I keep meaning to actually respond to this one of these days. It's a good question.

I, uh... tried grad school.

I might have a different thought on this if my parent's weren't graciously picking up the tab for SJC...
(if they weren't, I probably would have just tried to get a job (like LT did) at SJC and skipped the whole classes thing after freshman year.)
... but I don't think my education was wasted just because I'm a self-employed bum who only has a few pennies to rub together...

The things I considered at St. John's are the source of my work ethic. The sophomore examination of the Bible led me to faith in Jesus, the first good reason I've ever had to prolongedly work hard.
American capitalism provides the competitive vocational drive; SJC provides the cultivation of habits like self-examination and discernment.

You know, I'm not sure that anyone even reads this anymore.

This comment has been removed by the author.

Share with them that guy who said to Jesus "Lord I believe, help my unbelief..."

if you look in-between 15 and 18, this prophet was instituted by God when the people said that they could not hear or see God or they would die.

I think in Deut. God is talking about how he will speak to Israel, i.e. through prophets. They get their authority from God.

Jesus was "the prophet" along with being a priest (according the the order of Melchizedek) and a King.

can it be both?

that's what I was going to say. I remember in Switchfoot's song "Living is Simple" where the line goes "I'm down on my knees, confessing my needs again." it seems to me that confession is just getting together with God and being open with Him. you can confess sins, and it's very important to confess sins, but sins are just one of the many things that one can confess. it seems to me that the book of Job is highly confessional.
does anyone know of any scripture that directly addresses confession? how does confession go down in the Torah? in the Psalms? what does Paul have to say about it? if anyone's got anything there, that'd be great.

Sweet! I’ve been wondering about joy, too: this is also my question.
I think joy shows up in action just like the other fruits. It can overflow into action, and we call that rejoicing—an action solely for expressing joy, like shouting, singing, dancing, or sacrificing an animal. More often it (like the other fruits—see Matt. 10:13 or 1 Thess. 3:12) is a manner one has. Joy’s linked to action by being the ease of action: joy turns work into play. And of all the listed fruits to be most associated with emotion (gladness). But here I get confused—I don’t think that joy is itself an emotion, but maybe that gladness is the physical analogy of the spiritual thing. I want to look at joy apart from gladness, but I don’t see anything left when I take gladness away.

I dunno, I'm kind of inclined to think that since it's included in a major list of things primarily associated with action (though not divorced from feeling), maybe we are supposed to think of joy as something we do, or perhaps more accurately as something the Holy Spirit does in us. Hmm, it seems I agree with Jared regarding this! I also think it's important to look to Christ for our example in this--who went to parties and created wine for parties and even talked about how the Kindgom of Heaven was like a party, and yet was "a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief."

There's my thoughts, but I can point you to someone else who has a bit more to say on the subject.

was also studying how similar the words for joy - chara - and grace - charis - are. interesting, eh?

i know joy is more than a feeling, perhaps also coming from a state of being. I mean, it's not one of the fruits, but part of the whole package deal of THE fruit, right??

so if you don't have the subjective feeling of joy, what then? choose to rejoice nonetheless? ask God for that joy?.... ??

asking God for it sounds like the best call to me. in fact, asking God for joy when you don't have it might well be the only way possible of choosing to rejoice regardless.

This comment has been removed by the author.

Paul wrote to the Romans (8:9): "You, however, are controlled not by the sinful nature but by the Spirit, if the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Christ."

I have an idea, Jackson.
Saying "Christ lives in me" seems a more specific way of saying "I have the Holy Spirit."
When you say, "I have the Holy Spirit," you're saying that God is in you.
When you say, "Christ lives in me," you're saying that God lives in you and has you functioning as a christ to the world--pouring yourself out so others can live.

It's a start at least; I'm not conclusively satisfied with this.

Hey, Jared. just wanted to say thanks for sharing your thoughts. they're helpful, and I think they're getting me thinking in the right direction about this.

should be fixed... if not, bug dwight :)

Thanks, Kristi!

In the beginning,
God made everything.
Later,
he regretted making everything,
and was gonna flood it all
but saw Noah.
Later still,
God heard Joshua tell him,
“Sun stand still!”
and thought, "hey, good idea."

God can be in time; it seems he likes to follow the story as it unfolds. God’s not stuck in time. He’s in contact with any time he wants: he knows certain things will happen. What’s the difference between minutes and millennia for him?

I don’t think about the time unit “eternity” much. Time will keep happening and won’t stop happening.
Life will be glorious when Jesus returns—we’ll then invent the next word in the sequence “good, better, best.” Fresh new heavens, earth, and body.
This future is the most worthy object of hope—a life of unhindered unity with the Father (and his kids).

