SCJToday

Temptation

Sunday' s lectionary Gospel text was Luke 4:1-13. I heard two sermons on it. One was by a Catholic, the other by a Protestant. They were both very fine, each in their own way. Hearing the text read and preached on twice led to all sorts of ruminating on my part. For what it's worth, here's some of the stuff on which I ruminated.

With the exception of a reference from the Psalms, all of the retorts of Jesus to the devil come from Deuteronomy. This seems significant in that in Deuteronomy we find a newly liberated (and baptized...? 1 Cor 10:2) Israel on a wilderness journey, one which will be ridden with temptations. Israel, God's new humanity meant to bring blessing's to Adam's cursed race (Gen 12:1-3), ultimately repeats Adam's story. Adam is tempted-> sucumbs to temptation-> resulting in exile and death. In the wilderness Israel is tempted-> sucumbs to tempations-> which in turn results in exile and death. Jesus, the Second Adam and the New, True Israel of God goes into the wilderness after his own baptism. There he is tempted-> resists temptation-> which results in exile and death?!? Of course Jesus doesn't meet this fate immediately subsequent to his victory in the wilderness. But if the entire life of Jesus can be understood as one of relentless and tireless active obedience, then his life's end is perplexing, for cursed is the one who hangs from the tree (Deut 21:22-23). The one who truly should have received the blessings of the covenant was cut off from the land of the living and seemingly forsaken by the God of the Living as well. Now ultimately the Suffering Servant was vindicated as the Son of God by his Resurrection (Rom 1:3). But the road to his vindication and the covenant blessing had to come through his condemnation and reception of the curse, so that humanity's story could be rewritten from the inside out through union with the one true human. Our tragic legacy of sucumbing to temptation and the exile that comes with it is put to an end with Christ's life, all the while a new story, one of rebirth and new life becomes ours through Christ's resurrection. This is what Calvin calls a wondrous exchange:

Pious souls can derive great confidence and delight from this...that they form one body with Christ, so that every thing which is his they may call their own. Hence it follows, that we can confidently assure ourselves, that eternal life, of which he himself is the heir, is ours, and that the kingdom of heaven, into which he has entered, can no more be taken from us than from him; on the other hand, that we cannot be condemned for our sins, from the guilt of which he absolves us, seeing he has been pleased that these should be imputed to himself as if they were his own. This is the wondrous exchange made by his boundless goodness. Having become with us the Son of Man, he has made us with himself sons of God. By his own descent to the earth he has prepared our ascent to heaven. Having received our mortality, he has bestowed on us his immortality. Having undertaken our weakness, he has made us strong in his strength. Having submitted to our poverty, he has transferred to us his riches. Having taken upon himself the burden of unrighteousness with which we were oppressed, he has clothed us with his righteousness.

The danger when we preach this text is forgetting that the substionary nature of the atonement begins not at Calvary but in Bethlehem from the moment the Incarnation takes place. If we forget this, we will inverse the relationship between indicative and imperative and turn the Gospel into moralism. The Gospel isn't "face tempation as Jesus did and you will inherit the Kingdom of which he spoke." The Gospel is "You are united with Jesus who conquered the temptation and secure your inheritance, now face tempations with courage, securely rooted in God's mercy, grace and steadfast love."

Virginity...Secondary or Technical?

Yesterday the New York Times ran a story  about the conservative quest for a suitable presidential candidate for 2008. The Republican slate certainly lacks the star power and energy that the Democratice list of hopefuls is generating. But the lack of a superstar isn't the only Republican problem. It seems that many conservatives just can't identify with or see in the current potential nominees one of their own. Whether it's a history of supporting tax increases, gay marriage, or abortion rights, all of the candidates seem to have political skeletons coming out of their closets that make them seem decidedly "liberal" in the eyes of some of the most prominent party faithful.

My favorite line in the story came from Grover Norquist, a famous conservative activist. He remarked about the possibility of unsuitable candidates regaining the trust of true conservatives:

Mr. Norquist said he remained open to any of the three candidates who spoke to the council or to Mr. Romney. He argued that with the right promises, any of the four could redeem themselves in the eyes of the conservative movement despite their past records, just as some high school students take abstinence pledges even after having had sex.

“It’s called secondary virginity,” Mr. Norquist said. “It is a big movement in high school and also available for politicians.”

