July 19, 2010

The Divine Guest: A Sermon

Filed under: Sermons — William Witt @ 2:25 am

Genesis 18: 1-14
Colossians 1: 21-29
Luke 10: 38-42

christ_in_the_house_of_martha_and_maryThere are two stories of divine hospitality in this morning’s readings. The first is the story of the three mysterious visitors to Abraham, one of whom is designated as “The LORD.” There is an Orthodox icon of this event where the three visitors are portrayed as angels; the alternate name for the icon is “The Old Testament Trinity,” and each one of the three figures of the icon is identified as one of the members of the Trinity – the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. That the doctrine of the Trinity was on the mind of the author of Genesis is unlikely, but the point is the same. These three visitors are not just ordinary visitors. This is a personal visit from God to Abraham. God is, as it were, Abraham’s guest.

The second reading is the gospel reading, and it has a similar structure. Jesus visits the home of Mary and Martha, where Martha serves, and Mary sits at Jesus’ feet and listens. This story also has enjoyed a traditional interpretation in the history of the church. Martha has been perceived as an example of the active life, the life of those who must do physical work for a living; and Mary has been portrayed as the example of the contemplative life, that is, of those religious orders who gave themselves over to prayer and contemplation rather than to active service. So Christians have managed to find a way to take a biblical story that challenged Martha’s one-up-manship of Mary, and turn it into a way where they could identify with Mary to encourage one-up-manship over those whom they identified with Martha.

But I do not think that the story is primarily about Mary and Martha, who are the hosts, but about Jesus, who is the Guest. What is God like when God comes to visit us? This side of the resurrection we know the identity of the Divine Guest. Jesus is not just any visitor to Mary and Martha. He is the Son of God, God come among us as a human being. So, once again, God is, as it were, a Guest. This time, God, the Son of God, is the Guest of Mary and Martha. (more…)

June 26, 2010

Second Readings: A Sermon

Filed under: Scripture,Sermons — William Witt @ 10:26 pm

Feast Day of St. John the Baptist
Isaiah 40: 1-11
Acts 13:14b-26
Luke 1:57-80

Old Testament Trinity
In what follows, I am going to depart from the usual way in which responsible expository preachers are supposed to preach sermons. I am not going to focus primarily on the meaning of the biblical texts themselves. Rather, I am going to look at the slightly different question of how it is that we as Christians make sense of the texts, how it is that the church has read these particular texts, and particularly the text in Isaiah. Because, frankly, there is a bit of a problem.

Let me explain what I mean by referring to an icon called The Hospitality of Abraham, that shows three angels sitting around a table. (For backround, see Solrunn Ness, The Mystical Language of Icons, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), pp.36-37) It is based on the story from Genesis 18 in which three men appear to Abraham, and Abraham offers the men hospitality. There are some odd details about the story. The narrative begins by stating that The LORD appeared to Abraham by the oaks of Mamre, and throughout the narrative Abraham speaks to one of the visitors, who promises Abraham that he will have a son, and later he and Abraham have a long discussion about whether or not Sodom is going to be destroyed. Throughout the narrative, this visitor who speaks with Abraham is referred to as the LORD.

The icon has a second name. It is also called “The Old Testament Trinity,” and the Eastern Church in particular has identified these three visitors with the divine Trinity. John of Damascus says: “Abraham did not see the divine nature, for no one has ever seen God, but he saw an image of God and fell down and worshiped.” (See John of Damascus, On Holy Images, part 3, ch. 4.) In the icon, the figure on the left is identified with the Father; the figure on the middle is identified with the pre-existent Word or Logos. The one on the right is identified with the Holy Spirit. (more…)

April 24, 2010

My Sheep Hear My Voice — A Sermon About Election

Filed under: Sermons — William Witt @ 7:24 pm

Psalm 23
Rev. 7:13-17
John 10:22-30

The Good Shepherd
Not that kind of Shepherd!

I want to dissuade you from a certain misreading of this morning’s gospel passage. You can easily find examples of what I mean if you Google “images” and look for “Good Shepherd.”  We are all familiar with those images from the walls of countless Sunday School classrooms, and Children’s Bible Story books.  These are the pictures of a very gentle looking Jesus, holding in one arm an innocent looking little lamb, and a shepherd’s crook in the other.  He is also often accompanied by a flock of grown up sheep, who look up at him adoringly.  This Jesus’ hair is perfectly coiffed, and he is, for some reason, bare footed.  Those who know better might correct me, but I would imagine that there are good reasons why most shepherds wear shoes, preferably boots.  At any rate, it is clear from this morning’s reading that Jesus is not that kind of shepherd.

