The Necklace

The cheerful little girl with bouncy golden curls was almost five. Waiting with her mother at the checkout stand, she saw them, a circle of glistening white pearls in a pink foil box.

'Oh mommy please, Mommy. Can I have them? Please, Mommy, please?'

Quickly the mother checked the back of the little foil box and then looked back into the pleading blue eyes of her little girl's upturned face.

'A dollar ninety-five. That's almost $2.00. If you really want them, I'll think of some extra chores for you and in no time you can save enough money to buy them for yourself. Your birthday's only a week away and you might get another crisp dollar bill from Grandma.'

As soon as Jenny got home, she emptied her penny bank and counted out 17 pennies. After dinner, she did more than her share of chores and she went to the neighbor and asked Mrs. McJames if she could pick dandelions for ten cents. On her birthday, Grandma did give her another new dollar bill and at last she had enough money to buy the necklace.

Jenny loved her pearls. They made her feel dressed up and grown up. She wore them everywhere, Sunday school, kindergarten, even to bed. The only time she took them off was when she went swimming or had a bubble bath . Mother said if they got wet, they might turn her neck green.

Jenny had a very loving daddy and every night when she was ready for bed, he would stop whatever he was doing and come upstairs to read her a story. One night as he finished the story, he asked Jenny, 'Do you love me?'

'Oh yes, daddy. You know that I love you.'

'Then give me your pearls.'

'Oh, daddy, not my pearls. But you can have Princess, the white horse from my collection, the one with the pink tail. Remember, daddy? The one you gave me. She's my very favorite.'

'That's okay, Honey, daddy loves you. Good night.' And he brushed her cheek with a kiss.

About a week later, after the story time, Jenny's daddy asked again, 'Do you love me?'

'Daddy, you know I love you.'

'Then give me your pearls..'

'Oh Daddy, not my pearls. But you can have my baby doll . The brand new one I got for my birthday. She is beautiful and you can have the yellow blanket that matches her sleeper.'

'That's okay. Sleep well... God bless you, little one. Daddy loves you.'

And as always, he brushed her cheek with a gentle kiss.

A few nights later when her daddy came in, Jenny was sitting on her bed with her legs crossed Indian style... As he came close, he noticed her chin was trembling and one silent tear rolled down her cheek.

'What is it, Jenny? What's the matter?'

Jenny didn't say anything but lifted her little hand up to her daddy... And when she opened it, there was her little pearl necklace . With a little quiver, she finally said, 'Here, daddy; this is for you.'

With tears gathering in his own eyes, Jenny's daddy reached out with one hand to take the dime store necklace, and with the other hand he reached into his pocket and pulled out a blue velvet case with a strand of genuine pearls and gave them to Jenny.

He had them all the time. He was just waiting for her to give up the dime-store stuff so he could give her the genuine treasure. So it is, with our Heavenly Father. He is waiting for us to give up the cheap things in our lives so that he can give us beautiful treasures.


Received in an email from a dear friend and sister in Christ

Think of Prayer as Reminding God

From the weblog of Rev. Dr. Joe McKeever, Director of Missions for the Baptist Assoc. of Greater New Orleans

In high school, J. L. Rice and I were the two first boys to ever take shorthand. We took it for two full years, thinking we would need it in college. We didn't, but for me, it was a wise choice since it paid my way through school and supported my family the first two years of marriage. (I worked as a secretary for a railroad company during college and for a cast iron pipe company for two years afterward.)

In Old Testament days, in the courts of kings like David and Solomon, among the officials serving the rulers was one called a "recorder." The Hebrew word is MAZKIR. It's a fascinating word.

Bear in mind that the consonants in Hebrew carry the freight. The ZKR--pronounced zah-kar--is the word for "remember." You will recall what a popular theme that was for prophets who brought sermons to God's people. "Remember, O Israel," they would begin. A friend of mine did his doctoral thesis on the use of "zakar" in the Old Testament. He had plenty of material to work with.

The word MZKR or MAZKIR adds a new dimension to "remember," and makes it "to cause to remember." That is, to remind.

A MAZKIR or court recorder was a person with an interesting assignment: he took notes (shorthand?) on what the king did in negotiations with other rulers or while issuing verdicts in court and he kept that information on file. The next time the king met with the other rulers or held court again, he called in his "mazkir" and asked him to bring him up to date, to remind him of what they did the last time. Kings need people to help them remember.

Okay, still with me here? This is where it gets good.

Isaiah, chapter 62, verses 6 and 7. "I have posted watchmen on your walls, O Jerusalem; they will never be silent day or night. You who remind the Lord, take no rest for yourselves and give him no rest until He makes Jerusalem the praise of the earth."

"You who remind the Lord" is MAZKIR.

Think of prayer as your serving as the Lord's court recorder. You take notes on what He has done and what He has promised, then you bring Him up to date on it when you enter His presence with a need or intercession.

I cannot tell how many times over the years I have heard unthinking preachers lambast their colleagues for standing in the pulpit and praying prayers like this: "O Lord, thou who created the earth...who commanded the light to shine in darkness...who did this and did that."

