Category: Uncategorized

The is the first part of a basic nuts-and-bolts meta-sermon of sorts I gave on 5/4/2014. Here I look at the biblical precedent for some guy standing up in front of the congregation and talking for an hour. Alright, that’s probably a bit harsh! It’s not so bad. I also trace some of the history of how the pulpit supplanted the table during the Reformation and how audience and time context shapes presentation.

Prayer:

Father God, teach us your Word. Lord, compel us to not dismiss one page of it. We thank you for making your Word incarnate, for sending your son Jesus Christ to be not ink on a page but to singlehandedly fulfill every single letter and phrase of it on our behalf. Teach us to love your law, to heed your commandments, and to understand the kindness of your work on earth. But much more than that, I pray you release our grip that we may rest peacefully in the work of Christ. Amen.

Alright, today’s message is going to be a bit unusual. Rather than a proper Sermon like you might hear every week here, I’m going to be delivering a meta-sermon. That is, I’m going to preach about preaching. It’s like those plays like Hamlet that have the characters putting on their own play as part of the story. Or maybe like some clever movies where the 4th wall is broken and the scene zooms out to reveal the camera man and another guy close by with a boom microphone.

I want to talk about something that many of us here have experienced quite literally over a thousand times – maybe even two thousand times – sitting and listening to a sermon in church. Why do we do that? Have we had enough of that already? Are you still eager to hear the next one? If you’ve had kids, you probably remember the day they asked you where babies come from, but have you ever thought about where sermon’s come from?

I’m going to talk about that today, looking at the biblical precedent for preaching from the word, how it’s been practiced and adapted throughout history, and why we here at Bridge Bible Fellowship preach from the bible in a particular way. Finally, I’ll be giving you some background as to why for the next month or two, you’ll be hearing us preach through one of the lesser-known books of this minor prophets.

So what are we all doing here anyway? We’ve taken a couple hours out of our week to all get together here to worship our God, the one and only true and holy God whom we believe created everything there is and actually cares deeply about each of us human beings. We pray to him, we sing songs to him expressing how great and good he is. And then… we sit down and listen to some guy get up and yack for 45 minutes. What’s up with that? Sometimes what the guy has to say is really interesting or helpful and sometimes not. Why are we doing this? Did someone just make that up or are there good reasons for it? Why don’t we all just have coffee and pray together, or why not just mostly sing the whole time? We all have bibles at home now and lots of great books to read. Couldn’t we just learn the same stuff that way more conveniently?

Well, first off I’d like to start the way we usually start every sermon – with scripture. There is actually a great precedent for reading scripture out loud in public gatherings, as well as explaining and teaching about it. This is something that God has had his people do for thousands of years and we are following suit.

Exodus 24:12:

Then the LORD said to Moses, “Come up to Me on the mountain and be there; and I will give you tablets of stone, and the law and commandments which I have written, that you may teach them.”

God gives the law to Moses on stone tablets and he’s supposed to do what with them? Teach them to the people.

Deuteronomy 6:4-9

Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one! You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your strength. And these words which I command you today shall be in your heart. You shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, when you walk by the way, when you lie down, and when you rise up. You shall bind them as a sign on your hand, and they shall be as frontlets between your eyes. You shall write them on the doorposts of your house and on your gates.

Here, God commands us to diligently teach the scriptures to our children, and talk about them day in and day out, in our house and when were out and about. You think that would also include a worship gathering too? You bet. In that case, we’d probably have one of the other people that know the scriptures better than the average person do the talking. Makes sense.

Deuteronomy 31:9-14

So Moses wrote this law and delivered it to the priests, the sons of Levi, who bore the ark of the covenant of the Lord, and to all the elders of Israel. And Moses commanded them, saying: “At the end of every seven years, at the appointed time in the year of release, at the Feast of Tabernacles, when all Israel comes to appear before the Lord your God in the place which He chooses, you shall read this law before all Israel in their hearing. Gather the people together, men and women and little ones, and the stranger who is within your gates, that they may hear and that they may learn to fear the Lord your God and carefully observe all the words of this law, and that their children, who have not known it, may hear and learn to fear the Lord your God as long as you live in the land which you cross the Jordan to possess.”

