Of Myth and Sacrament

The words myth and sacrament are not to be found in Scripture but the concepts are:

The concept of myth is espoused mostly by scholars of the critical school. Here the veracity of the historical narrative is considered of minor importance compared with the spiritual message which it is intended to convey. Although purporting to be historical, the narrative is viewed primarily as a story, a vehicle carrying a spiritual payload. Accordingly, the literal historicity of the narrative may be discounted or even discarded completely so long as the spiritual message is retained.

As one minister holding to this view put it, “Even if nothing in the Bible were shown to be historically true, it would still be true.”

And another, “If one knew where to look for them, Jesus’ bones could be found somewhere in Palestine, the important thing is that He should be risen in one’s heart.”

Quite why the search should be confined to Palestine is not made clear.

This concept of myth closely follows the form of parable which Jesus used so often: “A man had two sons…”, “A man went down to Jericho…” etc. Jesus’ hearers did not think He was referring to actual persons. It was rather like someone saying, “A Catholic Priest and a Jewish Rabbi are on a plane together…”

However those who hold to the concept of myth consider that much of the historical narrative in both Old and New Testaments is to be deemed parabolic. Or at best the narrative gives the “broad brushstrokes” of the historical actuality.

It has always puzzled me why this approach is called, “De-mythologisation”: it should more accurately be referred to as, “Mythologisation,” in other words converting historical narrative to the status of myth.

Theologians of this school would include: Albrecht Ritschl, Wilhelm Herrman, Adolf Von Harnack, Ernst Troeltsch and more recently Rudolf Bultmann. German theologians seem to have a bit of a corner on this market.

I use the term sacrament in a slightly different way to its normal usage in describing the means of grace, - baptism and communion in a Protestant context.

The typical definition of a sacrament to be found in a catechism is that,

“It is an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace.”

However, if one broadens the definition slightly thus:

“A sacrament is an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual reality.”

then this opens up a whole world of possibilities:

A handshake for instance is a sacrament in that it is the outward and visible sign of an invisible attitude of mutual regard between the persons shaking hands.

The fact that most people would feel uncomfortable walking down the street naked is an ongoing sacrament traceable to the Fall and signifying the invisible reality of the fallenness of man.

The clothes we wear, the cars we drive the way we furnish our houses will usually tell people something about our values and personalities though these latter be invisible.

On a more cosmic scale: “For His invisible attributes namely His eternal power and deity can be clearly perceived ever since the creation of the world, in the things He has made.” (Rom.1. 20) The visible revealing the invisible.

And finally, the crowning Sacrament: “No one has ever seen God, but God the one and only who is at the Father’s side, He has made Him Known.” (Jn. 1. 18)

In the words of Charles Wesley’s Hymn,

“Veiled in flesh the Godhead see,

Hail the incarnate Deity.”

What should be noticed here is that both the visible and invisible components of the sacrament are real and important. Discount the visible sign and one discounts or distorts the invisible reality which it signifies. However, the visible sign is transient while the invisible reality is eternal.(2 Cor 4. 18)

This sacramental principle informs the hermeneutic approach which we adopt towards historical passages in Scripture, for we worship a God who does not stand afar off but who has broken into history over the millennia and supremely in the incarnation. Indeed, even secular historians attest to this by employing a dating system which extends backwards and forwards from this epochal event.

So Jesus was born at a particular town called Bethlehem, He grew up in a particular town called Nazareth. He learnt his trade as a carpenter from his (step)father.  He exercised his ministry mainly in the region surrounding the Sea of Galilee. He was put to death by crucifixion outside the City of Jerusalem. 

Actual nails were driven through His body into the actual wood of a literal cross. The tomb was actually, literally and historically empty after He had risen on the third day.

Roman crucifixions were performed by the hundreds if not the thousands in those times, but connected to this particular crucifixion was an enormous spiritual significance, significant for our salvation and for the redemption of the whole of Creation.

So, in contrast to the mythological approach to Scripture, the Sacramental approach takes seriously the veracity of the historical sections of Scripture, while appropriating by faith the spiritual realities which they signify.

