Ship of Fools: Born to Die?

Thread: Born to Die? Board: Purgatory / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=020404

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

From What Child is This? The second stanza

Why lies He in such mean estate,
Where ox and ass are feeding?
Good Christians, fear, for sinners here
The silent Word is pleading.
Nails, spear shall pierce Him through,
The cross be borne for me, for you.
Hail, hail the Word made flesh,
The Babe, the Son of Mary.

My question is, why should we have to bring in the cross in the Christmas story? Isn't the Christmas story about incarnation: God with us, Immanuel, in a man we know as Jesus? Even our creed affirms for us and for our salvation he came (down) to be with us.

He showed us how to live here on earth. How to reach out to the marginalized. How to affirm out brother/sisterhood. How to experience peace in the here and now.

I presented this question on an ELCA Clergy page. They nearly all said without the cross the manager means nothing. My counter to them was what will their children's message be on Christmas Eve/Day? Not one of them said they will say anything about the cross.

Now don't get me wrong. The Cross and Resurrection have their place in the Jesus story, but not at Christmas.

This article bests sums up what I am thinking.

I would like to hear your reactions.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

I once attended a Christmas service at the small Baptist chapel in my mother's village.

The minister spoke very briefly about the manger, the Nativity and so on ... and then in his lilting Welsh accent intoned, 'But come with me to a hill outside Jerusalem, some 33 years later ... three crosses and three men condemned to die ...'

What struck me wasn't just the telescoping of the narrative to the Nativity and the Cross (no Resurrection as I recall) but the skipping over of 30 years of Christ's 'normal' life and his 3 years of ministry and teaching.

Sure, the preacher only had a short time to speak, but it felt like a fast-forward on a video or something ...

Zzzzz-ooootttt!

Never mind all that stables and oxen stuff, the Magi and the Shepherds, little donkeys ... never mind the miracles and the parables, the Sermon on the Mount ... let's get to where the real action took place ...

That was the impression it gave.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

I can't stand the nativity story, I'd prefer if it was all about the Lord's life, death and resurrection.

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

I think a passing reference to the wood of the manger and the wood of the Cross is adequate.
A new birth is a time of New hope. The Hope of the Resurrection following the agony of the Cross is best left for Easter. It’s too heavy for those who like to go into a Church once a year to feel a 'Christmassy'. I'm suspect this might not have been the popular view among Clergy in Christmas' past.

This isn’t discounting the fact that death and resurrection are celebrated every time at the Eucharist, including Christmas Eve. So there is no shortage of opportunity for those wishing to meditate on that one.

Posted by Russ (# 120) on :

I read somewhere that it's a particularly English tradition, to see Christmas as the start of the road to Easter. You get carols like "Seven Joys of Mary"...

Hope lights a candle against the midwinter darkness, that will one day be the Light of the World.

Posted by moonlitdoor (# 11707) on :

Why bring in the marginalised or our sister and brotherhood? If you just want to stick to the nativity story itself, then fair enough. But if you are going to start talking about stuff from his adult life then one aspect is as relevant/irrelevant as another.

Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Now don't get me wrong. The Cross and Resurrection have their place in the Jesus story, but not at Christmas.

So no Eucharist at your place on Christmas, then? (That's unnecessarily snarky, I know.)

I find the verses of Christmas carols that mention the Baby's future demise to be absolutely haunting, and extremely powerful. In fact, we always use one as our fraction anthem on Christmas Eve, and it's always the part that makes me tear up a bit.

I mean, I wouldn't lay it on thick in a children's sermon. But it's undeniably there, and I think it says quite a bit about the cruelty of the world that the Kingdom of God is supplanting.

Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on :

Found it too late: the specific fraction anthem we sing every year is the last two verses of The Infant King (Sing Lullaby).

quote:
Sing lullaby!
Lullaby baby, now a-dozing:
sing lullaby!
Hush, do not wake the infant king.
Soon comes the cross, the nails, the piercing,
then in the grave at last reposing:
sing lullaby!

Sing lullaby!
Lullaby! is the baby awaking?
sing lullaby.
Hush, do not stir the infant king.
Dreaming of Easter, gladsome morning,
conquering death, its bondage breaking:
sing lullaby!

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
My question is, why should we have to bring in the cross in the Christmas story? Isn't the Christmas story about incarnation: God with us, Immanuel, in a man we know as Jesus? Even our creed affirms for us and for our salvation he came (down) to be with us.

From Fred Clark's notes and (personal) rules on Christmas music:

quote:
15. We appreciate Christmas carols with a bit of theological depth and richness, but we don’t care for those that try to cram a whole creed and catechism in there. Save the systematics for the seminary classroom. This is not the place to advocate for your preferred theory of atonement.

