From a Stumbling Pilgrim on Easter Sunday

Alleluia Christ is risen

I did not keep Lent this year more do to momentum then a real reason. This momentum is due to my desire to hold onto some of my most cherished sins.

There are parts of the bible that I hate. I don't mean parts that challenge me or that offend my modern individualistic sensibilities, I mean hate. Alot of the bible I don't keep; of that a large percentage I want to keep and others I want to want to keep. But, there are some parts I hate.

None I hate more than "Love keeps no record of wrongs". Keeping records of wrongs is how I maintain the upper hand in relathionships. By keeping record of wrongs I can belittle friends and try to make them feel the need to apologize to me more than once.

I love this sin because it is easy to pretend like i don't have sins, rather I pretend that I am agrieved by others sins treating my sin as a Holy calling. I might even try to pass it on as "bearing one anothers burdens".

But it is sin. It is like all sin disobedient, dehumanizing, cruel.

On Friday we celbrated Christ taking our sin upon himself. On Saturday he took it straight to hell. Today he rose without and lives with us now. If only I can learn to want to want to not commit this sin I'd make progress.

Please Jesus keep no record of wrongs.

The Lord is risen indeed alleluia.

Liturgy and Language

The other day at Duke divinity school I was sitting between my friends D and Jenny listening to a conversation about the use of the Old Testament in the lectionary. One thing that struck me is that the students were talking about liturgical and non liturgical traditionss. This is an innacurate binary. There are no "non liturgical traditions" there are only diferent types of liturgy. High and low is the simplist distinction but within high one has roman, greek, amelkite, anglican etc.

It seems to me that liturgy is really the church's language. It is the structure we use to communicate our needs, desires, and beliefs. Saying that a church is non liturgical is like saying that someone does not have a grammar. Now obivously there are judgement calls to be made concerning the propriety of different grammar in different situations, but ultimately, there is a lways a grammar at work.

A church's liturgy is its grammar; it's slang if you will. To practice of liturgy requires a faith akin to the faith required to speak of God. Language is inevitably fuzzy, contextual, and often downright deceptive. We all know this on one level or another and to different extremes.

Speaking of God (who we haven't seen) is obviously different and more difficult than speaking of a tree but, the tree itself is still complex and needs a specialized language to speak of. But, there is not one dominate language best suited to speak of the tree. On one hand a mathematical language maybe the most appropriate, in others the poet may speak most truthfully. The appropriateness of the language is dependent on who is saying it and where he is standing. It is the same with the iturgy.

Forcing an indonesion Christian into an old fashioned roman rite is proablby not the most appropriate way for them to speak. Likewise a rural new englander is not going to have lots of color and flash or expressive hand waiving as part of their liturgy. Neither is more sor less Christian they are just trying to speak there own langugae about a mysterious thing.

The common language lies in the Bible we use and in certain practices: baptism, eucharist, confession etc. But I believe these can be celebrated in different ways.

This holy week do not have a mind to measure your church practices against a different grammar but rather find your own place in the common lanuguage to speak of the resurestion of the dead.

Sorry, I know it's been a while I've been thinking alot and writing a little