Alright so here was instructions to, at the very least, every 7 years read ALL of scripture to the people out loud and “explain” it that they may carefully observe it. It’s on a sort of schedule and you make sure not to skip any of it. This is what God had Moses tell the priests to do anyway.

Nehemiah 8:8

They read from the Book of the Law of God, making it clear and giving the meaning so that the people understood what was being read.

So here, Ezra the priest reads the law to the people and explains it to them as he goes. A lot of scholars think that he is quite possibly TRANSLATING as he goes, since by this time, most of the people living in Israel would be speaking Aramaic instead of old Hebrew.

So that’s an old testament precedent for preaching. What about the new testament? Well, there is even more there. In the gospels, Jesus travels around for 3 years preaching and teaching. Now a lot of people have painted pictures of Jesus teaching and they often look something like this:

He’s outside, usually sitting on a hillside, surround by people that have been following him around. This painting by Carl Bloch shows Jesus giving the Sermon on the Mount (from Matthew). This is how Jesus taught some of the time, but the gospel accounts tell us that he did a lot of his teaching in the local synagogues. The synagogue was their equivalent of a local church. People met there weekly for worship, prayer, and teaching and only travelled to Jerusalem once or twice a year to make sacrifices at the temple. We see this all over the new testament.

Matthew 4:23

Jesus went throughout Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, proclaiming the good news of the kingdom, and healing every disease and sickness among the people.

Luke 4:14-21

Jesus returned to Galilee in the power of the Spirit, and news about him spread through the whole countryside. He was teaching in their synagogues, and everyone praised him.

He went to Nazareth, where he had been brought up, and on the Sabbath day he went into the synagogue, as was his custom. He stood up to read, 17 and the scroll of the prophet Isaiah was handed to him. Unrolling it, he found the place where it is written:

“The Spirit of the Lord is on me,
because he has anointed me
to proclaim good news to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners
and recovery of sight for the blind,
to set the oppressed free,
to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.”

Then he rolled up the scroll, gave it back to the attendant and sat down. The eyes of everyone in the synagogue were fastened on him. He began by saying to them, “Today this scripture is fulfilled in your hearing.”

So here is Jesus, teaching from the scriptures, in the local synagogue, to a public audience. He’s giving sermons, using scripture as a basis to talk about all kinds of things. In these verses, Jesus seems to be quite popular. Remember this is in the early part of his ministry, before the people turn against him.

After Jesus is killed and this rises from the grave, the apostles are compelled to tell people all about Him and spread Christianity throughout the world. How do they go about this? Well, we’re told they started out right away preaching in the synagogues again.

Why did they do this? Well, nearly all the first Christians were Jews. It only spread to Greece and Rome and the rest of the world a few decades later, especially after the apostle Paul got in on the act. So the people the apostles first wanted to tell were other Jews who were already going to church (synagogue) regularly. So they continued to teach from the scriptures just as before, but this time they put a new spin on it, connecting Jesus to many of the old prophecies and explaining how his death was the final sacrifice, reconciling us to God forever.

Acts 17:2-3

As was his custom, Paul went into the synagogue, and on three Sabbath days he reasoned with them from the Scriptures, explaining and proving that the Messiah had to suffer and rise from the dead.

Lets not forget Acts 20:7-12 though:

On the first day of the week we came together to break bread. Paul spoke to the people and, because he intended to leave the next day, kept on talking until midnight. There were many lamps in the upstairs room where we were meeting. Seated in a window was a young man named Eutychus, who was sinking into a deep sleep as Paul talked on and on. When he was sound asleep, he fell to the ground from the third story and was picked up dead. Paul went down, threw himself on the young man and put his arms around him. “Don’t be alarmed,” he said. “He’s alive!” Then he went upstairs again and broke bread and ate. After talking until daylight, he left. The people took the young man home alive and were greatly comforted.

