A short study on a short book

The Jews in Haggai aggainwere under Persian rule, during the reign of Darius. Lethargy had set in, possibly because their situation was so improved compared to Babylonian occupation and captivity. They had gotten lackadaisical about God’s house since returning to Palestine. Living comfortably, they decided it was not the right time to rebuild God’s house.

God’s word to them was, “Is it a time for you yourselves to be living in your paneled houses, while this house remains a ruin” (Hag 1:4)? Disobedience wrought drought and disaster.

You have planted much, but have harvested little. You eat, but never have enough. You drink, but never have your fill. You put on clothes, but are not warm. You earn wages, only to put them in a purse with holes in it (Hag 1:6).

Twice God tells them, “Give careful thought to your ways” (Hag 1:5, 7). Drought was an attention getter. God longs to bless his people, but sometimes he is not allowed to. The remnant however, listened and began work on the temple.

We too, can become lukewarm, comfortable, and complacent. Preoccupation and worry with daily life can make our hearts grow cold. It is like having pockets with holes in them. We strive so hard and have nothing to show for it. We are afraid to let go, sometimes afraid of what God will do if we allow him to have his way. It is sometimes difficult to “Trust in the LORD with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding; in all your ways acknowledge him, and he will make your paths straight” (Prv 3:5-6).

Our walk with God or lack thereof differentiates us from those Haggai addressed. If we are in fellowship with him, seeking to do his will, then we too, are like the faithful remnant. It may be difficult to identify with and we may even vilify those living comfortably while God’s house “remains a ruin” (Hag 1:4). God’s word to his remnant was “I am with you” (Hag 1:13; 2:4), “I covenanted with you” (Hag 2:5), “…my Spirit remains among you” (Hag 2:5), “Do not fear” (Hag 2:5), “’The glory of this present house will be greater than the glory of the former house,' says the LORD Almighty. ‘And in this place I will grant peace,’ declares the LORD Almighty” (Hag 2:9).

Obedience was the vehicle that took them from famine to feast and festivity. From the laying of the foundation, God promised a marked change. “‘From this day on I will bless you’” (Hag 2:19).

There are several ways we can apply Haggai to a concrete situation or problem in contemporary life. “You earn wages, only to put them in a purse with holes in it” (Hag 1:6). Many can identify with that sentiment. Some are deceived into believing they cannot afford to tithe. Otherwise faithful believers may express that. When I am faithful, I cannot afford not to tithe demonstrating God’s economy is unlike ours.

The Bible. New International Version.

Christians and the OT law

Fee and Stuart do a fine job of explaining the role of the Old Testament Law in the life of the Christian. “All of the Old Testament law is still the Word of God for us even though it is not still the command of God to us.” Though a fine distinction, this upholds the importance of scripture while acknowledging that not everything applies specifically to us. They also explain what is “explicitly renewed from the Old Testament law can be considered part of the New Testament ‘law of Christ.’” This includes the Ten Commandments and the commandments from Deuteronomy 6:5 and Leviticus 19:18.

Jesus showed respect toward the law. “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them” (Mt 5:17). The law was valid, but he was the fulfillment. Its purpose was to point us to the savior according to Paul in Galatians 3:24. We are not bound by the ritual aspects of it today, since it has already done its work in our hearts.

The primary role of the law is to show neediness for “through the law we become conscious of sin” (Rom 3:20).

When human achievement is measured against what God requires, there is no place for pride or boasting but only for silence that lends consent to the verdict of guilty….How startling it is to contemplate the fact that the best revelation man has apart from Christ only deepens his awareness of failure.

Martin Luther emphasized the positive aspects of the Ten Commandments in his Small Catechism. Concerning the Sabbath he wrote, “We are to fear and love God, so that we do not despise God’s Word or preaching, but instead keep that Word holy and gladly hear and learn it.” An article in A Survey of the Old Testament stated, “Finally, this love for God that prompts obedience to his commandments marks the true child of God (I John 5:1-5).”

Regarding Paul’s letter to the Romans:

In describing the law as that which brings the knowledge of sin (3.21), works wrath (4.15), increases transgression (5.20), stands opposed to grace (5.20–21; 6.14), and so

on, Paul was preparing the ground for the startling declaration in 7.4: “My friends, you have been put to death with respect to the law.”

In Galatians 3, Paul describes the purpose and temporariness of the law. “What, then, was the purpose of the law? It was added because of transgressions until the Seed to whom the promise referred had come” (Gal 3:19). Verse twenty-three explains the law’s function to “hold us prisoner, locking us up until Christ should be revealed.”

Paul’s view of the law was not completely negative. In Romans, Paul teaches that the law is holy and spiritual (Rom 7:12, 14). He relates the law to the inception of the church in Galatians 4:21-5:1 and as a guide for the church’s daily life, because of how Christ effected the law.

1 Gordon D. Fee and Douglas Stuart, How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2003), 169.

Ibid.