"He knows who He is and what He has done!" the critical preacher would say. "Get to the point. What's on your mind! Quit beating around the bush in your prayer."

I confess I've had some of those same thoughts when listening to others pray.

The problem with that criticism is that it is ignorant of the many prayers throughout scripture where God's people prayed in just this way, reminding the Lord of...

--who He is --what He has done --what He promised --who we are --what we need

Case in point. Acts 4. Peter and John were arrested for preaching Jesus and threatened with severe retaliation if they continued.

"After they were released, they went to their own fellowship"--that is, they pulled the church members together--"and reported all that the chief priests and the elders had said to them." (Acts 4:23)

Someone must have said, "Well! We'd better tell the Lord about this!" and they did.

"They raised their voices to God unanimously and said, 'Master, you are the one who made the heaven, the earth, and the sea, and everything in them.'"

See what they're doing? Reminding God of who He is and what He has done. As if He didn't know!

They continued, "You said through the Holy Spirit by the mouth of our father David your servant, 'Why did the heathen rage and the people plot futile things? The kings of the earth took their stand and the rulers assembled together against the Lord and against His Christ.'" (v.24-26)(That quotation is from Psalm 2.)

Now what are they doing? Reminding the Lord of what He has said.

Continuing, "For in fact, in this city both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, assembled together against your holy servant Jesus, whom you appointed, to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place." (v.27-28)

Reminding the Lord of their situation.

"And now, Lord...."

Finally, they come to the point. But like a good attorney in the courtroom, they lay the groundwork for the point to which everything has been leading up.

"And now, Lord, behold their threats, and grant that your servants may speak your word with complete boldness, while you stretch forth your hand for healing, signs, and wonders to be performed through the name of your hold servant Jesus."

Reminding the Lord of what they needed.

Was that necessary?

In the midst of urging us to pray, Jesus said, "Your Heavenly Father knows what you need before you ask Him." (Matthew 6:8)

He knows, but ask Him anyway. Tell Him like He didn't know.

Why is this necessary? Because Jesus said this is how we are to pray.

The postscript to that Jerusalem prayer meeting is this word: "When they had prayed, the place where they were assembled was shaken, and they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak God's message with boldness." (4:31)

There are as many ways to pray as God has children.

"Reminding God" is one many of us have left unused. Give it a try.

Faith and Works

Borrowed from the Rev. Canon Chandler Jones at Philorthodox

The Epistle of Saint James serves as a vital counterpoint and juxtaposed interpretative text for the theology of Romans and I think looking at it in greater detail would be extremely beneficial. In biblical studies polemics, especially by protestants, Saint Paul and Saint James are often opposed to one another as though they represented contradictory theological and moral teachings, but nothing could be further from the truth. They beautifully support and complement each other by clarifying each other's positions and balancing each other's perspectives. As Saint Paul, of course, says we are justified by faith apart from the works of the law, Saint James says faith without works is dead. They are both correct, which Saint Paul summarises in Galatians 5.6, when he states that Christians are justified by faith working in love.

Justifying faith for Saint Paul is living faith, faith in action, faith animated and enlivened by supernatural charity, the bond of peace and of all virtues, the source of divine life and of our cooperation with saving grace.

The question is often raised as to why Saint Paul and Saint James seem to disagree on the role of faith and works, and I always like to respond by saying that they do not disagree on the necessity of faith, but that they define works differently.

For Saint Paul, 'works of the law,' ergon nomou, involve the totality of the Old Testament system of obedience to the laws and commandments of the Mosaic Covenant, including observance of the ritual, ceremonial, sacramental and dietary laws of the Mosaic revelation. Saint Paul simply states that we are justified, made righteous before God through Christ, not on the basis of observance of the total religious system of the Old Testament, but on the observance and obedience of the new Law of Christ, the 'law' of the New Testament, the Law of Love, which is established and fulfilled in the Person and Work of Jesus Christ Himself and communicated to us by the Holy Ghost. Faith in Jesus, not Old Testament ceremonial and legal practice, places us into Christ's perfect obedience and fulfillment of the Law and thus makes us objectively righteous before God, vindicated and transformed as we are by virtue of our union with our Head, the Lord Jesus. And the formal and initial cause of our justification in Christ is Baptism, wherein we are born again and sacramentally conformed to Christ in His Death and Resurrection, given the grace of the Holy Spirit that we may 'walk in newness of life'.

For Saint James, 'works' are not the rites and observances of the Old Testament, which do not in themselves justify, but the Theological Virtues, faith, hope and love (I Corinthians 13). the Cardinal Virtues, prudence, justice, temperance and fortitude, the Corporal Works of Mercy, feeding the hungry, refreshing the thirsty, clothing the naked, sheltering the homeless, visiting the sick, visiting the imprisoned, burying the dead (Saint Matthew 25), the Spiritual Works of Mercy, converting sinners, instructing the ignorant, counselling the doubtful, comforting the sorrowful, bearing wrongs patiently, forgiving offences, praying for the living and dead - without which faith does not and cannot live and bear fruit in the soul. There can be no justifying or saving faith that does not act as God commands, and that requires human free-will and correspondence with grace.

