"Why not?!"


Everyone knows that Christians are just weird conservatives who just like imposing their rules and stupid regulations on others. I mean, that IS what they are right? Just a bunch of rules...stupid things that make no sense and are just "anti-fun"! Why in Jupiter would I want to follow these rules?


This seems to be the mindset of many people I have interacted with over the years, including some of the youth that I've had the privilege of serving these last several years. Some even find the law and salvation to be contradictory in the Bible. I had one of my most beloved youth once say to me that he knows that "the Bible says that if you believe in Jesus you will be saved, but as I keep looking I see more and more rules and restraints" and somehow this causes tension for him. There are many who want salvation without rules, and many say that they can not see how we are saved if we still have to follow rules. 


The first error is a misunderstanding of salvation, and the second is a misunderstanding of the "law".

According to scripture, salvation is Christ redeeming us from the bondage of sin and from the "curse of the law." It is the bestowing of grace form the hand of a sovereign God to His non-sovereign, yet free-will enabled, creation. Salvation is given to the elected humanity that respond to the Spirit of God as He calls him or her out of darkness.

The law of God is another situation altogether. The "law" seems harsh, difficult, and even contradictory to the doctrine of grace and salvation. To those who stand on the outside looking in, or simply have a misunderstanding of the law, it is cruel and stands like jagged spires waiting to shred the souls of all who dare draw close. Yet, to those who have been graced with salvation and draw near to the goodness of God, the law encircles the mind, heart, and soul of the believer and provides a place of shelter and rest.

We follow the law because ultimately sin will destroy us. Sin is contrary to our original design and is contrary to the divine nature of God. We do not sin because God said so, but He did not just instate rules and regulations to "suck away our fun." He did it for our protection, our prosperity, and our health physically, mentally, emotionally, and spiritually. The "Ten Commandments" alone provide regulations for society and for economic growth. Theft, envy, and lying will break down any economic system and lead to suffering. Socially, the same three cause suffering and break down community due to lack of trust. Common sense tells us that worshiping God and ONLY God will foster spiritual growth and a closeness to God almighty. Not a single law that is given is done so without a purpose or meaning, and as gentiles living under the New Covenant we are awakened to the beauty of the "Spirit of the law" as opposed to the "Letter of the law." We must be awakened to the freeing power of the law for us as believers.


Freedom is not living with the complete lack of rules and regulations, but instead it is living within the rules and regulations that fit with the persons nature and provide liberty. For those who are non-redeemed, the law does not provide liberty because their nature is tainted and flawed by sin; therefore, they hate the law and are unable to fulfill the law, for it seems impossible, cold, and as if it desires to destroy all "pleasure" and "fun" in one's life. For us who are experiencing the transforming power of the Holy Spirit, our natures are being restored and we can, therefore, live in the joy, peace, and rest that the law instills within us.




Sacraments: Simply Symbolic or Secretly Supernatural


I recently wrote a research paper on the topic of the sacraments and decided that I would put post it to share what I learned, some of my developing thoughts, and to receive feedback. I have personally not come to a conclusion on where I stand on the topic, but am in careful consideration. If you have responses, article, or other blogs that you believe would be useful, feel free to share! Enjoy!

Sacraments: Simply Symbolic or Secretly Supernatural  

            Throughout the course of Christian history sacraments have played a major role in the life of the believer. Whether they are viewed as an act that merely symbolizes a greater meaning or as mystical acts that bring impartations of grace from God, all would agree that the sacraments are God-given. The sacraments are not only a vital part of Church history, but are also essential for Church life today. For one to understand the sacraments and to come to a conclusion as to where to stand concerning the theology of sacraments, one must first delve into the history and into the various circles of theological thought. This paper will not attempt to create a solid conclusion about the sacraments, but instead will explore the historical views of the sacraments, explain the differences in perspectives among various ecclesiological thought, and will argue that, at the very least, the sacraments are not just mere symbols.

Definition of Sacrament
A vital first step in developing a theological standpoint on any topic is to clearly define the words and thoughts involved. Here one must be sure to understand the definition of the word “sacrament” and be aware that there may be more than one definition used, especially when dealing with multiple paradigms of belief.
In The HarperCollins Encyclopedia of Catholicism, Mark Francis explains that the word “sacrament” finds its roots in the Latin word sacramentum, which means “oath” or “pledge”, but at one point held a much broader meaning and actually referred to any “manifestation of God’s power and love in space and time” (1146). The word was first used among the ranks of the Roman soldiers who would make an oath, or sacramentum, to their commanding superiors, making an honorable statement of pure loyalty to their commanders (Bishop 102-03).
It is most fascinating to think about how the word’s usage has changed over such a short period of time as to go from a soldier’s oath of loyalty to becoming a word that describes holy, early Church rituals of worship. It makes sense that the word for “oath” or “pledge” would be used to describe such things as Eucharist, Baptism, and the various other recognized sacraments, especially since many of them we’re indeed used as “oaths” or “pledges” of Believer’s faith.
The word “sacrament” can also be linked back to the Greek word mysterion which mean “mystery” and gives off the idea of concealment or “hiddeness” (Francis 1146). This is apparent in how the Church has seen the workings of the Holy Spirit through the sacraments as a mystery of sorts, something that cannot be understood within the confines of our limited knowledge and limited comprehension.

Sacraments and the Church
We know from reading the New Testament writings that the Lord’s Supper was practiced in the early Church, outside of the original act preformed by Jesus with His disciples. It holds a great deal more significance than simply gathering to eat, and we can determine this from the language that is used in the New Testament that consistently says “breaking of bread” rather than “eating of bread” (Cullmann 14). Communion was a significant part of early Church worship and was kept regularly among the believers (Cullmann 12). It would not make sense however that if the word means “oath” that it at one point referred to any “manifestation of God’s power and love” (Francis 1146), unless of course the perspective was that God manifesting His power and love was, in fact, He Himself giving some sort of “oath”, as He did with the rainbow (ESV Genesis 9:13).