3 Frank E. Gaebelein, ed. The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Volume 11. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1976), 39-40.

4 Timothy J. Wengert, Luther’s Small Catechism: A contemporary translation (Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 1996), 197.

5 L. Goss and J. Ruark, eds., A Survey of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1991), 87.

6 Moyer V. Hubbard, New Creation in Paul’s Letters and Thought (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2002), 104.

7 Frank A. Gaebelein, ed. The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Volume 10 (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1976), 467.

The Bible. New International Version.

Ordination: Consecration for Service, NOT Personal Validation

No one who is ordained enters ordained ministry for purely healthy reasons -- indeed, I doubt that any human being does anything for purely healthy reasons! But it is important to be aware of one's motives, and to live out the healthy ones in one's ministry and to take care not to let the unhealthy ones affect one's ministry adversely.

The proper motive for being ordained is consecration for the service of God and the people of God in particular ways, especially the ministries of Word and Sacrament. Unfortunately, many seek ordination instead as some form of personal validation. Wearing a collar and vestments gives them some sort of status so that they can feel important, or loved, or respected, or _____ (fill in the blank).

In particular, it has been my observation that some (certainly not all) who are members of groups historically denied access to ordination, especially women and openly gay and lesbian Christians, can sometimes see ordination as a validation that they are "as good as" men or heterosexuals. This is quite understandable, and as someone who unequivocally supports the ordination of women and openly gay/lesbian Christians and who am myself an openly gay man, I have certainly felt this way myself at times. And one unhealthy result is that many forget that no individual has a right to ordination -- I agree that it is an injustice to exclude women and lgbt folk from ordination, but there are individual women and individual gay people who should not be ordained (just as there are individual heterosexual men who should not be ordained).

For those of us who make our way to the Independent Sacramental Movement, we usually find that, to our dismay, most Christians don't really take us that seriously. Our churches don't usually fit the model of "brick and mortar" churches, and we lack the respectability of the mainstream. Many assume that because they haven't heard of us, we aren't "real". This problem is compounded by those of us who use the term "Independent Catholic", since most people accept the claims of the Roman Catholic denomination to be the only "Catholics". (While I would never want to give up the substance of being Catholic, as I see it, I do sometimes wish that we could let go of the word for just this reason.)

And in response to this, many of us in the ISM spend an inordinate amount of time trying to "prove" that we are legitimate, we are Catholic, we are real -- and for some of us, this gets wrapped up in issues of being female or gay. I've been there, so I am not criticizing something I myself haven't done. But, ultimately, this distracts from the reason we are clergy to begin with.

As long as we do the ministry God calls us to do, and minister to those (however few) God sends our way (and in some cases, priests may be called to a life of solitude and intercession for the world that won't involve much direct ministerial contact with others), we're doing the right thing. If everyone else laughs at us and refuses to see our minstry as valid -- that's okay. We're not priests to be recognized as such. If God sees our ministry as valid, who cares what others think? And if God doesn't see our ministry as valid, all of the people in the world calling us "Father" or "Mother" won't make a difference.

So I would exhort my fellow ISM clergy to stop worrying about what people think, and focus instead on the ministry tasks at hand. Until we move beyond the need for validation from others, we will never be effective priests.

An interesting website

I just finished reading Scot McKnight's latest post on Jesuscreed.org. There is a website that is an online community for Christian spiritual formation. The link is http://www.metamorpha.com/Home/TabId/36/default.aspx. Check it out and see what you think. It looks promising.

Another interesting question was posed to our Ministry Communication Skills class. What does Kraft mean when he writes that God “acts and speaks and then allows us to struggle with what these actions and words mean. When we have discovered the meaning, it is truly ours and has a greater impact than if he had done it all and made it easy for us” (p. 21)? Is he correct about this? If a message is easy to understand, does this necessarily make it less effective?

Kraft’s meaning seems clearer when read within the larger context. “He, rather, entices us to discovery rather than insulting our intelligence by predigesting his messages and laying them out on a platter in a form that is fully obvious” [1] Next is the quote in the question followed by, “God’s method is to lead people, as Jesus led his disciples, to discover who he is…rather than to simply tell them who he is.” [2]

Kraft is partially correct about this; after all, we are trying to understand the living, omnipotent, omniscient God. He may make it plain, but if it were easy, the subject matter would hardly be God. Just try to grab hold of some of the great scriptural paradoxes: the last are first and the first last (Mt 19:30), justification by faith (Eph 2:8) versus justification by works (Jas 2:24) and so on. Try understanding the doctrine of the trinity.

When we learn things by rote, we may know them, but do they have the same impact as experiential knowledge does? When we have studied, pondered and prayed over a difficult portion of scripture and the light goes on, that is an “Aha” moment, an epiphany. [3]

Contrast that with, “’I thank you, Father… because you have hidden these things from the wise and the intelligent and have revealed them to infants… Come to me, all you that are weary and are carrying heavy burdens, and I will give you rest’” (Mt 11:25, 28). Which of us when frustrated and overwhelmed by the cares of this life can miss the meaning of “Come to me…I will give you rest” (Mt 11:28)? In this case, by ease of understanding, it is no less effective. We may receive more however, by additional study of the historical and religious context as well.

