“... Holding faith and a good conscience”

Fighting the Good Fight: 1 Timothy 1:19-20

... holding faith and a good conscience. By rejecting this, some have made shipwreck of their faith, among whom are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I have handed over to Satan that they may learn not to blaspheme.

The two parts of “waging the good warfare” (or “fighting the good fight”), the Apostle tells us, are holding fast to faith (living trust in our loving, good God) and to a robust conscience (a clear awareness of right and wrong and a humble but committed determination to stay on the correct side of that divide). Note that the word “good” in “good warfare” is kalos, which is the general word for good, but also carries the sense of what is right and fitting. The word “good” in “good conscience” is agathos, which means “worthy”, “upright”, “fertile” – we might say a “clear” conscience, but that really doesn’t catch the full sense. It’s not about a blank rap sheet, so much as a strong and accurate moral compass which (carrying forward the sense of nobility and fertility in the word) has positive effects in the world around us.

What follows is one of those passages which, although nearly a “throwaway” in Paul’s prose, is one of those sit-up-and-take-notice points.

“By rejecting this”. What is the “this”? Some translations actually supply “conscience”; while not wrong, I don’t think that’s sufficient. The “this” is singular, but I take it to refer back to the “holding”. It’s not at all clear what the two persons named, viz., Hymenaeus and Alexander, have done (or failed to do), but the abandonment of conscience and a failure in trust in God go together. Vigorous faith is the foundation of Christian conscience, which is in turn the expression of active trust in the Father.

Now Paul uses an image that should “clear our sinuses”, as a friend of mine likes to say. He refers to the “shipwreck” of faith. Today, we’d be more apt to use an image from aviation or NASCAR like “crash and burn”; but a real shipwreck was just as dramatic, destructive, deadly. A ship hitting shoals in a gale would begin to break up on the rocks, splintering and taking on water. Men would be hurled into the waves, against the rocks, or into the depths of the ship. Rigging and sails, what had been the means of propulsion and movement about the ship, would become webs and cocoons of death. Prisoners and those weighed down by shackles, tackle, or equipment would be lost. Those who did survive faced exposure, hunger, loss of livelihood, financial ruin. The reputation of the captain and owner might also be seriously damaged.

The image is clear: turning away from trust in God and from a strong conscience on the stormy seas of life is inviting disaster. These two have suffered disaster in their discipleship, as a result of their own decisions.

Then more sobering words – shocking, even, from the Apostle: whom I have handed over to Satan that they may learn not to blaspheme.

What do we learn from this?

To blaspheme is to slander God: through abuse of the Name, through slandering or insulting God, by presumptuously arrogating to oneself privileges or titles not given by God, by claiming to have a word of knowledge or prophecy which is one’s own invention and not from God. The ultimate blasphemy is to turn away from grace, and it is for this reason that despair, though pitiable, is also such a serious sin. Again, we don’t know exactly what these two were involved in to trigger this reaction from Paul, but it must have come across as a serious challenge to the glorification of God and the trust of the church.

Second, we see that the consequences are serious, even devastating. “There is no free lunch” is an expression we hear in the business and commercial world; it is also true in the moral universe.

Third, we see the authority of the Church. Paul is able to act through prayer and counsel in a way which exposes Hymenaeus and Alexander to further trial and danger. Most of us in the modern Church are profoundly uncomfortable with such ideas. Yet just as a parent must sometimes punish a child or allow them to suffer the consequences of their actions to help them to learn and grow (painful as it is for the parent!), and just as a counselor or psychologist must allow a client to “hit bottom” and become sufficiently miserable as to motivate positive change, so also in the spiritual realm pain is sometimes the best, even the only, motivator for repentance. Our tendency to jump to shielding persons from the work of God in this way (to use Oswald Chambers’ term, to play at being an “amateur providence”) inhibits, and does not do, the work of God. (Caution: the alternate error, becoming a judgmental, pharisaic person, is just as deadly and just as common.) Paul uses the authority given him, no doubt in prayer, and no doubt with tears, to remove the hedge of protection in the lives of these two persons. I wonder: has the Church abandoned this sense of responsibility for the flock? Is this because of our own compromised bad consciences? Has this worked immeasurable harm to the cause of Christ and the work of building people up in the faith?

Fourth, we see the ultimate redemptive purpose of discipline in the Body. Paul doesn’t say, “They’re going to hell” – though, presumably, that could be the ultimate outcome. Rather, he focuses on their “learning”, on their present predicament being a means of growth and, ultimately, recovery. In this, Paul reflects the Gospel message that God’s intention toward us, though we deserve judgment and punishment, is grace.


Lord, it is a sobering thing to fall under discipline. More sobering, though, would be not to do so, not to feel Your guiding, restraining, correcting hand in our lives. Teach us both responsiveness to you, and the true yearning over the lives and souls of others, that we may not be inert but rather robust in our care of the flock of God, whether as members of that flock or as undershepherds of Yours. For the love, cause, and in the Spirit of Christ, amen.



(Lusby, Maryland)

“Wage the good warfare” (part 2)

WHAT IS THIS “GOOD WARFARE”? (1 Tm 1:18, part 3)

What is the “good warfare”? To what can we compare it?

Across thousands of years, leaders and countries have made great, heroic, sometimes ludicrous efforts to make their conflicts appear just. In the American Civil War, both sides prayed to the same God for victory in arms. Even the Nazis tipped their hats to this principle, going so far as to stage a phony attack on a radio tower in a border city as the “justification” to start a ground war in Europe.

We need to be on guard, though, lest the cynical acts of others make us cynical as well. History does provide examples of struggles against tyranny, battles to liberate oppressed peoples and endangered communities, conflicts begun with dubious motives but the end of which occasions much good. Much of the best Christian teaching recognizes the principle of “just war” engaged in righteously and rightly, if reluctantly.

This is not even to mention moral campaigns such as the “war on poverty”, “war on drugs”, “war on terror”, the civil rights struggle and the battles against ills such as illiteracy and obesity.

Struggle, it turns out, is a normal, even necessary, part of life. It is with struggle and strain that we are born into the world and see our first light of day. Too-easy deliverance from struggle can even be harmful, such as for the animal who is helped to break out of its egg, and whose ability to fight to survive is compromised thereby. And some of our nouns representing the most noble traits and qualities were themselves born in struggle: hero. Duty. Valor. Virtue.

In annals, story, and song ... in sources as disparate as Stephen Crane’s The Red Badge of Courage and “The Ballad of Private Rodger Young”, it is not the one who has nothing to live for or who knows no fear, but the one who has his or her whole life ahead and future at stake, who may feel that he or she has every good reason to flee the battle and turn their back on the fray, yet who is drawn or driven on by something higher, deeper, more important than one’s own existence, who is valorous.

What Paul is speaking to here is the passion of the quest. Paul recognized it in Timothy, saw a reflection of his own “upward calling”, that prize to which all else was subordinate, the struggle of most supreme importance that claims even one’s life.

The question for each of us, daily, is: have I given myself fully to the quest? Am I waging the good warfare?


Lord, remembering that the race is not always to the swift nor the battle to the strong, nor riches to the wise, let my life’s energies be bent with all my strength to the quest and struggle for Your Kingdom. Let whatever lack there is in my swiftness, or strength, or resources be supplied by Your goodness. Let my heart’s cry be for that which is most important to You. In Christ, Amen.



Romulus, Michigan (DTW)

"Wage the good warfare”

CLARITY, DISCIPLINE, AND SACRIFICE: 1 Timothy 1:18 (part 2)

The Apostle calls his young charge to “wage the good warfare”. Military imagery – which Paul uses often – is out of fashion in many quarters today. Still, it’s quite apt for the Christian journey, beset as it is with problems, opposition, and the need for continuous focused effort. This is all the more true for those exercising leadership in the body of Christ.

What are some of the characteristics of this “good warfare”?

Clarity. A clear, precise battle plan, taking into consideration not only troop movements and the probabilities of enemy responses, but also capacity, supply, endurance and potential political and noncombatant complications, is essential. Are we as disciples clear on our purpose and mission? If we are leading others, is it seat-of-the-pants or week-to-week, or do we have a sense of the direction in which God is guiding and how our following should be lived out? I believe that if we’re putting more time and thought into our vacation, career, or dinner plans than we are into our discipleship, then the Holy Spirit is urgently calling us to take another, more careful look.

Discipline. Indiscipline yields negative results. In a sport, I lose the game – or at a minimum, Coach yells at me. Taking a class, I get a bad grade. Eat unhealthily and don’t exercise, and I feel bad, get gluey stuff in my arteries ... and maybe keel over at an early age. Spiritual indiscipline is no less a problem, even if the results can take time to show up.

In the military, the disciplines of rank, regulations and training serve a purpose: to keep the soldier alive and make him or her an effective weapon against the enemy. As disciples, we being molded into instruments that fight evil in the world and seek to establish God’s righteous, life-giving policy (i.e., the Kingdom of God).

Sacrifice. For the serviceman/-woman, distance from family, limited comforts, even privations and perhaps injury or even death are part of the service rendered for the sake of duty to one’s country. In every age this has been true, whether the “heat and burden of the day” has been borne for the Senate and People of Rome, King and Country, or the Flag and Constitution. Ultimately, indeed, every fight is for home and hearth and the ideal of one’s native land.