It should be noted that these are suggested rules for Christmas music specifically, not anything so broad as "the Christmas story" and how it should be treated.

Posted by Higgs Bosun (# 16582) on :

The third gift of the Magi has been linked to Jesus' death: "myrrh for time of burying."

More significantly, we don't have to wait too far in the explicit biblical narrative for a strong hint of what was to come:

quote:
Then Simeon blessed them and said to Mary, his mother: “This child is destined to cause the falling and rising of many in Israel, and to be a sign that will be spoken against, so that the thoughts of many hearts will be revealed. And a sword will pierce your own soul too.” (Luke 2:34-35)

Jesus himself said that he had come "to give his life as a ransom for many".

There is a danger that if you ignore what the baby did when he grew up, Christmas can be cloyingly sentimental. However, there is also a danger in moving too quickly to Good Friday and Easter, in that wonder at the extraordinary nature of the Incarnation can be lost.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
The Cross and Resurrection have their place in the Jesus story, but not at Christmas.

I suppose there is value in keeping a space in which the cross isn't dragged in if you have a theological culture in which everything has to be about the cross (and a specific interpretation of the cross at that) all the time.
But I don't see that there's any reason to exclude it in a general case.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Higgs Bosun:
The third gift of the Magi has been linked to Jesus' death: "myrrh for time of burying."

More significantly, we don't have to wait too far in the explicit biblical narrative for a strong hint of what was to come:

quote:
Then Simeon blessed them and said to Mary, his mother: “This child is destined to cause the falling and rising of many in Israel, and to be a sign that will be spoken against, so that the thoughts of many hearts will be revealed. And a sword will pierce your own soul too.” (Luke 2:34-35)
Jesus himself said that he had come "to give his life as a ransom for many".

There is a danger that if you ignore what the baby did when he grew up, Christmas can be cloyingly sentimental. However, there is also a danger in moving too quickly to Good Friday and Easter, in that wonder at the extraordinary nature of the Incarnation can be lost.

Aye. Our popular culture tends towards the first error, popular evangelicalism towards the latter. I heard many Christmas sermons that basically saw Jesus' birth as important only as a necessary qualification for his death. I used to think as a child that Jesus grew up in three months and was crucified in the March after his birth. I knew many whose theology would not be greatly upset were that so.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

It's commutative. Advent is meaningless without the life, death and resurrection which is meaningless without Advent. It's all one Incarnation. We don't discuss it ENOUGH. We still don't know what we're talking about.

Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :

Why include references to Easter? Well, one answer is that this is a poem, not a theological treatise, so don't read too much into it. In the same way, I don't mind singing "In the bleak midwinter" even though I know the words are very anachronistic.

Another answer is that these words simply make the connection between the two events. This is the same Christ the King - the baby and the Crucified One. The words don't labour the Easter story, but they do act as a reminder that the Christmas narrative is only part of a much bigger story.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
Why include references to Easter? Well, one answer is that this is a poem, not a theological treatise, so don't read too much into it. In the same way, I don't mind singing "In the bleak midwinter" even though I know the words are very anachronistic.

[TANGENT]I've heard it suggested that they're allegorical, referring to the dead coldness of humanity into which Jesus was born. Maybe. Maybe not.[/TANGENT]

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

C'mon, Herod ordering the killing of all of the babies Massacre of the Innocents, which introduces death right at the start doesn't it?

The Coventry Carol is about this. I think we're all a lot fluffier and sensitive that people from prior ages, who generally lost a few children, watched public executions while picnicking, owned or were owned by others, and generally lived very close to the edges of death. We simply don't get it because we don't live so close to death in our happy non-violent countries in the modern era. Too much Disney and not enough Myanmar.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
C'mon, Herod ordering the killing of all of the babies Massacre of the Innocents, which introduces death right at the start doesn't it?

The Coventry Carol is about this. I think we're all a lot fluffier and sensitive that people from prior ages, who generally lost a few children, watched public executions while picnicking, owned or were owned by others, and generally lived very close to the edges of death. We simply don't get it because we don't live so close to death in our happy non-violent countries in the modern era. Too much Disney and not enough Myanmar.

Thank God. I'm sometimes given to wonder if our ancestors were sociopaths, given the sorts of punishments they thought perfectly reasonable. You know we used to hang seven-year-olds for petty theft?

Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :

[tangent] I saw the subject line and thought you were quoting Act 3, Scene 4 of 'Romeo and Juliet.' [/tangent]

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
our ancestors were sociopaths, given the sorts of punishments they thought perfectly reasonable. You know we used to hang seven-year-olds for petty theft?

I've snipped this as declarative statements. It needs to be put on a t-shirt: "You know we used to hang seven-year-olds for petty theft?"

