Sacred Head Sore Wounded
O Sacred Head, sore wounded
Weighted down with grief
Crowned with thorns and bruised with
All our unbelief
But the cruel key that pierced you
And opened your side
Unlocked the mystery of heaven
And flung the doors of heaven wide
O Sacred Body broken
Lashed with all our sin
And those hands stretched open
Held salvation in
But the cruel key that locked them
And drove them to the cross
Unloosed the mystery of heaven
And offered back what we had lost
O Sacred Head sore wounded
Sacred body broken
Sacred blood and water, spilled for me
O Sacred Thirst unquenched
And parched with suffering
Mocked with vinegar
It thirsted there for me
But the cruel key that pierced you
And opened your side
Unlocked the mystery of heaven
And flung the doors of heaven wide
O Sacred Head sore wounded
Sacred body broken
Sacred blood and water, spilled for me
O Sacred Head sore wounded
Sacred body broken
Sacred blood and water, spilled for me
Labels: songwriting
The Scruffy Little Puppy, a Parable for Children
Once upon a time there was a scruffy little puppy who lived in a pet store on the corner of a busy street in the city. Scruffy little puppy was not like any of the other puppies.
Sparky was fully of vim and vinegar and all the children who visited the pet store loved to play with him. But Scruffy Little Puppy had one lame paw and couldn’t run very well.
Sophie had a beautiful curly coat and wore a bow behind her ears. All the grown ups who came to the pet store said how lovely she was. But Scruffy Little Puppy’s coat was all ragged and tatty.
No one ever took any notice of Scruffy Little Puppy. No one loved him. And no one wanted him.
One day a man came to the pet store and told the Keeper that he wanted a playful puppy for his little boy, and he was prepared to pay fifteen dollars for one. The keeper pointed out Sparky, bouncing around with his ball in the shop window.
“That Puppy,” said the keeper, “is worth fifteen dollars for sure.”
Another day, a young lady came in. When she saw Sophie’s curly coat, she said she just had to have her, and the keeper should name his price. The keeper said that Sophie was worth ten dollars at least.
But no body ever came in asking how much Scruffy Little Puppy was worth. No one told the Keeper that they just had to have him. No one loved him. And no one wanted him.
One day a nice-looking young man came into the pet store. Scruffy Little Puppy didn’t look up from his basket, but he listened closely.
“I saw that puppy with the lame paw in the window,” the man was saying to the keeper. “I think I might like to have a dog like that.”
The Keeper laughed. “You mean Scruffy Little Puppy?” he said. “Oh well. He can’t run very well. And his coat is pretty mangy. Let me show you some different puppies.”
“No,” insisted the gentle young man. “I want that puppy. How much is he worth?”
The Keeper scratched his head. Sophie had sold for ten dollars. Sparky for fifteen. But Scruffy Little Puppy wasn’t worth anything near as much as them.
“Well,” he said at last, “I could give you Scruffy for two dollars. That’s probably a fair price.”
The kind-looking young man rubbed his chin. Scruffy hung his head in shame.
“Two dollars is a lot of money,” he said. “But it’s not enough for my Scruffy Little Puppy. I’ll give you a hundred dollars for him!”
Scruffy couldn’t believe what he just heard. Nor could the Keeper. He said, “Sold!” and put the money in the cash register before the young man could change his mind. And that was the day Scruffy Little Puppy went home with his new master.
Sold for a hundred dollars!
Well. Months and months went by. But the Keeper of the Pet Store never forgot the strange young man who had bought the worst puppy in the store for a hundred whole dollars.
And one day, looking out the window of his shop, he saw that same young man walking past. He was holding a dog leash, and on the leash walking next to him was the finest-looking looking dog the Keeper had ever seen.
The dog had a glossy grey coat. He walked with his head held high, and each step he took was so strong, and graceful, that you never would have noticed that he had just the faintest little bit of a limp.