So you wish to marry my Daughter.

So you wish to marry my daughter:

I assure you I will not ask if you can support her

In the accustomed manner or any such banality.

For twenty-five years ago I stood where you now stand,

And my father-in-law was kind to me;

Did not make light of the moment,

Nor yet overreach its seriousness.

Yes, he was kind to me,

Though he had his reservations,

Of that I am certain.

Nor will I speak from the lofty heights of our twenty-five years,

For God’s grace is in these wonderful years,

And to claim merit for such would be vanity.

Yet while I would not sermonize,

Nor speak of trifles,

There is something,

Something on my heart:

(Please bear with me, for this may well be presumption),

Yet it seems that an abyss yawns at our feet,

Yours, mine and hers,

As we seek each other’s happiness.

- - Something I would ask you:

Do not those vows terrify you?

For twenty-five years on they still terrify me.

“ – for better for worse.”

Is having and holding sufficient recompense?

Ah, but I know your answer.

“ – for richer for poorer, in sickness and health.”

Terrifying! Terrifying!

Amidst the splendour and pageantry of the day,

Will you yet take time to tremble

As you take these vows.

“ ‘Til death us do part.”

Celestial Cement from the One who joins,

Our only hope.

What else withstands the stress and press

Of a life together in close vulnerability?

But there, I foreswore all sermonising.

Forgive me this gloomy cast.

It seems the field lies littered

With the corpses of brave spouses-at-arms

Who took these vows and could not keep them.

Why only these past few months:

A close relative and some close friends - -

What was that you said?

Ah yes, my daughter’s hand in marriage.

Of course, of course.

You are welcome in this family

And more than welcome.

May you enjoy a long, happy and fruitful life together.

My blessing on it.

Have you set a date for the wedding?

Peter Frow

Drifting from the Apostolic Faith

In Capetown, a tradition begun in 1903 continues to this day, namely the firing of the ‘Noon Gun’ from the top of Signal Hill. The story goes that at one time the officer charged with firing the cannon would make his way to the hill via a certain clock-maker's shop in whose window stood a ship’s chronometer. He would carefully adjust his watch to the same time as the chronometer and then later fire the cannon at exactly midday according to his watch.

As time passed, there began to be complaints that the cannon was not being fired at the correct time, in fact it seemed to be getting later with each passing day. When this was brought to the attention of the aforementioned officer he thought best to check with the clock-maker how he assured the accuracy of his chronometer.

“O yes it’s dead accurate,” he said, “I always set it according to the gun fired from Signal Hill.”

Well it’s easy to see what had happened: Because sound travels at a finite speed, the clock-maker would have heard the sound of the cannon some seconds after it had been fired, resulting in a steadily increasing departure from the Greenwich Meantime standard.

What was needed was to find a ship that had sailed from England and whose chronometer had been regulated to reflect GMT. 

Now the same kind of drift can occur with a church’s doctrine, if it is not referred back to some Apostolic Standard, a kind of ‘Doctrinal GMT’. 

In this regard, the Methodist Church is particularly vulnerable, as it requires of its ministers, preachers and teachers, only that we believe in ‘Our Doctrine’ without defining too closely what this means. If this doctrine is defined within the confines of the denominational ecosystem but without any external reference, then a distinct danger looms. Take The Jehovah’s Witnesses for example: they certainly believe in their doctrine.

Unless there is an acknowledged mooring of the term ‘our doctrine’ to sound Apostolic Doctrine, over a period of time this can easily result in a drift from the Apostolic Faith.

Clearly the historic creeds such as the Nicene, Apostles’ and Chalcedonion creeds, are important confessions which keep us anchored to the Core Doctrines of our Faith.

These cannot properly be considered ‘Our Doctrines’ in the sense that we may not be proprietary about them, for they are public Truth. They constitute the very guts of our faith, the Gospel, which we both embrace and proclaim.

Yet it seems that there is a certain amount of gnawing at the anchor ropes in our time.

Some of the strands which appear to be fraying are the following:

1.                 The doctrine of the Trinity: Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

There is a feeling amongst certain of our ministers that to only conceive of and address God as Father is excessively patriarchal and sexist, and that addressing Him (her) as ‘mother’ should also be legitimized.

