recovering pharisees 1: the פורשימ

In the recently released book: David Flusser, Judaism of the Second Temple Period: Volume 1, Qumran and Apocalypticism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007), there is a good article entitled "4QMMT and the Benediction Against the Minim" which includes a brief overview of the societal divisions within Second Temple Judaism. Of particular interest is the Pharisaic sect, a group which (I believe) resembles modern evangelicalism more than any other in Scripture. Thus it is of particular interest to understand this movement and why Jesus was opposed to them so often. (Hint: it is not because they were 'bad' and he was 'good' and we are most certainly on his side, so he can't possibly be talking about us.)

What Flusser points out in his essay is that the name itself began with negative connotations, which were meant as a condemnation of the movement itself - one which the Pharisees could not escape and eventually adopted as their own: "More importantly, the rabbinic Sages came to be called פורשימ, and. . .they were unhappy with this epithet on account of its negative connotations" (93). The charge in question comes from the within the Dead Sea Scrolls (see the title of the article), and is meant to speak against those who separate themselves from the true people of Israel.

It is intriguing, however, that the Qumran sect most certainly were separatist while at the same time condemning those who were separating! The difference is found in the Essene belief that they themselves were the true Israel coming away from apostate Israel. This means that the Pharisees were separating themselves from the true Israel by their actions - in that they were no longer representative of the mission of Israel. Historically, that there was no separatism among the Pharisees demonstrates their ability to capture the popular theological opinion and voice of the day, thus ". . .shaping the course of Jewish history" (98).

Eventually, the primary charge against the Pharisees was that of hypocrisy (cf. 100) - by the Essenes and Sadducess and, most famously, Matthew 23. The case of Jesus is interesting, in that he acknowledges their teaching as coming from the seat of Moses but yet challenges their ability to live it out - an existing authority coming from Scripture, but a failing example. The charge in this situation is that while their words might carry truth, their lives are failure.

In relation to modern evangelicalism, the situation regarding the Pharisees demonstrates the ways in which sub-groups of believers interact with others. The fact that the Pharisees held to a high view of Scripture yet chose to separate themselves from other factions of Israel, yet claim to speak for the whole of Israel is not far from many within the church. It seems that unity among disagreement in the church is not often possible, because we are too quick to ignore or separate from those with whom we may disagree. At the same time, it seems that each group claims exclusivity to the *true* doctrines of God - and that others are apostate.

Addressing the situation outwardly, the church often looks like Pharisees to the world: those who separate themselves (often in stupid or pointless ways), leading to characterizations which are negative but eventually accurate. The die has been cast, but will the end be the same?

the triumph of god over evil [2/4]

William Hasker, The Triumph of God Over Evil (Downers Grove: IVP, 2008).

One of the strengths of this book is its consciousness of both the philosophical and pastoral problem of evil.  Actually, the course of argument given here demonstrates that the problem really isn't separated at all - despite the fact that attempts to handle the questions usually fall into one of these categories.  So it must be remembered that philosophical answers must make an impact into the plethora of emotions given to those suffering from and battling evil.  To this end, Hasker's second chapter raises the question, "Does Auschwitz change everything?" - in other words, is there unredeemable evil in the world (cf. 35).

Much of the chapter is taken up in evaluation and response of John Roth's 'theodicy of protest,' who uses the Holocaust as a challenge to God's rule of the world.  One of the more powerful statements in the chapter is, "We have more power and more freedom than is good for us" (Roth in Hasker, 33).  The other major section of the chapter is given in critique of D. Z. Phillips, a philosopher in Wittgenstein's tradition who believes that the problem is more of a 'problem with God' than with *evil*.  Phillips believes that God could not be morally good and allow the Holocaust to occur at all (cf. 44).  In responding to these two perspectives, Hasker challenges the very philosophical assumptions made to present the arguments by Roth and Phillips - for instance, "Will it always and necessarily be the case that if we accept a theodicy according to which God allows certain evils in part as a means to our moral development, this will undermine or corrupt our moral motivation to respond to these evils?" (49, emphasis in original).

The third chapter is an overview of the free-will defense, specifically the arguments given by Alvin Plantinga (not without some critique and correction, of course).  The question which is on the table is whether or not the existence of evil is consistent with the existence of God.  Being a Christian theist, Hasker is obviously going to answer positively here.  But how does one arrive at the conclusion?  His most basic premise is that freedom must entail moral risk.  He states, "God simply cannot create free creatures and allow them to choose freely between moral right and wrong, and at the same time guarantee that they will never choose to do evil" (62).

