Christians should be more Christian

Remember, the three most powerful narratives on the planet are narratives of religion, narratives of nation, and narratives of ethnicity/race.  You cannot afford to forfeit that territory by talking about economics or the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  Don’t be afraid to be Christian ministers.  If you don’t use the Christian narrative to define reality for your people, then someone else will define reality for them with a different narrative.

What makes this quote remarkable and unexpected is the speaker:  Eboo Patel, a devout Muslim.  Dr. Patel, an Oxford-trained scholar, teaches a course on interfaith leadership at McCormick Theological Seminary in Chicago together with a Christian woman named Cassie Meyer. McCormick being what it is, I would have expected such a course there to push lowest-common-denominatorism, but that seems to be far from the case. Judging by the fascinating article on Dr. Patel and the class in the latest issue of Leadership, “Ministry Lessons from a Muslim” (which doesn’t appear to be up online yet), he and Meyer advocate respectful conversation between unabashed truth claims.  We need to respect and love those with whom we disagree based on our own convictions, not by setting those convictions aside, and so Dr. Patel, as a Muslim, encourages his Christian students to be more Christian.  He explains this in part by saying,

If you enter a ministerial gathering as a Christian minister and downplay your Christian identity in an attempt to make everyone comfortable, as a Muslim leader, I’m immediately suspicious.  I don’t trust you.  Embracing your identity as a Christian creates safety for me to be a Muslim.

That isn’t a reaction I would have predicted, but it makes a lot of sense; after all, someone capable of neutering their own beliefs and identity for the sake of a particular goal is also perfectly capable of asking others to do the same—which, to those unwilling to do so, makes them a potential threat.  (By contrast, someone unapologetic about declaring and maintaining their beliefs either will make space for others to do the same, or else will expose their hypocrisy and other sin issues.  That’s not pleasant, to be sure, but at least such people can be dealt with straightforwardly.)

GCNC video

This is a catchall post for the video of the various sessions as I find it:

Tim Keller, “The Grand Demythologizer: The Gospel and Idolatry” (Acts 19:21-41)

John Piper, “Feed the Flame of God’s Gift: Unashamed Courage in the Gospel” (2 Timothy 1:1-12)

Philip Ryken, “The Pattern of Sound Words” (2 Timothy 1:13-2:13)

Mark Driscoll, “Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth” (2 Timothy 2:14-26)

K. Edward Copeland, “Shadowlands:  Pitfalls and Parodies of Gospel-Centered Ministry” (2 Timothy 3:1-9)

Bryan Chapell, “Preach the Word!” (2 Timothy 3:10-4:5)

C. J. Mahaney, “The Pastor’s Charge” (1 Peter 5:1-4)

Ajith Fernando, “Gospel-Faithful Mission in the New Christendom”

Conference Panel Discussion

Ligon Duncan, “Finishing Well” (2 Timothy 4:6-22)

D. A. Carson, “That By All Means I Might Win Some: Faithfulness and Flexibility in Gospel Proclamation” (1 Corinthians 9:19-23)

7 quick takes: GCNC edition

(GCNC being the Gospel Coalition 2009 National Conference, which I attended earlier this week, for those who might not know.  For those not familiar with 7 Quick Takes Friday, it’s hosted by Jennifer F. over at Conversion Diary.)

>1<

Of all the great preachers and all the great sermons I heard (including C. J. Mahaney’s, which was essentially a plenary session scheduled as a workshop), the one that—I don’t want to sayimpressed me most, because I don’t want to come across as a dispassionate observer doing some sort of ranking, and I don’t want to say moved or touched me most, because different messages did that differently—but the one that I keep coming back to the most was Mark Driscoll’s.  As he himself noted (and many others commented that evening), it wasn’t a typical Mark Driscoll sermon, because of the text assigned; I don’t know who was responsible for breaking up 2 Timothy or by what logic he was given 2 Timothy 2:14-26, but it was clearly a God appointment of a most unexpected sort.  If you want to look at the sermon outline, it’s up here.

