Glad To Be Anglican

Feast of The Holy Innocents Today

The Rev. David Beckmann — Thu, 28 Dec 2006 15:35:00 +0000

O ALMIGHTY God, who out of the mouths of babes and sucklings hast ordained strength, and madest infants to glorify thee by their deaths: Mortify and kill all vices in us, and so strengthen us by thy grace, that by the innocency of our lives, and constancy of our faith even unto death, we may glorify thy holy Name; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

The Nativity Story - Hugh Hewitt Discussion

The Rev. David Beckmann — Tue, 05 Dec 2006 21:21:00 +0000

On Monday December 4, 2006 Hugh Hewitt discussed the new Nativity movie with Dr. Paul Maier and Mark D. Roberts. It's pretty interesting.

Go here to listen (34 & 1/2 minutes).

Blogger FTP news

The Rev. David Beckmann — Mon, 20 Nov 2006 12:45:00 +0000

Get a load of this:

How does Blogger in beta affect FTP blogs?

Blogger in beta is based on the concept of dynamic serving. Since people using the FTP or SFTP features are not hosting their blogs on Blog*Spot, they'll be unable to publish dynamically. We will continue to support FTP publishing in its current state (i.e. static web-pages created by Blogger and transferred to your server). However, new features that depend on dynamic serving will be unavailable to these blogs. For people who wish to take full advantage of all Blogger's features, we recommend switching to Blog*Spot publishing.

Looks like I'll not be posting anything new until I get all this straightened out. My blog publishes to yahoo via ftp - or it did! Instead of my archives going to an archive folder, they just load into my main directory. That's why they aren't working anymore. Fun!

More Troubles

The Rev. David Beckmann — Sun, 19 Nov 2006 20:11:00 +0000

Well, I've finally found that the way I was supposed to update my template was to use a new tab on the Blooger dashboard - the problem is that there is no tab there! Now my archives are not uploading properly. I may have to just save all my old blogs and start all over. We'll see.

New Blogger Problems

The Rev. David Beckmann — Sun, 19 Nov 2006 19:14:00 +0000

Well, I was so excited to see that Blogger had added labels to their service that I immediately got into trying to add it to my site. However...in the process I wound up dumping my original template - all my links lost, etc. So, hopefully I get things back to normal before too long. Added to that is the fact that the label thing isn't working right now!!! Oh well, the joys of modern technology.
I haven't posted much lately because I've been so busy with school and have also gotten the bug that's going around.
You all have a blessed Thanksgiving!

Ecce Homo - St. John 19

The Rev. David Beckmann — Sun, 19 Nov 2006 18:59:00 +0000

An Excerpt from my sermon for the 23rd Sunday After Trinity, 2006; John 18 & 19. I had been arguing that Jesus is represented in chapters 18 & 19 as in complete control of the events. His portrayal as the King backs up that argument:

Finally, we have the symbolism of the two presentations of Jesus to the Jews. We have just read of Jesus, presented to the Jews attired with crown and robe, and the words, “Behold the Man.” In this attire, the Roman soldiers had been calling him king of the Jews. Later, without the crown and robe, quite torn up from his beating, he is presented to them again, this time Pilate says, “behold your king!” Thus twice Jesus is portrayed as the king of the Jews, which we know he was. But these events help to emphasise that Jesus, being the King, was ultimately in control of what was happening. He had come as King of all to be the promised King of Israel, and he would take that throne after he had accomplished his death. The cross was his path to the throne and he took that path with determination.

But all this business of the King of the Jews purposefully taking this road to the cross and death is very ironic, is it not? The whole world should have been worshipping at his feet, instead of this. But, do not those words “behold the man” and “behold your king” bring back to our minds the words of the man who first presented Jesus to the Jews and through them the world? “Behold, the Lamb of God!” The King uses his authority to become the Lamb. He is to be both. We behold him so, with the disciples, at the cross. There he has finally become what John said he would become and he has done what needed to be done to be sure that he did so. He is both king and lamb at the same time.

This is powerfully symbolised by the placard on the cross. As Jesus hangs on the cross, he dies as the lamb, but he is named on the placard the king of the Jews, in 3 languages, for all the world to read. He was both at the same time, and he remains so. He continues today as the King on the right hand of God, but he appears as a lamb that was slain. This is his glory! That someone like him should exist for us is the glory of the grace of God.

Paedocommunion Vs. Confirmation

The Rev. David Beckmann — Mon, 09 Oct 2006 16:43:00 +0000

As stated in an earlier post, at the conference with Peter Toon in Franklin, there was a good bit of discussion back and forth about paedocommunion and confirmation. Toon’s argument was that confirmation was long ago established by the Church for good reason, which requires the right paradigm [my word here] to understand. He considers the grace of regeneration given at baptism as a life principle that grows and matures in time and that there is nothing wrong with recognising that growth with participation in the Eucharist. He emphasised that we should not talk of "withholding" young people from the table, but rather giving them an "opportunity" to eagerly anticipate and look forward to. This elevates the desirability and importance of the Supper to the child. The issue of withholding communion should be represented in a positive fashion, rather than a negative one. The Church is preserving something for the child, not withholding something from the child.

Now the paedocommunion folks have trouble with this. I believe their problem is in the way they stage the debate. For example, I refer you to Peter Leithart’s recent article in Credenda Agenda. He says, “The specific practical question is, Does baptism initiate the baptized to the Lord's table, so that all who are baptized have a right to the meal?” He then proceeds to seek out what he calls a more fundamental issue, which we learn is whether we understand the gospel and its attending sacraments in a more corporate or a more individual manner. He then gives a list of questions in a sic et non fashion (which inherently lends itself to false dichotomies, as we shall see). As I list his questions below, I give my reaction to them, informed by some of the things said by Toon:

“Is the Supper an ordinance of the church (paedocom-munion), or is it an ordinance for some segment of the church (antipaedocommunion)?”

This is a straw man and also a false dichotomy. First of all, those who wait to give communion to baptized children are not necessarily “anti” paedocommunion, as Leithart himself admits at the beginning of his article. Let me call them, rather, “Confirmers” (I hope that is OK). Confirmers do not consider the baptized children of the church as “some segment” thereof, but members who are maturing into the various privileges of the Church, which include, not only Holy Communion, but the offices and other such graces.

“Is the church the family of God simpliciter (paedocom-munion), or is the church divided between those who are full members of the family and those who are partial members or strangers (antipaedocommunion)? “

The answer to this question is basically the same as that above. To delay communion is not to create a segment of people who have only partial membership. All the blessings of Christ are theirs (aha! the paedocommunionist would say!), but the wisdom of the Church is to “ease,” if you will, the members into the various privileges of the church militant out of concern that arises from other issues, one of which is indeed the “worthy manner” which confronts us in 1 Cor. 11.

