Calvin on the Real Presence in the Lord's Supper

And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and after blessing it broke it and gave it to them, and said, “Take; this is my body.” And he took the chalice, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, and they all drank of it. And he said to them, “This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many.
~ Mark 14:22–24 ~

[It] is necessary, first of all, that [Jesus] be given us in the Supper, in order that the things which we have mentioned may be truly accomplished in us. For this reason I am wont to say, that the substance of the sacraments is the Lord Jesus, and the efficacy of them the graces and blessings which we have by his means. Now the efficacy of the Supper is to confirm to us the reconciliation which we have with God through our Saviour’s death and passion; the washing of our souls which we have in the shedding of his blood; the righteousness which we have in his obedience; in short, the hope of salvation which we have in all that he has done for us. It is necessary, then, that the substance should be conjoined with these, otherwise nothing would be firm or certain… For after commanding us to eat his body and drink his blood, he adds that his body was delivered for us, and his blood shed for the remission of our sins. Hereby he intimates, first, that we ought not simply to communicate in his body and blood, without any other consideration, but in order to receive the fruit derived to us from his death and passion; secondly, that we can attain the enjoyment of such fruit only by participating in his body and blood, from which it is derived.
~ John Calvin and Henry Beveridge (Translator), Tracts Relating to the Reformation, vol. 2 (Edinburgh: Calvin Translation Society, 1849), 169–170 ~

But if we give as much as we ought to Christ and his word, there is no doubt that as soon as these words are added to the bread and the wine, the bread and wine become the true body and true blood of Christ, so that the substance of bread and wine is transmuted into the true body and blood of Christ. He who denies this calls the omnipotence of Christ in question, and charges Christ himself with foolishness. 
~ John Calvin and Henry Beveridge (Translator), Tracts Relating to the Reformation, vol. 3 (Edinburgh: Calvin Translation Society, 1851), 214 ~

Ethical Blindness of Monism

Within Liberal Gnostic Christianity, it has become popular to dabble with Eastern Mysticism and modern neo-paganism (i.e., panentheism and pantheism). Many on that track seem to think that the underlying monism* will lead to greater peace on earth. And they bolster it by making a neophyte error by claiming it is more monotheistic than classical transcendent Judaeo-Christian theism.

*What is monism, you ask? It's the idea that there is only ONE. All differences we recognize are illusions, and thus the only truth is nonduality. That is, that all distinction, discrimination, differentiation is a lie. There is no difference between me & you, my good & your good, our good & the world's good. The reality of our interconnectedness is taken to an extreme form that collapses all distinction - within Hindu, this is known as seeing that all is Brahman (a monad); Buddhism sees this collapse of distinction as reaching enlightenment.

But there's a huge ethical problem that gets little to no thought - what of GOOD and EVIL? Does saying they are the same make it so? Or does it simply try to step beyond that distinctive?

If non-duality is the truth (and how this would be, I don't know - seeing as if it's TRUE it's also FALSE), then PEACE and WAR are also the same thing. Thus there is no meaningful distinction to be made in making war on your neighbor or helping them with aid. There is no difference between rape and marital love. There is no difference between a murderer with a knife and a surgeon with a scalpel - those would (under a monistic view) be false distinctions.

Your common sense buzzer should be ringing pretty loud now, but for these starry-eyed educated idiots it just doesn't. In most cases, they've divorced themselves from historic Christianity and thus are left floating in the failed experiments of heresies past rather than the tried-and-true character of orthodox Christianity. Thus they commit errors out of their novelty, thinking they've come upon a new truth which - in fact - is just an old error that's already been long- consigned to the ash-heap of divine-human relations.

A new study helps to show the dead end that is monism - and it focuses on the undeniable atrocities committed (and defended by) fervent Buddhist, Taoist, and Shintoist religious people. The horrors of the Japanese campaign in China were papered over by their religious inability to make any meaningful distinction between morality and immorality. Call it the Zen of violence. Will the "emergent church" wake up to the dead end of monism? Time will only tell. But the Church of Jesus Christ, indefectible and catholic, will continue - even if She is temporarily reduced in numbers while heretics occupy her territory.