So if you are ever sitting through a really boring sermon and having trouble staying awake, take heart! You are not alone. Here is a genuine biblical precedent for snore sermons. Even the great apostle Paul could apparently be kind of a drag sometimes. Maybe that also means that you could cut us some slack on a bad day too. At least you didn’t fall out the window and die, right?

Anyway, all this preaching from scripture continued as the church developed in the first century and on. Beyond the bible, the early history we have shows that Christians gathered to celebrate the Eucharist with bread and wine together, as well as sing, read the scriptures and listen to teaching. Over time, the four gospel accounts became part of the writings that were regularly read and taught about, as well as the letters from Paul and the other disciples that were copied and passed on from town to town. Eventually this formally became the New Testament we have today.

Past this, we have many records of great preachers and bible teachers through the centuries. Saint John Chrysostom was given his name, which means “golden mouthed” because apparently he was such a good preacher. St. Francis is another one whose preaching astounded people and opened their eyes to new angles on Jesus’s teachings.

Things really changed with the Protestant Reformation in the 1500s. We here at Bridge can trace much of roots back to these people and events – it’s a big part of who we are. The Reformers like Martin Luther, John Calvin, and others were really into preaching. The general feeling was that the scriptures had been neglected and that most priests were lousy bible teachers and their congregations ignorant of the basics of Christianity. The result was that hard-core preaching was moved to front and center of the weekly worship gathering. Before, the altar with the bread and wine was at the center of the room and the lectern or pulpit off to the side. Now they switched places in the room. Sermons became much longer, often an hour where they used to be just 10 minutes. The bar for quality was raised too, leading naturally toward requiring pastors to be more scholarly than in past centuries.

An example of how seriously this was taken can be seen in this quote from Martin Luther:

Even if Christ were given for us and crucified a thousand times, it would all be vain if the Word of God were absent and were not distributed and given to me with the bidding: this is for you, take what is yours.

What he is saying here is that understanding the gospel is really important. You can’t just hear it once and be dandy from then on out. You need to be reminded of it well throughout your life. This is because we are so quick to pile guilt and burdens on ourselves, forgetting that Jesus has done absolutely everything for us already.

I had a wonderful time watching this lecture/debate last night with about 15 friends on a big screen. Yes, that’s what some of us do for fun around here. Yes, there was beer. This is my summation of the conversation with some reflections.

Peter Leithart’s proposed future of Reformed Catholicism tends to elicit swift “yeah, but” reactions from all quarters. The reason is because the scope is so epic and powerful, but the details are not articulated and may contain thousand-year gaps. This leaves plenty of space for the imagination to try and fill in the space and to easily conjure insurmountable obstacles.

In describing his vision during the forum last night, Leithart began with the first day of creation, and how the separated light and darkness was good, but not good enough because on the second day God divides the firmament from the waters below. This narrative continued on with bright new beginnings of impossible births and rescues following long dark nights of exile and persecution. Protestantism’s current hyper-divisionist state is the latest in a string of nights to be followed by an even more mature day – perhaps not “very good” yet, but more good than anything before. It is a grand and sweeping history with a more unified future we are participating in somewhere at this moment. It’s definitely a forest rather than trees angle.

Focusing on just one tree then was critic Fred Sanders. He was friendly, and funny, and very practical – giving many good examples of growth and challenges in his local corner of Christianity. At the end of the day, he is happy with how things are going in his evangelical/Baptist tradition and is eager, as a professor teaching old books, to dig into the church fathers and Reformers to keep us on track. And the end of the day though, he doesn’t see any need to become substantially more catholic than the small amount he already is. The division is a drag sometimes of course, but is more or less necessary and our real problem is with the powers around us that have no fear of God, right? Leithart is kind of off in left field with this fantasy ecumenicism. Jesus doesn’t need that to accomplish all the important stuff in the lives of individuals. As he later suggested in a follow-up piece, uniting the church may “not be as high on His to-do list”.

