Friday, April 08, 2016

Who really wrote the books in the Bible?

It’s almost a joke that among Bible scholars, whatever name is on a book of the Bible is not the person they think actually wrote it. They rightly remind us that many ancient documents were put out (even knowingly) under a more famous name by that person’s students or admirers. However, there is a tendency in academia that feeds a need to make novel claims to get published and make one’s mark. I rarely find such arguments persuasive, more often defaulting to the traditional view about things like authorship.

One thing that came up in this week’s Bible Study was the early church’s view of authorship. When it came to the question of admirers publishing letters under the name of an apostle, the church fathers did not look as kindly as scholars. In fact, many documents were rejected from inclusion in the canon not so much because they contained strange or false teaching, but simply because everyone knew that it was not really written by an apostle.

In 2 Thessalonians (2:2; 3:17), the Apostle Paul warned them not to be fooled by forgeries in circulation claiming to be written by him. We know that there were letters supposedly from Paul to the Laodiceans and to the Alexandrines. How did the church fathers react to these? A document of the early church called the Muratorian Fragment rejected these two letters as “forgeries,” insisting that such epistles “cannot be received into the catholic church, since it is not fitting that poison be mixed with honey.”


The prime indicator of authentic revelation was apostolic authority. The source of the writing was the most important factor in determining a book’s inclusion in the canon of the Bible. Of course, we must remember that by including a book in the canon of the Bible and calling it “Holy Scripture,” the church was saying that the ultimate author is God, who inspired the human author through the inner light and guidance of the Holy Spirit.

On The Lord's Descent Into the Underworld

From an ancient homily for Holy Saturday: 

Something strange is happening – there is a great silence on earth today, a great silence and stillness. The whole earth keeps silence because the King is asleep. The earth trembled and is still because God has fallen asleep in the flesh and he has raised up all who have slept ever since the world began. God has died in the flesh and hell trembles with fear.

He has gone to search for our first parent, as for a lost sheep. Greatly desiring to visit those who live in darkness and in the shadow of death, he has gone to free from sorrow the captives Adam and Eve, he who is both God and the son of Eve. The Lord approached them bearing the cross, the weapon that had won him the victory. At the sight of him Adam, the first man he had created, struck his breast in terror and cried out to everyone: “My Lord be with you all.” Christ answered him: “And with your spirit.” He took him by the hand and raised him up, saying: “Awake, O sleeper, and rise from the dead, and Christ will give you light.”

I am your God, who for your sake have become your son. Out of love for you and for your descendants I now by my own authority command all who are held in bondage to come forth, all who are in darkness to be enlightened, all who are sleeping to arise. I order you, O sleeper, to awake. I did not create you to be held a prisoner in hell. Rise from the dead, for I am the life of the dead. Rise up, work of my hands, you who were created in my image. Rise, let us leave this place, for you are in me and I am in you; together we form only one person and we cannot be separated. For your sake I, your God, became your son; I, the Lord, took the form of a slave; I, whose home is above the heavens, descended to the earth and beneath the earth. For your sake, for the sake of man, I became like a man without help, free among the dead. For the sake of you, who left a garden, I was betrayed to the Jews in a garden, and I was crucified in a garden.

See on my face the spittle I received in order to restore to you the life I once breathed into you. See there the marks of the blows I received in order to refashion your warped nature in my image. On my back see the marks of the scourging I endured to remove the burden of sin that weighs upon your back. See my hands, nailed firmly to a tree, for you who once wickedly stretched out your hand to a tree.

I slept on the cross and a sword pierced my side for you who slept in paradise and brought forth Eve from your side. My side has healed the pain in yours. My sleep will rouse you from your sleep in hell. The sword that pierced me has sheathed the sword that was turned against you.

Rise, let us leave this place. The enemy led you out of the earthly paradise. I will not restore you to that paradise, but I will enthrone you in heaven. I forbade you the tree that was only a symbol of life, but see, I who am life itself am now one with you. I appointed cherubim to guard you as slaves are guarded, but now I make them worship you as God. The throne formed by cherubim awaits you, its bearers swift and eager. The bridal chamber is adorned, the banquet is ready, the eternal dwelling places are prepared, the treasure houses of all good things lie open. The kingdom of heaven has been prepared for you from all eternity.

Tuesday, March 01, 2016

What disturbs me about Donald Trump

I’ve wrestled for months about whether to write this. Now I’m breaking my own rule to not publicly take sides about candidates in political races (although I’m happy to talk about moral and cultural issues in the political sphere on which the church has something to say; maybe we can file this under culture).

Last summer, I was listening to an interview with Mark Steyn who was talking about a speech Donald Trump gave that afternoon. He noted that Trump is a savvy businessman who has looked at the Republican Party and figured out that it is ripe for a hostile takeover.

They were playing clips of his speech and Steyn was summarizing Trump's shtick as, ‘It’s gonna be great, folks. It’s gonna be fantastic. It’s gonna be huge. Don’t worry about the details. Just vote for me and the trains will run on time again.’ And then Steyn observed, “It’s basically all that strong man, banana republic sort of stuff.”

For those who may not be familiar, a banana republic refers to a stereo-typical politically unstable corrupt socialist country in Latin America, drowning in debt, with a large oppressed working class, dominated by an elite class, and run by a strong-man dictator. That description is becoming eerily familiar. Trump’s solution to this problem is to become the strong man and kick out the Latins. It’s a good solution for Trump, but not so much for the rest of us.

There is plenty not to like about Donald Trump. I don't think he's a racist or a xenophobe or some of the other sensational things he's accused of being. Yet I’ve never seen such an immature personality in American politics. Frankly, he’s disgusting. But that's not the bad part.

The idea that America (much less conservatives) would want a thrice married, repeatedly philandering, perpetually bankrupt casino man who threatens trade wars, vengeance against the press, and massive governmental projects and who seems to believe that belittling and insulting other Americans (particularly women) will make America great again and who can’t even be consistent on his own policies and beliefs from one paragraph to the next in his own speeches as our head of state is perplexing and demoralizing to say the least.

In another era he would have been (and was as recently as five years ago) dismissed as a boob by the voters. What has changed? Trump hasn’t changed so much as we have. We have become frustrated, angry, and desperate. Some of our problems have increased exponentially, particularly our national debt, economic stagnation, and our diminished standing in the world. Like a declining empire, we yearn for the glory days of old to be restored and the normal ways of accomplishing that goal don’t seem to be working.

We want an authoritarian, a strong man. That’s the only solution to the prospect of national ruin. And he's drawing support from across the board. I was shocked to see a libertarian fan of Ron Paul say on FaceBook the other day that it may be time for a strong man as president. And we are willing to overlook his faults if he will deliver on the promised restoration of glory. But it's not his potential presidency that disturbs so much as his candidacy and popularity and how that reflects on us (much like the unnerving messianic campaign of Barack Obama or the child-like hokum heard at the rallies of Bernie Sanders).

I’m not saying that he couldn’t get elected or that he couldn’t even have a good run as president. Ironically, if he is ultimately successful as an outsider taking over the system, it will be because like a good boss, he hires insiders to get the job done. But I fear we will have perhaps been fatally compromised in the process. A leader whose words we cannot trust (because he’s just negotiating) and whose competence we cannot rely upon (because he’ll hire all the smartest people to do the job) and whose behavior is indecent (because that stuff doesn’t matter; he's not the pastor-in-chief) will be the kind of leader we henceforth expect and deserve.

Cecil Rhodes famously said to fellow citizens of an empire on the verge of decline, "Remember that you are an Englishman, and have consequently won first prize in the lottery of life." I used to think the same thing about being born an American. Now I’m not sure if it matters anymore. What disturbs me about Donald Trump is not so much Donald Trump. He is only a mirror. What disturbs me is the reflection.

Saturday, January 16, 2016

What does marriage mean?

Given at Hamilton, Dublin, and Comanche Texas on 20 January 2013 

If you had conducted a survey of American clergy 100 years ago and asked if they were in favor of gay marriage, I’m sure you would have gotten a nearly 100% affirmative response. (What pastor wouldn’t be in favor of happy marriages in his flock?)

But if you had surveyed American clergy 40 years ago, you would have gotten just about an exactly opposite response. Not too many clergy would have been in favor of “gay marriage” in 1972. The difference, of course, is that words mean things and that meaning can change over time. And it’s not just the words themselves, but even the meaning of the things those words describe.

Four years ago, the new president was a candidate who had gone on record saying he believed marriage should be between 1 man and 1 woman, and the pastor giving the benediction at the inauguration was Rick Warren, a California pastor vocal in his opposition to same-sex marriage.

Tomorrow, the same man will be inaugurated for a new term as president, but he has changed his position on same-sex marriage to now support it. And the pastor he had chosen to give the inaugural benediction, Louie Giglio, backed out of the event because a sermon he preached about 15 years ago titled “A Christian Response to Homosexuality” surfaced in the media, creating a public outcry.

