It was St. Augustine who famously noted in his Confessions that our souls are restless until they find rest in thee. He was absolutely correct. True joy is only found in seeking out the fulness of God's presence in this world. Unfortunately, that qualifier, "in this world" must be attached as an addendum.
The Psalmist confesses that in God's presence is the fulness of joy (Ps. 16) The privileges of an indwelling Holy Spirit, and the presence of Christ in the Church through the sacraments are wonderful. And yet, we still see "darkly as through a glass." That phrase from St. Paul's first epistle to the Corinthians is immediately followed by the phrase "but then, face to face." That is, we have not yet reached, I do not believe, the heights of joy that are prepared for those who love God. Nor can we in this world. And this leaves a small sense of want, desire...a feeling that something is missing; a longing that is never quite satisfied.
C.S. Lewis wrote In the Weight of Glory "Apparently, then, our lifelong nostalgia, our longing to be reunited with something in the universe from which we now feel cut off, to be on the inside of some door which we have always seen from the outside, is no mere neurotic fancy, but the truest index of our real situation. And to be at last summoned inside would be both glory and honour beyond all our merits and also the healing of that old ache."
The notion that I was created for another world has been pressing on me the last couple of days. I'm not saying, "I want out" of this world. But there is simply nothing here I prefer to heaven and the fulness of God's presence. I pray all of your souls have found their rest in Christ...mine has. But I also hope you never limit your vision to what we see and experience here, even in the Church. The day is coming when we will see what no human eye has seen, and hear what no human ear has ever heard, and our small imaginations will be blown away by what God has prepared for us. In that paradise, we will see God "as he is" and the old ache and nostalgia will disappear in the joy of his eternal presence.
Friday, February 27, 2009
Thursday, February 19, 2009
The Proliferation of Sex in the Media
Just yesterday, I turned off one of my favorite television shows of all time because of an extended lewd conversation. I went to watch a youtube video only to find that the featured video of the day was something called Miss March. I picked up my mail to find a very revealing Victoria's Secret coupon shoved between the envelopes.
Our culture is saturated in sex. And yet, for as much as we see it around us, I think very few people understand it. Even Christians, who are told right in the Bible what sex is, think of it primarily as something we just have to avoid until we get married. That is what chastity has come to mean.
No one seems to remember anymore that its primary purpose is "to be fruitful and mulitply." (see the post on Birth Control) No one seems to remember that marriage is the picture of that spiritual marriage that exists between Christ and his Bride, the Church. It is a special, rather sacred thing.
Nonetheless, it is portrayed in media as a quick way for pleasure. The nature of television lends itself to making people believe that anything they see should happen that fast. Sex is something that should be enjoyed and then the relationship forged by it can easily be discarded. No one on television portrays the eternal aspect of what is involved in sex. It's all about what I can get right now.
So is it really a shock that sex has lost almost all of its value in American culture? Do even Christian people see it as a participation in the love shared between Christ and his Church? Not to mention, it is any wonder that STD's are so rampant? Sex is a good thing created by God for men. But it is intended for reproduction and to foster the already existing love between a man and a woman.
But the modern Christian understanding of sex is no different than the pagan one-only devout Christians wait until they are married. So as something of a Lenten challenge, I am asking my readers to avoid all sex in the media. Let's use this period of time, to try and recover sex from its trivialized position today as nothing more than a means to pleasure. Perhaps, if enough people did this, the sex industry would feel economic pain, sex between married couples would be viewed in a more eternal light, reported diseases would fall, and we would again see a rise in the number of children being raised by two parents.
Our culture is saturated in sex. And yet, for as much as we see it around us, I think very few people understand it. Even Christians, who are told right in the Bible what sex is, think of it primarily as something we just have to avoid until we get married. That is what chastity has come to mean.
No one seems to remember anymore that its primary purpose is "to be fruitful and mulitply." (see the post on Birth Control) No one seems to remember that marriage is the picture of that spiritual marriage that exists between Christ and his Bride, the Church. It is a special, rather sacred thing.