Thus the Trinitarian doctrine would become Father-Mother, Son and Holy Spirit or perhaps Father-Mother, Son-daughter and Holy Spirit.

2.                 The Virgin Birth.

This is called in question as being altogether too fantastic to have been literally true. Various alternatives are postulated: Mary was raped by a member of the Roman occupying force or perhaps she was pregnant by Zechariah, her cousin Elizabeth’s husband. These speculations apart from being clearly contrary to the Biblical record have profound implications for our Christology, namely that Jesus was and is Truly God and Truly Man – both the Son of God and the Son of Man.

3.                 The Substitutionary Atonement

It is called in question that Jesus by His death on the Cross has taken the penalty of our sin upon Himself. This new Soteriology is anchored merely in Jesus’ pacific response to extreme provocation culminating in the crucifixion. Jesus’ shedding of His blood is deemed an irrelevant corollary to Jesus’ conduct on the way to the Cross, something which The Father never intended to happen and which has no particular significance in regard to our salvation.

Should these theological trends continue, there is the distinct possibility that the Methodist Church will become separated from “The Faith that was once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3) and will float free, to drift wherever it may be borne by every ‘wind of doctrine.’

Then will John Wesley’s fears for the church of which he is considered the founder, be realised, for he said: 

“I do not fear that the people called Methodists will cease to exist, but only that they might become a dead sect, holding to a form of godliness while denying the power thereof. And this they shall surely become unless they hold fast to the doctrine, spirit and discipline with which they first set out.” 

The Pivotal Pronoun

To establish whether a person is identified with a particular group, be it a sports club a church or a political party one has only to listen to the personal pronoun he or she uses when referring to the group. It’s a dead giveaway: If its ‘we’, they’re identified, if it’s ‘they,’ then they’re not; ‘us’ they’re on the inside looking out, ‘them’, they’re on the outside looking in.

If we are identified with a group, then we may share in its glory if the group or one of its members does well, but we must also share in the distress of the group if it does badly or its shame if even one of its members behaves disgracefully. This was well understood in medieval times, for if the head of a family had been born out of wedlock, then the crest of the family would include the heraldic device of a Bend Sinister making this fact public and inclusive of the entire family.

It is natural to want to pull apart from a group which is doing badly and this might be what the Lord requires:

However this is not the soul and substance of the incarnation, for assuredly mankind was doing very badly when Jesus ‘made Himself of no reputation’ and was ‘found in fashion as a man.’ (Philippians 2)

Being incarnate in a messy, an ugly or a shameful situation confers on one the prerogative, the motive, and the urgency to speak and act constructively in that situation.

This is why Nehemiah prays “We have sinned” as a prelude to his remarkable role in the restoration of Jerusalem, its walls, its morale and its worship of the one, true God.

This is why we pray, “Forgive us our trespasses.”

Pigrim's Progress

John Bunyan lived through tumultuous times in the 17^th Century during which he endured a 12-year sojourn in Bedford County jail. Imprisoned for his faith or, as the charge sheet read, “For perniciously abstaining from Divine Service and for holding unlawful meetings.” Bunyan used the time to write. Of his many works, by far the most well known is his grand allegory entitled “Pilgrim’s Progress,” in which first Christian and later his wife Christiana and their four children journey from the City of Destruction to the Celestial City. It has been claimed that only the Bible has enjoyed a wider readership. Pilgrim's Progress has been translated into 200 languages and has never been out of print.

During his pilgrimage, Christian meets with various characters whose speech and actions accord with their names.

Of particular note are the various discourses between Christian and his traveling companions from which a golden vein of sound Gospel truth emerges. Bunyan himself comments at the end of the first part:

What of my dross thou findest here, be bold

To throw away, but yet preserve the gold.

What if my gold be wrapped in ore?

None throws away the apple for the core.

Here is an excerpt in which Hopeful tells of his conversion:

Hopeful:          If a man runs a hundred pounds into the shopkeeper’s debt, and after this shall pay for all that he shall fetch; yet if his old debt stands still in the book uncrossed, the shopkeeper may sue him for it, and cast him in prison till he shall pay the debt.

