We need not be the 'dying boy'

This is the sermon I preached this past Sunday (March 7, 2010). The texts are: Exodus 3:1-15, Psalm 63:1-8, 1 Corinthians 10:1-13, Luke 13:1-9.

The school system in a large city had a program to help children keep up with their school work during stays in the city's hospitals. One day a teacher who was assigned to the program received a routine call asking her to visit a particular child. She took the child's name and room number and talked briefly with the child's regular class teacher. "We're studying nouns and adverbs in his class now," the regular teacher said, "and I'd be grateful if you could help him understand them so he doesn't fall too far behind."

The hospital program teacher went to see the boy that afternoon. No one had mentioned to her that the boy had been badly burned and was in great pain. Upset at the sight of the boy, she stammered as she told him, "I've been sent by your school to help you with nouns and adverbs." When she left she felt she hadn't accomplished much.

But the next day, a nurse asked her, "What did you do to that boy?" The teacher felt she must have done something wrong and began to apologize. "No, no," said the nurse. "You don't know what I mean. We've been worried about that little boy, but ever since yesterday, his whole attitude has changed. He's fighting back, responding to treatment. It's as though he's decided to live."

Two weeks later the boy explained that he had completely given up hope until the teacher arrived. Everything changed when he came to a simple realization. He expressed it this way: "They wouldn't send a teacher to work on nouns and adverbs with a dying boy, would they?"
Bits & Pieces, July 1991

The world is a dying boy, disfigured by sin and suffering, injustice and death. One need only read the front page of the papers or access the internet one way or another to be confronted by this hard reality of the world in which we live – in which we are dying. Most recently we have seen it in the devastation in Haiti and Chile. But it is everywhere and always with us however much we might try to ignore or avoid it. In this morning’s gospel lesson from Luke 13, we hear Jesus responding to the hot-off-the-press news of the outrageous violence and blasphemy of Pilate mingling the blood of Jews with their sacrifice and the tragic accident of a collapsing tower that killed 18 people who just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Human history and the daily news are full of acts of violence and random accidents, of tyranny and torture. One might easily conclude that our situation is hopeless.

Indeed, many have in fact reached just that conclusion. In his novel, Cat's Cradle, Kurt Vonnegut has an important book come to light. It is titled "What Can a Thoughtful Man Hope for Mankind on Earth, Given the Experience of the Past Million Years?" The chief character is anxious to read it. But when he does, he finds that it doesn't take long. The whole book consists of one word: "Nothing."

Even our collect this morning reminds us that in ourselves we have no power to help ourselves. We are dying boys and girls. But the God we know is not a God of the dead but the God of Life and, though we are helpless, he has not left us hopeless. God comes to our help.

God came to the help of the Hebrew people enslaved in Egypt. God reveals his name to Moses – I AM or I WILL BE WHO I WILL BE. And who is this I AM, this God complete and consistent unto himself? This is the God who observes misery, who hears the cry of the people, who knows our suffering. And not just observing, hearing, and knowing in some abstract and detached sublimity. Observing, hearing, and knowing our distress; God comes to deliver. God came to the deliverance of the Hebrew people from their bondage. God led them through the desert – and in spite of their own obstinacies – to the Promised Land. The God we know in the history of Israel is a God who sees, hears, and knows suffering and comes to deliver.

This same God comes most particularly in Jesus who is the way the truth and the LIFE. Jesus calls us to turn, to change the way we think and live, to reorient ourselves toward the way of God, the way of truth the way of life. That is repentance.

Jesus does not give us any neat and tidy answer to the questions we ask about suffering. But, he does rule out two common attempts to deal with death and suffering. One is to blame the victim. Jesus, in no uncertain terms rejects the notion that particular incidents of suffering are God’s punishment for particular sins. But, Jesus also avoids a simple acceptance of suffering and death. There is no sentimental idea that death is to be welcomed as a release from this dying world of suffering and death. Rather, he states the obvious that we all live in a world in which death still has a sort of dominion. He warns us to turn while we can and live into the way of his life and commit to unlearning the ways of death and collaborating with the way of death.