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

Why bring in the marginalised or our sister and brotherhood? If you just want to stick to the nativity story itself, then fair enough. But if you are going to start talking about stuff from his adult life then one aspect is as relevant/irrelevant as another.

Take a look at the nativity story. Mary was betrothed, but not married, to Joseph, yet she was inexplicably pregnant. When she was about to give birth they could not find room in the end and had to give birth in a manager. The people who first responded to the good news were marginalized people--shepherds.

Within two years of his birth, Mary and Joseph were forced to flee to Egypt as refugees.

So he knew what it meant to be marginalized from the get-go. Look at the story of when the Son of Man returns and separates the sheep from the non-sheep. Look at the criteria the SoM uses. These were people Jesus encountered throughout his life.

When I wrote about caring for the marginalized I was summing up the article I linked to. Your argument is with Mr. Hanson, the author of the article.

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
I find the verses of Christmas carols that mention the Baby's future demise to be absolutely haunting, and extremely powerful.

As do I, with the verse quoted in the OP, being a prime example. And there’s John Jacob Niles’ “I Wonder as I Wander,” which is based on fragments of an Appalachian folk hymn.

quote:
I mean, I wouldn't lay it on thick in a children's sermon. But it's undeniably there, and I think it says quite a bit about the cruelty of the world that the Kingdom of God is supplanting.

This. The cross—and the Resurrection—are already in the text of the Nativity story; they’re inextricably bound up with the Incarnation. They don’t need to be the focus, but I think they need to be acknowledged. To fail to do so is, I think, failing to tell the Nativity story in its fullness.

Posted by teddybear (# 7842) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I once attended a Christmas service at the small Baptist chapel in my mother's village.

The minister spoke very briefly about the manger, the Nativity and so on ... and then in his lilting Welsh accent intoned, 'But come with me to a hill outside Jerusalem, some 33 years later ... three crosses and three men condemned to die ...'

What struck me wasn't just the telescoping of the narrative to the Nativity and the Cross (no Resurrection as I recall) but the skipping over of 30 years of Christ's 'normal' life and his 3 years of ministry and teaching.

Sure, the preacher only had a short time to speak, but it felt like a fast-forward on a video or something ...

Zzzzz-ooootttt!

Never mind all that stables and oxen stuff, the Magi and the Shepherds, little donkeys ... never mind the miracles and the parables, the Sermon on the Mount ... let's get to where the real action took place ...

That was the impression it gave.

Have you ever read St. Thomas Christmas sermon from
Murder in the Cathedral? I think it holds the perfect answer to your question.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:

quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Now don't get me wrong. The Cross and Resurrection have their place in the Jesus story, but not at Christmas.
So no Eucharist at your place on Christmas, then? (That's unnecessarily snarky, I know.)

I find the verses of Christmas carols that mention the Baby's future demise to be absolutely haunting, and extremely powerful. In fact, we always use one as our fraction anthem on Christmas Eve, and it's always the part that makes me tear up a bit.

I mean, I wouldn't lay it on thick in a children's sermon. But it's undeniably there, and I think it says quite a bit about the cruelty of the world that the Kingdom of God is supplanting.

I largely agree. Now I have recently come to a church which has Eucharist on Christmas Eve (unusual for Nonconformism in my experience) and I am finding this a bit jarring. Although I certainly want to think about the entire "Jesus story", to actually have Communion on Christmas night seems to be pointing the spotlight a little too strongly in the wrong direction.

I'm using "Sing lullaby" during the service, by the way.

Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on :

I think there are two things going on here, especially in evangelical churches.

First up, and if I am feeling malicious, lots of preachers don’t know how to preach about the incarnation. [Two face]

The crucifixion feels like much safer ground to them.

Secondly, Christmas is one of those times when people tend to come to church who don’t attend the rest of the year. Consequently preachers feel that it is very important to set out the Plan of Salvation™ and their version of the gospel necessarily involves talking about the crucifixion.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
I think there are two things going on here, especially in evangelical churches.

First up, and if I am feeling malicious, lots of preachers don’t know how to preach about the incarnation. The crucifixion feels like much safer ground to them.

Yes - certainly in the past some Evangelicals were so keen to express Christ's divinity that they ended up in Docetism. Not sure if that's quite so true today.

quote:
[QB}Secondly, Christmas is one of those times when people tend to come to church who don’t attend the rest of the year. Consequently preachers feel that it is very important to set out the Plan of Salvation™ and their version of the gospel necessarily involves talking about the crucifixion. [/QB]

Absolutely true, although only in the more "strait-laced" Evangelical churches I suspect. I've heard something very similar done in "High Church" Anglicanism, too.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Yes - certainly in the past some Evangelicals were so keen to express Christ's divinity that they ended up in Docetism.

