Your will be done on earth ... God, politics, and sinners

Here in the good old U.S.A., a number of Christian traditions have experienced church divides along liberal v. conservative lines. The differences in political views typically coincide with a number of theological differences. I have read Christian bloggers who identify with one or the other political agenda, who seem completely unashamed about expressing open contempt for Christians on the other side of the liberal/conservative divide, with no visible recognition that hatefulness and spite might be sinful rather than God-pleasing. When something is dear to our hearts and someone belittles it, there is always a temptation to bitterness and malice.

I would not for a moment tell people to ignore the world in which we live. We pray daily for God's will to be done on earth as in heaven. And in every political cause, there are those who earnestly believe they are working for exactly that: for God's will to be done on earth. Up to that point I have no objections, but more of a caution: certain types of laws do little good merely by being encoded in the law books. Trying to change hearts by mandate or to change lives by force generally breeds resistance and resentment, even if the cause is good.

Have you ever considered what happens when a politico-moral agenda becomes someone's top priority, their defining goal in life? It splits the world into pro and con. Before long, "good" is agreement with the agenda and "evil" is disagreement with it. It can become something very close to institutionalized enmity.

For example, consider what happens when women's advocacy groups and infant's advocacy groups clash over abortion. The women's advocacy groups do not see infant's advocacy groups; they define what they see in terms of their own agenda, and see mysogynists and oppressors instead of infant's advocates. The infant's advocacy groups do not always recognize the extent to which the abortion-on-demand camp is not trying to be anti-infant at all. A sensitive look at the wording used by the abortion-on-demand camp would notice that they really avoid acknowledging any infant at all, which is surely not a sign of hatred of the infant, but more likely of a deep-seated acknowledgment that if this really proves to be an infant, abortion-on-demand would be morally unthinkable. By being pro-woman (ignoring the infant) or pro-infant (ignoring the woman), we put beyond our reach any full-spectrum solution of the type that might actually work for everybody. And we cannot afford to miss the fact that it is the separation into antagonistic factions that puts a better solution out of reach.

Having strong views is not sinful; but we are sinful. There is a temptation to demonize the opponents. There is a temptation to ignore when they have a point lest it be seen as weakness and concession. There is a temptation to take the easy way out: to take our good motives as a guarantee of good perspective and good judgment. There is a temptation to miss the realities that every politico-moral agenda sets us up for both self-righteousness and enmity.

Christ was not shy about right and wrong. But he listed enmity itself as one of the things that had to go. The world (apart from Christ) has no resources to call on for reconciling between enemies. At best, the world only redefines the group considered to be the enemy; it does not oppose the general principle of enmity. But as Christians, we must oppose the general principle of enmity while holding onto the realities of right and wrong.

I wish that our conversations across the political divides did not start by assuming bad faith. I wish that each side would honestly ask the other, "Why is it you think that is the right approach to take, or the right priority to have?" and actually listen to the answer. Even if we don't agree, some good might come of the mere act of setting aside enmity and listening to each other.

Litany: for our enemies

"Pray for those who persecute you." - Christ

I was searching the hymnals on my shelf looking for prayers for our enemies. Couldn't find any. Odd, considering all the other prayers available there, and that's one of the prayers we're specifically called to make. So I thought, "Why not?"

---

Lord, we praise you for your loving kindness.
Your mercy endures forever.

While we were yet your enemies
Christ died for us

The righteous for the unrighteous
To bring us back to you.

Lord, have mercy on us.
Have mercy on us sinners.

Lord, if you kept record of our sins
Who could stand before you?

When I hid my faults
I wasted away.

When I confessed my transgression
You forgave the iniquity of my sin.

You oppose the proud
But give grace to the humble.

You have taught us to pray: Forgive us our sins
As we forgive those who sin against us.

Let mercy be the measure we use for others;
May their cups overflow with blessing.

We remember before you all hateful souls:
May knowing you bring peace.

We remember before you all who have wronged others:
May your mercy turn hearts of stone to hearts of flesh.

We remember before you all who hide secret guilt:
Create clean hearts, O Lord, and renew a right spirit.

Let the guilty heart turn to you:
May the forgiven celebrate your goodness.

May the redeemed celebrate your glory:
May your compassion be proclaimed to all the earth.

Give thanks to the Lord, for he is good;
His mercy endures forever.

Christian Reconciliation Carnival #6: Call for submissions

Christian Reconciliation Carnival #6 is coming up fast. Entries are due by this Saturday. Please email here to submit your June posts on the topic of reconciliation, general interest, questions, or respectful disagreements.

Because the Carnival is likely to be published on or around July 4, please consider the special topic of the month: transcending the divides of politics and nationalism.

Why does Christian fellowship rarely reach across the U.S. political divides?