What impressed me the most about this sermon wasn’t its homiletical brilliance or its practical usefulness, but rather that I do not believe I have ever in my life seen a preacher so completely submitted to—even conquered by—a biblical text.  At one point, he described the passage as an anvil on which he’d been beating his head, and he was clearly preaching under a sense of deep, deep conviction, brokenness before God, and repentance—and preaching out of that sense, bringing that powerfully alive in the room.  I’ve long respected Mark Driscoll, even though I’ve heard some harsh criticisms of him, for his devotion to the gospel, his vision for ministry, and his sheer guts (I grew up in Washington state, I know what Seattle is like); this week, I saw him model a defenseless openness to the word of God and the power of the Holy Spirit that I have never seen nor—to be completely honest—experienced before in preaching.  He didn’t have to do that, on a worldly level; I suspect he felt the Spirit driving him to, but even so, the courage that it took to lay himself that bare before the Scripture, to let the word of God challenge and convict him that deeply, and then to preach that, inspired a holy awe in me.  At some point, God is no doubt going to hit me that hard through his word; at some point, maybe he did, and I refused to stand to the mark.  When that day comes (again?), I now have his example to try to live up to.  It’s a great gift, if a daunting one.

>2<

Speaking of courage, I should also express my deep appreciation for John Piper, who summarized the main point of 2 Timothy 1:1-12 (and by extension, he argued, of the whole letter; I can’t speak for anyone else, but he convinced me) as “Timothy, keep feeding the white-hot flame of God’s gift in you, namely, the gift of unashamed courage to speak openly of Christ and suffer for his gospel.”  I appreciate him because he wasn’t just preaching about his topic, he was preaching it, and preaching through it.  He declared,

If you ask Paul, “How do I feed the white-hot flame of God’s gift of unashamed courage to speak openly of Christ and to suffer for the gospel?” he answers, By the power of God (verse 8)—the supernatural power of the Holy Spirit. And if you ask, “How do I express the fullness of this power?” he answers in 2:1, Be empowered by the grace that is in Christ Jesus. And if you ask him, “How do I receive this ongoing grace?” he answers, Timothy, this grace is coming to you right now through the word of God. God’s grace is coming to you in my words. “I have not received the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that I might understand the things freely given me by God. And I impart them in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit” (adapted from 1 Corinthians 2:12-13).

These aren’t ordinary words, Timothy. They are God’s words. You were with me on the beach in Miletus. Do you remember what I said as I left? I said, “I commend you to God and to the word of his grace, which is powerful to build you up [in courage!] and to give you the inheritance among all those who are sanctified” (Acts 20:32).

The answer, Timothy, is that you feed the white-hot flame of unashamed courage to suffer for the gospel by preaching to yourself the foundational truths of this letter. And you feed the courage of your people the same way. God has ordained that his sovereign grace comes to you with power for unashamed courage through my God-given words.

(That, note, is from the posted text, not a transcript.)  Now, it’s one thing to say those words, and there are other preachers who could do that.  It’s something else again to preach them as if you believe them, not only in theory, not at some point in the future, not as a possibility, but for that moment, for that sermon, for the people to whom you’re preaching—and that’s what the Rev. Dr. Piper did, passionately, in the expectation that what he was preaching about, God would do in us.  I don’t think I’ve ever felt so much in the crosshairs of a sermon in my life, and I’m not sure I ever will again.

>3<

I’m very grateful to have been present for C. J. Mahaney’s talk, but I have both a confession and a small regret about that.  I was there looking forward to his listed topic (he’d originally told the organizers that he would speak on “Trinitarian Pastoral Ministry”), but that’s not what he spoke on; he actually spoke on “The Pastor’s Charge,” from 1 Peter 5:1-4, and if I’d known that, I probably would have been in another workshop.  I’m glad I wasn’t, though.  I do regret the fact that I had too much blood in my caffeine stream—I’d only had one can of Pepsi and no tea all day, which just wasn’t enough caffeine at that point, and I would have known that if I’d thought about it—and so I had a hard time shifting gears mentally to catch up to the Rev. Mahaney; I even started to crash a bit early on.  By the grace of God, though, he sent me a second wind, and I’m grateful for that gift, because it was a beautiful and encouraging message on shepherding God’s flock; I’ll definitely be meditating on this going forward, and I plan to watch the video so that I can catch things I missed in my initial mental sluggishness.  Jared Wilson asked on Twitter, “Anyone else feel like Mahaney was preaching specifically to them?” and I think it’s safe to say that many of us there did—probably most of us, at one point or another.