Jedi Tesco Fiasco

Reported in the Guardian:

Tesco has been accused of religious discrimination after the company ordered the founder of a Jedi religion to remove his hood or leave a branch of the supermarket in north Wales.

Daniel Jones, founder of the religion inspired by the Star Wars films, says he was humiliated and victimised for his beliefs following the incident at a Tesco store in Bangor.

Yeah...I'll bet this aint the first time he's ever been humiliated and victimized over his hoky religion.

The 23-year-old, who founded the International Church of Jediism, which has 500,000 followers worldwide, was told the hood flouted store rules.

But the grocery empire struck back, claiming that the three best known Jedi Knights in the Star Wars movies – Yoda, Obi-Wan Kenobi and Luke Skywalker – all appeared in public without their hoods. Jones, from Holyhead, who is known by the Jedi name Morda Hehol, said his religion dictated that he should wear the hood in public places and is considering legal action against the chain.
"It states in our Jedi doctrination that I can wear headwear. It just covers the back of my head," he said. "You have a choice of wearing headwear in your home or at work but you have to wear a cover for your head when you are in public."

Tesco said: "He hasn't been banned. Jedis are very welcome to shop in our stores although we would ask them to remove their hoods.

"Obi-Wan Kenobi, Yoda and Luke Skywalker all appeared hoodless without ever going over to the Dark Side and we are only aware of the Emperor as one who never removed his hood.

"If Jedi walk around our stores with their hoods on, they'll miss lots of special offers."

Word has it that President Obama stands ready to extend American freedom of religion to the UK - and you can see whose side he's on!


Hmm...the Force is strong with That One.

In all seriousness, I think Tesco was brilliant in their response.

Now...I wonder if NHS will cover the expense of having a clinical psychologist have a look under Mr. Jones' hood.

City Council Livonia MI Glenn Moon

This is a video so come to the blog to visit.


Okay...who wrote his speech? Bishop Bizarro?

Happy Birthday John Calvin!

500 years ago, God gave a great gift to the Church. While he's so well remembered as a theologian, we do him a great disservice in forgetting that he was a pastor. His most especial duty as a pastor was the preaching of the word, which he did a minimum of five days a week (often six). Calvin's sermons deserve to be read. Moreover, his dedication to the pure preaching of the word deserves to be emulated in the deadened pulpits of our day. T. H. L. Parker’s 1975 biography tells why:

And so we trace him preaching on Sundays with one hundred and eighty-nine sermons on the Acts between 1549 and 1554, a shorter series on some of the Pauline letters between 1554 and 1558, and the sixty-five on the Harmony of the Gospels between 1559 and 1564. During this time the weekdays saw series on Jeremiah and Lamentations (up to 1550), on the Minor Prophets and Daniel (1550-2), the one hundred and seventy-four on Ezekiel (1552-4), the one hundred and fifty-nine on Job (1554-5), the two hundred on Deuteronomy (1555-6), the three hundred and forty-two on Isaiah (1556-9), then one hundred twenty-three on Genesis (1559-61), a short set on Judges (1561), one hundred and seven on 1 Samuel and eighty-seven on 2 Samuel (1561-3) and a set on 1 Kings (1563-4).

Before he smiles at such unusual activity of the pulpit, the reader would do well to ask himself whether he would prefer to listen to the second-hand views on a religion of social ethics, or the ill-digested piety, delivered in slipshod English, that he will hear today in most churches of whatever denomination he may enter, or three hundred and forty-two sermons on the Book of the Prophet Isaiah, sermons born of an infinite passion of faith and a burning sincerity, sermons luminous with theological sense, lively with wit and imagery, showing depths of compassion and the unquenchable joyousness of hope. Those in Geneva who listened Sunday after Sunday, day after day, and did not shut their ears, but were “instructed, admonished, exhorted, and censured,” received a training in Christianity such as had been given to few congregations in Europe since the days of the fathers. (92)

Thank you, John Calvin, for believing in the majesty of the word and for demonstrating by your life the glory of preaching the Bible.

And for making it look easy!

Cutting Down Arguments

How do you deal with people that disagree with you theologically?

There seem to be several avenues people take in trying to find a basis of authority on which they stake their beliefs.