Christian:          Well and how did you apply this to yourself?

Hopeful:          Why, I thought thus with myself: I have by my sins, run a great way into God’s book, and my now reforming will not pay off that score; therefore I should think still, under all my present amendments, but how shall I be freed from that damnation that I brought myself in danger of by my former transgressions?

Christian:          A very good application: but pray go on.

Hopeful:          Another thing that hath troubled me ever since my late amendment is, that if I look narrowly into the best of what I do now, I still see sin, new sin, mixing itself with the best that I can do; so that now I am forced to conclude, that, notwithstanding my former fond conceits of myself and duties, I have committed enough sin in one day to send me to hell though my former life had been faultless.

Christian:          And what did you then?

Hopeful:          Do! I could not tell what to do, until I broke my mind to Faithful, for he and I were well acquainted. And he told me that unless I could obtain the righteousness of a man who had never sinned, neither mine own nor all the righteousness of the world could save me.

Christian:          And did you think he spake true?

Hopeful:          Had he told me when I was pleased and satisfied with mine own amendments, I had called him a fool for his pains; but now since I see mine own infirmity, and the sin which cleaves to my best performance, I have been forced to be of his opinion.

Christian:          But did you think that when he first suggested it to you that there was such a man to be found, of whom it might justly be said that he never committed sin?

Hopeful:          I must confess that the words at first sounded strangely; but after a little more talk and company with him, I had full conviction of it.

Christian:          And did you ask him what man this was, and how you must be justified by him? (Rom. iv; Col. i; Heb. x,; 2 Pet. i)

Hopeful:          Yes, and he told me it was the Lord Jesus, that dwelleth on the right hand of the Most High: and thus, said he. You must be justified by Him, even by trusting to what he hath done by Himself in the days of His flesh, and suffered when He did hang on the tree. I asked him further, how this man’s righteousness could be of such efficacy as to justify another before God. And he told me that He was the mighty God, and He did what he did, and died the death also, not for Himself but for me, to whom His doings, and the worthiness of them should be imputed, if I believed on Him.

May The Pilgrim’s Progress long continue in print

Exegesis vs. Eisegesis

I am indebted to the author of a post on www.gotquestions.org for a penetrating and succinct answer to the question: "What is the difference between exegesis and eisegesis?"

Answer: Exegesis and eisegesis are two conflicting approaches in Bible study. Exegesis is the exposition or explanation of a text based on a careful, objective analysis. The word exegesis literally means “to lead out of.” That means that the interpreter is led to his conclusions by following the text.

The opposite approach to Scripture is eisegesis, which is the interpretation of a passage based on a subjective, non-analytical reading. The word eisegesis literally means “to lead into,” which means the interpreter injects his own ideas into the text, making it mean whatever he wants.

Obviously, only exegesis does justice to the text. Eisegesis is a mishandling of the text and often leads to a misinterpretation. Exegesis is concerned with discovering the true meaning of the text, respecting its grammar, syntax, and setting. Eisegesis is concerned only with making a point, even at the expense of the meaning of words. 

An honest student of the Bible will be an exegete, allowing the text to speak for itself. Eisegesis easily lends itself to error, as the would-be interpreter attempts to align the text with his own preconceived notions. Exegesis allows us to agree with the Bible; eisegesis seeks to force the Bible to agree with us.

In short,

              Eisegesis means exit Jesus

Further Thoughts on Being Cool.

John the Baptist was not cool, I mean locusts and honey and a hair-shirt? That’s never going to catch on. – and yet, he did draw the crowds.

“He who has two tunics let him share with him who has none.” Well that’s kinda cool, but how about Jesus: “…from one who takes your cloak, do not withhold your tunic.” That is rad man. Cool? Well I don’t know about that.

Was Judas cool? Maybe. – but betraying your master with a kiss after he has poured his life into you for three years and finished by washing your feet? That has to be the height of uncool!

And then there is Jesus saying, “Unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood you shall not have life within you.” Not cool!