Good questions. The whole question of God's relationship to time is something I keep coming back to and changing my mind on. I never can seem to settle on an answer, but I'm not sure whether that's because I'm actually learning, or just 'cause my opinions are fickle and I don't know when to hold onto a good answer when I see it.
It seems to me that it's important to look to the Bible for answers on this question, rather than make speculations based on philosophy or physics or anything like that. Not that there's anything wrong with extrabiblical knowledge, but it needs to be anchored in what God has actually said about Himself. Numbers 23:19 seems to be a good starting point- "God is not a man, that he should lie, nor a son of man, that he should change his mind. Does he speak and then not act? Does he promise and not fulfill?"
It seems to me that this passage basically says that God is consistent. He sticks by His guns; He doesn't flip-flop on His decisions; He's not fickle. May we then say that God is unchanging? It seems likely! But, that said, I don't think it necessarily follows that God is outside of time. I can't think of any apt explanations or analogies; it's hard to explain exactly why it seems that way to me, but it does.
Eternity...eternity really used to scare the snot out of me, back when I was five or so. I think I was deathly afraid that I would get bored. Sometimes I still feel afraid of that...but then I remember what Jesus is consistently comparing the kingdom of Heaven to in His parables. A party! A marriage feast, a celebration of love! I cannot imagine that God, in all His goodness, would throw a party that would be boring. To a certain extent, my fears that it would be boring are probably a function of my present fallenness, and a perfected man will probably enjoy the party a whole lot more than a dude who came unprepared (see Matt. 22:11), but it's not like God is just going to eliminate our desire for excitement.
Anyway, I do think eternity will have a measure of similarity to our earthly lives. I dare say it will be as similar to our earthly lives as it can be without possessing flaws.

"I don’t think about the time unit 'eternity' much. Time will keep happening and won’t stop happening."

This way of thinking, which the first Anonymous writer proposes, seems utterly flawed to me. While I do not discount the possibility of comparing earthly life to heavenly life, I will affirm that eternity, i.e. God's relation our Temporal" is NOT a "Time -unit." Such implies (at least to me) that Eternity is a "a neverending period of temporal reality as we know it." How do we, Mr/Ms/Mrs Anonymous, know that Time will keep happening?
Do we even know what Time is in reference to Paul's comment in Galatians that "Christ lives in me." If Christ is someone who died 2000 years ago, how can he live in a the body of a Christian, or the body of a Christian congregation, NOW? The only simple answer that can be given is that the Resurrected life of Christ, which all Christians participate in on a daily basis, does not take place within the constraints of Time. For if it did, then Christ, a man crucified in the past, could not be living in the present. Rather, Time must be seen in the Light of the Resurrected One who was Crucified for us. The Eternal Kingdom of Heaven is a reality which is enacted every moment in which this Past becomes the living Present that will pave the way for the Future. Christ IS yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Even while living this earthly life, if we allow the Bridegroom to enter our heart, Time will matter no longer; Only his presence will.

Hey Nicholas-- it's Jared. I'm Mr. Anonymous; I don't know why it didn't catch my name.

You asked how I know time will keep happening; I just trust it will.
The scriptures tell nothing about before the beginning, and they tell about a future with a new heaven&earth where God will dwell with us (Revelation 21). The scriptures are mostly chronological histories--telling the story that we're in & how it will unfold.
I don't see any scriptures directing me to think about a place outside the context of time.
Do you?

You asked,"If Christ is someone who died 2000 years ago, how can he live in a the body of a Christian, or the body of a Christian congregation, NOW?"
Christ can live in us now because God raised him to life three days after he died. He's not dead anymore.
What conflict do you see between time and the resurrection?

Lisa
can you say what you heard was evil and worldly about it? was it referring to traditions - the Xmas tree and Santa and the like - or what??

Here's something else i'd love to see delved into, especially as the season approaches: what is the meaning of Christmas anyway? If you were to write a paragraph or two and tell someone who doesn't celebrate it what the meaning is to you - in general but also to you personally for this year and this time - what would you, today in this time, write?

I think I'll work on my own but I'd love to see other reflections in the comments or on the main page in the coming weeks/months.

But if you could also say Lis what you read/thought was wordly in particular, that would help. :)

oooohh... and I'd love to hear more about how anyone plans to celebrate
1. Thanksgiving
and
2. Advent

to make it Christ centered.