The Presidential Inaugural Committee issued a statement in response, saying, “We were not aware of Pastor Giglio’s past comments at the time of his selection and they don’t reflect our desire to celebrate the strength and diversity of our country at this Inaugural. As we now work to select someone to deliver the benediction, we will ensure their beliefs reflect this administration’s vision of inclusion and acceptance for all Americans.” It is a vivid portrait of how things can change in just a short time. (By the way, an Episcopal priest will give the benediction instead.)

When California’s Proposition 8 (marriage is defined as one man and one woman in the state constitution) was struck down by the US District Court in 2010, I commented on my blog: “I’d like to remind everyone that the Church has always supported the right of gays and lesbians to marry. And as long as there are no impediments, we also support the rights of Christian gays and lesbians to have their marriages solemnized in the church.” 

People were taken aback. One person commented, “Is this April 1st?” And that’s the point. It was to illustrate how far the meaning of marriage had already been altered in the public mind by the political discourse. People no longer thought of marriage as being only one man and one woman.

In today’s gospel (John 2:1-11), we find a message of transforming grace in the epiphany that came through the slight alteration of water into wine. St John tells us this was the first of his “signs”—selected miracles which manifested Jesus’ divine nature—and it happened at a wedding in Cana of Galilee.

I’m inclined to believe it happened for a reason. The question is, Why? When the wine runs low, Mary says to her son, “They have no wine.” She knows he can work miracles. And he knows that she knows. Jesus understood what she was getting at and basically responds, “Why are you asking me for a miracle now?”

As a good Queen Mother, she tells the King’s subjects, “Just do whatever he tells you.” The working of his first sign has always been considered a special endorsement of the dignity of marriage in the Christian tradition, showing the sacramental character of marriage by utilizing the creative and transforming power of God at that special moment.

St. Paul explained that Christ is betrothed to his Bride, which is the Church. This is the heavenly reality which gives meaning to the earthly symbol, marriage. Earthly marriage is true marriage to the extent it signifies the heavenly reality. The scriptures tells us that the bond and covenant of marriage was established by God in creation in Eden—that Adam and Eve were the first newlyweds.

What about the word “marriage”—where does it come from? If you consult your etymological dictionary, you will find that it is descended from the Latin matrimonium, which has come down in this form via Old French. And what does “matrimonium” mean?

I teach a class on Moral Theology for our diocesan school of Theology. A few months ago, I was reviewing some material to revise the syllabus. And I came across a statement in a theology text I had forgotten. It pointed out that contraceptive sex does not consummate marriage. Why? Because we are talking about matrimony.

Perhaps some of you will recognize there the root Latin word mater (“Mother”). The marriage contract is ratified by turning a woman into a mother. “Holy Matrimony” literally means the “sacred condition of motherhood.” We have forgotten this, and we need to remember again.

Would two men ever go to the courthouse and ask that their bond of “sacred motherhood” be recognized by the state? Once upon a time it would have been unthinkable, because that’s how we once thought about marriage.

We need a new epiphany of that life-giving union of marriage—not just for our secular culture, but also for Christian people who may have forgotten or never fully understood what the meaning of marriage really is.

May God reveal to us again the meaning of that beautiful institution which signifies the mystical union between Christ and his bride, the Church.

Sunday, November 22, 2015

Why college football is better than pro

1. It just feels more real. 
I’ve been to a decent number of NFL games, and each one I attended felt like I was at the taping of a TV show. Because I was. Don’t get me wrong, it was usually a lot of fun. But there is simply a different atmosphere at college football games, whether they are on television or not. There is simply more energy, more enthusiasm, and more excitement than at an NFL game.

2. The rivalries. 
The NFL simply does not have rivalries that can match the age-old rivalries of college teams. Think of the Iron Bowl, the Texas Shootout, the Apple Cup, the Battle of the Brazos, games at State Fairs. Most every state has an annual game between the University of X and X State University. They almost take on a life of their own. Many of these competitions even have trophies awarded at the end.

3. The changing players. 
Every year is new, much more so than in the NFL. This is because players graduate and must be replaced with new recruits who have yet to be proven. A college team can go from great to terrible and back to great very quickly. There’s no salary cap. It’s all about strong traditions, attractiveness, good recruitment, good coaching, and a fair amount of luck.

4. College traditions and school spirit. 
Unlike the NFL, college football is a family matter. Your Loving Mother (Alma Mater) is her honor on the field of battle. And it does feel like a big family. It’s likely your parents and grandparents and siblings might have attended there. You probably made life-long friends there. And perhaps even met your spouse there. All that makes you feel more invested in the game.

5. It's a small town vs big town game. 
By its nature, NFL teams (with the exception of Green Bay) play in huge metropolitan areas. In contrast, many large universities are in relatively small towns or mid-sized cities. Hence the term “college town.” Think of Manhattan (Kansas), Oxford (Mississippi), Stillwater, College Station, Ann Arbor, and Tuscaloosa. That makes a difference. I think it helps you feel more attached. You feel lost in a big city sometimes, but with a small town it just feels less anonymous and more connected.

6. More arguments. 
Without a real playoff (the current playoff is just a “plus one” arrangement), there is a lot of room for argument about who is the best. Until just recently, this was determined by an AP poll. Imagine if the contestants in the Super Bowl were determined the same way. And that’s part of the fun. The field is only partly the determiner of who is the best. The other half occurs in the car, the park, the water cooler, the back yard patio, the online chat room, and the board room.

7. It's not so perfect. 
Part of the fun is that anything can happen on any given field of play. Think of some of those amazing plays we get from time to time. There’s the famous “Immaculate Reception” of the NFL. Those kinds of plays come one a decade. But in college, they come once a year, maybe once a week. Part of the anticipation and excitement of the college game is that things are not so refined. Tackles are missed, interceptions become touchdowns, finals scores turn on missed extra points and two point conversions, and trick plays are common. Any team can get an amazing play at any moment.

8. There’s a band. 
 No NFL team has a band that gives you a half-time show and that continuously adds a soundtrack throughout the game. It’s that simple.

9. Live mascots at the game. 
When this is possible, a college team will have a live mascot (a bear, a longhorn, an eagle, a bulldog, etc.). In the NFL, the Denver Broncos are the only team I know of that have a live mascot on the field.

10. High stakes, but plenty of Bowl games. 
No NFL fan hangs their head in shame after one loss at the end of a long winning season, saying, “There’s always next year.” But in college, it’s like that. You have to go undefeated or have only one loss to be considered a national or even conference champion. With two losses, you can’t even make it into the top 10. In the NFL, the teams in the Super Bowl normally have several losses throughout the year. Only one NFL team (the 1972 Miami Dolphins) have played an undefeated season. So in college, the games are much more high stakes when any single loss can ruin your chances. And yet, there’s also plenty of bowl games. So even mediocre teams can make it into one. Each one is different, and each one is a post-season celebration.

Tuesday, November 17, 2015

Was Jesus a refugee?

The question has come up lately in light of Syrian refugees and the problems of security risks coupled with receiving such refugees (especially knowing that one of the culprits of the Paris bombing was disguised as a Syrian refugee). Responding to such concerns, some have said, "Don't let them in the country; it would endanger our citizens." On the other hand, some have argued, "We need to let them in, despite the risk. It's the Christian thing to do. After all, Jesus was once a refugee." Both are a response to Christian values, in this case, the love of neighbor.

I'm still not sure what I'd do if the decision were up to me. I guess I lean more toward the risk of mercy, but I certainly understand those who want to guard against that risk. After all, we are at war (or at least, ISIS is at war with us). I like Bishop Olson's (RCC-Fort Worth) comment: "As Catholics and Christians, we cannot succumb to fear by closing our doors and hearts to all refugees because of the evil of a few." At the least, maybe we could round up some cruise liners to do the job and park them in the Mediterranean.

But back to the question, was Jesus a refugee? Well . . . yes and no . . . sort of. He was a refugee in that his family once sought refuge in Egypt. But no, he was not a refugee in the sense that his situation does not fit the modern definition of the Geneva Convention on Refugees. According to which, a refugee is "a person who is outside their country of citizenship because they have well-founded grounds for fear of persecution because of their race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, and is unable to obtain sanctuary from their home country or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail themselves of the protection of that country."

The one that comes closest is "political opinion." And that would just be the baby Jesus (who presumably did not have many political opinions at the time), not his parents. But of course, we are typically talking about a class of people, not just one person who is threatened with murder. Perhaps "living in exile" is a better fit in this case. Jesus fled to Egypt because King Herod sought to kill him. And Herod wanted to kill him because it was foretold that a new King of the Jews had been born.

Jesus was not alone in being endangered by Herod's jealousy. The massacre of all the innocent baby boys of Bethlehem was, shall we say, overkill. (Perhaps that's where the term originated.) Scarcely a day passed where there was not an execution under Herod’s regime. Herod killed two of his brothers-in-law, his wife Mariamne, and two of his own sons to ward off possible threats to his throne.