Oddly enough it was John Wimber & co. that pulled me back from that particular brink.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by moonlitdoor:
Why bring in the marginalised or our sister and brotherhood? If you just want to stick to the nativity story itself, then fair enough. But if you are going to start talking about stuff from his adult life then one aspect is as relevant/irrelevant as another.

And indeed his Mum preached a damn good sermon on the marginalized shortly after his conception, but still before his birth.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
And there’s John Jacob Niles’ “I Wonder as I Wander,” which is based on fragments of an Appalachian folk hymn.

I thought of that as soon as I read the thread title. Here are the words of the first stanza.

I wonder as I wander out under the sky.
How Jesus the savior was born for to die,
For poor ornery people like you and like I,
I wonder as I wander, out under the sky.

For me this emphasizes what a wonderful thing the incarnation was, that Jesus should do this for 'poor ornery people like you and like I'

Moo

Moo

Posted by Humble Servant (# 18391) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Higgs Bosun:
The third gift of the Magi has been linked to Jesus' death: "myrrh for time of burying."

Matt 2:11 is the only mention of myrrh in the nativity story. It doesn't explain what it was for. Myrrh is a powerful antiseptic and used in medicine. Appropriate for a child destined for a healing ministry. Myrrh is present at the burial, but that is the only biblical association it has with death. It is mostly used as a perfume in the OT.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:

quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
And there’s John Jacob Niles’ “I Wonder as I Wander,” which is based on fragments of an Appalachian folk hymn.
I thought of that as soon as I read the thread title. Here are the words of the first stanza.

I wonder as I wander out under the sky.
How Jesus the savior was born for to die,
For poor ornery people like you and like I,
I wonder as I wander, out under the sky.

For me this emphasizes what a wonderful thing the incarnation was, that Jesus should do this for 'poor ornery people like you and like I'

Moo

Moo

Even ones who write awkward grammar?

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

(what does onery mean anyway? We don't have that word here)

Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
(what does onery mean anyway? We don't have that word here)

Here you go: the definition of 'ornery.'

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
(what does ornery mean anyway? We don't have that word here)

Here you are.. The dictionary definition does not capture the full force of the word.

As far as the grammar is concerned, many people in the Appalachians speak a local dialect.

Moo

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Had that been the sermon at the Baptist chapel in South Wales on that occasion, teddybear, then I'd have been delighted.

As it was ...

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
(what does ornery mean anyway? We don't have that word here)
Here you are.. The dictionary definition does not capture the full force of the word.

As far as the grammar is concerned, many people in the Appalachians speak a local dialect.

Moo

I was thinking of the "like you and like I" where I think virtually the entire English speaking world would use "me". It really jarred my ears.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I was thinking of the "like you and like I" where I think virtually the entire English speaking world would use "me". It really jarred my ears.

I am reminded of the Doors:

I'm gonna love you
till the stars fall from the sky
For you and I.

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I can't stand the nativity story, I'd prefer if it was all about the Lord's life, death and resurrection.

'All about the Lord's life' doesn't include the how, why and where that life began then?

Admittedly, I could probably have lived a reasonably happy Christian life with only Mark's and John's gospel, and none of Luke's or Matthew's narratives.

Nevertheless, it does seem to be rather important to the Christian religion that the humanity of Jesus is fairly concretely established.

Sidelining the nativity, arguably, is just another excuse to sideline the role of women; not even the mother of God is allowed to get a look-in? Her conflict, her obedience? Her prophetic speech? And Elizabeth can go whistle; to say nothing of the sheer unimportance of the prophet Anna? Female AND old. Who wants to know about them? Skip all that girly stuff about giving birth - bleurggh!!

Seriously though, perhaps for some of us, seeing women as proactively important in the life of Christ and the purposes of God - and in particularly female ways - is rather a good thing, even if it is all rather a bore to others.

Which leads me to the tradition of midnight communion at Christmas. Even in the low-church days of my old Church of Ireland place, midnight communion was still pretty much a 'must'. I suppose it's the 'flesh' connection.

God came in flesh as a baby (born in Bethlehem - the 'house of bread').
God institutes the sharing of his flesh and blood with his followers via Jesus and the Last Supper.
God died in the flesh as sacrifice.
God triumphs in the flesh as resurrected Lord.
God lives in the flesh and blood of the Sacrament, as spiritual nourishment for Christ's followers, who share the flesh until his next coming.

What could be more appropriate when celebrating the nativity of the Word in Flesh, by communicating his Flesh as he commanded; the Bread of the world born in the House of Bread.

Rather elegant.

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

And here we go again: we don't want the cross in the Christmas story. Why is that I wonder? Is it because we just want a nice God to walk around with us and make us feel good?
Is it because we don;t actually want the angels' message, 'Unto you is born this day a Saviour who is Christ the Lord?
Or is it because we don't want him to be called Jesus 'for he shall save his people from their sins'?