A rather long while ago I came across this essay, which questions particularly the value of telling a child lies about Santa Claus and passing them off as truth. I think the author has some excellent points there.
This is only somewhat related, but but the other day I was walking down the side of the road and thinking about this point of associating the true story of the birth of Jesus Christ with a mythologized lie about Santa Claus. I was thinking about how cool it would be not to give gifts at Christmas, but to create one's own cultural myth and celebrate that as a time of gift-giving instead. At Thanksgiving, I would encourage my family and my friends' families to tell the legendary story of the King of Thanksgiving, who comes on the night of the fourth Wednesday in November and flies through the sky on a magic robot, delivering toys to all the children who will be properly thankful for them. The King of Thanksgiving would have psychic powers, so he could tell in advance who would be grateful for his gifts. We would start a cultural revolution by imaginatively deconstructing holiday traditions and supplanting them with our own mythology.
The whole "King of Thanksgiving" idea is probably not really a good or practical idea, but it was pretty hilarious to think about. It certainly does nothing to address the issue Kristi has raised regarding how to celebrate Thanksgiving in a Christ-centered way.

also, my brother has good thoughts.

I haven't read any of this guy, so I don't vouch for him, but I've seen some of his books and I might read one sometime to see if he is more a C.S. Lewis or a J.S. Spong:

Pagan Christianity by Frank Viola

It seems like it is going to be couched in anti-churchianity terms, which sometimes rub me the wrong way, but I'm not sure that is a bad thing.

Dave's totally right.

When Christianity swept through Europe, oftentimes for the people involved it was a mere political change. They had a kind of fill-in-the-name worship: When a new king takes over your country, everybody take out your hymnals, cross out 'Thor' and write in 'Athena'. Next century, cross out 'Athena', write in 'Christ'.

I think that all throughout history, holidays have been celebrated mostly by people who don't care what they mean. Most of the pagans didn't care about Sol Invictus or Thor - They were in it for crass materialism, the same way most people are nowadays. People are people.

I think the main danger, and the main reason that we shouldn't have incorporated the pagan symbols into the holiday, is that it makes it look like Christianity is the same sort of thing as those pagan religions. And it's not. Using those symbols makes it look like worshipping Jesus is just another way of worshipping the sun - Which it's not. Most ancient religions are nothing more than fancy ways of worshipping the sun. But we have no need to worship the sun. We worship the One who made the sun.

So what should we do? We can't cut out every custom that the pagans once used to celebrate nature - We couldn't have a fire in the fireplace, or eat ham on Christmas, or sing 'The Holly and the Ivy', or give gifts.

I don't know what to do, I admit. Throw 'em out and have a dumb holiday? Keep 'em and ignore the pagan meanings? Keep 'em and try to redefine what they mean? Make up new ones? I don't know.

Can't say anything more than this: Such a passage is meant to be stumbling block for unbelievers. For Christ later "contradicts" himself by saying "the spirit gives life, the flesh is of no avail." He is not really contradicting himself but rather explaining that he gave a "hard saying to the Jews and his disciples to see if anyone is able to see the "spiritual" reality behind the words ("metaphorical", if you'd like but metaphorical is such a wussy word for us moderns and does not convey the importance that symbolism and metaphor had for ancient world).
The Spirit of the Resurrection gives life to even to this difficult, seemingly "fleshly," even cannibalistic passage. (Christians in the early Church were actually accused of cannibalism)
Why doesn't Christ tell them "I was being metaphorical." For the same reason that he only speaks to the people in parables in Mark's Gospel, to paraphrase: "If I spoke to them clearly, then they would turn from their wicked ways and live."
Christ's hard sayings, (i.e. parables, allegories, metaphors) simply reinforce the fact that hard hearts produces hard minds.
Frank Kermode's book, "The Genesis of Secrecy" discusses Christ's parables from the point of view of an unbeliever. He comes to the conclusion that they are impenetrable. Yet so is the cross for those searching for signs or wisdom.



P.S. I forgot to let everyone know that I was ordained to the diaconate. Sorry. Please pray for me in my new ministry.

Jesus didn't go out & gather a crowd to proclaim this hard teaching--it was a response to a crowd (the one he miraculously fed) coming to him.
So going into the conversation, the crowd already saw him do a miracle and called him The Prophet promised by Moses.
They searched all over Galilee for him (he lost them by walking across the lake), and when they found him, he responded to their arrival by saying, "You guys didn't looking for me because of the miraculous sign--I just fed you well."
So first off, he points out that they aren't looking for him because he's The Prophet, but because he did something for them.
The ensuing conversation about them needing to eat Jesus' flesh is a confronataion to them, showing them they aren't really pursuing The Prophet himself, but the relief he brings to their current situation.
(I imagine they expected The Prophet "with further instructions" to be another Moses to free them from slavery again...and maybe get them a little further along the path to being the nation that blesses all nations)

I don't get it that this is a parable... If it is it sure is different from any I recall... There is no story or explanation time afterwards for the disciples, Peter does his statement of faith right after... With parables the disciples are always like "WHHHHAAAT???"

I invented these three strange little things for you, Kristi. They're like haikus or maxims.

