Awakening the Christ Asleep In You

Augustine of Hippo is one of my favorite people. I love the story of his life, I love his writings, and I love the way he thought. One thing I find very interesting about reading Christian thinkers from different time periods is seeing how their presuppositions determined their conclusions. We're certainly no different.

During the time when Regula Fidei was more in effect, since everyone agreed on what the correct beliefs were supposed to be, they felt free to do some creative allegorical interpretations of Scripture, as long as their conclusions remained within the boundaries of orthodoxy.

I just completed a paper on the function of the Sea of Galilee in Mark, and in researching, I came across a sermon that Augustine preached on the passage about Jesus calming the storm. He took an angle I would have never considered, and though it might not have been Mark's original intended purpose for including this story, I think his thoughts are beneficial.

I have been pondering the role of allegorical applications in preaching. On the one hand, I am very much a student of the mentality that it is our job to understand the text exactly as it was intended to be understood. On the other hand, in churches of Christ, though we don't have an official Regula Fidei for all of us, most of us know pretty well within our congregations what views are considered the orthodox ones and which would be considered heretical. I wonder if it would be helpful or hurtful to make some Scriptural applications that take more liberty with allegorical interpretations--remaining within the boundaries of orthodoxy, in the spirit of writers such as Augustine, or even philosophers like Philo, who has some fascinating ideas about the meaning of Genesis (which I may blog about at some point). I see both potential and peril. It is at least something different.

At any rate, here is part of Augustine's sermon about Matthew 8:23.

When you have to listen to abuse, that means you are being buffeted by the wind. When your anger is roused, you are being tossed by the waves. So when the winds blow and the waves mount high, the ship is in danger, your heart is imperiled, your heart is taking a battering. On hearing yourself insulted, you long to retaliate; but the joy of revenge brings with it another kind of misfortune--shipwreck. Why is this? Because Christ is asleep in you. What do I mean? I mean you have forgotten his presence. Rouse him, then; remember him, let him keep watch within you, pay heed to him....A temptation arises; it is the wind. It disturbs you: it is the surging of the sea. This is the moment to awaken Christ and let him remind you of these words: "Who can this be? Even the winds and the sea obey him."

Clearly, this story was not written as an allegory. Christ is revealing his divine nature so that the disciples will gain a deeper understanding of who he is. But the storm situation with the sleeping Christ does make a nice metaphor for relying on Christ for aid in having self-control.

What do you think?

Use Your Allusion: From Dan to Beersheba & A Few Thoughts On Pronouncing "Augustine"

The phrase "From Dan to Beersheba" is a Biblical allusion that shows up most often as a concept, rather than as an exact phrase. As you can see on the map, Dan was the Northernmost part of the kingdom, and Beersheba was the Southernmost. So when you say anything about, "From Dan to Beersheba," what you mean is, "From one end of the country to the other."

I actually made a post a while back where I retyped an old old article from the Gospel Advocate, which described the origins of the Donelson, Una, and Pleasant Hill churches of Christ. The title of the article was, "'From Dan to Beersheba:' Or From Donelson to Una. 1865-1872."

There were 10 passages I was able to find quickly where both Dan and Beersheba are mentioned together in Scripture, such as when a census is taken of the fighting men, when God inflicted punishment on much of the kingdom, and when the people are gathered to celebrate the Passover when it had not been celebrated in a long time.

"Dan" is pretty easy to pronounce. "Beersheba" is generally pronounced by us Southern folk "Bear Sheeba". In Hebrew, the pronunciation is actually more like, "beh-EER sheh-BAH." I generally just go with the common pronunciation, because when you whip out Hebrew pronunciation, it's really obvious that the only reason you're doing it is to try and sound smarter than everyone else.

So again, when you want to talk about anything that is sweeping across the nation, you can say it is happening, "From Dan to Beersheba."

---------------

On a separate note about pronouncing things, I always like discussing Augustine of Hippo with people. He's one of my favorite historical figures. When people ask that question about, "If you could meet anyone from all history and have a meal with them, who would you pick?" Augustine of Hippo and Jimmy Page are two of my top choices.

Augustine is fun because no one can agree on how to pronounce it. In Florida, the city is always pronounced, "St. AUgustEEN." But the people I've known (including a HUGSR student from Africa) with the same name insisted it was pronounced "auGUSten."

Actually, I think either pronunciation is correct. So at this point, if someone else brings Augustine up first, depending on which way they pronounce his name, I try to pronounce it the other way to make them feel like they're doing it wrong, then in my head I laugh. :-)

Idolatry

I like this quote from St. Augustine:

"Idolatry is worshiping anything that ought to be used, or using anything that ought to be worshipped."

Augustine's Just War Theory

I just finished the most aggravating paper that I've ever written. I'm actually very interested in both the time period and the subject matter. I have had a nightmare with the research. I ordered a bunch of books I needed, and none of them came in on time. I took a whole week off from church 2 weeks ago, just to get this thing done, and instead of being able to read and write, I spent the whole time scrambling around for resources. On top of that, most of the resources I found weren't that good. At any rate, I do believe that my paper contains plenty of truthful factual information, though perhaps not the whole picture of all aspects involved. I got to the point where I just had to suck it up and type it. I sent it to my teacher...1 1/2 weeks late. He had told me he would give me a few extra days, but I don't know how many days he considers "a few". He is a really cool guy, and is typically very patient. I'll find out what he thinks about it.