The Keeper rushed out of the store to greet the man. “My,” he said. “That is a fine-looking dog you have there. What ever happened to the scruffy-little mutt you bought from me?”
The young man looked at the keeper for just a moment, and then he laughed. “Sir!” he said, “This is my Scruffy Little Puppy. It’s the same dog!”
The Keeper was astonished. “But how?” He asked. He just couldn’t believe that this fine-looking dog was the same sad-looking puppy he had sold so long ago.
“Don’t you see?” said the wise young man. “We are as lovely as we’re told we are. If you only pay two dollars for a dog, you’ll get a dog worth two dollars. But a puppy that believes he’s worth a hundred dollars, will become a hundred-dollar dog.
I showed Scruffy he was worth a hundred dollars to me, and that’s what he’s become.”
The Keeper walked away scratching his head. He just didn’t understand.
But God wants us to understand. Because in a way, what the nice young man did for Scruffy Little Puppy, by showing him just how much he was worth to him when he felt worthless an unloved, that’s like what God did for us.
We were like the Scruffy Little Puppy, and Jesus is like the kind-young man. Because like the man in the story, who paid a hundred dollars for a puppy that no one else would even pay two for, Jesus gave his very life for us on the cross, when we were broken by sin and marred by selfishness. Jesus paid his very life for us, so that we could be with him, and so that we would know how precious we are to God.
And that’s what God wants all of us to know. He loves us so much that he gave Jesus, his one and only Son, who died on the cross for you, so that you would no it for sure, that you are infinitely precious to him.
Corpus Christi Carol (a song)
lyrics based on a traditional poem
Lullay, lullay, lullay, lullay
Falcon has born my mate away
He bore her up, he bore her down
He bore her to an orchard brown
And in that orchard there was a hall
It was hanged with purple and pall
And in that hall was laid a bed
That was hanged with gold so red
And on that bed there lieth a knight
His wounds a-bleeding day and night
And by that bed there kneeleth a maid
And she weepeth night and day
And by that maid there rests a stone
Corpus Christi written thereon
Towards a Theology of Celibacy, Part III
(Note: this is adapted from a paper I prepared for the FMCiC in 2016. You can find the whole paper here: Pastoral Reflections on Singleness and Celibacy)
Any church that wants to treat the Bible's teaching on marriage seriously will have to grapple, at the same time, at some point or another, with its teaching about celibacy as well. Few books I've read or sermons I've heard on the topic of marriage actually do this. Instead they tend to treat Christian marriage as though it were some how the ideal, and ignore the sometimes startling things the Bible says about the goodness of the single life. There are a number of Bible texts that laud singleness as a path for following Jesus, and often these texts present marriage, if anything, as a concession to those who are unable to walk the path of celibacy. If we wish to have a theologically rich understanding of marriage and singleness alike, I think, we will have to let these texts speak with their full weight.
The first, and most obvious, is 1 Corinthians 7, where Paul addresses the Corinthian church on matters of marriage and celibacy. What stands out in this text is the way in which Paul seems to view marriage here as a good and proper concession to the frailties of our broken sexuality, rather than an arrangement that is somehow superior to singleness. “It is good for a man not to marry,” he writes (7:1), “but because of immoralities (porneia, sexual immorality), each man is to have his own wife and each woman is to have her own husband” (7:2). Later in the passage he will say that it is “good for the unmarried to remain single” (7:8), but if they are likely to “burn with passion,” they should marry. Here Paul lines up celibate singleness and marriage as equally legitimate expressions of Christian discipleship, though he is clear that he sees an advantage in singleness. The advantage, specifically, is that unmarried Christians are free to serve the Lord with an undivided heart, whereas married Christians have divided interests (7:33-34). Finally, it should be noted that in this passage Paul refers to celibacy as a “gift.” Given the fact that the term Paul uses here for gift (charisma) is the same he will use later to describe the supernatural empowerings of the Holy Spirit—gifts of healing, tongues, prophecy and so on—it should be noted that Paul does not single out singleness as a unique “gift,” as distinct from marriage. Rather he notes that for some the “gift” is to live a married life, for others it is to live a single life (7:6), but both situations are gifts from God and, presumably, require the empowering of the Spirit to live faithfully and well.