Leithart is concerned about the way the Church portrays the nature of the gospel to the world. He sees the delay of the Communion to its members as a symbolic fragmenting of the Body and thus a perverting of the gospel. I appreciate his concern, but I disagree with his conclusion. Every time the Eucharist is celebrated, we show forth the death of Christ and His Body – by definition and in reality (though the symbolism is not as absolute as Leithart would like it to be). It is precisely because we do hold to the belief of the oneness of the Body that we expect all baptized members to partake of this communion. The fact that we withhold some, for a time, is not a denial of what is represented in the sacrament, but rather a manner of administration of the sacrament in light of an understanding of I Cor. 11. Does not our order display the gospel? We must look to the whole counsel of God’s Word for the proper administration of the sacraments. Yes, all those passages that talk about the unity of the Body and so forth are in the Bible. So is I Cor. 11. This brings us to the consideration of his next question.

“Did Jesus die and rise again to form a new Israel (paedocommunion), or did He die and rise again to form a community with a quite different make-up from Israel (antipaedocommunion)?”

On this point, Leithart later writes: “Because the church is the new Israel, the entry requirements to the church's Passover are the same as they were for Israel. Discontinuity with regard to admission to the table, like discontinuity between the subjects of circumcision and baptism, undermines the identification of the church and Israel. What are we saying about the church when we exclude children from the table? We are saying that we are not Israel.”

Again, we’re dealing with straw men and “either-or” fallacies. The Reformed Churches are famous for their “new Israel” doctrine. The alternative which he is leaving out relates to the ceremonial aspects of every covenant, which are unique to that covenant. There is continuity and discontinuity in all the covenants. Yes, the Eucharist was inaugurated at the Passover, but it is not the Passover. The Eucharist is a New Covenant ordinance. There is absolutely no reason why the apostles could not order the administration of the Eucharist in a fashion that distinguished it from the Passover in any particular.

“Did Jesus die and rise again to form the new human race (paedocommunion), or did He die and rise again to form a fellowship of the spiritually mature (antipaedocommunion)?“

Our fellowship is based on our union in Christ, via baptism. Our participation in the Lord’s Supper together is the way we experience together that unity – it does not inaugurate or establish the unity. The Eucharist is a celebration of the unity. Again, this is an attempt to portray the confirmers as people who split the church up into segments.

“Does baptism admit the baptized into the covenant or symbolize his prior inclusion in the covenant (paedocommunion), or does baptism merely express a hope that the baptized one day will enter the covenant in some other fashion (antipaedocommunion)?”

Lot’s of straw around here. Since when has any “antipaedocommunion” person – in the Reformed tradition – thought anything else about baptism but that it is the sign and seal of covenant membership?

“Does the covenant have an inherently historical/institutional character (paedocommunion), or is it an invisible reality (antipaedocommunion)?”

Does Leithart think it does not have an invisible reality? I thought both were true.

“Does grace restore nature (paedocommunion), or does grace cancel our nature or elevate beyond nature (antipaedocommunion)?”

According to Toon, obedience to I Cor. 11 is a celebration of nature. Children are made by God to grow into their various responsibilities and privileges in life. Thanks to God’s wonderful grace, the restored image of God also matures in that individual. Their first communion is a way of recognising and even congratulating (careful here!) the child’s maturity. We mutually rejoice in what God has brought forth, as the tree grows and matures and puts forth the glory of its fruit. To consider this, as does Leithart, as some sort of undermining of the gospel of God’s grace is to simply miss the point.

The more I read this article of Leithart’s (please read his other writings – he’s a good brother), the more I’m convinced that he is troubling himself.

What do we do with I Cor. 11? We could answer, as does Toon, with, “Well, we simply appreciate what the Church has done for centuries.” By the way, Toon certainly does not think we should be confirming at some arbitrary age. He says that pastoral decisions have to be made and that he is only really drawing the line between the infant and the child. Leithart wants to argue, “But is that tradition biblical?” He doesn’t think so. But, as I’ve, hopefully, demonstrated with my answers to his questions, he apparently is not currently able to think otherwise because he has painted himself into a corner with his false dichotomies.

J. I. Packer - Theology for Everyone

The Rev. David Beckmann — Wed, 08 Nov 2006 22:00:00 +0000

If you will go to this webpage on the site of Birmingham's Church of the Advent, you will find a Real Audio address (actually two in one) wherein J. I. Packer speaks on why theology is for everyone (he briefly talks about C. S. Lewis), and goes on to address the virtues of Anglican theology. As usual with Packer, it is methodical, pithy, and excellent. It lasts a little over an hour.

C. S. Lewis Conference, March, 2007

The Rev. David Beckmann — Sat, 04 Nov 2006 15:07:00 +0000

The C. S. Lewis Society of Chattanooga is hosting a conference with Lyle Dorsett the first weekend of March, 2007. Keep up to date on plans for the event by visiting: www.atjerusalem.org.

Matthew 6:22,23 & Moral Sensibility

The Rev. David Beckmann — Fri, 03 Nov 2006 15:04:00 +0000

I've been reflecting much on the fact that there are objective moral sympathies or affections, which are right and to be cultivated, as over against the relativistic and Romantic view of the same. In other words, I think Plato was right, in his Republic that our moral sympathies should be trained in the right direction, because there is a right direction.

Along these lines, I just sent the following e-mail to someone:

As for Matt. 6:22,23: This is a puzzling passage. First, note the context: spiritual focus (pun?); we are to have God and His kingdom foremost in our hearts.
Now, notice how Jesus proceeds. First, he’s just talking physiology. The eye is the organ of sight and thus the only organ which grants us perception of light. It is through the eye that light comes into the body, so to speak. He then adds a moral quality to our sight, “if your eye is good.” Thus, he is using light as a metaphor for moral goodness. If our moral sense is healthy, having the right sympathy and direction, then moral goodness comes into our lives. If we seek moral goodness, then we will have it (see 5:6). But, if we think darkness is good because our moral sense is twisted with wrong sympathies and ill direction, then we allow moral darkness in our lives. If our moral sense itself is dark, we will be filled with what is dark. Being perverse, we will be filled with the perverse. We thus should have such love for the good and control over ourselves that the attention of our lives, the focus of our moral eyes, is on that which is true, good and beautiful – light (the Medievals considered light – being a blending of colors – to be the right image for the summary of the transcendental goods – the true, the good and the beautiful. That’s why they altered their church buildings to have more light in them. Interesting).

It is critical that our discipling, especially of children, affirms that there are things in this world which we are to love and be drawn to and to appreciate, and there are also things which we are to reject because they are, objectively, unworthy of, and harmful to, the sons of God.

Blessed Confirmation

The Rev. David Beckmann — Wed, 16 Aug 2006 21:06:00 +0000

It was a great joy today to participate in the Confirma- tion of my Uncle Roy and his friend Sue. Our Presiding Bishop, The Right Reverend William Millsaps, performed the Confirmation at Christ Church, Monteagle, Tenn. Welcome to the Episcopal Missionary Church, Roy & Sue - we'll be praying for you!

