Sheer Brilliance…
Has anyone heard of this? I was scanning the AM dial during my drive between churches this morning (from St Paul’s Episcopal to Salem Evangelical) and stumbled across this guy conducting a call-in show pretending that he was Jesus. The callers call him Jesus, and refers to himself as Jesus. Rarely has anything I’ve heard on the radio upset me so much.
When I first tuned in, he was giving a rather poor explanation of original sin, comparing the difference between Calvinist and Arminian views. Then, some poor guy called in asking what he should do, as he claimed he kept trying not to sin, but sinned anyway. This “Jesus” impostor began berating him “Dr. Laura” style. I’m sorry, but nowhere in the New Testament does Jesus berate and belittle sinners. Jesus saves that for the self-righteous. This phony Jesus’ words were, “If you really cared, you would stop sinning,” going on and on to make the caller feel as bad as possible – I can’t really express how bad it really was. There was none of the love, forgiveness, grace or power that are evidenced by the Jesus of the New Testament, just this voice of self-righteous condemnation calling himself “Jesus.” Wow.
Whatever happened to, “Neither do I condemn you?” Or, “Go, your sins are forgiven?” This legalistic bullshit really pushed me over the edge. If teachers are warned to be careful, this should go many times over for someone actually representing himself as Jesus.
I looked online and sure enough, found The Jesus Christ Show. I expected to find some wacko group behind it, but see that it’s apparently considered mainstream evangelical and been on the air for several years. Nowhere did I find any evangelical leader speaking out against this blasphemy. Why? I’m telling you, if I didn’t really know the Gospel, what I heard today would be enough to make me an atheist.
If anyone is confused, here is what Paul had to say in response to this specific situation (which he outlined in Romans 7), from Romans 8:1-4,
Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life set me free from the law of sin and death. For what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the sinful nature, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering. And so he condemned sin in sinful man, in order that the righteous requirements of the law might be fully met in us, who do not live according to the sinful nature but according to the Spirit.
That’s the real Gospel. No condemnation. Set free from the law of sin and death. What part of this does Neil Saavedra (who “plays” Jesus) not understand? Has he read Romans? Or Galatians? Here’s what Paul had to say in Galatians 1 about those preaching a false gospel (which adds human effort into the equation):
Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!
I should not be out of line, then, by calling up this false Jesus and telling him to go to hell, not that it would do any good. I’m sure I would be branded a liberal and summarily dismissed. That doesn’t bother me; what does bother me is this: where are all of the other voices calling for the end of this show? If they’re out there, I’d like to know. I couldn’t find anyone through Google.
I should know better than to even consider listening to Christian radio, but my neighbor Randy is on sometimes, and he’s good.
As indicated in the title, this is my 4th in a series on the old Lutheran Liturgy, from the 1958 Service Book & Hymnal that I grew up with. As I explained in the first post in the series, I’ve been away from the Lutheran church since the mid 70′s, but recently obtained a recording of the 2nd Setting of that liturgy. Even before getting the recording, I had begun to recall parts of the liturgy. I dug out my old hymnal and began using the liturgy on occasion for meditation. I now find that I’ll have parts of the liturgy running through my mind at various parts of the day; or, more accurately, it’s playing somewhere internally… at time it just seems to resonate.
I have visited a couple of local Lutheran churches over the past couple of years, and have not been impressed at all with what they are currently using as liturgy (every week it seems to be different, like they’re afraid of actually memorizing one… or, perhaps they don’t like any of them, either). I do really appreciate the Episcopal liturgy, however; in spite of the problems in the EC, I can relate to the Book of Common Prayer. I hope in the near future to analyze and compare the liturgies, and would appreciate any input you’d care to give.
Now, on to the Liturgy. Following the sermon, is the Offertory. There are 2 optional offertories; this is what our church used:
The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit
a broken and a contrite heart O God, thou would not despise.
Do good in thy good pleasure onto Zion
build thou the walls of Jerusalem.
Then shalt thou be pleased with the sacrifices of righteousness
with burn offering and whole burnt offering.
The alternate is
What shall I render unto the Lord
for all his benefits toward me?
I will offer to thee the sacrifice of thanksgiving
and will callupon the Name of the Lord.
I will take the cup of salvation
and call upon the Name of the Lord.
I will pay my vows unto the Lord now in the presence of all his peoiple
in the courts of the Lord’s house, in the midst of thee O Jerusalem.
As the offering is brought forward, we sing:
Create in me a clean heart O God
and renew a right spirit within me.
Cast me not away from thy presence
and take not thy Holy Spirit from me.
Restore unto me the joy of they salvation
an uphold me with thy free spirit.
I question using Psalm 51, as it doesn’t seem applicable in the context of the New Covenant, especially as I under Lutheran theology. Possibly this crept in during the pietistic movement, which also seemed to ignore the core of Luther’s (and Paul’s) theology.
After the offering comes the Prayer of the Church, which I won’t include here due to length. The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod site has a good explanation of the Prayer of the Church. Essentially, it is corporate prayer for the needs of the church, the country, the sick, and so on, and is typically followed by The Lord’s Prayer (we used the “trespasses” language).
At this point, the service could close with a hymn and the Benediction, unless it was Communion Sunday. Our church had Communion once a month, so it always seemed odd to me when churches would do it every Sunday. I’ve come to appreciate the Lord’s Supper – Eucharist – in a more profound way, so now I look forward to it every Sunday. As with the Orthodox, RCC and Anglican churches, Communion now seems to be the high point of the service, rather than something tacked on to the end to extend the time (which I always hated as a kid).