Nonetheless, it is portrayed in media as a quick way for pleasure. The nature of television lends itself to making people believe that anything they see should happen that fast. Sex is something that should be enjoyed and then the relationship forged by it can easily be discarded. No one on television portrays the eternal aspect of what is involved in sex. It's all about what I can get right now.
So is it really a shock that sex has lost almost all of its value in American culture? Do even Christian people see it as a participation in the love shared between Christ and his Church? Not to mention, it is any wonder that STD's are so rampant? Sex is a good thing created by God for men. But it is intended for reproduction and to foster the already existing love between a man and a woman.
But the modern Christian understanding of sex is no different than the pagan one-only devout Christians wait until they are married. So as something of a Lenten challenge, I am asking my readers to avoid all sex in the media. Let's use this period of time, to try and recover sex from its trivialized position today as nothing more than a means to pleasure. Perhaps, if enough people did this, the sex industry would feel economic pain, sex between married couples would be viewed in a more eternal light, reported diseases would fall, and we would again see a rise in the number of children being raised by two parents.
Thursday, February 5, 2009
Economic Stimulus, Pope Benedict XVI, and the Gospel
Jobless claims soared again this month and the federal government's unemployment numbers will be released tomorrow, likely showing an incremental increase in the size of the unemployed population.
Meanwhile, the U.S. Congress, at the urging of the White House and newly-minted president Barack Obama, are considering an economic bailout which will carry a price tag of at least 800 billion dollars. How a government in debt by about 10 trillion dollars is going to be able to pull off this legislation is frightening. It will require either higher taxing on people and businesses in the middle, (After all, the bankers aren't paying this with their taxes and apparently as we have seen over the last few days neither are the politicians. The lower class is going to get a tax break, so they will not be paying for it either.), or the influx of more cash from the Federal Reserve. It is because of this that 50% of Americans, according to a new Rasmussen poll, oppose the economic stimulus that will likely pass in the next week or so. Only 39% of Americans think that the stimulus will be helpful.
I have my own opinion as to how the stimulus will ultimately work out, but that is not what I want to get at here. The point is that I find it disgusting that the Federal Government thinks it knows what is best for us. What is even worse, there is a sizable percentage of people in this country who feel the same way. But the truth is, this is nothing new. It does not take a president who in his spare time walks on water to claim to have the answer to all of a nation's problems.
From the earliest days of the Roman empire we find Emporers issuing Euangelion(s), (greek for Gospel) essentially edicts indicating their plan to save the world. Benedict XVI in his work Jesus of Nazareth writes the following about the Gospel and Jesus Christ.
"The term (euangellion) has recently been trasnlated as good news. That sounds attractive, but it falls far short of the order of magnitude of what is actually meant by the word. This term figures in the vocabulary of the Roman emperors, who understood themselves as lords, saviors, and redeemers of the world. The messages issued by the emperor were called in Latin evangellium, regardless of whether or not their content was particularly cheerful and pleasant. The idea was that what comes form the emperor is a saving message that it is not just a piece of news, but a change of the world for the better.
When the Evangelists adopt this word, and it thereby becomes the generic name for their writings, what they mean to tell us is this: What the emperors , who pretended to be gods, illegitimately claim, really occurs here-a message endowed with plenary authority, a message that is not just talk, but reality. In the vocabulary of contemporary linguistic theory, we would say that the evangelium, the Gospel is not just informative speech, but performative speech-not just the imparting of information, but action, efficacious power that enters into the world to save and transform. Mark speaks of the Gospel of God, the point being that it is not the emperors who can save, but God. And it is here that God's word, which is at once word and deed, appears; it is here that what the emperors merely assert, but cannot actually perform, truly takes place. For here it is the real Lord of the world-the living God-who goes into action."
That's a long piece, but it is worth noting again and again that looking to the government for salvation is nothing new, and the result will be nothing new. Men can't save the world, only God can and only God has. So as the stimulus bill works its way toward passage, feel free to comment on what you think its effectiveness for the economy will be, but please do not get trapped in the idea that one man, or one congress, can make this country's problems all better.
Our financial problems as a nation, stem from a devotion to Materialism instead of Morality. No amount of money in the world can fix that problem and in fact, may make it worse. We should look to the Saving Lord who brought and performed the Saving Word, the True Evangellium.