Report: Peter Toon at Holy Cross, Franklin, TN

The Rev. David Beckmann — Mon, 09 Oct 2006 10:32:00 +0000

If you visit Peter Toon's website or blog, you will notice that he is currently addressing what he considers confusion in the Anglican Communion as to just what Anglicanism is. This past weekend, he told those of us gathered at
Holy Cross Anglican Church (EMC), that the best way to answer the question is to "read the birth certificate" of the Anglican Church. In other words, the Anglican Church is defined by her Formularies: the Prayer Book, the 39 Articles, and the Ordinal. He said those who tried to divorce these from one another are in a vain exercise, because the same "team" that wrote the Prayer Book wrote the rest - the same theology permeates all three.
He spent some time demonstrating this to be the case by having us examine what the Formularies teach regarding the Scriptures.
Indeed, the centrality of the Scriptures is what distinguishes the "Reformed Catholic" church of Anglicanism from the Sarum rite previously in use in England. He pointed out in particular how, in the Reformed Ordinal, instead of the priest being handed the chalice and patten, as in the Sarum rite, he is handed the Bible.

The lectures were informative, but the best part of the conference was our discussion times. A few things mentioned:

The Athanasian Creed was taken out of the Prayer Book by the American Church due to her latitudinarianism.

The Church is no longer the "guardian" of the Scriptures in the West, but the Bible publishers!

Daily morning prayer was emphasised, as well as the role of the Scriptures in the Divine Service and the life of the Church.

There was also much discussion about paedocommunion and confirmation, of which I will have more to say later today.

There is no question that he is trying to steer the Anglican Church in the West toward her historic root in the Protestant Reformation in contradiction to the influence of the Anglo-Catholics (St. Louis Affirmation - to which the EMC subscribes, interestingly) and the more broadly American Evangelical influences (in the Anabaptist tradition) which have crept in of late. I can't help but sympathise with him, having come out of the Reformed tradition. I invite any one else that attended to please provide your own comments.

Issues, Etc.: Myths About Martin Luther

The Rev. David Beckmann — Fri, 03 Nov 2006 13:29:00 +0000

Issues, Etc. had a good broadcast this past Sunday, 29 October, on "Myths About Martin Luther." The guest is Dr. Ken Schurb of Zion Lutheran Church in Moberly, MO.
Scroll down on this page to the broadcast.

A Sacrament of Unity

The Rev. David Beckmann — Fri, 27 Oct 2006 19:19:00 +0000

I've just been reading some of the correspondence between Thomas Cranmer and John Calvin. It's fascinating reading - you get a feel for the tensions they were under and the camaraderie they felt in a good cause. I also love the way Calvin calls Cranmer "most accomplished Prelate;" he obviously had no problems with godly bishops.

This statement by Cranmer really hit me, in light of some of the debating going on in Reformed circles: "It cannot escape your prudence, how exceedingly the church of God has been injured by dissensions and varieties of opinion respecting this sacrament of unity...." Wow! Think about it. A sacrament meant for unity is turned into an occasion for discord by sinful men.

Those who want to separate from people who don't see eye-to-eye with them on every jot and tittle of the docrine of the Holy Communion have a spiritual problem. We've got Protestants who sound like they are trying to run their own version of the Council of Trent. If Ephesians 4 means anything, and if Jesus' commands in the farewell discourses of St. John mean anything, we ought to be able to participate in the Supper together while we are still debating one another on what it means. I'm sure our debating would be greatly aided as the Lord works His grace in our hearts, however He does it, through this holy sacrament of unity.

The Nature of Our Abiding In Christ - St. John 15

The Rev. David Beckmann — Mon, 30 Oct 2006 02:11:00 +0000

The following is an excerpt of my sermon for the Twentieth Sunday after Trinity, '06:

We must “continue in his love;” there is to be an ongoing vital relationship between the vine and the branches, for which the branches themselves have a responsibility. Since our spiritual welfare depends on our abiding in the vine, how we are to abide in the vine becomes a very important question for us.

To know how we are to abide in the vine, we need to understand more of what Jesus is talking about when he speaks of himself as the vine. We need to know what we are to abide in. As Bishop N. T. Wright explains in a recent commentary on this passage, there are two ways to understand how Jesus is our vine. We are grafted into the vine through a corporate connection and a private connection.

First of all, to understand what I mean by a corporate connection, consider that Jesus’ calling himself a vine was not an arbitrary allusion. He could have likened himself to a tree, for example, but he did not. He chose to speak of a vine. Why? It is because the vine was symbolic of the Old Testament church.

Here read Psalm 80:8f; Jeremiah 2:5f; and lastly, Isaiah 5:1-7.

... you can see that the image of the Old Testament church as a vine in a vineyard was a common one. It is no wonder that the apostle Paul picks up this image in his epistle to the Romans, chapter 11, to talk about the New Covenant Church.

So we learn that, when Jesus called himself the “true vine” he was saying that he is the true Church. It is in Him that all believers relate to God. To quote Wright: “…it is a way of speaking of himself as Israel-in-person, and of his followers as members of God’s true people because they belong to him.” (John for Everyone, Part II, p.70). This understanding compares favorably with the image of the Church in the New Testament of the Body. The Church is one being, if you will. Jesus is the head and we are his body. As his body’s members, we are joined together in the same life, as the branches to the vine, and, because we are in him, we are in the Church.

This means, then, that if we are to abide in him, we must abide in the Church. As Wright says, “We must remain in the community that knows and loves him and celebrates him as its Lord. There is no such thing as a solitary Christian. We can’t ‘go it alone’.” Thus, it is no wonder that Jesus says that the way we continue in his love, the way we abide in him, is to keep his command to love one another. This is a command you cannot keep by yourself. You have to belong to a community of people so you can love them and they can love you. We who are brought into the loving fellowship of the Trinity are brought into a life of love, and in that we are brought into that life of love together, we are to manifest it, bearing the fruit of it, by our love for one another.

This is really what the abiding of John 15 is about: the corporate manner in which we abide in Jesus. The pietistic tradition in which I was brought up as a Christian totally missed this. The abiding was understood as an abiding in a personal and private manner. I now believe this is the wrong way to take this passage.

However, though Jesus does not expressly speak of it here, there nevertheless does have to be a private manner in which we abide. Wright mentions this as well. It is not possible to maintain our relationships with one another in the Church if we are not being watchful over our own hearts in our own personal relationship with the Lord. Though He does not expressly speak of this private abiding, we can find a place for logically inferring the private manner of abiding in chapter 15 in Jesus prefacing his command for us to love one another by saying in verse 10: “If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love.” Here Jesus speaks of all the things he has commanded, not just the corporate commands. The commands he gives us that apply to us personally would thus be included in verse 10.