Lists of Sacraments
Catholics recognize seven different sacraments: Baptism, Confirmation, Eucharist (also known as Communion or the Lord ’s Table), Reconciliation (or Penance), Anointing of the Sick, Marriage (or Matrimony), and Holy Orders (Francis 1147). To those who are unfamiliar with Catholicism, a few of the listed Roman Catholic sacraments hold little to no meaning or significance to the Protestant, such as Confirmation, Penance, and Holy Orders (also known as Ordination to Priesthood).
Protestants take a somewhat different approach to the listing of the sacraments. Most Protestant books on the matter of the sacraments only discuss baptism and Eucharist, which is a strong implication that these are the only one recognized among the majority of Protestantism. Since Protestantism came out of a rebellion against what was believed to be false teaching, it is not surprising that they have an alternate list from that of the Catholics. The only real exception is found among Pentecostal/Charismatic Denominations.
Within the Pentecostal denominations we see a stark contrast in the area of sacraments from the rest of the universal Church. Even though they appear to hold to the predominantly “Baptist” perspective, “Baptist” as is described by Dorman (293), in that the actions are not called sacraments at all and that they are purely symbolic. David Bishop describes in his article “On the Sacraments”, found in Pentecostal Worship, that the reasoning for most Pentecostal denominations desire to refrain from calling the actions sacraments is more out a distaste for the original meaning and usage of the word in its Latin roots (102), leaving one with the belief that it is not a lack of believing the acts to be important or sacred.
 This would seem to be very inconsistent with the rest of Pentecostal doctrine considering its heavy emphasis on the presence of the Holy Spirit and his working in one’s life. One would think that with many Pentecostals being as mystical as they are in their beliefs about the Holy Spirit would be just as equally mystical about the sacraments. Observation of the way many treat the sacraments, along with stories shared by known Pentecostal, might actually prove to be enlightening and reveal more of a rebellion against the idea of sacraments providing salvific grace rather than a true belief that the sacraments are purely symbolic. Though, in speculation, to say that the sacraments are more than symbolic probably would seem to them as deifying a ritual rather than relying upon the Holy Spirit and would therefore make sense that they take the symbolic approach.
Bishop explains that, generally, Pentecostals recognize the following three “ordinances” (or sacraments): The Lord’s Supper, Water Baptism, and the Washing of the Saint’s Feet (103-19). The first two listed sacraments are expected, but the idea of feet washing being a sacrament comes across as rather odd to many of the non-Pentecostal denominations, and rightly so. Apart from Jesus washing the Apostles’ feet, this action does not appear to be practiced elsewhere in the New Testament, nor does Jesus give any type of command or statement that would imply that believers should participate in such actions. Though Paul speaks of widows “washing the feet of the saints” (1 Timothy 5:9-10), it is not clear whether he meant this literally or not, and foot washing does not appear to be recorded in accounts of early Church history as a regular or sacred act among the believers.
In the biblical text, Jesus appears to simply be giving the disciples an object lesson and modeling for them an attitude of the heart that they must maintain and not initiating a sacrament. Bishop argues that it is just as biblical as communion since the two were done together in the same sitting, because of Jesus words that state, “If I then your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another’s feet” (John 13:14). Even though one could argue from this verse alone, it is rather unwise. Apart from that, the verse that follow clearly demonstrate that Jesus is telling the disciples to have the heart of a servant, and not necessarily saying that the washing of feet is to be a ritual that is regularly practiced.
 Unlike the other sacraments listed among other denominations, foot washing does not display worship or gratitude unto Jesus or the Father as the Eucharist does. Foot washing does not symbolize death to the old man and the finding of new identity in Christ as baptism does. Finally, foot washing does not include any type of vow or commitment to others as marriage and ordination into ministry does.