---

[1] Charles H. Kraft, Communication Theory for Christian Witness (Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 1991), 21.

[2] Ibid.

[3] ELCA.org, Evangelical Lutheran Church in America: Living in God’s Amazing Grace. Online: http://www.googlesyndicatedsearch.com/u/ELCAorg?query=%22aha%22&sa=Go [3 July 2007].

The Bible. New Revised Standard Version.

How do you struggle with God's Word? When you have had to struggle to come to the "Aha" moment, has it been more special to you?

The following question was posed to our Ministry Communication Skills class. My response follows the question. In the question, Adam refers to Peter Adam the author of one of our texts. In the footnote you'll find the complete info. Adam seems to distinguish between the spoken (past tense) message of God and the written and preserved (present tense) message. Is this distinction helpful for Christian communicators? Explain why or why not. If the distinction was not as clearly articulated, that is, if one viewed the written and codified words of God as his (current) speech to us, would this make a difference? Is this something with which Adam would agree or disagree? Adam’s distinction is helpful. Some things were strictly for the culture or people of that time; i.e. the Jewish dietary codes, codes for temple worship. Some were given with the initial listeners/readers in mind, but are also a living word for us today. John 1 exemplifies both the past and present tense of the Word. He was “In the beginning…Through him all things were made” (John 1:1, 3). He was instrumental in creation being spoken into being. That same Word is also present tense in his incarnation and living with humankind. Today he still speaks to us as the Holy Spirit enlightens our understanding of the written Word. The difference between the past and present message is crucial otherwise, our faith would look like that of the Judaizers Paul dealt with so severely. Adam would completely disagree with those who would not differentiate between them because Christianity would be just another Jewish cult. Martin Luther referred to the scriptures as the manger that cradled Jesus. The whole purpose of God’s Word was to point to God’s son. That manger consists of wood from which it was made and straw for cushioning and warmth. Jesus is there too. The wood and straw are important support structures for the baby, but it is really all about the baby, the Lord Jesus. Some parts of scripture are like wood or straw: the Levitical codes, some of the stories in Judges, we would not base our lives today on the wood or straw, as helpful as some of it may be. We do base our lives however on faith in Jesus Christ. [1] “The first great theological foundation for preaching, then, is that God has spoken…The second great foundation for preaching is that It is written.” [2] He still speaks. [1] Rev. Ted Asta, “Lutheran Interpretation of Scripture,’ Rooted for Life: Nurturing Journeys of Faith, New England Synod Workshop Event 2005, 15 October 2005. [2] Peter Adam, Speaking God’s Words: A Practical Theology of Preaching (Vancouver, British Columbia: Regent College Publishing, 1996), 25, 27. So, what do you think? How would your respond to God's speaking being past or present? Is there a difference?

On the Second Coming of Christ

This was last week's theology question. Eschatology is the study of the last things, second coming of Christ etc. My response follows the question.

What relevance does eschatology have for your daily life now? In what practical ways can you be a "personal microcosm of the eschatological new creation" for those around you? What effects might this have upon your relationships with others?

To be honest, I do not see that eschatology has a great impact on my life now. In order to be prepared for the Lord’s coming, we just need to continue drawing closer to him, to become more like him. As we are more continually in his presence, it will not really matter when he returns or whose perspective was right.

I can be a “personal microcosm of the eschatological new creation” for those around me by continuing to do what I am doing now. I want to be more like Jesus. This can only happen by spending time with him. The disciplines of journaling, lectio divina and divine hours are ones I have incorporated into my daily routine. In this way, I can have my ear better attuned to his voice.

If I can be a “personal microcosm of the eschatological new creation,” I will behave in a more Christlike way to others; I will be living an incarnational life so that even if I do not speak a word, Jesus can be seen in me. It is a matter of being Christ to those around us.

When we gather for worship, we confess he is coming again.

Each time the Eucharist is celebrated, the community prays for the coming of the Lord, proclaims the beginning of the time of salvation, and anticipates the blessings of the parousia. The community reminds itself and God that it will celebrate the Eucharist until Christ comes in the parousia, when the eschatological promises will be fulfilled ... the church is an interim community, anticipating the eschatological fulfillment and attempting to inaugurate it in a proleptic way for itself and the world, as a witness that one day this fulfillment will be all-encompassing and evident. [1]

As an “interim community,” [2] we need to follow Jesus’ admonition to “let your light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds and praise your Father in heaven” (Mt 5:16b).

---

[1] Carl E. Braaten and Robert W. Jenson, eds., Christian Dogmatics: Volume 2 (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984), 560.

[2] Ibid.

The Bible. New International Version.