Wishing the World a Very Merry Christmas

I know, you’re probably sick of hearing what the true meaning of Christmas is. You’re probably thinking, “I know what Christmas is about, it’s about showing love to your fellow man because Christ came to show us God’s love.” That’s certainly true, but unfortunately this is not what resounds through our culture’s messages about this holiday. We sing songs that say how good we are, when we are no good. We sing of a man who gives us gifts if we are good, when we can do nothing to deserve any gifts.

Especially in light of recent events, such as ISIS in the Middle East, slavery around the world, our flawed justice system, and our own personal troubles, it seems as if humanity is no good. But then we have stories of great human achievement and even goodness, leading us to believe that we as a species can certainly be good, if we just work hard enough. In the behind-the-scenes of this ad, the claim is made that the Christmas Truce of 1914 shows that even in the midst of terrible times, there can be great humanity. On the contrary, I would say that the Christmas Truce was about both sides’ trust in God as the only hope for humanity, to save us from our own wickedness. Why do we lie to ourselves, saying we are good? John Calvin – and other Christian leaders – would say that we need the inspired Scripture to show us the truth about ourselves, as sin has altered us so much that we fail to see the depths of our depravity.

The LORD spoke through the prophet Isaiah, whose main concern was prophesying about the coming Messiah, saying, “. . . my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, declares the LORD. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts” (Isaiah 55:8-9).

You must realize your sin in order to truly appreciate salvation. God has the Israelites made fully aware of their great sin and inclination toward evil, so that they know that the LORD is the only means of salvation. They even had a tradition of naming their sons Yeshua, “Yahweh is Salvation“, as a sort of prayer to God to send His Messiah. This name culminated in the incarnate Son, born in the manger, the same boy who would grow into a man and die on a cross and rise again, reconciling all who call on his name. When Jesus enters Jerusalem, they shout “Hosanna! Blessed is he who comes in the name of the LORD!” because they know that anyone who comes without God’s purpose and power is useless to save them from their sins.

The more I am grieved by my own sin and the sin of others, the more I rely on God to be my salvation and my life. How will I know how comforting and joyful these “good tidings” are if I have never realized my discomfort and sorrow?  So what should we do to avoid this? I’m not against giving and receiving gifts, because they are a great way to show our appreciation and gratitude. But let us never think that the things we give are truly ours; even our love is borrowed from our God. Let us take no credit for our goodness, but be gladly robed in Christ’s righteousness. We give out of our need, while God gives out of His abundance. Let us give out of our need as if it were abundance, because of Christ’s love for us. May the gift of Christmas be ever true in your hearts: you were once dead, but now are alive in Christ. You were once separated from God, but now have been brought near (see Ephesians 2). These truths are reflected in our remembrance of springtime in the midst of winter, as well as our gathering with loved ones and practicing reconciliation, even when full reconciliation is a far way off. We can comfort those around us by telling them about the truly good news. May we wish them a “Merry Christmas” with this meaning in mind: be merry that the One and Only, Holy God has appeared, lived, suffered, died, and risen in the flesh to make you, a sinner, more like Him.

In order to help you prepare your hearts and minds for this Christmas season, I have prepared this playlist of excellent Christmas songs that contain and expound upon this message. Merry Christmas!

On the Veneration of the Saints

What does it mean to be a saint? How should we honor the saints? Does it mean anything to call someone a saint, or is it just a title given by men? Growing up in a Wesleyan church (a protestant denomination), I didn’t know what to think when I came across someone deemed a “saint” by the Catholic church.

In my reading for Torrey, I have read works by Saints Irenaeus, Athanasius, Gregory of Nazianzus, Basil of Caesarea, Augustine, Anselm of Canterbury, and Thomas of Aquina. Perhaps out of rebellion, I often purposefully leave the “Saint” title off of their names. However, I notice that the official Torrey list also leaves them off, and perhaps that is to deter us from holding them in a higher esteem than the other authors. Although I may do it partially out of spite, my main reason for leaving the title off is because I feel it unnecessary and too lofty; these are fellow Christians, not an unattainable example. I am not tearing them down from their high place of honor, because they were never up there. I have a strong inclination against using the title because I feel as if these Saints would show a strong aversion to being called such, as if they had earned it of their own accord. Forsaking their title of “Saint” keeps me from thinking that they can do no wrong.