Symbolism in the Sacraments
            Baptism
Baptism into water is a sign of cleanness (Clowney 276) and can be seen as the taking on of a new identity in Christ (Grun 4). Historically we know that Baptism did not start with Christianity. Baptism has been a part of the lives of ancient Egyptians and even the Greeks (Ferguson 25). Baptism has, therefore, been used as a means of “purification” for even centuries before the coming of Christ. It would good to note that it’s broad and historical use would lead one to think the Jews and Gentiles in the day of Christ would then have a very real understanding of Baptism. Ferguson explains that in additions to its use in ancient Egypt, it is also recorded that Jews themselves used baptism, which of course gives a much more immediate understanding and usage for those in Jesus’ day (60).
Baptism was used in many rituals of cleansing in Old Testament law, but more importantly it was used later in the taking on of a proselyte or a Gentile convert to Judaism (Ferguson 72), and since it is well known that Christianity finds its roots in Judaism it is not surprising that baptism was one of Christ’s prime choices for a sacrament. There is already a deep cultural understanding present and an agreed upon meaning by various racial communities and is, therefore, not a ritual that needed to be explained. 
            Eucharist
            The symbolism behind Communion, or Eucharist, is probably the most clear of all the sacraments. Jesus states that bread and wine, or Communion, is representative of His body and His blood and that we are to partake often in remembrance of Him (Mark 14: 22-23). It is significant to note that both items used were food products that are taken into oneself for life and nourishment. Phillips states that because of the presence of God in the Communion and his “giving of Himself in this concentrated manner” (29), we are being spiritually nourished. Just as eating food of a physical nature replenishes us and becomes a part of our body to provide life and energy, so does that which is made to be spiritual food replenish and nourish our souls by being interwoven within our souls.
            Calvin and Augustine defined the Eucharist and baptism as “visible [signs] of an invisible grace” (Wallace 133). The sacraments are worthless unless coupled with scripture and the command of Christ, since the Word of God is what gives us revelation and understanding (134). Wallace states that the Eucharist and Baptism are signs of proclamation that one will live out his faith and that he is now partaking in the grace of God (141). From this perspective, one has already received the grace, but the sacraments act as a symbol that proclaims to the World that one is devoted to God.
            Confirmation
            Moving on to some of the other Catholic sacraments, confirmation holds a key place in the life of the Catholic Christian. Confirmation is probably the one sacrament that has seen the most significant changes in the history of its use. Originally, Confirmation came along with the baptism, but over time began to be separated and given a great deal of meaning (Camille 114). Camille explains that Confirmation is the declaration of one being initiated into the Church, as well as the convert proclaim they realize that he/she has a responsibility to be a witness to the world so that people might know Christ and be free.
Camille also explains that in antiquity a person confirmed would be prayed for by laying on of hands, the presiding bishop would pray for the spiritual gift to be imparted into the confirmed, and the confirmed would be anointed with oil (114). The ritual has been changed with the occurrence of Vatican II, removing the slight “blow to the cheek” that the bishop would give to the confirmed as a reminder of the price of being a Christian (115). Modern day Protestants do not uphold this tradition, but usually settle with acceptance as Church membership. It appears that Church membership, however, would not be viewed as a sacrament by any means.
Confirmation can easily be supported in the scriptures, especially since it is common knowledge that the Disciples did in fact pray for the new converts with the laying on of hands in the book of Acts (8:18), as well as being mention in Paul’s letters (1 Timothy 5:22; 2 Timothy 1:6; Hebrews 6:2). Since the Holy Scriptures give us the impression that the Holy Spirit is present in the acts of laying on of hands and anointing with oil, there is a great deal of support for viewing Confirmation as a sacrament.
Catholics also apply a great deal of extra symbolism and richness to the act of Confirmation by adding the requirement of a sponsor, someone who is stand as a guide and a supporter in the life of the one being confirmed (Grun 103). It is a beautiful concept and one that is missing throughout the Protestant Church today.
            While the sacraments do not appear to have really changed in meaning over the last twenty-odd centuries, it is inarguable that the cultural significance of some acts might be lost to those of Western thought and community.
            Marriage
            Marriage is the “covenant by which a man and woman establish between themselves a partnership of their whole life and which of its own very nature is ordered to the well-being of the spouses and to the procreation and upbringing of children.” (Lawler 821) Marriage has long been seen as a covenantal agreement between two people across all denominations. Marriage is something that greatly reflects our relationship to God and to Christ (Lawler 822-23). Marriage unites a couple, making them “one flesh” through their sexual intimacy that binds them to one another in mind, soul, and spirit (Camille 145). Marriage holds a great deal for symbolism for the Church, and there is a beautiful thing that occurs at the marriage of two individuals. This does not, however, imply that it is sacramental. Jesus did not command the church to marry, though He did use marriage as a metaphor on many occasions. Marriage is not necessarily a proclamation of faith or a “sign of invisible grace”, as was discussed earlier.
            Marriage could possibly be considered a sacrament, simply because it does greatly reflect Christ and the Church in that a couple vow themselves to one another and surrender their own desire for each other. Since they are being committed together to God to commit to one another, and they entire a deep and intimate relationship of love together, it could be argued as a sacrament (Grun 167).
Ordination
            While the Catholic Church does recognize the priesthood of all the believers, the ordained priest holds a Different role. They are “priests to the priests” (Camille 15) in many ways. The purpose of the ordained priest is to be the administer of the sacraments to the rest of the Church body and to serve other Christians in whatever way is needed (Grun 204-05). Some of the characteristic of priests in history were that they cast out the demonic, guarded that which is holy or sacred, stood in mediation between humanity and the divine, chanted and/or sang songs of lament or praise, and preformed various rites or rituals (Grun 206-12). The Church definitely needs people who have dedicated their lives to life and soul of the Church, and who live sacrificially to minister to younger in the faith, the vows that Priests take and their elevated position are unnecessary. They do, however, ensure that the sacraments are administered correctly and that the teachings of the Church remain, at the very least, consistent. Is ordination something to be deemed a “sacrament”? Probably not, but the role of the ordained priest does have its use, though the concept is not necessarily found in the New Testament writings.
            Anointing the Sick
            Also referred to as “Extreme Unction” or “Last Rites”, this sacrament is performed when members of the Church is facing extreme illness, old age, or are close to death (Ciferni 57). Coming from a biased, Pentecostal background, one might be infuriated by this interpretation of New Testament acts of anointing the sick, as might many others from a non-Catholic perspective. When James stated that elders should gather around those who are sick and anoint then with oil (James 5:14), he probably did not have this in mind.
            While anointing with oil was (and still is) a common practice in the Church, even being found in early Judaism, it is only the Catholic perspective that can be viewed as resembling a sacrament, but one could argue that, like much of the doctrine taught in the Catholic Church, that this is a skewed interpretation of scripture.
            Penance
            Penance is also known as Reconciliation or as Confession. Confession as a regularly preformed act has significantly decreased over the decades, even among the Catholics (Grun 122). Since the events of Vatican II, however, the sacrament of Penance has taken on a form that is indeed better described as “reconciliation” and now focuses on the idea of restoration or relationships and achieving forgiveness (Camille 128). Even though it has become more of a forgiveness and relationship-restoring act, it still has some measure of its traditional form of confessing to a priest for the purpose of being reconciled to God and to the Church (Osborne 1083).
            The reformers cried out against Reconciliation as being a sacrament. John Calvin and Luther accused the Church of making up the sacrament and stated that it was not scripturally founded (Osborne 1085). Calvin and Luther must not have argued their points very well since the practice is still alive and well. While the Bible does say that we are to tell one another of our sins and to help each other (James 5:16), there are no verse that set it up as a sacrament. Biblically one can see that James was giving instruction for a community of believers and not prescribing a ritual of confession to a priest or elder.
             The act of confession is indeed relieving and helps to break the guilt of someone’s life, and acts of reconciliation are redemptive and bring healing to the minds and hearts of the people, but these are not reasons to call such an act a sacrament. At the same time, the growing theological idea that one does not need to openly confess to anyone other than Jesus should probably be considered unhealthy for believers.