Recently, I’ve been reading a bit on the American Civil War, and retracing the steps of the Confederate cabinet after its flight from Richmond. Gradually, travel became harder, supplies less certain, dangers more oppressive, and even formerly rebel-aligned cities began to make their former leaders unwelcome. Yet with courage and equanimity, and even good humor, they bore all this for the sake of “the Cause”. If they could bear such things for a cause which history has shown to be defective (in fact, I think it was awful on a number of levels), how much more should I, a citizen of a vastly nobler Homeland, be willing to bear for its sake and the sake of my King!

There is of course one more aspect to warfare: allegiance. We have to know whose side we’re on, and live with full loyalty, to “the last full measure of devotion” as President Lincoln put it. This is both simpler, and more intricate, than we typically make it out to be.

On the way here, I was waiting in line at the airport in front of an enlisted man en route to his duty station. From his insignia, I could see that he was one of ours (i.e., a U.S. soldier), and also could clearly see his name and rank. This gave me the opportunity to thank him for his service. Gratitude aside, can others observing us clearly see both our allegiance and our identity in Christ?


Lord, you have called me to wage a sustained fight for You. Help me to do so with clarity and discipline, despising and bearing patiently the sacrifices, and with full and loyal allegiance. Help me to remember also that my fight is “not against flesh and blood”, and to need to approval beyond Your own. In Your hold Name. Amen.


Ellensburg, Washington (Lazy F Camp)

A HANDBOOK FOR CHRISTIAN LEADERSHIP EXCELLENCE

BOOK REVIEW: J. Oswald Sanders, Spiritual Leadership.

This is a volume worth the time of every current and aspiring Christian leader. Sanders’ work – written in the ‘60's but updated and containing principles which are essentially timeless – sets a high bar for spiritual leadership while recognizing the humanness of every leader.

The first five chapters examine the general characteristics of leaders and then provides a reflective pause in the work for what is essentially a self-test on one’s own aptitude and/or readiness to assume leadership. Then follow two chapters examining leadership in the lives of two men, both apostles but very different in temperament and skills: Paul and Peter. After reviewing some essential qualities of a leader, specific applications follow (time, reading, cost, responsibilities). The final chapter on Nehemiah uses a Biblical model to illustrate key principles; before that, however, two chapters deal with the critical issues of succession and multiplication (replacing and reproducing).

I went through this book in connection with a men’s small group; however, I understand that it is required reading in some theological programs. Well it should be: it’s a good choice. Both for its strong expectations and setting out of the cost so one can count it in preparation for service, it is almost a must-read.

Excellent for pastors, professors, executives who are Christians, and all who have responsibility to be examples and develop people.

Highly recommended.


Sanders, J. Oswald. Spiritual Leadership: Principles of Excellence for Every Believer. Chicago: Moody, 1967, 2007. 208 pp. with indexes and study guide.


Memphis Tennessee (MEM)

“In Accordance with the Prophecy”

THE GOD WHO KNOWS US INTIMATELY (1 Timothy 1:18)

This charge I entrust to you, Timothy, my child, in accordance with the prophecies previously made about you, that by them you may wage the good warfare ....


My son John is in possession of a full set of whisical expressions you can add to your normal everyday conversations to get a rise out of someone ... a raised eyebrow at a minimum, and maybe the conviction in someone’s mind that you really are certifiable. One is, “... but not with your duck”, as in: “You know, you could go home and curl up with a good book and a cup of hot chocolate tonight – but not with your duck.” Another one, more effective at making you sound card-carrying kooky I think, is: “... in accordance with the prophecy”. As in: “I think I’m going to go grocery shopping this afternoon and pick up some bathroom tissue – in accordance with the prophecy.”

Likely response (while backing away slowly): “Sure. You do that.”

But – what if? What if it weren’t just whimsy? In fact, what if it were true?

That’s the message in this verse, which is much more than just Paul’s kindly, admonitory transition to get to the next topic.

Timothy, along with Titus, Sylvanus, and a few others known to us (and probably many others whose names are lost or barely known such as Thecla), was one of Paul’s most trusted lieutenants, a protégé entrusted with critical aspects of the larger ministry and in particular, exercising leadership. This didn’t come about by chance, or simply because the Apostle is a gifted talent scout. It was part of God’s larger plan for the work of spreading the Gospel message, planting church communities, the ministry of apostleship ... and also the plan for Timothy’s life.

Picture it: a meeting, perhaps in secret, maybe in a home or outside in a glade or the back of a shop. There is tension in the room, but also excitement. Songs are sung in worship; the great truths of the Scripture are remembered and recited. Prayers go up for the brethren, and for those who don’t know the Lord yet. There is confession, and earnestness. There is praise. And there is a young man moved to offer himself for whatever service the Lord has for him. Even knowing it will mean hardship, poverty, and very likely cost him his very life.

Arms reach to embrace him. He lifts up his hands toward Heaven, and other hands are laid on him. As prayers are said, and tears stream down his face, the sisters and brothers bring forth words of knowledge and prophecy from God. The Holy Spirit knows Timothy, and has chosen him. With his history and his devotion. With his gifts and his faults. With his mistakes and his successes. With his relationships and his yearnings. God knows him intimately. Has a plan for him. Picked him for this work. Timothy’s contribution to this is a motion of will: he says, “yes”.

It is a sacred moment. In one sense, the climax of a journey to this point. In another, deeper sense, the launching moment of what is to come.

God knows each of us. His Spirit has gifted us with a matrix of gifts, talents, personality, experiences, temperament, relationships, and more ... all for the purpose God has chosen for us.

How easy it must have been when the challenge came, the heartbreaks, the promising disciples who walked away and the false brethren who betrayed, to want to throw in the towel, to say it was all a mistake, to dismiss the work of Christ as a noble but ultimately impractical dream.

That’s where the intimacy of God comes in.

When what the world calls “reality” strikes, when we are sorely tempted to give it all up as a bad game, it is the work of God in our lives, the knowledge that the Father of lights knows me, even me, with a clarity and intimacy that I can never attain for myself, that calls me back again. Amid the little “realities” with which we struggle and against which we often find ourselves fighting, it is the deeper Reality of God in Christ that has known and claimed us, and can hold us.

There’s no frustration, no persecution, no shortage of funds or matériel, no lack of fellowship or loneliness, that can trump that.

“In accordance with the prophecy”. From before all worlds, God knows me. My life, and every life I have ever met, is in His hands. What greater consolation can there be?


Lord, all praise to you. Thank you for knowing me ... and in knowing me, loving me ... and in loving me, making me ... and in making me, calling me for that purpose that You have determined. Keep me steady and focused and above all, living for You. In the Name of Jesus Your Son, our Lord. Amen.


Memphis, Tennessee (Christ United Methodist Church)

“To the King of Ages”

A LOVING DOXOLOGY: 1 Timothy 1:17

To the King of ages, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory forever and ever. Amen.

Paul closes his reflections on sin, life, and grace with a spontaneous burst of praise. As a deeply observant Jew, such an expression of glorification would come as naturally as breathing. Yet for Paul, there is something extra; it is the joyful fireworks of a soul which has known at first hand the blessing of unmerited redemption.

In the Middle Ages, such expressions would become the basis of a way of doing theology called “apophatic”, i.e., theologizing-by-taking-away, or the “negative way” (via negativa). The name most frequently connected with this is that of Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite, an otherwise unknown monastic philosopher-theologian who was mistakenly identified with the Dionysius who was converted by Paul at Athens on Mars Hill (the Areopagus). The general idea is that, when we follow an apophatic method, we are more likely to avoid errors in what we say about God. For Ps.-Dionyius and others, it was more than just a method for pursuing rigorous spiritual thought, it was a form of spiritual discipline and prayer in itself, a contemplation of the mysteries of God.

Thus also the hymn based on this passage:

Immortal, invisible, God only wise
In light inaccessible hid from our eye
Most blessed, most glorious, the ancient of days
Almighty, victorious, thy great name we praise!

Paul has brought us to the junction of understanding and mystery, of recollection and amazed wonder, of intellectual rigor and ecstatic praise.


Great and incomparable God, bring me again to the wonder-filled contemplation of Your Majesty, and to joys both deep and explosive in Your Presence. Let my life be as a fountain of glorification to You. Amen.


Lusby, Maryland

WORAUS DIE WIRKLICHE FREIHEIT? (Whence True Freedom?)

FILM REVIEW: Barbara (2012)

Last week, I had the happy occasion to visit the Avalon in uptown Washington to see Christian Petzold’s new film Barbara. The work is a visual and dramatic feast which raises trenchant questions about the purpose of life and work, our human responsibility for one another, the meaning of happiness, and above all the nature of freedom – really, liberty not so much as a possession but as a vector, one which can be not only won but bestowed.

The title character (played by Nina Hoss) is a young doctor in East Germany; we pick up her story in 1980 on her first day of work at a provincial hospital after having been exiled to a rural district for the “offense” of having put in for an exit permit or Ausreisentrag to leave the GDR. Embittered, defiant and trusting no one, her standoffish persona and prestigious work history at the Charité Hospital in East Berlin combine to create in her the impression of the stuckup urban snob from the capital. Seeking to befriend her – partly because he is an informant for the Stasi (secret police) – is a handsome young doctor, André Reiser (Ronald Zehrfeld).

