Maundy Thursday

Maundy Thursday 2012

Matthew 6:1-4, 19-21

Letty Russell a long-time professor of theology at Yale Divinity School said, "The whole story of the New Testament revolves around this one theme: diakonia, service."  Service is not the most glamorous of themes to revolve around.  We might fill in the blank differently with "Resurrection" maybe--a word that becomes important as we come closer to Easter Sunday. Or "Redemption." OR "Faith," "Hope," or the greatest of these, "Love."  All far more glamorous than that word "service."  

Service, after all, begats sweat and sweat begats body odor and body odor when it is full grown begats stink and stink is not glamorous.  Service will give you blisters, calluses, a sore throat, and sunburn.  Service means spending the night on the floor praying that the Jr. High kids will stop giggling and stay put.  Service is acidic soap suds and hot water and a scouring pad.  It's cracking eggs and peeling potatoes.  Service is cleaning toilets and making copies.  It's choir rehearsal and Sunday School lessons and the call in the middle of the night.  Service is board meetings and support meetings and prayer  meetings.  Service is a handwritten note saying, "I'm here for you," "I'm thinking about you," "I value you." “Are you OK?"  Service is mulch and dirty diapers and comfort dolls.  It is crafting banners and hanging dry wall and sorting cans and hospital visits.  It's beans and rice and water.  It's hearts and hands filled with whatever a person needs get them over this point and to the next point.  It's a friendly greeting on Sunday morning.  It's opening your house so that others can worship.   It is the right hand putting in the offering plate what the left hand would remove if the left hand had received the memo.  Service is the conversation at the bedside, OR through the bullet proof glass or communion pushed through a fence or a friend staring at the tree the tornado has dropped on your house saying, "I'll get my saw."  Service is the carnation pinned to a lapel and the hand over hand journey of a coffin lifted by friends saying good bye.  Service is beautiful but not glamorous.   

Jesus style service is, in fact, required to be anything but glamorous.   "Be careful not to do your acts of righteousness before others to be seen by them."   I've talked about service a long time and listened to people talk about service a lot longer.  And we generally try to dress it up. We say things like, "When you serve you get more out serving than the people you serve do."  Which is probably true if we're talking about my construction abilities.  You know, but there are some people who actually manage to do some real good in this world.  We talk about how service reveals the miracle side of life.  And we tell the touching story to help convince people to serve others.  But there's only so much dressing up of service and eventually people are going to see the dirty elbows and dirty knees and the dirty, dirty feet.  There's only so much dressing up we can do before Jesus taps us on the shoulder and says, "That's not the reason for doing service."  It's not about dressing up.  

So we’re left to wonder, if service isn’t glamorous what does it mean.? Is Letty Russell correct in saying “The whole story of the New Testament revolves around” service?  All of the rest that this weekend is about--the redemption and the resurrection, the agony and the victory, it is all designed to reconcile God and us and to reconcile us to each other.  And we must ask, what kind of God are we being reconciled to and how are we to be reconciled to one another.  And Jesus said:  here, let me show you. On a night leading to us arrest Jesus closed the doors and with his closest friends and his betrayer Jesus removed his clothes, wrapped a towel around his waste and he washed their feet--all their dirty, dirty feet.  And said, you call me teacher and Lord and rightly so now I your teacher and Lord have set and example for you also should wash one another's feet,.  Indeed the whole act of Jesus's life is a single and seamless act of God serving thumanity--the humanity God made, and loves, and allowed to wander and came to retrieve.  This is the character of God and God's vision for us.  Service is the remaking of ourselves in the image of Christ.  But why serve without expectation of recognition beyond that which God sees and knows? To serve for nothing else than the affirmation of God?

I mean, it's lousy public relations for one who would be Lord and Savior of the world.  Didn't Jesus know that the better path is to find people who need your help, tell their story on national television, give them a few days of vacation and while their gone remodel their house. "Jesus, move that boat." That’s a much better catch phrase than those who could come after me must follow me.  And if we could talk back at Jesus, we would explain, ever so respectfully, that if you don't advertise your service as loudly as possible then people might misinterpret what you're doing.  They might challenge that healing is a violation of Sabbath law.  They might say that feeding is an attempt to reorder the economy.  They might say that welcoming children overturns the social order.  Far better, don't you think, when giving your gift to do so with trumpet blast so that everything is perfectly clear.  But that's not what Jesus said.  And so he left himself wide open that people might misunderstand  the wood and the hammer and the nails and the sweat and the pain and the blood.  They just might walk past and assume that what you intend as service is in fact a punishment, a curse, an execution, a crucifixion. Jesus took this risk and calls us to do the same—the risk that the only people who will understand what you are doing are those who see with the eyes of faith.  He said “Take up your cross and follow me.” There are days I wouldn't risk the confusion.  I'd take the trumpet blast. I’d shoot glamorous. But I'm not charge.  And a servant is not greater than the master.  So we serve in memory and in unity as Christ has served us.  Thanks be to God. 