Saint Paul condemns works-righteousness, the attempt to save oneself by trust and reliance in the performance of the outward form of Old Testament prescriptions and statutes; Saint James condemns solafidanism, the false and misguided trust in faith alone apart from living one's faith in Christ as the means of one's justification before God. Neither Apostle supports a subjective trust or faith in subjective faith as a kind of resting on one's laurels or 'armchair Christianity.' Saint Paul also rejects solafidanism as Saint James repudiates the idea that the Old Testament system has any power to save.

The term sola fide, 'faith alone', is interestingly found in only one place in the New Testament, in Saint James 2.24, 'ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.'

Related reading on Anglo-Bapti-Catholic: On Salvation; On Salvation, Part II

Prayer

I have found myself convicted by the Holy Spirit, through the words of my friend at A Pilgrim on the Canterbury Trail, of my deficiency in regards to prayer and study of the Holy Scriptures. I, too, have called myself a Christian for quite a few years, since sometime in the early eighties, and still I manage to go days without study and quiet reflection or time in communion with my Lord. I know that I am not alone, and that there are those who have overcome it with the Lord’s help. I take heart in knowing these things, but at the same time it saddens me that our adversary is so successful in his labors.

Enter the words of encouragement from friends. I have had the pleasure of corresponding through email with a fine man, a deacon in Christ’s church whom, though we have never met face-to-face, I have come to appreciate for his wisdom and charity. I wrote to him a couple of weeks ago in total exasperation and received from him words so simple I was almost ashamed to have not thought of them myself. He said, and I was quite glad to listen, that prayer is neither limited to sitting alone in a quiet room and speaking with intent to God, nor kneeling behind a pew in the local parish church. We pray, whether we know it or not, throughout the day. God hears our thoughts…He knows our hearts.

When we sing that favorite hymn that we can’t seem to get out of our heads, He hears it and knows that we worship Him. When we help someone in need, we honor Him, and He is pleased. When we cry out in frustration, He hears us and knows that we really cry out to Him. When we look around and wonder at all that He has made, He knows that we recognize Him as Lord. When that sudden revelation comes to us while driving, it is He who gives it to us. We pray throughout the day, and He hears and answers us.

This is not to say that quiet reflection and prayer are not needed. If we look at the example of our Lord, we find that He often went off by himself to pray. Even He, the Son of the Living God, recognized the need for one-on-one communion with the Father. It is during these times that He received peace and strength for the path laid before Him. And so it is with us. We need that time of solitude, that peaceful communion with the Father who strengthens us.

Everyday Ethics Round Table Discussion

While browsing Virtue Online, the weblog of David Virtue, I found and listened to a round table discussion on BBC Radio’s “Everyday Ethics.” The point was made by a gay rights activist that “the science is overwhelming that sexual orientation is down to our genetic inheritance.” Surprisingly, a TEC bishop, the Rt. Rev. Chilton Knudsen of Maine, made the counter-point that in cases of identical twins, who share 100% of their genetic make-up, one twin may be homosexual while the other is not. This brings us to Mr. Virtue’s comment that there is no such thing as “sexual orientation”, but rather there are sexual preferences and behaviors, which was the catalyst for the mentioned exchange. +Knudsen continued her refutation with the assertion that we are all born fallen and with various “conditions and orientations” that we don’t like and wish we could be without.

Another question posed to the group was that of homophobia in the church. As I have stated before, while there may be some homophobia/hatred of homosexuals driving the current debate, it is not the majority "conservative" position. As stated by Mr. Virtue, the disagreement over homosexual ordinations and same-sex blessings has really nothing to do with fear of and hatred for homosexual people, but with the impropriety and sinfulness of homosexual behavior. Scriptural texts are clear in their designation of homosexuality as sin, just as they are with any other form of sexual sin (fornication, sin outside of the bonds of Holy Matrimony). I am not by any means saying that I am less sinful than an actively homosexual person. My sins are neither more nor less than his/hers. My sins may be different, but I need God’s grace just as much. Therefore, I have no fear or hatred for my brother or sister sinners. I welcome them to sit next to me in the pew, to share my prayer book and hymnal, to join me in worship, to seek the same forgiveness and transformation I seek. However, knowing the biblical position on homosexual behavior as sin, it is my humble opinion that one who openly flaunts his sin, refuses to confess that it is sin when confronted with God’s Word written, is unqualified to be ordained to Holy office in Christ’s church. I have the same answer for the question of gay rights and the role of homosexuals in the church. They have the same rights as everyone else. They have the right to participate just like everyone else. They have the right to seek grace and forgiveness for their sins. They have the right to accept God’s gift of salvation through transforming grace. They do not have the right, just as I do not have the right (the call comes from God to ordination to Holy Orders in Christ’s church) to be ordained. And this has nothing to do with the person, but with that person’s choices and behavior.