The whole reason, according to Matthew and Luke was not merely for God to be with us, but for God to be our Saviour - which, I'm sorry to remind you, necessarily involved the cross.

Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Higgs Bosun:
The third gift of the Magi has been linked to Jesus' death: "myrrh for time of burying."

Has anyone else seen the cartoon in last week's Private Eye? An eastern looking chap is in a department store saying, "I want something who's bitter perfume, breathes a life of gathering gloom".

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

I don't think that's the case at all, Mudfrog, but I can only speak for myself though ...

It's not that I don't want the Cross at Christmas, it's more a case that fast-forwarding to that skips over a whole swathe of 'the Christ event'.

It's reductionist.

Why not have Jesus martyred by Herod during the Massacre of the Innocents?

Why bother with the teaching and the Parables, the miracles, the Sermon on The Mount?

Why not have Herod's troops or Roman soldiers standing by to execute Christ as he lay in swaddling cloths in the manger?

If anyone's preaching a truncated Gospel it's those who telescope everything down to simplistic sound-bites whilst imagining they are preaching 'the whole counsel of God.'

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

There are ways of alluding to the Cross and Resurrection and anticipating other aspects and features of Christ's life and ministry, of course, whilst concentrating on the 'seasonal' aspects.

I read somewhere, I think, that most of 'Hark the herald angels sing ...' was originally an Easter hymn.

I'm sure there are better ways of making the link than to say something like,'Well, this Nativity stuff is all very nice but let's leave all that for now and let's go straight to Calvary ...'

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

As well as a season for excess and over-indulgence, Christmas seems the season for preacherly guilt inducement.

Our local paper has a church news page and this week it featured the usual rants lifted from parish magazines, vicars whingeing about people only coming to church once a year because they want the carols and the festive atmosphere ...

Yadda yadda yadda ...

I can understand why they do it but it's so boringly predictable.

Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :

I don't necessarily think it's important to preach the Cross per se at Christmas.

I think, it is important to mention that the Incarnation doesn't mean that God entered into a perfect human life, free of suffering, disease, loss and disappointment. The problem with focusing on the Nativity exclusively is that we are left with a happy ending story of a baby getting presents, and being worshiped.

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I was thinking of the "like you and like I" where I think virtually the entire English speaking world would use "me". It really jarred my ears.
I am reminded of the Doors:

I'm gonna love you
till the stars fall from the sky
For you and I.

Yeah, I can think of a number of song lyrics where, for the sake of rhyme, “I” is used where grammatically it should be “me.” It’s not all that unusual.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
I don't necessarily think it's important to preach the Cross per se at Christmas.

I think, it is important to mention that the Incarnation doesn't mean that God entered into a perfect human life, free of suffering, disease, loss and disappointment. The problem with focusing on the Nativity exclusively is that we are left with a happy ending story of a baby getting presents, and being worshiped.

Sure, but I can't remember the last time I attended any kind of Christmas service, whether liberal or evangelical or all stations in between where there wasn't some kind of reference to it being more than nice Nativity scenes and shepherds.

Heck, if it's a liberal outfit they'll certain mention refugees or something along those lines if nothing else ...

If it's an evangelical one then there'll be some attempt to 'get the Gospel in' which usually means some kind of reference to sin and the atonement - and there's material from carols that are readily to hand ...

'Cast out our sin and enter in
Be born in us today'

I've heard that applied evangelistically before now and I'm sure plenty of us here have too.

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:

quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
And there’s John Jacob Niles’ “I Wonder as I Wander,” which is based on fragments of an Appalachian folk hymn.
I thought of that as soon as I read the thread title. Here are the words of the first stanza.

I wonder as I wander out under the sky.
How Jesus the savior was born for to die,
For poor ornery people like you and like I,
I wonder as I wander, out under the sky.

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
(what does ornery mean anyway? We don't have that word here)
Here you are.. The dictionary definition does not capture the full force of the word.

True. But part of the force of the word lies in its origin as a form of “ordinary.” I think in this text Niles plays off the various layers of meaning: “ordinary people,” “stubborn people,” “irritating people,” ….

Incidentally, in his lyrics Niles wrote is as “on’ry,” not “ornery,” to reflect local pronunciation.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

That's the only way I've ever pronounced it, and I've never been to Appalachia.

Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :

In an icon of the Nativity, the stable where Jesus is born is a cave. And his manger-bed is usually made of stone, resembling a sarcophagus. This is meant to tie the beginning of the story with the end. It's all there. And the midwives washing Jesus are using a basin shaped like a baptismal font. This ties the beginning of the story to the baptism of our Lord, the beginning of the years of his ministry.

It's all one story, and each piece of the story evokes the whole. You don't have to beat on it or force it. It's all there.