We find the story in Matthew 2:13-15. "Now when [the Magi] had departed, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream and said, 'Rise, take the child and his mother, and flee to Egypt, and remain there till I tell you; for Herod is about to search for the child, to destroy him.' And he rose and took the child and his mother by night, and departed to Egypt, and remained there until the death of Herod. This was to fulfil what the Lord had spoken by the prophet, 'Out of Egypt have I called my son'." When Herod died and the danger was passed, they went back home to Nazareth.

What prompted this post was all of the exaggerations you see about this issue. Such as that the Holy Family were undocumented immigrants. There is no evidence to support this, and in fact it would be totally out of character since two of the three are believed to be sinless. We also see claims that they were homeless in Bethlehem. Or that they were refugees in Bethlehem. In his column at the Huffington Post, Ryan Gear claimed, "The nativity scene, after all, depicts a Middle Eastern family who were looking for a place to stay, only to be told there was no room for them." I guess he missed the verse that explains they were "fleeing" Nazareth so they could go register for the census and pay taxes. Or if that's not enough, Jesus was (according to Nancy Pelosi) a Palestinian refugee, fighting for the liberation of Palestine just like they do today.
The bottom line is this: let's stopping using Jesus as cannon fodder in our public policy arguments. The implication that either side is anti-Jesus simply does not belong here. I understand the temptation. But it comes across as irreverent and undignified, unchristian behavior.

Tuesday, September 29, 2015

Pope Francis called Christ a failure?

Pope Francis' homily at Vespers in St. Patrick's Cathedral in New York during his visit to the United States included one paragraph that prompted screaming headlines like "Pope Said Christ Failed On the Cross." What did he really say? and What does it mean?

Here's the actual passage: "Ours is to plant the seeds: God sees to the fruits of our labors. And if at times our efforts and works seem to fail and produce no fruit, we need to remember that we are followers of Jesus… and his life, humanly speaking, ended in failure, the failure of the cross."

At first glance it seems like nuts like Alex Jones have caught the pope red handed. But look closely and note the qualifiers. Francis said, "at times our efforts and works SEEM to fail and produce no fruit", and Jesus' "life, HUMANLY SPEAKING, ended in failure". And in fact the passage above begins with the statement, "The cross shows us a different way of measuring success."

Despite the screaming headlines, there are no theological problems here. The Holy Father's overall message was that the world does not often appreciate the value of sacrifice and looks upon it as a waste, but in God's eyes it does have value. He opened his talk with the theme of sacrifice--of those who built St. Patrick's and connecting that with the generations who sacrificed to build up the church in this country.

"Once we realize how much God has given us, we learn that a life of sacrifice, of working for him and for others, becomes a privileged way, a privileged way of responding to his great love," he said. That is not always appreciated at the time or by those outside the church, but God reveals its true value. In a similar way, St. Paul pointed out how the crucifixion of Jesus was "a stumbling block for Jews and folly to Gentiles, but to those who are called, . . . [it reveals Christ as] the power of God and the wisdom of God" (1 Corinthians 1:23-24).

Interesting in that regard is that the pope apparently deviated from the opening of his prepared remarks and began instead with a charitable greeting to Muslims. He said, "I would like to express two sentiments for my Muslim brothers and sisters: Firstly, my greetings as they celebrate the feast of sacrifice. I would have wished my greeting to be warmer. My sentiments of closeness, my sentiments of closeness in the face of tragedy. The tragedy that they suffered in Mecca."

It's especially interesting because Muslims do not believe Jesus died on the cross for this very reason--it would have been a shame and a failure and God's prophets cannot fail. The resurrection makes it look even worse since it testifies to Jesus' divinity. So they just deny the whole thing ever happened. Pope Francis could have extended this special greeting at any time, but chose to do it on this occasion when he was about to talk about the hidden value of sacrifice. It was an invitation to take a closer look at the man they already revere, but do not yet recognize as the incarnate power of God and the wisdom of God.

Monday, September 28, 2015

An Anglican Pope?

In the Archbishop of Canterbury’s recent invitation for a gathering of Anglican primates, he noted, “We have no Anglican pope. Our authority as a church is dispersed . . .” (Actually, there was one “Anglican pope,” i.e., an Englishman named Pope Adrian VI from 1154 to 1159.) But a serious point is commonly made that unlike the pope, the Archbishop of Canterbury has no real jurisdiction in other provinces. That makes it more difficult to solve global church problems. But let us not be led to think there’s no pope for Anglicans.

The Church of England was in full communion with the pope in Rome for well over a millennium. That sadly came to an end at the time of the English Reformation, though we should note that we never repudiated communion with Rome. The “reformation parliament” ended appeals to Rome and papal jurisdiction in England, but it wasn’t until Pope Pius V excommunicated Queen Elizabeth I that the breech became finalized. Both sides have said they are committed to healing the breech.

The Anglican-Roman Catholic International Commission (ARCIC) released a joint statement in 1999 called The Gift of Authority. It reiterated, “There is no turning back in our journey towards full ecclesial communion” (58). It described the papacy (which succeeds Peter’s apostolic ministry) as rooted in scripture and tradition and as a gift to be shared and received among the churches. Peter’s ministry was to articulate God’s revelation and to strengthen the brethren. ARCIC called on Anglicans and Roman Catholics to find ways in which the future restoration of our communion can start to be lived out even today.

There is no Anglican pope, but there is a pope for Anglicans. He lives in Rome and his name is Francis.

Tuesday, August 04, 2015

Sermon for a Votive of the Holy Cross

(Delivered to a chapter of priests of the Society of the Holy Cross.)

“They offered him wine mingled with myrrh, but he would not take it.” (Mk 15:23)

Today, as we celebrate this votive of the Holy Cross of our Savior, I want to talk about something that has been on my heart and on my mind lately—the issue of suffering.

First, let’s consider the Myrrh in that verse. Myrrh is an analgesic, a painkiller. And the main way to ingest it in ancient times was mixed with wine, which tasted very bitter, but was very effective in lowering pain. This was one of the very few mercies shown to the Savior at Calvary. But, as we heard, Jesus refused.

Expositors commenting on this verse tend to emphasize that Jesus refused this potion not so much because it would dull his senses, but dull his mental faculties. That is, Jesus would need all his wits about him at this crucial moment with the world hanging on his every word; he could not afford to be inebriated. But is that really the case? I’m not so sure.

Myrrh (which is still used today in a powder for toothaches) is a mild opiod that was replaced when powerful drugs like morphine came along. Some use the essential oil of myrrh to induce “relaxation.” So there might have been a small chance of intoxication.

One commentator argued that Jesus refused it because it wasn’t kosher. But then, Jesus does drink later on, so that argument doesn't make much sense. It seems to me that the most straightforward explanation is perhaps the most likely—Jesus didn’t want any painkiller on the cross. Which is striking when one considers how deeply Jesus suffered (physically, emotionally, and spiritually) that day.

There was also a verse from the epistle back on Trinity Sunday (Romans 8) That resonated with this idea and stuck with me in my mind. Paul explained to the Romans that when we are adopted into the family of God, we are made his children and receive the spirit of sonship. He said, we become “heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, provided we suffer with him in order that we may also be glorified with him.” (Romans 8:17)

Of course, the Apostle Paul knew great sufferings in his ministry. He was imprisoned and flogged multiple times in his journeys and finally beheaded for the sake of Christ in Rome. So he talked about suffering. But not just about his sufferings (he was not complaining), but our sufferings, human suffering.

For one of the basic things about the human experience, however blessed, lucky, favored, pampered, and fortunate life may be, at some point, we will all know sufferings. We experience the pain of loss—of loved ones, of friendships, of jobs, ways of life, of physical abilities, and so on. Not all of us will hurt the same way, but at some point all of us will hurt.

I'm told Blaise Pascal claimed that, ultimately, truth and love are the only things that hurt. Which is odd, because truth and love—those are good things. So I want us to consider that suffering might not always be bad. Or, that even bad suffering can become something of a blessing.

This Spring, I was sharing a few words on that topic with a parishioner who had seen and known suffering up close, taking care of his dying father. I’ll never forget what he said about suffering—“I highly recommend it.”

I’m not sure I can explain it, but when he when he said that, I knew what he meant. As strange as it sounds, that makes sense to me. I guess I had been there with my wife going to the brink of death and then slowly regaining some health. It sounds strange because I don’t want to suffer. I don’t want to hurt.

And yet I think about those who have suffered together—war buddies, families who have gone through hardships, disaster, losses—and I’m amazed by the closeness, even the “blessings” of their experience. In the First Letter of St Peter, the Apostle says that if you suffer for the sake of righteousness, you will be blessed (1 P 3:14).

Does God want us to suffer? Paul says we are heirs with Christ if we suffer with him. In the Eucharist, we find a man on the cross who has also suffered as we celebrate the memorial of Christ’s saving passion and death. A eucharistic prayer in Rite Two says, . . . “on the night he was handed over to suffering and death . . .” Another one adds, “a death he freely accepted.”