But the question remains, what constitutes "virgnity" in this analogical sense of the word. I went to a religious college where people were convinced that you could do anything and everything as long as some body parts never crossed certain threshholds. This led to fascinating state which came to be known by some as "technical virginity". Technical virgins came as close as one can to having their cake and eating it too. Maybe some slick conservative political consultant will be as resourceful as some of the hormone driven religious undergrads I've known.

Is Lost Lost...

...that's the title of a recent TNR blog entry  by Sacha Zimmerman. Zimmerman has been an avid Lost fan since the show's inception. But he has undergone what he calls a crisis of faith:

At first, I followed "Lost" with devotion, assiduously avoiding all press about the show for fear of spoilers. I paid close attention to the backgrounds of the flashback scenes for clues. And I felt certain that I would follow John Locke to the ends of the Earth were I on that enigmatic island. And yet, with each subsequent episode, I started to wonder: Are the writers just throwing crazy ideas at the wall and seeing what sticks? I started to imagine scruffy writers with masters' degrees sitting around saying, "You know what would be cool? Let's make the hatch blow up and some scientists in the--get this!--the arctic notice the electromagnetic force it creates. And then, let's not refer back to this for, say, ten episodes!" And here I am. I feel used and disillusioned.

Zimmerman's contention is that science fiction and fantasy based shows still need rules. One has to have a sense for the contours of the fictitious world that is the setting for the story. Otherwise...

...there is no prism through which to view the struggles of the characters...there is an anarchy of story--an unsatisfying state where the author can simply say, "Hocus Pocus!" and all is well or, worse, leave all the loose ends unresolved and say, "It was all a dream" (as was the case when "Dallas" producers brought Bobby Ewing back to life--his death a year earlier having been nothing more than Pamela Ewing's nightmare. The seventh season of "Dallas" now lives in ignominy as "the dream season").

Zimmerman has a point. Lost is complex. There are multiple story lines up and running. Who are the "Others" and are they part of some grandious international conspiracy? What's the deal with the monster? How can Desmond see the future (and how did he survive the Hatch meltdown)? What about the island allows Lock to walk, Sun to get pregnant, and puts Rose's cancer into remission?  What's  up with all the seemingly coincidental crossing of paths that seem to litter the flashback scenes? All this and the relational drama to boot. Is it Jack or Sawyer Kate?!?!? It's alot to handle. But in my judgment Lost has not jumped the shark. It's still as redeemable as the stories of its characters' lives. I'm hanging in there. What else am I going to do, watch Grey's Anatomy?

Rest in Peace Anna Nicole...

There is certainly no shortage of Anna Nicole Smith detractors these days. The amount of ridicule and disrespect for someone so soon after they meet an untimely death is unbelievable. We'd all do well to carefully heed the words of Jesus at times like this: "Judge not lest ye be judged" (Matt 7:1). Scott Simon says as much in a recent NPR commentary. I commend it to anyone who reads this rag of a blog:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=7338538

All Is Grace

The joy of contemplating the grace of God and the glory of God, which must be preached to all, have brought me to this task. The apostle Paul was a stout-hearted champion of God’s glory throughout this whole epistle [Romans], and defended it with apostolic authority and prudence against the Jews; the holy fathers everywhere defended it against heretics, and we desire it to be inscribed in our hearts in order to acquire a disposition of total humility and to achieve purity of devotion. Those who completely devote themselves to divine worship should know that piety is the worship of God, as Scripture says; but there is no piety without thanksgiving and no thanksgiving without an acknowledgment of grace. By meditating frequently on this they become the blessed who are poor in spirit, to whom the kingdom of heaven belongs and whose spirit is believed to be totally with God. For grace predestined us before we existed, when we were nothing; when we turned back, it justified us; and it will glorify us when we are justified if we are not ungrateful. Grace accomplishes good in us so we may will; it cooperates with us when we do will; and without it we can neither will nor accomplish any good. Just as we were created by God from no subsisting elements so that we might be something among his creatures, so by grace we have been created in good works by no merits of our own. And therefore if we merit anything, it is a grace, and what we merit is grace for grace. Indeed, to bear the fruit of a grace received is an increase of grace, just as to have received grace in the first place is a grace. Grace goes before us so we can pray; it helps us while we pray; and it gives us what we pray for. The Virgin was filled with grace so she could become the Mother of God; he who was born of the Virgin was found to be full of grace. Noah, Abraham, Moses and the rest of the holy fathers are said to have found grace with God, and when the apostle Paul sought something else, he was told that grace would suffice.

-William of St-Thierry