Practical tips in celebrating the Lord's Supper

When John Wesley sent Bishop Thomas Coke along with the Articles of Religion and The Sunday Service Book across the ocean to found The Methodist Episcopal Church (now The United Methodist Church) he urged the ordained elders to celebrate Holy Communion "every Lord's Day" using this official liturgy. With the adoption of "This Holy Mystery" the General Conference of The United Methodist Church has repeated this call to our clergy and congregations: move toward weekly communion and use the established liturgy.

As a campus minister who travels to various churches, I have had opportunity to witness a number of different Methodist pastors celebrate the sacrament and have a few practical observations and pointers to improve what we actually do at the table. Those pastors who are not detail-oriented may not think these tips are significant or worth bothering to think about ahead of time, yet these practices will make a difference for the people of your congregation.

1) This one I am less adamant about, but it is very appropriate, and a venerable old tradition, for representatives of the congregation to present the elements during the presentation of the offering (see page 8 of the Hymnal).


2) Have an altar-table, even if a small and portable one, that can be used to set the elements upon and which may support a worship book. Don't allow the table to become overly cluttered with decorations so as to obstruct your hand motions (see #5). Think dignity, beauty, and simplicity when decorating it. There are prayers for setting aside and dedicating a table for this sort of use in The Book of Worship.


3) As I have argued many times before, use the Church's Great Thanksgiving prayer from the worship books; don't just make it up as you go. The Church's prayer tells the story of God, and communicates the Church's beliefs (not only the individual pastor's) about the Lord's Supper. If you check out Great Thanksgiving #2 or #3 in the Hymnal, you will note that there are places where the pastor may "say words appropriate to the occassion" and this is the proper place to pray "as the Spirit leads" (perhaps touching upon the message of the sermon), yet doing so within the structure of the Church's ancient and communal prayer. Thus, in our United Methodist liturgy, there is both form and flexibility and this we should own and celebrate.

The use of the Church's prayer should include breaking the bread with the words from the liturgy after the Lord's Prayer (see United Methodist Hymnal page 11).

Do not divide the prayer up with different people saying different parts. It is a single prayer and should be led by a single elder/presbyter (or bishop).


4) Stand at the altar-table during the Great Thanksgiving - do not read the prayer from the pulpit or some other place. This may mean getting an assistant, or a book stand, to hold the worship book if need be, as it certainly makes a lot more sense for me to stand close enough to touch the elements while I am actually consecrating them. Likewise you should have all of the elements that you intend to consecrate on (or very near) the table during the Great Thanksgiving.

If your table is attached to the back wall (as in many gothic buildings) you may proceed in several ways.
I have been to Anglo-Catholic services where the priest faces the altar (and not the people) and actually find it sort of cool - he is, after all, leading us in talking to God, not talking to us, so don't be afraid to try that. Or you could pull in a portable table (see #2) so as to face the people. Or you could compromise and face the people from the beginning of the prayer ("The Lord be with you...") until the Words of Institution at which point you could turn and face the altar. If you try this it might still be appropriate to turn towards the people when saying "Take, eat..." and "Drink from this..." and holding up the appropriate element.


5) What are you doing with your hands? I have noticed some clergy seem undecided about their hand motions, sometimes holding them up or folding them, appartently at random. Use your hand motions deliberately. Here is what I suggest and always do (I believe this is what the Book of Worship also commends):

I lift my hands (palms up) at the beginning of the prayer, and keep them raised until the words of institution (except I fold them during the Sanctus, "Holy, Holy...").

During the words of institution I lift the bread and then the cup at the appropriate points, then fold my hands during the Memorial Acclamation ("Christ has died...").
During the Epiclesis I elevate my hands, palms towards the people ("Pour out your Spirit on us gathered here..."), and then move them over the elements, palms down (and on these gifts of bread and wine...).

Finally I lift my hands again (palms up) for the concluding doxology.
I try to make all of my motions slow-ish and deliberate. At any rate you should do something with your hands, as it will engage the congregation more in the sacramental moment. Do not underestimate the importance of body language.


6) What about the vessels? I always use, and recommend, a single loaf and a single cup (just the way Jesus and the Apostle Paul do it in the Bible). I consecrate the same vessels that we will actually use in distribution (no "prop" vessels). I never use the "communion shot glasses" as they destroy the whole "one body" image.


7) Let the people come (as they are physically able) to the altar area to recieve, do not pass the elements around the pews. It is strongly encouraged in our Methodist tradition that we sing during this time.


8) Use handsome vessels since the beauty or ugliness of our vessels communicates about the reality of what is happening as surely as our words do. I generally use a silver chalice and patten (a small plate), since I think the "clay-ware" chalices are (generally) quite ugly looking. I have seen some nice wooden and glass sets, however. Again, don't underestimate the importance of visual cues and the ways that images communicate - especially for Postmodern young people.


