Rev. Ed McNeill (Rector of St. James Anglican Church in San Jose) gives us a very well written article on what Anglicanism is about:

In the summer of 2006 the Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams very helpfully identified three things that when held together make Anglicanism distinct from other Christian denominations and contribute to the essential character of our church. Other denominations share one or two of these things. What makes Anglicanism unique is the balanced presence of all three. They are:

1. A reformed commitment to the absolute priority of the Bible for deciding doctrine.
2. A catholic loyalty to the sacraments and the threefold ministry of bishops, priests and deacons,
3. A habit of cultural sensitivity and intellectual flexibility that does not seek to close down unexpected questions too quickly.

These three points clearly linked to our reformation heritage, our catholic heritage, and our intellectual heritage nicely capture the core strength of the Anglican way of living out our Christian Faith.

So there we have it: a commitment, a loyalty, and a habit; three marks of Anglicanism.  When these three elements are in balance we have Anglicanism.  Problems within Anglicanism occur when they get out of balance.

(Continue reading for more explanation on these three points)

Tension, tension, tension. I honestly feel a lot of tension and temptation to side with just one (or at most two) emphases above and dismiss the rest. However, my whole Regent education has taught me to embrace and hold the tension, because many important things in theology are not either/or but paradoxically held in great tension as both/and (e.g. three and one, divine and human, already but not yet, unity and diversity in the body of Christ…) Those who claim that they can resolve it easily and dismiss certain theologies or practices have no respect for the church’s history and the struggle of all the saints before us. It can also easily go down the slippery slope of heresy and schismatic moves.

I remember many years ago my mentor prophetically told me that he thinks Anglicanism suits me because it provides a nice bridle to a revolutionist at heart like me. Tension, tension, tension. Keep embracing and holding the tension in humility, admitting that we cannot resolve it until the day we meet the Lord.

A: About God and about ten minutes.

=)

1. Zechariah prayed for a child and his prayer got answered.
2. His muteness was a punishment for his unbelief.

Last Sunday as I was listening to the sermon, I questioned these two traditional assumptions and came up with some new thoughts that deserve more investigation. Frankly, I haven’t done any further research yet, but I’d like to share my thoughts and see if anyone has any feedback.

1. First of all, nowhere says Zechariah and Elizabeth prayed for a son. We only know that they are righteous and blameless in front of God (1:6), and they are childless and well advanced in years (1:7). If Zechariah really prayed for a son, why would he be so surprised and doubtful of God’s ability when his prayer was answered (1:18)? Shouldn’t he be happy and praise God instead?

   I think it’s much more likely that he DID NOT pray for a son, but prayed for what every faithful Jew would pray for in that context–the coming of the Messiah and God’s vindication for Israel. (Afterall, we know that he’s a righteous and blameless Jew serving in the priesthood.) What actually surprised him then, I think, was HOW God would achieve His plan, i.e. through a son, bore by his barren wife, to become the forerunner of the coming Messiah. That’s why he was a bit perplexed and doubtful of Gabriel’s message. I think this explanation is more logical and congruent to the context. So no, I don’t think they ever prayed for a son. They knew their condition (barrenness & old-age) and accepted it as their fate.

2. Most preachers would introduce the background of this story by saying that there was a famine of God’s word for almost 400 years (Amos 8:11). God stayed mute to His people for 400 years. I suddenly connected the dots and wondered if Zechariah’s muteness has anything to do with God’s muteness. Was it only a punishment for his unbelief, or more like a chance for him to experience what it is like to stay mute and be patient until the appointed time of the fulfillment of things? God stayed mute for 400 years. Zechariah stayed mute for 40 weeks. I don’t know, but I always think that God does not do things randomly without reason. If God wanted to punish Zechariah, he could do it a thousand ways differently. Why must it be muteness? There must be some connection between his muteness and God’s muteness prior to this event…

   No matter what, the effect of Zechariah’s muteness was that this miracle caused him, first of all, to praise God when he opened his mouth (1:64), and more importantly, the people in all the hill country of Judea to start fearing God (1:65). So part of what John was supposed to do (1:17) was already accomplished through his father’s incident. Even punishments can have positive and constructive purposes.

