The Blessing of Beer (Rite I & II)

"We should thank God for beer and burgundy by not drinking too much of them."
-G.K. Chesterton

"It is a mistake to think that Christians ought all to be teetotallers; Mohammedanism, not Christianity, is the teetotal religion."
-C.S. Lewis

I should like a great lake of beer for the King of Kings.
I should like the angels of Heaven to be drinking it through time eternal.
I should like excellent meats of belief and pure piety.
I should like cheerfulness to be their drinking.
I should like Jesus to be there among them.
-St Brigid of Kildare

BLESSING OF BEER RITE I:

V. Our help is in the name of the Lord.
R. Who made heaven and earth.
V. The Lord be with you.
R. And with thy spirit.

Let us pray.

Bless, + O Lord, this creature beer, which thou hast deigned to produce from the fat of grain: that it may be a salutary remedy to the human race, and grant through the invocation of thy holy name; that, whoever shall drink it, may gain health in body and peace in soul. Through Christ our Lord.
R. Amen.


BLESSING OF BEER RITE II:

P: Our help is in the name of the Lord.
All: Who made heaven and earth.
P: The Lord be with you.
All: And also be with you.

Let us pray.

Lord, bless + this creature, beer, which by your kindness and
power has been produced from kernels of grain, and let it be a
healthful drink for mankind. Grant that whoever drinks it with
thanksgiving to your holy name may find it a help in body and in soul; through Christ our Lord.
All: Amen.

N.T. Wright and Martin Luther on the gospel, justification and imputation: Why Luther's doctrine of imputation captures 'what St Paul really said.'

Martin Luther got it wrong. His interpretation of Paul was ill informed and unduly influenced by a medieval framework. Luther’s struggle with the Roman Catholic Church, the Papacy, indulgences, the role of faith and works in justification, and his own internal struggle to find “a gracious God” led to his conclusion of the doctrine of justification by faith alone. Luther read his own personal struggle into the Epistles of Paul. As a result, Luther misunderstood first-century Judaism to be a religion of “works righteousness,” “legalism” and “Pelagianism.” We now need a fresh reading of Paul in line with first century Judaism and liberation from the “Lutheran Paul.” Paul was not concerned with Judaism as a “religion of works” contrasted with Christianity as a “religion of grace” as was Luther. Paul’s primary concern was with the inclusion of the Gentiles into the people of God.

These are some of the claims of N.T. Wright who states, “The discussions of justification in much of the history of the church, certainly since Augustine, got off on the wrong foot… and they have stayed there ever since.” According to Wright, this “Augustinian” lens must be abandoned if we are to truly understand Paul. Protestants must now reinterpret the “Lutheran” doctrines of justification by faith alone and imputation according to the Pauline Epistles as opposed to an a priori commitment to the principles of the Reformation.

Interestingly, Wright’s own readings of Paul are largely influenced by a reconstructed interpretative framework based upon writings from the period of second temple Judaism(s) combined with the scholarship of Albert Schweitzer, W.D. Davies, Krister Stendahl, Ernst Käsemann and E.P. Sanders. It seems ironic that the very man who has fought many battles against the quest for “the historical Jesus” is now on a quest for “the historical Paul.” Although Wright accuses Luther of reading his own cultural situation into the Pauline Epistles, Wright himself comes up with a doctrine of justification remarkably in tune with the twenty-first century. For Wright, justification requires inclusive community cohesion and ecumenism.

Thesis:

This paper will compare and contrast Wright’s view of the gospel, justification and imputation with Luther’s. More specifically, my hope is to demonstrate that Luther’s doctrine of “imputation” captures the essence of “what Saint Paul really said.” In order to do so, I will (1) Present Wright’s understanding of the gospel, justification and imputation (2) Present Luther’s understanding of the gospel, justification and imputation (3) Compare both men’s interpretations of 2 Corinthians 5:21 while defending Luther as the better interpreter of Paul on imputation.

If you are interested in reading my entire thesis, then send me an email at:

scottcwalker@yahoo.com

A Review of The Celtic Way of Evangelism - Part II

Assessment:

Biblical and Theological Foundations of book – I think the Celtic way of evangelism parallels the ministry of Jesus. Jesus called twelve disciples to follow him for three years of ministry. The disciples did not respond to theological propositions, or a four-step program to salvation; rather they followed Jesus and learned what it meant to be his followers on a journey of discipleship. Like the Celtic model, the disciples’ faith was ‘caught rather than taught’. And it took time for the disciples to discover just what this ‘kingdom of God stuff’ was all about (cf. Acts 2:6).

In Matthew 28 the resurrected Jesus tells his apostles to go and make disciples of all nations. The key word here is disciples (or learners). Christ did not say go and make converts of all nations, but disciples. The latter implies a journey—a lifelong process—of figuring out what it means to follow the Christ in the context of Christian community. If the Roman model at its worst seeks to civilize people before they hear the gospel, the biblical and Celtic model at its best realizes that one does not need to be ‘civilized’ at all in order to respond to the gospel. Indeed, the religious leaders of Jesus’ day and the Roman authorities were the ‘civilized’ of society and they were the ones who most often missed the point of Jesus. However, those on the fringes of society were the ones who realized their need for the great physician. As Jesus said to the religious leaders of his day, “Truly I tell you, the tax collectors and the prostitutes are going into the kingdom of God ahead of you” (Mt 21:31). Throughout the ministry of Jesus, we see a Messiah who reaches out to outcasts and sinners. He embraces those who step towards him in faith; he is patient with those who may not have all the ‘right answers’, but are willing to learn from him (cf. Mk 8:27– 33; Jn 4:7 – 30 ).

