Asking Saints to pray for you?

Praying to the Saints is something that a lot of people, mainly in the modern evangelical church, take issue with although it is something the Church has been doing for a long time.  I think the main reason it seems offensive to people who arent familiar with the practice is because of the word ‘prayer.’  Prayer is viewed as something that should be directed toward God and only God.  I wont say that I disagree with that.

I think it makes a lot more sense when we say we are ‘asking the Saints to pray for/with us’ rather than saying we are ‘praying to the Saints.’  Of course, this raises a whole new issue.  If the Saints are dead, can they even hear us?  In my experience, this is the next criticism after we get past the word ‘prayer.’  How do we know that these deceased Saints can hear us?  The following quote pretty much hits the nail on the head in my opinion.

What healthy, natural body does not have communion with itself?  If I hit my left thumb with a hammer, my right hand will come immediately to it’s aide.  The rest of my body tenses for a moment to limit any jarring of the injured member by reckless motion.  Even feet will step gingerly in sympathy with the injury.  My eyes will scan to see the extent of the damage, if any, and my mouth may even provide some temporary comfort until the throbbing lessens.  And all this attention and care is directed by my head.  A body is one in nature.  It is one in the Spirit as well.  The Scriptures say that the Church is the Body of Christ (1 Cor. 12:27). It says the Body is joined in the Spirt by that “which every joint supplieth.” (Eph. 4:16 KJV)  So, can members of this Body not be able to assist other members of the same Body?  Does death have the power to sunder the Body of Christ?  No, it does not.

We ask our family, friends, priest, or pastor to pray for/with us, but we take issue with asking Saints who came before us simply because they are no longer on this earth with us.  Are we not still one body?  We seem believe that there is ‘power in numbers’ when it comes to prayer, so we want to have as many people praying as possible.  Why not have some of the most faithful Christians ever who are currently in the presence of God pray for us as well?

I would argue that nothing can separate us from the Body of Christ.

Not even death.

Penal Substitution/Satisfaction

This is one of those issues that I have always had a hard time wrapping my head around.  This is sort of a hot topic in the Orthodox/Catholic/Reformed debates, and it seems that its the choice of words/imagery that make this confusing.  I was reading a discussion about this on a forum over at OrthodoxChristianity.net and I thought one of the guys on there did a good job at explaining the Orthodox view on it.  He was responding to a discusion between these two reformed thinkers:

Person 1: 

“And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross; And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it.”  (Colossians 2:13-15) Couldnt these verses be supporting the idea that Jesus was punished on the cross for our sins?

Person 2: 

Yes. As well as Isaiah 52 – 53 and a whole host of other scriptures.  He is the good shepherd, who lays down His life for His sheep. He redeems us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us. The righteous suffered for the unrighteous. 

The guy I mentioned responded with this:

Person 3: 

Yes, there is substitution. He takes the place for us. He is the sacrificial lamb. His perfection and righteousness goes in place of our sinfulness. 

What is in dispute is whether or not there is a penal satisfaction, meaning that somehow God had to be healed of His anger. We can speak of God’s anger against us in a sense, but not absolutely, as God requires no healing. He is complete and perfect. Rather we are the ones that require healing, and as we are healed, then our position towards God is rectified. Instead of moving against God’s presence in a way that destroys us, like something coming into the earth’s atmosphere can burn it up if the resistance is too great, we move seamlessly into His infinite presence. Also think of diving into the water versus doing a belly-flop. I hope you get my meaning.Anyway,

God is unchanging. So properly speaking, there is a change in us, not in God. That’s the whole difference in the way we talk about it versus many Reformed thinkers. The Son didn’t die to help the Father stop being pissed off at us. Then it’s the Son saving us from the Father instead of from sin, death, and the Accuser.There’s too much of a confusion of terms here: penal, satisfaction, substitution, atonement, blah blah blah. Here is something very specific that Orthodoxy teaches against, and that is the teaching that the Son somehow affects a change in the Father; that we must be saved from the Father.

Thoughts on this?

(If you care to read the entire discussion, you can read it here.)