Like the tutor sent to the dying boy, Jesus comes to teach us a new grammar. To repent is to unlearn the grammar of violence and death and learn the grammar of peace and life, to unlearn the language of greed and accumulation and learn the language of generosity, to unlearn the grammar of division and learn the grammar of reconciliation, to unlearn the language of defensive selfishness and learn the language of hospitality and love. To repent is to renounce Satan and all the spiritual forces of wickedness that rebel against God and the evil powers of this world which corrupt and destroy the creatures of God. To repent is to turn to Jesus Christ, the Prince of Peace and Lord of Life and accept him as Savior.

St. Paul warns us in this morning’s epistle that this is not a once-off thing. While we rejoice in the gift of faith, trust in the efficacy of our baptism, and give thanks for ongoing nourishment of the heavenly food of the Eucharist; we are still subject to temptation. Our ancestors in the faith who succumbed to temptation in the desert serve as a warning to us. We are still subject to the allure of evil and of idolatry. The Russian philosopher and poet, Vladimir Soloviev wrote, “Death and time have dominion on earth but you must refrain from calling them lords” and one way or another, idolatry is just that. Do not be complacent, Paul warns. Do not presume that you stand, lest you fall.

But, along with his warning, Paul offers assurance. Though it might at times feel like you are being tested beyond your endurance, know that you are not alone. God remains faithful. And this is what Jesus is saying in the parable of the unfruitful olive tree. The olive tree is way past the time of bearing fruit. The landlord wants to cut his losses by cutting down the offending tree. But the gardener encourages patience. Let us be clear here. What we have here is not an angry and impatient landlord-God who is coaxed out of destroying the tree by the gentle gardener. Many of us were taught, at one time or another, this image of a fundamentally angry God who gentle Jesus seeks to appease. But God is not opposed to himself. The “landlord” might rather be the religious leaders who were quick to judge and condemn. Or Satan, who is always ready to accuse. But the God we know – the God who is I AM – is the same God who has come in Jesus to deliver. And so, as a gardener he comes to help us – we who are unable in ourselves to help ourselves. He offers to dig around our roots to prepare for the radical change we need and desire. He offers to put manure around those roots. And this is a good thing. This is not manure as in “manure happens.” It is life giving, nourishing fertilizer. It is, ultimately, his own life given for the life of the world. The call to repent is a call to let the Gardener have his way with us that we might live his way and bear the fruit of his Spirit. It is a promise that we are not left helpless and hopeless. We need not be the dying boy. We need not be the dying girl. Sin and death need not have the final word. We can be changed.

And God desires that we be changed and live. In 2 Peter 3:9, we read, “The Lord is not slow about his promise, as some think of slowness, but is patient with you, not wanting any to perish, but all to come to repentance.” In this morning’s New York Times Magazine, there is an interview with one of my heroes, Desmond Tutu who was the Archbishop of the Anglican Church in South Africa during the last years of Apartheid. In the interview, he talks poignantly of his son, Trevor:

He’s a very gifted person, but you see a little bit how God must feel about us because he has really undermined his own life by his abuse of alcohol. When he’s not under the influence, he’s incredibly wonderful, he really is, and it makes you weep to see how he then is almost intent on destroying himself.

God feels about us the way Desmond Tutu feels for his son. We are addicted to the ways of sin and death. We need an intervention. Jesus is that intervention.

Have I any pleasure in the death of the wicked, says the Lord God, and not rather that they should turn from their ways and live? Ezekiel 18:23

On Giving up Murder, Cannibalism and Cursing for Lent (and Beyond)

It's never too late in Lent to take on new disciplines. I suggest we give up murder, cannibalism and blasphemous cursing.

I am more and more convinced that a fundamental aspect of the deeper holiness to which we are called has to do with wordcare. Wordcare has to do with all our use of language. Among other things, it has to do with the language we use about God and with the truthfulness and integrity of our language generally. Those might be topics for another time. What I'd like to write about now is the significance of how we use words to and about others.