Brilliant in her work as a doctor, the periphery of Barbara’s life is a hell of surveillance, a rotten apartment with a Teutonic shrew of a landlady, strip- and cavity-searches by the Stasi, strained relations with her fellow staff, and highly furtive efforts to lay the groundwork for an eventual escape to the West. The drama is heightened by the winds and storm clouds along the Baltic coast and the pervasive darkness which haunts her movements. The one bright spot in all of this – other than her work – is her relationship with her boyfriend Jörg, who lives in West Germany. We share in two of their assignations: one in a remote wood, and the other at an Inter-Hotel (special hotel for foreign guests) in an unnamed city.

The plot thickens the day that Stella, a young woman in a detention camp, shows up at the hospital. Manhandled by the Volkspolizei (the so-called “People’s Police” who were an arm of the repressive state) and regarded as a malingerer by Dr. Reiser, she finds compassion and care – and the correct diagnosis of meningitis – from Barbara only. Stella becomes, in fact, the recipient of Barbara’s focused humanity and care, as the doctor reads to her from Twain’s Huckleberry Finn (auf Deutsch, of course!). When Stella – who is pregnant and understands clearly that her child stands no chance for a real future in the GDR – is forcibly returned to the labor camp (which Stella refers to as an “extermination camp - a socialist one”), she looks for an opportunity to escape and makes her way to Barbara’s flat, just as the doctor is about to make her daring escape across to Denmark. This sets the stage for the conflict which will resolve in Barbara’s decision about what to do with the precious gift of freedom, itself the product of her long and defiant struggle for freedom.

Leaving aside the fact that Cold War movies are one of my very favorite genres, I find Barbara to be a masterpiece of psychological depth, cinematography, plot pacing and development, and the framing of philosophical questions (such as: “is it possible to have genuine relationship where it is tacitly acknowledged that trust is absent or at least attenuated?”). In a sense, the story unfolds almost as a kind of prison-literature, set as it is in the repressive East German state. As such, it challenges the trendy and often facile Western, especially American notions, which link freedom to prosperity, happy outcomes, and ethical certainty. Though not a religious work in any sense, it fits more in the tradition of classical Christian understandings of the meaning and purpose of true liberty.


Lusby, Maryland

Praising Christ’s Perfect Patience

THE PARADOX OF GRACE: 1 Timothy 1:16

But I received mercy for this reason, that in me, as the foremost, Jesus Christ might display his perfect patience as an example to those who were to believe in him for eternal life.


Having touched on the paradox of conviction, Paul now turns to a second paradox: that of grace. He understands the clemency shown to him in Christ to be exemplifying, not the perfect righteous person, but that of the foremost sinner. In other words, if Christ can forgive and make a saint of God out of Saul of Tarsus (Paul), then a fortiori Christ can for you and me also.

But Paul is also touching on another issue here to which we current Christians should pay attention: that of my redemption as serving a larger purpose for others’ redemption. The apostle knows it’s not just about “me and Jesus”, his private deal with God. It’s about a larger purpose that involves the redemption of others.

Gloria Steinem is quoted as having made a comment to the effect that successful or wealthy people plan for generations to come; the poor, for Saturday night. As elitist and classist as that statement comes off, there’s a grain of truth in it. The spiritual “wealth” in our discipleship is tied, at least in part, to how we fit into a larger work of God that affects many lives beyond our own.


Lord Jesus Christ: forgive me for those times when I have wanted to see my spiritual welfare as a private affair. Help me to have a broader vision, in line with yours which claims all of humanity, and the breadth of creation. For truly, you are the “Lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the world.” Amen.


Lusby, Maryland

TO ROME WITH LOVE

ON THE ELECTION OF A SUCCESSOR TO HIS HOLINESS, BENEDICT XVI

To Their Eminences, the College of Cardinals in Holy Conclave:

Brothers and fathers in Christ,

You will not read this blog post. First, because you are not able when sequestered in conclave, and secondly because I'm neither important enough nor in the right circles of orbit to have an opinion which registers as mattering on anyone's radar. Yet I have some thoughts upon the subject, and so will opine.

I am startled to find that the election of a successor to the Pope Emeritus, Benedict XVI, matters more to me as a Protestant Christian than I would have thought possible. Perhaps this is because the Bishop of Rome, at his best, is a leader of stature across all Christian traditions and connections. Perhaps it is because among all the world leaders of Christianity, he is the most visible. Or perhaps it is because I dare to believe that the future of the influence of the Roman communion can be, on a geopolitical level, better than it too often has been in the past. Because we must be able to communicate well with those of other, even antithetical, religious traditions. Because I know too many American Catholics who are frustrated with their church for a variety of reasons, yet continue to seek solace from her as a mother. Or maybe it's because I also am foolish enough to possess the temerity to think that maybe, just maybe, in a 100-year period that has already seen two popes of once-in-500-year stature (John XXIII and John Paul II), there might be a third.

In the end, I cannot say that I'm fully in touch with all the reasons that this election matters to me. But it does.

Pope Benedict's break with tradition, being the first pope in several hundred years to resign, seems to me to be a hopeful thing, and not a cause for distress. He saves himself, the church, and the world the spectacle of a doddering, kindly but inept, pontiff hanging on until the last while everyone keeps watch for his demise and potential successors jockey for position. The surprise resignation creates a sudden vacuum where there is something of a small crisis, and some creativity is called for and there's a moment of freedom without precommitments, at least one hopes. (Incidentally, the media is wrong about this being the first time there will be two living popes at the same time. This happened from time to time in the Middle Ages and early modern period during the Avignon papacy or "Babylonian captivity of the Church". Sometimes there were even three: an Avignese, a Roman, and a Pisan pope. The difference will be that both will be recognized in some fashion as pope by the whole church.)

I hope fervently that the new pontiff will be from the Third World. It is a global connection, the Roman Church; and it is growing most rapidly and apparently healthfully in Africa and Latin America. While it would be gratifying for me as an American to see a North American installed, and proud as a United States-er to see one from my country (i.e., Sean Patrick O'Malley of Boston, Timothy Dolan of New York, or even Marc Ouellet of Quebec), I think there are too many reasons not to select someone from this continent. There is too much power concentrated here already for it to be good for a major communion's supreme leader to be picked from here. And there would be pressure for certain kinds of "progressive" policies to be made, which may not be in the pastoral interest of large portions of the world.

But a pontiff from a land where there is much more poverty and powerlessness would speak volumes about the work and mission of the Church. And a person of color would add icing to that cake. Odilo Pedro Scherer of Sao Paolo (he even has the right name, "Peter"), Leonardo Sandri of Buenos Aires, Robert Sarah of Conakry, Luis Tagle of Manila (at 55 very young for a candidate), Oscar Rodriguez Maradiaga of Tegucigalpa (from the second-poorest country in this hemisphere), or Albert Don of Colombo (from one of the poorest in the world), would be wonderful picks, just to name a few of the possibilities. And these, from more conservative archdioceses, could as needed make the case for reform with greater persuasiveness where appropriate, than a European and definitely than an American. And Laurent Pasinya (D.R. Congo) has credentials as a peacemaker which are impressive. (At 73, he is one of the older candidates; yet the elevation of the aging Bishop Angelo Roncalli as John XXIII should give us pause about dismissing him out of hand.)

I would also hope that the new pontiff might do something substantive to help heal the rift between East and West which has essentially prevailed since 1054, as well as the western rift with Protestantism. This would be huge.

There are irreconcilable differences between some religious traditions, based on beliefs if not ethics. However, it is imperative in any age -- and especially in ours -- that global religious leaders be humanitarians who have a basic love for all of God's human children. John XXIII, Paul VI, and John Paul II all embodied this. My hope would be that the next pontiff will do the same.

To borrow from the old Anthony Quinn movie, he stands "in the shoes of the fisherman". May Peter's next successor have something of the first Peter's dash and daring, to do the Lord's work is risky and creative ways. The world needs that. Whether one is Roman Catholic, Protestant, or something altogether other.

(Prince Frederick, Maryland)

COMMITTING (TO) VANGELISM

This article also appeared in the UM Connection and on the Baltimore-Washington Conference website.

During his opening conversations with our conference, Bishop Matthews offered an encouragement and a challenge: that each United Methodist bring one other person to Christ. In a normal universe, this goal would be terribly modest. Instead for many, it’s just terrifying. For lots of folks in our pews, ministries, and small groups, evangelism has become “the ‘e’ word” – a subject we’d prefer to avoid, and for heaven’s sakes if you find yourself doing it be sure to wash your hands after and don’t bring it up in polite company. I tried fixing the “e” word by dropping the “e” (see the title) but ended up with “vangelism”, and that sounds like “vandalism”, which is another way we seem to look at it: something inflicted by Christians on unsuspecting pagans and seekers, rabbit-punching them with the Bible or a tract when they’re off-guard.

Once I heard someone say, and with no sense of irony, “We’re just not an evangelistic church.” That’s like saying, “It’s not a leafing tree”, “these salmon don’t spawn”, “our army never shoots”, or “in this league, we don’t actually swing the bat”. (Or to use Jesus’ example: “tasteless salt”.) It’s a contradiction – but to the extent it’s true, defeat and death are the result. Or maybe, just maybe, the problem isn’t the word, but what we’ve made of it (perhaps let other people make of it) in our heads?