Sacraments and the Spirit
In her book Invitation to Catholicism, Alice Camille breaks down the difference between “sign”, “symbol”, and “sacrament.” (102-03). “Signs” are simply things that convey an agreed upon meaning by a community of people, but that is all. “Symbols” convey meanings as well, but go far beyond just holding meaning. Camille uses the American flag as a prime example for helping explain the concept of “symbol.” The flag has colors and shapes and hold an agreed upon meaning, but in addition to that it represents the U.S. as a whole, both her philosophies and her people. Camille then describes sacrament as being so much more than either a symbol or a sign because of a sacraments affect on the soul. She states that “for Catholics, a sacrament is so much more than what it represents, it is what it represents” (103). Therefore, Penance is not just an action, but it actually brings about forgiveness. Marriage actually unifies, communion brings about transformation, and baptism actually cleanses.
While there is certain attractiveness to this way of thinking, there has to be more support from the scriptures to allow most people to accept this belief. The idea , however does not necessarily oppose scripture, and can therefore be argued as possibly a valid perspective that may simply have to be concluded through subjective experience rather than straight academics.
Thinking back to the root meaning of “mystery” (Francis 1146), it is easy to see how one could come to this conclusion. What mystery is there if the sacraments are just symbols and do not actually have an effect on the participant. Unfortunately, there is no real scriptural evidence to support this way of thinking. All scripture gives us is one passage where Paul states that communion should not be done flippantly, since in doing so may result in serious sickness or even death (1 Corinthian 11:27-31). This is definitely a significant fact and suggests that, at the very least, the Holy Spirit takes communion very seriously and punishes those who partake without the proper hearts or mindsets.
It is important to recognize that Catholics do not claim sacraments to be “magic rituals” but that instead they are things that the Holy Spirit is very present in and, therefore, works through to accomplish the action or meaning that each sacrament represents. It is God choosing to work through an action that He established to be done in the Church, not the sacrament itself, but God’s presence in the midst of the sacrament (Camille 103).

Sacraments in relationship to salvation
The common understanding is that Catholics believe that it is through the sacraments that one receives an impartation of grace. It is not a magical ritual, but instead it is something that God “chooses to work through” and He is not “bound” by the sacraments (Camille 112). The Protestant perspective on baptism is that it is merely “the seal on profession of faith”, which poses a problem in that it is significantly less unifying than the Catholic Church (Green 16), but in many circles still imply a working of the Spirit.
A major theological debate among certain denominations is the issue of infant baptism. While there are many today who could care less on the topic, it is definitely not a subject to be overlooked. The primary question is in whether baptism has a salvific nature. In Children of Promise, Geoffrey Bromiley makes an attempt to argue for the salvation of children through infant baptism (91-111). He primarily shows arguments that completely misuse scripture and raise more theological concerns.
If baptism of any kind is an instrument for bringing about salvation, then what do we do with Christ and His sacrifice? Was His sacrifice a payment for baptism to save people? This is a rather illogical conclusion. This perspective makes baptism too much like magic and takes too much glory away from the workings of Christ, and would beg us to call into question the “innocence” of a child. Bromiley writes of the argument that infants do not require forgiveness or salvation since they have not “had the chance to sin”, but then makes it clear that scripture does not give us an examples of exceptions to humans being sin-filled (96-97).
If baptism is not a bestowing of salvation, than what use does it have beyond being a mere dedication of the infant, which appears to be a common practice among other denominations. Since baptism is such an important part of the lives of the believers and their conscious choice to yield to Christ in repentance, it would inappropriate to baptize an infant. On the opposite side of the argument, if it can be determined biblically that baptism can give an assurance of salvation then it must become a regular act of the church. The parents of the infant must then be held to a even higher standard of discipling the infant in its growing years (Bromiley 110).
Camille states that we should not concern ourselves with the “what-ifs”, but recognize God’s choosing to work through sacraments provides a way, and that in the end it does not matter since the “Council of Trent offered the concept of ‘baptism of desire’” (112). She calls it a “beautiful theological basket woven to defend God’s power to supply whatever is need in any emergency”, and this accounts for those to live and die without ever having heard the gospel (112).
In response to Camille’s statements, one must call into question the need to “defend God’s power to supply” and how it is that we as humans can make such theological claims. Unfortunately, there do not appear to be any scriptural support for this theological claim, which is a major sign that one must approach the topic with caution and great care. Another hole in this theory is that if God merely supplies the faith necessary to let those who have not heard the Gospel receive salvation, then would it not be cruel and condemning of God to go telling everyone the “Good News”? This makes the sharing of the Gospel equal to the giving of Moses’ law rather than bringing life and freedom! It would then be better to remain silent on the matter of Christ and simply teach good morals.
As Christians we have to remember that Jesus is the source of our salvation. It is possible that God might use communion and baptism as the means for which he bestows grace, but it is hard to support this theory scripturally. Since we cannot assume salvation coming from the sacraments, we must then be willing to say that they are significant symbols in which the Holy Spirit interacts with and uses for our benefit.