The Church made a mistake when we decided to only give people the title of “Saint” if they met certain qualifications: two postmortem miracles and a clear difference between pre-conversion immorality and post-conversion morality – of which Augustine is a fine example. Don’t postmortem miracles give credit to men when God is to be thanked? Doesn’t this definition of sainthood require all saints to have died? Perhaps that helps to avoid thinking that they can do no wrong: once dead, they are perfected and can really do no wrong.

However, Paul didn’t limit sainthood to the deceased. He uses the term to mean the living Christians, the dead in Christ, and all of the Church throughout eternity, even including the righteous Israelites. Paul speaks of being called to be a saint, being called to holiness. Sanctification, or righteousness, is a both an eternal distinction and an ongoing process. From God’s eternal point-of-view, all believers are already saints, but because our holiness is not fully complete in this life, we are said to be in the process of sanctification. The promise is so sure it is as if it is already fulfilled, because God is faithful to fulfill all of His promises. The Book of Revelation defines saints as “those who keep the commandments of God and their faith in Jesus”. The saints we walk with daily will not be perfect, because we have not yet fully been perfected.

Part of me wants a system of “approved” saints whose example I may follow. It seems that that way, we would be sure who we could look to for the best example. The problem with this is that we too easily slip from merely admiring to idolizing the individual, thinking them perfect in all aspects and sometimes even following them into error. We are to look primarily to Christ, not to any earthly leader, no matter how great. I do not have the privilege of being all-knowing, therefore I do not know if those around me who claim to be Christians are really saints or rather wolves in sheep’s clothing. Good thing it’s not up to us to determine who is a saint and who is not.

For the sake of brevity, I will not include direct references to Paul’s letters, the Apostle’s Creed, Thomas Aquinas’ writings on the nature of grace, Martin Luther’s urging of the need for the law to see our utter unholiness, or John Calvin’s writings on the church and Church, all of which are the key players in the development of my thoughts about this topic.

As Christians, our sainthood cannot hinge on our own actions.  Instead, our sainthood is fully derived from our relationship with the Father, through the Son, facilitated by the Spirit, and holy actions will naturally flow out of that God-given holiness. We in the Holy Catholic Church are deemed “saints” based on God’s work within us, not on any external signs of goodness. Inevitably, God will do good things through us, but it is not our works that make us holy but rather our faith. The failures of the saints only point me more to my need for God, keeping my eyes fixed on Christ rather than on this world, and encouraging me to build my brothers and sisters up into the fullness of the body of Christ. Let us praise God for the saints in our lives, giving them just as much honor as we do to the saints who have gone before.

Glorious Food

It won’t come as a surprise to anyone that I really enjoy food. Not only do I enjoy eating food, but I also enjoy making it, especially baked goods. Baked goods tend to be more forgiving, and that’s why I prefer to make cookies over roast chicken.

Why do Christians eat together so often? Perhaps it started out of convenience, since the earliest Christians were hiding for their lives and had to have eaten at some point. There are obvious benefits to relationships that grow over dining together, but that’s not what I won’t to talk about. I don’t want to talk about why we eat together, I just want to talk about the food that we do eat as the Church. The main food we eat together as a body of believers is Communion, the Eucharist, or the Lord’s Supper. Communion because we do it together, the Eucharist from the Greek for “grace”, and the Lord’s Supper because it is the Lord Jesus Christ that institutes it, saying to His disciples the night before His death, “do this in remembrance of me” (see Luke 22).