I
When I was younger and lusted for growth, I complained to a brother that I wasn’t growing much. He said, “Maybe it’s not time to grow right now. Maybe Dad has you here to bless some people.”

II
Growth is such a tricky thing to measure. I pruned this bush; some of the branches were way too long,
and the whole thing was lopsided.
I cut off growth that seemed great until I stepped back to look at the bush as a whole.
It was better off after the pruning.

III
Methods to cultivate depth in prayer and reading:
devotion.

I think it really depends on the person. Some people will do great with a study bible, you know, looking at the notes.

It may be good to get a commentary and go through that. I tried some, and one must be careful here, because a few of them are put out by people who are a little too smart for their own good... (Statements like: "The Israelites probably never celebrated the year of Jubilee because that would have required them to live off the land two years in a row (the 7th Sabbath year being the 49th year and the Jubilee year being the 50th year.)" Making that statement presupposes that God is not able to make the land sustain them for two years in a row.)

Something that has helped me is to read some and then respond in writing. I kinda write stream of consciousness, so there is exegesis mixed with prayer and just flat out questions all roled up in one...

I really liked doing a prayer liturgy. There is one book I used for about 2 years on and off called "Celtic Daily Prayer" It is kind of neat because it has some stuff you say every day, some that cycles through each week, month and each day of the year... it also had some special liturgies for days like easter and christmas etc. The daily stuff mostly concentrated on little meditations on the lives of Celtic saints, which was neat to learn about: Patrick, Columba, and all those guys. Most of the daily stuff is right out of the psalms. While I was in MN, my bro and I did it together some, which is cool because it is kinda designed that way.

Looking at both prayer and bible study more "holisticly," I found that lots of the stuff I read that isn't necessarily theological in nature matches up with where I was at the time. I was reading Mere Christianity at the same time we were reading Aristotle whatever year that was (I think Sophomore?) and their styles really matched up. It was cool to read some of the bible, some C.S. Lewis, some Aristotle, and then pray, the whole time making connections between them all...

The big lesson I have learned is that there isn't a (specifically) right way to do it... try different stuff, keep what works, toss what doesn't. That works individually and in groups...

wow jared. super awesome. i appreciate your thoughts, and it sort of sent a bunch of clicks going through my head... what you conclude about devotion really strikes a cord with me. i'll continue to think and write more if i can.... other thoughts and practical suggestions still welcome.

I don't have an answer, but I can't think of a Biblical instance of exorcism where the demon was expelled in a means other than through spoken verbal command.
I have wondered about demons too, in a quasi-related way. I have wondered if they can read me. Can they tell my thoughts? As spiritual beings, to what extent (if any) do they have access to information about the state of my soul? Can they extrapolate data about me based on my brain's immediate neurochemical conditions? Actually, it's been awhile since I wondered things like this, probably not since early high school. I have since accepted that if it's not in the Bible, I am not likely to find answers to my wonderings anywhere else.

Yeah... that's probably better, but I've turned it in... didn't get a great grade either... but my prof said to do more talking about current application

I actually hate that site... physically

What distinguishes physical hatred from other, non-physical forms such as spiritual, emotional, or psychological?

the way in which it makes itself known

I give up. What's it for?

Is it a balloon company you are competing against?

Goodness is:

To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of the women!

It may help to note that Knowledge is the supplement to Goodness (Arete).
Maybe it has to do with motivation/desire, and so is supplied direction by Knowledge.

So, we have all wanted to know...(and for some reason this had to wait until you were there) Does the "rus" in Belarus have anything to do with the "Rus" in Russia?

Kristi--
I'm 10% geek, but I couldn't figure out how to put comments on your blog (maybe because I went to it through the link on this page?) How can I comment on your blogs?

to comment:
click on link below the post you want to comment on that says "# comments"

then click on the link below the post and below the header "# commentts" that is in russian - 2 words, first begins with Ot.. and second begins with kommehtapa..

make sense?

hope it helps

Tithing is just a good "rule of thumb" and as with any rule/law, it works some of the time, and other times it causes problems.

I'm not sure why there is a rule beyond "Give as the spirit moves you."

The cynical side of me says that Churches that have to pay the rent and pastor's salary found that the Spirit didn't seem to move according to the monthly payments, but who knows?

•10% is good if you aren't receiving any other guidance... it can be tempting to not give if you don't hear anything.

•The Israelites also did the "give as the Spirit moves you" thing when they were offering the materials for the Tabernacle, so this isn't a New Thang. Every law is a minimum; although that kind of language is what got the Pharasees in trouble with Jesus, so forget I said that ;-)

I've got to admit that for the longest time I tried and tried to come up with an interpretation of that verse that both 1) makes sense and 2) has anything at all to do with the context. I'm still working at it.
do you think the Pharisees could be the old wineskins?