1) Me & “the Spirit”: Basically, I'm so illumined by the Spirit (of what?) that I can sense the great truths of the faith. We should notice that there are at least two varieties of this epistemological stance: a) the gnosticizing liberal thinks that they've got an inside track to what God has to say, normally in such a way as to overthrow what the Bible plainly says or what the Church has confessed for nearly 2000 years; b) the charismatic literalist thinks that they don't need to hear what other people have said about the Scriptures (whether that be Christian scholars or - dare I say it - the Church catholic in her creeds and confessions)...think the Oneness Pentecostal movement. The tie that binds is that this person believes that they can pierce the darkness that has kept the Church of Jesus Christ from seeing the truth (for as much as 2000 years); all they need is to meditate and read their Bible and God will reveal to them everything that's needed. They'll get a new revelation, or having felt a sense of connectedness to all world religions.

This isn't a new phenomenon. Martin Luther said that there were a certain group of preachers of his day who confuse their own spirit with the Holy Spirit: “they think they have swallowed the Holy Ghost feathers and all.” John Calvin warned “the fanaticism which discards the scripture, under the pretense of resorting to immediate revelations is subversive of every principle in Christianity. For when they boast extravagantly of the Spirit the tendency is always to bury the word of God so they can make room for their own falsehood.” Archetypes: John Spong, Joseph Smith and just about any neo-montanist on TBN.

2) Me & the Pro: I've been taught by this pastor, or read these books, or gone to this seminary, or earned this degree so I really know what it's all about. I'm not denigrating sitting under good preaching (I've benefited from it, and I hope others will benefit from my preaching). Anyone that's been to my home knows I have a library numbering in the low thousands. I did go to cemetery seminary and earned a degree there. But to think that the insights of the latest generation trump the illumination that the Spirit has given in the Church for thousands of years is a denial of Jesus' promises regarding the Church. The Reformers consistently pointed back to the Scriptures, the early Church Fathers, the ecumenical councils, and more recent scholastic thought to prove their continuity with the Apostolic deposit of the faith.

These approaches can be combined, and I would dare say that all of us do that very thing - inconsistently shuffling the bases of our belief.

I think the right track is to take a Me and the Church approach. When Jesus called his apostles to himself, he didn't just bring one - he brought twelve. He established a community in which his power, his authority, his doctrine would continue. We do well to read our Bibles with the whole Church catholic. The Word gives life to the Community, and the Community reiterates the Word in the World.

Without this necessary balance, we fall to the idols of self or society, and are not conformed to the Saviour.

Image h/t Naked Pastor

Evangelicals and the Housing Bubble

The NY Times recently hosted an analysis that “found that during the last two housing booms in the United States, regions with high concentrations of evangelicals saw lower gains in home prices and less volatility than similar regions with fewer evangelical residents.”

They've taken into account that rural areas are likely to have more evangelicals. And the as-yet-unproven assertion that evangelicals are lower-educated and less-payed than non-evangelicals - the results weathered both challenges admirably. The bottom line is found in this observation: “unchecked greed and speculative frenzy are seen as undesirable in the evangelical community.”

The next time some incredulous soul says that it doesn't matter what you believe, or that theology is just a head-game with no real-world implications, point to this and take heart. When the American empire crumbles, the City of God will go on.

Salt & light, people. Go be it.

What's on the Shelf?

Here's a picture of the Dr. N. T. Wright at his desk. (I suspect it's from before his consecration to the episcopate, and the See of Durham.) I love the ordered chaos. But I really enjoy picking over his bookshelf. Click on the picture and you should get an enlarged version. (And it's quicker than reading one of his tomes!)

What do we have in common? What should I add to my own library? Any surprises?

Always happy to see the Loeb Library set (note both Greek Green and Roman Red). Oxford Encyclopedia of Saints, New Oxford Commentary on the Scriptures, and a Sacra Pagina volume here and there. But what caught my eye was the postcard we both have of the arms of the constituent colleges of Oxford University.