Meanwhile, the U.S. Congress, at the urging of the White House and newly-minted president Barack Obama, are considering an economic bailout which will carry a price tag of at least 800 billion dollars. How a government in debt by about 10 trillion dollars is going to be able to pull off this legislation is frightening. It will require either higher taxing on people and businesses in the middle, (After all, the bankers aren't paying this with their taxes and apparently as we have seen over the last few days neither are the politicians. The lower class is going to get a tax break, so they will not be paying for it either.), or the influx of more cash from the Federal Reserve. It is because of this that 50% of Americans, according to a new Rasmussen poll, oppose the economic stimulus that will likely pass in the next week or so. Only 39% of Americans think that the stimulus will be helpful.
I have my own opinion as to how the stimulus will ultimately work out, but that is not what I want to get at here. The point is that I find it disgusting that the Federal Government thinks it knows what is best for us. What is even worse, there is a sizable percentage of people in this country who feel the same way. But the truth is, this is nothing new. It does not take a president who in his spare time walks on water to claim to have the answer to all of a nation's problems.
From the earliest days of the Roman empire we find Emporers issuing Euangelion(s), (greek for Gospel) essentially edicts indicating their plan to save the world. Benedict XVI in his work Jesus of Nazareth writes the following about the Gospel and Jesus Christ.
"The term (euangellion) has recently been trasnlated as good news. That sounds attractive, but it falls far short of the order of magnitude of what is actually meant by the word. This term figures in the vocabulary of the Roman emperors, who understood themselves as lords, saviors, and redeemers of the world. The messages issued by the emperor were called in Latin evangellium, regardless of whether or not their content was particularly cheerful and pleasant. The idea was that what comes form the emperor is a saving message that it is not just a piece of news, but a change of the world for the better.
When the Evangelists adopt this word, and it thereby becomes the generic name for their writings, what they mean to tell us is this: What the emperors , who pretended to be gods, illegitimately claim, really occurs here-a message endowed with plenary authority, a message that is not just talk, but reality. In the vocabulary of contemporary linguistic theory, we would say that the evangelium, the Gospel is not just informative speech, but performative speech-not just the imparting of information, but action, efficacious power that enters into the world to save and transform. Mark speaks of the Gospel of God, the point being that it is not the emperors who can save, but God. And it is here that God's word, which is at once word and deed, appears; it is here that what the emperors merely assert, but cannot actually perform, truly takes place. For here it is the real Lord of the world-the living God-who goes into action."
That's a long piece, but it is worth noting again and again that looking to the government for salvation is nothing new, and the result will be nothing new. Men can't save the world, only God can and only God has. So as the stimulus bill works its way toward passage, feel free to comment on what you think its effectiveness for the economy will be, but please do not get trapped in the idea that one man, or one congress, can make this country's problems all better.
Our financial problems as a nation, stem from a devotion to Materialism instead of Morality. No amount of money in the world can fix that problem and in fact, may make it worse. We should look to the Saving Lord who brought and performed the Saving Word, the True Evangellium.
Friday, January 30, 2009
Birth Control
There are not many issues which stir as much controversy as birth control among devout Christians. The Catholic Church has taught against it forever, and its teachings were fleshed out in the relatively recent encyclical Humanae Vitae. Increasingly, evangelicals of other denominations have begun to see the merit of not practicing birth control.
For my own part, I have not made up my mind 100%. Certainly, scriptural teaching leaves the issue somewhat open. There is no direct condemnation of family planning. However, there is a philosophical argument based off the Bible for opposing birth control.
The question we need to ask is why was marriage instituted in the first place.
"So God created man in his [own] image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them; And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it." (Gen. 1:27-28)
God created man and woman to be in union for the primary purpose of pro-creation. For Anglican Christians, you are reminded of this at every wedding. "Marriage is not to be entered into...lightly...but...duly considering the causes for which Matrimony was ordained. First, It was ordained for the procreation of children, to be brought up in the fear and nurture of the Lord, and to the praise of his holy Name." (BCP) Of course, sex has other purposes, but this is its primary one. So should couples ever divorce sex and reproduction? It is hard to draw a definitive yes from this passage, but I do believe it is a question that should weigh heavily on the thoughts of Christian people.