Eucharist: Part II

For some reason I’ve been thinking a lot about the different views of The Eucharist and was trying to better understand the different positions.  Anyone care to discuss it? (I know 2 or 3 people who might chime in…)

How about the Catholic view of Transubstantiation?  How about the more Lutheran view of “Real Presence”?  How about the more modern Protestant view of it just being a symbol, or ordinance, we do from time to time?  What about the Orthodox view of it being a mystery, and however God achieves that mystery is of no concern to us?

One thing that I have been thinking about is this:  How can so many people today take so many things completely literally in scripture, usually ignoring some or all of the culture and context it was written, but they have a hard time taking Matthew 26:26-28 literally?

Could it be that the bread and wine really become the body and blood of Christ once it has been consecrated, like the majority of Christians believe?  Maybe I am missing something, and if I am, feel free to let me know!

I’m not trying to start any arguments, or say that anyone is right or wrong.  Just felt like trying to have a discussion since I havent updated in a while.

Holler!

 

 

 

Mary and a view of the Church

The journey toward Orthodoxy has been a comforting one, and a rather difficult one. There is a peace that comes with knowing that this original Church has this rich history of tradition on its side, but there are certain elements of that tradition that are very uncomfortable at first.  Its either because they don’t fit in to my comfortable American culture, or because they are so different than the Protestant environments that I grew up in.

After listening to/reading about dozens of conversion stories, one thing seems to be very consistent.  Everybody has trouble with the Church’s view of Mary, or the Theotokos.  This has certainly been difficult for me too.  While its common knowledge that they dont worship her, some of the things that are said during liturgy are difficult for me.  One thing in particular was when they say “Mary, save us.”  I’m not going to take the time to defend the Church’s position because you are perfectly capable of doing the homework yourself if you want to.  For starters, read 1st Corinthians 9:22 or Romans 11:14 to see similar language. (And if my word means anything to you, I have come to understand this better.  I am sure that nothing heretical is going on. That doesnt mean that it isnt still difficult.)

One thing I have had to remember is that the Orthodox Church was not founded in America.  We have to be careful about viewing it through the lenses of our American culture.  Just like every country or region has its own culture, the same can be said for the Church itself.  This is a 2,000 year old tradition, founded on the other side of the world, that has remained largely unchanged. (Other than the obvious changes: parishes now have running water, electricity, etc.) When something in the liturgy sounds offensive or “wrong” to you, remember that it was not written for English speaking Protestants that would exist 1500-2000 years in the future.  We have to break down the original Greek/Hebrew/Aramaic/Whatever words to better understand it.  Again, I’m not going to take the time to do that here.

Another example is when you see people in an Orthodox church kneel before and kiss an icon of Christ, Mary, or a saint.  When we view this through the lenses of our culture, it may look like they are worshipping something or someone they shouldnt be.  Again, this is not the case.  In Japanese culture, does bowing mean worship?  If it did, then everyone in Japan would be worshipping everyone they meet.  In their culture, it is a greeting and a form of respect.  Its a way to humble yourself in front of somebody. This is similar to how it is viewed in the culture of the Church.

All that aside, I asked myself “Who am I to walk into this 2,000 year old, unchanged tradition and determine what is right and what is wrong? Is it wrong simply because its different than what I’m used to? Is it wrong because I am ignorant and havent taken the time to understand it?” You may simply just disagree with it, and thats fine with me.  I think I say something like this in every post, but I think its important to be familiar with the history and tradition of the very Foundation of our lives.

I’m still working on this myself.

P.S. I went ahead and did some homework for you.  Here is a VERY short read that may help understand some of the “Mary” stuff.

The Ancient Church (Documentary)

So I havent updated in forever because I dont know what to write about.  So rather than write about my thoughts or studies, I will share this documentary I just watched.  The whole thing is less than half an hour, so take the time to check it out. Feel free to share your thoughts afterwards.  I’d love to read them!

Enjoy!