So here we have the answer to our question: how do I abide in the vine? I abide in the vine by obeying Jesus’ command to maintain a loving relationship with my fellow believers in the Church and I abide by keeping close to Jesus in my own heart by seeking to follow all he has taught me. It's rather objective.

Of course, all of this is done by faith. After all, Jesus tells us in verse 5, “apart from me, ye can do nothing.” Everything he tells us to do requires spiritual life to do it, but we do not have spiritual life in ourselves. Jesus is the life. Spiritual life is something we receive as a gift from Jesus by the hand of faith. As Jesus said, “He who believes in me has everlasting life;” that is, the life of the Vine. So, on his part, as he says in chapter 15, he has chosen us and grafted us into him, but on our part, we have responded to his call to be grafted into him by faith. Being so grafted, having this life by faith, we enjoy the life of the vine by faith as well, for we abide by faith; we cannot abide in any other way.

The Holy Spirit: Jesus With Us (John 14)

The Rev. David Beckmann — Sun, 22 Oct 2006 18:52:00 +0000

An excerpt from my sermon for the Ninteenth Sunday after Trinity:

Critical for our attention regarding the gift of the Spirit to these saddening disciples, is his description, by Jesus, as “another Comforter”. First, he is another Comforter” as we read in v. 16. In other words, he’s going to do for them the same kinds of things Jesus was doing for them, even at that moment. As Jesus says, in v. 18, he will not leave them comfortless. He has been a comfort to them, in so many, many ways. Jesus brought comfort to his disciples by ensuring them of their being loved by the Father and forgiven of their sins. He brought them comfort by helping them to understand the Scriptures and the wonderful things God intended for them therein. He was also just a good, trusted friend who cared for them. They fear this needed comfort will be taken away from them, but Jesus assures them that it will not. He is sending them someone else to take over the job.

But the word translated “Comforter” can also have two other meanings. It also means Helper. Jesus often helped the disciples, did he not? He would give them things to do, and they would run into trouble. He would give them something so miraculous as the casting out of demons to do, yet, they would run across a situation they couldn’t handle, and so Jesus would step in, and bring about the deliverance. He would help them. Or, it may have been something so seemingly simple and mundane as taking a boat across the Sea of Galilee; something they did lots of times. Yet, unexpectedly, they could face trouble there as well – who is going to calm the storm when Jesus is gone? The Holy Spirit would be their helper. They need not be troubled and feel that they faced any difficulty alone. Jesus, by His Spirit, would still be there.

The word for “Comforter” can also be translated Advocate. Jesus was and is the advocate of His people. He vindicates our cause. When people leveled accusations against the behaviour of Jesus’ disciples, he stood up for them and justified them. But, more importantly, he was their advocate before the throne of heaven, and continues to be the advocate of all God’s people before that throne. He is the one who intercedes on our behalf, as we continue in our imperfect condition, as we await the day of our perfection. So also, the Holy Spirit, would be their advocate, and is ours. As the apostle Paul says in Romans 8: we do not know how to pray as we ought, so the Holy Spirit makes our intercessions for us. As Bishop Wright says, “In [God’s] court, his people can rest assued that their case will be heard, that God will constantly be reminded of their plight, because the spirit will plead on their behalf.”

Jesus is leaving, but he is not leaving. In fact, his leaving is going to be a greater blessing for his disciples than his staying would have been, because there is so much blessing in this other way of his being with them. They are going to have the Holy Spirit as their Comforter, their Helper, and their Advocate as never before. Thus enabled, they will be able to do wonderful works for God; wonderful things that even Jesus of Nazareth did not do, though, as we realise, they never did anything but that it was because of what Jesus had done on the Cross for them and for the whole world.

Further Up & In - Ptolemy and Lewis' Imagination

The Rev. David Beckmann — Fri, 13 Oct 2006 12:23:00 +0000

I have not read much in the secondary literature regarding C. S. Lewis and medieval thought. I hope to do more soon. For this reason, what I am about to write may be old hat, but I've just not seen anyone wearing it.

My students have just gotten through Dante's Inferno and Paradiso (we did not purposefully leave out the Purgatorio, but I should not take space here on just what happened). While preparing for class, I read Lewis' Studies in Renaissance and Medieval Literature. I was familiar with the Ptolemaic view of the universe, but Lewis "filled in the corners" for me in several places. He describes the medieval person as looking up and into the universe above, as over against the modern way of looking, which is out and away into the vast reaches of matter. The medieval looked up, because Earth was at the bottom of the planetary hierarchy. He looked "into" the universe because the root of Earthly being is found ultimately in the Empyrean, even in God Himself, who dwells above us, beyond the outermost sphere of this universe.

Beside the "up" and "in" way of looking, the medieval person also considered the spiritual world of the Empyrean to be like our world, only inside out. The farther away from Earth you get, the richer and broader is our experience of Reality.

I was reflecting on this view of the universe when the words "up" and "in" hit me like a brick. Combined with the "inside out" description of the Empyrean, I immediately recognised the source of the Narnian expression, "further up and further in," and just what that going further up and in was like as we read of it in The Last Battle.

Now let me throw this in: I have decided that I like the Ptolemaic view of the universe quite a bit. To the modern mind, nothing is worth considering unless it is based on observation and rational analysis in the materialistic, "scientific" mode of our day. But it all depends on the question you are wanting to ask. The modern man only wants to ask, "What is there materially?" The Christian should go beyond that question and ask, "What is there in the whole of its nature?" We are, of course, interested in the truth of what is materially present in any object, because God has made it so. But the Christian recognises that nothing detectable by our senses should be divorced from whatever may be its connection to the Mind behind its existence. The universe is Created. There is more than the material about everything because the context of all includes more than the material; it includes the Personal, in varying ways and degrees. The Ptolemaic view includes the personal elements that Christians believe to be present. The Copernican view is more true regarding the material existence of the universe, but the Ptolemaic is more true regarding its immaterial existence. As Lewis points out, all theories of the nature of the universe are models. The Copernican view has always been another model, and it has regularly been updated. I find it most interesting that the Intelligent Design model is, in a sense, a move back toward the truth in the Ptolemaic model. I'm all for it. Let Love for God spring into the dance of the spheres again!