In his letter to the Colossians, St Paul makes a very mysterious statement: “I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I complete what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions for the sake of his Body, that is, the Church” (Colossians 1:24) Now it is clear from his other writings that the Apostle firmly believes that the atonement of Christ is complete—there’s nothing deficient about it. So that can’t be what he means. What does he mean, then?

St Augustine of Hippo explains that in God’s providence, the mystical Body of Christ (the Church) is to share in Christ’s sufferings. In ministering to them and serving the Lord, Paul is taking up his cross. Paul realized that the sufferings of this life are a means of drawing closer to Christ. Suffering can sometimes drive people apart, or it can bring them together. It’s not so much that God wants his people to suffer. It’s that he wants us to use the sufferings in life (which we often unleash upon ourselves) in a redemptive way, to draw closer in union with Christ.

How does one do this? By offering your sufferings in union with Christ’s sacrifice. At this and every offering of the great Sacrifice of the Altar, let us gather up the fragments of our lives—our joys and sorrows, our triumphs and our fears, our moments of revelry and of pain—and make them a gift of our very selves to God.

For when they are offered through, in, and with the sacrifice of Christ, they become an acceptable and pleasing sacrifice to God the Father. We become pleasing and acceptable to God the Father. Then we will find that “these momentary afflictions are preparing for us an eternal weight of glory” (2 Cor 4:17).

But there is more to it than this—than finding a redemptive value in suffering. We are called to be living icons of the Good Shepherd. We stand at the altar in persona Christi, like him, as both priest and victim. Do we not just offer, but lay ourselves upon the altar with Christ? Do we like St Paul rejoice in our sufferings for the sake of our people? As he talked about (Colossians 1:24), we are in a mysterious way making up what is lacking in the sufferings of his Body.

St. Gregory of Nazianzus, (Orat. ii, Apolog.) Archbishop of Constantinople, wrote: “No one can approach the infinite God, our high priest and victim, if he himself is not a living and holy victim, if he does not offer himself in spiritual sacrifice, seeing that this is the sacrifice demanded by him who gave himself up entirely on our behalf. Without it, I would not dare to bear the name or vestment of a priest.”

Christ upon the Cross is the irreplaceable model for priesthood and is at the center of the proclamation of the Gospel. Consider for a moment the example of St Paul in Athens. Athens was a “PBS” kind of town. The Athenians ate up lectures and philosophical speculation with a spoon, the way the rest of us digest pizza and football. They enjoyed listening to visiting lecturers and philosophers in their public forum, the Areopagus.

In Acts 17, we find people saying that Paul is promoting some foreign deities—a god named Jesus and a goddess named Anastasis ("resurrection"). They loved hearing new things, and wanted to know more. Paul agrees and addresses the public at the forum. Noticing a great plethora of religious and devotional artifacts—a statue of a goddess here, an outdoor shrine there, a carved idol below, a temple in the distance.

“Men of Athens,” Paul says, “I’m usually a very perceptive person and it occurs to me that you are a religious people. I notice that you have an altar over there dedicated to 'an Unknown God.' I’m going to tell you about that God whom you worship, but do not know.” And Paul proceeded to describe the existence of a Creator as evidenced in their piety and philosophy and poetry.

Some of the people scoffed at a few of his points, others wanted Paul to come back and speak again. But when it was over, Paul left and did not return to speak. Luke says, “Paul went out from among them.” (17:33) One verse later, Luke tells us, “…he left Athens and went to Corinth.” (18:1) A few people in Athens became believers and joined Paul on his mission. But that was it. There were no massive conversions like the ones that followed Peter’s sermon at the beginning of Acts. It seems that no church was founded there at that time. Paul wrote no letter to the Athenians.

What happened? Paul was elegant and polished. He did it like they taught us in seminary. His argument was fully inculturated in the Stoic philosophy of the Athenians. He spoke with their words and on their level. Yet by all accounts, this sermon stood out as a failure in his missions. Perhaps also telling is the fact that Athens is the only place where Paul’s preaching did not provoke some persecution.

Without realizing it, Paul put himself at a distinct disadvantage among them because he addressed them as another peddler of philosophical ideas. They had the intellectual curiosity of a good audience, but it was the kind of curiosity that is content to remain in the abstract, and is unwilling to venture out into a world where ideas change lives. Perhaps there is a parallel to our own day and place.

Paul was not sharing his faith in Jesus as Lord and Savior; he did not proclaim the cross of Christ. He was trying to say that Christianity is not that bizarre after all. “You see, it’s really not that different from what you do here. We just have a name for it—it’s a matter of faith. It’s another interpretation.” And that’s exactly how it was received.

It may have looked like Paul was not just in the world, but of the world. Frankly, I fear that’s how a lot of us look. (I’m pointing no fingers here, and I’m preaching to myself as well.) We need to get weird again. We need to stand out from the crowd. We need to be outcasts again. We need to be hated for his Name’s sake (we will never be loved for his Name’s sake). We don’t just need to change minds, but to change hearts. We need the life-changing message of the cross, and its power over sin in people’s real lives.

Paul sensed that he failed at Athens when he went to the next town of Corinth. Looking back, he wrote back to the Corinthian church, “When I came to you, brethren, proclaiming the mystery of God, I did not come with lofty words or wisdom. For I decided to know nothing among you but Jesus Christ and him crucified.” Persecution did not break this man—Athens did.

Again, he wrote, “I came to you in weakness and fear and much trembling, and my message and my proclamation were not with persuasive words of wisdom, but with a demonstration of the spirit and power so that your faith might not rest on human wisdom, but on the power of God.” (1 Cor 2:1-5) Our epistle today was the fruit of his experience in Athens.

How often do our words in the pulpit seem hollow and unmoving? How often do our actions and inactions undermine the message we preach? (And remember, pointing no fingers, preaching to myself.) Do you meditate upon the passion and sufferings of our Lord, looking for ways to take up your cross and follow him?

 In the Imitation of Christ (Bk. iv, c. 10) Thomas à Kempis wrote: “Blessed is he who offers himself up as a [burnt offering] to the Lord, as often as he celebrates or communicates.” How often do you do penance on behalf of your people? How do you share in the sufferings of the poor, the sick, and the outcast? What do you do to identify with the sufferings of your people? We have seen how Christ (the model of priesthood) did just that.

As Jesus said in the Gospel today, “He who loves his life loses it, and he who hates his life in this world will keep it for eternal life. If any one serves me, he must follow me; and where I am, there shall my servant be also; if any one serves me, the Father will honor him.” (Jn 12:25-6)

Let us be on the lookout for such opportunities. Ask God for them. I’m not saying that means you can’t take an aspirin for a headache. But we know that a part of God’s plan is for us to identify with/share with Christ in his sufferings and priests should be at the crossroads of that.

“They offered him wine mingled with myrrh, but he would not take it.” (Mk 15:23)

The first thing we meditated upon in this verse is the painkiller—the myrrh. The second part I want us to consider is the wine. And we'll find out why Jesus refused to drink.

If you remember, there are four cups of wine during the seder meal. Each time the cup is filled, it has a different name. The first cup is called the Kiddush, it is the “Cup of Sanctification.” This is to remember that God called “called us out of Egypt.”

The second cup is called the “Cup of Deliverance,” to remember God’s deliverance through the plagues upon Egypt. And the third cup is called the “Cup of Redemption” or “of Blessing” in which God promises to redeem us with his mighty power.

It was the third cup which Christ gave to his disciples at the Mystical Supper saying, “Take and drink; this is my Blood of the new covenant poured out for you.” St. Paul noted, “The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ?” (1 Cor 10:16)

And what of that fourth cup of wine in the Passover meal? At that point, the pattern was interrupted when Jesus said, “I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on, until that day when I drink it new with you in My Father’s kingdom” (Mt 26:29). The fourth cup was known as the “Cup of Consummation”—the cup in which God takes us as his people.

After sharing the cup of his blood, Jesus left the liturgy unfinished. Or perhaps we should say, the liturgy continued . . . in the Garden, at the cross, and at the tomb. Jesus left the fourth cup on the table because there was another new element in the Seder liturgy; there was a new cup from which to drink; for Jesus, it would be the “Cup of Suffering.”

Isaiah and Jeremiah both foretold that the Messiah would drink from the cup of God’s wrath. The grapes of wrath would be churned in the wine press and the cup of divine wrath would be poured out against sin. Jesus prayed in the Garden of Gethsemane, “Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me. Nevertheless, not as I will, but as you will.” Isaiah prophesied, “It was the will of the Lord to bruise him.” (Is 53:10)

Before they crucified Jesus, they offered him wine mingled with myrrh, but he would not take it. “I will not drink of the fruit of the vine until I drink it new in the kingdom.” He hung there on the tree for about three hours. If you recall, one of the last things that happened before Jesus died was that he looked down and said, “I thirst.”

John’s gospel says there was a bowl of sour wine nearby. So they put a sponge on the end of a hyssop branch, (the same thing used to put the lamb’s blood on the door-posts) dipped it in the wine and raised it up to his lips. And when he tasted the wine, Jesus said, “It is finished.” And bowed his head and gave up his spirit (Jn 19:30).