This morning’s readings are not about Jesus gently holding cuddly lambs in his arms, but about disagreement and division.  John 10:22-30 is the second of two Shepherd parables in this chapter, and takes place two months after the first one, at the Feast of the Dedication of the Temple, what we know as Hanukkah.  The Feast of the Dedication is the celebration of the Maccabees’ re-dedication of the temple after the defeat of the Seleucid King Antiochus Ephiphanes, who had desecrated the temple by offering pagan sacrifice there.  (It’s all in the Apocrypha.)  Symbolically, Jesus accomplishes in person what the Maccabees tried to do.  He is the new temple. (more…)

March 29, 2010

The Hidden King — A Palm Sunday Sermon

Filed under: Sermons — William Witt @ 5:00 am

Luke 19:29-40; 22:39-23:56

Palm SundayThe story of the Hidden King is one that we are familiar with from many fairy tales and other stories—stories like The Prince and the Pauper, King Arthur, The Lord of the Rings, and the Frog Prince. It is the story of a king whose identity is unknown by those around him. The whole point of the story is that although the king is the king no one except the king knows who he really is. Of course, the king does not have to be a king—as we know from Cinderella–but it is usually a king.

A central irony of the story is that the king does not look like or act like a king is supposed to act. A king is not supposed to be a frog. The girl who cleans the ashes out of the fire place is not supposed to marry the prince. At some point in the story there is usually a trial—a time when those who do not believe that the king who does not look like a king is a king is challenged to prove that he is the king. At the time of the trial, the king stands alone because only he knows whether he is the true king, and it is only the outcome of the trial that can reveal the true king. And there are often pretenders to the throne. How do we decide which one is the real king? (more…)

February 7, 2010

Whatever It Is, I’m (Not Necessarily) Against It!

Filed under: Anglicanism,Christianity and Politics,The North American Anglican Province — William Witt @ 7:36 am

I used to be a regular participant at the two most frequented “conservative” Episcopal/Anglican blogs. I refuse to comment at one at all any more, and do no more than make the occasional comment at the other.

Why? While I consider myself an orthodox Anglican, I do not in any sense of the word consider myself a “conservative.” I reject the term “conservative” when applied to orthodox Christianity because, first, it is a meaningless term. “Conservative” only makes sense as an adjective. “Conservative” as to what? What do I think it worthwhile to “conserve”? Furthermore, “conservative” only makes sense in a spectrum from “conservative” to “moderate” to “progressive,” a spectrum in which both ends and middle constantly shift. A generation ago, I would have been considered a “moderate” in the Episcopal Church. Without having moved, the same positions I held then, are now considered “conservative” or even “fundamentalist.” Finally, “conservative” too often confuses the realms of politics and religion. To embrace any political ideology, whether it calls itself “conservative” or “progressive” is a betrayal of the gospel. If Jesus Christ is Lord, he stands in judgment on all political positions.

However, “conservative” can also mean “reactionary,” and this is more and more what the term means on the two most widely read “conservative” Episcopal/Anglican blogs. A “reactionary” is someone whose position can be summarized in the lines from Groucho Marx’s song from the movie Horsefeathers:

“I don’t know what they have to say
It makes no difference anyway;
Whatever it is, I’m against it!”
(more…)

January 25, 2010

Newman’s Incoherence

Filed under: Anglicanism,Development of Doctrine,Theology — William Witt @ 4:43 am

In a previous blog post in which I listed a number of theological principles I hoped someday to discuss further, I had written the following:

On the question of doctrinal development, the fundamental choice is between Newman’s and Barth’s understanding of the doctrine of the Trinity. The issue of continuity between (1) God’s revelation in the history of Israel, Christ, the apostolic Church: (2) the canonical Scriptures; and (3) the post-apostolic Church, must be decided theologically, in terms of the inherent intelligibility of the subject matter of revelation, not by alien philosophical criteria rooted in such historical conundrums as the relation between the one and the many, or problems of epistemological skepticism.

At some point I hope to come back to this discussion, especially as it touches on Barth. In the meanwhile, this is an ongoing contribution to a series of discussions on doctrinal development, and, particularly on John Henry Newman’s own contribution. (For previous discussion, see here, here, here, and here.) In what follows I intend to focus on Newman’s shorter essay entitled “Faith and Private Judgment,” to which I find contemporary Roman Catholic apologists regularly appeal, to show how it casts doubt on the coherency of the claims Newman makes about development in his Essay on the Development of Doctrine. (John Henry Newman, “Faith and Private Judgement,” Discourses Addressed to Mixed Congregations (London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1897), pp. 192-213; An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine (London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1920).)