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :

Hi, Josephine! Glad to see you! Hope you and your thieving pet rodent [Biased]

have very happy holidays.

Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on :

"’Tis mystery all: th’Immortal dies:
Who can explore His strange design?
In vain the firstborn seraph tries
To sound the depths of love divine.
’Tis mercy all! Let earth adore,
Let angel minds inquire no more."

Charles Wesley

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

I like that, Josephine.

As an Orthophile and iconodule I admire the way the various threads interweave 'seamlessly' in the Liturgy, the Calendar, feasts, fasts and festivals of the Orthodox year.

Of course, these days it all has to be reinforced by catechesis and systematic instruction. It can't be assumed that people will simply imbibe it all by osmosis and by regular attendance, which would have been the hope and expectation back in the day in both Eastern and Western Christianity.

I can understand how the desire to 'force' or highlight things, to 'preach for conversion' came about, leading to what we find today in contemporary revivalism with its 'calls to action' - the 'going down the front', or 'going forward' (terms which seem to have replaced the 'altar call' in these settings).

My wife helps out with the he choir in a lovely 14th century church a few miles north of here. She practices with them on a Friday night in exchange for singing with them on high-days and holidays and at the occasional wedding.

I go along to things like Candlemas, the occasional Evensong and their Nine Lessons and Carols in the Advent season.

These are conducted without commentary with the appointed readings, seasonal hymns and anthems. I find it's 'all there', but only, of course because I'm familiar with the pattern,the narratives,the readings.

That can't allows be assumed, of course, which is why the evangelical vicar in our local parish will keep interrupting the flow to 'explain' things, add glosses, chip in with this that and the other. I don't go there much these days but when I do I wish he'd stick to the script as it speaks for itself ...

In 'mission' terms there has to be a balance somewhere, but I'm finding the presentation in some of these places to be increasingly 'forced' and somewhat contrived. Things dumbed down.

Anyhow, good to 'see' you and I wish you a blessed Nativity season.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

Luke talks of ‘salvation’ in the nativity narrative without mentioning the cross – see the benedicus and the visitation.

It would seem that the incarnation, by itself, brings salvation.

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Luke talks of ‘salvation’ in the nativity narrative without mentioning the cross – see the benedicus and the visitation.

Yes, but …

quote:
It would seem that the incarnation, by itself, brings salvation.

I think that’s taking your examples from Luke beyond what he said or meant. I think the better reading, and as I understand it the orthodox reading, are that the Incarnation (including the life and ministry of Jesus), the crucifixion and the Resurrection are part of one salvific event.

[ 23. December 2017, 16:34: Message edited by: Nick Tamen ]

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Yes, indeed Nick.

It's this filleting approach again.

It seems everyone does it, liberals, evangelicals ...

I sometimes find the Orthodox 'maximalist' approach somewhat intimidating, but I can understand why they maintain that given the tendency in the West to fillet everything down into bite-size chunks or to disaggregate certain aspects and brandish them around as if they're the big be-all and end-all ...

'We are the BAPTIST Church ...', 'We are the SALVATION Army ...', 'We are a Holiness / Charismatic / Reformed / Yadda Yadda Yadda movement ...', 'We preach Christ crucified ... what was that about the moral teachings again?'

We all do it, though.

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
The whole reason, according to Matthew and Luke was not merely for God to be with us, but for God to be our Saviour - which, I'm sorry to remind you, necessarily involved the cross.

This made me think of the famous critique of liberalism by Helmut Richard Niebuhr, hardly a card-carrying, orthodox evangelical: "A God without wrath brought men without sin into a kingdom without judgment through the ministrations of a Christ without a cross."

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Sure, but I don't detect anyone on this thread actually stating or implying any such thing ... (although leo might have come close)

Otherwise it's simply Mudfrog doing his censorious evangelical preacher bit for Christmas ...

Perhaps it's as much of a Christmas tradition as some of the local clergy hereabouts blarting on about how people are only coming to church at Christmas out of nostalgia or to sing happy carols and soak up the Christmassy atmosphere ...

Reverend Ebenezer Scrooge meets the Puritan ban on mince pies.

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I don't think that's the case at all, Mudfrog, but I can only speak for myself though ...

It's not that I don't want the Cross at Christmas, it's more a case that fast-forwarding to that skips over a whole swathe of 'the Christ event'.

It's reductionist.

Why not have Jesus martyred by Herod during the Massacre of the Innocents?

Why bother with the teaching and the Parables, the miracles, the Sermon on The Mount?

Why not have Herod's troops or Roman soldiers standing by to execute Christ as he lay in swaddling cloths in the manger?

If anyone's preaching a truncated Gospel it's those who telescope everything down to simplistic sound-bites whilst imagining they are preaching 'the whole counsel of God.'

