“Our task as image-bearing, God-loving, Christ-shaped, Spirit-filled Christians, following Christ and shaping our world, is to announce redemption to a world that has discovered its fallenness, to announce healing to a world that has discovered its brokenness, to proclaim love and trust to a world that knows only exploitation, fear and suspicion".
-N.T. Wright, "The Challenge of Jesus"
Translate
A site that publishes some brief articles and other teaching of Father Thomas Reeves, the Priest/Pastor at St. Matthew's Episcopal Church in Bloomington, IL (stmattsblm.org)
Thursday, December 31, 2015
Saturday, October 24, 2015
Are Bishops and Apostolic Succession Essential or Unimportant to the Future of American Anglicanism?
The
Optional Bishop
Some
Pastoral Thoughts Regarding Apostolic Succession and the Historic Episcopate
by
Father Tom Reeves
Recently, I attended a clergy day in our
Diocese. At one point during the day, I
had a nice discussion and time of prayer with two other priests. One of the Priests had recently graduated
from a well-known Evangelical Seminary in Colorado.
As we discussed our lives, I turned to this newly
ordained priest and asked him "So, what brought you in connection with
Anglicanism"? It seemed evident to
me that this young man had a gentle and sincere spirit, and genuine love for
the Lord and people. As he began to
explain his journey, he referenced his first interaction with our Bishop.
His response was not surprising. This pastor called our Bishop as a first step
to inquire about entrance into the Anglican Church and what it would entail. He had called our Diocesan headquarters
because he was interested in planting a church in our state, and thought he
would just have some things mailed to him or explained to him by the
staff. As is often the case, the Bishop
was in his office and was glad to speak to the young man. This was a shock to the caller, who in no way
had prepared himself to talk to the Bishop directly.
As an outsider to Anglicanism, this person's cultural
view assumed a Bishop as someone who is somber, austere, and given over to power. Instead, he found our Bishop engaging,
welcoming and informative. He is now in
an internship program toward the priesthood at one of our larger churches. What will he be taught about the historic
episcopate?
In another encounter on the same day, I was talking
with a seasoned Episcopal priest. As he
related his story and the process his church took in leaving the Episcopal
Church, he mentioned to me that he did not believe that Apostolic succession
was scriptural. In addition, he did not
see the Episcopate as historically necessary. This sentiment by clergy in the ACNA is
becoming a constant.
I too was an ordinand coming from outside the
Anglican Tradition. During a discussion
with one of my Anglican professors, I was informed by him that "Apostolic succession is just a
tradition, and most scholars today (within the discipline of Biblical Theology)
believe the Bible teaches elder rule" (similar to Presbyterian Polity).
So, is Apostolic Succession and the historic
episcopate just one "style" of leading and organizing a church? Is it optional?
A Fresh Approach to Anglicanism?
What I have discovered since entering the ACNA in
2008, is that many ACNA clergy see Apostolic Succession as an optional
tradition and/or a necessary evil[1]. Most evangelical clergy (no matter what
"denomination" they find themselves), usually use the word
"tradition" in a pejorative sense.
The irony, though, is that by taking a low view of history and
tradition, these pastors are relying on and contributing to another set tradition;
a tradition that marginalizes tradition.
When we allow ourselves to think
in this manner, we reveal an undeveloped understanding of Anglicanism at its
core - or worse - a denial of the relationship between the Word, the Holy
Spirit, and tradition.
One of the negative marks of American Evangelical
pietism is the belief that there is one, right, scriptural way to do just about
anything. The Bible in this way of
thinking becomes a manual by which we are to put our Christianity into
practice. However, I submit that this
approach is not only hermeneutically flawed, but also does injustice to the
contexts and cultures in which the Old and New Testaments were penned (the
writers were not post-Enlightenment Modernists or Post-Modernists). In addition, this approach does not embrace
the complexities of taking truth formed in one culture and applying it to
another.
In this way of thinking, applications from scripture
become wooden or formulaic. There are
clear demarcations between the right way, and the wrong way; the good guys, and
the bad guys; my people, and your people.
A characteristic of this church culture is the continual search for the
ever elusive "real church" or
the "pure church". It is in this milieu then, that a search for
the "one right ecclesiology" makes perfect sense.
In so much of American Anglicanism it is my
cross-references versus your cross-references; the book you just read, versus
the book I just read; my experiences
verses your experiences; my favorite theologian, against yours. This sets the stage for sectarian and
polarized communal relationships that have little room for shared critical
thinking, honest discussions regarding truth, or an appreciation of our need of
the "push-back" from other views.
In other words, instead of a healthy grounded community, an insecure and
defensive "group-think" evolves.
The reality is that our personal beliefs and
experiences do not in and of themselves create lasting, authoritative
truth. Because we are created and human,
we all interpret the scriptures with an informing tradition directing us as a tutor
would a student. We can deny this, but
it doesn't make it any less true. No
matter what flavor of Christianity that we claim to be a part of, all developed
theology, exegesis, confessions, and creeds are TRADITION by the very
definition of the term.
When we seek to explain scripture, organize it, and
then disseminate it in any fashion (beyond just reading it outright in our
assemblies and letting the reader decide how it strikes them), we are giving
them a form of tradition. So is
Apostolic Succession tradition? Yes, and so is ANY form of ecclesiastical rule, revision, or
application.
In I Corinthians 15, the Apostle Paul reveals some tradition
handed down to him as an Apostle:
It
Is Traditional to have Tradition
It should come as no shock to us that like the
church fathers and the reformers, we too are children of our age and cultures (familial, local, regional, national). From the day that we are born, we breathe-in
and drink- in assumptions about life, living, philosophy, politics and
truth. Many of our presumptions will
need to be shaped or abandoned as we grow in our understanding of the Gospel
and the Kingdom of God. We will also need
assistance in Gospel and Kingdom applications and living.
Anglicans
have always believed that the Holy Spirit's work of sanctification (in the
Covenantal Community and in individual lives) is a process that is continued
until the consummation and glorification of Christ's church. We learn and seek our God through Word and
Spirit, but we see ourselves grounded and informed by the church fathers that
have gone before us. This historic and
universal church (i.e., catholic church) has handed down a historic and core
tradition in a particular historic context.
However, it seems to this writer, that many
Anglicans take the central content of the historic traditions while leaving
their context. Thus, the complexities
and processes involved in developing our ecumenical
New Testament Cannon go unnoticed; the importance of a unified (but imperfect)
church in their development goes unnoticed; the importance of the spiritual
authority of the Bishops in the development of the Cannon goes unnoticed. We will give lip service to the Apostle's, Nicene,
and Athanasian Creeds, and we are glad to have them as our historical
documents; however, we care little for
the historic understandings and contexts in which these important and central
truths were formulated.