The language of sarcasm is my mother tongue and I know I need to check it. I am also increasingly aware of how language that dismisses or disparages the other or refers to the other with disdain has become our common tongue. It is common in entertainment and other media. It is frequently present at work and in families. It is endemic in our polarized political discourse. And it is all too familiar in church debates. But, for Christians, it ought not to be so. We are instructed otherwise in scripture, particularly in the New Testament. From the Desert Fathers and Mothers to the Rule of St. Benedict and beyond, the importance of disciplining our speech is a common theme among the saints.

Our Lord famously warns, "You have heard that it was said to those of ancient times, 'You shall not murder'; and 'whoever murders shall be liable to judgment.' But I say to you that if you are angry with a brother or sister, you will be liable to judgment; and if you insult a brother or sister, you will be liable to the council; and if you say, 'You fool,' you will be liable to the hell of fire" (Matthew 5:21 – 22). When we speak to or about others with words of disdain, words that dismiss, words that disparage the other, we are committing a species of spiritual violence that is of the same genus as murder. And it is subject to frightful judgment. Add to that Jesus’ command to love enemies and refrain from judging and one begins to measure words more carefully.

The Apostle Paul also had much to say about our words as well as our behavior toward one another. In his letter to the Galatians, St. Paul resorts to the striking imagery of cannibalism, “For the whole law is summed up in a single commandment, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ If, however, you bite and devour one another, take care that you are not consumed by one another" (Galatians 5:14 -15). St. John Chrysostom picks up on this in a Lenten sermon on Fasting:

Let the mouth fast from disgraceful and abusive words, because, what gain is there when, on the one hand we avoid eating chicken and fish and, on the other, we chew-up and consume our brothers? He who condemns and blasphemes is as if he has eaten brotherly meat, as if he has bitten into the flesh of his fellow man. It is because of this that Paul frightened us, saying: "If you chew up and consume one another be careful that you do not annihilate yourselves."

You did not thrust your teeth into the flesh (of your neighbor) but you thrusted bad talk in his soul; you wounded it by spreading disfame, causing unestimatable damage both to yourself, to him, and to many others.

I wonder particularly if we would not do well to be less eager to chew on the latest revelation of some outrageous act or word from those with whom we disagree. We could also get over the taste for the put down, for patronizing and for manipulation. It seems to me that we are often intent on accusing others of biting us even as we are picking the bits of others out from between our own teeth.

In his letter, St. James warns about the tongue, “If any think they are religious, and do not bridle their tongues but deceive their hearts, their religion is worthless” (James 1:26). He goes even further, “For every kind of beast and bird, of reptile and sea creature, can be tamed and has been tamed by humankind, but no human being can tame the tongue--a restless evil, full of deadly poison. With it we bless the Lord and Father, and with it we curse men, who are made in the likeness of God. From the same mouth come blessing and cursing. My brethren, this ought not to be so. (James 3:7 – 10) I was taught growing up that we shouldn’t curse. But, that meant we should avoid using a short list of four-letter “curse” words. James is onto something deeper and it’s not a simple matter of not saying, “Go to hell" or “Damn you”. All words that destroy, tear down, or dismiss are a form of cursing. And because they disrespect those who are created in the likeness of God, they are a form of blasphemy.

Toward the end of his letter, James summarizes this concern with, “Be patient, therefore, beloved, until the coming of the Lord. The farmer waits for the precious crop from the earth, being patient with it until it receives the early and the late rains. You also must be patient. Strengthen your hearts, for the coming of the Lord is near. Beloved, do not grumble against one another, so that you may not be judged. See, the Judge is standing at the doors!” (James 5:7 – 9)

Indeed, as James wrote, it ought not to be so. And yet our public and private discourse seems full of verbal murder, cannibalism and blasphemous cursing. The internet is especially rife with such things across the theo-political spectrum.

Our wordcare both demonstrates whether or not our hearts and minds are oriented toward God and shapes that orientation. If we fear God, if we love the Lord, if we hope for any fellowship with the Holy Spirit we would do well to take care with our words. And if we believe in the day of scrutiny (Wisdom 3:19), we should foreswear murder, cannibalism and cursing for Lent – and beyond. The Judge is standing at the door.