It is consummated. The Mass has ended. The liturgy is over. He drank the cup of consummation and took his people into the kingdom of God, for the gate of heaven’s kingdom stands at the cross on Calvary.

So the question I’m putting to you today is . . . Are you willing to drink the cup that is your share in Christ’s sufferings? We cannot be priests (offerers of sacrifice) without being men of sacrifice. We have no right to share in the priesthood of Christ while being unwilling to share in his victimhood.

In his Dialogues (bk. iv, c. 59) Pope St. Gregory wrote: “We who celebrate the mysteries of the Lord’s Passion should imitate what we are doing. If we look for benefit from the victim which we offer, we must offer ourselves to God as a victim.”

Jesus accepted the cup of suffering and refused the cup of myrrh. Do you sometimes refuse the cup of suffering when it is offered? Do you at times, as it were, accept the cup of myrrh? And does that bring you closer to Christ? Or does it push Christ away?

“Consider it all joy, my brethren, when you encounter various trials . . .” (James 1:2) As we remember today the life-giving power of the Holy Cross, let us be mindful of the sufferings of the man who was nailed to it—Jesus Christ our great High Priest, and our sacrificial Victim.

“Sweetest wood and sweetest iron, sweetest weight is hung on thee. Thou alone wast counted worthy to bear the King of heaven and the Lord” (Votive Mass of the Holy Cross).

Friday, July 31, 2015

What does it mean to be "pro-life"?

I supposed Planned Parenthood has pulled out all the big guns in doing damage control after the recent undercover videos leaked their practice of selling fetal body parts.

In a recently resurfaced interview with Bill Moyers in 2004, "catholic" Sister Joan Chittister said: "I do not believe that just because you're opposed to abortion, that that makes you pro-life. In fact, I think in many cases, your morality is deeply lacking if all you want is a child born but not a child fed, not a child educated, not a child housed. And why would I think that you don't? Because you don't want any tax money to go there. That's not pro-life. That's pro-birth. We need a much broader conversation on what the morality of pro-life is." 

First, she advocates for the pro-choice position without having to label herself as such. This is disingenuous.

Second, there is NO ONE out there who does not want children to be fed, educated, and housed. This is a "straw man" argument and she seemed either totally unaware or dismissive of Christian ministries in these areas.

Third, in effect she equates being "really" pro-life with wanting every child to be a ward of the state. That's not pro-life, that's fascist.

Wednesday, July 29, 2015

Summer sermon notes: Cardinal Virtues

DISCLAIMER: I want to make one thing clear so there’s no confusion, and that is that we’re not talking about salvation here or “how to be saved.” We’re talking about sanctification, growth in holiness, Christian maturity, but not how to be redeemed, and it’s important to note the distinction because we do not and cannot redeem ourselves. We are redeemed by Jesus Christ. Salvation comes as an act of God—a free gift of God’s grace, received by faith in the sacrament of Holy Baptism and nourished by the Holy Eucharist. It is Christ’s work, not ours. We do not earn it; he merited it for us. We do not impress God by our virtue. Indeed, he loved us in spite of our lack of virtue.

St John Chrysostom, Patriarch of Constantinople said, “Even if we have thousands of acts of great virtue to our credit, our confidence in being heard must be based on God’s mercy and his love for men. Even if we stand at the very summit of virtue, it is by mercy that we shall be saved.”

We’ll be talking about what we are redeemed for—the end purpose of humanity, and that is to live a life of virtue—to become more and more Christlike, growing toward a life of eternal heavenly beatitude (happiness) lived in communion with God and in fellowship with his saints.

According to tradition, Adam and Eve were endowed by God with “preternatural gifts.” These were abilities beyond normal human nature—gifts we lost in the Fall. There were four gifts they had automatically:
1) Infused Knowledge (they didn’t have to learn, but just knew what they had to),
2) Immortality (before sin there was no death),
3) Integrity (that is, their appetites were subordinate to their intellect)
4) Original Righteousness (justitia) on account of the supernatural gift of sanctifying grace in their souls.

These four gifts correspond to the four Cardinal Virtues:
1) Prudence (relating to former knowledge and how to make use of it)
2) Fortitude (relating to our former immortality)
3) Temperance (relating to former integrity)
4) Justice (relating to original righteousness)

By our sinful rebellion in the garden, humanity lost those three preternatural gifts as well as the one supernatural gift and “fell” to a natural state. Man’s intellect thus became darkened, he became subject to disease and death, concupiscence or the “lust of the flesh” arose in man, and he exchanged original righteousness for sin.

While virtue alone cannot save us from sin, virtue is an essential part of our life in Christ. What exactly is a virtue? It’s a habit (in this case, a good habit, as opposed to a bad habit or vice). Most virtues are acquired by constant practice and exercise; the theological virtues are infused at baptism.

It is more than just a talent or a natural disposition (though we may have those). It is something we have worked at by exercising our will. And the more we employ a habit, the easier it becomes in the future.

ANALOGY: Think of the virtues as being like muscles in your body. The old adage about muscles in your body applies to the virtues: use it or lose it. The more you nourish it, the better use can be derived from it. The more you work it, the stronger it becomes. The less it is used, the more it atrophies and the harder it is to use it when it is needed. That’s why when you ask God for patience (for example), he sends frustrating things your way. You need to employ the virtues in your daily life or they will never become truly strong.

DEFINITION: Cardinal is from the Latin word for “hinge” and it is used here because the medieval theologians saw how most of the other virtues flowed out of these four. So whether or not you were a virtuous person, “hinged” on how well you lived out these four virtues.

Ancient philosophers like Plato and later Cicero popularized these virtues. The Bible enumerates them in Wisdom 8:7 where Solomon says, “If any one loves righteousness, her labors are virtues; for she teaches temperance and prudence, justice and courage; nothing in life is more profitable for men than these.” And the Bible teaches us about each virtue. St. Ambrose was the first to use the “hinge” expression when he noted: “And we know that there are four cardinal virtues temperance, justice, prudence, fortitude.”

The word virtue comes from the Latin virtus ("valor") and means a moral excellence. So to be virtuous (in the Latin expression) is to be manly, courageous, honorable in doing right, in not getting carried away by the passions and appetites, but making choices in accordance with reason and goodness.

Pope St. Gregory the Great said, “The only true riches are those that make us rich in virtue.”

Sunday, July 26, 2015

My comments on other people's comments

And I thought I'd post them here so I could remember what I said and find it again.

I posted this comment to one of George Takei's FaceBook post which is based on an opinion piece he wrote for MSNBC, because I believe this is an important and timely issue that has been overshadowed by name-calling. The issue is the origin of human rights and dignity--the state or God. Takei was upset about one item in Justice Thomas' dissent in Obergefell. Takei was criticized as making a racist comment. He's no racist. I can understand his complaint, especially given his history in the Japanese camps of WWII, but I think he is confused.

I wrote: "I can appreciate walking back from the blackface comment, but this is not the central issue. I think you misunderstand Justice Thomas. He was not arguing that the government is not accountable; far from it. He was pointing out that its role is not to give rights, but to recognize and protect unalienable rights, which are endowed by the Creator, not by the state. A person has dignity because he or she is a human being, not because the government gave that person dignity. So it should be held accountable for not respecting that dignity that God instilled. Persons would have no more or less dignity if they lived in Soviet Russia, or Canada, or Nazi Germany, or France, or China, etc. Their human dignity and rights would be recognized and protected to a greater or lesser degree, but they would always be there. As Whitney Houston sang in perhaps her most famous number, 'No matter what they take from me, they can’t take away my dignity.'"

I'm not the only one with the same reaction--that we are created with dignity, not given dignity by the state. Wesley Smith posted at National Review Online: "Slavery did not strip its victims of their inherent dignity. It was evil precisely because they had inherent dignity. So does each and every LGBT human being."

The other comment I made was on the website of Bud Deiner, who was my pastor at Evergreen Christian Fellowship back in High School. Deiner is a gifted teacher and expositor of the Word and I have great respect for him. He currently serves as a missionary in South Africa.

He recently did a series on Bible verses that relate to homosexuality as a response to the spin from people like Matthew Vines who are distorting the facts. Deiner's insightful analysis of the Sodom and Gomorrah passage from Genesis 19 prompted me to make this observation:

One thing I'd point out as well is the wider context. Looking at the previous chapter (Genesis 18), we see what happened right before the famous judgment against Sodom was carried out. The three angels visit Abraham and Sarah and tell them that Sarah will be fruitful and have a baby by their next visit (vv 10-15) which caused Sarah to laugh. Immediately they turn toward Sodom to go investigate the outcry against the city (vv 16, 20-21).

Given the Hebrew Bible's penchant for parallelism and irony (especially in the J source, if you're into that sort of thing), I think a contrast is being set up between the two--the ways of blessing or of curse. Sarah's laugh is an added touch of the contrast between those who laugh with joy at God's miracles and those who laugh in the face of God's authority. Abraham and Sarah are childless despite many attempts and many years of prayer and heartache. The men of Sodom have fallen for a counterfeit sex that forgoes procreation, which is the intended natural end of the marriage act. 