As most Americans , we are constantly tempted to be
pragmatic while being a-historical and
anti-intellectual. We, thus, are
tempted to value our lives and ministries based on their perceived production
value. In addition, we live in a
democracy that sees government rule distributed by a representative form of
government[2],
yet, somehow, we are certain that this governing reality has no influence on
the way we interpret scripture.
How have we decided that we are untouched by the
blatant capitulation in our culture regarding individual reason and our ability
to find truth on our own in isolation from others in community? Why are we constantly condescending towards a
faithful historic belief system informed by the faithful people of the past? Why do we act as if our perceptions are so
accurate that we have no need to consider the beliefs of those on the opposite
side of an issue? Why do we pick one
small part of church history and "pitch our tent" there, while
ignoring the rest of God's faithful work among his people in every age?
The
Unity of American Anglicans
Instead of a real unity around a few, core, and shared
beliefs that define our Anglicanism, we seem to be encouraging an undefined Anglicanism
in the spirit of the "free-church"[3] so
prominent among us[4]. I submit that if Anglicanism means anything Anglicans do or say, then being
Anglican means nothing. And if being Anglican means nothing, then being Anglican means anything.
The American Anglican Church is NOT a
"free-church". Many Anglicans claim the Ecumenical Creeds, but not that whole "Baptism
for the forgiveness of sins" idea.
We say we accept the liturgy in our 1662 Book of Common Prayer, but seem
unaware at times of the theology behind its sacramental statements. We say we subscribe
to the Thirty-nine Articles, but clarity regarding what this means in ecclesial
application remains elusive. Anglican practice reveals multiple groups
doing what is "right in its own eyes" and the silence on these issues
is deafening.
So, what would it look like if we were NOT being
Anglican? The phrase "Anglican
Tradition" gets tossed around in the world-wide Anglican Communion. But what does "Anglican Tradition"
even mean? Can it be defined? Do we actually believe an undefined
Anglicanism will stand the test of time; an Anglicanism that positions itself as
the caretakers of everyone's optional theology, confessions, and creeds? This makes no scriptural or historic sense.
In the "free-church" way of thinking:
·
Liturgy is a style, is emergent, is cool,
but is optional. Also, the theology
contained in the liturgy is not necessarily instructive theologically.
·
We keep the Sacraments, but don't mind
adding a few sacramental rites of our own along with them. The problem with this approach, is that only
the Lord Jesus Christ has the freedom to create a sacrament for his church.[5]
·
Apostolic Succession is an optional belief,
but it is what many of us in the ACNA were reared in. Why we keep it as our ecclesiology may be
more related to the difficulties in changing it, than our passionate belief
that it should remain.
So, does Apostolic Succession have Scriptural
support? Yes! But I submit that the ecclesiology that we find in the New
Testament is a "primitive" and "developing" form of a later
and specific ecclesiology due to the
different needs and the changing size of Christ's Church[6].
In the scriptures, however, we see the
beginnings and foundations for this later development and rule.
·
We see the authority and leadership of
the Apostles while they were on earth, tasked by Christ to be his
representatives of forgiveness in the absolution of sin, the power and
authority over the evil one (and his forces), and the laying on hands as a sign
of approved ministry and power in the Church.
·
We see the early church prioritizing the
writings of the Apostles above all others in putting together the Cannon.
·
When unique problems face the church in
the book of Acts (as the new church transitioned from the Mosaic Covenant to
the New Covenant) we see an early, basic, and less-encumbered council in
Jerusalem recorded in the book of Acts
15. The later official councils of the
historic church established and clarified the importance of the incarnation,
the Trinity, and ratified an established Cannon of Scripture (among other
things). These were all led by Bishops
that saw themselves having their authority and beliefs coming directly from the
Apostles themselves through the laying on of hands[7].
·
We see the laying on of hands
established, from Apostle to under-ministers who then serve in ministry with,
and under the authority of the Apostles.
·
We see in the earliest writings of the
church an acceptance and an assumption of Episcopal rule, especially important
for the combating of heresy.
·
As with the Apostles, most of the
earliest Bishops on record were martyred for their faith in Christ[8],
lived out the Gospel, and relied on Apostolic teaching and tradition. The tradition during the early Christian
centuries was disseminated through
combined written fragments of the New Testament and the communal oral tradition
of the day.
What many of us misunderstand, is that when we
decide that tradition plays no role in the formation of our Christian faith, we
also philosophically rule out a
reliable, historic New Testament Cannon as Scripture. So in
essence, many American Christians choose to accept the Cannon of the New
Testament from the same communities who gave them the very notions of Apostolic
Succession and Episcopal Oversight. Is
this consistent?
The Cannon of Scripture was developed through the
working of the Holy Spirit in the Historic Community through TRADITION. In accepting the New Testament Cannon, we
choose to trust God's way of moving, leading, and protecting his communal
people throughout their history. We
believe that we are also following the teaching of the Apostles and that we
live under the authority given to them
through Christ as we engage the world, the flesh, and the devil. We believe the same Holy Spirit leads and
directs us, and that in the end we are completely reliant on our covenant
making and life-giving Lord.
How long did it take for the New Testament to be
gathered and recognized ecumenically as authoritative? If we take the writing of Athanasius (A
BISHOP) in his "Epistola Festalis" (A.D. 367) as the essential close of the New Testament Cannon,
the answer is three hundred and sixty-seven years[9].
Most Christians believe that the collection and
approval of what was later deemed "divinely inspired literature" was worked
out by the leading and the protecting of the Holy Spirit locally, regionally,
and ecumenically. Multiple manuscripts,
moving throughout the church had to be read, considered and decided on. A fragmented and disunified church would not
have been able complete such a task. A
Church with courageous, Spirit-led, authoritative (and flawed) Bishops
did. In other words, the Holy Scriptures
are only available to "free-church" Christians because of a unified
church under a developing Episcopal rule.[10]
Our
American Influences
In their hermeneutics, many American Christians are
nothing more than a less-extreme version of Joseph Smith, the founder of
Mormonism[11]. Individually, Smith had multiple visions, was
visited by God the Father and Jesus, and was given the book of Mormon through
golden plates he could never produce.[12]
Sounds crazy when we read it, but Joseph Smith sold
it to a lot of Americans, and there is a still a Mormon Church existing and
thriving today. There are some Christian
Ecumenists now claiming that Mormonism is a legitimate form of
Christianity. As a movement, Mormonism
is impressive and has done much cultural good.
