-
The One Thing They Forgot to Tell Us
The death of Tammy Faye Bakker Messner–and her tumultuous life and career–is a reminder that the greatest weakness of "prosperity teaching" is that it never tells you how to handle the success it brings.
Two years ago I discussed the whole business of unrealistic expectations wrapped in defective methodologies, another weakness of this kind of Christianity, in If You’re Going to Take the Land, Take It. But what happens when "name it and claim it" actually does work? Sadly things like what happened to Jim and Tammy Faye, in all too many cases.
Before you set out on your "road to riches," you need to do as Solomon did:
“And Solomon went up thither to the brasen altar before the LORD, which was at the tabernacle of the congregation, and offered a thousand burnt offerings upon it. In that night did God appear unto Solomon, and said unto him, Ask what I shall give thee. And Solomon said unto God, Thou hast shewed great mercy unto David my father, and hast made me to reign in his stead. Now, O LORD God, let thy promise unto David my father be established: for thou hast made me king over a people like the dust of the earth in multitude. Give me now wisdom and knowledge, that I may go out and come in before this people: for who can judge this thy people, that is so great? And God said to Solomon, Because this was in thine heart, and thou hast not asked riches, wealth, or honour, nor the life of thine enemies, neither yet hast asked long life; but hast asked wisdom and knowledge for thyself, that thou mayest judge my people, over whom I have made thee king: Wisdom and knowledge is granted unto thee; and I will give thee riches, and wealth, and honour, such as none of the kings have had that have been before thee, neither shall there any after thee have the like.” 2 Chronicles 1:6-12, KJV.
-
Yahweh in the Morning: Our God is Our King
People who attended any of the conferences–youth and leaders—at the Catholic Charismatic (and Franciscan) University of Steubenville in the early 1980’s will remember the group Emmanuel. Our podcast this week kicks off Emmanuel’s second album, Yahweh in the Morning, with the track Our God is Our King.Yahweh in the Morning (EM002) was released in 1979. The people involved were as follows:
- Emmanuel Members
- Mike Clark
- Tom Cramer
- Mary Crienjak
- Dave Fatula
- John and Barbara Flaherty
- Julia Norton
- Cincy Teynor
- Betty Jo Thompson
- Producer: Martin Leifeld
- Director: Elsie Luke
- Recording Engineer: Henry Root
More information on this and Emmanuel’s previous album can be found here.
- Emmanuel Members
-
A Good Reason Why Stocks Are Going Up
I suspected this for some time, but now this from Jack Crooks, Black Swan Trading:
In the chart below it shows the Dow Jones Industrial Average (black line) compared to the Dow Jones Industrial Average Multiplied by the US$ Index (red line), both are a monthly price series. What we noticed is despite the very nice surge in the unadjusted Dow, when adjusted for the falling dollar it is still well off its old highs made back in May 2000 …
Anyone care to offer some conjectures, implications, guesses, or logic …
Our attempts are these:
1. Stocks represent ownership of real assets in the real world. And said assets (just like gold) should reflect "real purchasing power". Thus, a falling dollar means said assets should go higher, all things being equal (ceteris paribus for the economic literati among us).
2. International investors see the Dow as cheap thanks to said dollar demise.
3. The P in P/E (price earnings ratio) is bid higher precisely because the E in the equation is rising thanks to a falling dollar. And of the E generated from overseas sales relative to domestic tends to rise because currency translation benefits back into dollars. When the collective Ps for multinationals (which are a very big part of the Dow) are bid up, the index follows in kind. -
The Catholic Calendar Script
One of the more popular features of this site is the Anglican Calendar Script, which announces the current liturgical event (Sunday, saint’s day, etc.) according to the traditional Anglican liturgical scheme. I’ve gotten requests to expand it to include other liturgical calendars (TEC, RCC, etc.)
Well, it looks like another has risen to the challenge. For you Roman Catholics who want something similar, the Hectorville (South Australia) Parish Music Ministry has taken the Anglican script and modified it for the Roman Catholic calendar. This is very much a "work in progress" so take a look at it, try it and give your feedback to its author.
One major reason why I never took a run at doing this for the Catholic liturgical year is that the whole business of "ordinary time," starting after Epiphany and leaping over Lent, Easter and Pentecost to land in the North American summer (Australian winter,) makes programming a lot more complicated than it is for its traditional Anglican counterpart. So kudos to the brave soul at Hectorville Parish who has taken on this task!
-
The Latin Mass and the Nature of Worship
Pope Benedict XVI has certainly been "on a roll" lately with his pronouncements.