9) Along the same lines as #8, do use some vestments when celebrating the Lord's Supper. Several points are worth noting here:

a) We are heirs to a rich tradition of vestments from the Early Church and the Anglican Tradition and that is a legacy that we ought not cast off lightly. Among other things that they do, vestments visually connect us to the Church through history and visually enhance the total worship experience.

b) You can have energetic cutting-edge/contemporary music and vestments in the same service. Believe me, people do it. Don't allow yourself to be caught up in a false antithesis between "traditional worship" and "contemporary worship." Feel free to boldly blur those artificial lines.

c) If you don't wear a clergy robe or an alb during the service, you might consider at least wearing a stole - the symbol or ordination, sacramental authorization, and servant leadership - during the Great Thanksgiving. I don't generally wear a full robe at the campus ministry where I serve, but I do always drape a stole of the appropriate liturgical color over the altar-table and put it upon myself just before the Great Thanksgiving prayer. Sometimes I wear a collar.

The practice of always wearing a white stole for communion is a relic of the days when communion was not celebrated regularly. For weekly celebration the appropriate liturgical color should be worn. In terms of robes, the white Alb, the "standard" black clergy robe (Geneva gown), or the cassock and surplice are those most often used among United Methodist clergy and (along with the stole) all have precedent in the Anglican and/or Early Church tradition.


10) Wash your hands before the service. In some traditions (Anglicanism, Roman Catholicism) it is the custom for the priest to ceremonially wash hands before the Great Thanksgiving. You might want to introduce this as some Methodist clergy have done. You might also want to use sanitizer wipes, although if you do this do not tear open a wipes packet or use a squirt bottle right in front of everyone. This is tacky. Rather, have your wipes ready to go on the table. Slowly wipe your hands with them, and then carefully fold them and place them on the table before the Great Thanksgiving prayer (do not wad them up and chunk them in the trash as this too is tacky). Better still would be to have wipes by your chair to use before you approach the table. Again, keep in mind that all your body language communicates and that this is a sacred, beautiful, and reverent moment.


11) Have both a bread-breaker and a chalice-bearer when distributing the elements since this is more sanitary than letting each person grab the loaf themselves, and provides and excellent opportunity to better involve a deacon or lay person in the service.


12) Don't be afraid to experiment with the musical responses during the Great Thanksgiving prayer, especially after people have gotten accustomed to the flow of the Great Thanksgiving prayer. There are several musical responses in the Hymnal and The Faith We Sing and they can enrich your worship service.


13) Enjoy what you are doing! You are a presbyter of Christ's one holy Church and you have been given the sacred honor and responsibility to lead in consecrating the elements of Holy Communion and to facilitate an encounter between Christ and the people at the Lord's Table - that is awesome! So please don't just stand there and read a prayer like as though bored or "zoned out". Savor and enjoy what you are doing - and the other people will too.

SO - those are a few practical steps I hope every Methodist elder will consider taking as we attempt to lead the Church toward a more frequent and more engaging celebration of Holy Communion. What might you add to that?

Liturgy: Tool for evangelism?

This article at the Christian post tells about how church planter and Anglican bishop Todd Hunter is discovering that the liturgy itself, far from "turning people off" can - at least in some cases - be a tool for evangelism:

"Two dechurched friends told Hunter they had never kneeled before in their life as a believer and found that kneeling was rewiring their souls. Another friend said reciting creeds is making his faith come alive.

And when he met with a young adult who frequents parties and with whom he is well acquainted, he received a vision that if she and others around her age just prayed the Prayer of Confession week after week, it would rewire their moral thinking.

When he was involved in the emerging church movement, Hunter found that there was a fascination among postmoderns with the past. Now a part of the Anglican Communion, he's discovering that liturgy can be used as a tool for evangelism."

The interest of postmoderns with the past and with many of the more ancient Christian practices is a trend that the "ancient future worship" movement has attempted to tap into. I believe that this could put United Methodist Churches in an excellent position to reach out to new people if we church leaders would be willing to do several things:

1) learn to lead our church's established liturgy, and to do so well; not half-heartedly, not sloppily, but with attention to beauty, excellence, and spiritual depth (I'll have a more detailed post on this next week!)

2) know what we are doing in the various parts of the liturgy (what they mean, where they come from) and share that knowledge with others so that both we and they can appreciate the liturgy more fully

3) be willing to incorporate contemporary music into our liturgy, using both together rather than pitting new music on the one hand against the liturgy on the other

4) understand and preach about our Wesleyan sacramental theology (perhaps re-reading his sermons on "The Means of Grace" and "The Duty of Constant Communion" and the lyrics of some of the Wesleyan sacramental hymns are good places to start, and perhaps a re-read of "This Holy Mystery" is in order)

Who are our BIG theologians?

When I consider some of my favorite theologians, or those who have influenced me a great deal, I can't help but notice that very few of them are United Methodist theologians. Several of them are Anglicans. Consider this very quickly thrown together list of my bigger influences (I have read at least one complete work of some kind - possibly several - from each of these):

St. Athanasius (undivided Church)
St. Augustine (undivided Church)
Martin Luther (Lutheran)
Thomas Cranmer (Anglican)
John Wesley (Anglican*)
C.S. Lewis (Anglican)
Albert Outler (Methodist)
Richard Foster (Society of Friends)
Thomas Oden (Methodist)
N.T. Wright (Anglican)

Now I might add more to that - William Abraham and Will Willimon are both United Methodist theologians that I like very much, but I don't get a strong sense that they are as widely read outside of the denomination as is the case for some of those listed above. Maybe in a few decades... St. John of Damascus of the ancient Church and Scott Hahn, a contemporary Roman Catholic, have also had some influence on me.