Response to Sandhya Jha

I found Sandhya Jha's recent post on gender really helpful, thoughtful and it sparked a flood of thoughts for me. It did not feel like “old news” to me. I wrote the following response directly to her.  It got long, so I thought I'd post it here. 

I chuckled with her reference to “Very progressive man.” My first thought was—oh, good—she’s not talking about me. Then I retreated where I usually do in these conversations to saying, “We’re not the ones you need to convince. Other women are the biggest obstacle. Convince them.” That was the first point of conviction for me. Because as soon as I thought that I though about often I let other men intimidate me. I’m not successful at persuading them. I’m often not courageous enough to try. So, I need to quit using that cop out line or else accept that if feminist women are responsible for the non-feminist women then I have to accept responsibility for persuading the unrepentant men (Oh Brother).

I think a lot of times “Progressive Men” try to appear feminist but don’t actually get there. I’ve been struck by a few of my strong feminist friends who married somewhat conservative almost red-neck men. The thought that occurred to me is that a lot of the most conservative, politically insensitive people I know are very respectful in one-on-one relationships with their wives and in fact everyone they meet. They don’t try to prove that they aren’t sexist they have an ethic of respect. It’s the weirdest thing that some of the nicest people, most willing to help folk around here are Rush Limbaugh or Bill O’Reilly fans. I simply don’t get it.

It shouldn’t surprise me, though. I know that there is a profound difference between what my “ideology” says and the feelings and motivations generated by synapses, hormones, and hardwiring. I am Romans 7 walking around in the 21st Century. That’s not an attempt to divert responsibility just a way of saying responsibility for actions means more than changing ideology. As you said, “Your desire for me to feel completely liberated . . . .” Right. There’s a long and arduous—not so straight but definitely narrow—road from good intentions to healthier interactions and systems.

Which leads me to say that part of what has to happen now is the development of simpler norms. You’re final point is where my anxiety kicks in—there are different kinds of feminism. As an aside, I’ll say, I have always been of the opinion that men cannot be truly feminist and the white middle-class cannot be liberationist. It has to do with my understanding of theological anthropology (or psychology). I believe that self-deception, which ideology often leads to, is one of the biggest barriers to wholeness. I believe that we must be constantly vigilant about our participation in injustice or to put the word simply—sin. I can be informed by feminism but to claim to be a feminist too easily drifts into self-deception that I have conquered all my sexist tendencies. So when I decline to claim my own feminism in the conversation, it’s not because I disagree. Aside over.

The challenge now is that with the diverse opinions about how gender should be thought about and lived out, it is much more difficult to know how to respond. If it’s dark outside and one of my women colleagues is still in the building. Do I offend her autonomy by waiting until she’s done to see that she makes it to the car safely (our zip code—76010--has problems to rival any inner-city neighborhood) OR is it just showing respect per your point #1 (BTW, I know my colleagues well enough to know to stay. They know me well enough to tell me if they think I’ve crossed a line and said or done something insensitive). Simple actions of “chivalry” become complicated internal dialogues for many men who are trying to be (or appear) non-sexist. That’s an isolated example of what happens all the time. Somewhere in the attempts to appear non-sexist we have stopped using language like the language one of your commenters posted. We don’t say to boys, “Be a gentlemen and treat ladies with respect.” It sounds patronizing and archaic. I heard a discussion a few weeks ago on NPR (can’t remember which show) where the women in the discussion said they didn’t like the term “ladies.” Really? Someone please explain how we’re supposed to keep this straight. Paradigm shifts create stages where old norms have fallen away but new norms have yet to emerge. Maybe that’s where we’re living but, in the absence of clear norms particularly as it relates to the education of boys the vacuum will be filled with the sort garbage we’ve heard recently.

Finally, and somewhat unrelated to the preceding, the Fluke controversy was tragic. Limbaugh’s rhetoric was some of the worst I’ve ever heard. Frankly, I think we need to have a conversation about religious liberty and to what extent the first amendment protects the policies of religious affiliated organizations. Personally, I think an insurance company should regard birth control as essential. I see it as preventative medicine and I think insurance companies would do well to be more aggressive with promoting preventative medicine. But, whether companies should be compelled by law to implement policies that are morally problematic for their shareholders is a lot more complicated than it appears. Fluke deserved a serious and nuanced response and serious scrutiny. What she got instead was a pundit willing to simplify it below the waist (where a man’s brain is a lot of the time) and drive it straight to the gutter. In doing so, he severely crippled people like myself who think that Fluke’s arguments deserve some heavy counter-argument and dialogue. Not on moralistic grounds about sex but on constitutional grounds about the extent of religious freedom and freedom of conscious in our complex interdependent context. Unfortunately, any male adversary to Fluke’s argument will now get coupled with Limbaugh’s rant and be dismissed out of hand as sexist.