In writing against the Catholic belief of transubstantiation, John Calvin argues that while the bread is not actually Christ’s flesh nor the wine Christ’s actual blood, the spiritual, eternal elements are conveyed in these physical, temporary means. The body and blood are just as real as the bread and wine. I wish I had enough time to go through all of his teaching with you, but until you can read it yourself, here’s a quote that summarizes his point most clearly:

“Our souls are fed by the flesh and blood of Christ in the same way that bread and wine keep and sustain physical life. For the analogy of the sign applies only if souls find their nourishment in Christ – which cannot happen unless Christ truly grows into one with us, and refreshes us by the eating of his flesh and the drinking of his blood. . . Now, that sacred partaking of his flesh and blood, by which Christ pours his life into us, as if it penetrated into our bones and marrow, he also testifies and seals in the Supper – not by presenting a vain and empty sign, but by manifesting there the effectiveness of his Spirit to fulfill what he promises. And truly he offers and shows the reality there signified to all who sit at that spiritual banquet, although it is received with benefit by believers alone, who accept such great generosity with true faith and gratefulness of heart.” (The Institutes, Bk. IV, Ch. XVII)

Likewise, the spiritual food that we receive through and with our fellow believers – the preacher’s message, the time of prayer, even singing together and greeting one another with a handshake or perhaps a hug – is just as real as the food we share with them. Both are life-giving: one gives spiritual vigor while the other keeps our physical bodies alive. Think about it: we exchange recipes for food we like the taste of just like we exchange methods or practices whose results we appreciate.Just as its a bonding experience to make food together, so also are relationships forged most strongly when performing Christian service together, such as camp counseling or leading worship music.

While Christ’s body and blood are sufficient, God gives us more. We also get the spiritual blessings from other believers, which are like side dishes that even more fully round out our palate. The first teaching we receive is comparable to milk, while further sound doctrine is “solid food”, or perhaps meat (see 1 Corinthians 3:1-2, Hebrews 5:12).

I’m a little more comfortable comparing food to spiritual things now that I see Paul and the author of Hebrews do it (maybe this similarity is what makes some think Paul wrote Hebrews, too!). Let me use my own preference for cookies as an example. I think it parallels with my preference in serving my local church or community of Christians. I would rather do fun, extra things that bring a smile to people’s faces. I am not the one to prepare the main dish (worship service) or the vegetables (spiritual discipline or correction), but I will be very sweet and give you a little break (childcare). The analogy just works so well, and I would love to hear what other people have to add to it.

There’s just something so wonderful about the many flavors and varieties of food. God could have made us derive our energy through photosynthesis, or just not given us taste buds. Instead, God gave us taste buds as well as the intelligence – and desire – to combine the items found in nature in order to make a great-tasting dish. It further emphasizes the connection and even dependency between our body, mind, and soul. Food, both physical and spiritual, not only gives us life, but life to the full.

 

Giving Thanks In Jesus’ Name

Yesterday was Thanksgiving here in the U.S., a day where we express our thanks for all we have by gathering with family and friends and eating our fill. It is a time of remembrance and reflection. Sadly, for some it is only a painful reminder of all that they are without: a home, a loving family, the funds to make it through the rest of the year, or even the rest of the week. For some it’s a reminder of all they have left to achieve: a relationship that eventually leads to marriage, a successful marriage, respectful children, the corner office, or their name in shining lights. For many it’s a reminder of their failures: this year’s failure to set aside enough money for the kids’ presents, missing the past few Thanksgivings because of your commitment to your workplace, a broken relationship, or two, or even more.

For Christians in America, this is a confusing time. We know we should be thankful for all that God has given us, but we so deeply feel our inadequacies, both in the workplace and among our family members, who perhaps we have drifted from or have had a real rift with. That’s why this Thanksgiving, I’m thankful for Jesus, the Son of God reconciling all things.

Let’s talk about what Jesus’ name means. I know you think you know what it means, but I didn’t really know, so I’m going to tell you the secret now. Why was the Messiah named Jesus? Many Christians will point out Matthew’s account of Joseph’s dream, where the angel tells him that the child will be called Jesus “he will save his people from their sins”, but that isn’t enough for me. Yes, Jesus saved “his people”, those who believed in Him, from their sin. But it was never a man’s job to forgive sins, only God can do that. While Jesus is fully God and fully man, it’s important to note that it is God doing the saving, not the man. Christ’s humanity means nothing without His divinity.