Usefulness of Approach and Contents to Individual and Parish Life:

I believe the Celtic way of evangelism offers an exciting paradigm of life and ministry both at the individual and parish level. As Christians we are not responsible for making people believe and act proper before they enter Christian community. Rather, we are to welcome and draw people into Christian community with the hope that they, too, will “come and see” the good news of God in Jesus Christ. I think this model is more appropriate and effective for evangelism in a postmodern, post Christian context. Rather than presuming one must ‘have their house in order’ before entering the Church, the Church opens her doors to ‘sinners’ and ‘barbarians’ knowing that Christ has the power to seek and save the lost. Or perhaps a better way of saying it is that the Celtic missionary is one who embraces the notion that, ‘the Church has left the building’. And that Christians are ones who call ‘postmodern barbarians’ into to relationship with their Creator and Lord. As a member of the Body of Christ, the Celtic way of evangelism challenges me not to focus on formulaic evangelistic presentations and methods, but to live and love as a representative of the Word who became flesh and lived among us (Jn 1:14).

A Review of The Celtic Way of Evangelism - Part I

Summary:

In The Celtic Way of Evangelism, George G. Hunter III sketches a broad outline of the history and missiology of the Celtic Church in fourth and fifth century Britain. In so doing, he aims to show how the ‘Celtic’ model of evangelism differs from the ‘Roman’ way of evangelism. It is Hunter’s belief that the Celtic model offers the best strategy for bringing the good news of Jesus Christ to an increasingly secular, ‘barbarian’ and ‘postmodern’ West.

The centre of Hunter’s argument is to be found in the person and ministry of St Patrick. Patrick’s journey brought him from England to Ireland at the hands of slave traders. While in Ireland Patrick learned the culture of the Irish, spent much time in prayer and pondered the Christianity of his youth. Later Patrick gained freedom from slavery, returned to England, and received training according to the Roman model of ministry. In England, however, Patrick heard the voice of the Irish begging him to come back and minister amongst them. The English Church recognized the call of God upon Patrick’s life, ordained him Bishop, and sent him back to Ireland.

But Patrick would not minister to the Irish in the typical Roman manner. Indeed, while the Roman method of evangelism sought to ‘civilize’ the population before presenting the gospel, Patrick’s ministry was defined by a radical inclusive understanding of mission and fellowship. As Hunter states repeatedly, Patrick’s vision was marked by a philosophy that ‘Christianity is more caught than taught’. That is, whereas the Roman model of mission seemed to focus on what was wrong with pagan culture, Patrick’s model—the Celtic model—sought to build upon, expand, and work with what was right in pre-existing forms of worship and culture. For example, we see this in the Celtic appreciation for the number three. Pagan deities were often represented in triads. Patrick, therefore, used this as a building block for discussing the blessed Trinity. Such contextualization became the forte of the Celtic model of mission. Rather than expecting Irish converts to learn Latin, sing Latin Hymns, use Latin Liturgy, and adopt Roman monastic practices, Patrick learned native Irish dialects and allowed for authentic Irish expressions of the gospel to flourish. In short, if the Roman method of mission attempted to get other cultures to adopt the Roman model of Christianity (‘our way or the highway’) e.g., Synod of Whitby in 664 A.D., tonsure, dating of Easter, then the Celtic model was marked by the ability to adapt and contextualize. If the Roman model could be summed up as ‘believe first, then belong’ with the intent to ‘withdraw’ from the pagan culture, then the Celtic model sought to reverse this order; that is, ‘belong first and then believe’ with the intent to actively engage the surrounding religious ethos . Patrick’s communities, missionaries, and monasteries (not to mention the movements and missionaries that had their roots in the Celtic movement—Aidan, Columba and their disciples) were thus known for their warmth, hospitality, love for creation, appreciation for the supernatural, and stressed the importance of community combined with a theological emphasis upon the closeness or immanence of God (82). In sum, the genius of the Celtic Model is that it allowed for a distinctive Irish form of Christianity to flourish without toning down the orthodox faith of the Apostles (70).

So why does Hunter explore the benefits of the Celtic way of evangelism? Because he believes that the West – increasingly surrounded by those who have no “basic Christian knowledge” – is in a cultural context comparable to Patrick’s Ireland:
“In pre-Christian and post-Christian contexts, the advocate [missionary] cannot assume basic Christian knowledge in the minds of the audience, so clarity is an absolute requirement for engaging most of the people … and a sole reliance on direct propositional speaking is seldom effective as it should be anywhere” (62).

In other words, as the last remnants of Western Christendom crumble, the Christian cannot assume their audience has had any Christian teaching, catechismal instruction, or even any familiarity with the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Moreover, as Hunter argues, Western postmodern culture continues to have a visceral reaction to the Roman way of evangelism. In short, the Roman way simply will not ‘work’ in the postmodern, post Christendom West. Indeed, Hunter further argues that the Roman way, with its typical ‘left brain’ approach to Christianity—logic, concepts, rationality and ‘presentation’ model must be put to the side in favour of a Celtic ‘right brain’ approach to faith—experience, intuition, imagination and inclusion (71). If the Roman model attempted to evangelize ‘the suspicious outsider’ with the intent to ‘change the heathens ways’ before they could be welcomed into the community of faith, then the Celtic model challenges Christians to invite wandering sheep to discover what it truly means to be a disciple of Jesus while being embraced from within the community of faith.