I particularly appreciate this—he was quoting someone, but I didn’t get down whom:  “The shepherd must know he is one of the Shepherd’s needy and loved sheep.”  Amen.

>4<

After Tim Keller’s address on Acts 19:21-41, which opened the conference, the thought crossed my mind that I could go home right then and the conference would have been worth the money.  I had no intention of doing anything that silly, of course, but if I had, it would have been.  I’ve done a bit of posting on some of the idols in our culture, and in the church in this country, but before Tuesday afternoon I’d never thought quite so starkly about the fact that Paul always challenged the idols of the people to whom he spoke, and that we cannot expect to see the transforming power of the gospel in our churches if we don’t do the same.  As Ben Patterson likes to put it, we can’t just tell people what to say “yes” to, we have to tell them what that means they have to say “no” to.

The Rev. Dr. Keller did a brilliant job of laying out what it means to discern, expose, and destroy the idols we face—in our own lives, no less than in the church and the culture—and how we do that; and he was unsparing in warning us of the risk we take in so doing, making the point multiple times that idolatry in all its forms is violent at its core.  As radical feminists would say of patriarchy, idolatry is founded on violence, and rests on violence for its legitimation.  There was a lot of wonderful material in his message, but I think I most appreciated his prescription for dealing with idolatry:  rather than trying to hack away at the loves that have become idols in people’s lives, help them to love Jesus more, and thus restore those other loves to their proper place and proportion.

>5<

The pastoral application of his message made itself known that evening in one of the random conversations I had (and at any event like this, the random conversations are among the joys of being there); I wound up talking with a woman who was worried about a friend back home who I guess has been doing some heavy wrestling with despair.  As we were talking about this woman’s concern for her friend and her efforts to be an agent of grace in this friend’s life—she was really struggling hard to find a way to pierce the armor of her friend’s despair—we remembered the Rev. Dr. Keller’s comment about people who say that they know God has forgiven them but that they can’t forgive themselves:  he argued that people who talk that way do so because they’re in thrall to an idol, and the idol of course won’t forgive them because idols never do.  What you need to do, he contended, is to identify the idol, expose it, and destroy it.  When this came up in our conversation, this woman’s face lit with a joyful smile, because she knew what her friend’s idol was, and that word showed her what she needed to do to set her friend free to really hear the gospel of grace.  I’m praying for her for the success of her ministry.

>6<

I greatly appreciated the panel discussion Wednesday evening, for a lot of reasons.  One rather odd one is that Ligon Duncan, one of the participants, has a massive pulpit presence—I don’t know that he’s actually that big a man, but the way he’s built, and with that deep, powerful Southern voice of his with his grand, grave cadences—which I think combined with his reputation to work against him with some of the folks there (judging by the semi-sotto voce conversation going on behind me through the first chunk of his message); he doesn’t exactly project humility in the pulpit, and it was good to see the humble side of him in the evening conversation before he rose to preach the next day.

More than that, though, there was a lot of experience, and a lot of humble wisdom, and a lot of hard-earned lessons up on that stage that evening, which the participants shared in a remarkably open fashion.  It was comforting to hear from these successful veteran pastors that times of brokenness and failure aren’t necessarily disqualifying, but that brokenness and failure are among the things God uses to make us useful; coming just a few months after I heard Craig Barnes say much the same thing, and combined with their firm testimony that Jesus will never abandon us in such times—and that if we will rely utterly on him and his word, that will be enough—it came as a real word of grace.  There was a note of rue in Crawford Loritts’ voice as he quoted an old proverb (one I’d never heard before) to the effect that “God never uses anything that comes to him together,” and went on to describe suffering as God’s marinade for our souls; but there was also a deep faith that had learned to trust God through suffering, and I greatly appreciated it.

