The Deuteronomy reason for Sabbath-keeping is that our ancestors in Egypt went four hundred years without a vacation (Deut. 5:15). Never a day off. The consequence: they were no longer considered persons but slaves. Hands. Work units. Not persons created in the image of God but equipment for making bricks and building pyramids. Humanity was defaced.
Lest any of us do that to our neighbour or husband or wife or child or employee, we are commanded to keep a sabbath. The moment we begin to see others in terms of what they can do rather and who they are, we mutilate humanity and violate community. It is no use claiming “I don’t need to rest this week and therefore will not keep a sabbath” — our lives are so interconnected that we inevitably involve others in our work whether we intend it or not. Sabbath-keeping is elemental kindness. Sabbath-keeping is commanded to preserve the image of God in our neighbours so that we see them as they are, not as we need them or want them.
From Working the Angles: The Shape of Pastoral Integrity by Eugene Peterson
“We need to remember that emotional intensity is not a guarantee of a valid prayer.
Goose bumps or tears are not a measure of faith.”
John Ackerman, Spiritual Awakening: A guide to spiritual life in congregations
Much of John Webster’s Holy Scripture: A Dogmatic Sketch has been ridiculously dense for me to read through. I might yet actually write something about what I’m reading, but I’ve found this chapter “Reading in the Economy of Grace” easier to read and beneficial.
In discussing the creaturely act of reading Holy Scripture (a.k.a. the Bible), Webster says:
We do not read well; and we do not read well, not only because of technical incompetence, cultural distance from the substance of the text or lack of readerly sophistication but also and most of all because in reading Scripture we are addressed by that which runs clean counter to our will. Reading Scripture is thus a moral matter; it requires that we become certain kinds of readers, whose reading is take up into the history of reconciliation. The separation of reason from virtue in modernity has made this acutely difficult for us to grasp.
Nevertheless, a Christian theological anthropology will envisage the act of reading Scripture as an instance of the fundamental patter of all Christian existence, which is dying and rising with Jesus Christ through the purging and quickening power of the Holy Spirit. Reading Scripture is thus best understood as an aspect of mortification and vivification: to read Scripture is to be slain and made alive. And because of this, the rectitude of the will, its conformity to the matter of the gospel, is crucial, so that reading can only occur as a kind of brokenness, a relinquishment of willed mastery of the text, and through exegetical reason’s guidance towards that encounter with God of which the text is an instrument.
James Barr’s Fundamentalism contains its misapprehensions about evangelicalism but also its penetrating insights, and one of the latter is this criticism, that for evangelicalism the Bible often has the form of authority but not the reality. Doctrinally we are committed to a theology of the Word, but precisely that commitment can hinder us from actually being a people of the Word, because the fact that we accept that theoretical commitment provides us with a false sense of security, as if it guaranteed a real commitment to scripture. The result is that it does the opposite. We love to tag texts onto things, as if that made them biblical. One ironic example is our talk of Scripture as “the Word of God”; in Scripture, phrases such as “the word of God” or “the word of truth” are not used to refer to Scripture. The scriptural word for Scripture is Scripture.
John Goldingay, Key Questions about Biblical Interpretation, pp. 104-105.
Love without courage and wisdom is sentimentality, as with the ordinary church member. Courage without love and wisdom is foolhardiness, as with the ordinary solider. Wisdom without love and courage is cowardice, as with the ordinary intellectual.
Ammon Hennacy, a Catholic Worker
We should remain within the limits imposed by our basic needs and strive with all our power not to exceed them. For once we are carried a little beyond these limits in our desire for the pleasures of life, there is then no criterion by which to check our onward movement, since no bounds can be set to that which exceeds the necessary.
– Fifth-century monk Nilus of Ancyra
I am regularly inspired by the thoughts of “ancient” folks.
I remember being humbled in a grade 11 English class when my teacher posed the question of whether we thought of ourselves as more intelligent or knowledgeable than people in ages past. We have different knowledge, not a greater knowledge.
Nilus here is talking about living simply. Something that is often thought of as faddish. But it is something that I strive for. I like his observation that there is no way to gauge excessiveness — anything beyond the limits of our basic needs is excessive.