So what do you think: who are the really BIG theologians of the United Methodist Church who are making waves in the broader ecumenical church? Are there any? Who are your favorite theologians?

Lutherans plan denominational split

Last summer the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) voted to enter into full communion with The United Methodist Church. Then the Lutherans turned around and lifted their ban on sexually active gay clergy, thus formally departing from the very clear teachings of the Bible and the Great Tradition on Christian sexual morality. At that point a denominational split was simply inevitable - indeed we might say it had already begun.

Now moderates and conservatives within the Lutheran Church are planning the formation of a new denomination (for more, go here or here). No doubt these folks will be called "conservatives" or "traditionalists" in reports, but the fact that they are not seeking to join the Lutheran Church, Missouri Synod (LCMS) or the much more conservative Wisconsin Synod demonstrates that these are in fact more moderate conservatives who nevertheless will not remain in communion with the ELCA if there is a departure from Scriptural teaching.

Science and Faith used to be Allies

Did you see this editorial a couple weeks back? Perhaps, if we listen to someone besides fundamentalist Protestants and fundamentalist atheists, perhaps they can be again.

Roe v Wade and the death of dialogue

A few weeks ago I ran across David Gushee's excellent editorial in The USA Today called "What Roe Started". Gushee, an evangelical Christian and professor at Mercer University, argues that the Roe v Wade decision fundamentally altered the state of civil discourse and debate in America's political life.

The abortion issue raised the stakes of cultural debate so high that it became almost irrestistably easy for people to demonize those on "the other side." Thus abortion proponents called pro-lifers "anti-choice" and saw them as attempting to extend government control even to the most intimate decisions made about our own bodies. What could be more intrusive and intolerable? On the other side pro-lifers saw abortion proponents as "pro-death" and as supporting the legal mass-murder of children, the most innocent and defensless members of our society. What could be more heinous?

And so, demonization has become a regular feature of our political discourse, now extending to many issues. The Left demonized Bush and now the right demonizes Obama. As Gushee puts it "the politics of decency gave way to blood sport." The problem is that it accomplishes nothing. Demonization of individuals shifts energy away from reasoned debate and therefore prevents deep dialogue about issues, and so demonization cannot promote rational persuasion and compromise which are absolutely necessary if we are to have a single government for such a diverse people.

There is no surprise, then, that our nation is now so culturally and politically divided. Gushee appeals for a more restrained, rational politics that seeks to find common ground, even while still profoundly disagreeing about Roe v Wade:

I myself am an evangelical Christian who thinks Roe is bad law. But I am also drawn toward any effort to find common ground, whether on abortion reduction strategies or on other issues. For this, I have been demonized. Some of these experiences have led me to reflect a bit on why, as a Christian, I am so committed to the effort to find common ground — and why I seek to resist the demonization of adversaries that I find very tempting sometimes.

I try to start by recognizing the God-given fellow humanity of everyone whom I encounter, even those I sharply disagree with. My faith teaches that every human being is made in the image of God and beloved by him. Each shares humanity's common pool of frailties and strengths. Every human being is worthy of being treated with basic human decency and respect. I try to do that. I remind myself that every human being is capable of error and sin. But I am also painfully aware that whatever must be said about the weakness and vulnerability of others must also be said about me.

And he ends on a hopeful note:

I dare to think that it's still not too late to be the kind of nation in which differences are debated honestly, the votes are cast, the decisions are made and we move forward together as one people. I would like to see Christians contribute to that kind of society, rather than to the demonization that undermines it at its foundations.

May God strengthen Christians to move beyond demonization and "argument culture" and be leaders on the way to a new age of civil, rational discourse. This too can be a strong witness to the Light of Jesus Christ for the whole culture to see.

For those readers inclined to take a trip back to the 16th Century - here is a wondeful wonderful discussion of the views of that great foundational Anglican theologian Richard Hooker on the nature of discourse rooted in faith, hope, and love. He humorously called the political and theological discussions of his own day "full of tongue and weak of brain" - sounds familiar...

Evangelism by Trendiness

At the campus ministry I serve, one of our small groups is reading Blue Like Jazz by Donald Miller. I suppose this may be a trendy thing to do. Hmmm...

In any case, I ran across this quote in chapter 10 that seems to get at some of my questions about the way United Methodist churches are trying to market themselves (as in the RETHINK campaign for example), or the hasty dash I see some churches making to throw off our distinctive traditions in order to become just like non-denominational churches for the sake or reaching new people - what is the underlying reasoning behind what we are doing? Have we thought about it theologically?