For one thing, he reminded everyone that it is the considered opinion of the Roman Catholic Church that many–if not most–non-Catholic Christian churches cannot be properly called a church. This kind of thing is not new; I dealt with this a long time ago in the piece We May Not Be a Church After All. Protestant churches just need to deal with this, both as they relate to the Roman Catholic Church and to prevent a repeat of its mistakes in their own organisations.
But a more visible change coming from the current Pontiff is encapsulated in his pronouncement Summorum Pontificum, which makes it easier for parishes to celebrate the traditional Latin Mass. Many non-Catholics are mystified by this move, so perhaps we can explore these issues in a more informed way than we see in some places.
First, some history: the ritual (or more properly the liturgy) of the Mass that the Pope is opening up is the so-called "Tridentine" Mass, which was formalised at the Council of Trent. From then until 1970 this Mass was the rite by which it was celebrated in the Roman Catholic Church. Until the Second Vatican Council it was necessary to celebrate this Mass in Latin; after that time it could be celebrated in the vernacular.
In 1970 the Tridentine Mass was replaced with the Novus Ordo Missae, the "new order" of the Mass. This Mass was made obligatory; it was not permitted to celebrate the Tridentine after that. (I recreate how that actually impacted Catholics and others in my book The Ten Weeks; a more technical treatment of the whole transition can be found here.) Since that time–and especially under John Paul II and Benedict XVI–there has been a loosening of the restrictions on celebrating the Tridentine Mass, and the current pronouncement is yet another step in this process.
But, you ask, why would anyone–other than Latin students–want to celebrate the Mass in Latin? It’s hard for anyone who has not been a part of Roman Catholicism to understand the appeal of this church to start with. But the whole Latin Mass business is tied up in a larger issue: whether our corporate worship is primarily for the purpose of affirming us as a Christian community or for directing worshipers toward God. The tug of war between the two has been going on for a long time, and the revival of the Latin Mass is yet another movement of the rope.
Although Pentecostals and Charismatics make a big deal of the times when the Israelites worshiped corporately (thus the endless repetition of 2 Chr 7:14,) the truth is that most of the worship surrounding the temple in Jerusalem was sacrificial in nature, thus very "vertical" in nature. (It was also largely liturgical in nature, contrary to popular opinion.) It was done to rectify man’s relationship with God. On the other hand, by the time Our Lord walked on the earth, between trips to the Temple Jews worshiped in synagogues, which had more of a "horizontal" component, i.e., an act of the community in addition to turning focus towards God.
The New Testament church carried over many habits from the synagogue, even with that "sacred pledge" (to use Bossuet’s expressive phrase) of the Eucharist, which was a community meal. (The results of that practice were uninspiring, which led to its abandonment.) However, as time passed, and the role of the Church assumed more parallels with Temple Judaism, the worship moved to a more "vertical" mode, a trend encouraged both by having the Eucharist as the normal setting for Christian worship and celebrating it in a language many worshipers didn’t understand.
One major result of the Reformation was an abrupt reversal of this trend. How abrupt the jolt was depends on the church; it ranged from a relatively mild change of course (Anglicanism) to a complete redefinition of the church (Anabaptism.) In Roman Catholicism itself, the "vertical" model of worship was enshrined for centuries, until the liturgical reforms of the 1960’s. Part of the rationale of these reforms was to put a more "horizontal" (community) emphasis on the Mass, which would complement a fuller role of the laity in the church. In addition to changing language and liturgy, the priest was now to stand behind the altar and face the people, rather than having his back to the altar and facing God. This one change does more to symbolise the intent of the reforms than even the language change.
The result of this has been that, for the last forty years, we have had a more "horizontal/community" emphasis in the celebration of the Mass. Unfortunately, in the hands of people who have more faith in faith than in God, the results of this can be pretty sappy. We are now seeing another reversal of trend with people who want their worship to be more God-directed. This can be seen in much of the "praise and worship" movement, although how successful this really is is a matter of debate. In Roman Catholicism, this manifests itself in part with a desire for the "Tridentine" Mass, and it is to these people that the current Pope is appealing to.
There are many things about the Roman Catholic Church that I find unacceptable, the concept of the Mass as a sacrifice being one and their view of the role of the church being another. But the idea that our worship of God be more directed towards him and not towards each other is appealing. If we would actually implement this on a meaningful basis, and direct our attention upward, then our life with those around us would be greater reflection of the ideal that Jesus Christ has set before us.
-
Holding the Property and the Organisation of the Church
Dr. Peter Toon’s long discussion of the organisation of various churches and their relationships to holding their property is a great idea but, as is the case with many things about our legal system, is also easier said than done.
He is correct that congregational churches (Baptists, Assemblies of God, etc.) tend to have their local churches hold the property. He is also correct that centralised churches (Roman Catholic, Methodist, Church of God, etc.) tend to have their denomination (or diocese) hold the property in trust. In these cases the holding of the property corresponds to the governance of the church.