The simple answer is that he had to give his life. He had to lay it down of his own accord - no one would take it from him.

As for his teaching; well, hardly any of it is original. It's all Rabbinic teaching already in circulation.

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

Gamaliel, reading the comments you are making about me... have you got out of the wrong side of the bed? You seem a tad hostile to and about me this evening.

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Luke talks of ‘salvation’ in the nativity narrative without mentioning the cross – see the benedicus and the visitation.

It would seem that the incarnation, by itself, brings salvation.

How?

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Apologies to you and to the Hosts and Admins if I sounded as hominem, Mudfrog.

I hear you no ill will and wish you and yours a very Merry Christmas.

I did find your comments unnecessarily censorious, though, particularly when nobody here appeared to be advocating a Crossless Christianity.

Leo probably isn't either, although I suspect his take on the atonement would be very different to yours.

I've also been debating with Jamat elsewhere and that can make me over-react somewhat when dealing with other conservative evangelicals on these boards.

Anyhow, my general point is non-partisan as I think all of us, whether liberal, conservative or whatever else in our theology tend to fast-forward to our favourite bits whatever the topic.

I have no issue whatsoever to allusions to Calvary at Christmas or indeed any other time of year.

What I do have a problem with is a kind of reductionist obsession with part of the picture instead of trying to take a more holistic view. I'm not accusing evangelicals of that any more than liberals. Both do it in different ways.

Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :

Michelangelo's Pieta has been interpreted to refer to both the Nativity and the Passion. Our Lady, depicted as a young mother holding the infant child, yet foreshadowing the crucified One in her arms.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Luke talks of ‘salvation’ in the nativity narrative without mentioning the cross – see the benedicus and the visitation.

It would seem that the incarnation, by itself, brings salvation.

That's quite a stretch.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Indeed.

And one could equally isolate any other aspect of Christ's life and ministry and say that it was salvific in and of itself.

The whole 'Christ event' is salvific, Jesus is in himself salvific as it were, 'he has become our salvation,' he is Saviour, he is Lord.

Which includes his atoning death, his resurrection and glorious ascension.

We can't pull it all apart and say, 'this bit is salvific but that isn't ...'

We are saved by Christ. The Christ who is Very God of Very God, the first-born of all Creation who proceeds from the Father from eternity, who was born of a virgin and who lived among us, full of grace and truth, who suffered under Pontius Pilate,was crucified dead and buried, who rose again and appeared to his disciples and was taken up in glory. Who will return to judge the living and the dead and of the increase of whose government and peace there will be no end.

Who, 'for us men and our salvation ...'

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Luke talks of ‘salvation’ in the nativity narrative without mentioning the cross – see the benedicus and the visitation.

It would seem that the incarnation, by itself, brings salvation.
How?

By uniting God and Man in one person, reconciling them in his body? To me that person then needs to go through death, Resurrection and Ascension to make the reconciliation part of the Godhead in Eternity, but the Incarnation is key.

[ 24. December 2017, 08:05: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Luke talks of ‘salvation’ in the nativity narrative without mentioning the cross – see the benedicus and the visitation.

It would seem that the incarnation, by itself, brings salvation.
How?
By uniting God and Man in one person, reconciling them in his body? To me that person then needs to go through death, Resurrection and Ascension to make the reconciliation part of the Godhead in Eternity, but the Incarnation is key.

Well, God had to be Incarnate in order to die of course.
If there was no need for the cross he could have just turned up, been here, taught a few unoriginal things and lived to a ripe old age.

I'm wondering how he would have shown he was unique?
Others have claimed to be God incarnate too - what marks them out different however is the absence of nailprints in their hands and the evidence of an empty tomb.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Indeed.

And one could equally isolate any other aspect of Christ's life and ministry and say that it was salvific in and of itself.

The whole 'Christ event' is salvific, Jesus is in himself salvific as it were, 'he has become our salvation,' he is Saviour, he is Lord.

Which includes his atoning death, his resurrection and glorious ascension.

We can't pull it all apart and say, 'this bit is salvific but that isn't ...'

We are saved by Christ. The Christ who is Very God of Very God, the first-born of all Creation who proceeds from the Father from eternity, who was born of a virgin and who lived among us, full of grace and truth, who suffered under Pontius Pilate,was crucified dead and buried, who rose again and appeared to his disciples and was taken up in glory. Who will return to judge the living and the dead and of the increase of whose government and peace there will be no end.

Who, 'for us men and our salvation ...'

We're saved anyway, but the full incarnation from conception to resurrection is the only evidence.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

'Taught a few unoriginal things?'

Original or unoriginal, why did he need to teach anything?

Why not simply have the Romans or Herod's soldiers execute him as soon as he born?