Another passage that deserves careful reflection is Jesus’ teaching about “singleness for the sake of the Kingdom of God,” in Matthew 19. After hearing Jesus’ firm position on divorce and remarriage, the disciples respond that, given this view of marriage, it is “better not to marry” (19:10). Given the church’s tendency to see marriage as the ideal expression of the Christian life, Jesus’ response is fascinating, because he does not deny their conclusion. He simply states, with a line of reasoning similar to that of Paul’s in 1 Corinthians 7, that “not all people can accept this statement” (19:11); in other words, because most people cannot successfully embrace the celibate single life, marriage is the best alternative. He goes on to say, however, that those who are able to “accept” the celibate life should in fact “receive” it, offering a clear and unambiguous affirmation of celibate singleness.
A final text we ought to consider is Jesus’ teaching about marriage at the resurrection. In an effort to point out apparent inconsistencies in his teaching about the resurrection, the Sadducees ask Jesus about a woman who was married seven times: who will she be married to at the resurrection? Again Jesus’ response is startling for Christians used to assuming that marriage is the highest ideal for the Christian life. “In the resurrection,” he says, “they neither marry nor are they given in marriage” (Matthew 22:29-30). In other words, marriage is an earthly institution that serves a good and useful purpose in this life, but will be unnecessary in the life to come. This is not to marginalize or trivialize marriage in this present age—the Scriptures are uniformly clear that marriage is a blessing and a gift from God—but it is to put marriage it its proper perspective. Marriage serves an end and is not an end in itself; and celibacy, too serves an end, though it is not an end in itself either. Both are, in their own way, signs of the coming Kingdom where the human arrangements of husband, wife, master, servant and so on, will all be overshadowed by the heavenly relationship of “brother and sister in Christ.”
A church that takes the scripture’s teaching on celibacy seriously will recognize it, celebrate it and affirm it as a distinct and meaningful path for discipleship, one that requires the support of the Christian community if it is to flourish, one that is highly valued and respected in the teachings of the apostles and in the explicit word of the Lord, and one that makes as valuable a contribution to the community as do marriage and family. Similarly, churches that wish to be shaped by the Scriptures when comes to singleness and celibacy will reject the popular notion that in order to be effective a pastor must be married, or that marriage is a qualification for ministry. This is directly contrary to the plain teaching of the Bible, which, if anything, gives the advantage to the single pastor, who is less encumbered by the demands of a family and a household in the discharge of his or her ministry. At the very least, churches that wish to be shaped by the Scriptures in this matter will take intentional steps to offer a counter-culture to the highly sexualized culture of contemporary Canadian Society, to be a community where singles are affirmed and supported, and celibacy is embraced as a meaningful path for Christ.
Labels: celibacy, singleness
Singleness and the Church, Part II
A “plausibility structure” is the intricate network of symbols, social supports and embedded ways of communicating that a culture has in place to make a certain way of life seem “plausible” to its members.
Take marriage as an example. Lifelong monogamy does not "come naturally” to the species, one might argue, but societies that enjoin their members to practice it have a whole slew of things in place to make this way of life seem “plausible.” We have sacred ceremonies to celebrate it. We make laws to govern it. We have an elaborate system of record keeping to keep track of who has entered into it. We tell stories which idealize it, and so on.
For centuries, in fact, we have maintained a rather sophisticated “plausibility structure" to make married monogamy seem “plausible,” to nip-in-the-bud any nay-saying voices that might hear the idea and say: “Really? One partner, exclusively, for life? Who could possibly?” (Indeed, the notable decline of interest in traditional marriage in modern day Canada is linked, I would argue, to a steady erosion of the “plausibility structures” that once encouraged Canadians to believe that marriage was a viable path to walk).