(Here's the same passage in Mark and Luke)

The immediate context is John's disciples asking Jesus why His disciples don't fast. Jesus says the attendants don't fast while the bridgroom is with them but they will later when he is gone. No one sews unshrunk cloth as a patch on shrunk cloth. No one puts new wine in old wineskins.

It is that quick... no transitions or anything.

old wineskin: the law
new wineskin: grace through jesus' blood.

no one wants the new wineskin, the new covenant. they want the old. they like it. hard to change. but... God send His son and it changes things. Jesus is not a patch to be sewn onto the old traditions and ways. you need a new life in him. etc.

so i think. but anyway, i'm away from my bible and can't elaborate more for now about the context.

I'm about Art Housed (i.e. any movie that has wheat on it's cover) out for the time being...

But I will put that on the front of the back burner :P

Thanks for the tip, Nick. We are always on the lookout for good films (and have taken to Netflix, as we live a rather secluded life out here...)

You were probably going along in life just fine before that fact was told to you. If you can't check it, just take it for what it is (something someone told you) and move on. Don't repeat it as fact unless it is.

Huh. Thanks, Sir; it seems so clear and obvious now.

Check out the greek, (without accents, I couldn't figure them out, save for the ones I didn't need :P)

It could also be translated: "Unto ages of ages"

"From eternity to eternity"

something like that...

actually:
"From eternities to eternities"

where's this phrase from?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gloria_Patri

There may be more to this (I haven't looked at that part of Jeremiah before writing this) but in the OT, Israel sometimes means "the northern kingdom", or "All of the tribes except Judah" whereas Judah means "the southern kingdom" or the tribe of Judah.

This split occured after Solomon died.

There was this big split that occurred (Dwight mentioned it). Basically, the Israelites went all nutso for a while and decided to put their own king on the throne who wasn't of the line of David. Obviously that's no good -- remember God's whole thing about the line of David? But Judah kept on worshipping God and doing what was right and submitting to the rightful heirs. So, for a time, Judah is considered all of Israel because they were the only ones who were following the faith of Israel (the man) and were were all of the nation that was faithful to God. At one point there was even a war over it (and the good guys won).

It's the same principle that Paul speaks of when he says, "Who is a son of Abraham? One of his blood or one of his faith? It's the one's who keep to the faith of Abraham that are his children" (paraphrase). It's why I feel free to call myself a Jew at times when it is helpful in evangelism (I'm a faithful son of Abraham, and therefore one of his descendants).

Judah was Israel for a while.

P.S. You can check it out in 2nd Chronicles (and other places).

Touche, Dave.

I just went back and checked my memory against the text -- you're right =)

1) Solomon commits his various idolatries
2) God gives the 10 northern tribes to Jeroboam to rule (via populace support)
3) God gives Rehoboam (Solomon's heir) the other two tribes.
4) Jeroboam gets all wacky and Godless
5) Bad things happen.

I had forgotten all about the prophet and the aborted battle (between Rehoboam and Jeroboam). I checked to see what I was thinking of ... I figured it out =) (This is just a side note, btw). I once heard someone ask the question, "Why don't we see the Bible follow the kings of Israel for a number of generations, but focuses on the kings of Judah instead?" The answer (as it came) was that it was because the scriptures (as holy scriptures) focused on the line of David. The nation of Israel (as such) was the focus of various annals and historical chronicles. Sorry about that, Jared!

I agree regarding it being an action of the people -- that's why I was hoping to convey by calling it a thing God did "via populace support" -- or "by way of the support of the people." I'm not sure if it was a rebellion against God for them to pick a new king... Were the people obligated to God to prefer an heir of the line of David? I'm not sure.

I strongly suspect the causality here is something like the "geist" of that "zeit" was the holy "geist" (a la Chompsky).

I don't think it would have mattered much in the long run whether or not Jeroboam had stayed faithful. The kingdoms would have come back to David's line (per the infallible promise of God) when God's wrath against the line was satisified. It would, however, have made things much better for the Israelites if he hadn't freaked out.

Also, I didn't mean to imply that the non-Davidic kings are simply ignored -- it just doesn't follow them in the same way (as far as I can tell). There's a general scriptural focus on the seat of the line of David, and it is the focus of the prophecies (as you pointed out), and -- for obvious reasons -- the important bloodlines.

Cool; thanks,guys :)

The Northern Kingdom gets taken off into captivity and does not return with Nehemiah and/or Ezra...

here is an alternate/working definition:

A creed is a profession of faith that aims to unify Christians in truth, but usually lists the reasons one group doesn't want to hang out with another...

creeds are practically more of a litmus test than a common confession

The Apostle's creed was written because the Non-Gnostics didn't want to hang out with the Gnostics.

I've never really had much use for Creeds and Confessions and Mottos and such, myself. I'm not against them, mind you -- I just never had much use for them.