Eucharist

It seems to be the norm for most churches to exclude the Eucharist (or communion) from their weekly church services. Fortunately, I grew up in a church that recognized the importance of engaging in this form of worship regularly.  When having this conversation, which I have had many times, there are always several points that come up.  People always point out that the Bible doesn’t say with certitude how often we should take it.  Or they say that if you take it too often, it will become less important to you.  (I dont get that one, but to each his own i guess…)

With regard to the first point, I guess that is true.  It doesn’t say how often we should take it.  However, I find this a sad excuse to not take it regularly.  Not to offend anyone, but it does seem that this excuse plays well into the business model of many modern churches.  If you set aside a time in your service to eat someones flesh and drink their blood, of course, the visitors who could one day help fund your church aren’t likely to come back. (Hopefully thats not really the reason churches dont take it regularly.  Just a thought….)

I guess this can be tied in with some of the issues I’ve run into with sola scriptura.  Shouldn’t we look at the traditions the church were engaging in before the New Testament was written/canonized?  Didn’t they take it every time they met? Acts 2:42 says they “devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers.”   Maybe this is a bad interpretation, (if it is, let me know.  Again, im not trying to teach.  Just sharing some thoughts.  I could be wrong.) but it seems that “breaking of bread” is mentioned in the same breath as “prayers.”  Surely they didnt pray only once a month or once  a quarter.

Although I am not completely sure about transubstantiation, I am not of the opinion that communion is merely symbolic of something.  I believe that Christ becomes present in a unique way through this form of worship, which also happens to be the most intimate form of worship we can engage in.  To say that taking communion frequently can diminish its level of importance sounds bizarre to me.

I’m certainly not trying to cause any arguments, or cause any more division in the church.  There are just some of my thoughts on the subject.  I am not trying to say that anyone is wrong for not practicing communion frequently.  I guess the main point is that you do it with some sort of regularity, even if it is once a year or every few months.  The importance placed on the Eucharist is one of the main things that has drawn me more toward Anglo-Catholic/Catholic/Orthodox-ish circles.

So wat do you think about:

- frequency

- early church usage

- transubstantiation

- how big of an idiot I am

- anything else mentioned in this post

So….

I know that millions of you have been checking back here every five minutes to see if I have posted anything else.  Obviously, I havent in a while.  I havent forgot, and will try to put something up soon.  I feel like I am running out of things to write about, even though there is an endless amount of things to write about.

I do like writing, but truth is I feel like a jerk every time I go to hit the “publish” button.   I probably dont have any business writing about this stuff.  All I would say is this:  If you are interested in anything I have written about, don’t take my word for it.  Go read up on it yourself.

Tradition and the Bible

I read something the other day in Alan Schreck’s book “Catholic and Christian” that I had never thought of before. It said that the catholic church is actually older than the Bible as we know it. Now that I think about it, of course that is true. I’m sure most people reading this have already realized that, but for some reason, it never hit me.

Now, obviously the Old Testament was written long before, but the Bible that the old grey haired ladies carry to church with them every week (young people no longer carry bibles thanks to iphones and giant screens) wasn’t compiled until the 4th century. In fact, the New Testament wasn’t even written when the church was established at Pentecost.

Now, why is this important? Many churches these days, mainly protestant, subscribe to the idea of sola scriptura. This basically means that the Bible contains everything that we as Christians need to know. If its not mentioned or commanded in the Bible, it really isn’t that important. This is why a lot of modern churches have done away with so many ancient traditions.

Now, of course we believe that the Holy Spirit inspired the writings of the Bible. But since the Bible wasn’t completed when the church was founded, isn’t it safe to say that the Holy Sprit also inspired early church leaders/church fathers who may have taught us some of these traditions? The sign of the cross mentioned in my previous post is a good example.

God has always used random people to be leaders to his people. (Moses, Abraham, Noah, David, The Apostles, Paul, etc. Heck, even his Son was an ordinary carpenter!) So why would we assume that God did not inspire the early church leaders to teach certain traditions before the Bible was written years later? (And canonized WAY later!) Did the Holy Spirit just sit around and wait for the Bible to be written and completed? Or was it active in the formation of the early church by inspiring these teachings and traditions?

In conclusion, I do believe that the Bible contains all of the information necessary for salvation. But I, as a traditionalist, believe it is important not to ignore the teachings and traditions of the early church.

My question is this: If we ignore a tradition that isn’t explicitly mentioned in the Bible, are we ignoring a tradition that may have been divinely inspired? I’d love to hear from you!