Secondly, until recently, homosexuality was universally considered sinful by the Christian Church. Vast majorities of the church still oppose it and rightfully so. The Scriptures teaching from the destruction of Sodom, Gomorrah, and the three cities of the plane to St. Paul's teaching in his letter to the Romans, and the strict forbidding of same sex relations in Leviticus See: Lev. 18:22 and 20:13) is that it is sin for a man to sleep with a man or a woman with a woman.
I wish to pose the question of "why". Now, as Christians, we are obligated to follow the commandments God gives us and don't really have the authority to demand a why. Yet, if we examine the ten commandments, we see a reason behind each one. We are not allowed to murder, because it is the taking of another life created in the image of God. We are not allowed to have gods before Jehovah because he demands our full attention. So what is the "why" behind forbidding homosexuality? I wonder if the reason behind it isn't because it is sex divorced from procreation.
If this is our premise, the sin of Onan recorded in Genesis 37 does not have to be understood as any particular sin, but as falling under the general category of separating sex and sexual pleasure from reproduction.
Any thoughts?
Update: I posted this blog almost a year ago. Since that time I have become convinced that birth control is a grave moral problem. Sex is intended to be the complete giving of two people two each other, with life being the fruit. Christ gave himself for his bride to give her life. The love of Christ for his Church, and her love for him begets life. Shouldn't then the primary image and reflection of Jesus' love, marriage and sex, also beget life? Isn't contraception then akin to going to Church but never learning about the eternal life offered to us in Christ?
For my own part, I have not made up my mind 100%. Certainly, scriptural teaching leaves the issue somewhat open. There is no direct condemnation of family planning. However, there is a philosophical argument based off the Bible for opposing birth control.
The question we need to ask is why was marriage instituted in the first place.
"So God created man in his [own] image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them; And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it." (Gen. 1:27-28)
God created man and woman to be in union for the primary purpose of pro-creation. For Anglican Christians, you are reminded of this at every wedding. "Marriage is not to be entered into...lightly...but...duly considering the causes for which Matrimony was ordained. First, It was ordained for the procreation of children, to be brought up in the fear and nurture of the Lord, and to the praise of his holy Name." (BCP) Of course, sex has other purposes, but this is its primary one. So should couples ever divorce sex and reproduction? It is hard to draw a definitive yes from this passage, but I do believe it is a question that should weigh heavily on the thoughts of Christian people.
Secondly, until recently, homosexuality was universally considered sinful by the Christian Church. Vast majorities of the church still oppose it and rightfully so. The Scriptures teaching from the destruction of Sodom, Gomorrah, and the three cities of the plane to St. Paul's teaching in his letter to the Romans, and the strict forbidding of same sex relations in Leviticus See: Lev. 18:22 and 20:13) is that it is sin for a man to sleep with a man or a woman with a woman.
I wish to pose the question of "why". Now, as Christians, we are obligated to follow the commandments God gives us and don't really have the authority to demand a why. Yet, if we examine the ten commandments, we see a reason behind each one. We are not allowed to murder, because it is the taking of another life created in the image of God. We are not allowed to have gods before Jehovah because he demands our full attention. So what is the "why" behind forbidding homosexuality? I wonder if the reason behind it isn't because it is sex divorced from procreation.
If this is our premise, the sin of Onan recorded in Genesis 37 does not have to be understood as any particular sin, but as falling under the general category of separating sex and sexual pleasure from reproduction.
Any thoughts?
Update: I posted this blog almost a year ago. Since that time I have become convinced that birth control is a grave moral problem. Sex is intended to be the complete giving of two people two each other, with life being the fruit. Christ gave himself for his bride to give her life. The love of Christ for his Church, and her love for him begets life. Shouldn't then the primary image and reflection of Jesus' love, marriage and sex, also beget life? Isn't contraception then akin to going to Church but never learning about the eternal life offered to us in Christ?
Monday, January 19, 2009
On Being Good
He died that we might be forgiv'n,
He died to make us good. -Cecil Alexander.