So why is their reading of the Bible not one of our considered choices? What makes our opinions about scripture better
than theirs?
An Anglican Province bent on mission removed from
theological and historical depth will produce a weak church. Ignoring healthy intellectual dialogue
regarding our very core definitions, hinders a truly lasting unity or church. We are called to discern and to encourage the
Spiritual gifts of discernment and a culture that "tests the Spirits
whether they be of God". The Lord
has called his bishops and clergy to "rightly divide the Word of
God". The honest engagement and
significance of historical, cultural, and scriptural context is central to our
life and future as Anglicans.
This means that theological dialogue and development
must be present and a part of our communal trust. Unlike the church fathers and communities
responsible for the collecting and developing of our Scriptural Cannon, our
Ecumenical Creeds, and our theology of Church and Mission, many seem to want an
undefined core of Anglicanism.
But in the end, are we building a
foundation for our Province that will last if we take this route? If we are going to ignore the teachings of
the Early Church and the Reformers on such things, then we reveal we don't know
our own history. One only needs to look
at the very beginnings of the Global Anglican Communion in the late 1800's to
see where mission work without a grounded theology, clarity in core
definitions, and authoritative oversight leads us[13].
What we "experience" or "feel the
Spirit is doing" , does not a lasting or authoritative interpretation
make. Testing and discerning takes time,
involves trust, requires lasting and developed relationships, submits to
communal authority, and regularly engages historic Christian precedence in
handling and teaching the Word of God.
This is why Anglicans hold the Creeds and the theology taught in our
liturgy in such high regard. Without it
we believe that we would soon go off the rails of historic Christianity. But if we don't have some clearly defined, shared,
core beliefs, how can we hold one another accountable?
This writer submits that there is no lasting
Anglican definition that lays aside the Scriptural foundations and faithful
development of an Apostolic Episcopate.
Our uniqueness lies in the fact that our ecclesiology is both Apostolic
and Reformational. This distinctive should be taught and
clarified as essential no matter the disunity or disenfranchising we fear in
our province.
I believe Anglicanism is something, but without Apostolic Succession and the Historic
Episcopate, I submit that Anglicanism is truly a disposable "container"
that will not stand the test of time.
[1]
This has also been my experience in regards to other core Anglican
distinctives. There seems to be an
ambivalence regarding the unique and special working of the Christ in his
sacraments, and a general disinterest in the context and theology of the
Bishops that shaped our ecumenical
creeds. It at times seems that we assume
our beliefs (without a deeper knowledge and context) will endure without us
knowing why they should. If true it reveals at best historical myopia,
or at worse an irresponsible denial of the structures of human cultural
processes.
[2] A
Democratic Republic
[3]
Being defined here as a church tradition that has no requirements of its
parishes in regards to the order and content of their weekly gathered worship
services. As the ACNA develops its own
prayer-book, it is unclear what minimums are now (or will be) required for a
parish or diocese in regards to the liturgical use of the Book of Common
Prayer. While we decide on such things,
and their authoritative application, what kind of liturgical structures and
thinking will already have taken root?
[4] Is
it wisdom that we are embracing when we engage in ministry and friendship with
Free-church Evangelicals without a clear sense of when we are being
"Anglican" or when we are not?
Without this clarity, do we think that we will avoid being influenced by
their theologies, ecclesiologies and their cultures? Is a core Anglicanism worth retaining?
[5] I
submit that positioning a scripted "sinners prayer" as our one time act of conversion, is
taught nowhere in scripture and detracts from the reality that only God is the
giver of a lasting faith. We are called
to repent, believe and be baptized. Whether a believing faith is brought to
Baptism, or confirmed later on, Baptism is Christ's one-time initiation
sacrament of conversion, entrance into the New Covenant, and membership into
Christ's "One Holy and Catholic Church". NO ONE has the right to put themselves as
equal to his lordship as if they have a better solution. Some ACNA churches are even positioning
infant baptism and baby dedication as equal in ceremony, are re-baptizing Roman
Catholics, and are encouraging Jewish
religious ceremonies (A "Mikvah for the forgiveness of sins") to be
practiced alongside and in conjunction with Christian Baptism. There are reasons and beliefs behind WHY
clergy see these kinds of actions as allowable.
[6]
This is why in my estimation talking about a "Biblical Ecclesiology",
as if we are interpreting a magic book that fell into our laps outside of time
and space, is self-defeating. Like the
doctrine of infant Baptism we have just as much silence in the Scriptures as we
do content. Every ecclesiastical form is
filling in the gaps where the
Scriptures leave room. In essence then,
we are reliant on a tradition to help us organize our thinking. Would not the best starting place then be in
the earliest historical records of the Apostolic Church?
[7]
no, the councils were not always right, and sometimes got things wrong. However, this is in keeping with any form of
human involvement , blindness and finiteness.
[8] As
Father Tom Hopko once taught, this puts a completely different spin on I
Timothy 3:1 - "He that desires to be a Bishop, desires a good thing".
[9] In
the West the cannon was Ecumenically confirmed at the Council of Carthage in
397, and this cannon was held until the upheaval of the Reformation.
[10]
It is humorous to think of the current decentralized Protestant Church
organizing and developing a "cannon" of scripture. One can easily envision multiple Cannons
endlessly floating around with no end in sight, and no central authority to
unify and make needed and final decisions.
[11]
Or the sundry of other sect groups that are popping up especially during this
time in American History.
[12]
Although, later witnesses swore in statements that Joseph had showed them the
plates.
[13]
Mark Chapman has a good discussion of this in his book, Anglicanism: A Very Short Introduction where he with chapter 6
lays out the formation of the Anglican Communion, and in chapter 7 revealing
where it has led us.
Saturday, July 18, 2015
N.T. Wright on "Political Camps"
From Mark: In these theological/political times, where it seems so important to be in the right "camp" lest we be cast out from fellowship with others because we do not hold the "correct" views, how do you suggest moving forward toward greater unity, rather than greater division?
Beware of ‘camps’.
In the U.S. especially these are usually and worryingly tied in to the various political either/or positions WHICH THE REST OF THE WORLD DOES NOT RECOGNISE. Anyone with their wits about them who reads scripture and prays and is genuinely humble will see that many of the issues which push people into ‘camps’ - especially but not only in the U.S. - are distortions in both directions caused by trying to get a quick fix on a doctrinal or ethical issue, squashing it into the small categories of one particular culture. Read Philippians 2.1-11 again and again. And Ephesians 4.1-16 as well.
