On celebrating saints' days

(I'm revisiting old posts - and sometimes updating them. This post was originally published in January, 2007.)

As a person who was raised as a (mostly) non-denominational Christian, the idea of observing saints' days was somewhat strange to me when I first encountered it. But what helped me understand this tradition was remembering St. Paul's injunction to "Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ." In the recognized saints, the church is saying, "Look at these people because they did a good job imitating Christ."

The thing is, it's sometimes hard to answer the question "what would Jesus do?" for the simple reason that you don't happen to be a first-century Jewish male in your thirties. (Letting alone the fact that you aren't the Messiah!) When we look at the saints, we are looking at a wide variety of people who have imitated Christ: priests, missionaries, businessmen, children, fathers, mothers, monks, nuns, even kings and queens! Some of them may be in circumstances a little bit more like your own, but even if most of them aren't, having all of these extra examples gives you a better idea of what following and imitating Christ looks like.

Now, you still imitate Christ primarily; the saints can't replace him in any way, shape, or form. But they're like older brothers and sisters who've been living with your parents' rules longer than you have, and can show you the ropes. You can look at them, and be encouraged, because they have proven that it's possible to follow Christ in every era, in every country, in every situation, no matter your age, race, or gender.


Peace of Christ to you,
Jessica Snell


P.S. If you want to learn more about celebrating the church year, my book "Let Us Keep the Feast" has a plethora of history, ideas, prayers, and more to help you do just that!



This post contains Amazon affiliate links; if you purchase a book from this link, I receive a small percentage of the purchase price.  (See full disclosure on sidebar of my blog.)

Weekly Links: September, Stumbling, and more

My weekly round-up of good reading for (what's left of) your weekend.


"September Seasonal Plans": I myself have been falling down in my duty to write about the change from summer to fall (probably because it's still ridiculously hot here and the trees don't look like they're even thinking about dropping their leaves), but you should go over to Shirley's place and read about all the wonderful autumnal things you can now reasonably enjoy.

"When You Stumble and Fall":

On some level, I carry on all week sinning and being awful and hauling the burden of those sins around with me without too much trouble or discomfort. It’s not like I’m always sitting at my kitchen table, stricken and afflicted, because of my selfish unkindness, my bitter unforgiveness of others. But that I carry them around myself presently, doesn’t mean that it will always be so. Jesus is the judge. He is the king. If I don’t give them to him to carry now, I will have to go on carrying them forever, and then the burden will be intolerable, and I will have to tolerate it. 

"Why the Key Character in 'Inside Out' Is the One that Isn't There":

Admittedly, there's something very lonely about Inside Out if you compare its external structure and Riley's journey through her physical world to traditional kids' movies. There's no Donkey from Shrek or Abu from Aladdin or Timon and Pumbaa from The Lion King cheering her up with "Hakuna Matata." This respect for the role of melancholy in the lives of kids is very Pixar, but it's particularly acute here: There are no other Incredibles, there is no EVE, there is no Dug the dog. Riley's allies and boosters in this adventure are not made or met along the way; they are summoned. They are hers — in fact, they are her. 

"I, Tertius":

For my money, the Epistle to the church in Rome–the book of Romans more commonly–is the finest, most important letter in church history. Certainly in the canon. So who wrote this tremendous piece of work? The apostle Paul, right? Actually, no. That’s a bit of a trick question. Paul is the author–it is full of his words and thoughts–but the writer is another chap we only find out about towards the end of the letter ...

"Our Reading Life":

So our reading life is reading for life; reading as the experience of the literary art which focuses and localizes a reality that is apparently too grand and overwhelming for us to give our full attention to with such immediacy. Reading great books is a chance to face reality through the prism of carefully crafted objects of art tested by time and worthy of our attention. We don’t bring fully formed faculties to the task; we open our still-forming eyes and ears to things we hadn’t previously known in their wild form. We learn reality by joining the human community that is already talking about it.

"Kim Davis: the Guts of a Convert":

We are Christians first, before we are Americans. So before we start talking about whether this is a good religious liberty case, or not, before we start distancing our educated selves from her simple faith, and before we take to the internet to show the liberal gestapo that we really are for the “rule of law” and that Kim Davis is a simpleton of a Christian who should have resigned before embarrassing us Christians—let's just step back from this fog and think with a faithful mind.

Notes on 1 Timothy

~ before getting into this entry, I wanted to remind you there's giveaway here for free books.  Enter to win! It's free! Okay, onto the good stuff! ~




Notes from 1 Timothy. (These are not doctrine or anything close. They're just notes from my devotional reading. But I love this stuff! And I thought it'd be fun to share.  

Oh, and all questions are real questions. Not rhetorical.) 

-Paul wants Timothy to keep on as he’s been doing; the first instruction of the letter is just confirming Timothy’s vocation and mission.

-Everyone sins, and if Paul can be redeemed, anyone can. Paul points out that the law isn’t for good people, it’s for people who break it. Good people don’t need the law. (And there aren’t any good people.)

-It’s good to pray for those in authority, that we might have peace and, in that peace, the freedom to share the gospel.

-Women are supposed to learn (yay! Not necessarily typical in those times), but not to exercise authority over men or to teach them. And Paul cites creation reasons for this. So it’s something truly in our nature?

-“preserved through bearing of children” – okay, I’m still working on that one – but only if we “continue in faith and love and sanctity with self-restraint”.  And that makes me think that what he’s saying is that our normal works as women – bearing & raising children  - are acceptable to God, if done in obedience and love. I.e., the “good works” we do by nature – becoming mothers and wives – aren’t unacceptable. We’re included too, and our daily work can also be done to the glory of God.

            This is actually good news.

            (Also, not that “good works” save us . . . I’m assuming here the normal theology that we can only do good through the regeneration given us in Christ, and that fruit is proof of his saving love in us, etc. Not going for heresy here!)