My argument in what follows is that Newman’s approach is philosophical, primarily having to do with a concern for epistemological certainty, rather than a properly theological argument based on the nature of revelation, and the continuity between God’s revelation in Christ, the canonical Scriptures, and the post-apostolic church. Moreover, as a philosophical argument, Newman’s position is incoherent. (more…)

January 13, 2010

Presence and Estrangement: A Mystery Sermon

Filed under: Sermons — William Witt @ 12:42 am

Exodus 17: 1-7
Colossians 1: 15-23

This morning’s lectionary readings have to do with a mystery—not a theological mystery, but a mystery in the sense of a detective novel. In a mystery, there are a number of clues, but how they tie together, and how they provide the solution to the problem is not given until everything is wrapped up at the very end of the story. Our Old Testament reading sets the stage for the mystery, by providing us the clues. The epistle reading takes the very same clues and ties them all together to answer the question raised by the Old Testament reading.

If we compare the Exodus reading with the epistle reading from Colossians this morning we will find that both touch on a similar theme, identified by the question the people of Israel ask in the last verse of this morning’s reading: “Is the Lord among us or not?” The question raised has to do with the presence of God, and how we know whether or not God really is present with us. This, then, is the mystery: how is God present with his people? Or is he? (more…)

December 3, 2009

Austin Farrer: Anglican Philosophical Theologian

Filed under: Theology — William Witt @ 7:30 am

Austin Farrer was one of a group of critically orthodox (mostly) Anglican Christians associated with Oxford University during the mid-twentieth century. A smaller literary group connected with this circle—C. .S. Lewis, J. R. R. Tolkien, and, to a lesser extent, Dorothy Sayers and Charles Williams—is more well-known because of the continuing popularity of their (mostly fictional) writings. Farrer was friends with this group (he was Lewis’s confessor and a friend of Lewis and his wife Joy) but belongs more with a lesser-known group of academic theologians and philosophers who also knew and supported each other’s work: the Anglican theologians E.L. Mascall, Basil Mitchell, Michael Ramsey, the (non-Christian) philosopher Iris Murdoch.

There is a need for an accessible introduction to Farrer’s thought for at least two reasons. First, Farrer was a polymath—his published writings include dense philosophical theology, biblical studies, sermons, and popular apologetic expositions of basic Christian faith. He wrote no single systematic theology or one-volume summary that might place his views neatly before the reader in one place. To discover his views on a topic like sin or salvation one has to snatch a passage here or there from a sermon or popular apologetic piece. For example, when Anglican theologian Brian Hebblethwaite wrote an article on Farrer’s doctrine of the incarnation in response to the 1976 essay collection The Myth of God Incarnate (SCM, 1976, John Hick, ed.), he turned to Farrer’s The Glass of Vision (a biblical commentary), Saving Belief (a popular exposition of Christian doctrine), and to some of his sermons.(See “The doctrine of incarnation in the thought of Austin Farrer,” The Incarnation: Collected Essays in Christology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987), 112-125.)

Second, Farrer’s readings are not always accessible. His philosophical theology is demanding and requires considerable intellectual effort to penetrate. His biblical exposition is unlike standard academic fare either of his own or the current generation. So the uninitiated reader benefits from help, first, to grasp Farrer’s overall vision. How do the biblical commentaries fit with the philosophical speculations, if at all? Is there a coherent theological vision that lies behind and is reflected in the sermons and the popular writing? Second, those who lack Farrer’s intellectual acumen can use some help to penetrate the depths of his sometimes demanding arguments. (more…)

November 9, 2009

Where is Jesus Now and What is He up to? A Sermon

Filed under: Sermons — William Witt @ 7:50 am

1 Kings 17: 8-16
Hebrews 9:24-28
Mark 12:38-44

Christ EnthronedWhen I was a child I already showed signs that I was going to be a theologian when I grew up. I used to wonder about things like this: If Jesus is everywhere, then is Jesus sitting in this chair? If I sit down in the chair, will I sit on Jesus? If Jesus is in my heart, how did he get small enough to fit there? If Jesus is in other people’s hearts too, does that mean that there are lots of little Jesus’s, with each person having their own Jesus living in their heart?

Of course, such speculation is nothing new. The Medieval theologian William of Ockham (not one of my favorites by the way) once speculated that in God’s absolute power God could make it possible for the eye of Christ in one part of the eucharistic host to see another part of the body of Christ in another part of the host. And, of course, those who have taken my Anglican way of theology class or other courses at Trinity in church history or sacramental theology should know that a central cause of disagreement at the time of the Reformation had to do with the problem of how we relate the risen body of Christ to the consecrated elements of bread and wine in the Eucharist, with the Lutherans insisting that because Christ’s body is everywhere, there is no problem with him also being present in the bread and wine, while the Reformed insisted that, since Christ’s body is at the right hand of God the Father, he cannot be physically present in the bread and wine, so he must be spiritually present—whatever that means.