Miller writes:
"A friend of mine, a young pastor who recently started a church, talks to me from time to time about the new face of church in America - about the postmodern church. He says the new church will be different from the old one, that we will be relevant to culture and human struggle. I don't think any church has ever been relevant to culture, to human struggle, unless it believed in Jesus and the power of his gospel. If the supposed new church believes in trendy music and cool webpages, then it is not relevant to culture either. It is just another tool of Satan to get people to be passionate about nothing."

I've got no problem with good music or cool webpages, nor with churches trying to do new things. What concerns me is an attitude that if we can just make church "cool" for those outside (and usually we let the insiders decide what that means), if we can just put the right packaging on it, then we will accomplish our mission (which appears to be attendance growth).

"Give the people what they want."

But at that point have we not bought into consumerism and reduced our faith to a spiritual commodity to be marketed? The truth is our message is something un-cool: Come die with us. Come bear a cross with us. Come learn what it means to be a spiritual sacrifice, acceptable and pleasing unto God. Come suffer through mediocre sermons and un-trendy music. Come put up with the broken best efforts of other Christians who are all struggling together to live in God's grace and to be his church. Come learn how to live in a community where we love not because when we first showed up everything was as hip and cool as a television commercial (it certainly wasn't), but rather because we have imbibed deeply of the love of God through some crazy old book and weird rituals with bread and water and wine that are thousands of years out-of-fashion.

This is, I suppose, the reason for my sort of admiration for the Greek Orthodox: they carry on as if it is still the year AD 787 and they don't really care what I think of it. Good for them, I like that.

God willing, I will never become one of those perpetual, cynical, complainers about the church (we have plenty of this and it is often unhealthy). We have been given an awesome, hopeful, joy-filled, ancient faith. We are offered a sharing in the very life of the Triune God (which hasn't made it into our RETHINK commercials yet, as far as I can tell). We have been grafted into the body of Christ - the Church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the Truth. I love the Church. We should just be who we really are - with conviction (this brings up that whole denominational identity thing) - rather than trying to figure out what "they" want us to be. Will the attendance grow if we do that? I have no idea. Probably it will in some places and not in other. But ultimately all shall be well. All manner of thing shall be well.

Happy "All Souls Day"!

What the Pope actually offered the Anglicans

Here is an excellent article spelling out what we do and do not actually know at this point about the offer being made by the Pope to Anglicans who wish to become Roman Catholic. It dispells 5 myths that are out there among blogs and news sites.

Methodist-Lutheran Unity Statement

As you may have heard, this past summer the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) accepted the full communion agreement with The United Methodist Church (UMC), that the United Methodist General Conference also had accepted back in the summer of 2008. So now our churches are in "full communion." We recognize one another as equal and fully legitimate expressions of the one body of Christ, proclaiming a common faith, celebrating common sacraments, with interchangeable clergy and seminaries and so forth.

I've only recently read the unity statement called "Confessing our Faith Together" (available beginning on page 12 of this study guide). It is always nice to read these ecumenical statements because they set forth what each Church considers the fundamentals of its own faith and practice, and so form a nice "refresher" in the basics of Lutheran and Methodist theology. It is also reassuring to note that the general theological flavor of this document is orthodox, especially with regards to Trinity, Christology, soteriology, and sacraments.

A couple of points are worth noting:

In the section on theological authority, paragraph 12 reminds us that Holy Scripture is the primary authority for both Churches; para. 13 points out that both see the Apostles' Creed and the Nicene Creed as basic statemtents of the apostolic faith; and para. 17 notes important elements of the tradition that serve as practical authorities, naming the teachers of the Early Church, Martin Luther, and John & Charles Wesley as formative teachers for our common faith.

The Section on Prevenient Grace has this well-said quote:

Since all life is enveloped by the wooing activity of the Holy Spirit, God draws people to the saving grace given to us through Word and sacrament and received by faith in Jesus Christ.

The second part of this sentence is an excellent way to phrase the relationship between God's initiative in giving grace through the Bible and through the Sacraments (the "means of grace") on the one hand, and the importance of our recieving grace by faith in Christ on the other. This forms the foundation of a Christianity that is at once both sacramental and evangelical. Through the Biblical Word and through the sacraments God gives grace; while it is by faith in Christ, trusting our Lord and Savior, that we recieve his grace. In this way we hold together the Biblical truths that the sacraments really do incorporate us into salvation (see John 3:5; John 6; Rom. 6; 1 Cor. 10; Titus 3; 1 Pet. 3) and also that salvation is through faith (John 3:16; Eph. 2:8-10, etc.).

Note also the nice emphasis on a high eucharistic doctrine held in common by both Churches in para.s 40 & 41:

In this sharing (koinonia), Christ offers his life-giving body and blood through bread and wine to all who take part in the celebration of this meal (1 Corinthians 10:16). In the words of Christ that institute this meal stands a promise that he himself is truly present for us. These words in the Supper call us to faith...It is by the living word of Christ, empowered by the Holy Spirit, that the bread and wine become the sacrament of Christ’s body and blood.

The document also implicitly calls for the celebration of Holy Communion to be as frequent as possible (in para. 46):

This meal unites us with God and with one another; the more time we spend at the Lord’s table, the more we come to love one another and appreciate the Giver of every good and perfect gift.

