalistic machine. The word translated plan here can be mean plan, but it can also mean thought or device/plot:
NRS Psalm 92:5 How great are your works, O LORD! Your thoughts are very deep!
NRS Isaiah 55:8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are your ways my ways, says the LORD.
NRS Proverbs 16:3 Commit your work to the LORD, and your plans will be established.
NRS Lamentations 3:61 You have heard their taunts, O LORD, all their plots against me.
As the TWOT indicates: "The basic idea of the word is the employment of the mind in thinking activity. Reference is not so much to "understanding" (cf. bi^n), but to the creating of new ideas." What further attests to this is that the LXX translates this as λογισμος, which means thought or reason. I do not disgree that God has plans for the people. In this case, Jeremiah has very clear prophecies about 70 years. But the OT word for plan in many cases means something softer than "calculated plan" and more like "creative and reasoned thoughts" that have as their end peace and hope.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
