"The Divine Life is for those who die to the demands of the ego.  Such people will inhabit the Kingdom of Heaven." 

 ...the first Beatitude promises us a taste of the Divine Life if and when we are willing to let go and die to the ego.  The journey through many a dark night and darker cave points to other white-capped peaks on the far side of the valley.  We are offered the opportunity to live in a kingdom that is infused with justice and peace.  This Beatitude is not about spiritual individualism, and a private journey.  Mature spirituality is both communal and political, and this is where Jesus is pointing.  Such a communal and political journey is lived in time and history while looking beyond both.  If the Divine Life and God's Kingdom are promised if we turn our backs on the toxic nature of the ego, what does this Divine and Kingdom Life look like in more depth and detail?  If we are called to empty the cup of the ego and banish the thieves in the home of the soul, with what will the cup be filled, and how will our homes be renovated and decorated?

 excerpt taken from Ron Dart's book "The Beatitudes: When Mountain Meets Valley". 

Comment (1)

Sabbath is the time set aside to do nothing so that we can receive everything, to set aside our anxious attempts to make ourselves useful, to set aside our tense restlessness, to set aside our media-saturated boredom.  Sabbath is the time to receive silence and let it deepen into gratitude, to receive quiet into which forgotten faces and voices unobtrusively make themselves present, to receive the days of the just completed week and absorb the wonder and miracle still reverberating from each one, to receive our Lord's amazing grace.

Sabbath is one of the great gifts that God has given us.  Every day of creation is "good" - good for receiving all that God has created, good for participating in the work of God, good for working in God's garden, good for naming and caring for what God has given, good for being a "helpmate" with and for another.  But Sabbath is distinguished from the first six days of each week by being holy, a day set aside to be present to God, to assimilate and celebrate all the gifts of creation and salvation.

excerpt taken from "Tell It Slant" by Eugene Peterson 

Comment (2)

"We believe in God, the Father Almighty..." 

...this is what almightiness looks like in practice.  It's  the unlimited power to be there, to be faithful to and for a world that is deeply unstable and unjust and suspicious and uncooperative: the power to go on trying to get through at all costs, labouring and wrestling with the human heart.

This is why belief, trust, in God the Father almighty is so different from wish fulfillment and projection about some all -powerful character who can just do what he decides and get what he wants straight away.  Instead it's the discovery of what Abraham and Moses have discovered, a God who never runs out of love and liberty.  God is to be trusted as we would trust a loving parent, whose commitment to us is inexhaustible, whose purposes for us are unfailingly generous; someone whose life is the source of our life, and who guarantees that there is always a home for us.

 excerpt taken from "Tokens of Trust: An Introduction to Christian Belief" by Rowan Williams 

Comment (0)

Recently I was speaking with a pastor whose political views I would describe as “God and Country zealotry.” In the course of our conversation, which had taken its typical political turn, he said, “We must defend Freedom, Democracy and Capitalism in the name of Christ.”

That is quite a claim. But is it true? Must Rousseau freedom, Jeffersonian democracy and Laissez-faire capitalism be defended in the name of Christ? Let’s think about it for a moment.

Freedom. It’s the promise of every empire. It's what Rome and all the rest promise. And it's always what we go to war for. Freedom. Political Freedom. Economic Freedom. Individual Freedom. “The land of the free and the home of the brave.” The vocabulary of patriotic fervor. As if there were no Freedom until Jeffersonian democracy arrived on the scene. So what was Jesus talking about? Jesus and Paul seemed to have a thing or two to say about Liberty and Freedom, but they never breathed a word about political democracy or economic capitalism. Have we been seduced by the blandishments of empire? America may be a kinder, gentler Babylon, maybe the kindest, gentlest Babylon there's ever been (though native Americans and African slaves may beg to differ, not to mention the civilians of Hiroshima and Nagasaki). Be that as it may, America is still a Babylon. And as such it has nothing to do with the kingdom of Christ…other than to be a rival.

Democracy. I agree with Winston Churchill. "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for any other." Where I disagree with Churchill is his assumption that democracy is the way to bring goodness to the world. I disagree with Churchill because I am unwilling to kill on behalf of the state. And in the end democracy requires this. (In the end the beast is always red in tooth and claw.) I realize most post-Constantine Christians are willing to kill on behalf of the state—especially if they are citizens of a currently reigning or aspiring empire. But this has been one of our biggest problems. The early (pre-Constantine) Christians had a different view on the matter. It's interesting how gaga many Christians can be about the early church, but choke on the apostolic and patristic view of empire.