What is it, then? Well, maybe evangelism is like ...

A Hot Tip. There’s an old saying that evangelism is one beggar showing another where to find bread. That’s true – but it’s more persuasive if you are hungry and love bread yourself. Stale saltines will provide needed calories, but I’d much rather be offered a sticky bear claw, still warm from the baker’s oven. The difference is between information and inspiration. A few years back, my personal time-management system was collapsing under the load it had to bear. Then I found a system that actually worked – and I was so excited I couldn’t stop talking about it. (I should have been on commission: I know I sold a bunch of books for that author!) Then I realized, “Omigosh, this is what our witness as Christians is supposed to be like.” When you move into a new town, you search for the best garage and doctor; but we have the greatest Life-Mechanic and Physician of souls to refer to people! This is called “contact evangelism”, and a wonderful resource is still Becky Pippert’s Out of the Saltshaker and Into the World.

A Pair of Tix. The Orioles. Maryland football. The National Symphony Orchestra. The Bolshoi Ballet. The National Prayer Breakfast. The Naval Academy Choir. These are all examples of things I might never have gotten into on my own, but someone gave me tickets, or made them available to buy when scarce. And when I’ve got great, hard-to-get seats I can’t use, I don’t waste them if I can get someone to use them. We have the hottest news ever, the best admission in the universe – and we don’t lose our place when we give it away to someone else! A good resource is Becoming a Contagious Christian.

A Last-minute Sitter. If you’re a parent, you know that cold grip of panic which seizes you on the night of a long-planned commitment with your spouse when the sitter calls, saying, “I have an exam / sick aunt / pink eye and just can’t make it tonight.” And what a gift it is when a dear soul covers so you can still go out. People all around us live lives filled with needs, each of which is an opportunity to connect out of love for Christ. Some needs are everyday, like the wallpaper of life; others are acute. All are occasions for grace to work ... but we have to know what and how, that’s our job. Robert Pierson’s terrific little book, Needs-Based Evangelism can get you started here.

A Drink at the Bar. Yes, yes, I know: we Methodist types don’t do that. (Puh-lease.) But here’s the deal: at the bar (so they tell me) you can be yourself with your troubles and issues, and say what you like and need to, just so long as you don’t start a fight. Evangelism is about letting people be exactly who they are, and loving them into the Kingdom. This is one reason why the Alpha Course has been so successful (if you don’t know about it, find out!): invite people over, feed them, share a message, then let them respond however they need to with no preconditions or judgments. It’s powerful ... and mostly impossible to find in our world. On top of this, the Church should be like the watering hole in the old sitcom Cheers: “where everyone knows your name”. All of us are misfits in some way: the Church should be where we don’t have to be made to fit, because God says we already do.

First Down. In the runup to Christmas, I had the chance to do some seasonal work for a Christian-based company. It was a great opportunity! This store encourages child sponsorships through a major mission; but not everyone is able to do that, so it offers an easier alternative that will also support the organization’s goal of helping the world’s neediest. If a customer can’t afford $35/month, they might spring $5 one time. There’s a lesson here. In football, each play may not yield a goal, but moving the ball gradually downfield will get the team there. In the life of a person, we may love her or him just one significant step – or just one tiny nudge -- closer to Christ, but that’s okay. Each step, each nudge, is important.

Inking the Deal. In sales, they say, “ABC”: “Always Be Closing”. The prospect may love the vacuum cleaner (encyclopedias, pots and pans ... fill in the blank) but until the deal is closed and the sale executed, they remain prospects and not customers. A salesperson would be fired who was always pointing people to the showroom, praising all the features of the car, and rhapsodizing about the beauty of touring in an automobile ... but never actually sells one. I’ve found that when a person is really ready to give their life to Christ, they drop like ripe fruit into God’s basket – but they need someone to show them the way, to give that gentle tug. (You may end up saying with surprise, as I have, “You do? You mean it?! You’re serious — you want to become a Christian?! Wow!”) But without the invitation, they may never actually cross the threshhold.

A Warm Puppy. OK, well maybe that’s pushing it. But maybe not: I’ve noticed that when my friend’s shih-tzu climbs in my lap, all warm and loving, I don’t want to disturb her by getting up – and she doesn’t want to move, either. I’ve also noticed that when I’m lifting up people who need to meet Jesus, the punch-list quality that can creep into my prayers goes away, and I am stilled and content and dwell longer in the Lord’s lap (so to speak). Prayer is the first step to witnessing the Gospel, and the middle, and the last, too. And it will deepen your own connection to God. A great preacher was said to have had a list of 100 people he was praying to meet Christ. By the time he died, 96 had; the other 4 did at his funeral. A Russian pastor told me before her young people’s camp that 5 of the 40 children were believers; by the time my group visited three weeks later, 38 were. It’s prayer that turns this key.

You may have noticed that I haven’t said anything at all about two things in particular: converting people, and church growth. That’s because it’s the Holy Spirit who changes hearts (converts), not us. And (I know this is heresy) growing churches, like growing corn or cows, is something that Christ makes happen. Our job is to love people into Christ’s presence, introduce them to the Lord, and make sure we’re tilling the soil and setting the stage so that growth isn’t hindered. But the disciple’s call is to give himself / herself away for love of Jesus Christ.

Let’s take up our bishop’s challenge and “each one bring one to Christ” ... let’s commit (to) ‘vangelism!


Charles L. Harrell


Prince Frederick, Maryland (Providence)
22 Jan 2013
S.D.G.

"Of Whom I Am the Foremost"

THE PARADOX OF CONVICTION: 1 Timothy 1:15 (part 2)

King of sinners though I be,
Jesus shed his blood for me.

Paul writes that Jesus came to save sinners, calling himself the foremost of them. How can he, the great apostle to the Gentiles, say such a thing?

We cannot see the heart of another person; only God can do that. It is amazing, however, how those who seem to be closest to the Lord, have the keenest sense of their own distance from the holiness of the Divine Presence.

So the great bishop and theologian Gregory of Nyssa described the approach to God, using the imagery of Moses' ascent onto Mt. Sinai, and the impossibility of closing the gap to comprehend the Divine. And Augustine of Hippo in his Confessions writes of his conviction of sin, and the ongoing need for grace.

So Teresa of Avila writes in her Interior Castle of the human heart as a palace or castle made up of rooms or levels -- yet as the soul makes its ascent into higher and higher levels, it also becomes more pained by, and acutely aware of, its sin.

C.S. Lewis wrote that the person in grace has a clear sense of good and evil, understanding both, where the one who is deep in sin understands neither. At the same time, though, our feelings betray us -- for when we feel holiest we are often complacent or blind to our flaws and failings. (Once I knew someone who was outwardly very righteous but complained that she did not understand the need for prayers of confession, because she didn't think she had anything to confess. Though I admired her uprightness, I remember being concerned about the state of her soul because of this evident blind spot.) It is, paradoxically, when we feel farthest from God because of our shortcomings, that we may actually be closest because we are clinging most closely to Him.

Paul was acutely aware of his shortcomings, and his checkered history with the people of God. I suspect that he carried this about with him, and needed a fresh measure of grace on nearly a daily basis. May God give us like conviction ... and assurance ... and the growth which comes as a result.


Lord, grant me the keen sense of conviction for sin, that I may also know the amazing balm of your grace. Draw me close to you; never let me go. Amen.


(Prince Frederick, Maryland)

Trustworthy Sayings

Why We Should Accept What Christ Says (1 Timothy 1:15)

The saying is trustworthy and deserving of full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am the foremost.

Trustworthy, reliable testimony: it’s one of the greatest needs in any society. It may also be among the most problematic.

It’s a problem in society. In business, politics, charities, even religion: we are almost daily confronted with allegations or evidence of malfeasance and the effort to cover it over. Or, conversely, people say what others want to hear (or what they think others want to hear) without clear regard for the validity or truth of that statement. Then, later, disappointment and disillusionment set in, followed by cynicism about all authority.

It’s a problem among people. A few years back, it was the fad to say, “I lied!” – even when making a mistake. The casual nature of interpersonal dishonesty in our time gives every serious person pause. Dishonesty has a corrosive effect at every level.

It’s a problem of ultimate questions. As we consider the issues of God, destiny, truth, beauty, love – in short, all the great questions, how can we find a solid base on which to build our lives and our beliefs?

Paul writes to Timothy that “the saying is trustworthy”. Why is it trustworthy?

1. It is from God. It is not based merely on human authority. And we know from Scripture and experience that God’s character is just, loving, and good.

2. It is tested by experience. Those who have experienced the forgiveness, grace, and faithfulness of Christ, especially in the most difficult circumstances, attest readily to its verity and strength.

3. It is reasonable. Those who attack Christianity, even theism generally, have to give an account of the source of goodness. This, I find, they singularly fail to do convincingly. Yet it must come from somewhere beyond merely “enlightened self-interest” and cultural consensus. A God who redeems His creation is in keeping with the character of a God who creates the world, moreover an orderly world.


Lord, your testimonies are reasonable, just, and true. Let me be grounded in them, and lead others to confidence in your goodness and faithfulness. Amen.