(from a blog interview conducted by Rachael Held Evans, June 11, 2013)
Beware of ‘camps’.
In the U.S. especially these are usually and worryingly tied in to the various political either/or positions WHICH THE REST OF THE WORLD DOES NOT RECOGNISE. Anyone with their wits about them who reads scripture and prays and is genuinely humble will see that many of the issues which push people into ‘camps’ - especially but not only in the U.S. - are distortions in both directions caused by trying to get a quick fix on a doctrinal or ethical issue, squashing it into the small categories of one particular culture. Read Philippians 2.1-11 again and again. And Ephesians 4.1-16 as well.
(from a blog interview conducted by Rachael Held Evans, June 11, 2013)
Thursday, January 8, 2015
Transitions
Transitions
are never easy; however, they are one of the constants in the human
experience. Whether we want them or not, whether we are prepared or
unprepared, the seasons of our life move in one direction: forward.
As
newborns we become toddlers; we learn to garble and then talk; we
learn to stumble, fall and eventually walk. We are taught things by
parents and learn things through experience. We have our first day
of school, middle school, high-school, etc. We have our first crush,
our first date; we marry, have our first child. We get our first
job, first car, first paycheck...and the pattern continues. We move
from being children to young adults; young adults to middle-aged;
middle-aged to early retired; retired to just...tired.
Of
course, there are transitions that go far beyond just our human
natural maturation. Transitions happen within families at the loss
of a loved one, when a child goes to college, when a spouse get's
ill; within companies when one is promoted, demoted or when a company
downsizes; within a church when it MERGES, calls a new pastor,
disciples new leadership, experiences new growth, or finds itself
aging. Each transition brings new challenges and new opportunities.
In
January The Church of St. Peter and St. Paul will be eight years old.
We have been through a lot together; December marks my (and my
family's) third year in sharing this journey with you as a family
member (s) and shepherd.
I
see the Spirit visibly at work in us and as we continue to submit to
his Word and leading, and I see bright days ahead in regards to
Kingdom of God living and serving. For me this is no small
statement; I have rarely been able to say this in many of the other
church contexts in which I have served. However, for us to continue
to be fertile and receptive in following our Lord's direction, I
believe we must embrace the transitions
that He is now bringing us through.
The
Lord has drawn new members and friends to our body; not only do we
desire to continue to love and serve these new people, we will need
their gifts and support to continue to be effective as a New Covenant
community of Christ. More of our active members have become too ill
to serve, or have been drawn home to Lord. Many of us have
transitioned into stages of our lives that have forced us to realize
that we can no longer do the things we have done in the past.
However, we have also experienced a slew of newly retired working
professionals who now have more time for discipleship and ministry
engagement and this has been a huge “shot in the arm” for us.
Thanks be to God.
With
me will you open your hearts to the transitions that God is bringing
us through as a church? Where might he want to use you? What are
some things that he is trying to show you? Where might you need to
change your approach, and where might you need to look for another?
How does God want to heal you in 2015, and where does he want to
stretch you?
As
we were reminded this week in our small group study of Hebrews:
Heb
2:14-15
Since, therefore,
the children share flesh and blood, he himself likewise shared the
same things, so that through death he might destroy the one who has
the power of death, that is, the devil, 15 and free those who
all their lives were held in slavery by the fear of death.
We have nothing to fear.
Christmas reminds us that the Christ-child came to take on the form
of flesh to represent us and save us by his death on the cross. In
this death the evil one (here Satan being the figure-head of all that
is in rebellion to God and his Kingdom) has been defeated, and we no
longer have anything to fear because we have no punishment or
death to be worried about.
The Lord walks with us day
by day through our transitions. We are not alone, and we have
nothing to fear. Let us EMBRACE our transitions as a church and
in our personal lives; it will not be easy, but we do not walk alone.
Thanks be to
God.
Thursday, November 13, 2014
The Great Thanksgiving
Thanksgiving Day is a well known holiday in the United States . Quite frankly, it is one of my favorite times
of the year. I really like the fall with
all of its explosive colors, the crisp air, the festive food, and yes, the
focus and feasting that encourages we Americans to be a thankful people for the
many blessings that we have been given.
Mark 8 :
6 And
he commanded the crowd to sit down on the ground; and he took the seven loaves,
and having given thanks he broke
them and gave them to his disciples to set before the people; and they set them
before the crowd. 7 And they had a few small fish; and having
blessed them, he commanded that these also should be set before them. 8 And
they ate, and were satisfied; and they took up the broken pieces left over,
seven baskets full.
Mark 14 :
22 And
as they were eating, he took bread, and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to
them, and said, “Take; this is my body.” 23 And he took a cup,
and when he had given thanks he gave
it to them, and they all drank of it. 24 And he said to them,
“This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many.
I Corinthians
10 :
16 Is not
the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood
of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of
Christ? 17 Because there is one loaf, we, who are many, are one
body, for we all partake of the one loaf.
30 If I take part in the meal with thankfulness, why am I denounced because of something I thank God for?
O Lord, enable us to be a people of constant thanksgiving!
However, what is often lost on most Americans (even American
Christians) is that the historic Christian Church celebrates a feast of Thanksgiving
every single week. It is called The
Eucharist. For many, the term Eucharist sounds different, mysterious,
maybe even dangerous. So, let’s take a
closer look at this important word.
The word Eucharist comes from the Greek word εὐχαριστῶ (eucharisteo)
and it is the general word for “thanksgiving”.
Interestingly, it is found in this form in just thirty-eight different
scriptures in the New Testament. Let’s
look at a few:
As you might know, the record of Jesus and his Disciples
sharing Passover together, thus, establishing the Eucharistic Feast of Holy
Communion, is recorded in all three of the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and
Luke). It is at this first Eucharistic
meal that Jesus gives us our “words of institution” so we may set apart the
bread and wine to be a blessing to us, and a source of great thanksgiving,
indeed.
30 If I take part in the meal with thankfulness, why am I denounced because of something I thank God for?
The attentive eye will notice that I did not highlight the
word “thankgiving” or “give thanks” in verse sixteen above. The Greek word used here is the normal word
for “blessing” not “thanksgiving”, but the NIV has captured well here the idea
implied in the text itself. The blessing and thanksgiving at the table of our Lord work in conjunction with each
other. I challenge you to go back now to
the verses in Mark 8 and
14 and see how Jesus uses the terms “thanks” and “bless” correspondingly as he does
his miracle in the feeding of the four-thousand.