Search Engine

Maddie's Search Engine

Loading

Search Engine

Loading

Keep the Christ in Christmas

-->

They’re called nomina sacra—sacred names. The Earliest Christian scribes who copied the books of the Greek New Testament by hand so that they could be circulated to other churches had a relatively uniform set of abbreviations for divine names. For example-the word for “humanity” in the ancient Greek of the New Testament was anthropos. You can imagine writing that several times could become tedious so the scribes would write two capital letters—an alpha and a nu and then put a line over it. The word for God –Theos—would be abbreviated with a capital theta with a line above it. The nomina sacra for Jesus was Iota Eta and if it was in the nominative case (that is as the subject of the sentence) it would have a concluding sigma. It would look like IHS though many Christians think that means “In His Service.” Perhaps the most profound nomina sacra is the one used for cross, in Greek Stauro and in crucify stauroo. It looks like a smooth, curved capital “P” with a cross bar. It looks like a man on a cross. Of course with the persistent use of Christ, there was a nomina sacra for Christ. It was a chi with an line on top. A capital chi looks like an uppercase X. Nomina sacra were the forerunners of Christian symbols used to this day.

I mention that because this time of year we frequently see Christmas abbreviated as X-Mas. Many people assume that this is an attempt to remove “Christ” from the season. In reality, this particular abbreviation has a long standing tradition in Christian literature. Evenso, many Christians feel that the culture is trying to minimize the central of Jesus and maximize festivities, commercialism and marketing. People think that because the culture is trying to maximize festivities, commercialism and marketing. So everywhere, something of a tug of war that usually gets portrayed as a culture war is waged in this country over the appropriate expressions of religion. Instead of crafting scenarios where we are the victims, perhaps Christians should learn from early generations and see in simple letters and figures, representations of Christ.

Mystal's Judgment of Helping and Moral Superiority

Recently, Elie Mystal, a blogger for Above The Law, took issue with a column by George Will challenging Affirmative Action. The blog post started with the following paragraph and a half.

People who think giving charity to those less fortunate also gives them the right to direct the personal choices of those receiving the charity are some of the worst people on the planet. The biggest offenders are religious organizations: “Ooh, here’s some food. Yes. You like food, don’t you? I bet you’re hungry — I can tell ’cause I can see your ribs. Well, it’s all you can eat in here… first, just say you accept Jesus Christ as your lord and savior. SAY IT. Wonderful. Bon appétit!”

Organizations do it all the time, but there are plenty of individuals who also think giving a guy a buck gives them the right to tell the recipient how to spend the money. This behavior is the worst because it takes what should be a generous gesture (giving somebody money) and turns it into a cheap way to make a BS point about your moral superiority (“If this man did just one thing more like me, he wouldn’t have to beg for my scraps.”).

The rest of the article was devoted to refuting George Will's stance against Affirmative Action. Mystal's specific arguments about Affirmative Action made sense to me though they were largely based on his summary of arguments made by one of his former professors. He didn't make it as clear in the argument why he distrusted Will's motivation. He had interacted with Will personally. Perhaps he knows something from those interactions that he does not spell out in this article. In any case, from my perspective the complexities of responsible charitable assistance and the complexities of Affirmative Action are too intricate to be grouped together in this manner.

Too much of his criticism hinges on his perceptions of people's motivations. Will is "disingenuous;" some people who give charity are really just advancing their own "moral superiority." Public argumentation about policies and practices should limit the scope of investigation to assessing the harms and benefits of particular policies or practices. People's true motivations are rarely clear to themselves and virtually inaccessible to others. Let's judge trees by their fruits rather than their sap. People can do the wrong thing for the right reasons and the right thing for the wrong reasons. In the end, it's the effect of what people do that can and should be scrutinized.

I have worked in professional Christian Ministry for twenty years. During that time, I have administered thousands of dollars of assistance on behalf of the churches I have served. I have never once treated a confession of faith in Jesus Christ as a prerequisite for giving assistance nor have I ever required someone to listen to a gospel presentation to receive assistance. I am familiar with the work of a number of Christian ministries. None that I know of require a confession of faith prior to giving assistance. A few--by no means the majority--do require people to listen to a gospel presentation first, but none requires acceptance of that presentation. Mystal's claim that "Organizations do it all the time . . ." is an assertion made without the benefit of concrete evidence.