(Prince Frederick, Maryland)

"... overflowed for me"

WHAT GOD DID FOR ME: 1 Timothy 1:14

and the grace of our Lord overflowed for me with the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus.

When John, our older son, was about five, he gave us a vivid illustration of overflowing grace. We were living in the parsonage at Lusby, which had a bathroom on the upper bedroom floor, over a second bathroom on the ground level by my office. One day, for reasons I can no longer remember, he decided to fill the bathtub with water. He turned the taps on, then went away and was distracted by something else. Like all modern tubs, this one had an overflow relief drain; but the overflow was not sufficient to compensate for the inflow. Gradually, first the tub and then the floor began to fill with water, so that we were beginning to work on a healthy little aquarium on the second floor.

John, bless him, was oblivious to the problem he was creating. So was I, until I interrupted my work for a relief break downstairs, and went into the bathroom. When I turned on the light, it seemed odd, so I looked up. That's when I noticed that the large dish which served as the cover for the light bulbs was full of water. I knew this, because of the unaccustomed cool rippling effect of the light coming through the fixture, and because of the small stream which was even then beginning to make its way to the tile floor of that bathroom. Quickly, I flipped off the switch to prevent half the house from shorting out, and ran to investigate the problem. John, who was by this time pleasantly immersed in other quiet pursuits, was innocently amazed at the deluge of which he was the small creator. Fortunately, we didn't have to replace the whole ceiling.

St. Augustine of Hippo taught that God uses something he called operating grace, by which God woos and draws us to Himself. This grace is always active, and always effective, whether we are aware of it or not. It continually seeks us, draws us, and would enfold us in the love of Christ. John Wesley referred to this as preventing grace (we now call it "prevenient" grace), or the grace which comes before. Its fruit is faith, and the love of Christ calls forth a reflecting love from us, who taste God's goodness.

God's grace is above, showering down on us, even before we know it. As for Paul, so also for you and for me.

Lord, thank you for your astounding grace, which is at work before I'm aware of it. Let me draw upon this grace to grow in faith and the depth of my love for you and for others. In Christ, Amen.


Dunkirk, Maryland

"Ignorantly in unbelief"

GROUNDS FOR MERCY: 1 Timothy 1:13 (part 2)

But I acted ignorantly in unbelief.

Paul here sets down the first of two grounds he will cite for God’s forgiveness of him: he didn’t know what he was doing, and did not understand what was at stake.

This is a statement deeply rooted in the Jewish tradition. The Torah makes a clear distinction between unintentional sin and that which is done “with a high hand” (as the old KJV puts it): the first is pardonable and the latter is far more grievous. So also the Psalmist asks to be kept clear from “hidden faults” (Ps 19:12). In the New Testament, Hebrews 10:26 ff. reflects this same sense, and the present tense of “to sin” in 1 John 3 probably does as well (as is so translated by ESV: “keeps on sinning”). Paul, in the words of Jesus’ intercession for His persecutors from the cross, “did not know what he was doing”.

Yet Paul still feels the weight of this sin, and carries a sense of unworthiness even as he claims the freedom of grace (which is the second great ground of redemption as we will see). Sin is a serious thing, known or unknown; and the closer we get to Christ, the more aware we are of that fact and of our tendency to be on the wrong side of it. It is by the forbearance of a merciful God that we find grace.

Lord of all knowledge, forgive my faults done in ignorance and with a lack of faith, or faith in the wrong thing. Fill me with your presence, and give to me the wisdom that comes from you so that, like the Apostle, I may turn and bless and help others along their pilgrim way. Amen.


(Lusby, Maryland)

"Though formerly ..."

CHRIST CHANGES LIVES (1 Timothy 1:13)

... though formerly I was a blasphemer, persecutor, and insolent opponent. But I received mercy because I had acted ignorantly in unbelief ....

Paul has outlined his call and charge, the sacred trust Christ has given him and the task for which He gives strength. Now the Apostle offers a kind of “truth-in-advertising” disclaimer, pointing to his own humanness in the form of a very sinful past, rebelling against God’s purpose and indeed seeking to stamp out the work of Christ.

Paul was a blasphemer. The word refers to someone who slanders God. By opposing Christ, Paul was opposing God Himself. By saying and doing terrible things against the Way, Paul had been deriding and disrespecting God.

He was a persecutor. The Greek means one who “pursues”, i.e., chases with a malicious intent. From house to house, city to city, Paul travelled with letters and instructions to oppose the Church. Yet Christ identifies with His Church; for as Jesus said, “For as much as you do it to one of the least of these, you do it to me.”

He acted in a fashion which was insolent. With the shiny-eyed focus of a True Believer, Paul knew that he was 100% right. There was no margin for moderation, mediation, meditation, or even new information – until the Lord Himself met Paul on that Damascus Road.

It has been said that there are a lot of “used-to-be’s”, a lot of “formerly’s”, in the Kingdom of God.
Thank God for that! Christ is able to transform lives wherever and whenever He encounters us. This is also a bulwark for each of us who are growing into discipleship as we take it to heart; for no matter how “advanced” one becomes, no matter how “perfect”, each of us is still a “formerly”. If it was true of Paul, it is true for each disciple since.

Lord, thank you for calling me from what I was, to what you will make me. The transformation has begun, but it is not yet complete. Keep me from complacency, or pride of achievement, or the self-righteousness which so easily takes hold. Let me be ablaze for you, as Paul was. In the Name of Christ. Amen.


Lusby, Maryland

ENVISIONING A SCIENTIFIC FUTURE

BOOK REVIEW: Michio Kaku, The Physics of the Future.

Theoretical physicist and futurist Michio Kaku has given the general reading public a treat with his The Physics of the Future, a tour de force of current developments and enticing possibilities about what may be to come, based on projections of science in the near, middle, and more distant future (defined approximately and variously as within about 10 years, within about 20-30 years, and out 50-100 years or more).

The strengths of Kaku's work are immediately evident. It is a short course on emerging technologies ranging from robotics and the biology of pedagogy to propulsion to nanotechnology. Spanning the physical and life sciences, it represents amazing breadth. It is a vision of tomorrow anchored in science and reason. I found the book to be, in many ways, a literal education.

There are some limits to the book, however, beginning with the title. Though himself a physicist, the book Kaku has authored is really less about science than about its practical applications. It might have more accurately been titled, "The Engineering of the Future". (Realizing as I do that authors often have little control over the titles of their books, this is perhaps more a critique of the publisher than the writer.)

Other limitations include:

1. In spots, the imagination of the writer seems limited. The projections are basically straight-line based on current technical developments, and do not allow for the sudden transformations of paradigm or surges of knowledge which take place in the real world, as we have often seen in modern times but by no means only in recent history. Such sudden, transformational breakthroughs have included: the phonetic alphabet, the arch, printing, and of course the digital computer. Unexpected breakthroughs are of course not things which can be anticipated; however, Kaku's writing and viewpoint, at least in this work, appears to leave little room for them.

2. All religion is seen as superstition. (Though he does occasionally quote from texts viewed as holy by various traditions.)

3. Possibly in part as a consequence of #2, there is a breathtaking moral naivete in the book. The author's position seems to be that if we could just put the smartest, most rational and scientifically-grounded people in charge, then all would be well. Not only does this not take into consideration the difference between various kinds of knowledge and wisdom, but it flies in the face of recent history in terms of the brutality of regimes marked by godless or totalitarian ideologies.

Kaku frequently refers to science conferring "godlike" power and making human beings as gods. This is chilling, not only as an echo of Genesis 3 ("you shall be like gods"), but in implicitly raising the question (as Kaku never does) of what our present society would actually do with "godlike" power.

4. There are a few "dreams" or "visions" of the future which strike this reader as being more in the nature of nightmares. For example: the possibility of robotic replacements for human bodies, offering a kind of faux, cybernetic immortality. On the other hand, when Kaku states that there is nothing inherent in human life that preprograms it for mortality (for instance, the DNA molecule itself transmits immortally from generation to generation), he comes closer than he realizes to affirming principles of Christian theological anthropology.

Very informative and frequently entertaining, Kaku's book is great for what it does. As with many authors, however, when he strays over into areas where he presumes understanding that he does not really possess, he reveals the limitations of his futurology, and provides an unconscious warning about possible things to come.

Kaku, Michio. The Physics of the Future: How Science Will Shape Human Destiny and Our Daily Lives by the Year 2100. Anchor, 2012. 480 pp. in paperback ed. (I listened to the CD edition.)


Prince Frederick, Maryland (Providence)

KEEP THE COLLEGE, BUT DITCH THE 22ND

On the Election and Continuation of the President of the United States

There has been chatter again lately ... as there has been with nearly every Presidential election going back to Jimmy Carter's in 1976 (and probably before, but I just cannot remember) about amending the U.S. Constitution to provide for the direct election of the President by popular vote, rather than through the framers' mechanism of the Electoral College. These calls increase in shrillness whenever a minority President (by popular vote) is elected, or when there is a contentious election like that of 2000.

This call seems to have greater appeal for Democrats than Republicans, perhaps because it seems to reflect a more populist mindset, or perhaps because the Democratic Party has traditionally enjoyed an edge in the plurality of party affiliation. But whether it's cold political calculus ("whether"? did I really say "whether"?) alone, or whether there is an admixture of philosophy behind it, it's a dubious proposition at best.