Each week when we come to celebrate Holy Communion, we are
engaging and celebrating the Great Thanksgiving, i.e., The Eucharist. We come to receive a blessing from God and to
be a blessing to him as we honor him with thankful and moldable hearts. We are there to worship and thank him for the
love he has poured out on us through Jesus Christ on the Cross, through the
power of the resurrection we experience through the Holy Spirit, and through
the hope of our final glorification living eternally in the unhindered presence
of the Father.
We have much to be thankful for, and we have the
opportunity to give thanks to God every day.
However, the pinnacle of our individual and communal thanksgiving finds
it’s fulfillment in our communion with the Lord and one another as we gather
around The Table of the Lord Jesus Christ.
Tuesday, August 5, 2014
Prayer
From Father Andrew, S.D.C - "Meditations for Every Day"
"Prayer does not mean getting God to do things, but co-operating with Him in doing things. It is not reminding God of things He has forgotten, but reminding oneself that God is remembering, and the way in which God is remembering somebody may be by giving us prevenient grace which made us set about praying. It was because God remembered first that we began to pray. It was because God was there first that we came pray".
Friday, August 1, 2014
Submitting to Death
Last chapter and last paragraph of Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis:
"Submit to death, death of your ambitions and favorite wishes every day and death of your whole body in the end: submit with every fiber of your being, and you will find eternal life. Keep back nothing. Nothing that you have not given away will be really yours. Nothing in you that has not died will ever be raised from the dead. Look for yourself, and you will find in the long run only hatred, loneliness, despair, rage, ruin, and decay. But look for Christ and you will find Him, and with Him everything else thrown in."
Tuesday, February 25, 2014
K.I.S.S.?
Might
I suggest to all of us a more complex, deep, and trusting
Christianity in the Triune God who is the reason of all life and
hope? Might I suggest that the simple easy to control God that we
often seek to create, is a god of our own choosing and making?
C.S. from Mere Christianity, chapter on the Trinity:
"I warned you that Theology is practical. The whole purpose for which we exist is to be thus taken into the Life of God. Wrong Ideas about what that life is will make it harder....It is the simple religions that are the made up ones..."
C.S. from Mere Christianity, chapter on the Trinity:
"I warned you that Theology is practical. The whole purpose for which we exist is to be thus taken into the Life of God. Wrong Ideas about what that life is will make it harder....It is the simple religions that are the made up ones..."
C.S.
reflecting on the historic Christian community:
"...the one really adequate instrument for learning about God is the whole Christian community, waiting for Him together...that is why all these people who turn up every few years with some patent simplified religion of their own as a substitute for the Christian tradition are really wasting their time...if Christianity was something we were making up, of course we could make it easier. But it is NOT... anyone can be simple if he has no facts to bother about"
"...the one really adequate instrument for learning about God is the whole Christian community, waiting for Him together...that is why all these people who turn up every few years with some patent simplified religion of their own as a substitute for the Christian tradition are really wasting their time...if Christianity was something we were making up, of course we could make it easier. But it is NOT... anyone can be simple if he has no facts to bother about"
Saturday, February 8, 2014
Trying to Love the Lord with "...all your mind"?
Below is a very poignant article regarding the whole "Creation vs Evolution" culture war debate.
It is my belief that much of popular American "Christian" thinking on this subject is unwittingly dictated not first of all by the context and understanding of Scripture but by a polarizing post-enlightenment, modernistic discussion between those given over to current cultural ways of thinking. A thoughtful, historic, and orthodox (i.e., what Christians historically have always believed about the Church and revelation) Christianity needs to discern the culture from a truthful and thoughtful perspective.
My hope is that the article below will prod some of us (who have ears to hear) along this path.
www.patheos.com/blogs/badcatholic/2014/02/creationism-is-materialisms-creation.html 1/17
I take Frederich Nietzsche quite seriously when he says, “when you gaze long into an abyss the abyss also gazes into you,” and thus I did not, nor ever will watch the recent debate between Bill Nye The Science Guy and Ken Ham The Creation Man. There are things in this world too depressing for people desperate to maintain some sense of hope regarding humanity, its direction, and capacity for truth.
Nevertheless, I want to take this opportunity to point out that, far sooner than any creationist vs. scientist debate amounts to a debate between a Christian and an atheist, it amounts to a debate between atheists. Neither side defends or attacks the Christian tradition. Both argue about a laughably boring god, a strange phenomenon of modernity — not the God of philosophy, theology or Scripture in any meaningful sense.
Fundamentalism, which includes creationism, is a modern phenomenon. The Middle Ages, though rife with scientific illiteracy in comparison with our age, never bred such a beast. It is a 20th century frenzy, not the product of ignorance as much as a by-product of materialism, and I daily blame — in an odd, bitter ritual that usually involves throwing pretzels at a cut-out of Richard Dawkins — the propagators of this selfsame materialism for cursing the world with the idiocies of devil-buried fossils and 6-day literalism. For evolution is only ever a threat to the idea of God if your idea of God has been hopelessly manhandled by materialistic assumptions. That’s right kids. Creationism is materialism’s inescapable, obnoxious spouse.
“What?” protest the protestors. “Creationists believe in angels, demons, and a whole host of immaterial realities, while materialists believe in no such thing!” But the point is not that creationism and materialism are in secret cahoots. The point is that materialism has provided the metaphysical framework for mainstream modern thought, a framework within which the creationist operates, from whence — along with a typically materialistic incapacity to distinguish poetry from a science textbook — comes his creationism.
The materialistic assumption is this: The universe is a closed, material system, and that all there ever is or was can be reduced to matter and material processes. The materialist flatly denies the possibility of the spiritual. The creationist concedes to a closed, purely material universe as the prejudice of the age. Unlike the materialist, however, he holds on to the idea of spiritual things. Now, however — and thanks to the materialist assumption — these spiritual things cannot be in harmony with the material. They — whether God, angels, or demons — must exist apart from it — opposed to it, even.
Consider it this way: If the universe is reducible to matter and material processes, but is nevertheless created by God — for people will always believe in God — then God, who himself is not reducible to matter or material processes, must be “outside” and “apart” from the universe he creates. He is utterly estranged from the universe. In short, the rise of the materialistic worldview meant that — if there was to be a belief in God — this god must be the god of Deism.