>7<

One of the real blessings of this conference was the way in which I felt, time and again, Paul’s heart for Timothy—not just indirectly, but coming from the speakers and directed toward us, and especially those of us who are younger in ministry.  John Piper really set the tone on that, and it carried through the whole conference, in various ways.  (In Mark Driscoll’s case, as a younger preacher who felt the challenge of his assigned text deeply, he really preached his text as Timothy, as the one receiving the message, rather than from Paul’s position.)  Other than the Rev. Dr. Piper, I think I felt it the most strongly from Ligon Duncan, speaking on 2 Timothy 4:6-22, as he shared Paul’s appeal with us to do everything possible to be sure we cross the finish line.  He didn’t soft-pedal the fact that that isn’t easy; as Paul did for Timothy, he made no bones of the truth that just because we’re faithful to God doesn’t mean we won’t be opposed, doesn’t mean we won’t be betrayed, doesn’t mean we won’t be abandoned and end up alone.  After all, that’s what happened to Paul, and it’s what happened to Jesus, and if we’re following in their footsteps, why should we expect any different?  But the saving grace is that Jesus has been there, and so he was with Paul in his suffering, and he will be with us as well when those times come; his Spirit will be with us, through whom he will give us what we need to run the race, to fight the good fight, to cross the finish line, if we will just rely on him.

 

What math class taught me about pastoral ministry

Show your work.  Process matters—it’s more important that you tried to solve the problem the right way than it is that you got the right result, because it’s more predictive of whether or not you’ll get the next answer right, and the one after that, and the one after that.  What matters isn’t coming to the right conclusion by whatever method works for you, but whether or not you understand the real problem and how it works; shortcuts may seem to work at first, but in the long run they just mess you up and put you behind.

Pastoral ministry likewise isn’t primarily about getting the “right answer” to produce the desired results; it isn’t about whatever seems to work.  Rather, it’s about all the things that lie behind that. Read more

First reflections on the last few days

I’m back home from the Gospel Coalition‘s 2009 National Conference (henceforth GCNC), Entrusted with the Gospel:  Living the Vision of 2 Timothy, and I have somewhat mixed feelings about that.  On the one hand, I wish it could have been longer.  The presenters were, as one would expect, phenomenal, and I’ll have some things to say about the various messages over the next little while; as well, I had some wonderful conversations over the course of the conference.  In particular, I had the privilege and pleasure of meeting Jared Wilson in person and talking with him a bit, which I thoroughly enjoyed—it’s no surprise to find that he’s as much a man of the gospel and as appealing a person face to face as he is in print, but that’s no less a joy for all that—and of running into (via pure God appointment) Dave Moody, one of my classmates at Regent and also a fellow pastor in the PC(USA), whom I always appreciated but hadn’t seen in years.  Put all together, it was wonderfully refreshing and energizing, and I do wish it could keep going.

On the other hand, I already have more than I could absorb in a month of Sundays, and if itdid keep going, I’d overload my processing capacity before much longer.  It’s very human, confronted with a pleasure (and the pleasures of this conference were sharp and deep), to want to prolong it—but deep pleasures are a heady wine indeed, and not only is it true that the body can only absorb so much, the spirit can only absorb so much, before it falls to staggering.

It’s worth noting, though, that I don’t mean this in quite the way that many probably assume.  At one of the workshops I attended, the presenter spoke of “information overload,” but that’s not really what I’m talking about; I didn’t feel that at all.  Yes, there was a lot of information, and a lot of ideas, and I’m sure that I’ll spend a fair bit of time thinking about them, and probably writing about some of them, and that over time they’ll make their way into sermons; but I never felt like my head was overstuffed.  I told someone Tuesday night that I felt like I’d been stretched in several directions—but it wasn’t my mind that felt stretched, it was my soul.

I think, actually, that the conference served to illustrate a point made by Ligon Duncan, that preaching is not merely information transfer—that while certainly information is transferred, that takes place in order to serve the broader purpose.  The principal point of preaching is that God has chosen to work through it for our transformation; Jesus meets us in his word, and his Holy Spirit operates through it to grow and change us, to the glory and pleasure of God the Father.  What I experienced these last few days wasn’t primarily intellectual and informational, though I certainly learned a great deal, and that in itself will take a lot of time and thought to process; rather, it was holistic, God working on my soul in the fullest-orbed sense of that word as the whole of my life in and before him.  Like I said, I feel . . . stretched, and in some ways I didn’t expect, and am still feeling out.  This is a good thing.  God is good.

Seven stanzas for Easter

I’m not sure why I didn’t think to post this earlier; John Updike is best known for his prose, but this poem is a jewel.

Seven Stanzas for Easter

Make no mistake: if he rose at all
It was as His body;
If the cell’s dissolution did not reverse, the molecule reknit,
The amino acids rekindle,
The Church will fall.