I say that the framers were wise, and doing away with the College would be a bad idea. Why?

First of all, because it fits with the federalist vision of the Constitution. The problem of population-versus-regional representation is not a new one: it goes back to Virginia and Pennsylvania versus Connecticut and Rhode Island in the 1780's. Abandoning the federalist model would lead to shifts in our political calculus as a country which could effectively freeze out some areas from the levers of power. My own state of Maryland provides an instructive example: since the 1960's, both houses of the General Assembly have been based on population, with the effect that, should any 2 of the three big jurisdictions in the state (by number of people) agree as touches anything on earth, or at least within Maryland, it shall be done for them almost assuredly. (The "Big Three" are Montgomery and Prince Georges counties, and Baltimore City.) This doesn't mean that the outlying counties have no voice (they just have to sway the Big Boys) or influence (the powerful president of the state senate is from Southern Maryland, for instance), but the political clout of much of the state is severely burdened and diluted by this strictly-representational scheme. Which, not coincidentally, also helps to maintain the perpetual majority of one party in power.

In the election of 2000, we witnessed the Florida Fiasco with the crazily compromised balloting of a few jurisdictions, most notoriously West Palm Beach County. Niceties like "hanging chads" would have been a humorous footnote to the election, to which only the most dedicated students of electoral arcana would have paid any attention, were the election not so close that a few popular votes within one closely-contested and very populous state could affect the whole election. This will happen from time to time in any system. There will also be occasional shenanigans, like the stuffed and missing ballot boxes of Texas in 1948, or the (alleged) unsubtle stacking of votes in certain urban precincts like Philadelphia in 2012. But make the whole thing by popular vote, and these problems multiply to potentially as many precincts as there are from sea to shining sea. Every county has the potential to become West Palm Beach. Do we really want that?

A strictly popular vote in a country with predictably "blue" coasts and upper Midwest and "red" prairie and South also invites a permanent sectionalism which would be seen (rightly) as effectively disenfranchising large swaths of the country whose values and political philosophy do not match those of the big cities or coasts. What happens when large numbers of people believe that the political calculus is permanently stacked against them? See 1776. Or 1861. Also not what we want. The current system provides enough uncertainty and shift to keep one region or cluster of regions from gaining a permanent lock on power.

So keep the College. On the other hand, I think we should scrap the 22nd Amendment, limiting the President to two terms in office. The idea of doing away with this amendment, which is particularly championed by Rep. Jose Serrano (D-NY), who introduces a measure to repeal every session and has done so again in the new Congress last month, is one whose time has come.

The 22nd is a codification of tradition going back to George Washington, which held sway from the first through the 31st presidents. The idea was that the American president is different from monarchs; a traditional limit of two terms prevents a king or Napoleon-like figure from emerging. The exigences of World War II was the rationale used by FDR for seeking a third, then a fourth, term. Congress decided to prevent that from happening again by passing the 22nd Amendment, which was proposed in 1947 and ratified almost exactly four years later in 1951. It limits the President to two terms or, in the case of succession to complete a predecessor's term, ten years (half of a term plus two more) in office. (Harry Truman, who was President at the time, was excluded from the law.)

In my opinion, there are good reasons for enacting a 28th amendment repealing the 22nd.

First, and in my mind the most compelling argument, is that any second-term President becomes a lame duck almost the day he (or in the future, she) takes the oath for that second time. The chief of state's hand would be strengthened politically simply with the possibility of election to a subsequent term. In that case, lame-duck status would not begin until after a decision not to run again, or a subsequent lost election. It would also change the stature of former presidents who, like Grover Cleveland (who won) and Theodore Roosevelt (who lost) would always be potential future presidents as well.

A second reason is more philosophical. With the exceptions of the native-born citizen rule and the age requirement (35 years), both of which are in the Constitution, we the people can elect whomever we please as chief executive. Oops, except for someone who has filled two terms already. In effect, one generation has bound the decisions of future ones about who can or cannot be chosen to lead the country. Such is in my view a fundamentally misbegotten idea.

Third, I believe that the world today is much more like the world of FDR than the world of George Washington in two significant ways. We are engaged in ongoing global crisis intervention to a much greater degree, and requiring a much greater acumen (presumably to be gained by experience in office) than in GW's time. Also, we live, on average, much longer and in better health than in Washington's time -- or indeed, than even in the days of Franklin and Harry. It seems silly to limit the use to which the experience of an incumbent, or former president, can be put.

We have examples of world leaders around us who have served long and well. Britain's case is perhaps the most instructive, with Margaret Thatcher (Conservative) and Tony Blair (Labor) both doing well with long tenures, longer in both cases than any American president could serve (11.5 years for Thatcher, 10 years and a month for Blair). Francois Mitterand served 14 years, or two consecutive seven-year terms as president of France, also effectively and with distinction.

We might ask, how might history have been different had there been no 22nd? The presidents affected would have been those from Eisenhower to the present (so far). Eisenhower's age and health would likely have prevented his seeking a third term. Kennedy was assassinated. Johnson chose not to seek the second full term that he could have sought because of unpopularity stemming from the Vietnam War. Nixon resigned during his second term. Ford was defeated at his one attempt to be elected President in his own right, and Carter served for one term only. Reagan probably could not have been re-elected for a third term, given his age and the Alzheimer's Disease which was beginning to become apparent and to which he would eventually succumb -- though he certainly enjoyed sufficient popularity to stand again. George Bush (41) was defeated on his re-election bid. Clinton probably could have, and would have, been re-elected. George W. Bush (43) would likely not have stood, and would likely not have won. It is too early to tell about President Obama.

Thus in the history of the United States since Truman, there is only one person who likely could have run and been re-elected. Though I am not a huge fan of Mr. Bill, it is worth pausing to think about how he might have handled, say, 9-11-2001. One could argue that our national foreign and security policies up to that time contributed to the attack's success. And certainly it is hard to imagine President Clinton reacting with the same quick decisiveness that won accolades and respect for Bush soon after 9/11. But Clinton also enjoyed a kind of respect and cooperative relationship around the world that we have not seen since those early post-9/11 days, and it's quite possible he might have avoided some of the mistakes made in Iraq and Afghanistan under his successors. In other words, we could have done worse than re-electing Bill Clinton. And arguably, have.

The Framers were not omniscient. Parts of the Constitution have at times desperately cried out for amendment, such as those concerning human servitude and the election of senators. Oversights have needed to be corrected, injustices righted, and things that just didn't work, fixed. But in most ways Mr. Madison and his peers got it amazingly right. And to my mind, these two, the Electoral College and the absence of a term limit for the President of the United States, are among them.

So let's keep the College, and ditch the 22nd.


Prince Frederick, Maryland (Providence)

"I Thank Him"

THE COMPELLING APPOINTMENT: 1 Timothy 1:12

I thank him who has given me strength, Christ Jesus our Lord, because he judged me faithful appointing me to his service.

Having wrapped up his discussion on the danger of false teaching, Paul moves on to the matter of his own calling and credentials for writing, giving both positive and negative examples and points for his protege, Timothy.

[He] who has given me strength. The task is too much for the Apostle alone, as it is for any of us. On the other hand, God does not call and deploy without giving the means to do the job, whether of internal or external resources. This is absolutely necessary. In my father's office for many years there has hung a framed prayer for ministry, imploring the guidance and protection of God lest the one making the prayer make a mess of everything. Anyone who has sought to fulfill a spiritual calling knows well the aptness of this prayer, and the dangers which lurk close by. But God is faithful to lend the strength necessary to the occasion. What is required from us is faith: not in the sense of some kind of herculean spiritual effort that we have to work up to, but like the simple turning of a tap to open the way for God's resourcing to flow, saying "yes, I will trust" to God's offer of all things needful. Faith is our assent, yours and mine, to the abundant provision of God.

To faith, then, God adds not just ability and skill but stamina, too, to continue. To stamina God adds anointing. To anointing, God adds wisdom. To wisdom, God adds compassion. And to compassion, love. This is the strength which God imparts to us.

He judged me faithful. Paul (as he will soon aver) was a persecutor of the church! He would have seemed the last man to be trusted -- as his first experience at Damascus and Jerusalem proved. Yet God had other plans. In what sense then is this true?

Paul had faith. He trusted God, and knew God's power, even if it was at first wrongly applied.

Paul was devoted. He gave 125% of his effort (as we say) to the "cause", whether it was his misguided cause (opposing God's work by persecuting "the Way" of Christ) or his later, holy one. The energy was there and focused in intensity -- it just needed to be focused in the right direction. Many of the Church's greatest leaders over the years were persons who had great flaws or who had been at one time great persecutors of the faith, but whom God turned in a different direction.

Paul was faithful in his work. Starting from the beginning (see Acts 9), he persevered against all odds and under all circumstances, to the end.

Appointed to His service. Jesus said, "Many are called, but few are chosen." Paul could not keep the message to himself. The call is a sacred one, and the Holy Spirit opened the doors for the Apostle to fulfill it.


Lord Jesus Christ, you have given me strength to do Your work. Grant that I may live fully-charged and fully-engaged in the work to which You call me, as You have been to me. Appoint me each day to my allotted tasks for You, but let me ever fulfill them in loving service to You. In Your holy Name I pray, Lord Christ. Amen.