Finally, if we are going to give something up, we would do well to take something up. We might start with this, “But in your hearts sanctify Christ as Lord. Always be ready to make your defense to anyone who demands from you an accounting for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and reverence. Keep your conscience clear, so that, when you are maligned, those who abuse you for your good conduct in Christ may be put to shame"
(1 Peter 3:15 – 16). And this, “love one another with mutual affection; outdo one another in showing honor.”
(Romans 12:10)

Anglican Values

Among other things, Anglican Christianity is:

Biblically Focused
"The Holy Ghost rides most triumphantly in his own chariot [i.e., Scripture]."
– Thomas Manton (1620-1677)

"The first [proposition] is this: If we believe in God at all, it is absurd and impious to imagine that we can find him out by our own reason, without his being first active in revealing himself to us. Therefore all our discovery of him is his self-manifestation, and all rational theology is revealed theology."
– Austin Farrer (1904-1968)

Rooted in Tradition
Recognizing that the Holy Spirit's inspiration is not limited to scripture, Anglican Christianity looks to a broader foundation:

"One canon reduced to writing by God himself, two testaments, three creeds, four general councils, five centuries, and the series of Fathers in that period – the centuries that is, before Constantine, and two after, determine the boundary of our faith."
– Lancelot Andrewes (1555-1626)

Reasonable
However hobbled by human sin, reason is an essential means of understanding what God has revealed to us:

"The Holy Ghost is not a bird of prey sent by God to peck out the eyes of [humans]."
– Nathaniel Culverwel (1619-1651)

"And this is the second proposition: If God does reveal himself to us, we cannot acknowledge or master what he reveals without the use of reason. Therefore all his self-manifestation is also our discovery of him, and all revealed theology is rational theology."
– Austen Farrer

Centered in Worship and Prayer
Anglicans do theology "to the sound of church bells, for that is what Christian theology really is all about – worshipping God the Savior through Jesus Christ in the theology of the apostolic age."
– Michael Ramsey (1904-1988), Anglican Spirit

Sacramental
"Christ said 'this is my body.' He did not say 'this is my body in this way'. We are in agreement with you as to the end; the whole controversy is as to the method. As to the 'This', we hold with firm faith that it is. As to the 'this is in this way', (namely by the Transubstantiation of the bread into the body), as to the method whereby it happens that it is, by means of In or With or Under or By transition there is no word expressed [in Scripture]. And because there is no word, we rightly make it not of faith; we place it perhaps among the theories of the school, but not among the articles of the faith...We believe no less than you that the presence is real. Concerning the method of the presence, we define nothing rashly, and I add, we do not anxiously inquire, any more than how the blood of Christ washes us in Baptism, any more than how the human and divine natures are united in one Person in the Incarnation of Christ."
– Lancelot Andrewes (1555-1626) Response to Cardinal Bellarmine

"The Eucharist demonstrates that material reality can become charged with Jesus' life, and so proclaimed hope for the whole world of matter....The matter of the Eucharist, carrying the presence of the risen Jesus, can only be a sign of life, of triumph over the death of exclusion and isolation...If the Eucharist is a sign of the ultimate Lordship of Jesus, his 'freedom' to unite to himself the whole material order as a symbol of grace, it speaks of creation itself, and the place of Jesus in creation."
– Rowan Williams (1950- ), Resurrection: Interpreting the Easter Gospel
(The last two quotes via The Byzantine Anglo-Catholic)

Catholic and Protestant/Evangelical
"Our special character and, as we believe, our peculiar contribution to the Universal Church, arises from the fact that owing to historic circumstances, we have been enabled to combine in our one fellowship the traditional Faith and Order of the Catholic Church with that immediacy of approach to God through Christ to which the Evangelical Churches especially bear witness, and freedom of intellectual inquiry, whereby the correlation of the Christian revelation and advancing knowledge is constantly effected."
– William Temple (1881-1944), Encyclical, Lambeth 1930
(via Contemplative Vernacular)