Yeshua (Jesus) is the shortened form of Yehoshua, (Joshua), the name given to the Son of Nun by Moses. His former name was simply Hoshea, or “salvation.” Although this the period in Israel’s Exodus where Moses was sticking Yahweh’s name on almost everything, I think this has some weight to it: God wanted it known that Joshua was not the primary cause of their deliverance; He Himself was their salvation. Yahweh, the Creator, the One and Only God, is the God who saves. The meaning is three-fold: Yahweh saves, He is the salvation, and He is the only one who can save. Where other saviors might deliver a people to something transient, God delivers us from our sin in order to be brought back into eternal communion with Him. Recall that in the passage from Matthew, the angel quotes the prophet Isaiah, saying the child the virgin will bear is to be called Immanuel, God with us. So when we pray for things “in Jesus’ name”, we are obeying Christ’s own commandment, but we are also exercising our faith in Yahweh as salvation, through the Spirit now available to us by means of Christ’s all-sufficient sacrifice.

Those who have been saved by grace through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ do not have to worry about eternity, and therefore do not have to be defeated by the woes of this temporary life. They may still feel impoverished, unsuccessful, and defeated, but these things will eventually pass. Thankfully, God meets us in our brokenness. In this individualistic, provision culture, this is a difficult thing to grasp. We hear “hold on to something that will last” and instead work for something that will last. But what is grace, but something to be thankful for? By its very definition, grace is not something we can deserve or earn. God’s Law informs us that we can never be perfect of our own accord. That is why He must be our salvation. There is no one else to give it. When I come to God, I am as empty as the plate pictured above (this plate shouldn’t look as pretty as it does). Whatever I receive is from Him, and not of myself. He gives so abundantly!

Psalm 100
A Psalm for giving thanks.

Make a joyful noise to the LORD, all the earth!
Serve the LORD with gladness!
Come into his presence with singing!

Know that the LORD, he is God!
It is he who made us, and we are his;
we are his people, and the sheep of his pasture.

Enter his gates with thanksgiving,
and his courts with praise!
Give thanks to him; bless his name!

For the LORD is good;
his steadfast love endures forever,
and his faithfulness to all generations.

While no specific Torrey text was used in this post (besides the Bible references here and there), the thoughts therein are influenced heavily by what I have read, most notably Irenaeus’ On the Apostolic Preaching and selections from Thomas of Aquina, as well.

 

Suicide vs. Suffering: Christians and the Right to Die

Depending on how much you’ve been keeping up with the news, you may or may not have heard about Brittany Maynard, a 29-year-old diagnosed with terminal brain cancer. Last month, Maynard died in Portland, Oregon, but not from her cancer, at least not directly. An advocate for the “death with dignity” movement, Maynard had a doctor help her take her own life. I am deeply disturbed by this story, and I think it will be something I think about for a long time to come.

Here’s an excerpt from Brittany Maynard’s own article, published by CNN:

“I would not tell anyone else that he or she should choose death with dignity. My question is: Who has the right to tell me that I don’t deserve this choice? That I deserve to suffer for weeks or months in tremendous amounts of physical and emotional pain? Why should anyone have the right to make that choice for me?”

From what I’ve read, Brittany Maynard’s worldview is very different from my own. I value all life, not just a life that meets our standards of excellence.  I have gone to church with and had close friends whose family members suffered from a terminal illness. I’m also extremely sensitive to even the slightest mention of suicide, as during my senior year of high school, four of my fellow students ended their lives.

While philosophical arguments are good to use in our case against any form of suicide, it bothers me that we act as if nobody has written anything about this. Yet we have Paul, who in Romans writes that everything we do is to honor God, and  in Philippians writes:

“If I am to live in the flesh, that means fruitful labor for me. Yet which I shall choose I cannot tell. I am hard pressed between the two. My desire is to depart and be with Christ, for that is far better. But to remain in the flesh is more necessary on your account. Convinced of this, I know that I will remain and continue with you all, for your progress and oy in the faith, so that in me you may have ample cause to glory in Christ Jesus, because of my coming to you again.”