Prince Frederick, Maryland (Providence)

"I thank him who has given me strength"

THE SOURCE OF OUR ABILITY: 1 Timothy 1:12

I thank him who has given me strength, Christ Jesus our Lord, because he judged me faithful, appointing me to his service. (1 Tm 1:12)


Just this morning I had the opportunity to attend a most wonderful worship service, at a small country parish in northern Calvert County. St. Edmond's Church has it going on: I was greeted very warmly from the time I stepped up to the door, was helped to participate in the service by my neighbors in the pews, and was uplifted by spirited worship and a great sermon that touched my heart. I Pastor Joan Jones to be a friend as well as a colleague, yet it was the first time I had heard the privilege of hearing her preach. Wow.

Part of the heart of the message -- which was on joy, a spiritual category as opposed to mere happiness (which may have to do with external circumstances), focused on gratitude for having been able to get up this morning, and to dress oneself, and drive oneself to church. If God can accomplish all that, what else will He bring out of the day? It was marvelously delivered, and inspiring.

Paul would have concurred. In life, it is God who gives us strength. When God appoints us to His service, there will be challenges and sacrifices, hurdles and hardships -- often, just because they are the stuff of human life. Yet God gives us the strength to endure and prevail, the more so since we are appointed to fulfill His mission in the world.

As for St. Edmond's, by the way, the church presumably derives its name from the saint who was king of East Anglia in the IX. century, and who died a martyr after capture by hostile pagan forces rather than deny the faith. Our local St. Edmond's is clearly a place to find faith and perseverance under fire, as well.


Prince Frederick, Maryland (Providence)

TWO ON LAY PASTORAL CARE

BOOK REVIEW: Stone, The Caring Church and Farabaugh, Lay Pastoral Care Giving

Recently, as background for writing a proposal for a local church's efforts at launching a new lay pastoral care ministry, I was offered these two books to read. They are both helpful, in different ways, though not evenly so.

Howard W. Stone's 1991 book is apparently a bit of a classic; and while it is dated in its approach to communicating (for instance) and lacks an awareness of some of the modern pitfalls of caring ministry, such as navigating in the waters currently infested with the sharks of fears of litigation and the shadow of various kinds of misconduct.

Stone offers a general, and fairly comprehensive, approach to a simple yet potentially robust ministry. His method can be adapted to various circumstances and needs; yet, like all such guides, stresses the imperatives of solid training and supervision, and support by pastoral leadership that is moreover willing to give more than mere lip service to standing aside enough, or delegating enough, to permit the laity to exercise ministry as called and spiritually equipped by God. There are some helpful and well-presented case studies, as well as topically-arranged discussions of relationships, listening skills, hospital visitation, and grief. Stone's approach leaves lots of latitude for local variations.

Especially nice in this work was the emphasis on spiritual gifts -- too often missing from considerations of lay ministry of all kinds. The commissioning service is also good: simple in design, not too long, but lifting the appropriate themes before the congregation.

Farabaugh's book is titled "Lay Pastoral Care Giving", but should be titled "Lay Pastoral Care Giving for Seniors (Mostly)". The author's expertise is clearly and explicitly with the elder set; however, it seems that almost every chapter and topic continually comes back around to this demographic, and in the end to the neglect of some other key considerations (issues of youth and families, to name two -- though there is some attention given to children, almost parenthetically). The book is also badly edited, embarrassingly so. On the other hand, the chart on pages 63 ff. is helpful in its laying out of developmental issues and needs, as is the discussion of stages of grief -- though there lacks sufficient development of context for this information to be truly useful to the average reader.

One of the most disappointing parts of the book is the dialogue on pp. 85-86, which is extremely unhelpful: the model shows only the caregiver's concerns and agenda being important in the conversation!

Both of these works can provide information that will be useful to those setting up training and execution of a lay pastoral care ministry. However, the Farabaugh book requires some serious adaptation and rounding out (not to mention tolerance for all the usage errors), while the Stone book merely needs some updating for more contemporary concerns and issues.

(With thanks to Cal Colvin and Rev. David Graves for making the works available for my review.)

Stone, Howard W. The Caring Church: A Guide for Lay Pastoral Care. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991. 128 pp.

Farabaugh, Timothy M. Lay Pastoral Care Giving. Nashville: Discipleship Resources, 2009. 154 pp.


Prince Frederick, Maryland (Providence)

HOME FROM HOGWARTS

REFLECTIONS ON THE HARRY POTTER SERIES

Well, I finally finished them. Sometime last month, I at long last fulfilled my determination to read to the end of the last book of the Harry Potter series by J.K. Rowling. Some of it was on paper, some on CD -- I think one of the early ones was even on cassette (back in the day!). But finally, I got done. Now, having stopped watching the flicks after The Prisoner of Azkaban because it was hard to read the novels after ... I can see the rest of the movies. And look forward to it!

When H.P. first became popular, everyone was atwitter. Teachers were excited because kids wanted to read (and lo and behold, Scholastic landed the publication rights!). I remember seeing a picture in U.S. News and World Report after the first book hit the shelves, showing a group of children all with Harry Potter glasses on. It was the craze. But there were naysayers, too, as there always are -- sadly, predictably, tiresome-ly, especially among the more religious folks, who were obsessing about all this talk of witchcraft and attendant things. (Never mind that they celebrate Christmas at that school for wizards.) Alas. But it really didn't dampen the enthusiasm of most (including some Christian kids from very conservative families I knew, who were devouring the books almost under cover, doing everything but putting them in a brown wrapper) ... nor should it have.

So now that I've read the whole series, what do I think?

Well, they are good in almost every way.

1. They deal with the reality of good and evil in everyday life. The sheer weighty banality of evil, especially in its organizational and bureaucratic guise, was an almost constant backdrop in the books. (C.S. Lewis would have approved.) The reality of evil, both personal and in its consequential, transpersonal form -- but of the possibility of setting things right, albeit with the lingering effects of consequences from misdoings ... all of this is good. There is a price to pay to see the good; there is a price to pay for choosing the bad. Prices are unavoidable in life -- what do you want to pay them for, that's the question.

2. Who you are matters. Each person has as role to play: not only Harry, Hermoine, Ron, Dumbledore, etc., but also the Malfoys, Snape, and their lot. There is redemption (Perry Weasley), betrayal (Severus Snape), opportunities missed (Tom Riddle) and won (Draco Malfoy). No one is perfect -- not even Dumbledore, who is the closest thing to a divine figure, but has his flaws; no one, not even Voldemort, has to be irredeemable. Decisions matter, as with Dumbledore's to eschew the temptations of power in the Ministry of Magic, Harry's to embrace his destiny, or Hermione's to remain the faithful friend and companion, come what may.

3. Appearances versus substance. One of the current expressions I despise the most is: "Perception is reality." No, perception is perception and reality is reality. This is one of the more important life-lessons driven home time and again in this series. Bravo. While perceptions -- really, misperceptions, can cause people to do things they shouldn't and therefore fudge things up, in the end it's the substance which matters.

4. The importance of friendship. Golden, this is. I'm not sure, for this reason among others, that these books could have been written by an American, because of our rather superficial and debased everyday conception of friendship. There is a profundity here which bears meditating upon, in the price -- the sustained, durable price -- these friends are willing to pay for one another, and the patience with which they bear with one another and accept one another.

5. Choices determine life-trajectories. Decisions matter. You can sometimes fix things -- they are, often, in the series -- but never redo them. The moving finger writes ....

6. The unexplained, random, and unknown. There is a sense of mystery in the series. Yes, there is magic -- but there is always more and a deeper magic than is known. Some control is possible, but not total control. There are limits to power and influence. There is that which is larger than oneself.

7. Sometimes, the noblest expression of power is to turn away from power. This is what Voldemort never understood, but Dumbledore and Harry, in different ways, did. We often think that things would be better if we could just control events better. That's a mirage, not only because it's impossible, but because it's often not true.

A great series. Up there with Narnia, the Rings, and a few others that all kids should have the opportunity to read.

Now, to catch up on the flicks! I can't wait ....


Prince Frederick, Maryland (Providence)

"In accordance with the gospel"

THE ENTRUSTED WORD: 1 Timothy 1:11

... in accordance with the gospel of the glory of the blessed God with which I have been entrusted.

This verse closes out the first major section of chapter 1. The emphasis here is on being entrusted; this is not some "word" or teaching that Paul has cooked up, nor is the good news some product of his overheated wishful thinking, a dream he is trying to force into reality. Rather, it reflects a sacred charge. But to what end?

Safekeeping. In the ritual for ordination in The United Methodist Church, the ordinand is charged and pledges to proclaim the doctrine of the Church "and no other". Part of the role of the Christian teacher is to safeguard the treasure "old and new" of the message of salvation, and its attendant messages of God's righteousness, human sin and the wrath of God, and the eternal intention and purpose of God to redeem the fallen humanity whom He loves. Our message must be rooted securely in the word received -- as it is, not as we would want or amend it to be -- unchanging but interpreted afresh and given vitality in our own time, in every time that is "now", "today".