Anglican Evangelicals are blessed to have such a formidable intellect on the side of orthodoxy. May this bishop always be a defensor fides.

iMonk on aspects of our traditions

Internet Monk has a great new segment called Liturgical Gangstas (featuring pastors from different traditions, including Eastern Orthodox, Southern Baptist, Methodist, Lutheran, etc.) and has them dialogue on a common question. This week's post is about strengths in the tradition that people miss, and weaknesses in the tradition that are easy to overlook.

It's a good read. And if you don't read it, Dr. Stephen Colbert may put you on notice.

Born-Again Baptized Buddhist Bishop?

Stand Firm and The Living Church are reporting that an ordained priest in the ECUSA, who has described himself as having undergone Buddhist 'lay ordination,' is now positioned to run for bishop of the diocese in an unusual election. The others have covered both sides of the issue well enough. All that's left for me is small-minded snark...so here goes.

If you meet the bishop, kill him.

Oh wait…that’s not a Koan from Buddhism. It’s the Koran and Islam.

PRAY IT AIN'T SO!

Worship Wednesday - Psalmody

In case it isn't clear from my blog, I'm made from a blend of Christian traditions. I was baptized as a Methodist (twice!), raised (razed?) a Pentecostal, then (after a stint in neo-Paganism / Panentheism / Agnosticism) became a Presbyterian. It was in the Presbyterian / Reformed tradition that I gained a sense of who I was in Christ, so I owe a depth of gratitude that I'll never be able to pay.

However, now - by immutable decree of Almighty God in His good providence (and, I suspect, humor) - I am an Anglican. And we pray through up to three Psalms in each of our daily offices. This has rejuvenated a portion of my Presbyterian posterior - psalmody. I'm trying to find (or arrange) our Sunday Psalm readings into singable formats. Luckily, there are some really great Psalters out there - mostly from the Scots-Presbyterian tradition. CGMusic hosts three of them online, with playable MIDI formats! It's become one of my favorite tools.

But it let me down slightly for this Sunday's BCP reading (which - while allowing the whole psalm, focuses on David's establishment of a house of worship - and the LORD's establishment of David's house). So I came up with a new one - somewhat eclecticly chosen from what was there, and some of it the work of my own fevered imagination.

8 Arise, O Lord, inhabit now
your constant place of rest.
You and the ark of your great strength,
with us your presence bless.
9 Let all your priests be cloth-èd, Lord,
with truth and righteousness.
Make all your saints with songs of praise
Shout loud for joyfulness!

10 And for your servant David’s sake,
suffer not, Lord, I pray.
The face of your Anointed one
to ever turn away.
11 The Lord to David did make oath,
sworn on His name alone:
12 “A son from your own body shall
I seat upon your throne.”

13 And if your sons my cov’nant keep,
and to my laws submit,
Their children too, forevermore
Upon your throne shall sit.”
14 The Lord himself has Zion chose,
there He desires to dwell.
15 “This is my ever-bless’d abode,
for I do love her well.”

16 “And I will bless with great increase!
Her food stores everywhere.
With living bread I'll satisfy
The poor and needy there.
17 With salvation I’ll robe her priests!
From saints, my praises flow.
18 There David’s son shall ever reign,
the Lamp ordained to glow.

I'm thinking this goes nice with Ellacome ("I Sing the Mighty Power of God!") which is very familiar. However, Forest Green would also be lovely (though less familiar).

Truly wonderful the mind of a child is

Justin Barrett, Ph.D. (Cornell, Experimental Cognitive Psychology) was sponsored in a debate at Oxford's Institute of Cognitive and Evolutionary Anthropology's Centre for Anthropology and Mind (hosted by the Faraday Institute for Science and Religion) yesterday. The topic was religiosity in children.

Barrett argues that children are naturally inclined to have a belief in God by the deep structures of our brains. This is a subject of deep interest to those interested in the study of cognitive and evolutionary processes in religion.

Of course, the old saying is true: the scientists will climb the heights of knowledge, only to find the theologians and philosophers camped at the summit.

I think Jesus and Paul had something to say about that....

Still, I'm reminded of what Malachi 2:13-16 teaches about marriage:

1. that is should be life-long
2. that a primary intention is the propagation of faithful children

Is your church set up to evangelize those who are most ready and willing to receive the good news of the gospel?