Mrs. Alexander, an Irish woman living in the latter half of the 19th century, wrote these beautiful words in her hymn "There is a Green Hill Far Away".
I've often thought she hit on a thought that is missed by many Christians today. For those more familiar with theological terminology, you understand imputed righteousness to refer to Christ's righteousness being given to the believer so that essentially, when God the Father looks at the Christian he sees his perfect Son. Thus, even though we are not perfect we are in Christ and our standing before God could be summed up as "not guilty".
Unfortunately that is where many Christians, particularly Protestants, stop. In the beginning, when God created the world, he called everything intrinsically good. He called humans very good. The corruption of sin in the wake of the Fall ended this. Things were no longer intrinsically good, not humans, not the natural world. The Garden of Eden was no longer perfect. It was no longer Good.
However, the book of the Revelation ends in a Garden of sorts. In the 22nd chapter we see the restoration of all things. After describing the tree of life as symbolizing the healing of the nations, St. John writes "And there shall be no more curse." That is to say, as we approach the eschaton things are progressing to perfection. They are becoming more and more Good. What changed?
St. Paul writes in reference to the Crucifixion and Resurrection "we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now." (Rom. 8:22) The "until now" is the redemptive work of Jesus Christ. Because of what he did, not only does he clothe us in his righteousness, but he provides the grace for us and the world to truly become Good. The goodness of creation was a reality and will be again. For mankind, goodness was a reality and CAN be again.
It is our task in this life to believe in Jesus which is the beginning of conversion. This places us without question within the boundaries of God's mercy. But we are then called to be perfect, to be holy, to be good. The Lord in his mercy gives us graces through the Church to be obedient to his will and commandment, that we might progress in sanctification through co-operation with his redeeming grace.
We cannot save ourselves, but if we claim Jesus as Lord, we must treat him as Lord. Which means we become obedient servants who are truly becoming Good and are not just declared Good by God.
He died to make us good. -Cecil Alexander.
Mrs. Alexander, an Irish woman living in the latter half of the 19th century, wrote these beautiful words in her hymn "There is a Green Hill Far Away".
I've often thought she hit on a thought that is missed by many Christians today. For those more familiar with theological terminology, you understand imputed righteousness to refer to Christ's righteousness being given to the believer so that essentially, when God the Father looks at the Christian he sees his perfect Son. Thus, even though we are not perfect we are in Christ and our standing before God could be summed up as "not guilty".
Unfortunately that is where many Christians, particularly Protestants, stop. In the beginning, when God created the world, he called everything intrinsically good. He called humans very good. The corruption of sin in the wake of the Fall ended this. Things were no longer intrinsically good, not humans, not the natural world. The Garden of Eden was no longer perfect. It was no longer Good.
However, the book of the Revelation ends in a Garden of sorts. In the 22nd chapter we see the restoration of all things. After describing the tree of life as symbolizing the healing of the nations, St. John writes "And there shall be no more curse." That is to say, as we approach the eschaton things are progressing to perfection. They are becoming more and more Good. What changed?
St. Paul writes in reference to the Crucifixion and Resurrection "we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now." (Rom. 8:22) The "until now" is the redemptive work of Jesus Christ. Because of what he did, not only does he clothe us in his righteousness, but he provides the grace for us and the world to truly become Good. The goodness of creation was a reality and will be again. For mankind, goodness was a reality and CAN be again.
It is our task in this life to believe in Jesus which is the beginning of conversion. This places us without question within the boundaries of God's mercy. But we are then called to be perfect, to be holy, to be good. The Lord in his mercy gives us graces through the Church to be obedient to his will and commandment, that we might progress in sanctification through co-operation with his redeeming grace.
We cannot save ourselves, but if we claim Jesus as Lord, we must treat him as Lord. Which means we become obedient servants who are truly becoming Good and are not just declared Good by God.
Friday, January 9, 2009
Playoffs: Week 2
The wild card round is in the books and there were two “upsets” last weekend. (Of course, if you were reading here like a good sports fan, you would know that there was really only one upset.) However, I was shocked and stunned that the Falcons folded under the pressure like a deck of cards. But, it is one of the perils of a rookie QB.