“This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;” -- 1 Timothy 3:1-2 (emphasis added)

Transformation

One of the most important points of the Christian faith, lately disregarded as out-dated by many theologians of the more liberal persuasion, is the belief in the transforming power of Christ Jesus, or more specifically, that we are transformed from the old sinner into the new child of God. When saving grace is bestowed and the new Christian is indwelt by the Holy Spirit, who and what we were in the world becomes a new creature in Christ Jesus. Does this mean that we will never again sin? Does this great, miraculous transformation make us perfect beings? Certainly not, but it does mean that our outlook changes. It means that we view our sin differently. It means that, while we may not necessarily commit any less sin, we know that it is in fact sin. It means that we abhor our sins and that we trust in the power of the love and sacrifice of our God and His Son to save us and heal us from them. It means that, since we do recognize our wrongdoings for what they are, we will strive to do better. Paraphrasing St. Paul the Apostle, “I do the things I do not want to do, and I do not do the things I want to do.” St. Paul’s statement illustrates the human condition where sin is concerned, as well as his change of heart.

Modern, liberal Christianity teaches that God “loves and accepts us as we are….” While this is true, as far as it goes, it is but one side of the coin. God does love us and accept us just exactly as we are, sin and all. The Holy Scripture teaches us that, while we were yet sinners Christ died for us. This is a testimony to His great love for humanity. However, what is dismissed by liberal theology as closed-mindedness and bigotry, the belief in the transformation of salvation, is as great a testimony as the former to the awesome love of God for His people. Our Lord taught us that God is the Father of His people. He taught us that we can call upon God as “abbah,” which is a familiar term for father. The ideal relationship between earthly fathers and sons is modeled on the relationship between God the Father and His Son. Our earthly fathers accept us as we are because they love us; however, the love of a father leads him to wish for that which is best for his son. If a son has things in his life which are detrimental to his well-being, his father would want and expect him to change or do away with those things. The father’s love for his son compels him to see the best in his son while at the same time wishing for better things. Our heavenly Father is no different…or He is different in that His love is greater and more perfect than any earthly father’s could be. Our heavenly Father loves us, seeks us, and accepts us just as we are – sins and all. However, His love compels Him to expect us to change or eliminate that which is detrimental to us for our own sakes.

This brings us to another fundamental disagreement – how do we know what behavior is sinful? Here we have a question which should be easily answered. It is generally held within Christianity that the Bible, the Holy Scriptures, is God’s Word written for us. This being said, we should be able to read God’s words to us and know what He deems right or wrong. From the books of Moses to the Gospels of our Lord and the epistles of His Apostles we have a congruous witness to the will of God for His people spanning several thousands of years. Recently, however, (and by recently I mean over the last half century) there has emerged a movement within mainline Christianity, which puts forth the notion that God “is doing a new thing.” New methods of Biblical criticism subvert the teachings of the apostles in favor of social trends and political correctness. In short, God is now, after all these millennia, contradicting Himself. Since the earliest times we have seen societies shaped by theological truth, where now we see theology shaped by sociological truth. We see claims that science has proven the genetic predisposition of some people to “alternate orientations”. “Science” has said that our genetic make-up determines if we will be predisposed to addiction (to alcohol, narcotics, nicotine, sex, etc.), infidelity, homosexuality, as well as other, unaccepted (not to mention illegal) activities to include homicide and pedophilia. Now, before anyone misunderstands, I am not equating any one of the aforementioned “conditions” with any other. I am simply relating some of those things with which DNA is credited to one extent or another. The truth of the matter is that every single one of the things listed above is an activity, an action, a behavior, a choice - with the exception of one, which will be explained later. While addiction may or may not be genetic, the person with that predisposition has the choice as to whether or not he/she will act on it. If the person chooses to act on that predisposition the addiction manifests. Conversely, if the addict, after having allowed the addiction to manifest itself, wishes to break the addiction, he/she must choose to do so. Basically the same things can be said of the other listings. A spouse must choose to be unfaithful and then act on that choice in order for infidelity to occur. Homicide and pedophilia, both illegal and immoral acts to be sure, genetic predisposition being of no consequence, are behaviors which must be chosen by the perpetrators. These are universally considered wrong behaviors by societal norms despite whatever genetic predisposition may exist, although infidelity is viewed less harshly than the others and may be accepted as normative by many. I have purposely left homosexuality for last.

Sexual orientation is most often explained as a preference for one type of partner or another. Heterosexuality obviously denotes the preference for a partner of the opposite sex, while homosexuality obviously denotes the preference for a partner of the same sex. The fact of the matter is that whether or not either of these is due to genetics is of no import. Being attracted to one person or another is not at issue because it is not a behavior. However, acting on that attraction is a behavior. Holy Scripture tells us that sex of any kind outside the bonds of marriage is sinful, which brings us back to the question posed earlier: “how do we know what behavior is sinful?”. Or more specifically, “what is marriage?”…

To be continued…

Protestant or Catholic - Anglicans Must Decide

From "To All the World..." - Robert S. Munday, Dean of Nashotah House Theol. Seminary

Ruth Gledhill, of the London Times, reports:

"Hard words for Anglicans from the head of the Council for Christian Unity in Rome. Cardinal Walter Kasper has told the Catholic Herald that now, with Lambeth approaching, is the time for Anglicans to decide whether they are Catholic or Protestant. 'Ultimately, it is a question of the identity of the Anglican Church. Where does it belong?' he said. 'Does it belong more to the churches of the first millennium -Catholic and Orthodox - or does it belong more to the Protestant churches of the 16th century? At the moment it is somewhere in between, but it must clarify its identity now and that will not be possible without certain difficult decisions.' The genius of Anglicanism has always been its ability to straddle the divide, but maybe the Cardinal is right and the Communion's present difficulties reflect the impossibility of continuing to do this."