EMC in News on VirtueOnline

The Rev. David Beckmann — Fri, 20 Oct 2006 02:36:00 +0000

ON THE CONTINUING CHURCH front comes word that the National Synod of the Episcopal Missionary Church, (EMS) - the Rt. Rev. Council Nedd II and the Diocese of the Chesapeake and Northeast was unanimously received into the Episcopal Missionary Church in Columbus, Ohio recently. The Diocese of the Chesapeake was formed in 2004 as a missionary diocese with two parishes and over time expanded to seven churches and missions and two foundations. Their Presiding Bishop is the Tennessee-based Rt. Rev. William Millsaps.The Synod was also attended by the Ven. Dokun Adewunmi representing Bp. Martyn Minns of the Convocation of Anglicans in North America, (CANA) as well as a representative of The Most Rev. Walter Grundorf of the Anglican Province of America. The Episcopal Missionary Church is a Traditional Anglican Church, which has sought to retain the Apostolic origins and practices of the Christian faith. Its faith is based on the Bible, the Nicene and Apostle's Creeds, and two millennia of church history and traditions. The 1928 Book of Common Prayer is the standard for their worship.

This is excerpted from: http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=4870.

A Response to McClure's Response

The Rev. David Beckmann — Thu, 12 Oct 2006 00:37:00 +0000

This is a response to Heath McClure's "Response to “Paedocommunion vs. Confirmation” which is found on www.wittenberghall.com. I am responding to him here simply because the comment feature on that page will not allow a response of this length.

Let me say first of all that everything said there regarding the congeniality of this correspondence is absolutely true. For one thing, Heath and I agree with the majority of issues at hand. I would side with him against those particular antipaedocommunionsts he sides against, though I would do so for some other reasons. I know that he likes this kind of discussion and I do as well; it “stimulates the brain cells,” as Clouseau would say.

I also want to be sure everyone knows that I notified Leithart about the post in my puny blog and he thanked me for that. I’m sure he has better things to do than to trouble himself with it.

Let me now break my response to Heath into parts:

1. The issue of my not understanding the audience to whom Leithart is writing: I may indeed be wrong about this, but the language of the article itself is my defense.

Leithart writes, “For centuries, sacramental theology in the Reformed and other traditions [my emphasis] has focused narrowly on the effect of sacraments on individual recipients, and as a result, the theology and practice of the sacraments have been horribly distorted.” Do you see how he is bringing in the whole church into his article with this language?

Let’s take this excerpt: “We must think about baptism and the Supper in these (overlapping, if not identical) ecclesial and evangelical contexts if we want to grasp what is at stake in the paedocommunion debate.” Ah, now here he mentions “the paedocommunion debate.” This could be used by Heath as an example of his understanding of Leithart’s article, but he goes on. “The question is not only who's in and who's out, but rather what our decisions about who's in and who's out say about the church and the gospel we proclaim” [my emphasis; if he starts talking about “the church” and “the gospel” that includes everybody]. “What kind of community are we claiming to be if we invite children to the Lord's table, or, as is more commonly the case, what are we saying about the church when we exclude them? What do our ritual statements about the church say about the church's relation to Israel and the character of salvation? Put our theologies [note the plural; he mentions Luther somewhere] and our sermons to the side for a moment: What gospel does our meal proclaim? Within this framework, I will be pursuing a positive case for paedocommunion, under three points.” So, he has laid out his framework for the rest of the article, and that framework, according to the bulk of what he says, affects the Church and the Gospel. Thus, it is not a debate affecting only a portion of the Church.

Leithart, in trying to make the paedocommuion debate affect the definition of the gospel and of the Church necessarily stretches the paedocommunion debate beyond his circle. Perhaps Heath is correct in that Leithart was really aiming at only those in Reformed circles he has been debating with, but that is not evident from the general impression one gets due to some of the very things he says.

Let us not forget that my original article was not a confrontation with Leithart for the sake of confronting Leithart. I was using Leithart’s article as an example of how paedocommunionists argue their position – in whatever context - responding to it as a “confirmer.”

2. Problems with Heath’s arguments for his position: Heath objects to my bringing up I Cor. 11 as applicable to the debate. He says it “has no direct bearing on the issue.” He says this, however, based upon his particular interpretation of I Cor. 11, which is not that which has been generally accepted. He really should not say such a thing. It is, from my perspective, the main passage under debate, though Leithart here states that he’s trying to stretch the debate beyond what is involved in that passage. Perhaps it’s just the way Heath said it; it would have been better to say “should have no…” instead of “has no….”

As I mention in other posts, there is the theological understanding of I Cor. 11’s “discerning the Body”, which requires a degree of mental maturity before partaking, and then there is what we could call the spiritual understanding, which is Heath’s and my own: viz., the “discerning” has to do with loving relationship in the Body. The problem with Heath’s dismissal of I Cor. 11, based on his (our) interpretation of it, is that we still have a prerequisite. It’s just different from the theological one and can be fulfilled at an earlier age. This is where my post regarding the application of the spiritual interpretation comes in. Kids are going to have to be old enough to meet the prerequisite, whatever it is.

This is the passage that the paedocommunionist has to find a way of dismissing because it does order a prerequisite to partaking. What we face as Anglicans is that our church follows, with the majority of Christianity as far as I can tell, the theological interpretation. So do the antipaedocommunionists in Presbyterianism. The passage necessarily bears on the issue because of the history and nature of the debate. What paedocommunionists must do is prove that their interpretation of it is correct. Thus, the one passage which is used primarily against them can become their main tool to change the minds of their opposition.

It may be that Heath, in the course of his Response, thought he had proven his interpretation and then proceeded to cast I Cor. 11 out wherever he found it.

3. Regarding Heath’s conclusion that I was oversimplifying: I’m afraid Heath is not following the flow of Leithart’s and my arguments. Here is where I may owe Leithart an apology. Before listing the questions which I took issue with, he wrote, “At the risk of oversimplification (and provocation), I will briefly pose the options on these wider issues:” Now, having admitted that, was it fair for me to take him to task? Perhaps not. However, I was, as stated above, responding to an example of a paedocommunionist’s argument and this is how he decided to state it.

My responses to Leithart were accusations of his oversimplification, which he admits he might be committing. What I think Heath is meaning is that I was somehow oversimplifying Leithart by not discerning the audience to which Leithart was writing. Yet, Leithart himself recognises that, in his questions, he was potentially oversimplifying, opening the door for someone like myself to object to his questions because he was mischaracterising some of the people in the antipaedocommunion camp. A straw-man argument contains an element of oversimplification. I was only seeking to expose this element in his questions.

As for Heath’s comment that my mentioning that the Passover is not the Eucharist did not prove anything, let me say that it does address one of the arguments I’ve heard over and over again in favour of paedocommunion. It goes like this: since the children partook of the Passover and since the Eucharist is also a spiritual meal and since there is continuity between the two testaments, therefore children should partake of the Eucharist as they did of the Passover. As much as that kind of argument is being made, so pertinent is my comment. It proves discontinuity between the two partakings, thus opening the possibility that such an argument above has fault.

Oh, well, enough of this. I could say a little more, but not much. As is evident from his “Response” there wasn’t that much we disagree on. What I plan to do is e-mail to Heath those sections of his Response wherein I think we can together agree on a statement that brings a resolution to the discussion that has arisen.