If marriage seems too loaded an example, try American gun-control. No wonder meaningful gun-control laws feel so impossible in America, when 1 in 4 of its eligible citizens owns a gun, when the country itself own almost half of all the citizen-owned guns in the world, when there are 25 times more gun homicides than in any other comparable country, when the right to own a gun is ostensibly encoded in the founding documents of the nation, when a steady stream of entertainment media glorifies gun violence, and so on. How do you convince citizens to accept restrictions on their freedom to own firearms in a nation where there are all kinds of “plausibility structures” in place to encourage guns, and next to no structures in place to make effective gun control sound “plausible”?
The concept of “plausibility structures” is crucial for any Christian community that wishes to take seriously the Bible’s perspective on sex, and authentically encourage its unmarried members to walk a path of abstinence and celibacy. Most of churches I’ve experienced have been this way. They taught their members that sex ought to be experienced only within the bonds of marriage, and taught by extrapolation that unmarried Christians ought to follow a path of abstinence. Yet such churches had no more “plausibility structures” in place to encourage celibacy, than America has for gun control. That is to say: there was nothing there to make celibacy appear “do-able,” other than the guilt, shame, or idealization that swirled around sex-talk generally.
Instead, these churches focused on the family, and preached sermon series on how to have a godly marriage, and celebrated newly-weds, and provided little support for divorcees, and targeted “young families” as their preferred ministry demographic (either implicitly or explicitly). None of these things communicates that “we actually think singleness is a very good thing, a good way to follow Jesus, a way of life that is rich, and important, and, especially, plausible.”
I first learned about "plausibility structures" from Christian Sociologist Jenell Paris-Williams. She suggests that churches fail in their calling if they do not intentionally make celibacy a “plausible” option for Christian singles, and that if a church wishes to promote a traditional sexual ethic it has an especially poignant obligation to build "plausibility structures" around that ethical teaching. She argues that the extent to which one’s community presents a life-style choice as “plausible” greatly influences the likelihood one will choose it, and be successful in pursuing it. Her wisdom on this matter merits an extended reference, I think:
Celibacy is surely a strenuous spiritual path, but today the cost of celibacy is unreasonably and unnecessarily high. When it comes to moral teachings about sex outside of marriage, we isolate sexual pleasure from all the other good things that are connected to sexual relationships. People are commanded to abstain from sexual intimacy, but no one addresses how abstention may also limit the person’s access to family, touch, children, financial stability and so on. It’s hard to be a celibate person in an unchaste church whose broader context is an unchaste society. In striving for moral virtue, the celibate also bears the church’s collective sin of failing, in a highly sexualized social context, to make a counterculture in which celibacy is plausible. (Jenell Paris Williams, The End of Sexuality (Downers Grove, Il: InterVarsity, 2011), 136.)Wesley Hill, a gay Christian who has chosen to live the path of celibacy, writes extensively on this theme. In Washed and Waiting, he makes the poignant observation that the church was meant to be God’s sanctified remedy for human loneliness, God’s “compensation” to celibate Christians for their sacrifice of sexual intimacy (see Mark 10:29-30). He challenges Christians to recognize that “the New Testament views the church—rather than marriage—as the primary place where human love is best expressed and experienced” (Wesley Hill, Washed and Waiting (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2010), 111).
If the church is going to live into its identity as “the primary place where human love is … expressed and experienced,” it will have to take far more seriously the extent to which it supports, encourages, and values the single people in its midst. It will have to ask hard questions about how authentically and how practically it serves as God’s “compensation” to celibate Christians for the sacrifices they have made to pursue this particular path of discipleship. If it did, I think, it would find itself building structures in its life together that makes the path of celibacy not simply “plausible” for those who walk it, but rich, and rewarding, and life-giving.
Labels: celibacy, discipleship, sexuality, singleness
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)