The judgment that people who do this are among "the worst people on the planet" is an unjustified hyperbole. He claims that such people are driven by moral superiority. I agree that moral superiority is bad--by the way, I think Jesus felt the way Mystal does about moral superiority--but I'm not sure I'm prepared to condemn the morally superior in the hottest places of hell. At best, Mystal makes a good argument that people who oppose Affirmative Action are uninformed or misguided. The link between Affirmative Action and charity is not clear. Further, labeling the well-intentioned who attach strings to their assistance as "the worst people on the planet" would require greater detailing of the harms involved.

Finally, such an argument does little to aid a genuine dialogue on the ways assistance can be offered in helpful ways. Many people desire to be helpful, compassionate good neighbors AND unfortunately enact their helping behavior in unhelpful, prejudiced, judgmental and destructive ways. Many of the people inclined to help are also inclined to be self-reflective about their helping behavior. Repeatedly I have seen people engaging in helping behavior and simultaneously assessing their own embedded prejudices and assumptions. People are mixed bags and not as neatly categorized as heroes or villains in the way that Mystal seems to do.

In a complex world filled with challenging problems, the sort of unelaborated assertions given by Mystal frustrate people who are searching for ways to exercise their compassion in wise and truly helpful ways.

Reflection on Mark 1:35-39

³⁵ In the morning, while it was still very dark, he got up and went out to a deserted place, and there he prayed. ³⁶ And Simon and his companions hunted for him. ³⁷ When they found him, they said to him, “Everyone is searching for you.” ³⁸ He answered, “Let us go on to the neighboring towns, so that I may proclaim the message there also; for that is what I came out to do.” ³⁹ And he went throughout Galilee, proclaiming the message in their synagogues and casting out demons.

The patterns of regularly resting appear occasionally in the Gospels. Here and in Mark 6:45, Mark tells us that Jesus retreated to pray. When Mark tells the story of Jesus calming the furious storm, he explains that “Jesus was in the stern, sleeping on a cushion. Disciples Bible scholars Gene Boring and Fred Craddock write, “At the very beginning of the narrative, Mark presents Jesus both as one filled with divine power who does what only God can do, and also as one distinct from God, a needy human being who seeks communion with God in prayer.” (People NT Commentary, p. 111). Jesus as a person made of flesh and bones had the same needs for rest and prayer as anyone else.

Resting is also portrayed in scripture as a divine activity. The Creator rested on the Sabbath day and made it holy (Exodus 20:11). The longest of the 10 Commandments (Exodus 20:1-21) is the one most neglected—the command to take one day a week and give yourself and everyone else a break.

The context preceding this little story narrates the way Jesus traveled throughout the land healing those who were hurting or sick. Many interpreters suggest that the tension between Simon Peter and Jesus—they “hunted” for him after all—was due to competing agendas.

ost interpreters see this as a tension between the Disciples who want Jesus to set up shop, enjoy his popularity and Jesus who wants to extend the message to others--all?

What does all this mean for us? One of the big questions of Christianity is the significance of Jesus for us today. Jesus lived and died. That is an historical fact. But that his living and dying have some on-going importance to us is a statement of faith. What then is the on-going significance of the life, ministry, death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ?

Ask the question in almost any church in the southern part of the United States and the answer you’ll get back is “Jesus died for our sins.” This is certainly true but is it sufficient? Consider this passage from Dallas Willard, former USC professor of philosophy and spiritual formation expert.

There is absolutely nothing in what Jesus himself or his early followers taught that suggests you can decide just to enjoy forgiveness at Jesus' expense and have nothing more to do with him.

Some years ago A. W. Tozer expressed his "feeling that a notable heresy has come into being throughout evangelical Christian circles--the widely-accepted concept that we humans can choose to accept Christ only because we need him as Savior and that we have the right to postpone our obedience to him as Lord as long as we want to!" (I Call It Heresy, Harrisburg, PA.: Christian Publications, 1974, p. 5f) He then goes on to state "that salvation apart from obedience is unknown in the sacred scriptures."

This 'heresy' has created the impression that it is quite reasonable to be a "vampire Christian." One in effect says to Jesus: "I'd like a little of your blood, please. But I don't care to be your student or have your character. In fact, won't you just excuse me while I get on with my life, and I'll see you in heaven." But can we really imagine that this is an approach that Jesus finds acceptable?

And when you stop to think of it, how could one actually trust him for forgiveness of sins while not trusting him for much more than that. You can't trust him without believing that he was right about everything, and that he alone has the key to every aspect of our lives here on earth. But if you believe that, you will naturally want to stay just as close to him as you can, in every aspect of your life. (RENOVARE Perspective, Vol. V, No. 4, October 1995. First published in a Biola University bulletin. Available in The Great Omission, San Francisco: HarperCollins, 2006. complete article at: http://www.dwillard.org/articles/artview.asp?artID=71)

Willard calls such disregard for Christian discipleship “Vampire Christianity”—it only wants the blood of Jesus. Jesus came not only be our Savior but also to be our Lord. The advocacy for Christian Discipleship—taking our daily commitment to living as Jesus would have us live—is not done so that we might earn our salvation. Salvation comes by grace—God’s free gift. But the one who made us and who loved us enough to die for us also knows us well enough to direct our path toward the most authentic life possible. Discipleship is our way to reach a truly joyful and authentic life.