Recovering the faith that was held universally, from antiquity, and by all, is what many of the Reformers believed they were doing in protesting against the medieval innovations and errors of the Roman Church. While the Radical Reformers did not care whether they rejected Rome and catholicity as well, our Anglican forebears were careful to demonstrate that their teaching was in accord with both Holy Scripture as it was understood and interpreted by the early Church Fathers and Councils of the undivided (Catholic) Church. So are Anglicans Protestant? Yes, in that our forebears protested against Rome's departure from true catholicity. Are Anglicans Catholic? Yes, in that our forebears always sought to maintain the Catholic Faith--as Vincent of Lerins would have recognized.

Read it all here.

Cain slew Abel, part 2

Gen 4:10 ~ Cain spoke to Abel his brother. And when they were in the field, Cain rose up against his brother Abel and killed him. Then the LORD said to Cain, "Where is Abel your brother?" He said, "I do not know; am I my brother's keeper?" And the LORD said, "What have you done? The voice of your brother's blood is crying to me from the ground.



We discussed last time that Cain’s first wrong was that he most likely did not take as much care in his choice of offerings to God. His second wrong was that he refused to take responsibility for his own actions. According to the text, his next two wrongs were these: that he used his brother’s trust to lure him to a field, and that once they were there, he killed his brother. Finally, instead of confessing his crime to God, he hid the whole business.

I would like to deal with Cain’s question, “am I my brother’s keeper?” The world tells us that we need only think of ourselves, and the only thought that we should give to others is to keep up with their successes so that we might do better. The fact of the matter is that the answer to Cain’s question is yes, we are our brothers’ keepers. The Law of Moses required land-owners to leave the edges of their fields un-harvested in order that the poor would have something to eat, among other things.

Our Lord had a few things to say on this as well:

When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. Before him well be gathered all the nations, and he will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. And he will place the sheep on his right, but the goats on the left. Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.' Then the righteous will answer him, saying, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? And when did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? And when did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?' And the King will answer them, 'Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.'

"Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.' Then they also will answer, saying, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to you?' Then he will answer them, saying, 'Truly, I say to you, as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.' And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life." Matt 25:31-46 (ESV)

The only conclusion to be gleaned is that we are, indeed, our brothers’ keepers. The purpose of one man’s strength is to lift up his neighbor who is weaker…or less strong if the word weak offends your sensibilities. To quote Mel Gibson’s character, William Wallace, in the movie Braveheart while speaking to Robert the Bruce, “You believe the people exist to provide you with possession, but I believe your possession exists to provide the people with freedom.” This is a specific way of lifting up our brother, but you get the point. Here’s another: “much is expected of those to whom much is given.” These are both ways of saying the same thing: the things we have – possessions, talents, blessings – are given to us so that we might pass them on to those who do not have them.

Peace,
Jerry
<><

Cain slew Abel, part 1

The second chapter of Genesis tells us the story of Cain and his brother, Abel. We know that Cain was born first, followed by Abel. We also know that Cain was a farmer and that Abel was a shepherd. The biblical text continues to tell us that Cain brought to God an offering of the “fruit of the ground,” and Abel brought an offering “of the firstborn of his flock and of their fat portions.” God looked favorably on Abel’s offering but not on Cain’s. Of course, the first question is, “Why?” Why did God find favor with one and not the other? I think one possible answer lies in the words themselves. Cain brought an offering of the fruit, but Abel brought an offering of the firstborn and of their “fat portions.” This might imply that Abel brought the best of what he had while Cain was less discerning with his offering.

Cain was angry and jealous. He was angry that he had been embarrassed by his younger brother, and he envied the favor that his brother had received from God. What God says next (Gen 4:6-7) is very important, “Why are you angry, and why has your face fallen? If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin is crouching at the door. Its desire is for you, but you must rule over it.” Could it be that he was angry with himself? This is entirely possible; however, in true human fashion, he could not allow himself to take responsibility for his own actions. He could not possibly be to blame for his falling short. It had to be someone else’s fault. It had to be Abel’s fault. Abel stole God’s favor from him.

This has particular significance in today’s society. We live in a culture in which no one wants to assume responsibility for his/her own actions. People blame restaurants for their spilling hot coffee in their own laps. Burglars sue homeowners when they are injured in the commission of their crimes. Many blame their parents for their crimes – mom and dad didn’t show enough attention, or they gave too much. Rapists and pedophiles blame their victims. People who choose “alternate lifestyles” blame genetics. Oh, but if only it ended there….Juries award millions of dollars for “butter fingers” and clumsy crooks. Psychologists encourage the idea that mom and dad can be to blame for the crimes of the son. We the people are quick to judge a woman or girl who might happen to dress provocatively or act with less than perfect moral purity as though she might have caused the brutal and dehumanizing attack on herself. I think one reason many people are so willing to believe all these things is that if they are true, then maybe we are not responsible for our own shortcomings.