This week’s match-ups obviously favor from the outset the teams who are not only at home but have had a week to rest up from injury. Without further ado, the NFC picks.
At the risk of having egg on my face for the second straight week, I am predicting the collapse of the Arizona Cardinals. I do not believe that Edgerrin James has another game in him like the one he had against Atlanta. However, the Panthers’ run defense was 18th in the league, so they will have to step up their game a bit. The 9th best pass defense will overwhelm Kurt Warner and his wide receivers and the panthers 3rd best rushing offense will take advantage of the porous Cardinal defensive line. Bottom line: Panthers by 7.
The Giants and Eagles will meet for the third time this season in a rubber match. Both teams won on the road, but can that happen in the playoffs? They say that defense wins in the playoffs, and on paper the eagles are better than the G-men. This game features two proven quarterbacks, although Eli Manning has been able to advance farther than Donovan McNabb. This game will likely come down to how successful the eagles are at running the ball. The giants run defense was not great this season and allowed 131 yards to Westbrook in their home loss on Pearl Harbor Day. A hail Mary pass on the vigil of the Immaculate conception was not enough that day and it won’t be enough for the Buressless giants in this game either. In a shocker, the Eagles by 1.
Over in the AFC the Steelers will take on the resurgent Chargers, who will likely be without LT for the entirety of the game. Sproles as his backup was more than adequate against the Colts. But that was the Colts. This is the mighty Steelers. If SD running game is thwarted and they have to rely on Phillip Rivers, Heinz field will be rocking this weekend. However, the nice thing for the Chargers is that Pittsburg comes into this came with the 8th worse offense in the league and a banged up Big Ben. Likely, even if the Steelers are dominating the charger offense, the offense will be able to stick with the running game because the Steelers won’t be able to run up the score. But the Steelers will in the end be too much for the Chargers. Steelers by 4-probably something like 13-9.
Finally, we come to the much-anticipated Titans and Ravens game. This has all the makings of a beauty. The home team with a veteran QB against one of the nation’s best defenses. The Titans looked vulnerable on a number of occasions this season. Look for the Ravens to exploit any of those vulnerabilities. However, you cannot underrate the Titan defense. 9th against the pass and 6th against the run, Joe Flacco will need to be very good and probably mistake free to keep the Ravens in this game. I do not believe the Ravens can win this game on defense alone. Home field advantage is big in the playoffs but the ravens have run off a string of upsets in the Music City and you will see another one on Saturday. Ravens by 3.
So we have the Panthers, Eagles, Steelers, and Ravens. We were 3-1 last week. Let’s see what the weekend brings.
This week’s match-ups obviously favor from the outset the teams who are not only at home but have had a week to rest up from injury. Without further ado, the NFC picks.
At the risk of having egg on my face for the second straight week, I am predicting the collapse of the Arizona Cardinals. I do not believe that Edgerrin James has another game in him like the one he had against Atlanta. However, the Panthers’ run defense was 18th in the league, so they will have to step up their game a bit. The 9th best pass defense will overwhelm Kurt Warner and his wide receivers and the panthers 3rd best rushing offense will take advantage of the porous Cardinal defensive line. Bottom line: Panthers by 7.
The Giants and Eagles will meet for the third time this season in a rubber match. Both teams won on the road, but can that happen in the playoffs? They say that defense wins in the playoffs, and on paper the eagles are better than the G-men. This game features two proven quarterbacks, although Eli Manning has been able to advance farther than Donovan McNabb. This game will likely come down to how successful the eagles are at running the ball. The giants run defense was not great this season and allowed 131 yards to Westbrook in their home loss on Pearl Harbor Day. A hail Mary pass on the vigil of the Immaculate conception was not enough that day and it won’t be enough for the Buressless giants in this game either. In a shocker, the Eagles by 1.