Certainly obedience to Christ’s teaching is part of Christian discipleship. So also is following Jesus example. Jesus indicated that he had set an example for us in certain acts of service (John 13:14-17). And Paul emphasizes that the way Jesus died reveals how we should live (Philippians 2:5-11). The writer of Hebrews names Jesus as the “author and perfecter of our faith” (Hebrews 12:2). First Peter also points to the example Jesus gave through his obedience in suffering as the path we also should follow. The line from Peter’s letter that we should following “in his steps” became the title for one of the most popular Christian novels ever written—Charles Sheldon’s In His Steps, who gave us the question “What Would Jesus Do?” So clearly, the New Testament suggests that parts of Jesus life—particularly the way he died on the cross—serve as examples for our own living. But can we claim that the whole of Jesus life serves as our example for godly living?

I believe the whole life of Jesus is exemplary. Paul wrote to the church in Corinth, “Follow my example, as I follow the example of Christ” (1 Corinthians 11:1). Gene Boring writes, “The call to adopt Christ as example is not analogous to ‘a child’s placing foot after foot into the prints of his father in the snow,’ (a quotation drawn from another writer), but more like making our own creative adaptation of a pattern” (Abingdon Commentary on 1 Peter, p. 90 in personal manuscript). The most common call Jesus gives in the gospels is “Follow Me.”

This perspective that Jesus sets an example for our whole lives is the basis for our Advent theme. Jesus is fully human and Jesus shows us how to be fully human. Jesus rested and paused, he prayed and lived a life of dependence, not only to because he himself experienced weakness or fatigue but also to reveal to us our needs to rest and reflect. Jesus gives the example of what it means to be fully human. It means that he was aware of his humanity, his need for boundaries, his dependence on God, and took intentional steps of faithfulness in order to place his humanness in the hands of God. We are called to be fully human, not super human. The life in the spirit is not ignorant of one’s own human needs. We place our needs before God. In the busy season that lies ahead, we often forget to breathe, to take time to be in God’s presence and truly restore ourselves. Jesus also sets the example for us of resisting the agenda of others when that agenda is not in line with God’s will for our lives.

Discussion Questions:

1. What does the phrase “Pause to Breathe” mean to you?

2. What are the ways you like to “Pause to Breathe”? Think about this question in terms of time available to you:

--Pausing to Breathe for 5 minutes.

--Pausing to Breathe for 1 hour.

--Pausing to Breathe for a Day (Sabbath).

--Pausing to Breathe for several days.

3. What barriers present themselves in your life as you seek to find time to pause to breathe?

4. What are the expectations people have of you that tend to pull you in different directions?

5. Do you find that pausing to breathe or having a regular time of prayer and meditation enables you to focus more clearly on the agenda God has set for you? Does it enable you to avoid the trap of being sucked into other people’s agenda for your life?

What the Soul is in the body the Christian is to the world.

This week's goal is to listen to a sermon a day. Today, I listened to a sermon by Jim White of Southwest Church of Christ in Omaha, NE. I didn't know anything about the preacher or the church before I listened to the sermon. It's the first I found that looked worth the time when I went trolling for sermons in iTunes. It was a good sermon. But what I found most interesting was the quotation from "The Epistle of Mathetes to Diogenetus." He quoted a large portion from parts 5 and 6. It was an early defense of Christianity.

I appreciate the letter. At the same time, it reflects an anthropological dualism that sees the soul as good and the body or flesh as corrupt. But the bulk of the letter is poetic in its description of the ideal Christian. And well worth examination.

Prayer for Stalcup Lecture

Dr. Sharon Watkins delivered this year's Joe A and Nancy Vaughn Stalcup lecture on Christian Unity, June 12, at East Dallas Christian Church. As usual, Sharon did a good job. She's one of my favorite preachers. She reminded us that God's vision of the world calls us to live now as we sense God may want to be in the future. Ecumenism is not just about getting along but there is a future-orientation that our cooperation may be going somewhere.

I was given the assignment of praying the prayer of confession and offering the assurance of pardon.

Here's what I said.