Notice in the biblical text that there is no mention of the role of Adam and Eve in the actions of Cain when he chose his offering to God. It does not tell us that Eve neglected Cain in favor of his brother, causing a festering jealousy of Abel waiting to be triggered by one too many rejections. It does not say that Adam physically abused Cain, bringing a great anger in Cain waiting to be triggered by being out-shone by his brother. The lesson in these two verses is that we are responsible for our own actions. If we do well, will we not be accepted? And if we do not, is it not our own shortcomings that we are responsible for overcoming? Did we try hard enough? Did we give it our all? Were our efforts in line with the will of God?

The bad news is that we have to accept the guilt for the things we do. The consequences of our actions are our own. The good news is that once we do this, the Bible tells us that we can turn our guilt over to God. The good news is that our debt has already been paid. If we confess to (agree with) God that we have sinned (done wrong) and believe that God sent His Son, Jesus Christ, to die in our place, then we will be forgiven of our sins and receive eternal life. The problem with today’s society is that the common belief is that “it is someone else’s fault.” Instead of accepting and dealing with our sin, we find ways to rationalize it.

The next question that often arises is “how could you be so narrow-minded as to believe that Jesus Christ is the only way to heaven?” I would answer this question with one of my own. Knowing that God has said the penalty for sin is death, why would He offer us a way of salvation at all? And given that God is willing to offer us a way of redemption, why would He not have the right to determine what that Way will be? The fact is that He did not have to offer us a way at all. He could have made us to lie in the bed that we have made, but He made a way for reconciliation instead. He basically said, “you deserve death, but I will give you a way out.” One only has to look at the scriptures to see that God has historically been very specific in His instructions to His people. God told Abraham to sacrifice his son, Isaac, on Mt. Moriah before providing a ram to be sacrificed in his place. God gave specific instructions to the Israelites during the Passover in order for them to avoid the fate of the Egyptians – they were to sacrifice a lamb and spread its blood over the doors of their houses. God gave specific instructions in the Law of Moses concerning not only sin, but also day-to-day living. Why would we think that He would be any less specific with His instructions on salvation? God said that we would die for our wrongdoings, but He provided a Lamb to be sacrificed in our place.

To be continued…

Peace
Jerry
<><

Translations and Theology - Fr. Robert Hart

from The Continuum

"I was responding to a comment in another post, and realized that this subject justifies a bit more than one blog comment. We will begin with the comment I was writing in response:

Raphael wrote:

[The Douay-Rheims translation] has been in use since its first edition in 1610. It is a near as possible word-for-word translation of the Latin Vulgate, being the work of St. Jerome (342-420). St. Jerome's work is a careful, word-for-word translation of the original texts.

We do owe a lot to St. Jerome, but here we see a need for better scholarship than was possible in his age. 1 The traditional translation of the First commandment provides a splendid example of what I mean.

My own literal translation of the first commandment, directly from the Hebrew with the original syntax, goes like this:

"No having to you other gods over the face."

This translation is absolutely exact, and it makes no sense. Now, the word I have translated literally as "over" means, by implication, "in front of." This can be summed up in one word: "Before;" that is, as long as we understand that "before" means "in the presence of." Now, from the original, we have a problem. Does the commandment mean, "No having to you other gods before your face," or "before my face," in line the accepted standard translation ("before Me")?

The traditional translation is drawn from the larger theological understanding that God's presence fills the whole earth, and indeed, all creation. And so, the translation, "Thou shalt have no other gods before me," requires this added revelation, termed by theology as omnipresence. Also, the distinction between having other gods, and having idols, is a distinction between the first and second commandment that helps us learn the subtle difference between a false god and an idol. This may not have been as clear in the days of Moses as it would be later. The Gnostics did not have literal idols, but rather false gods by definition. The ultimate false god that has no idol, that is, no image before which the devotee bows in worship, is the god of Mohamed.

The traditional rendering of the first commandment, consistent with the Latin translation (The Vulgate) is quite helpful in one respect, and not at all helpful in another. By helping us to see that worship of any other god is a sin even without an idol (as would be lost with our alternative option, “before your face”), we are able to grasp the fuller meaning of scripture. It is just as wrong to worship conceptual gods, as Marcion and Mohamed proclaimed, as it is to worship a deity represented by an idol. Unfortunately, the same customary translation that helps us in this respect also fails us by combining the first and second commandment into one commandment (followed by the equally mistaken custom of dividing the tenth commandment into two separate commandments), weakening the strength of this teaching. This was corrected by the Church of England, both in its very first Book of Common Prayer and in the early translations of the Bible into English

Raphael wrote also:

For this reason [by which he refers to what he said about the Vulgate], the Douay-Rheims is considered the definitive translation.