Finally, splitting the difference somewhere was Carl Truman. He expanded the scope, not to the bold range of millennia, but to a good 500-year time frame, drawing on his understanding of world history, and the original writings of the Reformers. In this he found himself more sympathetic to Leithart’s hope, (he is after all, looking at an entire hillside of trees, to continue that analogy) but unable to reconcile this with his personal, pastoral, on-the-ground experience. At the end of the day, he just can’t see this “Reformed Catholicism” happening. Why? Because quite literally hundreds of millions of Roman Catholics and Orthodox don’t give fig about the most basic doctrines of the church. How can we have unity with so much nominalism? How can I help the hurting people in my congregation by shifting the focus to corporate (catholic) solidarity? (Can’t) It seems that the evangelical focus on the individual and assuring them of their salvation through faith in Christ alone is the only thing that turns people’s lives around. I had better stick with that and the Reformers were and are a good resource for keeping on track with that. The other traditions? Not so much.

A few observations: Leithart’s vision really is crazy. It’s certainly not something human’s could accomplish, for a hundred different reasons, not least the sociological, psychological, and even theological reasons that the critics here presented. But this IS something the Holy Spirit of the living God could accomplish. In fact, He has perhaps done far wilder things in the past. Let us not fear that such a dream is utterly impossible just because we cannot articulate the proper tactics.

Despite the differences, there is more unity going on now that we may admit. One student during the question and answer section essentially said to the panel, “Come on guys, we all know Roman Catholics aren’t really Christians, right?” Across the board he was given a negative answer. It was pointed out that even Calvin considered them part of the body, despite numerous problems. There was no disagreement on that point on the panel. What a difference from what I was consistently told growing up! In my tradition, Rome was only ever a bogey-man and the Orthodox virtually from another planet. Leithart pointed out earlier that despite our differences, Catholics share so much more affinity with Evangelicals now than anyone thought possible just 100 years ago.

Brad Littlejohn, who helped organize the event also pointed out that as far as the secular world is concerned we ARE united! In our commitment to the resurrection and our unwavering opposition to infanticide and homosexual union, our denominational differences melt away. Strangely, we have become auto-united in the eyes of modern west by their own hatred of us. (Talk about a backfire!) This has become increasingly clear in just the past 5 years. Again, there are other forces at work here than our church leaders having a friendly pow wow now and again. Persecution or just marginalization could do wonders to bring us together, and that not of ourselves, but a gift, like everything good.

In conclusion, I want something like Peter’s vision to come to pass. I know everyone out there can articulate a list of perfectly reasonable reasons why it won’t work. So can I. But I think we serve a Creator who can make those obstacles evaporate and who may very well desire his children to have such greater unity.

I desire it. The division of the body is still very unsettling to me. I hope what Peter speaks of is possible. If I use my imagination, I can come up with some ways that it seems to be. I have only a tiny sphere of influence, but I can do something there. I will continue to disavow tribalism, even while openly acknowledging differences. I will start by thinking the best of my brother and sister, rather than to begin with suspicion. Oh, and if I’m going to pick just one thing to fight for, it will be weekly communion. Ha! Hasn’t happened yet. At the same time, I really appreciate Carl Truman’s realism and I think that on the ground, my approach to life and ministry will not end up looking so different than his. There’s only so much of life I can bite off and chew and it is likely I will be like the prophets who “longed to see” Jesus (Matthew 13:17), but died before having a chance to meet him. That’s OK. I can still trust Him because resurrection is built in to this plan.

I love the used bookstore. Sometimes I find almost nothing, but days like this make up for it. The books crisscross  from classic to obscure and from fabulous to pretty ridiculous.

 

Well, Easter 2014 has past and for my household it was in most ways just like any other week. The Sunday service at church took several hours of extra preparation to get the music right, get everyone dressed in special clothes, and to prepare a lot of food for an elaborate late lunch. The scripture readings and prayers I do with the kids in the evening were varied and a bit richer than usual in the days leading up to it. So that’s all good, but compared to some other Christian traditions, we barely made a dent in Holy Week.