Anyone more interested in non-U.S. politics might try,

Why are Christians in different nations so distrustful of each other?

Love your enemies

Love your enemies. Pray for those who persecute you, that that you may be children of your Father in heaven. ... If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even (the lowest sinners you can imagine) doing that? And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even (members of false religions) do that? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect. (Jesus, Sermon on the Mount)

In the West, I believe we have forgotten what it means to pray for those who persecute us, to bless those who curse us, to love those who hate us. We have trouble loving our enemies -- even minor enemies such as people with different Christian theologies but who intend no harm, or moderate enemies who intend to degrade and harass but not to kill.

I think I have maxed out hearing the current public debate about Islam. The main approaches I hear in this debate are either denying the prevalence of hatred and violence and the legitimate cause for concern, or fomenting reciprocal hatred and fear; either relying on wishful thinking about the nature and scope of the problem or despairing of any peaceful solutions.

Jesus originally spoke the words of the Sermon on the Mount to those in occupied territory, conquered and oppressed by the Romans. Within a few centuries those conquerors were a memory, and Jesus' teachings had changed the face of the world. To the extent that we argue about his teachings rather than live them, we have a form of godliness but deny its power. Because the power is not in the page. The power is in someone who becomes Jesus' living word to the world, who dares to be kind to those who hate.

The Muratorian Canon from the late 100's A.D.

I have sometimes discussed the canon of Scripture with people who suppose that there was a mass of writings -- including all the so-called lost gospels and so forth -- which all shared an equal claim to being authoritative Christian writings, and were only separated several hundred years later on the basis of politics or the prejudices of the day, or by a fiat of church authority based on questionable interests. The early Christian writings paint a different picture, and in that picture a unique place is held by the Muratorian Canon.

The Muratorian Canon is an early list of writings accepted and received as Scripture by the Christian Church. (It is also called the Muratorian Fragment because it surives only in fragment, as with many ancient writings). This post will review the status of our current New Testament books as recorded in the Muratorian Canon. Later posts will continue with notes about a handful of other books which were mentioned in the Muratorian Canon as either accepted, rejected, or disputed.

When was the Muratorian Canon written?

While almost every early writing generates arguments about its date, the Muratorian Canon is helpful in mentioning recent occurrences, which provides strong guidance as to when it was written. It makes this comment on the early Christian writing Shepherd of Hermas:

But the Shepherd was written by Hermas in the city of Rome quite recently, in our own times, when his brother Pius occupied the bishop's chair in the city of Rome ...

Pius was bishop of Rome from about 140-155 A.D.; if this is "quite recently, in our own times" then the Muratorian Canon likely dates from 170 A.D. or slightly later. There are those who argue dates that are centuries later, but without widespread acceptance given the author's mention that 140-155 A.D. was "quite recently, in our own times".

Which Christian writings had already gained acceptance as Scripture?

Of the twenty-seven books in our current New Testament, all but a handful already had gained acceptance as Scripture by the late 100's A.D. when the Muratorian Canon was written. When mentioning books which were included, the fact that the list survives in fragment form comes into play. The surviving text begins:

The third book of the Gospel: according to Luke.

After commenting on Luke, it continues to name the fourth gospel as that according to John. As we've seen in previous posts, there are earlier Christian writings mentioning that the four gospels are those of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, so it is reasonable enough to suppose that the original list began with Matthew and Mark.

Book of Current Canon	Included in Muratorian Canon?
Matthew	(beginning of document is missing)
Mark	(beginning of document is missing)
Luke	X
John	X
Acts	X
Romans	X
1 Corinthians	X
2 Corinthians	X
Galatians	X
Ephesians	X
Philippians	X
Colossians	X
1 Thessalonians	X
2 Thessalonians	X
1 Timothy	X
2 Timothy	X
Titus	X
Philemon	X
Hebrews
James
1 Peter
2 Peter
1 John	X
2 John	X
3 John
Jude
Revelation	X

In further posts I intend to fill out a more complete picture of the Muratorian Canon, reviewing the other books which were mentioned for good or bad. From there I hopt to review other early lists of Scriptures to show to what extent these inclusions and omissions were typical for lists of Scripture in the early church.

Lutheran Carnival #52: Gerhard O. Forde Edition

Updated

Welcome to the 52nd edition of the Lutheran Carnival, the Gerhard O. Forde edition.

Gerhard O. Forde was a theologian speaking with a voice of love for the Gospel, the good news of Christ, amid a church whose focus can stray and whose love can easily grow cold. His unapologetic boldness confronted theologians whose mere theorizing about the cross of Christ rendered it powerless. I've chosen to organize this edition of the Carnival with all the major titles being titles of his books.