His logic stands thus:

1) God exists and is omnipotent, omniscient and perfectly good.

and

3) Evil exists.

And making the appropriate link is the challenge: 

2) God creates a world containing moral good, and all possible persons suffer from transworld depravity.

This is next taken into the world of natural evil, which he develops in a later chapter.  In keeping with his conversation with Plantinga, he considers how the concept of middle knowledge impacts the argument of the free will defense.  For those who are unfamiliar with Hasker's work, he has made some very strong and convincing arguments against middle knowledge in the past.  It is his contention that middle knowledge is a logical impossibility without stripping away genuine freedom.

In the final pages of chapter three, Hasker raises a few interesting questions on the nature of understanding God as good.  It shouldn't take a philosopher's mind to realize that much of Western belief in a 'good' God is contorted from what Scripture gives.  And at this point Hasker refrains from the Scriptural argument.  But, how is God good?  Only when we are getting things we want in the manner in which we want them?  This alone shows the inherent flaws of the ways in which we have attempted to deal with the problem of God and evil.

the apologetics of flawed leadership

Somewhere along the way it became important for believers to become champions of their faith. No longer was it appropriate for those who carried the gospel, especially publicly, to be open in displaying the shortcomings of their faith and leadership. After all, weakness is not something that ought to be emulated - at least in the flourishing American culture in the early 21st century.

In matters of faith there exists a balance between achieving moral excellence and maintaining moral transparency which can bring us to a fuller experience of being real. When these matters fall out of balance, there is a clear and definite loss of the efficacy of the kingdom message. Most believers would agree that there is a particular need to emphasize moral excellence in the postmodern church. But is that emphasis being taken too far that the postmodern believer no longer possesses moral transparency?

Because churches are so concerned with success (often driven by attendance, buildings and cash) there is a very strong perception that there is no room for failure. And although business models suggest that there really is no room for the loss of people, visions and cash flow this mindset is quickly transferred to ethics and morality and faith. There are many instances where such a culture of drive and performance comes from church boards and denominational leaderships, but just as often it comes from the spiritual emphases of the community as well. We have created a church culture that is afraid to fail, both in ministry and morality.

It should be no wonder that so many church leaders are struggling with very serious issues of faith and morality. There is such a demand for moral excellence placed upon believers that those who choose to lead feel that they have to be perfect in order to be effective. And that drive for perfection only makes a situation which is prone to crumble and collapse. Perhaps it is quite simply analogous to baseball, in which increasing amounts of pressure are being placed upon the pitcher (ignoring the fact that hitters are supposed to hit and that the other seven players behind the pitcher have some responsibility as well). When a team does not give its own pitcher ‘run-support’ then the pitcher feels as though he must be perfect in his execution in order to gain a victory. More often than not, this pressure reveals the cracks in the pitcher’s game and all goes downhill. In this same way, the pressure which is being placed upon believers, especially those in leadership, is causing them to find ways to find ‘release’, often to very serious consequences.

This is why moral transparency needs to be regained among our church’s leadership. To allow people to struggle with their shortcomings and display their own faults will allow them to be human, and to find their success not in their own perfection but in the all-sufficient grace which comes through Christ. Perhaps we have believed that our message will not be effective if we are candid about ourselves - that people will see us as hypocrites and will laugh us away from them. And maybe that’s an accurate assessment of who we really are - unless our message reflects the true nature of the gospel: the story of a fallen people who have been renewed not by their own merit but by the power of God to change the hearts of humanity.

I find it interesting that Scripture can be so candid about the many failures of those who became the foundation of this kingdom movement, yet we remain so closed about who we really are. In the opening chapter of Galatians Paul speaks of how he put to death many who taught Jesus as messiah. He does not shy away from his own story, but uses it to give a powerful picture of the unsurpassable mercy and grace of God. N. T. Wright has written, “It is necessary too, that Christian leaders should be seen to be telling their own story truly.” *

And this should not mean that we revel in our own shortcomings, as some evangelical leaders who wish to promote their own weakness as a sign of sentimentality and cheesy spirituality. No, these people have received their reward in full and have hearts filled with marketing dreams of the better ecclesiastical life. There is no message of the kingdom present in such activity and the Spirit of God is not amused.