If someone wants to know what I believe, they can ask me. If they want to know what I believe in a nutshell ... well, they can still just ask me. I'll tell them gladly =) If they tell me I believe something wrong-headed, I'll ask them what they mean and what it is, and how they know and such. Then I'll give it it's due consideration. There are some points I won't budge on, no matter what (there are infinite articulations of these few points, and each of those could be called a creed (or confession, or slogan, or whatever), but I don't care about the articulations, really).

Anyway, the point is, I don't care one way or another about creeds and such. I know people who know very important creeds and confessions very thoroughly and confess agreement with them and who have grown in holiness by the grace of God through their contemplation or repetition (or whatever) of them. I'm thrilled. I've also known people who seemed to know very important creeds and confessions very thoroughly and confess agreement with them, and who have at other times also demonstrated themselves to be such as "universalists" or "atheists" (did you know there's a group of people who call themselves "atheist Christians?" Some of them even adhere to the various creeds -- they just fiddle with the definitions.)

As for me, I've never been able to make them mean anything to me, really. I mean, I understand the formal content, and I'm cool with it, but it generally isn't how I would articulate what my Dad did for me. Also, I'm probably fairly juvenile with regards to certain things (I only have the vaguest and most formal understanding of what a "lord" is (being an American, and me being slow about such things) -- though we're working on it! -- so I don't really call him "Lord" much when we talk. I think it's the Next Big Thing we'll be working on. He surely is my Lord, but I don't really know what it means yet.)

I've had some creeds of my own over the years. I have some now, even. They're like security blankets: when the enemy comes to try to shoot me down, I put on the full Armor of God (tm) and then, on top of that, I put on the Cape of my Creeds, because creeds -- like scriptures as such -- are much easier than faith.

God gives me all that good stuff that protects me (shield, breastplate, belt, etc.). I provide myself with a cape (or others offer me some, and I pick out the ones that fit my armor nicely and are decorated to my taste) to help me feel more secure (and rather dashing ;). It's like a wrapper around my armor. So when I see other people with the same cape, I don't have to examine all their armor (which may be a different style), to know that we're both in the League of Heros. The problem is, sometimes a Villan puts on a cape too. Villans cannot put on the armor, because it's issued by The Man Upstairs, but they can put on the cape, because we give them out freely (public confession =). So sometimes there's this naked dude walking around with a cape. If I see enough of that, and if I forget what the cape is, I'll start trusting that the cape will protect me in battle, and forget to put on my armor first when I go out. Then, while we're at the clubhouse, someone comes in and laughs villanously, and we all stand up and protect ourselves with our capes, and bad things happen.

Ok, this has gone on long enough =) I hope you enjoy reading it as much as I've been enjoying writing it!

In the Lutheran tradition, the progress from confession and absolution (a quasi-sacrament) to the Lord's Supper is the focus. Lutherans believe that the Sacraments are Lords Supper and Baptism (with Confession and Absolution being sometimes said to be a sacrament, sometimes not)

To be a sacrament, Lutherans have 3 requisites:

1. Established by Jesus
2. Confers Grace
3. I can't remember how they put this one, but practicable by all believers. (e.g. This is why marriage is not a sacrament for Lutherans, because not all believers can or should be married)

I'm still pretty confused by "conferring grace"and the nature of the Lord's Supper.

Sacraments are pretty much a mystery to me.

The Westminster Confession, that "admirable statement of Reformed doctrine" describes the characteristics of Christian religious worship and observance of the Sabbath day in Chapter 21, complete with too many scripture proofs to post here. Here are some of the main themes:

-Worship to God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit alone.
-Prayer with Thanksgiving, in the name of the Son, with reverence, humility, etc...
-The reading of Scriptures with godly fear, sound preaching and conscionable hearing of the Word, with understanding, faith, reverence, singing of psalms with grace in the heart, as also the due administration and worthy receiving of the sacraments instituted by Christ...

So it seems the main thrust of it is: Worship, Prayer, and the Scriptures, along witht the sacraments of baptism and the Lord's supper...

By the way, ooh-rah to the Pflugerville church (St. Elizabeth's?) for having a 40 min homily! Those Texans must really need it:)

I come from a nondenominational background. For us, the message is central. We're very message-oriented. Jesus preached, Paul preached, John the Baptist preached, the prophets preached, so we preach. We love preaching.

I do wish that worship was more fundamental to the service.

With regard to sacraments, we're very simple. If Jesus said to do it, we do it. We know that there's some theological stuff about Baptism conferring grace, but for the most part we don't understand it, and we trust that if we do what Jesus said to do He'll look after us. He promised He would.

Matt: "I do wish that worship was more fundamental to the service."