Update 05/18/2007
After being relieved that the whimsical organization of this Carnival had actually worked for all the posts submitted, a late arrival has come to my attention that just doesn't fit. Too bad Forde didn't write a book called The Left-Handed Kingdom (by which Lutherans refer to God's paradoxical approach to the use of power). Dan at Necessary Roughness comments on Father's Day and the LCMS Convention being hosted here in my own hometown of Houston. Dan wishes dads a happy Father's Day and advises that any bureaucracy, whether government or synod, is a human exercise in the left-hand kingdom.

Theology Is For Proclamation

On the hypothetical God versus the proclaimed God in Christ: Outside the proclamation both theistic and atheistic theologians are strangely one. Both are trying to get God off our backs. The theist most often does it by trying to make God "nice," to bring God "to heel," so to speak, and the atheist does it by trhing to make God disappear. Both attempts have a similar outcome from the point of view of the proclamation: they only subvert it. Nevertheless, for better or for worse, neither theistic nor atheistic appeals seem to work for long.

Ask the Pastor continues to apply theology to "real life." Pastor Snyder dealt with matters of eternal election and everlasting life in Grace, Faith, and Predestination. He also addressed sins of the mouth by condemning Rotten Fruit from Gossip's Vine.

Aardvark Alley celebrated one of the Church's major festivals and also marked one of Christendom's watershed moments in this past fortnight's blogging. The Feast of the Holy Trinity celebrated the mystery of God's Triune nature while also making practical application of this Scripture truth. The Council of Nicaea commemorated orthodox Christianity's victory over Arianism, its reliance upon creeds and confessions, and the importance of Christians joining together to study and formulate theology in harmony with God's Word.

Weekend Fisher ponders ways to explain why "dueling Bible verses" is a bad approach to theology (to anyone for whom it is not self-evident). The March Madness playoffs bracket serves as an example of what not to do with "conflicting" Bible passages in Recognizing Good and Bad Theology: Bible Playoff Test.

Where God Meets Man

On "Treasure in Earthen Vessels" (the sacraments): Only where God promises to be present in a saving way in, with and under the earthly sign can one really be sure. Only then will faith be created and strengthened. God deals with men always through promises. Without the promise, the earthly sign would be at best only an act created by men to inspire themselves and not a sacrament.

A blogging match made in heaven is about to result in the first child for Random Dan and Intolerant Elle. Elle describes the fantasy and reality of her pregnancy so far. How she imagined pregnancy and what pregnancy really involves are two different things. She also announces the sex of her and RandomDan's child!

After what seems like a lifetime of hearing "The Bible doesn't say I have to go to church to worship God," the Rebellious Pastor's Wife decides to look at what the Bible says about church from a slightly different slant in What Scripture Says About the Congregation. In this submission, she looks at what the Gospels say through the interaction of Jesus and Peter, with additional resources drawn from the Old Testament and from the Epistles.

On Being a Theologian of the Cross

Warning against becoming a theologian of glory: Theologians of glory are thus always driven to seek transcendent meaning, to try to see into the invisible things of God, to get a line on the logic of God. They look at the cross and ask, "What is it all about?" They wonder what is "behind" it all. There is a reason for this, of course. If we can see through the cross to what is supposed to be behind it, we don't have to look at it! It is, finally, a matter of self-defense. He was "as one from whom men hide their faces" (Isa. 53:3). If the cross can be neatly folded into the scheme of the self's glory road, it will do no harm.

Elle's pregnancy also gives her occasion to ponder ultrasounds in Asia, infanticide, and abortion in The Ultasound Difference.

David Yow presents Misunderstanding Ministry posted at Original Evangelical, in which he takes apart the growing practice of deriding called workers as "professional Christians".

---

Thank you for submitting, reading, and/or linking. The next edition of the Lutheran Carnival will be hosted at Barb the Evil Genius (gotta love that blog name!); posts due by June 29th. There are still a few spots open for Carnival hosts this summer, so pop on over to the Carnival main site and claim a date that fits your schedule.

Take care & God bless!

The Gospels in the 100's A.D.: The Diatessaron

As the Christian church had more than one gospel available, and particularly when all the gospel writings began to be collected as a set, questions began to arise from comparing them. Some events were recorded in one gospel but not another. Other events were recorded in more than one gospel but not always in the same order. Even in the 100's A.D., careful students of the gospels discussed the differences at some length.

Somewhere around 175 A.D., an early Christian named Tatian put forth the first known harmonization of the gospels. It is known as the Diatessaron, (which roughly means "Fourfold"), a harmonization of the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Even though Tatian's own later teachings were criticized by the church, still his harmonization in the Diatessaron quickly became a standard work in the early Syrian church, largely replacing the four gospels in common usage there for several centuries.

Tatian's use of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John as the basis for harmonization is another example showing the unique status of those four gospels in the earliest church, back to the 100's A.D.