This is the god the creationist unwittingly and inconsistently defends, a god who creates the universe at a single point, a god whose creative action must be defended as a particular point in time (6 days of time, to be exact) now long past — a god who already made the closed, material universe and is now done, dwelling outside of it like “an old man peering from the sky.” Such a relationship between God and the universe necessarily makes any forces that determine our physical existence “competitors” of his work. He created the material universe. He served as its origin, a 6-day origin now over. Thus any apparent “creation” within the material order is creation apart from God, and a threat to his sovereignty. The only creation possible must either have already happened, at one point, or it must be magical.
I mean this quite seriously. If by the world we mean a purely physical system, than God — who is not
physical — can only be encountered in an inexplicable “break” in the same system. If God is to be active in a purely material universe, it must be as a Cosmic Magician popping into the world over and against all physical processes and laws — utterly at odds with his own creation.
God is evidenced by that which is “utterly apart” from the universe “breaking into” the universe. And so the creationist, having conceded the materialistic assumption, must “prove” the existence of God by way of things “science can’t explain.” The complex cell, the fossil record — God is real because there are inexplicable things, materials that look as if something has broken into the material system and left its immaterial and thereby inexplicable mark.
Evolution, which posits a natural process of change in successive generations of living things, is a threat precisely because it works against the Cosmic Magician, the God of one-time creation who now busts into the universe here and there. It says, quite reasonably, that living things as we know them today were not always so, and that man in his material consistency did not spontaneously pop into existence as the bipedal we know and sometimes manage to love today. Evolution is an affront to a god who “finished” his work of creation some 6000 years ago. It is an affront to a God who made the material universe in one now-past action, a god who now only associates with his creation through the miraculous breaking of the spiritual into what is purely material. It is, in short, a rival god.
But now we’ve stared into the abyss long enough. God is not simply the Creator of the material order, and the theistic tradition has never made such laughable claims. The concept of God as Creator has always been the source of existence as such. This means that God does not just answer the material question of “Where came this rock, that plant, or the entire conglomerate of material thing mabobs we call the universe?” He answers the ontological question: “Why is there something rather than nothing?”
Evolution cannot answer the question of why there is something rather and nothing, and no scientist outside of the self-titled, 8th-grader/athesim variety would ever embarrass themselves with such a claim. Evolution presupposes something which evolves. Existence — the fact that something is — is prior to any evolution. Again, God is first and foremost the source of existence, the fact that there is something rather than nothing. For not a single thing in this entire marvelous universe contains the source of its own existence. Each depends on an innumerable multitude of factors for the fact of its being here. The most obvious example of this is in our origins — there is not a single thing in the universe that brought itself into being. The less obvious but even more important example of this is in our current existence — there is not a single thing in the universe that “holds itself in being.” There is nothing that causes itself to continuously exist.
To quote David Bentley Hart again: If one considers the terms of one’s own existence, for instance, one sees that there is no sense in which one is ever self-existent; one is dependent on an incalculable number of ever greater and ever smaller finite conditions, some of which are temporal, and some of which are definitely not, and all of which are dependent on yet further conditions. One is composed of
parts, and those of smaller parts, and so on down to the subatomic level, which itself is a realm
of contingently substituent realities that flicker in and out of actuality, that have no ontological
ground in themselves, and that are all embraced within a quantum field that contains no more of
an essential rationale for its own existence than does any other physical reality. One also
belongs to a wider world, upon all of whose physical systems one is also dependent in every
moment, while that world is itself dependent upon an immense range of greater physical
realities, and upon abstract mathematical and logical laws, and upon the whole contingent
history of our quite unnecessary universe…In short, all finite things are always, in the present,
being sustained in existence by conditions which they cannot have supplied for themselves, and
that together compose a universe that, as a physical reality, lacks the obviously supernatural
power to exist on its own. Nowhere in any of that is a source of existence as such.
If the materialistic assumption is true, and the universe is entirely reducible to matter and material processes, then the universe is an inexplicable oddity. All things exist in their present-moment existence by depending upon other things, which in turn exist in their present-moment existence by depending on other things, and so on unto infinite regress. If this were true, nothing would ever come into or persist in being.
The theistic position, properly understood, is that our universe is not an inexplicable infinite regress, but that all things exist in their present-moment existence because all things are upheld by an absolute existence, a being that is the source of its own existence (snipping short the infinite regress), supplying all contingent things with a non-contingent “ground” which renders their existence possible.
How could evolution possibly pose a threat to God, properly understood as the Absolute Giver of Being, who at every moment provides the absolute ground for the existence of every contingent thing, every thing which does not contain the source of its own present-moment existence — every particle, every random mutation, every genome strand, every protein, every moment of procreation, every fertilization event, in short, every single material component of the process of evolution?
In fact, I can think of no other view more favorable to the concept of evolution than the view that Creation is now, not an act that happened at one point in time, now long past, but rather the timeless fact of there being something rather than nothing, the present-moment, as-you-sit-reading donation of being which you cannot provide for yourself. God created, creates and is always creating the universe in a singular timeless act by which the entirety of space, time and human history, from beginning to whatever end, is given that existence it cannot provide for itself. God is creating everything now, there is no need for miraculous, inexplicable events to “prove” His existence, no need for him to break in to an already finished work and leave some boggling mark. It is the horrifying and beautiful surprise that anything in this storm of contingencies exists at all that has the theist positing an absolute source of existence, our wonderful God, not a thought that
“everything looks so well-designed,” or that “science cannot explain this or that.”
Creationism only exists as a reaction within the framework of materialism. The Christian ought to reject the evolutionist vs. creationist debate on the level at which it is offered, and question instead the metaphysics of the thing, for if the universe is a contingent reality that requires the eternal and ever-present donation of being by an absolute source of being, then the idea that evolution is an affront to creation is ridiculous at best, manufactured for easy points at worst.
It is my belief that much of popular American "Christian" thinking on this subject is unwittingly dictated not first of all by the context and understanding of Scripture but by a polarizing post-enlightenment, modernistic discussion between those given over to current cultural ways of thinking. A thoughtful, historic, and orthodox (i.e., what Christians historically have always believed about the Church and revelation) Christianity needs to discern the culture from a truthful and thoughtful perspective.
My hope is that the article below will prod some of us (who have ears to hear) along this path.
Creationism Is Materialism’s Creation
2/8/14
I take Frederich Nietzsche quite seriously when he says, “when you gaze long into an abyss the abyss also gazes into you,” and thus I did not, nor ever will watch the recent debate between Bill Nye The Science Guy and Ken Ham The Creation Man. There are things in this world too depressing for people desperate to maintain some sense of hope regarding humanity, its direction, and capacity for truth.