EMC Synod Meets This Weekend

The Rev. David Beckmann — Fri, 13 Oct 2006 14:16:00 +0000

As the Synod of the Episcopal Missionary Church meets today and tomorrow in Columbus, OH, let us pray:

ALMIGHTY and everlasting God, who by thy Holy Spirit didst preside in the Council of the blessed Apostles, and hast promised, through thy Son Jesus Christ, to be with thy Church to the end of the world; We beseech thee to be with the Council of thy Church assembled in thy Name and Presence. Save them from all error, ignorance, pride, and prejudice; and of thy great mercy vouchsafe, we beseech thee, so to direct, sanctify, and govern them in their work, by the mighty power of the Holy Ghost, that the comfortable Gospel of Christ may be truly preached, truly received, and truly followed, in all places, to the breaking down the kingdom of sin, Satan, and death; till at length the whole of thy dispersed sheep, being gathered into one fold, shall become partakers of everlasting life; through the merits and death of Jesus Christ our Saviour. Amen.

Thinking About the Eucharist

The Rev. David Beckmann — Mon, 09 Oct 2006 15:14:00 +0000

I found this site thanks to another fellow Anglican blogger:
Anglican Eucharist Theology. Well worth reading. The most recent article on Dix is very interesting. The BCP is therein classified as Nominalist, yet I think it can be read as a Realist document as well - the article on Doyle gives evidence of that fact. We are "partakers of his most blessed Body and Blood" and "made one body with him". After all, we are talking about the via media here.

I was especially glad to read the ARCIC article, which includes statements by the Roman representative that are contrary to "immoderate realism," which is what the Reformers really hated. It gives me hope that we can some day remove the transubstantiation barrier between the Protestant and Roman Churches.

Worthy Partaking in I Cor. 11

The Rev. David Beckmann — Mon, 09 Oct 2006 16:51:00 +0000

This is a follow up from my previous post. There is one more thing I’d like to address concerning the paedocommunion debate. It has to do with the meaning of worthily partaking. The Anglican tradition has understood this in a mental sense. The children are not to be confirmed until they are able to say the Creed, the Lord’s Prayer, and the Ten Commandments, and “are sufficiently instructed in the matter contained in these Offices.” The rubric in the BCP does not specify age, only competency. It is apparent, then, that a child may be quite young and yet have come to sufficient maturity (through both nature and nurture) to be confirmed.

I can understand this interpretation of I Cor. 11 and appreciate the wisdom in the tradition. However, one day at Covenant Theological Seminary, Paul Kooistra pointed out an interpretation that has made better sense to me (and it fits some of Leithart’s concerns). In I Cor. 11, Paul rebukes the Corinthians for failing to treat one another in the Body with Christian love in the manner in which they observed the Love Feast. Kooistra noted that the discerning of the Body of Christ, mentioned in the Lord’s Supper passage, could very well mean the ability to treat the family of God in a loving and appropriate manner. Thus, the ceremonial qualification for partaking of the Supper would be a right attitude and behaviour toward one’s fellows in the Faith. The BCP mentions this qualification, by the way, when, in the invitation to the table, it says, “Ye who do truly and earnestly repent you of your sins, and are in love and charity with your neighbours….”

Now let’s apply this to the age of competency. With this understanding of I Cor. 11, the age of competency is not when a child is able to recite certain texts (which, children ought to be able to do pretty early anyway), but it is when a child is able to tell when they are treating their family members and the other people at church in a loving manner. Are they able to recognise when they are being selfish or disrespectful and do they show true remorse when they are confronted with their failure? I find this understanding of I Cor. 11 very thought provoking and meaningful. Let me know what you think.

Order, Learning and Boys

The Rev. David Beckmann — Thu, 05 Oct 2006 19:43:00 +0000

Every once in a while, I hear or read someone commenting on how our schools want the boys to behave like girls. The reason being that girls usually are much quieter and cooperative in a classroom, which facilitates their learning. Boys are not naturally so. Of course, there are many schools that don't seek any order at all - but that's another issue.

Now, I'm all for recognising the differences in the sexes. I'm a big fan of separate schools for boys and girls. I certainly am not interested in feminizing boys for the sake of keeping things tidy at school. However, order is necessary for learning. However routy a boy may naturally be, if there is not some self-control on his part, and structure and discipline on his teacher's part, he will not learn what he needs to learn.

How about this solution: instead of saying, "Johnny, you should behave like Susie over there," we should say, "Johnny, a good soldier knows how to stand at attention and speak when he's spoken to. He knows how to discipline his actions and obey orders. He knows how to pay attention to his commander to be sure that he plays his part in the battle."

In other words, provide a model of order which is masculine, instead of feminine. We must do something like this, because some order is going to have to exist. The alternative to a feminine order in the classroom is not to allow Johnny to act like the Tazmanian devil whenever he feels like it. He can do better than that, if he is inspired by the right model. Boys can behave when they want to!

The Delays of God - Trinity XVI, St. John 11

The Rev. David Beckmann — Mon, 02 Oct 2006 17:23:00 +0000

In our study of the Gospel of St. John, we have come to chapter 11 and the story of Jesus raising Lazarus from the dead. Having read earlier in the service the story of Jesus bringing the young man back to life in Luke 4, we realise that this was not the first time that Jesus demonstrated that he is the Lord of life. However, there are differences between the two stories that are very important and instructive.

For one thing, the young man had just died and was being carried to his funeral. Lazarus, however, had been dead for four days when Jesus brought him back to life. You will recall how, when Jesus commanded that the stone be rolled away from the entrance to Lazarus’ tomb, that Martha complained of how Lazarus, having been there so long, would be decayed and smelly. Lazarus had already begun to turn back into the dust from which all men are made. Jesus’ raising of Lazarus is thus not only indicative of his power to give life, but to give life to dust – reminding us of the story of man’s creation. It is another of those moments in John’s gospel where Jesus shows forth his identity as our Creator.

But there is another difference that I really want to home in on today. In Luke 4, Jesus was passing along the road and just happened to come across the funeral procession. He learns of the death of the young man and his being the only son of his mother and he has compassion on the mother. Because of this compassion, he raises her son. The story of Lazarus is very different. Through the circumstances and the dialogue, we find that Jesus purposefully allows Lazarus to die. He thus intentionally sets the scene at Lazarus’ tomb.

In verses 1-4, immediately we find that Jesus sees a purpose in Lazarus’ sickness. It is nothing other than that he would glorify God by being himself glorified in the power that he is going to show regarding Lazarus’ condition. Because he knows the Father in that unique way of his, he recognises the plan of God behind it all. He thus begins to respond to this news in a way that would lead to the fulfillment of that purpose (see verses 5&6).