Perhaps one of the greatest areas of the popular notion of lifestyle evangelism may be found in the raw and flawed leadership of the church. Cutting through all of the philosophical and theological arguments for faith one will find the most profound creeds of the church exist in the ability to allow true humans to regain their true humanity. And although we prefer that our physical medical facilities be sterilized, the spiritual awakening must occur in the darkest and filthiest recesses of our own humanity. All this so that we might allow God to do what God is supposed to do - come and find us. When we allow our churches to become antiseptic religious zones we send the message that one must have it all together before finding the kingdom, thus promoting (even implicitly) that believers are champions - further edging out God’s ability to do what God is supposed to do.

There is a definite balance which needs to be struck in approaching a healthy construct of church: our assemblies ought not be flawed for the sake of being flawed, yet should not be sanitary out of a motive of clean religion. The message we share is that humanity can be accepted and changed. Acceptance means in the midst of and in spite of our flaws. Change means leaving our flaws behind - not forgotten and ignored but counted as loss for the sake of the gospel before us.


*Tom Wright, Paul for Everyone: Galatians and Thessalonians (Louisville: WJK, 2002), 9.

the triumph of god over evil [1/4]

William Hasker, The Triumph of God over Evil: Theodicy for a World of Suffering (Downers Grove: IVP, 2008).

The dialogue regarding God, suffering and evil has been long and often confusing (especially for many people who are struggling to find answers to their particular situations).  Indeed, most treatments on the topic tend to err by being overly theoretical and philosophical that they do not lend any support or comfort to the suffering, or they are so comfort-minded that they accomplish little more than simple reassurance and some quick counseling.  While I concede the need for either of these two options at particular points in time, neither really gets to the heart of the problem - to construct an understanding of God and the world which answers the problem of evil in the world while also maintaining the image of God which is envisaged by Scripture (and the church).

To this end, Hasker provides a solid step forward.

In the introduction is found this caveat: "To put it more briefly: a Christian response to the problem of evil should not be focused too exclusively on evil" (10).  At this point I realized that I would appreciate the author's perspective on the subject (and direction of the book), for he is quite right that too often we approach the topic (and many other theological/biblical discussions!) without adequately considering the biblical data.  Although this is a philosophical treatment to the discussion Hasker clearly writes from the position of Christian theism, a commitment which keeps him heading in the right direction on this point.

What Hasker is attempting to do in the present work is create a theodicy regarding the nature of the world of suffering.  Since a number of different understandings and definitions of this exist, he clarifies his approach as one which "seeks to provide a justifying reason for the existence of the evil in the world, a reason such that, if it obtains, God is not morally at fault for permitting the evil" (20, emphasis in original).

He begins by offering a review and evaluation of the current "state of play" in the work being done on the question of suffering - an overview of various arguments and defenses.  One of the first and fundamental questions which he raises in the book concerns the fundamental nature of these other options and defenses: "It seems clear, furthermore, that the most important question that needs to be asked about these arguments concerns their cogency as judged in the light of assumptions that are congruent with the religious worldview that is being called into question" (16, emphasis in original).

Finally, Hasker reviews his own theological disposition to approaching the problem of suffering.  As an open theist he works from the understanding that God does not control every aspect of creation - that there are elements which act outside of his will.  Although no open theist would deny that suffering can be explained (or that anyone would find comfort in these other models), I personally believe that issues surrounding suffering and evil provide opportunity for the openness model to demonstrate one of the strongest aspects of their position.  And Hasker indeed capitalizes on this in various points throughout the book.

quote of theological humility

"What we must assert, however, is that this is a poverty in our understanding of the precreation situation and not a lack in God's own life. We are, in fact, more than a little like small children in school, who often have great difficulty in grasping the fact that their teacher has a life of her own, separate from what she does in teaching them."

William Hasker, The Triumph of God over Evil (Downers Grove: IVP, 2008), 97.

perspectives on the doctrine of god

Bruce A. Ware, ed. Perspectives on the Doctrine of God: Four Views. Nashville: B&H Academic, 2008.

It's time for another round on the doctrine of God, this time given in a broad spectrum of belief running the gamut of major positions.  In this volume four authors are given opportunity to present their case for a specific understanding of God - Classical Calvinist, Modified Calvinist, Classical Free Will Theist, Openness.  And similar to every other multiple views book I have ever heard of, each author takes their turn in response to the others.

Let the theology fly!