Conclusion
It is evident that there is some much deeper to the sacraments than many Christians accept, but at the same time there is a risk of finding oneself believing a dangerous, opposite extreme. A lot of American Christians, especially those of the South, do not participate and show the appreciation for the traditions of the early Church. While this is not necessarily a bad thing in and of itself, the sacraments are often included in those lessened or abandoned traditions. It can easily be seen that the Protestant revolt against the Catholic false teachings has gone too far in its attempt to counteract them, and has brought about false teachings of a different sort.
When defining or explaining the sacraments, one can far too easily fall into a biased perspective and ignore what is being said by fellow believers of different perspectives. The journey to discovering the true nature of the sacraments requires time and patience, as well as an open mind to hearing what people have to say. It is not something that should be solidified in a day, or a week, or maybe even a month. No, instead it should be explored and with great care to the scriptures and with an attentive ear turned toward the Spirit who is constantly speaking to us.
Whether the essence of Christ or the presence of the Spirit is ultimately within a sacrament or not, it is undeniable that they have important roles in the lives of believers. Sacraments have a deep and meaningful effect on our hearts and minds, even if they are not essential interwoven with grace or supernatural power. It is evident that God takes sacraments incredibly seriously, especially Baptism, Eucharist, and Marriage.
In the matter of explaining sacraments, Camille stated it best when she said that “explaining a sacrament is like explaining a kiss. Best to talk less and kiss more” (102). Knowledge is only a part of the equation; experience and engagement are the others.



Work Cited

Armour, Rollin Stely. Anabaptist Baptism. Scottdale, PA. Herald Press. 1966
Bishop, David S., Knight, Cecil B., ed.  Pentecostal Worship. Cleveland, TN. Pathway Press. 1974.
Bromiley, Geoffrey. Children of Promise. Grand Rapids, Michigan. William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. 1979.
Camille, Alice. An Invitation to Catholicism. Chicago, IL. ACTA Publications. 2001.
Ciferni, Andrew; McBrien, Richard P., ed. “Anointing the Sick”.The HarperCollins Encyclopedia of Catholicism. New York, NY. HarperCollins Press Inc. 1995.
Clowney, Edmund P. The Church. Downers Grove, IL. InterVarsity Press. 1995.
Cullmann, Oscar. Early Church Worship. Philadelphia, PA. The Westminster Press. 1953
Dorman, Ted. A Faith for All Seasons.
Eller, Vernard. In Place of Sacraments. Grand Rapids, Michigan. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. 1972.
Francis, Mark R., McBrien, Richard P., ed. “Sacraments” The HarperCollins Encyclopedia of Catholicism. New York, NY. HarperCollins Press Inc. 1995.
 Furguson, Everett. Baptism in the Early Church. Cambridge, UK. William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. 2009.
Green, Michael. Baptism. Downers Grove, IL. InterVarsity Press. 1987.
Grun, Anselum. The Seven Sacraments. New York, NY. Continuum. 2003.
Lawler, Michael G. McBrien, Richard P., ed. “Marriage”.The HarperCollins Encyclopedia of Catholicism. New York, NY. HarperCollins Press Inc. 1995.
Osborne, Kennan., McBrien, Richard P., ed. “Reconciliation”.The HarperCollins Encyclopedia of Catholicism. New York, NY. HarperCollins Press Inc. 1995.
Phillips, J.B. Appointment with God. New York, NY. McMillian Company. 1954.
Wallace, Ronald S. Calvin’s Doctrine of the Word and Sacraments. Grand Rapids, Michigan. Wm. B Eardmans Press. 1957.