Capitalism. It works. It works because it takes into account the primary motivation of fallen humans: pride and greed. Marx mistakenly thought people would willingly serve the state. They will not. They'll serve themselves and their families. What was missing from Marx's equation was love. And absent the motive  of altruistic love Marxism becomes the cruelest form of totalitarianism. And the missing element in the Marxist equation—self-sacrificing love—comes only from the Holy Spirit. Capitalism works because it taps the energy of fallen man and is preferable because it better diffuses power—and power among fallen man is always best diffused. But capitalism is not the kingdom of Jesus. Jesus did not teach socialist economics or capitalistic economics. Jesus taught love economics. But he made no (zero!) effort to enforce his love economics on the wider culture (Jewish or Roman). And Jesus certainly did not endorse the implementation and protection of political or economic systems through force (i.e. violence). Jesus was content to form an alternative society of those who professed faithful allegiance to the Son of Man.  These would become the true sons and daughters of the kingdom of heaven. The grand paradox is that Jesus won his kingdom by submitting to a state sponsored execution; by laying down his life and trusting God to raise him from the dead.

It should be noted that the crucifixion of Jesus Christ is the final damning indictment upon the ethics of empire. Rome claimed to stand for freedom, peace and justice—but in the name of their empire they murdered the Son of God. The religious leaders of Jerusalem were co-conspirators in the imperial crime of deicide because they too were “practical men” who had pledged their allegiance to the empire. Witness their allegiance: “We have no king but Caesar.” In that moment they completely  betrayed their WWMD? wristbands (What Would Moses Do?).

Allegiance to empire is the result of the idolatrous worship of pragmatism. “This is just the way the real world works.” But I reject the “real world” and its bloody pragmatism. I know my position is radical. So be it. I believe it to be radically Christian. Dangerously radical. Why, it could get a man crucified. Or if he happens to be a citizen of the empire, perhaps just mercifully beheaded. We must realize that the Roman Empire didn't kill Christians for religious reasons. Rome couldn't care less about personal religious preference. The Roman world had plenty of religious liberty. (It was during medieval Christendom that religious liberty was lost.) The apostles and early Christian martyrs were executed, not for religious reasons, but for political reasons. For confessing that Christ was emperor and not Caesar. For preaching the gospel of the Pax Cristus instead of the Pax Romana. Will we dare to preach the gospel of the Pax Cristus instead of the Pax Americana?

I've got nothing against America. It's a fine empire. I'm a citizen and a beneficiary of its prosperity. And I certainly have enough patriotism to cheer for America in the Olympics. But America is not the agency through which the liberating gospel of Jesus Christ is brought to the nations. The liberation of the nations through the proclamation of the gospel is the mission of the church! God didn't "raise up America." Every empire engages in that kind of propaganda. God raised Christ from the dead and poured out the Holy Spirit upon body of Christ—the church. Nationality doesn’t mean a thing. God’s nationalistic agenda ended with Christ. Now his agenda is advanced through the global church. National identity is utterly insignificant. Oh, I understand that to the nations of the world it's everything. Indeed, they'll kill for it—go “shock and awe” on their enemies with their hand on their heart pledging allegiance. But that's just it, they're the nations of the world and not yet disciples of Jesus Christ.

Jesus didn’t “shock and awe” his enemies. He forgave them and allowed himself to be crucified (when he could have summoned an army of angels). Why? You can't win a war that way! You've got to kill the enemy s.o.b. (to paraphrase General Patton). But as Christians we believe that Jesus did win a war that way. We believe he won the whole world that way. We do believe that, don't we? We do believe that Jesus won, don't we? We do believe that Jesus is Lord, don’t we? We do believe that Jesus currently reigns as King of Kings, Lord of Lords, President of Presidents, Prime Minister of Prime Ministers, don't we?

And since (if) we believe that Jesus is Lord, we're not all that concerned about what Caesar does or what empire claims to rule the world these days. They’re all impostors.

Jesus is Lord.

It's a political statement.

I'm a radical. Or at least I’m trying to be. A dangerous, kingdom of God radical. The empire should be wary of me and my kind. Sure, we are productive, law abiding citizens—harmless as doves. But our ideas are subversive. They are the seeds of the kingdom that grows by night. Our ideas about Jesus and his alternative way are the leaven in the imperial dough. They are the radical Jesus ideas that subvert the false pretense of empire. Caesar doesn't save, Christ does. Caesar isn't Lord, Christ is. The empire doesn't bring peace, justice and freedom, the kingdom of our Lord does.