Paul Helm: Classical Calvinist Doctrine of God

Although I do not fall into the Calvinist camp, I do try and recognize when this perspective makes a good point or a solid contribution to constructing theology and understanding the biblical text.  I went to a Calvinist seminary and know of a good number of areas in which this perspective is conveyed well.  This essay is not one of them.  Helm writes with a superiority which excludes any other viewpoint than classical calvinism as being invalid.  He deems his perspective "the tradition" and clearly does not display a humility that his understanding might ever be wrong.  He relies heavily upon Augustine, Anselm, and Aquinas - choosing these three and claiming that their writings are superior than anyone else throughout church history (he never defends why).  His chapter is supposed to be a presentation of his viewpoint, but he chooses to stop at the halfway point and spend the remainder of his essay attacking the other three positions in the book (a completely odd review of Classical Arminianism is included here), even though he will have the opportunity to respond to them in turn.  Kudos to Roger Olson who also takes him to task on some of these matters.

Bruce A. Ware: A Modified Calvinist Doctrine of God

Admittedly, I have a difficult time reading Ware because of his keynote presentation at the ETS in 2001 where he made sweeping and unfounded claims against the openness position in adding to the over-the-top furor which was spinning around the gathering.  But I will say that this particular essay was a good presentation of the modified calvinist perspective, and it reads as though he actually enjoys theology as an academic exercise, as opposed to the terrible writing of the first chapter.  One of his better sections includes: "The God of the Bible loves and seeks us out with such eagerness and persistence when he himself stands in no need whatever of the objects of his love" (85).  Although I disagree with the context, such a statement puts the position in a favorable light instead of the more defensive positions.  Ware relies heavily on 'relational mutability' and works hard to keep compatibilsim viable as an option.

Roger E. Olson: The Classical Free Will Model of God

The author here comes as a solid church historian and theologian, who has earned much respect in his years of the academy for fairness, honesty and integrity.  He writes well in his presentation of the free will model, reminding the reader: "It is a complicated gift; it is a mixed blessing" (149).  Perhaps the strongest aspect of this chapter is that Olson structures his presentation around the various misunderstandings and misperceptions of Arminianism in general.  One of the more significant lines is his assertion: "For free will theists, God's glory is not might but goodness" (155).  There is, I believe, too much thrown at free will theists about not attributing sovereignty and glory to God - which is simply untrue.  One of the issues which has been lurking in the shadows throughout the book but which comes to the forefront here is that of exhaustive divine foreknowledge.  As a classical free will position, this essay affirms a basic simple foreknowledge.

John Sanders: Divine Providence and the Openness of God

Perhaps the foremost current theologian advancing the openness model is John Sanders.  This is also why he takes much of the heat from the opponents of openness.  I know of many people on both sides of the issue who concede that much of what the openness position claims has been misunderstood, mis-presented, demonized and unfairly attacked.  (And to be fair, they have been rightly questioned and pushed as well.)  But what Sanders does in this essay is present the openness model fairly, honesty and simply.  Many readers will find this chapter alone worth the price of the book because of the way it is written and the manner in which Sanders works through the text.  At the heart of this perspective is this: "God is solely responsible for creating a world with the conditions in which the failure to love was a possibility" (211, emphasis in original).  Thus, there is no guarantee of what will come in the future, although there is assurance in the plan of God moving forward to its completion.  On the issue of exhaustive divine foreknowledge, Sanders does present an omniscient God who knows all that can be known (hence, if the future is not determined it is unknowable - not a fault with God, but a logical conclusion).

Overall, this is a good book - a solid purchase for those who want to see the discussion of the doctrine of God from a bird's eye view or for those who are looking for some introduction to these issues.  It is stated within the book that there will be more growth and fruitful dialogue from within each camp (Calvin / Free Will) than there will be across those lines.  This is true, but sad to be the case.  The dialogue will have to change significantly before this ever happens (and perspectives such as Helm's will certainly diminish our ability to move forward).  One of the biggest problems with the book is that the authors are simply not concerned with understanding the biblical texts from within the mindset or worldview of the biblical context.  As a biblical studies person, I find it quite difficult to reconcile many of these concepts with the perspective of, say, Second Temple Judaism without it coming across as an imposition on Scripture.

Sanders comes closest to achieving this here, and I know that his fuller treatment (The God Who Risks) is intended to be a biblical theology first and a philosophical/historical/systematic theology second.  But this is illustrative of the divide which has plagued the academy on this - the division of biblical studies and systematic theology.  I am grateful for a movement to join them back together and hope that it comes quickly.

My favorite (hands-down) quote is: "In several places Sanders borrowed language of the tradition to which he is not entitled. . ." (Paul Helm, 32).  Really!?!  I had failed to realize that Paul was now the pope of theological linguistics (and what happened to sola Scripture here?).