I agree with you, on the nail-scars and the spear-wound, the 'sacred head sore wounded' and the empty tomb, of course ...

But let's not fast-forward over everything else to freeze-frame on Calvary without paying due attention to everything else that happened before and after ...

Of course the Cross is the crux of it
... but it's not the Cross in isolation.

I know you aren't saying it is, I'm simply saying why I find certain presentations of these things inappropriate - or less appropriate - at Christmas.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Luke talks of ‘salvation’ in the nativity narrative without mentioning the cross – see the benedicus and the visitation.

It would seem that the incarnation, by itself, brings salvation.
That's quite a stretch.

Not for Simeon in Luke 2 who said he had seen salvation and, presumably, died befire the crucifixion.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Luke talks of ‘salvation’ in the nativity narrative without mentioning the cross – see the benedicus and the visitation.

It would seem that the incarnation, by itself, brings salvation.
How?
By uniting God and Man in one person, reconciling them in his body? To me that person then needs to go through death, Resurrection and Ascension to make the reconciliation part of the Godhead in Eternity, but the Incarnation is key.
Well, God had to be Incarnate in order to die of course.
If there was no need for the cross he could have just turned up, been here, taught a few unoriginal things and lived to a ripe old age.

I'm wondering how he would have shown he was unique?
Others have claimed to be God incarnate too - what marks them out different however is the absence of nailprints in their hands and the evidence of an empty tomb.

Well, I did mention Resurrection and Ascension, but, you know, read what you want me have written if you want. Past caring.

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Luke talks of ‘salvation’ in the nativity narrative without mentioning the cross – see the benedicus and the visitation.

It would seem that the incarnation, by itself, brings salvation.
That's quite a stretch.
Not for Simeon in Luke 2 who said he had seen salvation and, presumably, died befire the crucifixion.

That’s because he had seen Jesus, who—through his incarnation, life, death, resurrection and ascension—was and is salvation. Not by the incarnation alone, but by the totality of the “Jesus event.” Simeon is essentially saying “at last, salvation [Jesus] has arrived. I can die at peace.”

[ 24. December 2017, 16:22: Message edited by: Nick Tamen ]

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:

Of course the Cross is the crux of it
... but it's not the Cross in isolation.

I know you aren't saying it is,

Why keep saying it then?

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Luke talks of ‘salvation’ in the nativity narrative without mentioning the cross – see the benedicus and the visitation.

It would seem that the incarnation, by itself, brings salvation.
That's quite a stretch.
Not for Simeon in Luke 2 who said he had seen salvation and, presumably, died befire the crucifixion.
That’s because he had seen Jesus, who—through his incarnation, life, death, resurrection and ascension—was and is salvation. Not by the incarnation alone, but by the totality of the “Jesus event.” Simeon is essentially saying “at last, salvation [Jesus] has arrived. I can die at peace.”

So, did Simeon know that Saviour, as said on His tin, was going to be crucified?

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:

Of course the Cross is the crux of it
... but it's not the Cross in isolation.

I know you aren't saying it is,
Why keep saying it then?

Things like "Well, God had to be Incarnate in order to die of course" in response to granting the Inacarnation significance in and of itself can give the impression that the idea's just bubbling under the surface, I think.

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

Martin, I don’t know. Luke—whom leo is relying on here—says that Jesus told his companions on the road to Emmaus that everything that had happened in Jerusalem in the previous days was all in the prophets. And Simeon told Mary that a sword would pierce her soul “also.”

Does it matter exactly what Simeon knew, other than that the child Jesus he saw in the Temple was God’s promised salvation?

[ 24. December 2017, 16:48: Message edited by: Nick Tamen ]

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Well said Nick. Thank you. Simeon knew. I should have known that. The pendulum swings to the 'conservative'!

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:

Of course the Cross is the crux of it
... but it's not the Cross in isolation.

I know you aren't saying it is,
Why keep saying it then?
Things like "Well, God had to be Incarnate in order to die of course" in response to granting the Inacarnation significance in and of itself can give the impression that the idea's just bubbling under the surface, I think.

That and the somewhat censorious tone that accompanies such pronouncements, as well as an apparent (rather than actual) diminishing of the moral teachings - 'nothing original' - in order to cut to the chase and get to the Calvary bits ...

I know Mudfrog and the Salvation Army well enough, I think, to recognise that they aren't as reductionist as that, but as Karl says, there is an impression that this may be bubbling away not far below the surface ...

Hence my repetitions.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
That’s because he had seen Jesus, who—through his incarnation, life, death, resurrection and ascension—was and is salvation. Not by the incarnation alone, but by the totality of the “Jesus event.” Simeon is essentially saying “at last, salvation [Jesus] has arrived. I can die at peace.”

Definitely this.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0