Lord of Mercy and Compassion,

We come before you with recognition that we have not fulfilled Christ’s prayer that we would be one; our disunity and fragmentation comes at the expense of our most faithful witness. We confess to you that we have grown complacent in our efforts. We have stubbornly refused to change our patterns and move beyond our comforts even at the prompting of your Holy Spirit. We have longed for a future brighter than the past without assessing honestly the changes we need to make in the present. Remind us again that the call of prophecy is not to wait and see if prophecy comes true but to respond faithfully here and now. Lord, we so easily convince ourselves that because we have changed our attitudes we have changed our actions. We only recognize how entrenched our attitudes are sometimes when our actions are called to account. So, take our broken actions and attitudes, our apathy and stubbornness and heal and restore according to your will. Amen.

Assurance of Pardon

We remember the words of scripture that if we confess our sins God’s is faithful and just to forgive our sins and cleanse us of all unrighteousness. God does not deal with us according to our sins but according to our potential for repentance. May we live in the grace our God provides.

Diagnosis

North America is increasingly going to look like a mission field. (1) The narrative, formative rituals, virtues, and convictions of Christians will become less and less familiar to more and more North Americans. (2) The strategies of church growth that have driven church planning for the past 50 years will see declining effectiveness in the near future. They have, in fact, already started to see this decline. Church growth strategies assumed that full-formed Christians were looking for the best vendors of religious life and churches could effectively attract these potential clients through worship style upgrades and life-style appealing programming. As churches move into the future, we will discover that (a) we lack the resources for excelling with this approach to ministry; (b) the pool of fully-formed Christians is growing ever smaller (see #1). (3) Responding to this changing reality should not be motivated by the desire for organizational survival but must be motivated by a commitment to the Gospel. In short, we must be obedient even unto death. If we seek to hold onto our way of lives—the existing patterns of practicing faith—we will loose them. If we willingly relinquish our way of lives in preference for another way of life we feel is discerned as God's call, led by the Holy Spirit, in conformity to Christ, we will find our lives.

Seven/Eleven Songs

I have heard a countless number of people refer to Praise and Worship songs as “Seven/Eleven” songs--“the same seven words sung eleven times” (ironically a seven-word statement). I thought it was witty the first time I heard it but, I've now heard it more than eleven times. The phrase tends to end conversations between members of a church who could be sharing spiritual journeys rather dismissing each other. So, I decided to do a little math.

The closest thing I could find to a list of the most frequently sung hymns was from a summary report concerning a Presbyterian Hymnal. I took the lyrics to these hymns and individually placed them in a text analysis tool that gave me the total number of words used, the total number of unique words (any word that's repeated was only counted one time), and several other statistics. I also calculated the ratio of words to unique words—the lower the ratio, the less often any single word was repeated. So, the higher the ratio of words to unique words, the lower the density. I did the same thing with CCLI Top 8 songs. I removed one of the CCLI top songs because it was a contemporary arrangement of Amazing Grace.

Below are my findings.

Hymn Name	Words	Unique Words	Hard Word	Ratio
Amazing Grace, How Sweet the Sound	99	72	2	1.38
Praise God, From Whom All Blessings Flow	25	19	1	1.32
Be Thou My Vision	134	71	3	1.89
Glory Be to the Father	31	22	1	1.41
Great Is Thy Faithfulness	123	83	6	1.48
Holy, Holy, Holy! Lord God Almighty!	127	68	7	1.87
Joyful, Joyful, We Adore Thee	185	116	3	1.59
Here I Am, Lord	167	67	0	2.49
Average Hymn	111.38	64.75	2.88	1.72
Mighty to Save	166	72	8	2.31
How Great is Our God	135	59	1	2.29
Blessed Be Your Name	214	67	5	3.19
Here I Am to Worship	242	72	4	3.36
Everlasting God	92	40	4	2.3
Your Grace Is Enough	173	54	2	3.2
Jesus Messiah	102	62	2	1.65
Holy is the Lord	119	41	3	2.9
Average Praise Song	155.38	58.38	3.63	2.66

You can see my work here:

As you can see, the hymns do have more unique words to total words—a lower ratio of unique words to total words. But the difference between 1.72 total words to 1 and 2.66 words to 1 unique word hardly warrants the claim of superiority. The average hymn used about 65 unique words while the average praise song used a little over 58 unique words--not that great a difference

Please understand that if I were forced to make a choice between singing only songs written before 1970—the year of my birth—or only songs written since 1970, I would choose to sing only songs written before I was born. I would do so sadly as there are many Christian contemporary songs that I treasure. Please also understand that I think the so-called worship wars of the 1980's and 1990's are not only done but completely irrelevant. Those who want to trumpet traditional hymns as essential to the preservation of the faith and those who want to trumpet contemporary praise music as essential for reaching today's audience have both missed the point. The church is called to praise and make disciples. God receives both traditional hymns and contemporary praise songs as expressions of praise and both are useful ways of fostering faithfulness. Either must be acquired by those coming into the church--we can't assume that either is inherently more useful for the church's mission. It's time to throw away the judgment line and start the conversation about what really matters—testifying to the capacity of diverse music and lyrics to aid our spiritual journeys.