Last night, I talked to a good friend of mine who is a traditionalist Roman Catholic. They do things up right – special services nearly every day of the week, and a 3.5 hour easter vigil with only candles. Then suddenly at midnight on Easter Morning all the lights are thrown on in the church and all the images and artwork and colors – covered and drab through all of lent, are cast off and the Gloria (conspicuously missing during the past 40 days) is loudly sung again. He described how excited his young daughter was when the lights came on that she squeeled with delight. Then everyone began singing. What does this communicate to those present – especially the children? What really matters. What is the most important and incredible thing we do or talk about or celebrate all year? No question: Christ rising from the dead to save us.

The modern evangelical church in the west (of which I am a part) is allergic to pomp and circumstance (loud music and lights excepted). The reason behind this is not at all without merit: overdone ceremony can indeed be a distraction from the Gospel, just as preaching that over-emphasizes the law can also be detrimental. I propose that perhaps an exception should be made for Easter though. Why exactly do we keep it toned down so much that it’s presence is barely a registered spike on the spiritual rhythm of our lives? If you’re going to take a risk and go a bit overboard about something, I can’t think of a better event than the Resurrection. The contrast from the usual low-church activities would make the celebration stand out even more. Can we not do this?

Paul Zahl on tradition, from A Short Systematic Theology:

Tradition is always secondary to the gospel of bood atonement and to the freedom of reason created from it. Huma traditions are a crazy weave of outdated circumstances, past idiosyncrasies, unexamined ideas that have somehow over time accumulated the weight of authority, and passed-down “wisdoms.” These are all another name for law. They bind individuals, and they bind theology. This is what Jesus said about tradition as such:

Why do you [scribes and Pharisees] transgress the commandment of God for the sae of your tradition? …For the sake of your tradition, you have made void the word of God. (Matthew 15:3,6)

What a chronological snob and iconoclast, right? No actually. One has to realize that among protestants and evangelicals, Zahl is actually relatively “high church” and liturgical. That is to say, he is largely a traditionalist. But at the same time, he is declaring that the blood atonement of Jesus, rather than anything we do, or the way we do it, is the thing that really counts. The tradition is at best a great guide and pattern for worship and Christian devotion. On the other hand, it can be just “unexamined” fluff. At it’s worst, it is a stumbling block and distraction from Christ. What ever you may be doing, if it’s substantially getting in the way of the Word of God and the good news, it should be dropped. Keep the traditions that help us tell the story and help us remember. I think this will always require a bit of house cleaning with each generation.

A meditation on Luke 1:39-45:

In those days Mary arose and went with haste into the hill country, to a town in Judah, and she entered the house of Zechariah and greeted Elizabeth. And when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, the baby leaped in her womb. And Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit, and she exclaimed with a loud cry, “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb! And why is this granted to me that the mother of my Lord should come to me? For behold, when the sound of your greeting came to my ears, the baby in my womb leaped for joy. And blessed is she who believed that there would be a fulfillment of what was spoken to her from the Lord.”

The immature John, Prophet preparing the way for the Messiah, leaps in the womb of Elizabeth when the young Jesus is carried through the door. John doesn’t have a loud voice yet (indeed, his lungs are filled with fluid) but he shouts all the same. His mother is listening and even understands his wordless message. She blesses Mary and the fruit of her womb, though she cannot possibly understand what it all means.

It has always been God’s desire for Man (and Woman) to mature. He seems to take delight in slowly nurturing us to greater wisdom and maturity. In the garden, we were like young children – not realizing our nakedness and Adam unable to protect Eve from the serpent. But even though they fall and our cursed, even in the same day, our creator prophecies that they will one day crush the head of the serpent. They will not remain children forever.

But growing up takes a long time, and many lives of men. As our bodies grow tired and then return to dust, our children surpass us, but also fall into the same traps as we watch in anguish. It’s two steps forward, one step back and because our trust is partial, we don’t quite know where we are walking to.

In these times throughout history, the Holy Spirit comes unto certain individuals. And how does his visit manifest in them? Often through a accelerated or temporary maturity. It’s like as if for a moment they are a millennia older and wiser, more like what Adam would have been had he aged enough to have his wits about him.