So, I recommend this theological statement to Methodist and Lutheran Christians, and to others interested in the unity of the Church, or the basics of the catholic faith held in common across denominational lines.

Unfortunately, this full communion agreement itself has something of a cloud hanging over it, since the same Lutheran Conference that accepted this agreement then turned around and removed the rules requiring their clergy to hold to Biblical sexual standards (in order to facilitate actively homosexual clergy; click here for an interesting description). This move will undoubtedly fracture the unity of the ELCA itself over time, leaving a big question-mark over the future of this full communion agreement.

Pondering this calls to mind the words from The Book of Common Prayer (and Wesley's revision of it): "...inspire your catholic Church with the spirit of truth, unity, and harmony and grant that all who confess your holy Name may agree in the truth of your holy Word, and live in unity..." And we see in these strange times how much we need to continue praying that prayer for the Church.

[pictured above, ELCA Bishop Hanson (left), and UMC Bishop Oden applaud the move toward full-communion]

Wesley on how to read the Bible

How to Read Scripture:

If you desire to read the scripture in such a manner as may most effectually answer this end, would it not be advisable,

1. To set apart a little time, if you can, every morning and evening for that purpose?

2. At each time if you have leisure, to read a chapter out of the Old, and one out of the New Testament: if you cannot do this, to take a single chapter, or a part of one?

3. To read this with a single eye, to know the whole will of God, and a fixt resolution to do it? In order to know his will, you should,

4. Have a constant eye to the analogy of faith; the connexion and harmony there is between those grand, fundamental doctrines, Original Sin, Justification by Faith, the New Birth, Inward and Outward Holiness.

5. Serious and earnest prayer should be constantly used, before we consult the oracles of God, seeing "scripture can only be understood thro' the same Spirit whereby it was given." Our reading should likewise be closed with prayer, that what we read may be written on our hearts.

6. It might also be of use, if while we read, we were frequently to pause, and examine ourselves by what we read, both with regard to our hearts, and lives. This would furnish us with matter of praise, where we found God had enabled us to conform to his blessed will, and matter of humiliation and prayer, where we were conscious of having fallen short.

And whatever light you then receive, should be used to the uttermost, and that immediately. Let there be no delay. Whatever you resolve, begin to execute the first moment you can. So shall you find this word to be indeed the power of God unto present and eternal salvation.

-John Wesley

Preface to Explanatory Notes upon the Old Testament

EDINBURGH, April 25, 1765.

You know, one might expect this to be the sort of thing that one was assigned to read if one went to a United Methodist seminary. Of course, in all fairness, it may have been assigned on a day that I didn't finish all of my homework. That is very possible. Still, as we spent so much time talking about Biblical hermeneutics (the reading and interpretation of the Bible) it would seem that this little passage should have been brought up on several occasions, though I can't say that I remember that happening.

Anyways, it is never too late to learn more about being a disciple.

Is the New York Times anti-Catholic?

Archbishop of New York Timothy Dolan says that it certainly has been. Read here for more.

Newest gothic cathedral to be consecrated

Thur. 10/29 will see St. John's Anglican Cathedral consecrated in Brisbane, Australia, making it the world's latest Gothic Cathedral. Construction began in 1906 on the 1889 design. Click here for images.

Falling away from the faith

One of the most disturbing discoveries I made in college as I was transitioning out of some particulars of (Southern) Baptist theology into a more classical sacramental theology, as it is embodied in the Wesleyan tradition, was that most Christians do not, and have not across the ages, believed in "once saved always saved" - which is one of the most sacred doctrines of my Baptist brethren. Once a person had experienced a conversion (generally by praying The Sinners' Prayer at an altar-call), he could never be seperated or fall away from his saved state. There was an ontological change in that New Birth (which was entirely synonymous with that conversion moment) that could not be undone and which itself assured one of final salvation at the coming of Christ.

I discovered, however, that Methodists, Catholics, Anglicans, the Orthodox, most Pentecostals, and perhaps even Lutherans (I'm a little iffy on Lutherans, but see Article 11, paragraph 42 of the Formula of Concord) do not believe this. The vast majority of Christians held in a catholic consensus that falling away from the faith was at least theoretically possible - that those who "have once been enlightened, and have tasted the heavenly gift, and have shared in the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come" (the power of resurrection and New Creation at work in inner being - exactly the ontological change my friends were trusting in, as in 2 Cor. 5:17) can nevertheless become those who "have fallen away" and who are "holding him [Christ] up to contempt" and who cannot be restored to repentance while they are doing so (Hebrews 6:4-6).

It took me a while to really let this sink in, because it was very different than what I had heard growing up in Baptist-saturated North Louisiana.

Here is an excerpt from the writings of the early Methodist theologian John Fletcher, a fellow Anglican priest who travelled extensively with John Wesley and wrote against 5-point Calvinism. His theological writings were very influential in the early Methodist movement. I recently ran across this, which got me to thinking about this debate again. You will see that Fletcher draws upon several Biblical passages and Scriptural ideas in arguing against "once saved always saved." Wesleyan theology instead argues, along with the catholic consensus, that the converted must continually live and grow in the grace of Christ. If they fall into sin or deny him, the Spirit will call them back to faith and they must turn back to him with faith and repentance if they are again to walk in his grace (Roman Catholics emphasize the importance of confessing to a presbyter and recieving absolution at this point).