Is preaching not worship? How do you define worship? Are you just thinking of worship "songs"?

All: Laura cited the Westminster Confession of Faith, which I have read and which my church is in agreement with. I don't rightly understand who is and is not "Reformed" in protestantism, and who would and would not agree with the Westminster Confession of Faith, so, for other Reformed and non-Reformed folks, are there other confessions your church is in agreement with? (Enlighten me! :) )
Council of Trent for RCC?
Heidelberg anyone?
Canons of Dordt?
...?

I don't think the Lutheran Church is "Reformed" in the sense that it is used today.

The Lutheran Church uses the Apostle's Creed, the Nicene Creed (with the "and the Son" bit), and the Athanasian Creed.

Then there are confessions. They have a whole mess of them in the Book of Concord, but the main one is the Augsburg Confession.

I'm not sure what the difference is between a Creed and a confession, but I know that Luther and all the Lutherans after him did not write any new creeds.

Church of the Ascension and St. Agnes, the Episcopal church I'm attending now, regularly runs between an 1.5 and 2 hours for its high mass. I'm very grateful that they don't feel constrained to an hour, as it would make everything feel too short -- there's simply too much content to cut it off like that.

I was raised Evangelical, and there, too, the focus of a Sunday service was the sermon. Hymns are good and fine, Sunday School very important (we even called the older equivalent "Adult Sunday School"), but in the end, what one really came to hear was what Pastor had to say.

This approach has a lot of problems, but I do find that, in general, non-Evangelical sermons/homilies tend to be far less substantial and, therefore, generally less interesting than those sermons I was raised on. I learned a lot of great theology that way.

A professor at our seminary once jokingly said, "Mysticism is a lot of mist and a lot of schism." I thought you might enjoy that...more serious comments to follow.
Charlene

Everyone here probably knows that I'm a particular fan of exegesis -- especially for definition. Mostly this is because a single word only means anything in a context. The way one group uses a word at a certain time may differ greatly from the way another group uses the word later; but generally a single person tends to use words in about the same manner during his entire lifetime, with refinements more than changes. For that reason, it's good to infer from otherwise clear statements what certain words mean. It requires a bit of triangulation, but it is worthwhile.

Everything in this post comment should be interpreted through the knowledge of that bias.

Having said that, I'll say also: I have thought a fair bit about the nature of "Mystery" -- not as much as some other important things, but a bit over the past three or four years. In what follows, I'll rely upon the grace and insight of whomever is reading to understand that a somewhat "clinical" treatment of a word used to refer to something that seems (at first blush) to be anything but clinical isn't an affront in either intent or effect. I hope that will be apparent.

In my own study of it, I have been primarily concerned with the new testament authors because in life, I am primarily concerned with "the mystery of Christ." I choose to understand first what mystery means in terms of the mystery of Christ and the news preached in the New Testament. It seems that Paul and John are the only two who use the word ("ΜΥΣΤΗΡΙΟΝ"), although Peter alludes to the fact that Paul has great insight into things hard to understand.

Rather than build an exegetical case for my definition, I'll just say what it is. Whoever is curious can, of course, feel free to check it out themselves. If you want to ask me about it, please do -- I love to discuss the good and true things =) I'm especially interested in anyone who can give me compelling reason to change my understanding.

Anyway, to get to the point, a "mystery" (translated by some translators as "secret") is "undiscoverable truth." It's a bit of a terse definition, so I'd like to expand it a bit.

First, the truth is not able to be discovered but it is able to be known. This much is clear, since Paul claims to be able to tell others about various mysteries, and that some are known to "us." It turns out that mysteries can never (even in principle!) be discovered by any exploration, but can be known only by revelation. This is an important distinction! It classifies truth not by it's known-ness, but perspectivally. Because of this, a mystery remains a mystery when it becomes known and understood. Further, a mystery is never diminished in either its mysteriousness or import when it has been revealed -- even fully revealed -- to anyone. God is never glorified less by the understanding of a mystery, but always more because the revealed truth becomes a first principle from which to reason (obviously), and testifies to the (1) existence and (2) goodness of God.

Because there is no method for man to know a given mystery, the meaning seems to have blurred to mean "unknownable truths." Notable among this group is "the mystery of the Trinity," which many have insisted is merely beyond human understanding. But a subtle idolotry comes in when this happens: one gives the "Mystery" itself precedence over God. the Mystery of the Trinity is something that no man can possibly discover, but there is no truth unknown to God, and there is no limitation so great that He cannot overcome it. God can reveal any truth to anyone, because all truth is His, and so are we. He has complete authority and power to do as he will in this matter.