Over in the AFC the Steelers will take on the resurgent Chargers, who will likely be without LT for the entirety of the game. Sproles as his backup was more than adequate against the Colts. But that was the Colts. This is the mighty Steelers. If SD running game is thwarted and they have to rely on Phillip Rivers, Heinz field will be rocking this weekend. However, the nice thing for the Chargers is that Pittsburg comes into this came with the 8th worse offense in the league and a banged up Big Ben. Likely, even if the Steelers are dominating the charger offense, the offense will be able to stick with the running game because the Steelers won’t be able to run up the score. But the Steelers will in the end be too much for the Chargers. Steelers by 4-probably something like 13-9.
Finally, we come to the much-anticipated Titans and Ravens game. This has all the makings of a beauty. The home team with a veteran QB against one of the nation’s best defenses. The Titans looked vulnerable on a number of occasions this season. Look for the Ravens to exploit any of those vulnerabilities. However, you cannot underrate the Titan defense. 9th against the pass and 6th against the run, Joe Flacco will need to be very good and probably mistake free to keep the Ravens in this game. I do not believe the Ravens can win this game on defense alone. Home field advantage is big in the playoffs but the ravens have run off a string of upsets in the Music City and you will see another one on Saturday. Ravens by 3.
So we have the Panthers, Eagles, Steelers, and Ravens. We were 3-1 last week. Let’s see what the weekend brings.
Tuesday, January 6, 2009
The Epiphany
Today, January 6th, is the day the Church remembers the visit of the magi to see the Christ Child in Bethlehem. You all remember the story quite well. Wisemen from the East brought to Christ gifts of Gold, Frankincense, and Myrrh. The account, recorded in the second chapter of Matthew's gospel, teaches us as the popular hymn states it, that Jesus was "King, God, and Sacrifice."
Now I have never heard in a sermon exactly what I am about to argue, but I think it has merit. The bringing of gold, intended clearly for a king, is an acknowledgment that the Kingdom of God has come. It is an indication that the prophecies of the Old Testament (Hag. 2:7, Is. 2:2, and many others) will and have come true. That a king is coming because God promised that there would not fail to be a Son of David on the throne of Israel. But now the "See of Israel", if you will, is being extended and under the new name of the "Church" or in this case "the Kingdom of God." John the Baptist, whom we rightly honor, is often credited with the first proclamation that the Kingdom of God is at hand. But I wonder if we gyp the gentile wisemen in so saying. For it is they who first declared that the King of the world had been born by the presentation of gold.
Of course, their other gifts, Frankincense and Myrrh, have their own significance. Frankincense indicates Christ's deity. Therefore we have the requisite nature for an offering on behalf of mankind-Very God and Very Man joined together but not confused. The Myrhh foreshadows the sacrificial death of Jesus. Thus we have two gifts which indicate the means whereby man in faith enters into the Kingdom proclaimed by the third gift.
As Gentile Christians, Epiphany should really be every bit as important to us as Christmas itself. It is on this day that the Kingdom was to be permanently extended beyond the ethnic, geographical, and racial boundaries of Israel-that all who believe in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.
Now I have never heard in a sermon exactly what I am about to argue, but I think it has merit. The bringing of gold, intended clearly for a king, is an acknowledgment that the Kingdom of God has come. It is an indication that the prophecies of the Old Testament (Hag. 2:7, Is. 2:2, and many others) will and have come true. That a king is coming because God promised that there would not fail to be a Son of David on the throne of Israel. But now the "See of Israel", if you will, is being extended and under the new name of the "Church" or in this case "the Kingdom of God." John the Baptist, whom we rightly honor, is often credited with the first proclamation that the Kingdom of God is at hand. But I wonder if we gyp the gentile wisemen in so saying. For it is they who first declared that the King of the world had been born by the presentation of gold.
Of course, their other gifts, Frankincense and Myrrh, have their own significance. Frankincense indicates Christ's deity. Therefore we have the requisite nature for an offering on behalf of mankind-Very God and Very Man joined together but not confused. The Myrhh foreshadows the sacrificial death of Jesus. Thus we have two gifts which indicate the means whereby man in faith enters into the Kingdom proclaimed by the third gift.
As Gentile Christians, Epiphany should really be every bit as important to us as Christmas itself. It is on this day that the Kingdom was to be permanently extended beyond the ethnic, geographical, and racial boundaries of Israel-that all who believe in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)