It was not as the flowers,
Each soft spring recurrent;
It was not as His Spirit in the mouths and fuddled eyes of the
Eleven apostles;
It was as His flesh; ours.

The same hinged thumbs and toes
The same valved heart
That—pierced—died, withered, paused, and then regathered
Out of enduring Might
New strength to enclose.

Let us not mock God with metaphor,
Analogy, sidestepping, transcendence,
Making of the event a parable, a sign painted in the faded
Credulity of earlier ages:
Let us walk through the door.

The stone is rolled back, not papier-mache,
Not a stone in a story,
But the vast rock of materiality that in the slow grinding of
Time will eclipse for each of us
The wide light of day.

And if we have an angel at the tomb,
Make it a real angel,
Weighty with Max Planck’s quanta, vivid with hair, opaque in
The dawn light, robed in real linen
Spun on a definite loom.

Let us not seek to make it less monstrous,
For our own convenience, our own sense of beauty,
Lest, awakened in one unthinkable hour, we are embarrassed
By the miracle,
And crushed by remonstrance.

Who has believed our report?

See my servant: he shall accomplish his purpose;
     he will rise and be lifted up,
     and he shall be exalted most high.
Just as there were many who were shocked at him
     —one whose appearance was disfigured beyond that of any man,
     whose form beyond human likeness,
           so that his blood sprinkled many nations—
so kings shall shut their mouths because of him;
     for that which had not been told them they shall see,
           and that which they had not heard they shall contemplate.
Who has believed our report?
               And to whom has the arm of the LORD been revealed?
For he grew up before him like a young plant,
        and like a root out of dry ground;
    he had no form or majesty that we should look at him,
        nothing in his appearance that we should desire him.
He was despised, lacking supporters,
        a man of sorrows and familiar with suffering;
    and as one from whom others hide their faces
               he was despised, and we thought him of no value.
Surely he has borne our suffering
        and carried our sorrows;
    yet we accounted him stricken,
        struck down by God and afflicted.
But he was pierced through for our rebellions,
        crushed for our iniquities;
    upon him was the punishment that reconciled us with God,
        and at the cost of his wounds we are healed.
All of us, like sheep, have gone astray;
        we have all turned to our own way,
    and the LORD has laid on him
               the iniquity of us all.
He was oppressed, and he allowed himself to be afflicted,
        yet he did not open his mouth;
    like a lamb that is led to the slaughter
        and like a sheep that is silent before its shearers,
        so he did not open his mouth.
By a perversion of justice he was taken away;
        and as for his contemporaries, who realized
    that when he was cut down out of the land of the living,
        he was stricken for the rebellion of my people?
They made his grave with the wicked
        and his tomb with the rich,
    although he had done no violence,
               and there was no deceit in his mouth.
Yet it was the LORD who willed to crush him, causing him to suffer.
    If you make his life an offering for sin,
        then he shall see his offspring, he shall prolong his days;
    the will of the LORD shall prosper through his work.
               Because of his anguish he shall see and be satisfied;
        by his knowledge, my righteous servant shall make many righteous,
        for he shall bear their iniquities.
Therefore I will give him the many,
        and he shall divide the strong as the spoils of his victory,
    because he poured out himself to death,
        and was numbered among the sinners;
    yet he bore the sin of many,
    and made intercession for the transgressors.

—Isaiah 52:13-53:12

Hymn for Good Friday

Ah, Holy Jesus, How Hast Thou Offended?

Ah, holy Jesus, how hast thou offended,
That man to judge thee hath in hate pretended?
By foes derided, by thine own rejected,
O most afflicted.Who was the guilty who brought this upon thee?
Alas, my treason, Jesus, hath undone thee.
’Twas I, Lord Jesus, I it was denied thee:
I crucified thee.Lo, the Good Shepherd for the sheep is offered;
The slave hath sinned, and the Son hath suffered:
For man’s atonement, while he nothing heedeth,
God intercedeth.For me, kind Jesus, wast thine incarnation,
Thy mortal sorrow, and thy life’s oblation:
Thy death of anguish and thy bitter passion,
For my salvation.Therefore, kind Jesus, since I cannot pay thee,
I do adore thee, and will ever pray thee,
Think on thy pity and thy love unswerving,
Not my deserving.