Now notice two things in the narrative. Jesus’ love for Lazarus and his family is mentioned twice. We are meant to understand that they are beloved by him, for his initial response to the news of Lazarus’ sickness does not look like something that someone who loved them would do; especially if he could heal Lazarus. We would think Jesus would get right up and go to Bethany, if he loved them. Instead, he waits two whole days. Jesus is purposefully allowing Lazarus’ illness to take its course. As I have said, this does not seem the loving thing to do, but in fact, according to verse 6, it is precisely because he does love them that he is letting this happen. The implication of verses 5 & 6 is that he waited because he loved them. Whatever was connected to his being glorified through Lazarus’ illness, the event was going to be a good thing for them; an evidence of his love.

If we have not read the story before, we are certainly scratching our heads, wondering how these things are going to fit together. Indeed, you will recall that Mary and Martha, who did not know how things were going to turn out, were obviously perplexed with Jesus’ delay. When he finally shows up, they both tell him that this sorrowful event would not have occurred if he had come earlier. It didn’t seem to fit their understanding of his love for them either.

Nevertheless, Jesus was very plain about it all with his disciples that the sickness of Lazarus was an event that was meant to glorify God and St. John, writing the story, is very plain that Jesus followed this plan out of love for Lazarus and his sisters.

But that was not all that Jesus had on his mind. We find another reason why he delayed as the story continues to unfold. Read verses 7-15. Jesus says there that the delay actually brought joy to Jesus. He says, “I am glad I was not there.” Why? “For your sakes.” He forsees the forthcoming resurrection of Lazarus from the dead as a benefit to the faith of the disciples. He is setting up this miracle so that they will believe in him. Whatever helps his disciples to have more faith in him brings joy to his heart.

Now, someone could wonder: here is Jesus, thinking that the death of Lazarus is a good thing – even rejoicing in the event – when surely this was extremely painful for everyone else in Bethany. Is that right? I would answer that question in two ways. First of all, is it not true that there are things in this life that bring us both joy and grief at the same time? ...

But the second way I would answer that question is to point to the rest of the story. While Jesus spoke to his disciples of his gladness about Lazarus’ death before taking the trip to Bethany, once he gets there, we have none of that. Let me pick up the narrative at the point where Mary finally appears before Jesus as he was drawing near the town, and let us note what we learn about Jesus’ emotions. See verses 30-38. Clearly, John wants us to know that Jesus had very proper feelings for the suffering that surrounded Lazarus’ death. And if we know much of Jesus from the Bible, we are not surprised at this. There is no one born of woman as compassionate as Jesus. How could it not be so? It is sin that hardens our hearts toward people; that makes us callous and selfish. He, being sinless, knew compassion perfectly and felt it more ardently than anyone else. We thus know that, though Jesus was rejoicing that the glory of God was to be revealed, that the plan of God for his work was being fulfilled, that he was about to do something good for Lazarus’ family and that his disciples’ faith would be improved, he nevertheless, with his tender heart, wept with those who had to go through the pain of Lazarus’ death, not knowing what Jesus was about to do.

Now here, I want us to consider what all of this has to do with our lives, for it has indeed been written and preserved that we might know who this Jesus is ourselves and believe on him ourselves. First of all, we have to recognise and be reconciled to the fact that God does occasionally allow painful things in our lives – an allows them to persist for a time – for our own good. Indeed, he does it because he loves us. There’s something about the blessing he has in store for us that required the ingredient of delay.

We see him doing this kind of thing in nature, do we not? There are many things in our world that we enjoy that are the fruit of a lengthy, drawn out process. Just consider our food. ... Consider even more closely the delays of God in the life of the Church which we read about in the Scriptures. ...

But think especially on the delay of God in the sending of his Son, Jesus Christ, to redeem the world! We don’t know how many thousands of years he waited until, as the Scripture says, the time was due. Think of all the suffering of sinners for millenium after millenium. Think of the centuries and centuries that went by as the saints believed in God’s promises but never saw them fulfilled. And the fulness of the salvation he came to bring has still not taken place. Indeed, the whole creation has been waiting ever since Adam fell for that day, groaning and longing for the revelation of the sons of God in Christ. But it is only fitting, that the greatest blessing of all human history – the consummation of the ages in Jesus – requires the longest time to ripen and come to fruition.

I am sure that every one of us here today is waiting on God for something. There’s something that we wish he would do, that we are hoping he will do, but he is delaying. We should not be confused or discouraged by that. It is not at all unusual that God’s blessing in our lives requires time. That’s why we need to trust Him. That’s why we need the grace of faith. That’s why we need our faith strengthened: that we might wait upon God.

But as we wait, we must never think that he does not feel the pain, the frustration, the sorrow, whatever we might be experiencing, while we wait on his good time. He has revealed himself in Jesus. Jesus was and is our God, and he is the same yesterday, today, and forever. He weeps with us. He groans with us, and with all his people. Let that thought comfort you. Don’t ever think Jesus enjoys your misery. He does not. He feels it more than you do, for he still has more compassion and wise concern for you than you do for yourself.

Instead of thinking harsh thoughts about his delays, be reconciled to them. He knows what he is doing. It’s part of being a disciple of Christ – it always has been. Many saints have spent their lives believing promises that were long in fulfillment, or were even fulfilled after they were long gone. It’s part of being a pilgrim. By faith wait on him. By faith look forward to the day when all trouble and waiting will be over. In patience, possess your souls, as you walk with the One who loves you and only seeks your good.

Amen.

Good Shepherds - St. John 10

The Rev. David Beckmann — Sun, 24 Sep 2006 18:04:00 +0000

There are many debts that western Christendom owes to the Anglican Church. One of them, you may be surprised to learn, is for the arrangement of the books and chapters of our Bibles. Historians assert that the first person to divide the Bible into defined chapters was Stephen Langton (c. 1150 - July 9, 1228). Langton, among other things, was the Archbishop of Canterbury. Thus we owe it to one of the Church of England’s Archbishops that the portion of the Gospel we read earlier today, concerning Jesus as the good shepherd, is in the 10^th chapter.

It could not have been an easy task to make these chapter divisions, and I’m sure that Langton himself would have puzzled over where to make the best breaks. The words of Jesus concerning the shepherding of his flock are lengthy and seem to deserve a place of their own, but we have to admit the fact that the division between ch. 9 and ch. 10 is a problem. If we go back to the end of ch. 9 and then read on into 10, we realise that Jesus has not finished telling the Pharisees what he thought of them. By the time we get down to v. 21 of chapter 10, we recognise we are still in the flow of the narrative concerning the healing of the man born blind in chapter 9. We read there of how some of the people listening to Jesus talk about his being the good shepherd said, “These are not the words of him that hath a devil. Can a devil open the eyes of the blind?” The story of chapter 9 really continues on to 10:21.

I am reviewing the issue of the chapter division because it helps us to understand Jesus’ parable. Since we are aware that Jesus is still addressing the Pharisees in chapter 10, we can understand that the bad guys in the parable are the Pharisees themselves. Jesus is calling the Pharisees thieves, robbers, strangers and hirelings. Again, Jesus pulls no punches.