Liberally Catholic and Generously Orthodox
Anglican Christianity seeks to embody a liberal catholicity, generous orthodoxy. It is catholic/orthodox in its commitment to the consensus of the first centuries as expressed in the early councils and the creeds. It is, as Charles Gore wrote, "conspicuously orthodox on the great fundamentals of the Trinity and the Incarnation. [Anglicanism] accepts the ecumenical councils as criteria of heresy." It is liberal/generous in its ability to reexamine how that consensus is applied in concrete historical contexts: ". . . standing ready with the whole treasury of Christian truth unimpaired to meet the demands which a new age makes upon it with its new developments of character and circumstance."

Anglican Christianity avoids the extremes "represented by a dogmatism that crushes instead of quickening the reason of the individual, making it purely passive and acquiescent, and on the other hand by an unrestrained development of the individual judgment which becomes eccentric and lawless just because it is unrestrained."
– Charles Gore (1852-1932), Roman Catholic Claims

Passionate, but Patient
Anglican Christianity is characterized by what Rowan Williams calls a "passionate patience" that is reticent to declare too handily exactly how God is to defined or to presume too easily to know what God desires in all instances. Continuing with Williams, "There is in the Anglican identity a strong element of awareness of the tragic, of the dark night and the frustration of theory and order by the strangeness of God's work." [ . . . ] "The result is a mixture of poetry, reticence, humility before mystery, local loyalties and painful self-scrutinies."
– Rowan Williams, Anglican Identities

Interpreting One Another with Charity

Recently, I was rereading parts of Stephen Fowl's book, Engaging Scripture. It is a fine book and well worth the reading. I was struck particularly with what he has to say about the habits of a charitable interpreter which are essential for any true engagement with scripture and other interpreters. Though he addresses charitable interpretation in that particular context, the practice of charitable interpretation is a virtue that we would do well to cultivate more generally - with family and friends, at work, with other church members, in our larger political discourse, engaging one another on the internet - in any situation where we are likely to disagree with the way another person interprets things. Interpreting others with charity is a basic gospel discipline that has become all too rare.

It is similar to what the Archbishop of Canterbury has described as engaging people and issues "three-dimensionally".

The following are used with permission of the author:

When Christians’ convictions and practices regarding sin, forgiveness, repentance, and reconciliation are in good working order, the recognition of oneself as a sinner works to keep one’s eye single. Further, this recognition draws one into a collection of practices designed to restore, reconcile, and subsequently deepen one’s communion with God and others. p. 86

Short of the eschatological completion of the promises in Jeremiah 31 and 1 Corinthians 13 . . . Christians will need to engage scripture in the recognition that they will disagree with each other. Christians ought to expect that their scriptural interpretation will be marked by sustained disagreements about how best to interpret and embody scripture in any particular context. In fact the absence of such arguments would be a sign of a community’s ill health. p. 87

A charitable interpreter will both recognize interpretive differences and refuse temptations to reduce or rationalize those differences and disputes away. p. 88

Initially, it may be extremely difficult to make sense of the claims of others, particularly those most different from us. This, however, is a contingent problem which can be addressed through hard work and patience. Rather than assert that such differences render conversation and debate impossible, the charitable interpreter will begin the slow, often tedious process of learning the presumptions, conventions, and idioms needed to make others’ views intelligible. Charitable interpreters will resist the move to close off this activity prematurely; they will always recognize the provisionality of their work. That is, interpretive charity entails both a willingness to listen to differences and a willingness to hear those differences in their fullness. p. 89

[T]he real question facing the charitable interpreter concern how to address differences in interpretation. The first step is to note that all differences, all disagreements. Are only intelligible against a background of similarity and agreement. . . . Agreement may not be easy to display. For example, such things as the use of common vocabulary might actually obscure real differences and agreements. Charitable interpreters, then, may need to begin to address an interpretive dispute by exposing the nature and types of agreement lying beneath its surface. By doing this one sharpens and thereby clarifies the nature and type of disagreement. p. 90

A related habit of the charitable interpreter is the practice of maximizing the reasonableness of those with whom one differs.
p. 90