Words:  Johann Heermann
Music:  Johann Crüger
HERZLIEBSTER JESU, 11.11.11.5

Considering the Christian way of death

‘ve been thinking a lot about funerals lately, for one reason and another, and so earlier this week when I happened across my copy of Thomas G. Long’s superb article “Why Jessica Mitford Was Wrong,” I sat down to read it.  Dr. Long’s piece, published ten years ago now in Theology Today, is a thoughtful and penetrating critique of the theology of Mitford’s books, The American Way of Death and The American Way of Death Revisited.  He gives her the credit she deserves as a consumer advocate, but also the challenge she deserves as a cultural theologian.  I especially appreciate this section of Dr. Long’s article:

What is often missing in the tug of war between the funeral-home-style service and the Mitford style is a thoughtful consideration of what a funeral—particularly a Christian funeral—could and should be. Obviously, a genuinely Christian funeral is not about the evils that Mitford found so easy to satirize—the vulgar, conspicuous consumption, the mawkish sentiment—but, strangely a Christian funeral is also not primarily about many of the good things that its friends claim for it: the facilitation of grief, helping people to hold on to memories of the deceased, or even to supply pastoral care and comfort to the bereaved. A Christian funeral often provides these things, of course, but none of these is its central purpose. A Christian funeral is nothing less than a bold and dramatic worship of the living God done attentive to and in the face of an apparent victory at the hands of the last enemy. Though the liturgy may be gently worded, there is no hiding the fact that, in a funeral, Christians raise a fist at death; recount the story of the Christ who suffered death, battled death, and triumphed over it; offer laments and thanksgivings to the God who raised Jesus from the grave; sing hymns of defiance; and honor the body and life of the saint who has died.

Dr. Long continues,

Thus, one measure of the veracity of a funeral is its capacity to face, without euphemistic smoke and mirrors, the reality of death. Death is, of course, the brute fact that occasions a funeral. Astonishingly, for all her talk about the funerals and the funeral industry, Mitford hardly mentions death at all, not real death. In Mitford’s world, people do not die painfully or peacefully, well or poorly, blessedly or tragically, in despair or in trust, nor do those left behind have seasons of grief, memories to be cherished or forgiven, or faithful meaning to be wrested from sorrow, just a series of consumer choices. The American Way of Death and The American Way of Death Revisited cover many topics, but, ironically, death as a human experience, death as a force that robs life, death as a knife that severs bonds of love is not one of them. Milford jibes and smirks and hurls sarcastic witticisms at the blowhards among the morticians, and some of them, like clowns at a carnival pie-throwing booth, make themselves into easy targets, but one cannot help but see, lurking over her shoulder, the immense and terrifying mortal reality she will not turn to confront. To produce two books about death that do not actually speak of death is so strange, so inexplicable, that the sheer fact of it seems clear confirmation of William May’s conviction that the unwillingness to name death betrays a repressed acknowledgment of its fearsome sacral potency. Contemporary people, he argues, “find it difficult to bring the word death to our lips in the presence of its power. This is so because we are at a loss as to how to proceed on the far side of this word. Our philosophies and our moralities desert us. They retreat and leave us wordless.”

By contrast, the Christian funeral, at its best, speaks plainly of death. It does not shy away from naming death’s power to pierce the human heart, to steal gifts of love, and to create empty places at the table of fellowship, and the Christian funeral bravely claims the victory over death won by Jesus Christ, and dares to trust the promise of the gospel’s great mystery, “We shall not all die, but we will all be changed.”

A second measure of the Christian funeral is the degree to which it treats the body of the deceased as the body of a saint. Mitford saved her strongest invective for the custom of embalming, restoring, and viewing the body, which she claimed is virtually unknown outside of North America and which she saw as utterly unnecessary, yet another sign of American bad taste, and an expensive trick pulled by funeral directors to con the gullible. She has a point, of course; the practice of paying someone a lot of money to put eyeliner and face power on an embalmed corpse so that it can be viewed under colored lights is difficult to defend. Nevertheless, two objections to Mitford’s attitude toward the treatment of the body need to be raised. First, it is not simply that Milford has no use for chemically-treated bodies gussied up and on view in slumber rooms; she has little use for the body at all. As for the three women whom the Gospel of Mark reports were on their way to the tomb of Jesus to anoint his body with spices, Jessica would undoubtedly have said, “Don’t bother.” Beneath her righteous consumerist rhetoric breathes the spirit of a gnostic who, like many educated people in our society, views the body as a shell, finally an embarrassment, part of what Geoffrey Gorer has called “the pornography of death.” What to do with the dead body? It can be burned or buried, donated or disposed, but, like all pornography, it should be done out of public view. The theological anthropology that defines human beings as embodied creatures, that calls for the honoring of the body in life and in death, is out of Mitford’s range.