I prefer the translation of 1611. "Translated out of the original tongues, and with the former translations diligently compared and revised, by his Majesty's special command." The translators were aided by their use of the original Hebrew and Greek texts. On the other hand, their conservatism kept them from making arbitrary and radical changes in traditional meaning. Without the second part, their diligence in comparison to former translations, they may have felt free to use translation as an excuse to be overly creative. That is, not that accurate translation would have been the problem, but the feeling and assumption of poetic license. This presumption of too much authority by some modern translators has led to utterly false renderings. In a previous article, I provided the following example (about the first error in one of the worst versions of the Bible available in English):

“ The first mistranslation in the NRSV (New Revised Standard Version) combines the first two verses of Genesis into one sentence, adding wrongly the word 'when,' as if the world existed before God’s creation. ‘In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth, the earth was without form…’ The Hebrew simply does not justify this ‘translation’ ... The first two sentences are not joined in the original Hebrew. The older “And, the earth was without form and void...” is literally correct, and it cannot be used to suggest Pantheism.”

The mistranslation I cited has become quite trendy among people who seem bent on trying to destroy the revealed doctrine of creatio ex nihilo, and so the NRSV is not the only example of this particular abuse. The problem here is either one of deliberate mistranslation, or an exaggerated regard for poetic license. Either way, it flies in the face of the two things that steered the translators of The Authorised Version (the King James). It would have been prevented by a sincere principle to “translate out of the original tongues" added by the second principle as a safeguard, namely, “and with the former translations diligently compared and revised.” What marked the King James as setting the standard for Bible translation was that combination of accuracy and humility. Accuracy of language and meaning, aided by the humility to learn from the work of past generations. Furthermore, this requires both an education in languages and in theology.

1.About St. Jerome, here is an interesting passage from a book. “'The flesh I might try to break with frequent fasting: but my mind was seething with imagination: so to tame it, I gave myself up for training to one of the brethren, a Hebrew who had come to the faith. And, so after the subtlety of Quintilian, the flowing of Cicero, the gravity of Fronto and the gentleness of Pliny, I began to learn another alphabet, and meditate on words that hissed and words that gasped' The final vintage was to be the Vulgate translation of the Old Testament: he was still working on Hebrew in his old age.”Helen Waddell, The Desert Fathers, (New York, 1998), p.33"

Conversion vs. Surrender

I have been debating with myself over the differences between conversion to Christianity and surrender to Christ. Are there differences between them, and if so, what are they?

I would begin by defining the difference between conversion and surrender as the difference between “head knowledge” and “heart knowledge” – the difference between learning the truth and KNOWING the TRUTH. When we hear about the Lord Jesus, and accept that it is the truth, that He is the Truth, we are converted. Does surrender also happen at this time? I am sure that it does in some cases, but not in all. It is true that conversion involves surrender to a degree, more with some than with others. We surrender to the knowledge that we cannot be our own saviors. We surrender to the knowledge that Christ Jesus is our only hope of salvation. To say that we recognize the surrender of control of our lives to His divine direction would be to get ahead of ourselves, however, because most do not. We all have our little “secreted” things, which we try to keep to ourselves. It is human nature to wish to be in control, and to fight “tooth and nail” against losing control in even the smallest measure.

But what would it look like if one were to fully surrender one’s life to the Lordship of Christ? As much as I would like to say “this” or “that,” I cannot because, as much as it pains me to say, I cannot honestly say that I have completely given my life over to the Lord. Every day the Holy Spirit shows me something of my old life to which I am clinging. Every day He convicts me of something to which I keep to myself. Every day I hear myself saying, “Yes, Lord, I want to, but I cannot,” or “Yes, Lord, I want to, but I do not know how.” Do I want to reach that maturity of faith, which leads to total surrender? Do I continue to grow and come closer? Do I believe that I will one day attain that ideal relationship with my Lord? Yes to all three of these. How long will it take? Maybe the rest of my life, but it will be worth it in the end.

Protestants emphasize evangelism, witnessing to those who do not know the Lord in order that they might be “saved.” Unfortunately, their focus usually ends here. Once they have seen that the convert has professed faith in Christ and is baptized, they move on to the next lost soul in order that he might find salvation. Many new Christians are left floundering in the dark, not knowing which way to turn. Many even fall away from religion, thinking it unnecessary. This truly is a shame – these “baby” Christians never mature in the faith. They never graduate from the “milk” of the Gospel to the “meat” of the word. They spend the remainder of their lives in a holding pattern, never really understanding the possibilities of a full, knowing, loving relationship with their newly found Savior.

While some Catholics understand a mission in evangelism, the majority of Catholicism concentrates on Catechizing the converted, or the children thereof, in the ways of the Church. Again this presents a problem in that, should a “seeker” find the Church, they do not tend to receive the totality of teaching required to reach maturity in the faith, not to mention that the concept is lacking on the other end of the spectrum from the Protestants. Again this leads to a falling away from the church by many, if not most.

My point is that, without continued education, new Christians cannot know enough to lead them to the point of spiritual maturity required for full surrender to Christ. In order to KNOW Him, we must know OF Him. But we cannot stop with simply knowing of Him.