This is not, however, an absolute necessity. It is certainly possible for a church that governs itself centrally to have the property of the local churches/parishes held by those entities, although this would tend to dilute the power of the central church government. It’s also possible (but much less likely) for the reverse to be true. The legal structure of property holding and the governance of the church do not have to follow each other rigidly.
In the case of the Episcopal Church, as with many things Anglican, we have a muddle (or, to use a misused phrase, a via media.)
In many ways TEC falls between a rigidly centralised church and a congregational one. Its episcopal form of government suggest centralisation, but its "democratic" houses and selection of ministers suggest a more congregational way.
At one time the property holding reflected this, but the adoption of the Dennis Canon in 1979 put TEC on par with more completely centralised churches by placing all of the property to be held in trust for TEC. The problem that most parishes that attempt to secede from the church run into is that U.S. courts are loathe to interfere with the internal affairs of churches. They reason as follows: since the parishes were part of TEC, and TEC decided to uniformly centralise the property, then it is the church’s decision and the courts don’t have anything to say about it.
The one place where secession makes the most headway is California, where the courts (for the most part) apply "neutral legal principles" to the issue. There, they look at the way the property is titled and decide on that basis, noting that the Dennis Canon is ex post facto. Whether other states choose to follow this remains to be seen.
The cloud to the silver lining in California is that, should the courts decide to do so, they could use the same "neutral legal principles" to interfere in the workings of the church. Since many churches operate in a very informal legal environment, the consequences of this are unpredictable, especially in the case of settling an internal dispute about leadership or doctrine.
We can debate endlessly what is right and what is not for the TEC to do in response to parishes that want to leave. But that doesn’t have anything to do with what we can expect legally in a property dispute. TEC knows that, in most places, it has the upper hand in this regard, and it is unreasonable to expect them to relent. After all, isn’t the reason parishes want to secede because TEC has departed from basic Christianity? What can you expect?
As I said almost two years ago, sometimes it pays to yield:
One of the vexing problems that orthodox Episcopal parishes face in separating themselves from the ECUSA is the fact that the ECUSA holds the property in trust through the so-called "Dennis Canon" (which may in fact have never been properly enacted.) Parishes’ success in getting their property has been spotty due to variations in state laws and the way parish property was titled in the first place.
Sometimes, though, it’s just important to yield, as many orthodox parishes have done. Many years ago, John Wesley was walking through the English countryside when he encountered a single log bridge. Across the bridge was an opponent of his. Someone was going to have to give way, and the two men stood in a standoff.
"I never yield to asses," the opponent declared, holding his ground.
"I always do," Wesley replied, stepping aside.
-
Sir Lionel Luckhoo’s Testimony
This week’s podcast takes us to the testimony of Sir Lionel Luckhoo, the Guyanese lawyer and diplomat.
He held the Guinness Book of World Records place for the largest number of successive murder acquittals (245). He accepted Christ as his Saviour in the midst of his defence of Jim Jones before the Jonestown massacre in 1978.
He gave this testimony in August 1983 at a meeting of the Full Gospel Businessmen’s Fellowship International in Chattanooga, Tennessee.
Update: there is a shorter version of this on YouTube, you can see it below.
-
Modern Palestine?
Although I can’t claim I saw Jesus in a dream as our friends in the More Than Dreams videos did, my saving encounter with Our Lord was a “direct divine intervention.” That being the case, my early Christian formation didn’t get as much help from family and church as one would like. But one of the instructions I did get was to read the Bible. Even that was problematic: Bible studies weren’t a part of our home life, and scrounging a Bible wasn’t easy. But eventually I found one suitable for the task.
Always one to look at charts and maps, the ones in the back intrigued me, especially the one above. It was the mid-1960’s. Where was the state of Israel? And Jordan?
It took a long time to connect the dots, but I eventually realised that this Bible of mine dated from the turn of the twentieth century, and that the provincial structure shown above was that of the Ottoman (Turkish) Empire, thus the name for Jerusalem (el Kuds.) It wasn’t long before British General Allenby would enter the city on foot and change everything. But the map has historical value and thus it’s worth presenting, along with two others below.
Jerusalem at the same time. Note the “quarters” in the city, reflecting the millet system the Turks used to divide their various ethnic and religious groups. The Armenians were soon to suffer grievously at the hands of the Turks, and the Jews were soon to arrive in large numbers preparing for the State of Israel a half century later. The “Mosque Al-Aqsa” is the place after which the Martyrs Brigade is named. 
The area around Jerusalem, obviously a more populous place now than then.
Sailing the Last Voyage with Newton and Pascal
Positive Infinity 