And yet Christians have been doing just that for more than 2000 years.

All rather puzzling: Perhaps the field of “Coolology” lies virgin and open for conquest by aspirant theologians.

On Being Cool

I notice that it is ‘cool’ to wear jeans with holes in the knees (that is at the present time August ’16) –cool in more than one sense of the word, because on a bracing winter’s morning wearers of these garments will experience a certain breeziness in the region of the knee caps. This is a small price to pay for being cool.

My favourite pair of jeans is developing a hole in the region of the crutch. I suspect that this is uncool – could be seriously uncool.

I am confronted then with the decision as to whether the replacement for my uncool pair of jeans with a hole in the crutch should be another (cool) pair with holes in the knees. – won’t take me long to decide though.

This has me thinking that with the enormous amount of time, energy and money spent on these matters, we should perhaps open up a whole new branch of theology called “Coolology”.

Now what texts could we find to support this task? We might get some mileage out of 1 Corinthians 9. 19 - 23: “For though I am free from all, I have made myself a servant to all that I might win more of them………I do it all for the sake of the Gospel, that I might share with them in its blessings.”

After a certain amount of head-scratching however, I am persuaded that the volume of our ‘Kerksdogmatik’ entitled “Coolology” will be a rather slender volume.

On being Cool

I notice that it is ‘cool’ to wear jeans with holes in the knees (that is at the present time August ’16) –cool in more than one sense of the word, because on a bracing winter’s morning wearers of these garments will experience a certain breeziness in the region of the knee caps. This is a small price to pay for being cool.

My favourite pair of jeans is developing a hole in the region of the crutch. I suspect that this is uncool – could be seriously uncool.

I am confronted then with the decision as to whether the replacement for my uncool pair of jeans with a hole in the crutch should be another (cool) pair with holes in the knees. – won’t take me long to decide though.

This has me thinking that with the enormous amount of time, energy and money spent on these matters, we should perhaps open up a whole new branch of theology called “Coolology”.

Now what texts could we find to support this task? We might get some mileage out of 1 Corinthians 9. 19 - 23: “For though I am free from all, I have made myself a servant to all that I might win more of them………I do it all for the sake of the Gospel, that I might share with them in its blessings.”

After a certain amount of head-scratching however, I am persuaded that the volume of our ‘Kerksdogmatik’ entitled “Coolology” will be a rather slender volume.

Examine your Axioms

For some years I was a member of a group whose raison d’etre was to explore the relationship between Science and Religion, specifically Christianity, as most, though not all members confessed to be Christians. The group was comprised mainly of academics but also included a couple of medical doctors and a Catholic priest. Quite how I became part of this crew I am not sure, but the conversation (some of it well over my head) was always stimulating and I grew to enjoy the company.

Included in the group were a retired Professor of Physics and also the current occupier of the Chair of Physics at the local university.

At one of our meetings we got to discussing the subject of miracles.

The retired Professor of physics was adamant, “Jesus could not have walked on water.”

I asked him whether he believed in the resurrection. “Yes,” he said, “one would need to believe in that to be a Christian,”  - which put me in mind of C. S. Lewis’s observation concerning those who, ‘strain at the gnats of the miracles while swallowing the camel of the resurrection.’

Interestingly, the current Chair of Physics had no difficulty whatever in believing that Jesus had walked on water.

The difference between the two was that they held to different axioms in their respective worldviews.

An axiom is something held to be self-evident, a given, something which requires no proof.

It is essentially an article of faith.

The professor then, held that the laws of physics are more immutable than the One who put them in place, while his colleague believed that God alone is truly immutable.

If one holds to the axiom, either consciously or unconsciously, that miracles are impossible, then taking an objective view concerning ‘miracles,’ becomes impossible: one will always be feeling the need to ‘explain them away.’

However if one truly believes that God called the entire created order into being ex nihilo, then His arranging for a whale or ‘large fish’ to swallow Jonah and regurgitate him alive three days later, becomes a very small gnat to swallow.

Especially as this same God, who knows the beginning from the end, foreknew that Jesus would be using this as a prophetic parallel to his own death, burial and resurrection.