[T]he charitable interpreter presumes that those who differ hold their differing views for good reasons and tries to display what those reasons are or were. p. 91

This entails that a charitable interpreter should deal with the strongest versions of opposing arguments. This may even require the charitable interpreter to recast opposing views to make them as strong as they can be. p. 91 (footnote 65)

[I]n any interpretive conflict, one’s ability to give a charitable account of a differing position is crucial to developing a superior position. As Alasdair MacIntyre has argued, in any interpretive conflict which is rationally resolved, the position which prevails will be the one that can show how it accounts for the strengths in alternative positions while avoiding the weaknesses in those alternatives. p. 91

[T]he presence of interpretive charity will not necessarily reduce interpretive disputes. Christians must recognize that disputes are constitutive of being part of a living tradition of people reading scripture in order to live holy lives and to worship God truthfully. Rather, interpretive charity is one element that shapes the ecclesial contexts in which we might then expect interpretive disputes to result in faithful living and truthful worship. p. 96

Stephen Fowl teaches theology at Loyola College, Baltimore and is a member of the Cathedral of the Incarnation. He is also a member of the House of Bishops' Theology Committee. And I am grateful to count him among my friends. He also attended St. Barnabas in the early 80's, well before I was called as rector here and before I knew him.

"Tammy Metzger thinks you're cute" (and so does God)

A version of this appeared in The Anglican Digest in 2006. I'm posting it here since it seems to resonate with folk anytime I share it. And it fits a theme of the coming weekend.

"Tammy Metzger thinks you're cute" (and so does God)

I was a shy, scrawny farm boy. Shy and unsure of myself, I was the shrinking violet of wall flowers. When I was in the 9th grade, I rode a bus, along with other farm kids, to the small town of Claypool, IN. There, we were joined by the kids from the town. We were also joined by the kids from the neighboring community of Silver Lake. From there we were all bused to the high school in Warsaw, the county seat.

I knew all the kids from Claypool, having gone to grade school with them. But the kids from Silver Lake were new. One particular girl from Silver Lake caught my eye. Her name was Tammy Metzger. She was beautiful. She was mysterious, intimidating, and awe-inspiring – the way 9th grade girls are to 9th grade boys. She intimidated the living daylights out of me! I was dazzled by the splendor of her beauty. It never crossed my mind to even speak to her, let alone tell her that I thought she was beautiful.

One day, on the way from Claypool to Warsaw, word was passed from the back of the bus where the Silver Lake students sat to the front of the bus where I was sitting. The person behind me tapped me on the shoulder and said, “Matt, Tammy Metzger thinks you’re cute.” Bells went off in my head. Unbelievable! Amazing! It changed me.

I was not quite the same boy when I got home that day as I had been when I set out. I was changed. Not a lot – at least, not right away. I was still too shy to ever say anything to Tammy. But, as Dante experienced with Beatrice, just knowing that someone as beautiful as Tammy Metzger had noticed me, began to change me. I did not suddenly become suave and confident, but there was the beginning of a real change in the way I thought about myself. If Tammy Metzger thought I was cute, maybe there was something I was missing. In fact, the very next day, as I was leaving school, another girl stopped me in the hall and said, “I hear that Tammy Metzger thinks you’re cute. I don’t know what she sees in you.” But, she wasn’t Tammy. The fact that Tammy Metzger thought I was cute meant that what anyone else thought was irrelevant.

Knowing that someone looks at us with a measure of delight changes us. This is true of those early experiences of attraction as well as deeper romantic relationships. It has been true of my relationship with my wife, Leslie. But it is also true of family relationships. And it is true of friendship. All relationships in which we know ourselves to be noticed, delighted in, enjoyed, cherished, loved, or even simply considered "cute" change and form us.