This gives a clearer picture of the difference between Maynard’s worldview and that of a Christian. For Maynard, a thriving life is a life that brings pleasure to the individual and the people they love, but for a Christian, a thriving life is one that brings glory to God, through the fellowship of believers. Brittany Maynard may have been facing a few months of seizures, diminishing control over her own body, and excrutiating pain, but Paul endured a stoning, several imprisonments, and a shipwreck – just to name a few.

We also have Augustine, who in City of God denies any claim that says a Christian may take their own life. He uses both Scripture and reasoning to bring his point across. As an Augustine advocate, I’ve been rather disappointed that his arguments haven’t been seen in many conversations.

“. . . a man is not permitted to kill himself, since, when it is written, ‘Thou shalt not kill’, nothing is then added to this commandment, and no one – not even the person to whom the commandment is addressed – is seen to be excepted. . . for he who kills himself kills what is no other than a man. . . you will hardly call it greatness of soul which leads someone to do away with himself because he cannot manage to bear hardships of some kind . . . For Plato, of all people, surely would have been the first to act in the same way [committing suicide] had he not, with that mind with which he had seen the soul’s immortality, also perceived that this should not be done: and should, indeed, be forbidden.” (Cambridge, 1.20, 21, )

Augustine suggests that those who commit suicide to escape this painful world  are misunderstanding  the immortality of the soul. This is where this story turns tragic: Brittany Maynard, who saw a full life on this earth as the height of all existence, voluntarily chose everlasting death over a temporary life of suffering. In her insistence on her right to take her own life, she denied the sovereignty of a righteous God. Let us as Christians show compassion in our arguing against our broken world’s skewed views, showing love and hope to a world of hate and fear.

Is God the Soul of the World?

You suggest this to a Christian, and right away they balk. I told several friends that I was writing on this topic, and they brushed it off as some dumb thing Plato came up with out of no where. I beg to differ; Christians can label God as the Soul of the world without being pantheistic. It’s all a matter of terms –  and some hard thinking. It requires you to think not just of the physical, and to keep the witness of Scripture in the back of your mind as you look at the world around you.

WORLD

What do we mean by world? Usually when we say “the world”, we tend to think just of our planet Earth, but this sense of “the world” is too minuscule. If God is the soul of the world, the world must be all of creation – the universe. Our English word “universe” comes from the Latin-based French, and the French word was not in use until the thirteenth century, when it meant “all of creation”. (See the use of this word throughout the centuries here.) I  urge you to think not just of physical creation when you think of the world, but to include all of spiritual creation as well, combining the seen with the unseen, “whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities” (Col. 1:16) Doesn’t this give you a whole knew perspective of the supposed Christmas carol, “Joy to the World” (which was actually written about Christ’s second coming)! The world, or universe, contains all of space and time.

SOUL

What is a soul? A soul is defined as (1) the spiritual or immaterial, immortal part of a human being or animal, and (2) the essence or embodiment of a specified quality, particularly used to denote a person’s individual personality.  The soul gives the body life. A body is separate from a soul in many ways. The soul gives life to the body and the body supports the soul, allowing it to move around.

Plato labeled the soul as a thing begotten by the the Divine Being. In Timaeus, Plato explains that the soul of the world extended throughout the entire body of the universe and was the most excellent of all the things begotten. He says a lot of things about the soul, but to recount them here would evade my purpose.

GOD

God is spiritual, not physical – incorporeal, if you will. Even Jesus Christ, the Son, has a glorified body that is not like our bodies in the present earthly state. Because God is omnipresent, he is not contained within the world, but why should He operate the same way our souls and bodies do? At any rate, my soul is not as limited by my body as one might think. He can be the soul of the world, giving it life, without being limited by the physical bounds of the world. Through Christ, the Father made all things. Now, the soul does not make the body, but the soul gives life to the body in both instances. For God, the Soul-Body dichotomy works in reverse: the soul is understood to be pervading every piece of creation instead of the soul being physically bound by the body.