The Sign of the Cross

The best way I have come to understand the sign of the cross is that it is a way of praying and worshipping with the body. It is a bodily act of prayer which could be compared to raising your hands in worship. The sign of the cross is a reminder of Christ’s sacrifice for us as well as an outward proclamation of our faith.  It is also commonly used as a blessing at baptism, Eucharist, or to bless a particular person or thing.

While there isnt a specific scriptural reference, or command, to what we know as the sign of the cross, there are certain passages where the idea may have come from. (Rev. 7:3, Rev. 9:4, Rev. 14:1, Ezk. 9:4-6, Gal. 6:17) It is also important not to ignore what the early church fathers said about this sign. Tertullian said, “in all our travels, in all our coming in and going out, in putting on our shoes, at the bath, at the table we mark our foreheads with the sign of the cross.”   St. John Crysostom wrote that Christians should “never leave home without making the sign of the cross.”

In his work, “On The Holy Spirit,” St. Basil writes: “For were we to attempt to reject such customs as have no written authority, on the ground that the importance they possess is small, we should unintentionally injure the Gospel in its very vitals; or, rather, should make our public definition a mere phrase and nothing more. For instance, to take the first and most general example, who is thence who has taught us in writing to sign with the sign of the cross those who have trusted in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ?”

This was clearly a tradition that was widely practiced as early as the 3rd century,(A.D. 200s) although it is believed to have been practiced earlier as well.  It seems that the reason there aren’t many other early writings is because this was a practice that was taken for granted and performed by all Christians.  Therefore, not as many people felt the need to write about it. (Although, I admit, I could be wrong.)  Like St. Basil said, the sign of the cross was the “first and most general example” of a tradition that does not have a particular biblical command, but is still rooted in Scripture itself, thus making it an important practice and reminder of who we as Christians live for.

Does it make you a bad Christian if you dont do it?  No.  But I think it is important to understand that this isnt just some weird thing that only a few crazy catholics do.  It is a practice that so many Christians have practiced from the earliest of times.  It shouldn’t just be a Catholic thing, but rather a Christian thing.  To those who say it may be a form of idolatry, I would say that lifting your hands in front of the cool rock band at church is idolatry too.  Sure, you arent worshiping the band, but those who make the sign aren’t worshiping the cross either.

If it was practiced by so many who came before us, particularly by those who lived not that long after Christ, why abandon the practice?  Do we know better than them?

If you are familiar with the topic, have any questions, or just want to tell me how stupid I am, please feel free to leave a comment!

blog idea…

I’m really bad at coming up with things to write about. Lately, as you can see, ive been doing the whole “Christian” blog thing. I’ve always thought that was lame, but since getting older I’ve realized that I get more and more lame every day. Thats why in the column to the right of this post it says I “used” to be funny. At one time in my life, I could make a joke and people would laugh. Thats not the case anymore. Here’s an example:

Today, I was playing drums at City of Refuge. Today was particularly cool because they unveiled their new health clinic that will be open to the local community. This facility will be run by volunteer physicians. Pretty cool, huh?

So as we were getting a tour of the facility we went past one of the rooms where they will perform surgeries. In a brief moment of sheer comedic genius I uttered these words to the guy in charge, “Let me know if you need someone to perform any surgeries!” He gave me a courtesy laugh and looked at me as if he wanted me to go away… This seems to happen to me a lot these days!

So this is where I stand as far as being funny goes. I just cant seem to pull it off anymore. Ive lost it. I was the class clown my whole life, and now my humor is more useless than a blind kid at mute camp. Maybe even more useless than the white crayon. Being funny probably isnt the best goal for me to attempt to achieve through this blog.

I think I am going to write about some of the different elements of liturgical worship for a while. This may sound boring if you are already familiar with these things. If you are not familiar, maybe I can help with understanding some of these things that may seem weird, as well as clear up any misunderstandings. (Note: I am still learning too and will probably just copy a lot of things I read from other blogs… im not claiming to be the fountain of wisdom that you should turn to for spiritual guidance. I’m just interested in the topic.) If you are familiar, I would love to have you chime in and correct my mistakes, or add to what I may have missed since I do try to keep these short.