The contrast is underlined in verses 17-19 when the angel of the Lord (thinking out loud) says, "Shall I hide from Abraham what I am about to do?" He explains that he is making Abraham the patriarch of many nations and they need to be instructed in the ways of righteousness. The context implies that the reference at least includes a holy sexual ethic--the value of real sex versus the counterfeit. God can open the womb for the former, but his design is frustrated in the latter. The former seeks God's blessing, but the latter seeks God's curse. 

The answer is given in the action. The angels inform Abraham that they are going to Sodom to check things out. No word is said by them about punishment, so obviously Abraham has heard the rumors and assumes the worst. He begs and barters for God's mercy for Sodom and figures they are safe since God promises to spare the city on account of ten righteous (so at least nephew Lot and his family should cover it). Of course, the angels simply remove them from the city and that is the end of that.

Sunday, April 05, 2015

This Easter, rise to the occasion

Not too long ago, I heard an interesting ad on the radio. It was for a lighting company that was having a sale. I think they specialize in novelty lighting for parties and concerts. They told the listeners, “This Easter, rise to the occasion and take advantage of our sale on lighting.”

And that line struck me—“This Easter, rise to the occasion.” Was this just a lame Easter joke? A way to “cash in”? What if we were to say that on Easter day, Jesus “rose to the occasion”? If we were to take that seriously, what would it mean?

Jesus’ body was put to death on the cross, and he was buried in a tomb. Jesus Christ is now alive. The question I’m asking today is, Why? Why did Jesus rise from the dead? What occasioned his resurrection? Why did God want to redeem us in this way?

Because frankly, in a lot of people’s thinking, the resurrection is an afterthought. It’s a way of saying that Good Friday wasn’t so bad after all, that this whole cross/atonement thing somehow “worked.” But for those 1st century disciples, the resurrection of Jesus meant something clear and unmistakable.

It is perhaps best summarized by something Jesus says in John’s Revelation (1:17-18): “Fear not, I am the first and the last, and the living one; I died, and behold I am alive for evermore, and I have the keys of Death and Hades.”

These are not the words of a religious guru whose corpse lies rotting in a tomb while spiritually he continues to live on in our hearts and memories. These are the words of a Man who is God become flesh, who willingly lays down that mortal life and then takes it up again—changed, transformed, renewed, and immortal. They are the words of a Man who reigns as the divine judge, bringing the last, great day into the present moment, inaugurating God’s heavenly kingdom on earth.

As St Paul wrote in his epistle to the Church of Rome (6:9), “We know that Christ being raised from the dead will never die again; death has no power over him.” He is the omnipotent Son of God! 1. Jesus’ resurrection is the ultimate manifestation of his divinity.

2. Jesus’ resurrection shows his authority as Lord over time and space when he gives us a foretaste of the Last Day (the “day of resurrection”) here and now in the middle of time by overcoming death and being seated as the Judge of all the living and dead. That’s why he said, “I am the Alpha and the Omega: the beginning and the end” (Rev 21:6).

The third day signifies the day of the general resurrection in the Old Testament. In Hosea 6:2, the prophet says, “After two days, [God] will revive us; On the third day he will raise us up, that we may live before him.” Before being taken as a Messianic prophecy, this was viewed as being applied to God’s people together.

In the Acts of the Apostles [10:42], we heard Peter proclaim this morning, that Jesus “commanded us to preach to the people, and to testify that he is the one ordained by God to be judge of the living and the dead.” This is why St. Paul calls Jesus the “firstborn among the dead” or the “firstborn among many brethren” who are to follow in his steps through the resurrection at the last day.

3. In his resurrection, Jesus shows us that death is conquered. Death had been robbed of its sting, robbed of its power. It is no longer a dreaded foe, but a gateway to the great beyond. Life is changed by death, but not ended. Our bodies are not just returned at the Last Day, but restored and made new. Death is turned into a mere bump in the road.

The author of the letter to the Hebrews [2:14-15] tells us: “Since therefore the children share in flesh and blood, [Jesus] himself likewise partook of the same nature, that through death he might destroy him who has the power of death, that is, the devil, and deliver all those who through fear of death were subject to lifelong bondage.”

On this Easter Day, let us “rise to the occasion” by praising God that (1) our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ manifested his divine power and authority in conquering the grave. Let us praise God that (2) Jesus as Lord and Judge commands time and space, that he has shown himself to be our Alpha and Omega. And let us praise God this Easter Day that (3) our Lord Jesus Christ has vanquished our old enemy called “death” and made him our friend.

Christ indeed from death is risen, our new life obtaining. Have mercy, Victor King, ever reigning!

Let us pray.
Father in heaven, by the resurrection of your Son Jesus Christ, happiness entered the world: Grant that we, by the aide of the Virgin Mary, his Mother, we may share in those joys of eternal life; through Jesus Christ our Lord, who is now alive, and who always reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God, now and for ever. Amen.

Thursday, February 12, 2015

Did Jesus define the OT canon in Mt 23:35?

The short answer is no. Let me explain why; the explanation is important because the truth is important. This post is written in response to an old high school friend and pastor, Justin Evans, who has a genuine heart for God and a passionate love for the truth. I hope a little bit of Justin rubbed off on me and anyone to whom he has ministered, because he’s a real blessing.

Justin posted a link to an article he recommended by Brian Edwards, called ‘Why 66?’ Overall, it is a fairly good summary of how we arrived at a biblical canon, though not without a few serious flaws (the kind of revisionism that ruined the NIV).

Some background 
As an Anglican, our bible is larger than the Protestant bible, which has fewer books in the Old Testament. The books we call the Apocrypha were put into a section at the end of the Old Testament in the authorized Anglican translation, known in America as “the King James Version.” (Can’t find the Apocrypha in your KJV? I’ll get to that.)
 These “extra” books (and parts of books) in the Apocrypha are a part of the Septuagint—the Greek translation of the Old Testament in circulation at the time of Jesus. This was the Bible used by the early church (remember, the Old Testament was THE Bible before the New Testament was written) and it was the translation used by the writers of the New Testament books. For example, in Matthew 1:23, the Evangelist quotes from the Greek Septuagint translation of Isaiah (“Behold, a virgin shall conceive”) rather than from the Hebrew version of Isaiah (“Behold, a maiden shall conceive”).

After the destruction of Jerusalem and its glorious temple in AD 70, Judaism had to redefine itself. Part of that process was a determination of what holy books comprised the canon of scripture. Some accepted only the Torah, some all the Hebrews books, and others all the Greek books of the Septuagint. The Sadducees accepted only the Torah. The Septuagint was especially used and accepted by Jews in Alexandria and throughout the Mediterranean world outside of Palestine.

To make a long story short, the Jews settled on only the Hebrew books. Although some of the books in the Apocrypha were originally written in Hebrew, only the Greek translation survived. The Septuagint was also becoming more and more associated with those heretical Jews known as Christians. A purging of the last remaining Christians in the synagogues accompanied a purging of the “Christian Bible” as well. It is telling that Ethiopian Jews, who were cut off from mainstream Palestinian Judaism, retained the official use of the Septuagint.

Reading the article ‘Why 66?’ 
Of course, with the title ‘Why 66?’, I was not surprised to find the assertion that the Bible has only 66 books (the Hebrew Bible, plus the Christian New Testament). But one thing that really caught my attention when I was reading through ‘Why 66?’ was this line: “Whether or not the Septuagint also contained the Apocrypha is impossible to say for certain, since although the earliest copies of the Septuagint available today do include the Apocrypha—placed at the end—these are dated in the fifth century and therefore cannot be relied upon to tell us what was common half a millennium earlier.”

This statement is absolutely ridiculous. First of all, there is a problem of logic. You can’t make an argument from ignorance. You could equally say, “Whether or not the Septuagint contained Isaiah is impossible to say for certain, since although the earliest copies of the Septuagint available today do include Isaiah, these are dated in the fifth century and therefore cannot be relied upon to tell us what was common half a millennium earlier.” You could plug just about anything into that sentence and it would make the same sense (which is to say, no sense).

Second, Edwards claims in the article, “Nothing else, certainly not the Apocrypha, is given the same [canonical] status” in the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS). This statement is highly misleading. It leads one to believe that no books of the Apocrypha were found in the caves at Qumran, which is simply not the case. Copies of Tobit, Sirach (aka, Ecclesiasticus), and the Letter of Jeremiah were found in Cave 4, which generally housed biblical texts. There are also thousands of fragments from the DSS still waiting to be examined and identified, so who knows what might still be found.