Anyone with any experience in most mainline Protestant churches will recognize the term “altar call.” For those who do not, I will offer a brief explanation. After a hearty and sometimes emotional sermon, the pastor will usually call for any who wish to accept Christ as Savior. Accompanying his pleas, the choir, and oft times the congregation, will sing an “Invitation Hymn.” One of my favorites was “I Surrender All.” It is in part petition and in part a great profession of faith, but it speaks to the type of surrender of which I speak. May we all come to surrender to our Lord and depend upon Him, trusting that He will never lead us astray.

Jerry
<><

PS. I've added the lyrics below, as well as a link to a new rendition by a popular "Christian artist."

I Surrender All

All to Jesus, I surrender;
All to Him I freely give;
I will ever love and trust Him,
In His presence daily live.

Refrain

I surrender all,
I surrender all,
All to Thee, my blessèd Savior,
I surrender all.

All to Jesus I surrender;
Humbly at His feet I bow,
Worldly pleasures all forsaken;
Take me, Jesus, take me now.

Refrain

All to Jesus, I surrender;
Make me, Savior, wholly Thine;
Let me feel the Holy Spirit,
Truly know that Thou art mine.

Refrain

All to Jesus, I surrender;
Lord, I give myself to Thee;
Fill me with Thy love and power;
Let Thy blessing fall on me.

Refrain

All to Jesus I surrender;
Now I feel the sacred flame.
O the joy of full salvation!
Glory, glory, to His Name!

Refrain

Love Your Neighbor as Yourself...

Matt 22:36 Master, which is the great commandment in the law? 37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. 38 This is the first and great commandment. 39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. 40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

Easy, right? Really? As stated by Jesus, these two commandments are the summation of the Law and the prophets, and as we know the law was given to show man his sin. We are not meant to be able to follow the law in and of ourselves. In fact, there has been only one person who has kept the law perfectly…Jesus the Christ. Following this logic, we cannot love God with all our hearts, souls, and minds without help from Him. Just as the gift of God’s grace gives us the desire and ability to believe unto salvation, that same grace gives us the ability to agapaō God with all our hearts, souls, and minds. What about the mandate that we are to agapaō our neighbor as ourselves? The same must, of course, apply. I would add to that the following: one cannot love his neighbor as himself unless he loves God with all his heart, soul, and mind; and one cannot love God with all his heart, soul, and mind without loving his neighbor as himself.

Do I love my neighbor as myself? I certainly try, but I will be the first to admit that I find difficulties in that from time to time. What does that say about my love for God? I think it means that while God has begun a good work in me, it is not yet finished. I am a work in progress. Do I love God? Emphatically, yes! Is it the perfect love that He demands? Sadly, no. How can I, an imperfect being, have perfect love? As I said, God gives the ability, I try, and eventually God will help me (allow me?) to get it right.

Lord I believe…please, help my unbelief!

Jerry
<><

Newbie Anglican - A Resolution and a Plea

I found this piece on the Rev. Canon Dr. Kendall Harmon’s blog and thought it very appropriate for the times in which we live. I’m including a link to the site, as well as adding it to my "Blogs" section.

Peace,
Jerry
<><

A Resolution and a Plea

I perhaps should have made this post on New Years Day or before. But I’ve struggled with how to approach what I think needs to be said and still do even as I type this (which will probably show). Those who peruse the big Anglican blogs know that “Communion Conservatives” (those who advocate contending for the faith by staying in the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion) and “Federal Conservatives” (those who are convinced one or both of those bodies are too far gone to the point they think it best orthodox at least prepare to leave) are rather close to each other’s throats at the moment. To be honest, I have my opinion as to which side is most at blame, but that’s not my concern right now. This post may even seem a bit vague because I don’t want to engage in figure pointing. For my concern is that anger between the two sides is getting to and past the point that it will make it difficult for these two sides of orthodox Anglicans to work together in the future. That distresses me. If it turns out the Federal Conservatives are right and the Communion Conservative eventually find staying in TEC and the like to be untenable, I want the Comm-Cons to feel they have a refuge in Common Cause and/or whatever church bodies the Fed-Cons form. Likewise, if a miracle happens and the Anglican Communion or even the Episcopal Church sufficiently reforms, I want Fed-Cons to feel they can return. I hope the current divisions between the two are temporary. And even if Comm-Cons and Fed-Cons remain on different tracks, I want them to be able still to work together on those things they can. For the sake of current and future unity and witness, both sides should step back and engage in self-criticism instead of undercutting the other side. And, yes, there has been willful undercutting of the efforts of faithful orthodox Anglicans by other committed orthodox Anglicans. That must stop. Communion Conservatives should focus on what they are going to do in the current situation instead of undercutting what the Federal Conservatives are doing. Likewise, Federal Conservatives should focus on their direction and not ridicule the strategy of Communion Conservatives or say they are in any way unfaithful for staying. And I include myself in that. I find some Communion Conservatives exasperating at times, and when I get in rant mode, my words can be rather sharp. So if I’ve said anything unhelpful about the Comm-Cons, I apologize. I will exercise the utmost care in what I write about them from henceforth, and I invite my good readers to hold me accountable in that. Both sides need likewise to step back and repent or at least relent lest we become an ugly spectacle that makes our divisions harsher and more permanent and causes long lasting damage to orthodox Anglican unity and witness.

Wannabe Newbie Anglican