What does the Bible say? Throughout the Hebrew scriptures we are told that God is the supreme creator and sustainer of the world. We do not see any direct commentary on this question until the New Testament, in Paul’s sermons and letters.

“The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in temples made by man, nor is he served by human hands, as though he needed anything, since he himself gives to all mankind life and breath and everything. And he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place, that they should seek God, in the hope that they might feel their way toward him and find him. Yet he is actually not far from each of us, for ‘In him we live and move and have our being,’ as even some of your own poets have said, ‘For we are indeed his offspring.'” (Acts 17:24-28)

“For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. . .” (Romans 1:20)

Paul seems to say that God dwells in the world without being physically perceived. Coming from that, we could say that God is the soul of the world, because He rules the world without being seen with human eyes, but yet seen through His work. Similarly, we do not see a soul but can learn about a person’s soul by studying what they have said, created, and done. Instead of rejecting this question, we should instead seek God’s wisdom in this, studying Scripture alongside the book of Nature, allowing God to use the things and people around us to reveal to us more about Himself.

Work-day Sunrise (a poem)

 

If sun’s rise was my daily task
I fear the day would start too late,
and creatures who in its rays bask
would simply have to watch and wait.

Would I be apt to paint the sky anew
each morning with wonderful hues
whilst birds would sing to greet the dew
drops ling’ring onto evening’s snooze?

To give the starting shove to such a globe
my feeble arms would ne’er be able.
Prefer I, then, to watch Him robe
the skies with light so stable.

I never thought I could be a poet, but then I started reading Robert Frost and realized that poetry is really just an outpouring of observation. If you pay enough attention to a thing or spend time contemplating it, you can write poetry about it. Part of this poem came to me this morning as I cleaned Sutherland Hall (the picture above is from yesterday morning, in the early stages of dawn).

Being able to see the sun rise each weekday morning is one of the reasons I rarely complain about my early morning custodial job. I know that seeing such a spectacle so often has had a great impact on me. Although I enjoy getting to sleep in on the weekends, I hate to miss the sunrise. In fact, I’m usually a bit disoriented if I wake up and it’s already bright outside because I am so used to being at my work before the sun. The sunrise means a new beginning. It puts an end to the darkness that I started my day in.  It means that God is still in control.

And this morning I was so glad that it’s not my job to make the sun rise. Often I try to control every aspect of my life, and I tend to hold myself responsible when any small – or large – thing goes wrong. But there are some things I have absolutely no control over, and one of the most obvious things is the sunrise. I would never be able to do such a thing, but I know the God who can, and He knows me.

Now, I know that the “sunrise” is actually just the earth revolving around again to where the sun shines on my specific hemisphere, and I know that some would have a problem with me saying that God even causes this to happen every day. Regardless, without God, the beautiful sunrise would not be, nor would I be here to admire it.

Social Media & Autobiography: Instantaneous vs. Retrospective

We all love talking about ourselves. While this may seem like a modern phenomenon, people have been writing about themselves for centuries. What makes my Facebook or Twitter any different than Augustine’s Confessions or Wordsworth’s Prelude – or even the Psalms? Maybe it’s that I don’t think that much about what I post, and it is posted in an instant with little to no revision, or maybe it’s because mine don’t follow any meter or rhyming scheme. Even though some may do more editing to their updates, social media is supposed to be instantaneous, and most use it that way.

The content of social media is also much different than an autobiography, at least in the style of Augustine and Wordsworth. If someone were to make a biography for me from my Facebook posts, they would not get the same  depth of information about my soul as Augustine and Wordsworth reveal. When we post on social media, who are we talking to? Augustine was talking to God, Wordsworth to Coleridge, but who do we talk to? What about our lives are we revealing to our “friends” and “followers”?