Teh Interweb Makes Us Weird

Can I get an AMEN?

Whether it's the depraved erotic fetishes out there or the bizarro religious nuts, the internet has normalized elements of cultural malignancy. Want proof? I'll say this: I had an unnerving revelation after I gave a communion meditation concerning Euodia & Synteche gathering around one bread and one cup.

Thanks, Wondermark!

The Revvin' Reverend

Did you hear about the Harley-ridin' holy-rollers in southern California? They became bikers to reach the Hell's Angels (and others). Only, when the real Hell's Angels showed up, the Christians forgot to turn the other cheek and a Bible-packin' biker-brawl broke out! Two Hell's Angels ended up getting stabbed.

(BTW, you have to love a church where the Hell's Angels pick a fight...and lose!)

The question I have is this:

Where does the church draw the line in accommodating cultural norms (contextualizing Christianity) in order to reach out to the lost?

We've done this poorly in the past, often by being too strict (think missionary position, or our deracination efforts on the American Indian). We've also been too accomodating to the culture - especially as early Christians reached into pagan Europe.

Apparently, we're not done yet.


Thoughts?

Paedobaptism and Pentecostal Presumptions

As I was going over the Order for Holy Baptism with an adult who has come to faith, I was struck at how presumptuous the service is for children. The covenant vows that are taken (resisting evil, seeking obedience to God's law, etc.) are big enough as it is. But afterward, we apply water in the name of the Triune Godhead.

THEN, we pray this prayer:

Heavenly Father, we thank you that by water and the Holy Spirit you have bestowed upon these your servants the forgiveness of sin, and have raised them to the new life of grace. Sustain them, O Lord, in your Holy Spirit. Give them an inquiring and discerning heart, the courage to will and to persevere, a spirit to know and to love you, and the gift of joy and wonder in all your works. Amen.

Now some people get their dander up about baptismal regeneration (which, as a good Reformed Evangelical Catholic, i.e., an Anglican, I WHOLLY REJECT). But think about what we're doing. We're claiming God's real promises before they break into reality.

I was struck by how this shares at least some similarity with the pentecostal faith of my childhood: Name It and Claim It!

Those of us who hold to covenant baptism believe that God will be faithful to himself and his promises, and so we speak and act as though those promises were as realized as they are real.

What think you? Have you claimed the Name of him who claimed you?

St. Francis Day Service

Have I mentioned that I love being a priest?

The Devil's Greatest Trick

He's wiley one.

What is best in life?

If you ask Conan the Barbarian what is best in life, he'll give you a straight answer.



He couldn't be more wrong.

What is better than that is to bring your children into the household of faith by covenant baptism.




Presenting Lillianah Kathryn-Marie and Elias Zebulun Larimer - born anew of water and the word (John 3:5) on the Feast of St. Matthew the Apostle & Evangelist (Sept. 21, 2008).

"...here Christ is speaking of baptism, of real and natural water such as a cow may drink, the baptism about which you hear in the sermons on this subject. Therefore, the word water does not designate affliction here; it means real, natural water, which is connected with God's word and becomes a very spiritual bath through the Holy Spirit or through the entire Trinity. Here Christ also speaks of the Holy Spirit as present and active, in fact, the entire Holy Trinity is there. And thus the person who has been baptized is said to be born anew. In Titus 3:3 Paul terms baptism 'a washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit.' In the last chapter of Mark we read that 'he who believes and is baptized will be saved.' (Mark 16:16.) And in this passage Christ declares that whoever is not born anew of the water and the Holy Spirit cannot come into the kingdom of God. Therefore, God's words dare not be tampered with."
(Martin Luther's Sermons on the Gospel of Saint John, Vol. 22, p. 283.)

New Posters at Spurgeon.org

Here's a teaser

Here's a hint: When people say they want Jesus apart from the Bible or the apostolic witness of the historic church, they're just giving you their own time-bound ideas packaged in religious nicetude and riding on the coat-tails of "mere" Christianity.

Jedi Jesus

Introducing
The Star Wars Savior

JEDI JESUS

Now with improved SMITESABER action!!!

Only uses the Light-of-Men Side of the Force.

h/t Windstar Embroidery