But though this passage is, foremost, another one of those places where Jesus takes the Jewish leaders to task, his revelation of Himself is so beautiful that, in my experience, the passage is usually lifted out of its narrative context and valued as a revelation of the loving, sacrificial care of Jesus for His Church. Thus a passage of rebuke to Jesus’ enemies is famous as a passage of comfort for Jesus’ disciples.

Now, there is no question that this passage does indeed bring comfort to individual Christians concerning Christ’s care for them. In that sense, it is a good New Testament parallel to the very personal and intimate Psalm 23 in the Old Testament. However, it is intriguing to note that, if we take the long view of history regarding the use of chapter 10 in the Church, we find that it is the one passage above all others in the Bible used by the Church Fathers and later writers to show the difference between good and bad ministers.[1] It has been considered a passage about offices in the Church rather than personal care of individuals. This perspective makes sense in light of the fact that it contains words of rebuke by Jesus to officers in the Jewish Church. Thus, as N. T. Wright points out in one of his recent commentaries, the better Old Testament parallel to John 10 would, instead of Psalm 23, be Ezekiel 34. Jesus is contrasting his care of the flock of God as the Good Shepherd to the selfish and destructive way the flock has been treated by men who have held positions as bad shepherds.

In the Anglican Church, the man ordained to the office of presbyter carries three titles. He is a priest, a pastor, and a rector. The first two are biblical terms: priest being a shortened form of presbyter and pastor relating to the duty of shepherding. As one man has written: “Broadly speaking, at all administrations of the Holy Communion, whenever pronouncing an absolution, whenever repelling any from the Holy Communion, whenever he gives the Church’s benediction, the minister appears chiefly in his priestly capacity. When he preaches, visits the sick, looks after the welfare of his people – temporal and spiritual – he appears chiefly as a pastor.” The word “Rector” comes from the Latin verb meaning “to rule,” and is used in our culture in various ways to designate someone responsible for an institution. In the Anglican tradition, a Rector is someone in charge of a parish, usually with its own building, and supported by that parish, whereas a Vicar is supported by the Diocese. Thus a Vicar could be considered the head of a mission church. Again, quoting my reference: “When [the priest] exercises his authority in matters appertaining to the parish as an ecclesiastical and civil corporation – such as calling and presiding at vestry meetings, appointing guild officers, etc. – he appears as the rector…” [2]

We thus observe that the office of presbyter follows the Trinitarian pattern. And, like the Trinity, one cannot completely distinguish the parts from the whole. A priest is to try to keep all his duties in balance. He is in charge of the business of the Church, he is the celebrant in the worship of the Church, and he is the shepherd of the local flock of God. All these duties affect one another. If the business of the church is sloppy and the worship poorly managed, the spiritual care of the flock will be adversely affected, and vice versa.

If we do focus on his shepherding, however, then John 10 is an important passage to consider as to how the priest should pastor his flock. We learn first of all, that he is himself to be in the Church and in his office because he has entered through the door, which is Christ. Our country today is replete with examples of the horrible damage that can be done within and without the Church by men who enter the priesthood for some other reason than as a part of their own discipleship of Christ. It is no wonder that their ministry is not a gospel ministry, for they themselves have not obeyed the gospel and entered the Church through submission to and faith in the Lord Jesus. They have some other agenda than the gospel and so they bypass the gospel door.

A man who is a priest and has entered in the right way into the sheepfold must recognise that he is only in his position because of the call of Christ and that he holds that position only for the sake of Christ. No office is to be held in such a way that people start to think the priest is the door to the kingdom! Christ is always and only the door through which all who will be saved must pass.

Along that same line, the sheep are to hear the voice of the Good Shepherd. In all the pastor’s counsel and preaching, the Word of God is to be proclaimed, not his own ideas and opinions. His heart’s longing is that the sheep will hear the voice of the Good Shepherd and follow Him. The pastor’s ministry is one of calling people to hear the call of Jesus to His pasture.

In a negative vein, we learn from this passage that pastors must guard against self-serving aims, especially of personal gain in some fashion. He is not to be in the Church, walking around pocketing things – be they material or immaterial – for his own possession, when they belong to the Church’s Lord. Christ has bought the Church – she belongs to Him, and everything identified with her. The Church is full of treasures – the most valuable things in the universe. Her praise, for example, belongs to Jesus, not to the pastor, whatever he may do well that may receive some form of praise from people. It’s easy for a pastor to steal glory from Christ and so he must beware, lest he be a thief in the sheepfold.

Again, negatively, the pastor is not to be a hireling. Usually, in history, it is dangerous being a true disciple of Jesus. One’s life may even be threatened. In Jesus’ parable, we have the hirelings who are not willing to risk life and limb to care for the sheep. When danger comes, and the wolf is heard to howl, they hop off their haunches and head for the hills. But not Jesus. He sincerely cares for his flock. Indeed – and here we get into the truly holy precincts of this passage – He has purposefully come to lay down his life for the sheep. The sheep are in danger. There is a wolf ready to devour her, known as Satan, or the devil – and all his followers occupying the seats of rule in the Church of that day. The only way the sheep can be saved is if he, not merely face the threat of death, but purposefully see to it that he is killed for their sake.

If anyone would shepherd the flock of Jesus, for Jesus, he too must have this sincere care for his people. As Paul described Timothy, “I have no one like-minded who will sincerely care for your condition,” so must the pastor of the parish be. He may not literally lay down his physical life, but he must be ready, day-by-day, to see his own daily cross, which he bears with all other Christians, to be the opportunity to deny himself in some way, often costly, that the sheep may have what they need for their spiritual welfare. He is not to be a pastor for the pay, as a hireling, but to sincerely care for the flock in Jesus’ place, whatever the pain to himself may be.

In sum, the good pastor will be someone who follows the shepherding example of Jesus. As the apostle Paul says, “Who is sufficient for these things?” How I, and all pastors seeking to serve the Good Shepherd well, do earnestly covet your prayers for us.

Thankfully, the ultimate purity, health, and glory of the Church is not based upon how well our pastors serve us. The Church is under the care of the Good Shepherd, the Lord Jesus Christ. The sheep were given to Him by the Father. He laid down His life for the sheep, as commanded by the Father. All who have been given to Him will come to Him and He will keep them until that last day, when, as He has also been commanded by the Father, He will raise them from the dead. And then shall the flock appear to the glory of the faithfulness and sacrificial love of the Good Shepherd. There will be one flock, cleansed as white as wool by the Blood of the Lamb, and there will be One Shepherd, and, in that day, the universe will begin to learn what a Good Shepherd He has been.

Amen.

[1] Ryle, in loco, p. 203, Bishop Burnet quote.

[2] DeWitt, Decently and in Order, pp. 12-13