Their autobiographies come from a lot of solitude and introspection. Do we avoid solitude and introspection by posting to social media as soon as something happens to us?We need time alone to process, not just time. It used to be that our true, initial reactions could only be shared with those in our direct vicinity. Now, our immediate reactions are broadcast to the world and then recorded forever. What would Ralph Waldo Emerson think of social media and social networks? He would commend its use when we share our own opinion and experience, and disapprove its use when we spout others’ words and conform to society’s notions. Then again, he’s a big fan of solitude. But Thomas Traherne is also a fan of solitude, and he says that it’s in our nature to want to share! So I say that we should share our experiences with others, but we first need to spend time alone to gather our thoughts about our experience and better articulate what is happening. We can all agree that we can better articulate the facts of an event or experience when we have for some time been removed from the moment and the emotions it brought with it. In the moment, we are so caught up with emotion that we cannot speak or write clearly. We have to live a life in order to have one to talk about. In our personal walk with God, we should share our experiences with others, but we have to spend some time alone with God in order to have anything to tell.

Music’s Role in the Church

I like singing in church. Some of my first memories are of my parents singing in church, whether that be as a guest at another church, as the special music, or just my dad as the leader in Sunday morning’s worship service. But why do we sing in church? I tend to notice when we don’t sing, and it is always to my chagrin if we do not sing in a church service.

When we sing, we obey.

We obey the key the instruments are playing in. We follow the worship leader’s timing while singing the songs. I saw this even at the Relient K concert I went to the other night. I also see it regularly in worship sets, but in this instance I can give a specific example instead of just generalities. Because it was the 10th anniversary of their “MMHMM” album, they played all the songs on the album in that order. These are songs that most of the audience knew by heart, which is the case many times in church services. However, Matt Thiessen isn’t going to sing every line exactly as it plays on the album, which, if you recall, he recorded ten years ago. Humans aren’t capable of that kind of consistency! There were times where the audience singing along got thrown off by Thiessen’s deviations from the album timing, because they were singing along with their idea of the recording and not with the leader, as it were. I suppose one could argue that they were following the timing of the other instruments, but my point still stands: singing in a large group requires obedience.

Singing practices unity.

Because we are obedience to one another, the instruments, and the leader, singing in a church service is a practice of unity. It reflects how we are all different but are called to one purpose, just as we all may sing different parts (some of us off key at first), but are singing the same song.

I’ve found it very important to quote the Apostle Paul in context. In his letter to the Colossians, Paul is telling them that they have been raised back to life with Christ, and are to put off earthly, sinful things in order to put on new things.

Put on then, as God’s chosen ones, holy and beloved, compassionate hearts, kindness, humility, meekness, and patience, bearing with one another and, if one has a complaint against another, forgiving each other, as the Lord has forgiven you, so you also must forgive. And above all these put on love, which binds everything together in perfect harmony. And let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts, to which indeed you were called in one body. And be thankful. Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly, teaching and admonishing one another in all wisdom, singing psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, with thankfulness in your hearts to God. And whatever you do, in word or deed, do everything in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him. (Col. 3:12-17)

All of that kindness, humility, meekness, and patience, is required when we sing together in harmony and unity. Singing also follows (italicized above) the command to have God’s word dwelling in us (through the lyrics), be teaching each other (through the words we sing), and most obviously to sing psalms and hymns and spiritual songs.

Melodies secure the lyrics.

Through an interesting tune, we get a song stuck in our heads. We know this from experience, in the way that we remember songs from our childhood because we sang them repeatedly. We use songs to help us memorize elements, prepositions, and even the alphabet. The same applies to theological truths as conveyed in often poetic lyrics within our hymns and choruses. Even if we are only regarding it for its beauty, the truth of the lyrics will stick in our minds as well.

Augustine describes a similar process when he tells of his listening to Ambrose’s preaching not for the message therein, but only as a way to judge how well he spoke.