-Faith, love, sanctity, and self-restraint. I’ll have to remember those and meditate on them more.

-more for the women – this time the deaconesses or deacons’ wives – they are to be “dignified, not malicious gossips, but temperate, faithful in all things”.  (Yes, I kind of want to make a list of all these things I should be aspiring to be. Because, well, I do want to be a mature Christian woman. I really do!)

-Paul is writing all these things so that Timothy has a guide to how the church should run. It really is a handbook of sorts! Paul would say all these things in person, but he’s not sure how soon he’ll be able to visit.

-beginning of ch. 4: no Gnosticism!  Marry and have babies!  Eat meat with thanksgiving to God!  “For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with gratitude; for it is sanctified by means of the word of God and prayer.”

            (Y’know, this makes me think that I should NOT partake of anything that I can’t, in good conscience, thank God for. Not a bad litmus test for what I ought and ought not to do, y’know? A good check for the conscience . . .)

-Teach these things, Timothy, teach these things. This is Paul’s constant repetition.

-Fellow Christians ought to be treated as family members.

-a woman who is deserving, who has done “good works”, is someone who has been a good wife and mother, who has practiced hospitality and helped those who needed help.

-so, in 5:11-12, it sounds like young widows who were helped by the church had promised not to get married again? Maybe? I really want a commentary here . . .

-also, in vs. 13, it sounds like one of the big problems is that young widows have nothing to do. In these times, no family (for a woman) equaled no work. So . . . so it’s really not okay to be idle. It’s really not okay to have no work. Huh.

Celebrating the Church Year: the Conversion of St. Paul (January 25)

-something to ponder:

O lord, thou hast searched me, and known me.

Thou knowest my downsitting and mine uprising . . .

Thou hast beset me behind and before, and laid thine hand upon me.

Such knowledge is too wonderful for me; it is high, I cannot attain unto it.

   -Psalm 139:1-2a, 5-6

-something to pray:

Most gracious God, who didst fill thine Apostle Saint Paul with love for all the churches: Grant, we pray, that our fellowship may foster love and unity amongst thy people; through Jesus Christ our Lord.*

-something to listen to: lovely, powerful Pauline theology set to good music:


For more ideas on celebrating the church year, pick up a copy of "Let Us Keep the Feast: Living the Church Year at Home". 

Peace of Christ to you,

Jessica Snell

*Prayer is from the Revised Anglican Missal.


This post contains Amazon affiliate links. (See full disclosure on sidebar of my blog.)

Mystery, Marriage, and Gospel in Ephesians

"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." -Inigo Montoya

In Ephesians, Paul uses the word "mystery" over and over. And, unlike poor Vezzini, I think Paul knows exactly what he means by it - but until now, I'm not sure that I did.

I've been reading Ephesians over and over again this Lent, and its message is becoming much more clear to me now than it ever did when I read it only a chapter at a time.

Mysteries Revealed
In chapter 3, Paul talks about the "mystery" of the gospel, and then in chapter 5, he uses "mystery again", this time in his discussion of marriage. After reading the whole book in a sitting many times now, I'm beginning to think that the way he uses it the first time illuminates the way he uses it the second time.

In chapter 3, he talks about his appointed task of evangelizing the Gentiles, saying that the "mystery" of the gospel has finally been revealed: salvation from God is for all the nations.

In other words, when he says it's a "mystery", he's not saying that it's an unsolved mystery. He's saying that it was a mystery. Now, of course, we know. What used to be hidden is now revealed - that God had a plan to save all the peoples of the Earth through the seed of Abraham. Salvation is from the Jews, but it's not just for the Jews - God's plan was bigger than that.

"But I speak of Christ and the Church"
So here's what I'm wondering: in chapter five, when Paul is discussing marriage and says: "this mystery is great; but I am speaking with reference to Christ and the church", is he using "mystery" the same way he was using it in chapter 3?


That is, is he talking about another thing that was a mystery, but isn't anymore? Is he, perhaps, saying that we used to not understand marriage, but now that we know how Christ loves the church, we can really understand how husbands are to love their wives?

There used to be "hardness of heart" (think about Jesus explaining why there was a provision in the Law for divorce), but now we understand: married love is a picture of Christ and the church, and both parties are to love each other sacrificially, wholly, generously.

Is this what Paul is saying? I don't know, but I begin to wonder. It does seem to fit one of the big themes of Ephesians: that the cosmic is connected to the mundane. That God's great work is to so transform the lives of his people that their obedience becomes such a show of his power that makes the angels stand stock still in wonder. That how we love each other showcases His own love. That the way He chooses to manifest His greatness is by empowering us sad, sorry, sinful humans to love one another - something we could never do in our own strength.

It seems like a small thing: to love one another. Yet we can't do it consistently and well for even ten minutes at a stretch - try it, you'll see. It's very impossibility is what makes it such a marvel when God's Holy Spirit enables us to do it - a marvel that declares God's glory. As Paul says, he preaches the gospel, "so that the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known through the church to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly places." (chapter 3, verse 10.)

We're on display, Paul makes clear in the first half of Ephesians. And then, when the book takes a turn to his familiar "therefore . . .", the practical instruction that always comes after his theologizing, the "therefore" is that we ought to love each other. In our churches and in our homes. As the prayer book says, "in our daily life and work".

This is a great mystery. But I don't think it's one we're supposed to puzzle at, scratching our heads and wondering what it means. I think it's one we're supposed to stand in awe of. Because, in the coming of Christ, in his death, resurrection, ascension, and the promise of his coming again, in the sending of his Holy Spirit, I think God showed us what He meant.


What do you think? Is what I think I'm seeing actually there?

Peace of Christ to you,
Jessica Snell