Forgiveness: Article Reviews and Personal Philosophy Summery


4 Articles on Forgiveness
            C.S. Lewis-C.S. Lewis, a well-known and prolific author among Christian theologians, wrote the article “The Humanitarian Theory of Punishment.” In his article he delved into the issue of punishment and its place in society. If one were to look at the justice system of America today, we could very easily see where we need to review our justice system and maybe even restructure it all together. We need to make it very clear why we punish or if we even do punish, especially in light of Americans being divided on topics such as capital punishment and the punishment “appropriate” for sex offenders and murders.
            A very interesting statement that Lewis makes concerning the Humanitarian theory of punishment is that humans who are convicted of a crime are “deprived of the rights of human beings” (Lewis 1), saying that the Humanitarian ideal of “curing” the criminal rather than truly punishing him or her is actually degrading of humanity and strips us of what we truly deserve. Lewis seems to believe that asking any question other than “what does he deserve?” is not asking a question that leads to true justice. So the question for us as humans becomes “Can there be justice without punishment?” What justice is given on behalf of the girl who was raped if the rapist isn’t punished for his crimes? We have a right to see just done on our behalf and that is not met under the Humanitarian theory.
            Lewis describes the Humanitarian theory as the belief that “to punish a man because he deserves it, and as much as he deserves, is mere revenge, and, therefore, barbarous and immoral” and that the only way to approach to “correction” of a criminal is from the perspective that they can be “cured” of their lifestyle. Which I wonder is a theory more or less influenced by a “low- nature, high-nurture” perspective on humanity.
            Regardless of where you land on the Calvin vs. Arminius scale, it is agreed that a man who commits murder deserves “punishment”, but let the murder kill a member of your own family and suddenly punishment is not enough. The murder made his choice to kill, and therefore deserves punishment. Lewis’ argument is more than valid, and when it comes to dealing with matters of  “punishment” or “reform” we should realize that humans have rights and that it is more human to give them a punishment fitting what they deserve rather than to attempt a “reprogramming” of their brains.
            Overall, I loved Lewis’ article and believe he had many excellent points. He does not, however, give thought to forgiveness and its role in the punishment issue. While I would agree that the Humanitarian Theory in and of itself is insufficient, perhaps it is a good alternative to punishment in the event that the criminal and victim come to term and reach reconciliation. At that point, counseling or processes of mental reform and stability may not be such a terrible course of action.
Dr. Troy Martin- Dr. Martin challenges the common Evangelical Christian perspective of forgiveness. The basis of Martin’s argument is that there are no examples in the Holy Bible in which we see people forgiving without repentance. Martin accuses Christians of adding to the concept for forgiveness by forcing people to “Forgive and forget” and to do it instantly regardless of whether the person has repented or not (Martin 360).
Martin explains that it is necessary for there to be confrontation between the offended and the offender and that this is clearly laid out in the Gospel of Matthew as Jesus gives a step by step process to confrontation. In addition to this, he uses the Apostle Peter as an example of confrontation from taking the passage from Acts in which he preached to the crowds concerning “their guilt of crucifying Christ” (Martin 360).
Repentance is apparently a major necessity, according to Martin. Martin uses a good number of biblical text concerning forgiveness that state a need for repentance for one to be required to forgive. The implications of this are enormous and would require the Church to really reevaluate her theology concerning forgiveness between individuals, as well as their processes of interpreting and studying the Holy Text.
Some of Dr. Martin’s arguments were very weak and bothersome. I have difficulty making connection between Peter’s preaching and the argument for their needing to be “confrontation” for there to be repentance, at least not in the way that Martin presented it. He preached about Christ and the realization of Christ, along with the working of the Holy Spirit that was so obviously present, people went to God in repentance and proclaimed Christ is Lord. I hardly think it was because he “confronted their guilt in killing Jesus” (Martin 360). While I suppose that one could argue that by sinning all of humanity is responsible for His death and, therefore, Peter was actually confronting their wrongs on Christ’s behalf. I, however, am not yet fully convinced and would prefer that the author explain this particular point more in depth.
Martin makes a most fascinating point about Jesus saying “Father forgive them” rather than “I forgive you” (362). I think Martin is on to something here, but I believe it is extremely dangerous to completely accept a theological thought based off one scripture. Granted, he lists two possible scriptures, but can we really say that Stephen’s cry is proof of Martins claim? Can it not be said that their crying out is proof of their own rendering forgiveness to them and simply asking God (or in Jesus’ case, the other members of the Trinity) to also forgive?
It is important that one is careful not to base his beliefs on something supported by one or two scriptures. Otherwise, you just might end up with something like people suddenly all disappearing before some unbelievable disaster strike for, oh let’s say, 7 years. Worse yet, someone might end up making an epic fictional book series off of that unorthodox belief and get rich because of it. While it is respectable where Dr. Martin has landed in his thoughts, there is not enough support (textual examples, historical culture information, examples of early church fathers practicing this thought, etc.) in his paper to be truly convincing.
On a brighter note, I believe that Martin was exactly right about the misunderstanding of forgiveness that is running rampant in the Church today, as well as in sessions of Christian counseling. Quite frankly, is it not the counselor’s job to help a person process emotions and feelings and help them work through their issues? How is saying “let bygones be bygones” accomplish that goal or fulfill their job requirements? It does not fulfill it at all. It is a false approach to a matter and terrible work on behalf of the counselor that is causing more damage than it’s healing.
Lynn Jansen-When it comes to the subject of terrorism and our forgiveness for those who attacked us on September 11, 2001, it can be hard to be reasonable and logical in our pursuit to bring justice and/or reconciliation. Jansen’s first point is that we must first decide whether or not the offenders (here being the terrorists) are inside or outside of our “moral community” (Jansen 22). She argues that if they are not, there is no obligation whatsoever to forgive them because they are not “appropriate objects of forgiveness” (Jansen 22). The reasoning is that if a person is “outside of the moral community” then they are “not responsible for their actions.” If we choose then to say that they, in fact, are a part of our “moral community”, then they most certainly do become appropriate objects of forgiveness (Jansen 23).
Her next point is even more fascinating in thought than the last. Is forgiving when there is no repentance is nothing more than condoning moral evils? (Jansen 23). If the terrorist refuse to admit that what they have done is wrong or to believe that it is wrong, then it is quite possible that we would be doing a great evil in prematurely “forgiving” them.
Lastly, Jansen raises the question “Is it our duty to forgive?” which is definitely an extremely hard question to approach, especially in light of this particular situation being explored. She makes it very clear that is there is a “sincere and genuine” acknowledgment of the evil having been done by the offender, then it is our duty to forgive them and work to remove them, in our minds, from the evil that was done. She also states that with offenses of a minor nature occur, then it is very possible to forgive those even if there is no acknowledgement, but as for the major atrocities like those of the 9/11 attacks, the answer she gives is strictly no. There is no duty to forgive such evils. (Jansen 25)
My primary issue with her article is the use of the words “moral community.” Thinking upon the topic of “morality”, I find it more than difficult to divide morality into “communities” since my initial belief is that morality is universal and not just cultural. God wrote the moral law and he has written morality upon the hearts of man and He is our reason for yielding to the moral code at all. Given this, it is known that murder is wrong and no matter what community you belong to it is still wrong. Therefore, it is natural to assume that the terrorists are completely responsible for their actions and are, without a doubt, appropriate objects of resentment and forgiveness.