David will need to fight powerful foes – a frightening task for any man. Yet as just a boy we find him up in the face of a bear, something most modern men would be terrified of. Even his singing is skilled far beyond his years. He is filled with the Holy Spirit.

Solomon was a young man when he asked the Lord for wisdom rather than riches. Why did he not ask for riches? The Holy Spirit was upon him already. What did he get – a divine IQ boost? An encyclopediac brain dump from heaven? No, but rather more of what he already had been given – the Holy Spirit. It’s like he suddenly became 200 years old (and still smart as a tack) rather than 20.

John the Baptizer exhibits this same accelerated maturity. Long before he enters the desert with a hairy face and coat to shout “Behold the Lamb of God!” loudly, we find him squirming mightily near the end of the second trimester. In what other prophet was the Spirit so present in? According to Christ, no one.

Finally, at the baptism of Jesus, the Spirit descends on Jesus “without measure” (John 3:34). In Christ, the incarnation, the presence of the third member of the God Head is turned up to eleven and Jesus is like a second Adam. He IS the second Adam, a man perfect and untainted by sin, but also analogous to the first Adam – as he should have been had he matured. Now as first born of the resurrected humans, he returns to his father, leaving the Holy Spirit behind in greater measure than ever before. Our own growth and maturity, though punctuated by death and delays, nevertheless charges forward at a quicker pace than ever before. He will not see his children remain toddlers forever.

The serpent has been used to striking little children and coiling easily around their bodies. In Christ, the tiny dragon met a full-grown man with a heavy shovel and a strong arm. He despairs at the thought of so many more of us, taller than ever, with keen eyes and heavy boots. It is the Lord’s slow and patient gift to us and our race: Life. Growth. Even life unto the reversal of all death.

Growing up in evangelical circles and especially amongst charismatics in college, genuine crying was held in high regard. An emotional reaction was typically seen as evidence of the Holy Spirit’s immediate action in your heart – a “He must increase and I must decrease” (John 3:30) moment when our false self was temporarily broken down. Repentance that was not accompanied by tears was suspect. Heck, love that was not accompanied by tears was maybe not very strong. Now of course it was acknowledged that some people (typically males) were not nearly as prone to crying, but even then it was simply a matter of degree.

Our “heroes of the faith” biographies and stories were frequently filled with accounts of foreign missionaries who prayed and fasted until they cried profusely. This was seen as normal behavior for super saints and if you only prayed an hour a day and it wasn’t accompanied by tears, than you holiness was clearly, CLEARLY at a much lower level. Quotes from people like Hudson Taylor were frequently quoted in evangelism training or even seen on inspiration posters:

“Perhaps if there were more of that intense distress for souls that leads to tears, we should more frequently see the results we desire.”

Of course, I always felt like a bit of a loser because I didn’t cry that much. Now, I do cry some and even intensely, but it certainly isn’t a regular occurrence. I’d like to think it’s because I keep a level head rather than a hard heart. It’s probably some of both, and a lot of natural temperament and genetics too. I’ve always thought (and felt, ha see what I did there?) that a healthy theology or philosophy of human psyche would take this obvious diversity a little more into account. On paper it sometimes does, but in practice, even in church traditions that downplay emotions, tears (or their absence) still carry a lot of weight in expressing or determining how serious someone’s words are.

And all of that explains why I was so delighted to find this line near the end of the Celtic monastic Rule of St. Columba – the general guidelines for all the monks that served under him.

Thy measure of prayer shall be until thy tears come;
Or thy measure of work of labour till thy tears come:
Or thy measure of thy work of labour, or of thy genuflections until thy perspiration come often, if thy tears are not free.

You get that? Pray until you cry. Heard that one before. Or work so hard you cry (or collapse maybe). OR, if you aren’t the crying type, just pray and work until you what? Sweat. The water might not come from your eyes, but what about your skin? Are you working hard? This is perhaps just as decent an indicator of you sincerity. Colm Cille was a smart fellow to add that aside to his rule. I say we should keep the same in mind.