Lenten Reading Plan through the Gospel of John

Wednesday Mar 9, 2011, John 1:1-18

Thursday Mar 10, 2011, John 1:19-36

Friday Mar 11, 2011, John 1:37-51

Saturday Mar 12, 2011, John 2:1-22

Sunday Mar 13, 2011, John 2:23-3:21

Monday Mar 14, 2011, John 3:22-4:3

Tuesday Mar 15, 2011, John 4:4-26

Wednesday Mar 16, 2011, John 4:27-42

Thursday Mar 17, 2011, John 4:43-54

Friday Mar 18, 2011, John 5:1-16

Saturday Mar 19, 2011, John 5:17-30

Sunday Mar 20, 2011, John 5:31-47

Monday Mar 21, 2011, John 6:1-21

Tuesday Mar 22, 2011, John 6:22-27

Wednesday Mar 23, 2011, John 6:28-59

Thursday Mar 24, 2011, John 6:28-59

Friday Mar 25, 2011, John 7:1-13

Saturday Mar 26, 2011, John 7:14-36

Sunday Mar 27, 2011, John 7:37-53

Monday Mar 28, 2011, John 8:1-20

Tuesday Mar 29, 2011, John 8:21-37

Wednesday Mar 30, 2011, John 8:38-59

Thursday Mar 31, 2011, John 9:1-12

Friday Apr 1, 2011, John 9:13-34

Saturday Apr 2, 2011, John 9:35-10:18

Sunday Apr 3, 2011, John 10:19-38

Monday Apr 4, 2011, John 10:39-11:16

Tuesday Apr 5, 2011, John 11:17-32

Wednesday Apr 6, 2011, John 11:33-44

Thursday Apr 7, 2011, John 11:45-12:11

Friday Apr 8, 2011, John 12:12-26

Saturday Apr 9, 2011, John 12:27-43

Sunday Apr 10, 2011, John 12:44-13:17

Monday Apr 11, 2011, John 13:18-35

Tuesday Apr 12, 2011, John 13:36-14:17

Wednesday Apr 13, 2011, John 14:18-15:8

Thursday Apr 14, 2011, John 15:9-27

Friday Apr 15, 2011, John 16:1-22

Saturday Apr 16, 2011, John 16:28-17:5

Sunday Apr 17, 2011, John 17:6-23

Monday Apr 18, 2011, John 17:24-18:12

Tuesday Apr 19, 2011, John 18:13-27

Wednesday Apr 20, 2011, John 18:28-40

Thursday Apr 21, 2011, John 19:1-16

Friday Apr 22, 2011, John 19:16b-37

Saturday Apr 23, 2011, John 19:38-42

Sunday Apr 24, 2011, John 20

Monday Apr 25, 2011, John 21

Sabbath

Christians tend to emphasize the importance of some commandments while almost completely ignoring some others. Ask people to name the 10 Commandments and people will almost instantly come out with: Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal. But the longest of the 10 Commandments is actually the fourth commandment that talks about the Sabbath.

Not only that, the fourth commandment is not really about going to church on Sunday. It's about resting. It's about not doing work one day out of seven and letting other people get rest one day out of seven. The first three commandments deal with how one shows proper reverence to God. The last six deal with how we interact with others. The Sabbath commandment is the place where our reverence for God and our respect for one another meet. It's also how we show respect to ourselves as Jesus said, “The sabbath was made for humankind and not humankind for the sabbath.” Learning when to turn work off and when to pick it back up again is something that God has given to us as a gift.

Christmas Eve

First Christian Church (Disciples of Christ)
910 S. Collins, Arlington, TX 76010

Christmas Eve Services

2:00 Service of Scripture and Song

5:00 Children and Story

7:00 Candlelight Service

11:00 Candlelight Service

Hear the Good News—Jesus Christ is our Emmanuel—God is with us

Pimento Cheese

I made Pimento Cheese tonight. I decided that I should write down what I did in case I like it and want to replicate it.

4 Fresh Jalepenos Peppers, without pulp or seeds.
1/3 Cup Sweet Roasted Red Peppers
4 oz walnuts
12 oz Whipped Cream cheese
8 oz Colby Cheese
8 oz Cheddar Cheese
2.25 oz can of sliced black olives

I put the Jalepenos, roasted red peppers, some of the juice from the red peppers jar, in the food processor and chopped them, then added the walnuts and chopped a little more. Placed peppers, walnuts, and juice in a bowl with the whipped cream cheese and stirred until blended. I put the colby and cheddar in the food processor and chopped it until is had the large granular texture I like. I mixed that in with the cream cheese/pepper mixture. Finally, I drained the olives and added them. Salted and peppered to taste.