The same kind of change happens when we encounter the love of God. It was around this same time, perhaps not accidentally, that I began to experience God’s love as something that was real, vital, and directed toward me. In spite of my insecurities, in spite of my feelings, God loved me. Perhaps, God even thought I was cute. The knowledge that God delights in me and reaches out to share his life with me changed me. The world was shot through with meaning. My life and how I live it, the choices I make day to day, all began to matter infinitely because I mattered infinitely to God. I was dazzled by the splendor of God’s beauty. No matter how often and in how many ways the Adversary has said, “I don’t know what God sees in you;” knowing God’s love in Jesus Christ has made the words of the Naysayer irrelevant. I am loved.

The Church is kind of like the school bus. Each generation in the Church has passed on the knowledge that God has demonstrated his love for us in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ; that he desires to draw us into his life and joy. God delights in each one of us. We, who are in the front of the bus now, have received this treasure. We are also called to pass it on. In our common life together, in church school, adult forum, youth group, Bible studies, at home and at work, we pass the word on to one another. Evangelism is just inviting others to get on the bus so they can hear this Good News. When we come to church, when we bring our families, when we invite others, we are passing it on.

The word has been passed up to you, "God thinks you're cute - God delights in you.” Pass it on.

The King or a Fox? Configuring the Mosaic of Scripture

I was invited to make a presentation at a Miqra event put together by the youth leaders of the Diocese of Chicago. I've posted a slightly expanded version in installments. Here's the whole thing with links:


Introduction
Reading scripture, according to the great 2nd century theologian Irenaeus of Lyons, is like configuring a mosaic of precious jewels. That mosaic can be configured in more ways than one. According to Irenaeus, it can be configured to reveal a portrait of the King – Jesus Christ as the Church knows him – or it can be configured, as it was by heretics and other false teachers, as something else, say a fox. More

Part 2: Among other things, honoring the scriptures means we must attend to the kinds of texts they are rather than impose theories of what we think they should be if they are inspired and authoritative. More


Part 3: Can we identify some guidelines or criteria by which we evaluate more faithful biblical configurations from less faithful or even faithless interpretations? Not all configurations are faithful. Not all faithful configurations are equally faithful. But there might be a range of recognizably, more or less, faithful configurations. The following criteria, based on how the canon of scripture came to be accepted and how the early Church read the Bible, are suggested to assist in configuring the mosaic of scripture. More

1. The Criterion of Jesus Christ
2. The Criterion of Love
3. The Criterion of the Rule of Faith
4. The Criterion of the Church's Prayer
5. The Criterion of the Church's Tradition
6. The Criterion of Comprehensiveness
7. The Criterion of Dissimilarity
8. The Criterion of Community
9. The Criterion of Character

No one criterion is adequate and no set of criteria will assure agreement on particular questions of interpretation. But, an interplay of the above criteria would provide a broad measure of relative faithfulness as we seek to configure an image of the King rather than a fox or a dog.

These are criteria that make sense to me. What might be some I am missing?

Configuring Scripture, Criterion #9

9. The Criterion of Character
The scriptures are about the formation of holy communities and holy persons as members of such communities. There is a symbiotic relationship between the scriptures forming holiness and the necessity of a degree of holy living in order to understand the scriptures. The character of any given interpreter or community is inseparable from their ability to reliably discern the Spirit in the scriptures and thus configure them faithfully. It is not so much that we need to configure scripture such that it is relevant to our lives as it is that we need to configure our lives such that they are relevant to the message of scripture.

Does this community exhibit the kind of character and practices that enable it to discern faithful interpretations? Can it name its own sin? Does it practice truthfulness? Repentance? Reconciliation? Prayerfulness? Care for the poor? Are the fruit of the Spirit evident?

The same goes for any particular interpreter. Does an interpreter exhibit a Christ-shaped life? Can we hear humility, charity, and generosity in the voice of the interpreter?

Athanasius (293 - 373) affirms this in his treatise, On the Incarnation:

But for the searching of the Scriptures and true knowledge of them an honorable life is needed, and a pure soul, and that virtue which is according to Christ; so that the intellect, guiding its path by it, may be able to attain what it desires, and comprehend it, in so far as it is accessible to human nature to learn concerning the Word of God. For without a pure mind and a modeling of the life after the saints a man could not possibly comprehend the words of the saints. (par. 57)

Conclusion