I was not interested in learning what eh was talking about. My ears were only for his rhetorical technique; this empty concern was all that remained with me after I had lost any hope that a way to you might lie open for man. Nevertheless together with the words which I was enjoying, the subject matter, in which I was unconcerned, came to make an entry into my mind. I could not separate them. While I opened my heart in noting the eloquence with which he spoke, there also entered no less the truth which he affirmed, though only gradually. (Confessions, V.xiv)

Worship music is a practice in extracting spiritual truths.

Later in his Confessions, Augustine is going through what he recommends for worship and what has helped him keep his focus. Every waking moment, we are subjected to the physical world and its distractions. Augustine details how he sometimes gets caught up in the beauty of a song and instead likes it for that instead of the truth it gives him. Ultimately, he says that music in the church is a good thing. It conveys spiritual truths, not only in its lyrics but in its timing and melodic beauty.

I think singing as a church body is meaningful in itself, because it means all these things. I especially like to remember all the people who have sung these hymns or even choruses before me, who is singing them now, and the timeless truths that the lyrics contain. Rather than elevating the worship leaders, I like how even their leadership shows that they are just another part of the same body of Christ.

Concerning the French Revolution, as told by Three English Writers

I love the French Revolution. Now, not in the way that I love coffee or I love my mother, but such that I love reading and learning about it. I think it all started with my summer reading of The Royal Diaries: Marie Antoniette, Princess of Versailles way back in fifth grade or so. Despite my general distaste for absolute monarchy and people who fail to care for the poor, it’s because of this book and my further research of Marie Antoniette’s life that I find it hard to fully hate the monarchs and other aristocrats. In seventh grade, I did my “living history” project on Marie Antoinette, writing a biographical paper and presenting the information while dressed up as her, even with a lipstick stain across my neck to represent the guillotine’s severance.

In high school (for fun) I read Charles Dickens’ A Tale of Two Cities. It’s one of the few books I own and brought with me to college. In college, I’ve read Burke’s Reflections on the Revolution in France, and Wordsworth’s Prelude.

I used to have trouble reconciling the ideas of politician Edmund Burke with novelist Charles Dickens. I assumed they were both just English men ragging on the French for being French, but that’s really not the case (especially when you take into account that Burke was Irish by birth). I  thought they were vastly different in their opinions of the Revolution – Burke very practically opposed and Dickens romanticizing the situation – but then I remarked that they both had very negative views about the situation itself, and very realistic opinions about human nature. They both have very real, practical ideas about the way humans behave: they do really bad things, but are capable of wonderful things.

In the Prelude, William Wordsworth tells how the French Revolution played a role in his soul’s development, especially how he found himself caught up in the movement, wanted them to succeed, and then was devastated by all the bloodshed that resulted. However, he finds comfort when he realizes that Nature never changes, and the human soul has the ability to be beautiful like Nature always is. This way, he still has a tight hold of the idea that his mind and soul created concerning liberty for France, even though the actual thing is different.

I find it rather odd that I’ve never read or even heard of an account of the Revolution by a French person (Victor Hugo doesn’t count; that was a later, smaller phase of the revolution). I’m sure something of that sort exists, but I’ve never seen it. Even Hugo was writing about what had happened years ago, which I think is a crucial point in understanding why the writings of English authors are more popular, accessible, and lasting. Perhaps you have to be somewhat distant from a thing in order to reflect upon it properly, like how you can’t see what’s right under your own nose or in your own eye, even if it’s a plank of wood. It also may be that English authors are more popular because more people – myself included – can read English proficiently but can’t understand more than five words in French.

I know I haven’t gotten to the bottom of what these three texts have to say about the French Revolution, and that just makes me want to keep thinking about them, re-reading them, and discussing them. They make me want to read a book from each genre about every historical event, because it’s a really good way to get the story from multiple angles. Maybe that’s one reason why the Bible contains multiple genres.

Here’s a short timeline for reference (I created it to help me think straight, but it might prove useful to the reader as well):

Special thanks to Dr. Henderson for giving a lecture on Wordsworth Monday night that helped me clarify my thoughts about how he relates to Burke and Dickens, Dr. Wright for his lecture on Burke, and Dr. Schubert and the Rossetti group for allowing me to sit in on their Dickens session.