However, our response still requires our careful thought process. Those who are continually seeking to kill and destroy should be stopped, but how they should be stopped is an entirely different question. Also, where does the mental stability of the “wrongdoer” come into the equation for our decision on how to reign in justice and punishment, as well as forgiveness? The mentally destroyed person lacks humanity and, in my opinion, worthy of death; if not as a punishment, then at least as an act of mercy.
 If a person has mental stability but is misguided and indoctrinated, then we should we not seek diplomacy and understanding. Are we not obligated to at least attempt to reveal truth to that person so that they might know they have a need for repentance? There is too much complexity and varying situations to come to a solid answer, but it is important to consider. Does morality count towards the mental insane? Also, where does the sense of “justice”, which was previously discussed in Lewis’ paper, find its place in this mess? Does “forgiveness” dissolve a need for “justice”? I would argue no, but I could just as easily argue yes.
Other than this I found Jansen’s paper to be well thought out and thought provoking, specifically when it came to the topics of “condoning moral evil” (Jansen 23) and our obligation to forgive (Jansen 24). My own thoughts have been most definitely influenced by these two particular sections of the paper. If anything, I think I now see an absolute need to approach forgiveness with much more hesitancy and with thoughtful consideration. It becomes essential for one to render time to process and work through their pain to truly forgive them.
David A. Crocker-Crocker, using South Africa as an example, formulates an argument that helps separate revenge from retribution and probes the South African movement to have reconciliation. Crocker tells of Archbishop Tutu of South Africa who appears to be defining punishment as retribution and retribution as revenge, and from there it can be determined that the Archbishop sees “punishment” as wrong. While his work in the area of reconciliation and forgiveness are beautiful and essential, his philosophy concerning punishment is wrong. Also, what if there are those who choose not to forgive? Is the criminal taken to court just like those who chose not to publicly forgive? Where is justice?
Crocker defines retribution as being very different from revenge. While both are actions against a wrong, retribution is not personal, takes no satisfaction, and is “principled” (Crocker 4). What is mean by principled is that “Retribution insists that the response not be greater than the offense” as opposed to vengeance which is not principled and “insists that is be no less and if possible more” that the crime (Crocker 4).
I find people like Archbishop Tutu to be wonderful, loving people, but also misguided. Of course it is most likely that I am the misguided one. My primary question for this article is “does it become unnecessary for there to be punishment in light of a criminal’s public confession and repentance, especially if the victim choose to forgive?” My initial reaction is to say that “no, there must be a punishment”, but then I must question my reasoning for why I want punishment. Why is there a need for punishment? Am I using punishment for social reform or am I just enforcing my own idea of Karma upon the criminal by “bringing balance”? “Eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth” is the basic philosophy that rest behind my desire for justice.
Therefore, I make the following statement. I believe that we must bring about reconciliation where possible, and punishment where necessary. This means that we must take a criminal’s actions and show grace if he repents. However, if they do it again, less grace must be shown since the previous repentance was obviously of little value. Murder and rape however are of a different class. It is, also, simply not enough that a criminal repents, but that the victim shows forgiveness and drops the charges. If possible, reconciliation should be attempted to be reached before the courts take place, and if the victim is willing to forgive then he/she should drop the charges that have been placed against the criminal.
My Philosophy of Forgiveness
            The Christian faith teaches strongly on the concept of forgiveness. It is the very reason we do what we do. We are in need of salvation and forgiveness from God. What happens, however, when we are the one needing to forgive? Forgiveness is a choice that must be made on the part of the offended, but can that be done without repentance?  The Holy Scriptures does not appear to give us that idea. It does however say that we are to “love [our] enemies and pray for those who persecute [us].” (Luke 6:27) Even though this does not say “forgive” per say, does it imply a need to forgive, or merely that we need to have a willingness to forgive.
            Forgiveness is a process, but one does not have to go very far to find those that say “You need to forgive right here and now, and do not worry cause the Holy Spirit will help you do this.” While it is beyond agreeable that that Holy Spirit can cause us to instantly be able to have the willingness to forgive (as is well demonstrated by St. Stephen), but can forgiveness be completed without the repentance of the offender? After having read the paper by Dr. Lynn Jansen, I would have to say that it is possible depending on the severity of the wrong that was done. This particular question will require a great deal more thought. Depending on what was done and the person’s mindset concerning the matter, my ability to forgive without acknowledgment will vary.
For me to forgive the person who knows they did wrong but has no remorse would be the same as me giving them an applause for what they did, and this only invites them to continue acting upon their wrongs. However, if a person simply cannot understand how what they did is wrong, and is, therefore, unable to own up to what was done (because they are incapable of repenting of something they cannot deem to be wrong) then perhaps it is appropriate to forgive them. Obviously, if the matter is of a much more serious matter such as murder, rape, etc, then forgiveness is not necessary and the wrongdoer’s mental stability should be brought into question.
When I know that I’m in the wrong and have offended a person, then I am obligated to go and seek forgiveness from them because reconciliation is vitally important (Matthew 5:24-26). Once I seek reconciliation and done all that I can in an attempt to mend the issue, I have fulfilled my part. As someone who has been wronged, it would be my duty as a Christian to have a willingness to forgive and to work through my emotions and pains so that I can (when the time is right) approach the person who has wronged me and confront them, or at the very least be ready to listen and be soft hearted should the wrongdoer approach me. I believe that it is a part of forgiveness to have confrontation and it my social and moral duty to seek restoration and reconciliation.
Concerning forgiveness for the murderer, if a man were to kill me then he would not be able to reconcile with me, but instead he would need to reconcile with my parents whose son was stolen from them. Beyond that he will need to seek out God for his forgiveness since my lack of presence might hinder him in that. I believe that we can transfer the issue to God who can rule in our defense in the event that we are unable to complete the reconciliation process ourselves.
            On a society level, we face the same issue. The ideal would be that all matters could be reconciled, just as the country of Germany today has been reconciled back into the western world as an acceptable people and as equals in the world. In the case of terrorism we face a mighty threat and are unable to seek reconciliation since most of the diplomacy between the American forces and the terrorists is not done with words, but instead with gunpowder and rocket fuel. The fact is that there is no easy answer for every situation.
            It is impossible, however, for the Nazi Germans to apologize for what happened in World War 2, unless of course they are still alive. The modern German is not responsible since the actions were not his own. How can someone repent on behalf of a wrong that they did not do? Jesus did it, but He was God! Can a man stand in on behalf of someone else?  My belief is no. Therefore, as long as all of the offenders are either dead or repentant we must reconcile, but the modern nation as a whole is not responsible for what the nation as a whole back in the early 1900’s did. Only the group of human beings that participated can be held responsible.
            Why is it my duty to forgive? Because the biblical text make it clear that forgiveness should be sought out, and because for us to have a functioning society we need to be willing to let go of bitterness and hatred and seek peace and harmony. It is an opportunity to show the grace and mercy of Christ who is now living in me and who paid the price for my own repentance. He was willing to forgive me for my limitless evil, and therefore I should be willing to forgive for the minor list of offenses that have been committed against me.
           