I am a radical.

I will not adapt the radical kingdom gospel of Jesus Christ to the self-serving values of the empire and  conspire to turn Christianity into a civic religion of the state. That's the whore riding the back of the beast. Which has been ever popular these past seventeen centuries.

I am a radical.

Out of wisdom and a desire to be effective (and perhaps from a sense of self-preservation) I tell it slant. Like Jesus did. Parable, allegory, allusion and story work better than in your face prose (as I am recklessly doing here). I tell it slant, but I tell it. I tell it because of what I have seen. The empires of this world are beastly. All of them. Egypt, Babylon, Persia, Greece, Rome, France, Germany, Britain, Russia—America too. But the Lamb has conquered. Worthy is the Lamb.

I am a radical.

I'm not taking the easy road and I'm not playing it safe. My conservative friends think I'm liberal. My liberal friends think I'm conservative. I am neither. I'm totally off the charts. I've opted out of the illusion that politics of either stripe even has the possibility of being faithful to Christ.

This is my confession. It comes from what I have seen. The empires of this world are beasts, but the Lamb—the little lamb as if slain—has conquered. It’s the absurd comedy of God. It’s our gospel. It’s the hope of the world. You can see it too, if you want to. But you have to really want to see. Because it will cost you.

Vicit agnus noster, eum sequamur.

Our Lamb has conquered, let us follow him.

Comment (27)

following up from the journal last week, below is Peter Rollin's commentary on "The Third Mile". 

[commentary] 

To treat the Bible as a type of textbook providing us with an ethical blueprint concerning how we ought to live, requires that we approach it in a certain way.  It means that we must attempt to excavate specific answers, or some system, from that text that will direct what we should do in particular situations.  Once the answers are worked out, then we can choose whether or not to act accordingly and judge whether others are making correct ethical decisions.  Yet the question must be asked as to whether the Bible can be treated this way without doing the teachings of Jesus a great injustice.  In other words, we must ask whether the Scriptures really offer us concrete ethical answers that can be turned into some religious code of conduct, or whether Jesus was actually opening up a radically different approach to living.

What if Jesus was not offering his followers an ethical system to follow, but rather was inviting them to enter into a life of love that transcends ethics, a life of liberty that dwells beyond religious laws?  The difference between following an ethical system and being consumed by love can be seen in the way that ethical systems seek to provide a way to work out what needs to be done so that it can be carried out.  In contrast, love is never constrained, it never sits back, it always seeks to do more than what is demanded of it.  While the ethical individual does what is required, the lover moves beyond the basic requirement.  To put this in concrete terms, if the law tells us that one ought to give a certain amount of money to charity, the one who loves those who are poor will give more than the required amount.  Instead of waiting to find out what ought to be done, or how much should be given, the lover gives in excess of the law and will act in the absence of the law, thus fulfilling the law by dwelling beyond it.

The above story explores this idea by imagining what Jesus would say to those who had taken his teaching about carrying a pack two miles literally, seeing it as an ethical injunction and a religious law.  In their very obedience to the teaching, the group described in the story fundamentally misunderstood and undermined the radical nature of the message.  Their literal rendering of the teaching, far from taking it too seriously, ended up failing to take it seriously enough.

It would be wrong to condemn the disciples in this story, for they were trying to do something rather than nothing.  However, real danger lurks in the sincere attempt to carry out the teaching of Jesus in a literal manner, namely the danger of absorbing his way of living in excess of the law back into the law.  The radical way of Jesus provides a much more difficult challenge than that which is demanded of the law.  For while the law gives a bottom-line way to live, the way of love calls us beyond the law.

Love pushes us beyond duty, rather than stopping there, and acts when we don't know for sure what the ethical things to do is.  If the ethical question is, "What must be done?"  love adds, "I will do more."  If our ethical compass is not able to give us a clear direction to travel, love sets out anyway.  The way of love provides a way when ethical demands have had their say or do not know what to say.  Is this not what Jesus was calling us to? - to live beyond the law so as to fulfill it.

In this way this story attempts to draw out the truly radical nature of love as expressed in the life and teachings of Jesus.  For he expressed a love that pushed further than any law could express or command dictate.  He excluded a revolutionary life that always sought to be faithful to the law by outstripping it.