You also have to remember that these were libraries of biblical and non-biblical material—literally, rooms with scrolls in them. There was no box labeled “Bible only.” Of course, at least two scrolls from the Apocrypha are unlikely to be found there. The sect at Qumran was anti-Hasmonean (the dynasty that the Maccabees had founded), so they probably did not want to keep copies of the chronicles of the Maccabees.
A fragment from the Book of Tobit of the Apocrypha found among the Dead Sea Scrolls.
The great significance of the DSS is that it advances our oldest copies of the Bible about 1,000 years into the past. Comparing the DSS with the Masoretic Text show a remarkable consistency. Which is to say, the Jewish communities which copied and preserved these sacred books went to great lengths to ensure that they remained faithful and unchanged. Neither the Hebrew nor Greek Bibles were arbitrarily added to or deleted from.

The discovery of Hebrew scrolls from the Apocrypha also showed that these books were not necessarily rejected even in “Hebrew only” Palestine. One scholar noted: “Up until recently it was assumed that ‘apocryphal’ additions found in the books of the LXX represented later augmentations in the Greek to the Hebrew texts. In connection with this, the Masoretic text (MT) established by the rabbis in the medieval period has been accepted as the faithful witness to the Hebrew Bible of the 1st century. Yet, this presupposition is now being challenged in light of the Dead Sea Scrolls” (Michael Barber, Loose Canons: The Development of the Old Testament, Part 1).

So how did these books disappear from Protestant Bibles? 
To keep costs down and thus facilitate the widespread distribution and use of the Bible, the printing costs were underwritten by Bible societies. In the 19th Century, there began to be increasing complaints made by Protestant members of American Bible Society (ABS) that their funds were used for Bibles printed with the Apocrypha. By the turn of the century, the ABS had defunded all publications of Bibles that included the Apocrypha, thus virtually all Bibles in the United States during most of the 20th Century were printed without the Apocrypha. The ABS lifted restrictions on the publication of Bibles with the Apocrypha in 1964, and most modern translations (except the NIV) have been available with the option of the Apocrypha included.

It is important to understand that the church never added any books to the Old Testament, rather the Reformers took them out. All of the Christian councils (which represent not the view of just one person, but the Christian consensus) that list the canonical books of the Old Testament, from the earliest centuries up to the Reformation, include the books of the Apocrypha. But don’t just take my word for it; listen to the experts.

The Anglican priest and patristics scholar J. N. D. Kelly wrote: "It should be observed that the Old Testament thus admitted as authoritative in the Church was somewhat bulkier and more comprehensive than the [Hebrew Bible] . . . It always included, though with varying degrees of recognition, the so-called Apocrypha or deuterocanonical books. The reason for this is that the Old Testament which passed in the first instance into the hands of Christians was . . . the Greek translation known as the Septuagint. . . . most of the Scriptural quotations found in the New Testament are based upon it rather than the Hebrew.. . . In the first two centuries . . . the Church seems to have accept all, or most of, these additional books as inspired and to have treated them without question as Scripture. Quotations from Wisdom, for example, occur in 1 Clement and Barnabas. . . Polycarp cites Tobit, and the Didache [cites] Ecclesiasticus. Irenaeus refers to Wisdom, the History of Susannah, Bel and the Dragon [i.e., the deuterocanonical portions of Daniel], and Baruch. The use made of the Apocrypha by Tertullian, Hippolytus, Cyprian and Clement of Alexandria is too frequent for detailed references to be necessary" (J. N. D. Kelley, Early Christian Doctrines, pp 53-54).

Luther removed these books from the Old Testament in his German Bible. He still printed them in a separate section, with the heading: “Apocrypha: these are books which are not held equal to the sacred scriptures, and yet are useful and good for reading.” But what you may not know is that Luther also wanted to remove books from the New Testament—James (an “epistle of straw” which he wished to “throw into the fire”), 2 Peter, Hebrews, and Revelation. On what basis? Only on his own judgment. Like 2 Maccabees, they had verses which presented difficulties for his theology.

His fellow reformers thought Luther had gone too far in wanting to remove books from the New Testament, and he was persuaded not to. But he was able to make one addition to the New Testament instead to bolster his theological claims. He added the word “alone” to his German translation of Romans 3:28—a word that was not in the Greek original. As to why he could make this alteration of sacred scripture, Luther replied in a letter to his critics, “If your papist wishes to make a great fuss about the word sola [‘allein’ or ‘alone’], say this to him: ‘Dr. Martin Luther will have it so . . .’ . . . Here in Romans 3, I knew very well that the word solum [‘allein’ or ‘alone’] is not in the Latin or the Greek text . . . it belongs there if the translation is to be clear and vigorous” (Luther’s Works, Volume 35, Page 182-198). Yet, somehow the word does not occur in other German translations of the same passage. It’s odd that the same person who proclaimed “Sola Scriptura!” wanted to tinker with the Bible so much, at least those parts that didn’t agree with him.

Coming back to Matthew 23:35
Seeing some of the misrepresentations in Edwards’ article ‘Why 66?’ and knowing how we really got down to 66 books, I couldn’t help but comment, “The only way to get to 66 is to start tossing out books. And we don't have the authority to do that.” To which Justin responded, “We don't have any authority period. But a responsibility to acknowledge what Christ has put His stamp of approval on. The 39 and 27 are the only ones that stand up to that scrutiny.”
The “39” are the books of the Protestant Old Testament and the “27” are the books of the New Testament, but what is Justin referring to here as Christ’s “stamp of approval”? In regard to the 27, it is a little less clear. Probably he means the authenticity of the works themselves that resonated with the early church (filled with people who knew Jesus and his apostles personally) and led to their being copied, collected, circulated, and received as divinely inspired writings. This process was well described by Edwards in ‘Why 66?”. In regard to the 39, it is most likely Matthew 23:35 (with a parallel passage in Luke 11:51) which is used as a proof-text to show that Jesus accepted the books of the Hebrew Bible (and by implication no other books in the Septuagint) as divinely inspired and canonical. What I hope to show is that this is not the case.

Jesus does define or at least mention the canon several times in the gospels. For example, in Matthew 5:17, he said, “Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfil them.” That phrase “the law and the prophets” represent two sections of the Old Testament—the Torah and the Nevi’im. We also find this phrase in Mt 7:12; 22:40; Lk 16:16; Acts 13:15; Rm 3:21; as well as in Sirach 1:1; 2 Maccabees 15:9 and 4 Maccabees 18:10. There is also a third section called the Kituvim, or the “Writings” (which is to say, “everything else”). Jesus may be referring to this third section when he said, “Everything written about me in the law of Moses and the prophets and the psalms must be fulfilled” (Luke 24:44). Jesus could be using “The Psalms” as title of that third section because the Psalter is the first and largest book in the Kituvim or because there are so many Messianic prophecies in the Psalms. If the books of the Apocrypha are canonical, they fall into the section of “the Writings.”

Matthew 23:35 is a little different. Starting in verse 34, Jesus said, “Therefore I send you prophets and wise men and scribes, some of whom you will kill and crucify, and some you will scourge in your synagogues and persecute from town to town, that upon you may come all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of innocent Abel to the blood of Zechariah the son of Barachiah, whom you murdered between the sanctuary and the altar.” What does this have to do with the canon of the Bible?

The books of the Hebrew Bible are in a different order from the English (which follows the Septuagint, ironically). In the Hebrew, the last book of the Bible is not Malachi (which belongs in that middle section called the Nevi’im) but the Book of Chronicles (which is two books in English Bibles). The argument is that Jesus is using a euphemism for “the Bible” here when he says “from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah” since Abel was the first person murdered in the first book of the Bible (Genesis) and Zechariah was the last person murdered in the last book of the Bible (Chronicles). Is that the case?

There’s no trouble identifying Abel (see Genesis 4:1-16); it’s Zechariah that is the problem. Those supporting the theory identify him with the Zechariah in 2 Chronicles 24:20-21, which reads: “Then the Spirit of God took possession of Zechariah the son of Jehoiada the priest; and he stood above the people, and said to them, ‘Thus says God, “Why do you transgress the commandments of the Lord, so that you cannot prosper? Because you have forsaken the Lord, he has forsaken you.”’ But they conspired against him, and by command of the king they stoned him with stones in the court of the house of the Lord.”

But there’s a problem with that. Jesus doesn’t say “Zechariah, son of Jehoiada,” he says, “Zechariah, the son of Barachiah.” Well, who is that? He’s the Zechariah the Prophet, mentioned in the book bearing his name, and who did not meet a violent death as far as we know. That book begins, “In the eighth month, in the second year of Darius, the word of the Lord came to Zechariah the son of Berechiah, son of Iddo, the prophet . . .” (Zechariah 1:1). Zechariah the son of Jehoiada (c. 800 BC) lived roughly three centuries earlier than Zechariah the son of Barachiah (c. 520 BC).

Sometimes it is answered that Barachiah could have been the grandfather of the earlier Zechariah. Zechariah ben Barachiah would be still be a correct description of him in Jewish culture, but since he was referred to as Zechariah ben Jehoiada in 2 Chronicles, why would Jesus refer to him by a different name than the one people would have been familiar with from the Bible? In fact, another article at Answers in Genesis argues that Jesus cannot be referring to Zechariah ben Jehoiada in Matthew 23:35. On the other hand, Calvin argues in his commentary that Jesus is referring to Zechariah ben Jehoiada, despite the discrepancy in name, theorizing that Barachiah is a kind of honorific title.