It seems to me that the Wesleyan question the is not only "have you been converted in the past?" (as is suggested by the Southern Baptist theology I had heard), but more to the point, "are you walking and growing in the grace of Jesus Christ right now in the present?" And if not, let us confess our sins and pray for the Spirit to give us true repentance (as it says in the old Common Prayer Book liturgy).

Celebrating 10 years of Justification consensus

Protestants - Lutherans and Methodists in particular - and Roman Catholics are gathering in Old St. Patrick's Church, Chicago, today to celebrate 10 years of a consensus on the doctrine of Justification by Faith with the Roman Catholic Church.

Considered the most significant agreement since the Reformation, the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification was signed by the Vatican and the Lutheran World Federation on Oct. 31, 1999 in an effort to end centuries of doctrinal dispute.
"For hundreds of years, the issue of justification by faith divided Catholics and Protestants," said Bishop Gregory Palmer, president of The United Methodist Church’s Council of Bishops, in a released statement. "This agreement celebrates consensus on the basic truths of the doctrine of justification."
Methodists joined the agreement in 2006 during a World Methodist Council meeting in Seoul, South Korea.

For the full article, click here.

The Top Theological Schools

HERE is an unscientific list of some of the top theological schools in North America according to the "First Things" website (which is a source I generally enjoy reading).

Though not exactly a numerical ranking, it does name Duke Divinity School and Notre Dame as the top two programs on the continent. Both have remained on top for years he says because they have consistently hired "intellectually exciting professors who are committed to students and care deeply about the future of a decidedly orthodox and church-oriented vocation of theological scholarship."

One of the questions that often gets asked about some of the other United Methodist divinity schools (besides Duke) is whether the academic explorations going on are really in service to the Church's Biblical mission, or only to the academic aspirations of the faculty (though the two may indeed walk together at times). This is, I think, a fair question.

After these Princeton Theological Seminary and Wycliffe College at the University of Toronto are praised for their various strengths. The article also notes that unfortunately a number of traditionally fine Jesuit colleges, as well as many of the oldest and most revered Protestant schools have become enamored with various types of contextual theology or "innovations" such that, while they still have much to offer academically, the commitment to Christian orthodoxy and strengthening the Church's mission has become more marginal - though he does list some exceptions.

The institutions affiliated with Catholic University (such as the John Paul II Institute and Dominican House of Studies) get high praise, on the other hand, for focusing on Christian vocation hand-in-hand with serious theological study.

He closes out his list mentioning the excellent work by notable faculty at The University of Dayton; my own seminary, Perkins School of Theology at Southern Methodist University (which I am glad to see made this list); Baylor University; and the Dominican School of Philosophy and theology at Berkeley which make them all solid options for graduate studies.

So that's the list at First Things. What about you? Any other suggestions on the Top Theological Schools in North America?

Church of England opposes euthanasia

I don't know if this is a new stand or not, other Christian communions have come out against euthanasia and medically assisted suicide long ago. But it is nice to hear some good news about the Church of England.

Click here to learn more. I was interested to read over the principles that form the base of this postion. It seems to me that these same principles apply to opposition to abortion in most cases as well:

Principles behind this position
• Personal autonomy and the protection of life are both important principles that are often complementary but sometimes compete.
• Personal autonomy must be principled and not without regard to others.
• Protection of life should take priority when there is a conflict between the two.
• When protection of life is impossible that does not undermine these principles.
• Every human being is uniquely and equally valuable, hence human rights are built on the foundation of the ‘right to life’, as is much of the criminal code.
• An obligation on society, doctors and nurses, to take life or to assist in the taking of life would create a new and unwelcome role for society.

A Scientist's case for God

I recently heard that Francis Collins, head of the Human Genome Project, and author of the book The Language of God, has been appointed by President Obama as head of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) (I know, I must have been under a rock).

Not surprisingly, some of the "new atheists" - such as Sam Harris in a New York Times editorial - have criticised this move, suggesting that Collins, because he is a believer in God, is by that very fact disqualified from holding this position of leadership in the scientific/medical community. I think that critique is very interesting since it seems to be the case that behind what Sam Harris is saying is this: unless a person thinks as he thinks on this question of God's existence, then that person should have no place in the scientific conversation. It looks to me like an ideological power-grab, the very kind of dialogue-squelching that religious institutions have too often been guilty of in the past (the Galileo affair comes to mind).

Naturally, I believe that in so far as scientific discoveries and Christian faith both give insight into various aspects of the real world as it truly is, there is no necessary incompatibility between the two. All Truth is God's Truth, however it is discovered or revealed. Unfortunately, too many narrative crafters in American society (both in the media, the academy, and in the Church) have endlessly spoken of the "conflict" between "religion" and "science" (whatever those terms mean in the abstract).