My second favorite quote is John Sander's suggestion to write a book entitled: God's Lesser Love: The Diminished God of Theological Determinism (181) because that's just awesome!

the difference between crazy pills and meteor rocks

A few years ago I was helping out a friend of mine with leading his youth group. In hanging around with that crowd I was introduced to Smallville, a TV show about the teenage years of Superman (before he becomes Superman).  I've since lost interest in the show but do remember that one of the early themes is that the 'meteor rocks' which came along with Superman's space-shuttle were the inherent cause of a bunch of kooky stuff in and around Smallville - and Superman would have to take care of business.

Around the same time there were some very frustrating things in and around the church at which we were working.  My friend referred to this as everyone taking 'crazy pills' - an effort to explain the irritating (and stupid) behavior.  But in light of the popularity of Smallville we decided to attribute these moments to the 'meteor rocks.'  I now think that we were mistaken on this.  Here's why:

The notion of 'crazy pills' would imply that people are relatively normal, but they choose to ingest themselves with thoughts and ideas which lead them to weird or stupid behavior.  This is the case in certain situations when groups are more or less harmless when they don't take the pills.  This classification also reminds us that groups of people will always be prone to take *pills* of many sorts, especially the ideological ones.

By contrast, 'meteor rocks' must refer to behavior which has rained upon an area/group, seeped into the ground, infected the waters, etc. . . That is to say, the group in question has no real choice of how they act - they are affected by the meteor rocks and cannot simply overcome their situation by skipping the pills.

This is an important distinction of classification if you are to be effective in church leadership.  Personally, I would prefer dealing with the crazy pills because you wouldn't have to be Superman in order to overcome it.  But, unfortunately, this is where I find myself.

'the communion of the saints'

In one of those especially poignant passages that so frequently and powerfully mark the Gospels and charge them with the character of Christ, we encounter Jesus and his twelve in a moment of deep sorrow followed by a great flash of glory. (And does glory ever come except on the heels of sorrow?)

Jesus has just alienated many of his disciples by telling them that they must 'eat body' and 'drink blood.' This directive must have been even more startling to its original audience than to us. They did not hear it through the filter of some 1900 years of systematizing theology contrived to intellectualize and cushion us against the blow of his outrageous command. They met it head-on and felt the full force of it and they were repulsed.

Here Jesus, who was habitually pushing the margin of reason into the realms of faith, crossed the line. Here, he ventured too deeply into the uncharted territory of the kingdom of God, articulated too clearly the good, yet distrubing news of that kingdom, and called for an obedience too radically opposite for the reasonable sensibilities of many disciples at that time. He called them to follow too far outside their well-defined comfort lines. . .and they ran away in disgust or stood paralyzed in terror as Jesus walked on - walked on into the binding light of the liberation truth he had just spoken.

The twelve stayed with him - maybe reluctantly, maybe for reasons that they didn't know. But when Jesus asked that heart-breaking question, 'Will you also leave me?' it is Peter - the impetuous apostle - who gives us the secret to the hidden heart of discipleship: 'Where else can we go? You have the words of life!'

Peter may very well have been as perplexed over the point of Jesus' teaching as those who abandoned him, but he was not confused about the person Jesus. Peter might have misunderstood his methods and mission, but he was certain that Jesus was Messiah. He may have been in the dark about where he was going, but he knew that in Jesus there was light. He may have been scared nearly to death by the demands of discipleship, but he knew that in Jesus there was life. Just before this confession of his dependency on and the sufficiency of Jesus, he had sunk in the storm of intimidating waves and been rescued by the hand of a Master who knew his weakness and the shallowness of his faith.

There is much that we are intimidated by in our walk: doctrines that run counter to our cultures and egos, tasks that seem nearly insurmountable, the weakness of our wills and the seeming severity of Christianity and sink in the despondency of our powerlessness to grasp the mystery of grace, but in the midst of that, we must do what the writer of Hebrews advised and what Peter did, 'Let us fix our eyes on Jesus, the Author and Finisher of our faith' (Hebrews 12:2). It is he who calls us and he who enables. His body is our bread; his blood, our drink. He has the words of life.

-Rich Mullins, "The Communion of the Saints" in The World as I Remember It: Through the Eyes of a Ragamuffin (Sisters: Multnomah, 2004), 129-131.

ancient-future worship

Robert E. Webber, Ancient-Future Worship: Proclaiming and Enacting God's Narrative (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2008).