In his fine book The Undertaking, poet and funeral director Thomas Lynch, comments on the “just a shell” theory of dead bodies. “You hear a lot of it,” he observes, “from young clergy, old family friends, well-intentioned in-laws—folks who are unsettled by the fresh grief of others.” He remembers a time when an Episcopal deacon said something of this sort to the mother of a teenager, dead of leukemia, and promptly received a swift slap. “I’ll tell you when it’s ‘just a shell,’ she retorted. “For now and until I tell you otherwise, she’s my daughter.” Lynch goes on to say,

So to suggest in the early going of grief that the dead body is “just” anything rings as tinny in its attempt to minimalize as if we were to say that it was “just” a bad hair day when the girl went bald from chemotherapy. Or that our hope for heaven on her behalf was based on the belief that Christ raised “just” a body from dead. What if, rather than crucifixion, he’d opted for suffering low self-esteem for the remission of sins? What if, rather than “just a shell,” he’d raised his personality, say, or The Idea of Himself? Do you think they’d have changed the calendar for that? . . . Easter was a body and blood thing, no symbols, no euphemisms, no half measures.

This is spot-on, as is Dr. Long’s consequent point that

The most important measure of a Christian funeral is its capacity to place the event of a person’s death into the larger context of the Christian gospel. “Funerals,” says Thomas Lynch, “are the way we close the gap between the death that happens and the death that matters. It is how we assign meaning to our little remarkable histories.” The Christian funeral is a liturgical drama, a piece of gospel theater, with roles to play and a time honored, if flexible and culturally varied, script. To understand Christian funerals as drama is not to say they are theater in the sense of Broadway entertainment, of course, but rather that they are community enactments of a formative narrative.

The unfortunate thing is that our culture has been so Mitfordized that even among Christians, there’s no longer the awareness and understanding of this truth.  Instead,

The image of the deceased on a journey from this world to the next is now being replaced by the image of the mourner on a journey from grief to restoration. . . .  Deprived of the ritual of a saint marching into glory, we replace it with the psychically useful notion of a good, or at least somewhat interesting, person we will remember from time to time as life returns to normal. The Christian kerygma tends to fade in favor of biographical comments about the deceased, often delivered by a number of people, such anecdotes seemingly far more useful to the stabilization of the ego in grief than are comments about discipleship, eschatology, and mission.

This is a real loss, and part of the ongoing flattening and loss of spiritual depth of our culture, which is being mirrored in much of the church.  The challenge for the preacher who wishes to do a truly Christian funeral is to be concerned about more than just caring for the family, making the family happy, and doing the deceased honor—important as all three of these things are—but also about proclaiming the gospel of Jesus Christ and his victory over death.  All the other purposes of a funeral must fall into line behind this one, or they too will ultimately fail and fall short, because those purposes do not create hope; they depend on the gospel hope to function, and so ultimately lack any real substance without the proclamation of the gospel.

The work of faith

This from John Piper, via Of First Importance:

Faith is looking away from ourselves to another. Faith is total dependence on another. When faith stands in front of a mirror, the mirror becomes a window with the glory of Christ on the other side. Faith looks to Christ and enjoys him as the sum and judge of all that is true and good and right and beautiful and valuable and satisfying.

Amen to that.  That’s the reason we resist faith, just as it’s the reason we resist grace.  The Reformed tradition emphasizes that salvation is by faith, not by works, and that even faith comes to us as God’s gift, not as the result of our own efforts; but there is one work, of a sort, that is required.  The work of faith, if you want to call it that, is accepting our displacement from the center of our universe; it’s the willingness to look away from ourselves, not only to acknowledge our dependence but to acknowledge our insufficiency and our need to follow rather than to carve our own path, and to find our joy in another rather than in ourselves.