 

I found this ancient Gaelic poem, translated by early 20th century British scholar Robin Flowers, in an anthology of Celtic Christian writings. It was so good, I was surprised to find virtually no reference to it anywhere while searching the internet, and no text except locked in Google Books. That’s no good, so I am reposting it here so that others might enjoy it as well.

Straying Thoughts

My thought it is a wanton ranger,
It skips away;
I fear ’twill bring my soul in danger
On Judgment Day.

For when the holy psalms are singing
Away it flies,
Gambolling, stumbling, lightly springing
Before God’s eyes.

‘Mongst giddypated folk it rambles,
Girls light of mind;
Through forests and through cities gambols
Swifter than wind.

Now in rich raths and jewels glowing
‘Mid goodly men;
Now to the ragged pauper going
‘Tis fled again.

Without a boat it skims the ocean,
‘Tis swift to fly
Heavenward with unimpeded motion
From earth to sky.

Through all the courses of all folly
It runs, and then
Lightly, untouched of melancholy
Comes home again.

Vain is the hope to hold or bind it,
The unfettered thought
Wanton, unresting, idle-minded,
Sets chains at nought.

The sword’s keen edge, the whip’s sharp chiding
It scorns, grown bold;
Like an eel’s tail it wriggles, sliding
Out of my hold.

No bolt, no bar, no lock, no fetter,
No prison cell
Can stay its course; they serve no better
Pits deep as Hell.

O fair, chaste Christ! who in all places
Seest all men’s eyes
Check by the Spirit’s sevenfold graces
Thought’s wandering wise.

Terrible Lord of earth and heaven!
Rule Thou my heart!
My faith, my love to Thee be given,
My every part!

So in thy companies to-morrow
I too may go;
Loyal and leal are they. My sorrow!
I am not so.

 

The question of Christianity in England is equally unsettled. Gildas wrote in the sixth century: “These islands received the beams of light … in the latter part of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, in whose time this religion was propagated without impediment or death.” The point about this is that Tiberius died in AD 37. Nor does Eusebius contradict this date, though scholars of course have difficulty explaining.  Nevertheless, by AD 1999 Tertullian, listing the many peoples to whom the religion of Christ has come, can include, “the place of the Britons, which are inaccessible to the Romans.”

-Celtic Christianity, p.13, intro by Christopher Bamford

The extremely early appearance of Christianity in Britain and Ireland is a curious piece of history. The theory that is spread via a group of adventerous Syrian monks, bypassing France and Spain by boat, has gained traction in recent years. This accounts for the eastern flavor still detectable in the heirs of the Celtic church today. I think one reason it took so long for scholars to take this idea more seriously is that it’s become mixed up or conflated with the much later myth about Joseph of Arimathea bringing the Holy Grail to Briton shortly after the ascension of Christ.

It’s curious that I find the two most interesting pockets of Christian history to be that of Ireland and that of Ethiopia, another early adopter who was, as Tertullian put it, “inaccessibe to the Romans”. In fact, Ethiopia was still inaccessible to the Romans (or Italians) in modern times, having their secular 1896 invasion squashed and their attempt at occupation in the 1930s was short-lived as well. Though buried under centuries of cultural customs and changes, something peculiar of the earliest saints remains in their tradition – something no longer present in the bulk of the west – something you can’t quite put your finger on – but something good.

By this time into the previous year, I had written over 20 blog posts. So far I’m only at 7. Why? The new job takes a lot of time and energy. But it’s certainly interesting and engaging, so I don’t really have anything to complain about.

I’ve been working a fair amount of late nights, and what do I find myself listening to again and again? Not many of my favorite albums hold up to such abuse, but there are a few that do. This largely unknown new age/sci-fi concept album ‘Songs of Distant Earth’ from Mike Oldfield is really a winner. It’s based on the Arthur C. Clarke novel of the same title. It is strictly only to be listened to uninterrupted from end to end. Give it a spin when nobody is around to bother you.