I think that narrative needs to be vigorously challenged by Christian (and other) intellectuals and culture-shapers. To that end, I am happy to share this radio interview in which Francis Collins speaks of his own faith as one who is both a moderate Evangelical Protestant Christian and also an emminent scientist.

On the substance of the interview - I thought it was very good. I would love to have heard a little bit about the different sorts of "evidences" that are used in different disciplines (the criteria for evidence used to support a claim is quite different depending on whether one is an historian or a physicist, for example). Christian belief can be supported from various disciplines - the historical investigation (using rigorous standards of historical evidence) of the event of the Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth seems to me to be the most straight-forward (and N.T. Wright's book The Resurrection of the Son of God is among the most significant statements of the historical case for the Resurrection).

Is health care a "right"?

I ran across an interesting article this morning about using the language of "rights" to talk about health care access. I noticed last week that NPR was doing this in exploring healthcare systems in other developed nations - all of which (except for the US according to NPR's narrative) have decided that health care is a basic human "right."

I wondered how this could be the case. There is something about health care that does not at all seem to be like freedom of speech or freedom from arbitrary imprisonment. It seems further away from the basics of what it is to be a human creature. I felt a nagging suspicion that there was a category mistake being made - perhaps similar to the category mistake that is made when people talk about the "right" of this or that person or group to be ordained in the Church, which misses the point that ordination is a gift from God, not a right that any of us can demand and that true Justice, by the nature of things, must give (for that is what a right is).

So check out these thought-provoking quotes from this post (and read the whole article too!):

Since his [Thomas Jefferson's] day, and certainly preceding it, the historic American understanding of human rights is the exercise of individual freedom, especially in the political realm, for both public and personal good. We have historically never understood our rights as encompassing access to services or commodities...

It does sound all high minded to say that, like rights, health care should be equal for everybody, which I suppose is why clergy are so susceptible to claim it. It's more than obvious that no one in the Congress or the White House believes it, though...

(While the post begins by pointing out that The United Methodist Church's Social Principles call health care a right, it goes on to point out the differently nuanced position of the Roman Catholic Church:)

[T]he Catholic Church does not teach that “health care” as such, without distinction, is a natural right.The “natural right” of health care is the divine bounty of food, water, and air without which all of us quickly die. This bounty comes from God directly. None of us own it, and none of us can morally withhold it from others. The remainder of health care is a political, not a natural, right, because it comes from our human efforts, creativity, and compassion.

Check it out for your pondering pleasure. I should point out that I certainly favor affordable, high-quality, and universally available health care, and as a society we should work to make this a reality. I believe that a society in which that kind of care is available is, so far, a better one than a society in which that is not available, all other things being equal.
But that would also be true for universally available, high-quality, and low-priced homes, but this doesn't therefore mean that home-ownership is a basic human right, only that such a society would be a better one (I think). Likewise, I'm just not so sure that health care is therefore a natural "right" just because it is good for society. Yet we really can promote something as a positive good for society even if we don't believe it falls into the category of a natural human right (because it fails to meet the criteria belonging to that category).

But I would be interested to see a good solid argument that health-care is a right of nature for all humans, if anyone runs across a good one (keep in mind that an argument gives reasons for a position, not merely assertions of that position).

How simple should Christianity be?

That is the question asked by this post over at "Glory to God for all things" - and one that I have asked before.

There is in parts of the catholic Church, especially in American Protestantism I think, an impulse that wants to simplify everything, to reduce everything to its most basic elements - including our worship, our theology, our preaching and so on. That which is complex or difficult is labelled "irrelevant" and that which is simple or easy is "accessible" and no other justification is then even needed to jetison the complex in favor of the simple. The assumption seems to be that if it doesn't reach the broadest possible audience it therefore must not be true - or not the truth that we want, anyway. It seems to me that this is one reason why proposed changes in the life of the church can be made - even significant ones - without particularly deep or rigorous theological reflection or forethought.

People like simple and easy, therefore they might actually grab hold if that is what we have to offer.

But the more I think about this - the more I think that real life is not simple and real life is not easy. And a grown-up faith that takes real life seriously must not be either. Of course, the complex is difficult to reduce to a slogan or a formula in any sort of useful way. Try reducing the wonderful sacramental theology of the classical tradition to 4 Spiritual Laws. Thinking about it this way has made "presenting the gospel" (in the classical evangelical sense) in my preaching a bit more difficult, because, when I've presented the basics, I always feel that I am only scratching the surface and need to say alot more. I talk about relationship with Jesus, but feel the need to go back and say quite abit more about covenant since it is none other than a covenant relationship that we are invited to, and so on.

Anyways, that was a definite ramble - the original post I linke to is very good. You should read it.

How God changes your brain

Check out this article discussing the changes that occured in the brains of Christian and Buddist monks and nuns who engaged in periods of intense prayer and meditation. The studies show that such spiritual practices literally reshape the way the brain works in ways that make the practicioner more calm, relaxed, compassionate, and deeply mindful. Such practices can have the same effects even for non-religious people.

I suspect that God has "hard-wired" us in such a way that these practices literally shape us to be more like him. Interestingly, saying short prayers (as is commonly practiced by many moderately religious individuals) did not show the same positive effects upon the brain.