Nevertheless, I want to take this opportunity to point out that, far sooner than any creationist vs. scientist debate amounts to a debate between a Christian and an atheist, it amounts to a debate between atheists. Neither side defends or attacks the Christian tradition. Both argue about a laughably boring god, a strange phenomenon of modernity — not the God of philosophy, theology or Scripture in any meaningful sense.
Fundamentalism, which includes creationism, is a modern phenomenon. The Middle Ages, though rife with scientific illiteracy in comparison with our age, never bred such a beast. It is a 20th century frenzy, not the product of ignorance as much as a by-product of materialism, and I daily blame — in an odd, bitter ritual that usually involves throwing pretzels at a cut-out of Richard Dawkins — the propagators of this selfsame materialism for cursing the world with the idiocies of devil-buried fossils and 6-day literalism. For evolution is only ever a threat to the idea of God if your idea of God has been hopelessly manhandled by materialistic assumptions. That’s right kids. Creationism is materialism’s inescapable, obnoxious spouse.
“What?” protest the protestors. “Creationists believe in angels, demons, and a whole host of immaterial realities, while materialists believe in no such thing!” But the point is not that creationism and materialism are in secret cahoots. The point is that materialism has provided the metaphysical framework for mainstream modern thought, a framework within which the creationist operates, from whence — along with a typically materialistic incapacity to distinguish poetry from a science textbook — comes his creationism.
The materialistic assumption is this: The universe is a closed, material system, and that all there ever is or was can be reduced to matter and material processes. The materialist flatly denies the possibility of the spiritual. The creationist concedes to a closed, purely material universe as the prejudice of the age. Unlike the materialist, however, he holds on to the idea of spiritual things. Now, however — and thanks to the materialist assumption — these spiritual things cannot be in harmony with the material. They — whether God, angels, or demons — must exist apart from it — opposed to it, even.
Consider it this way: If the universe is reducible to matter and material processes, but is nevertheless created by God — for people will always believe in God — then God, who himself is not reducible to matter or material processes, must be “outside” and “apart” from the universe he creates. He is utterly estranged from the universe. In short, the rise of the materialistic worldview meant that — if there was to be a belief in God — this god must be the god of Deism.
This is the god the creationist unwittingly and inconsistently defends, a god who creates the universe at a single point, a god whose creative action must be defended as a particular point in time (6 days of time, to be exact) now long past — a god who already made the closed, material universe and is now done, dwelling outside of it like “an old man peering from the sky.” Such a relationship between God and the universe necessarily makes any forces that determine our physical existence “competitors” of his work. He created the material universe. He served as its origin, a 6-day origin now over. Thus any apparent “creation” within the material order is creation apart from God, and a threat to his sovereignty. The only creation possible must either have already happened, at one point, or it must be magical.
I mean this quite seriously. If by the world we mean a purely physical system, than God — who is not
physical — can only be encountered in an inexplicable “break” in the same system. If God is to be active in a purely material universe, it must be as a Cosmic Magician popping into the world over and against all physical processes and laws — utterly at odds with his own creation.
God is evidenced by that which is “utterly apart” from the universe “breaking into” the universe. And so the creationist, having conceded the materialistic assumption, must “prove” the existence of God by way of things “science can’t explain.” The complex cell, the fossil record — God is real because there are inexplicable things, materials that look as if something has broken into the material system and left its immaterial and thereby inexplicable mark.
Evolution, which posits a natural process of change in successive generations of living things, is a threat precisely because it works against the Cosmic Magician, the God of one-time creation who now busts into the universe here and there. It says, quite reasonably, that living things as we know them today were not always so, and that man in his material consistency did not spontaneously pop into existence as the bipedal we know and sometimes manage to love today. Evolution is an affront to a god who “finished” his work of creation some 6000 years ago. It is an affront to a God who made the material universe in one now-past action, a god who now only associates with his creation through the miraculous breaking of the spiritual into what is purely material. It is, in short, a rival god.
But now we’ve stared into the abyss long enough. God is not simply the Creator of the material order, and the theistic tradition has never made such laughable claims. The concept of God as Creator has always been the source of existence as such. This means that God does not just answer the material question of “Where came this rock, that plant, or the entire conglomerate of material thing mabobs we call the universe?” He answers the ontological question: “Why is there something rather than nothing?”
Evolution cannot answer the question of why there is something rather and nothing, and no scientist outside of the self-titled, 8th-grader/athesim variety would ever embarrass themselves with such a claim. Evolution presupposes something which evolves. Existence — the fact that something is — is prior to any evolution. Again, God is first and foremost the source of existence, the fact that there is something rather than nothing. For not a single thing in this entire marvelous universe contains the source of its own existence. Each depends on an innumerable multitude of factors for the fact of its being here. The most obvious example of this is in our origins — there is not a single thing in the universe that brought itself into being. The less obvious but even more important example of this is in our current existence — there is not a single thing in the universe that “holds itself in being.” There is nothing that causes itself to continuously exist.
To quote David Bentley Hart again: If one considers the terms of one’s own existence, for instance, one sees that there is no sense in which one is ever self-existent; one is dependent on an incalculable number of ever greater and ever smaller finite conditions, some of which are temporal, and some of which are definitely not, and all of which are dependent on yet further conditions. One is composed of
parts, and those of smaller parts, and so on down to the subatomic level, which itself is a realm
of contingently substituent realities that flicker in and out of actuality, that have no ontological
ground in themselves, and that are all embraced within a quantum field that contains no more of
an essential rationale for its own existence than does any other physical reality. One also
belongs to a wider world, upon all of whose physical systems one is also dependent in every
moment, while that world is itself dependent upon an immense range of greater physical
realities, and upon abstract mathematical and logical laws, and upon the whole contingent
history of our quite unnecessary universe…In short, all finite things are always, in the present,
being sustained in existence by conditions which they cannot have supplied for themselves, and
that together compose a universe that, as a physical reality, lacks the obviously supernatural
power to exist on its own. Nowhere in any of that is a source of existence as such.
If the materialistic assumption is true, and the universe is entirely reducible to matter and material processes, then the universe is an inexplicable oddity. All things exist in their present-moment existence by depending upon other things, which in turn exist in their present-moment existence by depending on other things, and so on unto infinite regress. If this were true, nothing would ever come into or persist in being.
The theistic position, properly understood, is that our universe is not an inexplicable infinite regress, but that all things exist in their present-moment existence because all things are upheld by an absolute existence, a being that is the source of its own existence (snipping short the infinite regress), supplying all contingent things with a non-contingent “ground” which renders their existence possible.