As I read the epistle for this morning, I could not help but be reminded of my old childhood questions, and of all these controversies in church history. There is a sense in which the writer of Hebrews is addressing the central issue that lay behind my childhood questions, and behind the Reformation controversies about Eucharistic theology. He situates the issue by laying out a timeline with a beginning point and an end point. The beginning point is the earthly mission of Jesus, in which through his incarnation, life, death, and resurrection Jesus has, says the author, “appeared once for all, at the end of the ages to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.” The end point will be Jesus’ return: “So Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly awaiting him.” (Heb. 9:28). If the beginning point of the timeline is Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection in which he put away sin, and the end point is his returning to bring salvation to those whose sins he has put away, the question that comes to mind is: “Where is Jesus now, and what is he up to?” The writer of the epistle to the Hebrews answers the question this way: “For Christ has entered not into holy places made with hands, which are copies of of the true things, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf.” (Heb. 9:24.) (more…)

September 28, 2009

The Wisdom From Above: A Sermon for New Seminarians

Filed under: Sermons,Trinity School for Ministry — William Witt @ 5:26 am

Morning Prayer
Psalm 37
1 Kings 11:1-13
James 3:13-4:12

When I looked at the passage about King Solomon from 1 Kings this morning, I was very tempted to preach a very short sermon with some concrete applications. So, first, for those of you who are men, and who are beginning your studies here at Trinity School for Ministry—if you can manage to get through seminary with no more than one wife, and no more than one god, you’ll be better off in the long run. For the women, if the guy you’re interested in already has 700 wives, he’s probably not that into you.

On a more serious note, there really does seem to be a common theme uniting all three of the passages we’re read from the Daily Office lectionary this morning. All three passages have something to do with Wisdom.

So, beginning with King Solomon. Solomon is an ambiguous figure in the biblical canon. On the one hand, he is associated with Wisdom. At the beginning of Solomon’s reign as King, God appears to him in a dream, and gives Solomon the option to “Ask what I shall give to you.” In response, Solomon asks for an “understanding mind to govern your people, that I may discern between good and evil.” (1 Kings 3:5,9) Then follow several stories in which Solomon’s great wisdom is demonstrated. There is the story of the two women with one dead child and one living one who ask Solomon to decide which of them is the mother of which. There is the story of Solomon building the temple, and the prayer in which Solomon prays: “O Lord, God of Israel, there is no God like you in heaven above or one earth beneath, keeping covenant and showing steadfast love to your servants who walk before you with all their heart.” There is the story of the covenant that God makes with Solomon, promising to establish his royal throne forever. There is the story of the Queen of Sheba who visits Solomon and tells him: “Your wisdom and prosperity surpass the report that I heard.” (1 Kings 3-10)

Canonically, Solomon has historically been associated with three Wisdom books in the Old Testament canon – Proverbs, Song of Songs, Ecclesiastes. So Solomon is associated with Wisdom the way that Moses is associated with Law or David with Kingship.

And then there is this morning’s passage, where we are told that Solomon “loved many foreign women,” and had 700 wives, and 300 concubines, that his wives “turned away his heart after other gods,” that he sacrificed to Chemosh and Molech. This is a far cry from the Solomon who prayed at the dedication of the temple, “ there is no God like you in heaven above or on earth beneath.” (1 Kings 8:23) This is very different from the advice we find in Proverbs, where the young man is told to “rejoice in the wife of your youth.” (Proverbs 5:18) So the reading about Solomon raises the question, “What is wisdom?”

In the Psalm and in James, we also find ourselves asking the question, “What is wisdom?” The Psalm gives a practical definition of wisdom: “Trust in the Lord, and do good, dwell in the land and befriend faithfulness. Delight yourself in the Lord, and he will give you the desires of your heart.” (Psalm 37: 3-4)

James asks the question right off the bat: “Who is wise and understanding among you? By his good life let him show his works in the meekness of wisdom.” (James 3:13) So, there is a common theme this morning, that of wisdom. What is it? How do we find it? And, in only the few minutes I’m allowed for a sermon this morning, how does that apply to students who are beginning their studies in seminary? (more…)

« Newer Posts — Older Posts »

Non Sermoni Res — William G. Witt is proudly powered by WordPress