Proclaiming. This is a treasure, yes, this Gospel -- but it is one which is by name and design that is to be shared. As the holiness of God both tell us that God is perfectly righteous, yet is used by God to bring us into a relationship of righteousness before Him -- to make us righteous -- so also the Gospel is meant to define the people of God called the Church, but in such a way as to draw "all men unto" the Lord of the Church. God's judgment is intended to bring us to mercy. Our defining the bounds of the Church and her message must be in order to drawing others within those bounds, not for the purpose of holding them out.

Paul is therefore responsible: to the message, and to the Lord of the message. It is an awesome charge, in the true sense of that overused word. The word "entrusted" (episteuthen) comes from the verb pisteuo, the same verb as "to believe", "to trust". Paul is called to keep faith, so that others might have faith. And it all rests, so to speak, on Christ's faith in Paul, to whom He has entrusted the message. With what has Christ entrusted you and me? How do we keep faith?

And it is awesome in another way: Paul mentions "glory" (doxa), a reference to the same attribute of God's holiness which filled the tabernacle and the temple with His Presence, and which is the destiny of the children of God. Contrary to the parodies of this world, seen in entertainment and media and held by many, God does not call us to death, bondage, boredom, or hopelessness, but to glory, joy, and abundant life. "Satan's glory glitters; God's glory shines."


Prince Frederick, Maryland (Providence)

A CONTINENT'S CALAMITY

BOOK REVIEW: Peter Wilson, The Thirty Years War: Europe's Tragedy (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Belknap-Harvard, 2009). xxii + 997 pp.

I have been reading this book a long time. That is not only because of its length though, at over 850 pages of core text, it is substantial in terms of heft. It is rather because I started it a couple of years ago with a reading buddy, then life intervened ... and finally I was just determined to finish it up. And I'm glad that I did, all things considered, because it has added to my understanding of European history, in particular that swath bounded by Luther's 95 Theses (1517) on the one hand, and the dawn of the Enlightenment on the other. There is of course also the relevance for church history of this conflict, defined as it was -- at least in its public relations -- as a war between Protestants and Roman Catholics, though of course it was not that simple. Yet it was probably more purely an expression of religious conflict in military terms than were even the Crusades (given Saladin's predilection for alliances of convenience with European nobles, and the Crusaders' own squabbles and attacks against the Greek Orthodox and against Jews in what was ostensibly a fight against Islam).

That said, this book is rather a tough read, and not because the subject is especially difficult -- though a war with the span of a generation and a half is bound to be somewhat confusing to relate.

Wilson's account is very comprehensive in what it does. It is in the main a military-political history, with the emphasis on the former. However, any wider interpretive framework is rather minimal, though he relates some good stories and concludes with a chapter which purports to make some larger sense out of the whole epoch. On the other hand, it is not really a reference work. Even the maps, sprinkled throughout the text to give a sense of major engagements, give a sense of little more than general geographic position and topography, and the aggregate movements of the armies.

There were several insights to be gained, at least for me, from reading the book.

One, the role of Sweden as a spoiler on the continent. The muscle-flexing of the Swedes in this conflict really set the stage for their engagements with Peter the Great's Russia not a century later, which brought about the beginning of the end of Swedish hegemony in northern European affairs. At the same time, the importance of ties between Sweden and some of the German states -- also Lutheran Protestants -- begins to become clearer ... ties which will be important through Sweden's trade assistance to the German's economic militarism in both world wars.

Speaking of the Swedes, Gustavus' daughter and heir, Queen Christiana, emerges as a truly remarkable and underrated personage in Europe's modern history. From Wilson's telling, one begins to wonder whether there might have been some gender ambiguity with her (more so than with other "mannish" female monarchs, such as Russia's Tsarina Anna Petrovna).

Two, the financial ruin which the war brought upon most of the participating states. A cautionary tale which bears retelling with each generation.

Third, the role, not only of the Roman Church (i.e., the Pope), but of key ecclesiastics in positions of power and influence, such as Richelieu and Mazarin in France.

Fourth, the political, moral, and cultural catastrophe which is war. Spain's heavy and calamatous investment in the conflict proved to be a major contributor to her undoing as a European power ... even as France's insertion into the U.S. War for Independence provoked the crisis which brought down the Bourbon dynasty. The strong European allergy to religiously-delineated conflict, meanwhile, continues today: in Germany and the Netherlands through the legal and social expectation of mutual tolerance; in France, under the guise of secularism. Meanwhile, regions less touched by the heat of conflict -- at least, directly -- have been historically able to give in to their particular brand of chauvinism: Austria, Poland, Spain, Russia, to name four.

Wilson's tome is expert in its detailed accounts of the battles and metatrends. He is not especially interested in the history of ideas; but there are clues to this for the serious researcher who wishes to follow up for more. There's not a lot on personalities beyond monarchs and key military leaders -- this also would have made the book more useful, interesting, and less one-dimensional. More on everyday life would have been helpful as well.

I certainly learned a bit from this book; what was largely a shadowy period in my mind now has some definition and some gaps in my understanding of the flow of European history during the period between the Reformation and the Enlightenment have been filled in. Still, with the lacking cohesive narrative I could not recommend this as a useful book for the average student, which is a shame because otherwise it is a good resource.


Prince Frederick, Maryland (Providence)

"Whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine"

THE UNLOVING AND UNLOVELY: 1 Timothy 1:10

The Apostle continues his list of those who are the proper subjects of the Law by listing those persons who, in their unloving actions, show themselves to be outside God’s purposes for humankind. In verse 9, he cites those who show contempt for their parents (or elders) and for life. Now he moves on to other categories of offenders:

“The sexually immoral.” This is Greek pornois, a general term for those who practice sexual immorality. (A related noun, the feminine pornê, means “prostitute”; compare our word pornography.) As Paul points out elsewhere, sexual sin is a sin against one’s own body, and of course another’s; and it tears at the covenant bonds of community and fellowship.

“Men who practice homosexuality.” The Greek is arsenokoitai, a word which has become much-disputed, but basically is a compound meaning “those who copulate with men (males)”. This practice was contrary to the moral and holiness codes of the Old Testament, and the prohibition carries over into the Church.

“Enslavers.” Andrapodistais means “those who make off with (i.e., steal) people”, so the reference is to human trafficking, as we call it. This continues to be a plague in our time, and not just in semi-feudal societies: the roll call of offending nations includes western democracies. Anyone who wonders how there could have been any debate over the Scriptural disdain for the slave trade in the fifteenth through nineteenth centuries and thereby exercise a little chronological chauvinism, should bear in mind the current discussions about the first two terms, above. In each age, the residents of that epoch must come to terms with its own struggles and sins in the light of Scripture, or else dismiss the Bible as irrelevant.

“Liars.” The Greek is pseustais, a general term for active dishonesty. The Decalogue prohibited false witness, though the tenor of the Old Testament is clear that lying is disapproved by God as well (with some notable caveats). This is a more comprehensive proscription.

“Perjurers.” Perjury is false testimony that goes beyond a simple lie in its impact, which is to cheat or defraud another. The Greek word epiorkois, also refers to those who break oaths. This latter reading is perhaps to be preferred here in translation to draw out the meaning of the Greek original, since perjury is also presumably included in the previous term.

“Whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine.” What is striking about this expression is that it implicitly equates sound teaching with right practice. As Wesley once said, in a quote I see whenever I visit Wesley Seminary’s main campus in Washington: “Unite the two so long disjoin’d: knowledge and vital piety.” Paul also makes the point that the Bible is not an exhaustive field-manual of legal prescriptions and proscriptions. W.C. Fields is famous for having drawled, when caught reading the Bible: “I’m looking for the loopholes.” Not only do they not exist, but the standard of God’s holiness cannot be limited by any human framework of regulation, even an inspired one. On the other hand, there is much in the world which is “contrary to” (lit., “set against” or “standing in opposition to”) “sound doctrine” – the word “sound” here carrying also the overtone of “healthy”.

When I was in high school, my French class took a field trip to a restaurant as a cultural-enrichment experience. The restaurant was located off the Capitol Beltway several exits north of the school. In those days, it was possible to travel in private cars with students as drivers, something which would never be permitted now. We went in about three vehicles, had a lovely time at the restaurant, and left to come back with my teacher’s admonition, “Go straight back to school” ringing in our ears. And we did. Only ... we went the long way around the Beltway, in what would be forever enshrined in our retelling the tale as “The Grand Prix”. It was a wonder that none of us was killed, given the speeds at which we were tooling around the Beltway and the expansion project which was at that time going full-bore on the Virginia side, with concrete barriers and lane shifts. Technically, we complied, but not really. When we got back to campus, it was just in time to go home ... and to say hello to one very relieved teacher who laughed at our prank but must have been frantic with worry by that point.

Often we humans play such games with God, going through a pretense of obedience or a formal semblance of it, while heading off the exact opposite direction in our hearts, our affections, our practical service. We also take a great risk when we do this; and while we may return at length to the loving embrace of our heavenly Father, we expose ourselves and others needlessly to real hurt and pain, and rob ourselves of the joys of steady discipleship.

“In accordance with the gospel.” The Christian message is meant for life, to be life-bringing and life-enhancing. As Jesus said, “I came that you might have life, and have it abundantly.”


Washington, D.C. (North Capitol Street)