O Antiphons

The Christmas Carol we know of as "O Come, O Come Emmanuel" is based on a monastic tradition from the medieval period of crafting "O Antiphons" around the names for Jesus embedded in the Old Testament. Here, to the best of my knowledge are all of the verses of "O Come, O Come Emmanuel" in the order of the original Antiphons. Along side these are scripture references related to the names.

O come, thou Wisdom from on high, who orders all things far and nigh; to us the path of knowledge show, and teach us in her ways to go.	Isaiah 40:3-5a Proverbs 8:22-36 (wisdom’s role in creation)	Colossians 1:15-20
O come, O come, Thou Lord of might, Who to Thy tribes on Sinai's height In ancient times once gave the law In cloud, and majesty, and awe. Traditionally one of the Antiphons relates Jesus to Moses	Exodus 20:1-20 Psalm 19, 145, 105	I am statements from John 8:48-59
O Root of Jesse, standing as a sign among the peoples; before you kings will shut their mouths, to you the nations will make their prayer: Come and deliver us, and delay no longer.	Isaiah 11:1-3, 10-11, Isaiah 52:13-53:6 Micah 5:1-5	Matthew 12:15-21 Revelation 5:1-5, 22:16
O come, Thou Key of David, come, And open wide our heavenly home Make safe the way that leads on high, And close the path to misery.	Isaiah 22:15-25 The phrase “key of David, comes from 22:22 but the context refers to a misuse of authority; too much weight placed on one person. Isaiah 42:1-9.	Matthew 12:22-32 Matthew 20:29-34 Matthew 22:41-45 Revelation 3:7-8
O come, thou Dayspring, come and cheer our spirits by thine advent here; disperse the gloomy clouds of night, and death's dark shadows put to flight.	Isaiah 9:1-7 Isaiah 58:6-9 Malachi 4:1-3	Luke 1:67-80 Hebrews 1:1-4
O come, Desire of nations, bind in one the hearts of all mankind; bid thou our sad divisions cease, and be thyself our King of Peace.	Haggai 2:1-9 Isaiah 28:16b-22	Matthew 25:31-46 t
O come, O come, Emmanuel, And ransom captive Israel, That mourns in lonely exile here Until the Son of God appear.	Isaiah 7:10-17 Isaiah 8:5-8	Matthew 1:18-25

Response to David Henson on Jennifer Knapp

Recently, blogger David Henson of unorthodoxology wrote about the response Jennifer Knapp was receiving from Christian Contemporary Music (CCM) after revelations that she is Lesbian. I appreciated the blog article and the comments as it helped me understand what had happened to two of my favorite Contemporary Christian Musicians: Jennifer Knapp and Ray Boltz.

In the entry and the discussion, Henson argues that CCM's response to Knapp reveals a double standard in the way the CCM responds to a woman's sexual identity vis-a-vis their response to a man's. He uses Michael English as his principle point of comparison. English is a Christian Contemporary Musician who still enjoys broad popularity despite admitted adultery, drug charges and other rumors. I should explain that the term "Christian Contemporary Music" or CCM refers to the industry and not to all Christians nor all musicians who happen to be Christians or all musicians who perform music that is Christian. Water muddied enough?

In the comments following the article Henson wonders if the reaction to Knapp is an example of the double standard or an example of anti-gay sentiment among more conservative Christians. Undoubtedly it is both. However, the double standard and anti-gay sentiment operate at different levels of our consciousness. Few if anyone would openly argue for the moral appropriateness of a double standard. It exists for many at a more subconscious and unspoken level.

By contrast, the anti-gay sentiment is openly expressed by many Christian leaders--particularly evangelicals. While there is a general moral consensus against the double standard for men and women, there is not moral consensus around how the church should respond to gays and lesbians.

I think it's important to say that because I think it reveals the way bigotry and prejudice lingers. This is common sense but, I'll say it anyway: There's a long gap between the point where we officially express an openness toward a group we have previously condemned morally and the point where we actually internalize that openness in our day to day behavior. Ordained women clergy have been officially embraced in our theology and practice for decades. However, there remain churches and individuals who cannot or would not accept a woman as their senior pastor. They would never say that publicly but it operates below the surface. There are people who have open views regarding gays and lesbians in general who would nonetheless struggle emotionally if their son or daughter came out as gay or lesbian.

Removing legal structures and theological pronouncements that reinforce bigotry is an important first step toward realizing equality. But, we should never kid ourselves that those old bigotries leave our emotional and spiritual landscapes just because our theological and legal landscapes shift. As for Jennifer Knapp, she has unfortunately crossed expressed theological pronouncements about homosexuality and a lingering but submerged double standard for men and women.