So that’s what I thought. What do you think, my friends? Have you come across any commentaries that connect God’s muteness with Zechariah’s muteness? I’ll check out some Luke commentaries from the library tomorrow. Will see…

Image from xkcd.com

This is what I wrote on facebook. Just posting it here for records:

Well, personally I don’t celebrate Halloween, but I don’t feel the need to give extra emphasis to condemn it on this particular day. If we are to condemn, there are many many more things that are also abhorrent to God, such as celebrating the blatant consumerism of lining up and fighting over goods during black Fridays, or worshipping singers, stars, business and sport celebrities as idols or even as gods (just watch Steve Jobs’ memorial service. It was almost like a typical praise and worship service.)

Why do I seldom see Christians posting on their facebook walls about these things, condemning them as cultures that God disapproves?

Anyways, as resurrected people, we need to redeem things, not just condemn things. Pumpkin is a good creation of God. Redeem it for its good purposes. Here is something I got from an email:

“Being a Christian is like being a pumpkin. God lifts you up, takes you in, and washes all the dirt off of you. He opens you up, touches you deep inside and scoops out all the yucky stuff–including the seeds of doubt, hate, greed, etc. Then He carves you a new smiling face and puts His light inside you to shine for all the world to see.”

Now this is what redemption is about. All Saints’ Day was originally celebrated on the first Sunday after Pentecost. Pope Gregory III (731–741) intentionally moved it to November 1st to overlap it with the pagan harvest festival to redeem it. Why aren’t we following the same spirit to redeem bad things and make it good?

Redeem culture, create culture. That’s what we need to do.

Further Reading:

• Culture Making: Recovering Our Creative Calling by Andy Crouch
• The State of North American Evangelicalism by Douglas Todd (Vancouver Sun columnist)

Related posts:

1. Advent Conspiracy

Related posts:

1. Free Lecture: Hell and the Goodness of God

雖然本人並非生蠔粉絲，但亦知道識得食生蠔的人士，食生蠔時絕不會加鹽加醋，只會新鮮拆開「雪」一聲吞落肚，就連殼內新鮮的海水也要品嘗。

食生蠔要加鹽加醋的人，根本不認識生蠔。

同樣地，那些整天嚷著說福音對一般人的生活很「遙遠」，強調教會必需「令」福音「變得」更加 relevant 的人，其實與食生蠔要加鹽加醋的人無異。因為他們根本不認識自己食的東西是什麼。以為自己做了好事，實際上卻破壞了那原有的鮮味。

我認為，福音或耶穌基督根本上與世界上每一樣東西每一件事也 relevant 不過(西1:15-20)，我們只須指出 (“point out”) 它已有的 relevancy，而並非要「令」它「變得」更加 relevant。

遙遠，其實並不是福音，而是那些加鹽加醋的人。

他們離福音的真義才是遙遠。

I think it pretty much sums up what contemporary Christianity, deeply influenced by consumerism, has become.

Brilliant, but sad.

Related:

Shopping、買色情雜誌 = 敬拜撒旦！ 培靈大會鮑維均牧師：你夠膽讓神看月結單嗎？

One limitation I have, for example, is that I was born with a brain malfunction. I took medicine from the time I was a child until college, because I would often faint. I could be sitting in a classroom and just kneel over. I even had to take a year off from college because of this. It was a scary time. It’s complicated, but a simplistic explanation is that my brain has an unusual reaction to adrenaline.

Now anybody who speaks knows adrenaline is the pastor’s best friend. It gives you passion, alertness, and energy. The very thing I need to accomplish what God has called me to do acts like a poison for me. I guess it’s a thorn in the flesh. When I speak, I’m often unable to clearly see the congregation during the first several minutes of the normal adrenaline rush. People look blurry, I feel panic, and it is extremely painful to speak.

People ask me, “Do you ever get full of pride speaking to all those people?” Honestly, that’s the last thing on my mind. I’m praying, “God, get me through this. Use this weak vessel, and in my weakness, you be strong.”

Excerpt from Leadership Handbook of Management and Administration (Grand Rapids, MI: BakerBooks, 2007), 36.

Guess who that is?

Rick Warren

Spider-Man’s Uncle Ben said: “With great power comes great responsibility.”

We should say instead: “With great spiritual influence comes great thorns in the flesh.”

What does God use to keep you from becoming conceited?

“Therefore, in order to keep me from becoming conceited, I was given a thorn in my flesh, a messenger of Satan, to torment me. Three times I pleaded with the Lord to take it away from me. But he said to me, ‘My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.’ Therefore I will boast all the more gladly about my weaknesses, so that Christ’s power may rest on me. That is why, for Christ’s sake, I delight in weaknesses, in insults, in hardships, in persecutions, in difficulties. For when I am weak, then I am strong.” (2 Cor. 12:7b-10)