Men have sometimes confused the undiscoverability with unknowability. This, itself, stems from a misplaced faith: that human knowledge starts with man. There has also been a second difficulty (historically): when a mystery is proclaimed, it cannot be verified by others except by independent revelation which they cannot invoke, because they do not command God. For this reason, false teachers have come proclaiming untruth in the name of "Mystery." I'm sure that many of them sincerely believed it, and that some of them even received revelations from unclean spirits, mistaking them for God. This latter is most commonly what occurs in false religions. "Mystics" of Islam, Hinduism, the Babylonian religions, etc. have been given many revelations by demons and, since their claims are false they are (obviously) unverifiable. In order to avoid this problem, many Christians have thrown out the baby with the bathwater -- they have fallen into a concession that whoever claims to have an understanding of a mystery must be false -- in order to protect against the chance that it's the case.

The understanding of a given mystery is always a gift from God. It has been given to some to know mysteries and proclaim them -- we call them sometimes "mystics" and sometimes "prophets" (the events of the future, for example, are undiscoverable; but God can, and has, and does reveal it to some as He sees fit). It is a fearful thing to receive a revelation from God -- and the first such revelation any man receives is the revelation of the Mystery of Christ: that Jesus was the son of God, in very nature God, born in flesh, to bring salvation from death, by death, by grace through faith in this very mystery. After this, the God who lives and loves continues to reveal to his children the good and true mysteries. But, as I said, this is a fearful thing. Lacking in wisdom, some have spoken foolishly about what has been revealed to them, and suffered shame for it. Others, also lacking wisdom, have been proud -- as if by their own power the knowledge has come to them -- as if the mystery were merely undiscovered by men, and not undiscoverable. When this happens, men bring the discipline of God upon themselves. Knowledge of a mystery is a fearful thing to have, because it requires much faith. As a rule, one ought not to speak of a mystery if they have not been told to; and one must speak of a mystery if told to. This is only a guide -- wisdom brings finer discernment, but if anyone is uncertain about it, this rule is good to follow.

Finally, I'll point out that there are a good many things about God that are not mysterious. That is, there are some truths about God that can be discovered by man, "for since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse." But there are some truths about God that are mysterious. No one can know the persons of God without revelation. None can comprehend the incarnation without revelation. None can gain the knowledge of God that comes through fellowship with Him without his revelation of Himself to them. The mysteries of God are unnumerable and are more profound than what can be known by men. It is the great blessing of God that he should reveal himself to us -- and the delight of every believer to be "a mystic" -- one to whom God reveals Himself and His creation.

With regard to "mystical prayer," it can mean: prayer in which we pray not what we desire to pray, but what is revealed to us as God's prayer for us, through our prayer. Have you ever had the experience of speaking to another person and suddenly being carried along by the spirit in what you say and speaking from the heart of God? This is similar to "mystical prayer." Sometimes, when we pray we open ourselves to God and humble ourselves before him, and we find that it is not that we are praying, exactly, but that, in prayer, we are participating in a motion of the Spirit upon the Earth. Now, it is still our prayer as well, but only in the way that, say, a large wave can be said to be "comprised of" its component waves (remember your wave mechanics?). It is impossible to pick out one from the other -- they have fully become one -- yet it is distinct from either alone. So it is with "mystical prayer" -- it ceases to be possible to say, "this is my prayer to God," but neither is it possible to say, "this is not my prayer." In truth, it is "the mystery [i.e. the undiscoverable truth of the will] of God revealed through your prayer."

The meaning may be altered slightly in particular usages, but this is a solid foundation for a beginning of understanding. I'm not sure if this is what people mean when they say what you are hearing. My experience is that people often don't actually mean anything in particular when they speak of things in abstraction like this ... or at least, are not sure exactly what they mean. Probably some of the people you hear are all hard core about it and know what they mean and mean true and real things, and others (probably the majority?) have heard the phrase, match the notion with some not-yet-well-examined experience (that may or may not be a good fit), and have repeated it, trying to convey something of which they are not quite clear. (This last bit isn't judgement, by the way, just observation. I would prefer that such not be the case, but I have experienced that it seems to be with most similar things.)

hmm. I don't know a lot about mysticism. When I hear it used in a Christian context, I intuitively associate it with contemplation, which jives with the definition you gave in the post. Perhaps that is because mystical prayer would not be about presenting your requests and/or praise to God, but letting God reveal mysteries to you. Thus, silence and solitude also intuitively come into play in my mind's eye.

Though honestly, I don't think I've ever heard someone contemporary refer to their prayer life as "mystical." I also wonder whether the ones we refer to as mystics - like St. John of the Cross and St. Teresa as you mentioned - would use this term in describing their own experience. I have read very little of mystics, and couldn't even name another one off the top of my head, but maybe someone is more familiar and would have a clue? My guess would be no, in which case, I would question why someone nowadays would make it a point to say their prayer life is "mystical" - it seems potentially divisive.