Work Cited
Holy Bible. Book of Matthew. <Online Resource> http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+5&version=ESV. March 18, 2012.
Holy Bible. Book of Matthew. <Online Resource> http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+18:15&version=ESV. March 18, 2012.
Holy Bible. Book of Luke. <Online Resource> http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+6:27&version=ESV. March 18, 2012.
Croker, David A. “Retribution and Reconciliation”. Philosophy and Public Policy. School of Public Affairs. College Park, Maryland. 2000
Jansen, Lynn A. “Evil, Forgiveness, and the Moral Community”. The National Catholic
Bioethics Quarterly. Spring 2002.
Lewis, C.S. “The Humanitarian Theory of Punishment”. God in the Dock. 1970
Martin, Troy. “The Christian Obligation Not to Forgive”. The Expository Times. Saint Xavier University. Chicago, IL. 

L'Abri: Shelter for the Seekers

This past week I had the privilege of going to England to stay at the L'Abri branch in the town of Greatham. For those who do not know what L'Abri is, a loooonnng time ago there was a man by the name of Francis Schaffer who realized that there wasn't a place for Evangelicals to go and openly ask real questions and engage with people  without fear of being shunned or mistreated. L'Abri is a French word that means "Shelter", and that's exactly what Schaffer created...a shelter.

During my stay I was required to participate in a daily work schedule that was surprisingly restful, despite its appearance of intensity. I (and all the other students there, including eight other student form my college) were assigned to either work in the morning and then study in the afternoon, or vice versa. Working included either food prep, cleaning crew, gardening crew, or laundry. Studying was independent and personal in nature. Whatever you desired to study (that was available via books in the library or lectures on tape). I was blown away by what I experienced during my stay.

I have found that I am severely lacking in the area of community. While it is not completely void in my life, there is very little true community being exercised. However, while I was at L'Abri I was able to experience what it means to have "community" and to be able to be open and honest and to true engage people. While I found it considerably more amongst my fellow classmates rather than the students of L'Abri, it was being in the atmosphere that L'Abri provides that allowed us to truly connect. It was a life-giving experience and was very revealing.

I think that what makes me most angry is the realization that churches in my home town (and in my country and worldwide etc etc etc) are not practicing community. They do not allow space for openness to questions or discussing problem areas. The Church of Evangelical America has become closed-minded and her leaders have chosen to give unsatisfactory answers to question or to ridicule people with questions. It seems to me that the Church's leaders have lost focus and have misplaced their priorities.

What do you think? Does your church practice community? How about your family?


"Wasnt that a lovely performance?"

Just a few moments ago I found myself engaged in a very "uplifting" worship service. I have noted the last couple days that I am very observant and opinionated, especially when it comes to worship services. I critique actions, words, "emotional atmospheres", and the theology of the songs...but I generally find myself worshiping God and in prayer because of it.

Today's question is "why do we all clap at the end of each song?" It makes me think of a concert for classical music in which one applauds the muscians at the end of there musical ensemble...but in a worship service? I'm not saying that the clapping in and of itself is wrong...but instead I'm questioning the reasoning, and I'm wondering how many people actually know why they clap. In fact I leaned over to one of the youth next to me and asked, "Why exactly do we clap at the end of every song?" and all he had to say was "I have no idea...", leaving me to wonder how many people in that room actually DO know! Are they clapping for God or have we found ourselves praising worship leaders, choirs, and musicians instead of our Creator.

Here's another issue. I know a lot of Christians who are anti-ritualistic. For me, ritualistic worship is not evil or wrong, except for when it becomes a mere action to be checked off on a list of things done rather that being done with a heart of worship, but there are many out there that "avoid the appearance [rituals]" (the brackets are my personal insertions used for meeting a point, not giving a translation). If we do something, however, full of emotion but without a known purpose or active intellectual reasoning, then aren't we just being "ritualistic"? Is it not nothing more than a distraction or disrespectful towards God when we are in a time of "worship" and we begin performing an action that isn't worshipful or honoring to God. I'm tired of hearing "Give the Lord a hand clap of praise!" at the end of a "praise song". Maybe I'm misunderstanding what is really going on, but these are just my thoughts.

My fear (which is one that I feel is justified) is this...has worship become about good performances and emotional songs? Has evangelicalism so greatly disconnected the intellect from something in which it is supposed to be so heavily active. "Love the Lord your God with heart, with all your soul,  with all your mind, and all your strength." Which means that we should honor God with our will,our emotions, our physical abilities, our personalities, our gifts and talents, and most importantly...our intellect.

What happened?

What do you think?