BUT, since I've already posted my paper on the GA's changing views from pacifism to militant during WWI, if you, O Reader, are interested, here is a completely different setting where the early church shifted from pacific to militant, and for basically similar reasons. In the GA's case, you hear it from those resisting the change to a militant mindset, and from Augustine, you hear a guy who hates war, but basically paves the path for the Just War mindset because circumstances seem to necessitate it. It may not be a good paper, but maybe it will provide some food for thought. Click Here To Read My Paper

Now that I've spent a whole semester studying Christians and warfare, here's what I think:

Christians are to be peaceful people. We should love our enemies and pray for those who persecute us. When it appears that our nation might go to war, we should be on our knees daily, begging God to dissolve the problems without mankind choosing to resort to violence.

I don't know if there is a perfect example in scripture of whether or not we can fight in wars. You can point at the Sermon on the Mount teachings, or at Jesus telling Peter to put away his sword and say, "We can't participate in war without violating the teachings of Christ." You can also point to Jesus fashioning a whip to drive the moneychangers out of the temple, not to mention Abraham, David, and Moses...heroes of the faith...who were warriors. At the same time, life doesn't always leave us in a situation choosing between a good option and a bad option. Because we live in a sinful world, we are sometimes left choosing the lesser of two evils.

There are good reasons why war veterans refer to war as "Hell". People in wars do unspeakably evil things. Even those fighting for the nobler cause come home with permanent scars; mentally, physically, and emotionally. But I am open to the possibility that some of the men who go and do these terrible things are able to do so out of love for their fellow man.

I think of Everett Six. Though he recently passed away, in talking to me about his experiences in WWII against the Nazis, he was a machine gunner, who sometimes went more than 48 hours with no sleep and no food. He told me of how once, in the snow, the Nazis quietly approached, holding white sheets over themselves, hoping they wouldn't be noticed. In his own words, he "mowed them down". Mentally, he never could return to normal life after that. But even as he told me about some of the Germans he killed, in the same conversation, he talked about how good and kind many of the Germans were that he met. He said that a lot of them were under the influence of a bad person, and really didn't mean to be as evil as what they acted. I think Everett would be a textbook example of a person fighting a just war. He hated war. He hated the fighting and the killing. BUT, he saw a greater evil in standing by, letting innocents be slaughtered than to step up in a spirit of love and fight to protect those who couldn't protect themselves and to protect his family from what was becoming a very real threat. In a sense, Everett became the very image of Christ in laying his own life on the line (and permanently giving up his mental well-being) for the good of others.

But of all the wars we've been a part of, other than WWII, I don't think I can say any of them are truly just in the sense that Augustine laid out.

I have concluded that what a person will decide about whether it is right or wrong for a Christian to fight on behalf of his government will really depend on the government and the circumstances. In times like the 1940's or under Constantine's reign, when the government is supportive of Christianity, and an evil outside force threatens ruthlessly, people seem to see the need and just cause for fighting evil powers. When the government is hostile to Christianity, such as in the earliest church when emperors like Nero, Caligula, and Diocletian were torturing and killing Christians, our Kingdom mindset rises to the surface, and we say boldly, "I'm part of an everlasting kingdom, much greater than this one."

I personally will never join the military; the only exception being if an invading army shows up on our shores, in our neighborhoods, trying to kick down my door to attack my family. Too few wars are really just enough, in my eyes, to want to participate. I live within a peaceful country, for which I'm thankful, and have more than enough work to do spreading the gospel. Likewise, when I have friends who decide to join the military, and I have recently, I will continue to get them aside to encourage them to think very seriously about whether at some guy's order they are willing to take another person's life when Jesus sent us to bring life.

I am unsatisfied with the mentality of many military types who basically say, "I don't like killing, but my job is to follow orders." I'm convinced the reason that drunkeness is a sin is because a person gives up control of himself. How is this different? A prostitute could say the same of her pimp, "I don't like fornicating with strangers for money, but my job is to sleep with who he tells me to." Either I am a Christian all of the time, or none of the time. Compartmentalization is sinful and Godless. If I can see a way as a Christian to participate in a particular government military action (such as the WWII situation), then fine, but if not, I ought not ever do something that violates my conscience.

If all the people in the world were Christians...real Christians...there would be no need for wars or weapons. So while the government works for peace through coercive means, I intend to work for peace by spreading the teachings of Jesus. Governments stay in control by wielding the sword, but if everyone would lay their idols of selfishness, greed, and power at the foot of the cross, there would not be a need for the wielder of the sword.

That may be idealistic, but just because I won't completely attain it, does that mean it isn't worth striving for? Rather than waiting for everyone else to get rid of their bombs and guns first in order for me to be peaceful, to borrow from a Quaker, why shouldn't I lay down mine first, and be the first one to choose peace? Christ lead by example...why not me?

I'm happy to live in America, but I pledge my allegience to Christ first. I pray that I am never forced to choose between picking up a gun to fight for an earthly kingdom, and watching my loved ones be persecuted. For now, I'm thankful for my blessings, and I think I'm done with the whole war issue.