There are other possibilities for identifying the Zechariah Jesus mentions. One early Christian writing called the Protoevangelium of James identifies him with Zechariah, the father of John the Baptist, who was a priest in the temple. It records that he was murdered during the slaughter of the innocent children of Bethlehem. Another Zechariah is mentioned by Josephus who was murdered in the temple courts in AD 68 during Titus’ siege of Jerusalem. But this took place after Jesus spoke these words, so that identification doesn’t make sense.

The truth is that we don’t exactly know what Zechariah Jesus is referring to here. But that’s okay because we don’t need to know; it doesn’t affect his meaning. What Jesus is getting at is that “You ungrateful Jews have killed all the holy people that God has given you,” with the implication that Jesus knows he is next on the list. Jesus does not comment on the canon in this passage. In fact, there is no reason that he would include the holy Maccabean martyrs (see Hebrews 11:35 and 2 Maccabees 7) in this list because unlike the others, they were killed by Greeks for being faithful to the Law of Moses, not killed by the Jews out of rebellion toward God.

Why is it important? 
The Bible tells us that “The words of the Lord are pure words” (Psalm 12:6) Not only would we be losing a great treasure if we tossed books out of the Bible, we would also be in rebellion against God. The reason is that we simply don’t have that authority. The role of the Church is to acknowledge the Lord’s word, not to decide (and certainly not to go back on the acknowledgment we already made centuries ago). Despite attempts to remove the Apocrypha, they used to be familiar works even among Protestants. Even Luther still bound them in his German Bible, even if he denounced their status. The truth is that these books are a part of the Septuagint which was the Christian Bible, used by the early Church, the apostles and the writers of the New Testament, and by Christ himself.

While it is true that the New Testament never directly quotes the Apocrypha with the type of explicit formula that Matthew uses (“this took place to fulfill what was spoken by the Prophet x who said y), yet the New Testament does in fact quote from the Apocrypha. The language of these books are sprinkled all throughout the New Testament just as are the other books of the Old Testament. The article notes, “The Apocrypha is entirely absent in [New Testament] writing.” Yet, this is utterly false.

In your Bible, you will notice the small print cross-references printed next to the biblical text, citing passages that quote or otherwise relate to one another. The total number of references to the Apocrypha in the margins of the Old and New Testaments of the King James Version as printed in 1611 is 113. Of this number, 102 are in the Old Testament, and 11 in the New. The New Testament passages with references to the Apocrypha in the King James Version are as follows:
Mt 6:7     Ecclesiasticus 7:14
Mt 23:37     2 Esdras 1:30
Mt 27:43     Wisdom 2:15-16
Lk 6:31     Tobit 4:15
Lk 14:13     Tobit 4:7
Jn 10:22     1 Maccabees 4:59
Rom 9:21     Wisdom 15:7
Rom 11:34     Wisdom 9:13
2 Cor 9:7     Ecclesiasticus 35:9
Heb 1:3     Wisdom 7:26
Heb 11:35     2 Maccabees 7:7

Want more? Consider these other cross-references from the gospels alone:
Mt 2:16 - Herod's decree of slaying innocent children was prophesied in Wisdom 11:7 - slaying the holy innocents.
Mt 6:19-20 - Jesus' statement about laying up for yourselves treasure in heaven follows Sirach 29:11 - lay up your treasure.
Mt 7:12 - Jesus' golden rule "do unto others" is the converse of Tobit 4:15 - what you hate, do not do to others.
Mt 7:16,20 - Jesus' statement "you will know them by their fruits" follows Sirach 27:6 - the fruit discloses the cultivation.
Mt 9:36 - the people were "like sheep without a shepherd" is same as Judith 11:19 - sheep without a shepherd.
Mt 11:25 - Jesus' description "Lord of heaven and earth" is the same as Tobit 7:18 - Lord of heaven and earth.
Mt 12:42 - Jesus refers to the Wisdom of Solomon which was the title of a book in the Greek Bible.
Mt 16:18 - Jesus' reference to the "power of death" and "gates of Hades" references Wisdom 16:13.
Mt 22:25; Mk 12:20; Lk 20:29 - Gospel writers refer to the canonicity of Tobit 3:8 and 7:11 regarding the seven brothers.
Mt 24:15 - the "desolating sacrilege" Jesus refers to is also taken from 1 Maccabees 1:54 and 2 Maccabees 8:17.
Mt 24:16 - let those "flee to the mountains" is taken from 1 Maccabees 2:28.
Mt 27:43 - if He is God's Son, let God deliver him from His adversaries follows Wisdom 2:18.
Mk 4:5,16-17 - Jesus' description of seeds falling on rocky ground and having no root follows Sirach 40:15.
Mk 9:48 - description of hell where their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched references Judith 16:17.
Lk 1:42 - Elizabeth's declaration of Mary's blessedness above all women follows Uzziah's declaration in Judith 13:18.
Lk 1:52 - Mary's magnificat addressing the mighty falling from their thrones and replaced by lowly follows Sirach 10:14.
Lk 2:29 - Simeon's declaration that he is ready to die after seeing the Child Jesus follows Tobit 11:9.
Lk 13:29 - the Lord's description of men coming from east and west to rejoice in God follows Baruch 4:37.
Lk 21:24 - Jesus' usage of "fall by the edge of the sword" follows Sirach 28:18.
Lk 24:4 and Acts 1:10 - Luke's description of the two men in dazzling apparel reminds us of 2 Maccabees 3:26.
Jn 1:3 - all things were made through Him, the Word, follows Wisdom 9:1.
Jn 3:13 - who has ascended into heaven but He who descended from heaven references Baruch 3:29.
Jn 4:48; Acts 5:12; 15:12; 2 Cor 12:12 - Jesus', Luke's and Paul's usage of "signs and wonders" follows Wisdom 8:8.
Jn 5:18 - Jesus claiming that God is His Father follows Wisdom 2:16.
Jn 6:35-59 - Jesus' Eucharistic discourse is foreshadowed in Sirach 24:21.
Jn 10:22 - the identification of the feast of the dedication is taken from 1 Maccabees 4:59.
Jn 10:36 – Jesus accepts the inspiration of Maccabees as he analogizes the Hanukkah consecration to his own consecration to the Father in 1 Maccabees 4:36.
Jn 15:6 - branches that don't bear fruit and are cut down follows Wis. 4:5 where branches are broken off.

And this is a small sampling of cross-references. For a more exhaustive list with the rest of the New Testament and early Church fathers, see this page.

Okay, so the New Testament quotes passages from the Apocrypha? Still not convinced of it’s divine inspiration? After all, lots of non-biblical references are made in the Bible. Well, what if the Apocrypha actually quoted the New Testament?

St. Augustine of Hippo formulated in the well known axiom: “In the Old Testament the New is concealed, in the New the Old is revealed.” One of the most powerful and convincing testimonies to the spiritual reliability of the Bible is the Old Testament witness about Christ—a testimony given before the events even happened. Jesus told others about how the Old Testament spoke prophetically of himself. He said, “You search the Scriptures, because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness to me; yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life” (John 5:39-40). This includes the Old Testament books in the Apocrypha. There are what I like to call “Four Gospels of the Old Testament.” They are the Gospels according to Moses, to David, to Solomon, and to Isaiah. The Book of the Wisdom of Solomon in the Apocrypha, composed about 100 BC, tells vivid details about the crucifixion of Jesus many years before it even happened in the second chapter.

Wisdom 2:12“Let us lie in wait for the righteous man . . . 16We are considered by him as something base, and he avoids our ways as unclean; he calls the last end of the righteous happy, and boasts that God is his father. 17Let us see if his words are true, and let us test what will happen at the end of his life; 18for if the righteous man is God’s son, he will help him, and will deliver him from the hand of his adversaries. 19Let us test him with insult and torture, that we may find out how gentle he is, and make trial of his forbearance. 20Let us condemn him to a shameful death, for, according to what he says, he will be protected.” 21Thus they reasoned, but they were led astray, for their wickedness blinded them, 22and they did not know the secret purposes of God.”

One of the most powerful and convincing testimonies to the spiritual reliability of the Bible is the Old Testament witness about Christ—a testimony given before the events occured. "All scripture is inspired by God [not just the parts that the Reformers agreed with] and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work” (2 Timothy 3:15-17). Only the Word of God speaks prophetically about the Word made flesh. 

As a great man once said, “Confirm everything, never take your pastor's word for anything. Rather, be noble-minded, search the Scriptures for yourself.” The truth will make you free. As I stated earlier, the only way to get to 66 books in the Bible is to start tossing out books. And we don't have the authority to do that.

For some excellent further reading:
Defending the Deutero-canonicals
Who Decides? Unraveling the Mystery of the Old Testament Canon