I’ll conclude with one more post on the Lord’s Supper, as the old liturgy was a bit more involved than anything I’ve experienced recently in either the Lutheran or Episcopalian churches.
I realized the other day that in my haste to get to the Gloria in Excelsis, I skipped right over the Kyrie! In the 1958 SB&H, they kept the old titles, and I find it interesting that they are a mixture of Latin and Greek. One of these days I’m going to pull out my copy of St. John Chrysostom’s Divine Liturgy and see how closely they align.
Kyrie is a Greek word meaning, “O Lord,” from the phrase “Kýrie, eléison,” or “O Lord, have mercy.” You might recall the phrase from the 1985 Mr. Mister song. Here’s the 1958 Lutheran version (congregation’s response in italics), which is generally sung:
In peace let us pray to the Lord.
Lord, have mercy.
For the peace that is from above, and for the salvation of our souls, let us pray to the Lord.
Lord, have mercy.
For the peace of the whole worlds, for the well-being of the churches of God, and for the unity of all, let us pray to the Lord.
Lord, have mercy.
For this holy house, and for them that in faith, piety and fear of God offer here their worship and praise, let us pray to the Lord.
Lord, have mercy.
Help, save, pity and defend us, O God, by thy grace.
Amen.
I should mention that the music for the liturgy was adapted by Regina Fryxell from various sources, including older Lutheran liturgies and 10th Century plainsongs. In my opinion, it has much more character than any of the recent Lutheran liturgies I have heard, which in my opinion are really quite horrible. This past Sunday I attended a Lutheran church who sung the 5th setting from the new, 2006 hymnal. It was actually unnatural to sing; for example, they used a familiar tune to “Create in Me,” but changed the phrasing so that it actually interrupted the natural rhythm of the lyrics. Strange. I don’t think I’ll go back any time soon.
I think Harry Collins is a little bit nuts; what do you think?
Collins is a professor of social science at Cardiff University, who is apparently tired of having the social sciences marginalized and is working on the groundrules for a New World Order with his partner, Dr. Robert Evans. Not happy with either old-fashioned Modernism or Post-modernism, they are advancing what they call “Elective Modernism.” From a Q&A on the subject:
‘Post-Post-Modernism’ is a bit of a mouthful and the term we prefer is ‘Elective Modernism.’ ‘Elective Modernism’ captures the idea that, as with any kind of scepticism, the ideas of Wave 2 are indefeasible—science is not forced upon us by its efficiency or its revelation-like certainty. Nevertheless, it is impossible to live by scepticism alone. Therefore, irrespective of the logic of the sceptical arguments one must still elect to live by principles that recognise the value of experience and expertise.
Elective Modernism does not reinstate Modernism as it was before Post-Modernism. Instead Elective Modernism describes an age in which we choose to value expertise and experience because we know that while the problem of legitimacy cannot be ignored, neither can the problem of extension and we know that a society in which an expert opinion is given the same weight as any other opinion is not one we would want to live in. We have all been changed by Wave 2 and by Post-Modernism, but we still have to get on with a life informed by expertise; we must surely elect to live in a society where decisions are made for reasons in addition to power and populist sentiment.
“Wave Two” seems to refer to post-modernism, which among other things has demonstrated the failure of science to assert itself as the guiding force of society. Skepticism is pointless, scientists often speak in areas in which they are not experts, and if left to the public, we’ll end up with decisions made based on politics and religion.
Elective Modernism is his proposed Wave Three, in which society must choose science, but not either Wave One or Wave Two science. And, this choice is not necessarily rational, but moral:
If Wave Two has shown that arguments that favour scientific values cannot be got from the ideas of truth and efficiency, such values, if they are to inform a society, will simply have to be `chosen’. We can call the basis of a society which chooses such values, `Elective Modernism.’
Elective Modernism is, I want to argue, the most attractive successor to Post-Modernism. I want to suggest that Elective Modernism is a more appealing as a basis for society than force, religion, or populism. But the choice itself would not be `rational’ but more like a moral choice: one would not want to live in a society in which, say, gratuitous torture of the innocent and weak is acceptable even though one could not prove it was a bad society. Those who would demand a `proof’ of the badness of such a society would have missed the point.
Collins is quite critical of the current state of science, says that we “cannot live by skepticism alone,” and rejects essentially any principles for establishing societal values. Except, that is, for choosing to accept the values of science. The problem is, he explains, no current method for determining the values of science has worked.
The society he envisions is not based on the outcomes of science, but by making a moral choice to choose scientific values of experience and expertise; that is, a world run by experts. I have not yet discovered how this escapes the problems of skepticism or expert opinions skewed by politics or culture, the problems of Wave Two.
I enjoy reading Collins; he certainly has some interesting things to say. However, I couldn’t help thinking of Orwell’s Animal Farm. I propose a little game, similar to those I keep getting invitations to on FaceBook: Read a few of Collins’ essays, then tell me, which Animal Farm animal would he be?
Last night I took the plunge and moved this site over to Dreamhost, and upgraded WordPress at the same time. I’m sure I didn’t do it exactly right (for some reason I had to import the database twice), but everything’s apparently here. I had a few moments of frustration and angst trying to figure out the directions and then do it differently, but with Elliot’s help and some sheer willpower, I completed it about 1 AM.
I still have to mess with some of the plugins and settings, as the backup I had that included the settings was incompatible for some reason.
If you see anything amiss, please let me know in a comment (I also moved my e-mail accounts, and haven’t quite worked all of the bugs out yet).