I recently saw a guy talking about the same subject on Public Television. All of this has made me want to revisit Practicing the Presence of God by Brother Lawrence.

Do men use abortion to manipulate women?

On occasion I run across an article by Albert Mohler, who was at one time the president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Kentucky, and is a widely read social critic. One time he randomly came into the Cokesbury where I worked on Southern Methodist University's campus. Now I have a few theological disagreements with Mr. Mohler, and often find him to be a bit to the right of me on some social and political issues, but if I do see a column of his that looks interesting I'll often give it a chance.

I recently read this one about how abortion has been used by men and ammunition to persuade women to have sex. In a cultural context when abortion was not legal "on demand" as a means of birth control, women could use the risk of pregnancy as a reason for saying "no" to sex, or the fact of pregnancy to persuade the man who fathered the child to propose marriage and help rear the child.

With legal abortion "on demand," men are more likely to expect their girlfriends to have sex with them (perhaps on threat of ending the relationship if they do not), because a potential impediment has been removed (or so the argument will go). And should such illicit sex lead to a pregnancy, the man can abandon his responsibilities in the matter by pointing out that it is (supposedly) "the woman's choice" - and therefore her responsibility alone - if the child is born or not. Whether she has the child or not, he will not feel pressured to marry her.

This, of course, reinforces a number of personal and social problems: the problem of female poverty and single-parenthood and the personal frustration that go with them; the problem of fatherless children who are more likely to get into legal trouble and less likely to succeed in virtually every measurable way than are children with fathers (minority communities are especially hard hit here); the various problems and social ills that result from these first problems (cycles of poverty, overcrowded prisons, etc.); and on it goes.

A practice that was hailed by feminists as liberating for women, giving them more control over their lives, may have - in many cases - had the exact opposite effect. An interesting fact presented in this essay is that the great majority (64%) of women who had abortions felt pressured by others to do so. I was reminded of a comment by bishop Willimon (which I have mentioned before) that a Duke study found that most women who have abortions do so because they feel they have no other choice. It is a sad irony that some call this "freedom of choice."

There is a lot to think about in this article that Mohler has written, and so I do recommend it. As I have argued before, I believe that abortion on demand as a means of birth control (so I am not now speaking of abortion in medical emergencies to save the mother or cases or rape or other rare cases that are sometimes mentioned) is deeply corrosive for our humanity: bad for our families, bad for our children, and therefore bad for our whole community.

Of course, reducing, or eliminating this practice would require a huge cultural shift - a sexual counter-revolution, so to speak. And given the attitudes of many young Americans (and indeed, given the content of the media which is continually fed to us) this does not look especially likely. But who knows what tomorrow may hold, for with God all things are possible.

Newman on Wesley

"...if you wish to find [among the Anglicans] the shadow and the suggestion of the supernatural qualities which make up the notion of a Catholic Saint, to Wesley you must go, and such as him”

-John Henry Newman

from: Certain Difficulties felt by Anglicans in Catholic Teaching, vol. 1, pp. 88-91
(though, truth be told, Newman then expresses his distaste for Wesley's doctrines and his claims of inner assurance, but there it is).

Michael F. Bird on influential authors

Some of you may know of Michael Bird, who blogs mostly on stuff to do with New Testament scholarship over at www.euangelizomai.blogspot.com - here is his very funny (and nerdy) answer to the question of what writings have influenced him.

BW3 on Wright on TEC

In case you didn't get that title, I've run across some remarks by well-known United Methodist theologian Ben Witherington III, in which he comments on the statement made by NT Wright (see a few posts below) about the recent decisions of The Episcopal Church's General Convention, that basically threw off the rules of the wider Anglican Communion regarding sexual morality, in favor of a pro-homosexuality agenda.

Witherington's comments address the whole issue with insight, and brevity. To read them go here.

Praying the Psalms

"When through continuous prayer the words of the Psalms are brought down into the heart, then the heart like good soil begins to produce by itself various flowers..."
-Ilias the presbyter, from The Philokalia

One of the things that I have always loved about the Anglican tradition as contained in The Book of Common Prayer (BCP), is the praying of Psalms each day. In the Common Prayer Book one prays through the entire Psalter each and every month. This practice was passed along to the American Methodists in John Wesley's revision of the Common Prayer Book, the Sunday Service Book, in which about 3/4 of the Psalter is arranged for daily reading throughout the month. A selected Psalter is still to be found in our Hymnal, but without being divided into daily sections as in the BCP and Wesley's BCP revision.

As I pray the Psalms, and have done so regularly for several years now, it is amazing how much of Jesus I see in them. It is wonderful just how many little hints and whispers and opaque outlines of the life and death and Resurrection of Jesus are continuously found in them. I believe that they teach us how to interpret Scripture "mystically," if I may use the term in that way.

The Psalms also, of course, give us a voice to pray many of the deep, dark, thoughts that we are taboo to talk about in Church, for some reason: our times of doubt, of anger, of not "doing just fine."

Do you folks ever pray the Psalms?