*excerpt taken from Peter Rollin's book The Orthodox Heretic 

Comment (2)

One day a small group of disciples who had embraced the way of Jesus early in His ministry heard him preaching by the side of a dusty road.  As they crowded round they heard Jesus say, "The law requires that you carry a pack for one mile, but I say carry it freely for two."

The disciples were deeply impressed by these words, for at the time a Roman soldier had the legal right to demand that a citizen carry his pack for a mile as a service to the Empire.  This teaching not only allowed the disciples to turn this oppressive law into an opportunity to demonstrate kingdom values, but also presented them with an opportunity to suffer in some small way for their faith.

As it was common for soldiers to evoke this law, the small band of believers soon developed a reputation for their actions.  Roman soldiers would often hope that the citizens they asked to carry their packs would be among these disciples, and often a small bond of friendship would develop between a soldier and these followers of the Way.

After a year had passed this custom had become so established in the group that it became a defining characteristic of their shared life.  The leaders would frequently refer to the teaching of Jesus and emphasize the need to carry a pack of the Roman soldier for two miles as a sign of one's faith and commitment to God.

It so happened that Jesus heard about this community's work, and, on his way to Jerusalem, took time to visit them.  The leaders eagerly gathered all the members of the group to hear what Jesus would say.  Once everyone had gathered, Jesus addressed them:

"Dear brothers and sisters, you are faithful and honest, but I have come to you with a second message, for you failed to understand the first.  Your law says that you must carry a pack for two miles.  My law says, 'carry if for three.'"

*excerpt taken from The Orthodox Heretic by Peter Rollins  

Comment (4)

God still speaks today as he spoke to our forefathers in days gone by, before there were either spiritual directors or methods of direction. The spiritual life was then a matter of immediate communication with God.  It had not been reduced to a fine art nor was lofty and detailed guidance to it provided with a wealth of rules, instructions and maxims.  These may very well be necessary today.  But it was not so in early days, when people were more direct and unsophisticated.  All they knew was that each moment brought its appointed task, faithfully to be accomplished.  This was enough for the spiritually-minded of those days.  All their attention was focused on the present, minute by minute; like the hand of a clock that marks the minutes of each hour covering the distance along which  it has to travel.  Constantly prompted by divine impulsion, they found themselves imperceptibility turned towards the next task that God had ready for them at each hour of the day.

 excerpt from The Sacrament of the Present Moment by Jean-Pierre De Caussade

Comment (7)

Our vocation is not simply to be, but to work together with God in the creation of our own life, our own identity, our own destiny. We are free beings and sons and daughters of God. This means to say that we should not passively exist, but actively participate in His creative freedom, in our own lives, and in the lives of others, by choosing the truth. To put it better, we are even called to share with God the work of creating the truth of our identity. ...To work out our own identity in God, which the Bible calls "working out our salvation," is a labor that requires sacrifice and anguish, risk and many tears. It demands close attention to reality at every moment, and great fidelity to God as He reveals Himself, obscurely, in the mystery of each new situation.

from New Seeds of Contemplation by Thomas Merton

Comment (8)

The mother of expectation is patience.  The French author Simone Weil writes in her notebooks: "Waiting patiently in expectation is the foundation of the spiritual life."  Without patience our expectation degenerates into wishful thinking.  Patience comes from the word "patior" which means to suffer.  The first thing that Jesus promises is suffering: "I tell you...you will be weeping and wailing...and you will be sorrowful."  But he calls these pains birth pains.  And so, what seems a hindrance becomes a way; what seems to be an obstacle becomes a door; what seems a misfit becomes a cornerstone.  Jesus changes our history from a random series of sad incidents and accidents into a constant opportunity for a change of heart.  To wait patiently therefore means to allow our weeping and wailing to become the purifying preparation by which we are made ready to receive the joy which is promised to us.

from Out of Solitude by Henri J.M. Nouwen

Comment (3)

Prayer, the Church's banquet, Angel's age,

God's breath in man returning to his birth,
The soul in paraphrase, heart in pilgrimage
The Christian plummet sounding heaven and earth;

Engine against the Almighty, sinner's tower,

Reversed thunder, Christ-side-piercing spear,
The six-days world tranposing in an hour,
A kind of tune, which all things hear and fear;

Softness, and peace, and joy, and love, and bliss,

Exalted manna, gladness of the best,
Heaven in ordinary, man well dressed,
The Milky Way, the bird of paradise,

Church-bells beyond the stars heard, the soul's blood,

The land of spices; something understood. 

Comment (0)