For years Robert Webber has been a servant-critic of the church through his analysis, teaching and guidance of worship.  He has made his most encompassing contribution to the direction of the church through his work on the ancient-future series, an ongoing engagement of an historical faith interacting with a contemporary world.  (Webber's own training and work in historical theology has made his perspective quite insightful on this level.)  Knowing this would be his final publication (because of terminal pancreatic cancer which caused his death in 2007), Webber offers his final insights on worship and the church - bringing together a lifetime of study and reflection.

What makes this book unique and valuable is the fact that Webber engages the topic of worship from the historical development of theology and his thorough knowledge of current biblical tradition and practice.

The book itself is divided into two parts: the first being a theoretical exercise, the second a practical application of the ancient-future model to the contemporary church.  The entire book is built upon (and perhaps summarized by) Webber's belief that "Worship does God's story!" (29, emphasis in original).  By this, he intends to say that the worship of the church is really the (re-)enactment of God's own narrative of salvation and restoration - developed in Chapter One with his sermon-like review of the biblical story in 'scenes' such as Eden, Desert, Gethsemane, and God's Eternal Garden.  This is a solid framework for what is to follow in the book in that it presents a creation-fall-restoration motif which focuses upon the work of God rather than the salvation of the individual in worship.

Chapters Two and Three then turn to the idea of worship looking in two directions: "Worship remembers the past" (41) and "Worship anticipates the future" (57).  Throughout the discussion Webber once again demonstrates his willingness to challenge the current state of worship and church practice, though always doing so with grace and love for the people of God.  Rather than demean those with whom he disagrees, Webber explains the folly of certain trends within the church: "Fragmentation in worship is expressed in a worship that emphasizes one or another aspect of God's story but neglects the story as a whole" (41, emphasis in original).  "Forgetting brings death, but remembering brings life" (44).

Webber utilizes many ancient prayers and practices of worship in citing examples for his understanding of the development of worship.  He uses these to build upon the biblical data with which he begins, and then quickly turns to the work of the modern church: "When planning worship, ask. . ." (71).  He thus brings centuries of belief and practice together into a unified worship of the universal church.

Part Two of the book takes Webber's theoretical foundation and applies it specifically to four broad areas of Christian practice: Worship (Chapter 5), Word (Chapter 6), Eucharist (Chapter 7), and Prayer (Chapter 8).  Again, each section is brought out by a love for the church and an empathy for the struggles of many congregations: "Traditional worship often feels dead, intellectual, and dry, whereas contemporary worship seems loud, oriented toward the self, and not very uplifting. . .We need liturgical churches; we need contemporary churches.  Both have a place in God's church, and both can do what I am writing about in this book" (89).

Perhaps one of the most insightful (striking?) parts of the book comes in Chapter 8, where Webber suggests that the public prayer of the church ". . .refers to the total worship experience, from its beginning to its end" (149).  At first, this claim seemed to be an overstatement, but Webber develops it well and (I think) gets it right.  But it might come at the redefining of our understanding of prayer and worship before we can accept his premise.  He hits the nail on the head when he claims that the two crises of public prayer are neglect and programming (150), and it is good to hear him identify this and work toward correcting the situation.  But when prayer is applied to the areas of worship mentioned earlier in the book (remembrance, anticipation, proclamation), then prayer indeed encompasses the entirety of the church's worship.  (Webber here cites Augustine's Memoria-Intellectus-Voluntas - 164.)

Ancient-Future Worship is not a perfect book for the contemporary situation of the church, nor is it able to develop answers to every question which will arise from moving forward in this direction.  But I have the sense that Webber would never have wanted to attempt this.  He seems content to reclaim and reestablish biblical principles which have come through the centuries of the church and allow the church to move forward with its own development and growth into the future.  This, I believe, is part of the genius of an ancient-future perspective.  Unfortunately, for those of us who are not part of the *liturgical* traditions it might prove difficult to achieve some of the application of Webber's perspective.  This is because much of what he draws attention to in this work is more easily connected to that tradition.  But such should never discourage the reader/pastor/leader from using these principles in evaluating and constructing churches that properly honor the king, his kingdom and his story.

declaration

IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America
hen in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.

snack-pack

I hated those little snack-pack cereals.  Still do.  Don't like portion control.

And on the side they would explain how to cut along the perforated lines and pour milk right into the box.

What was the point of this?  Pretending your parents couldn't afford a bowl?

-Jerry Seinfeld