How could evolution possibly pose a threat to God, properly understood as the Absolute Giver of Being, who at every moment provides the absolute ground for the existence of every contingent thing, every thing which does not contain the source of its own present-moment existence — every particle, every random mutation, every genome strand, every protein, every moment of procreation, every fertilization event, in short, every single material component of the process of evolution?
In fact, I can think of no other view more favorable to the concept of evolution than the view that Creation is now, not an act that happened at one point in time, now long past, but rather the timeless fact of there being something rather than nothing, the present-moment, as-you-sit-reading donation of being which you cannot provide for yourself. God created, creates and is always creating the universe in a singular timeless act by which the entirety of space, time and human history, from beginning to whatever end, is given that existence it cannot provide for itself. God is creating everything now, there is no need for miraculous, inexplicable events to “prove” His existence, no need for him to break in to an already finished work and leave some boggling mark. It is the horrifying and beautiful surprise that anything in this storm of contingencies exists at all that has the theist positing an absolute source of existence, our wonderful God, not a thought that
“everything looks so well-designed,” or that “science cannot explain this or that.”
Creationism only exists as a reaction within the framework of materialism. The Christian ought to reject the evolutionist vs. creationist debate on the level at which it is offered, and question instead the metaphysics of the thing, for if the universe is a contingent reality that requires the eternal and ever-present donation of being by an absolute source of being, then the idea that evolution is an affront to creation is ridiculous at best, manufactured for easy points at worst.
Monday, December 23, 2013
Why Do Anglians Call their Pastors "Father"?
Why in the world do some
Anglicans call the priest/pastor, “Father”? Below I am taking
several different portions from an article that a fellow Anglican
Priest (and good comrade) wrote in regards to this subject. If
anyone would ever like to read the article by the Rev. Joe Murphy in
it's entirety, I would be pleased to send you a copy.
Jesus reproached the religious
leaders of His day with some strong words about being called,
"father," that sounds like we shouldn't touch that name in
the Church” (to save space I
will not be printing most of the scripture texts, but I would
challenge you to read them for a better understanding of what is
being written. - Fr. Tom - Matthew 23:1-12 ).
Jesus' words to His disciples on not
calling anyone else "father" seems to make the catholic
practice of addressing a priest as "father" completely
unbiblical, and a proud and Pharisaic thing to do. At least, a
straightforward reading of the text might lead us to think that, what
some would call a "literal" reading. The problem with such
a reading of this text is that it would also prevent Christ's
followers from calling their earthly male parent, "father."
Jesus is pretty explicit: " . . .call no man your father on
earth . . ." The same thing applies to teachers, of course. We
would have to cease calling all teachers by that name--Jesus doesn't
restrict it to religious teaching--if one takes this statement at
face value. But, human society and the Church within it still need
parenting and teaching. Of course, if we stopped using those terms
altogether it would be very problematic, because then we wouldn't
even be able to explain Who the heavenly Father is in relation to
Jesus, or why Jesus alone is our Teacher, because those words would
no longer apply to their earthly counterparts. No, Jesus wasn't
teaching His disciples to stop using a name, a label, a way of
referring to or addressing someone, whether "father" or
"teacher." A literal reading of Jesus' words here just
doesn't make sense.”
We run into further problems when we
read the Apostle Paul's comments to the Corinthians and Thessalonians
(see I Cor 4:14 – 17 and I Thes. 2:11-12)
The early Christians followed Paul's
pattern. The Aramaic word "abba" ("father" or
many argue, "dad") (e.g., Romans 8:15; Gal. 4:6) is the
source of the English word "abbot" which the Celts first
used for the head of their monastic communities. The French "Abbe"
is similar, common for a parish priest.
Oddly enough, the Christians that
find it offensive to call the priest "father" routinely
call their ordained church leader, "pastor." That term,
however, is derived from the Latin word for "shepherd."
Apparently, in their view, we have only one Father (as Jesus said)
and so don't call their leader "father," but we have more
than one shepherd. This is odd because Scripture is very clear on
this:
The LORD is my shepherd . . . (Psalm 23:1 ESV)
But, its even more specific. At one
point during the ministry of the prophet Ezekiel, the Lord rebuked
the shepherds of Israel, His flock (Ezekiel 34:2), and later called
David (as a type of the Messiah) the shepherd of his people (Ezekiel
34:23 and 37:24).
One Shepherd and yet we call our
church leader “pastor” (shepherd)?
But, in fact, calling your church leader "Pastor" isn't wrong. For Christ is our "chief Shepherd" (see I Peter 5:1-4).
Peter commands the leaders of the
Church in I Peter 5 to "shepherd" the people of God, yet
they have a chief Shepherd. With pastors(shepherds), it isn't that
God doesn't use humans to do that work--He does--but they are only
obedient and beneficial as God's shepherds if there is a clear
understanding of who the Real Shepherd is.
Isn't this, however, exactly the
case with fatherhood? We have a physical father, yet only one
heavenly Father. We may have a spiritual father as well, perhaps
several, yet understood as utterly insignificant in light of our
heavenly Father because such "fathers" are only by analogy.
So, why did Jesus say, "call no
man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven"?
For the same reason He said,
"If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell. And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body go into hell."(Matthew 5:29-30 ESV)
He was making a point, a strong one,
about the seriousness of sin. But, if we took it literally we might
wind up killing ourselves to keep from sinning! Repentance is what
Jesus was getting at, not self-mutilation.
With giving our church leaders
titles, whether "pastor", "teacher", or "father,"
Jesus' point is clear and driven home by the forceful way He
expressed it: don't mistake anyone for the only Real Shepherd, Real
Teacher, Real Father that you have.
I believe the best and first way to see a local church body is as a "family". Jesus talks of those that do "the will of his Father" as those that are his true family. We are "adopted" to be heirs with Jesus Christ, the Son of God. The Apostles in their writings also use family terms constantly: "household of faith", "brothers", "brotherly love", "sons and daughters" of the Father God, being "children of God", etc. In scripture it is also revealed that the biblical communal love that we have is a close and intimate love which reflects that of a close family.
Thus, i refer to myself mostly as Father Tom (although, I am receptive to Pastor Tom, or just Tom as well). I am a shepherd, care-giver, and an authority figure in regards to the centrality of Gospel and Christ's teaching regarding the Kingdom of God. However, in my basic membership in the household of God, I am one family member in a local church of many members. We are all equal in the eyes of God due to the work of Christ...while we may have differing roles.
Thanks be to God for the body of Christ!
.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)