Tuesday, October 24, 2017

THREE MAIN POINTS OF MARTIN LUTHER'S THESES

Audio for the following may be found here. You may also listen to podcast episodes here.




THREE MAIN POINTS OF MARTIN LUTHER’S THESES





            October 31 of this year marks 500 years since Martin Luther began the Protestant Reformation by nailing 95 theses to the church door in Wittenberg. Luther, a minister and professor in the Catholic Church himself, did not have a complete revolt in mind when he did this; he merely wanted the church to make the necessary reforms in executing a genuine Christian faith and in carrying out the message of the gospel. Nonetheless, Luther’s theses caused perhaps the largest divide of any religious group in history. If you are an evangelical or Protestant, your church is likely the result of Luther’s reforms. I do not want to speculate on whether or not a division was good or bad for the church; certainly, reforms were necessary, but could they have been made without the split? Only God knows the answer to that question. In honor of the 500th anniversary of the Reformation though, I would like to give a summary of what Luther’s theses said and did for the church. So much good came out of the Reformation so it is important for us to know what Luther’s ideas were. I would like to suggest three main points of Luther’s theses; these three points are borrowed from the Uncommon Travel Germany website.[1]




I.                   Selling indulgences to finance the building of St. Peter’s is wrong


St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome was largely financed by the Catholic Church’s selling of indulgences. In fact, it could be said that the selling of indulgences was the final straw for Martin Luther. Luther criticized the Catholic Church’s approach in this area, even suggesting that the Pope himself was already wealthy.[2] About the selling of indulgences, Luther said, “"The revenues of all Christendom are being sucked into this insatiable basilica. The Germans laugh at calling this the common treasure of Christendom. Before long, all the churches, palaces, walls and bridges of Rome will be built out of our money.”[3] Not only was Luther staunchly against the selling of indulgences, but he saw a further issue in the corruptness of the practice, i.e. the Catholic Church was using indulgences as a means for forgiveness of sin, thus forcing the poor and unfortunate to continue giving their own money and struggle so that their sins were supposedly forgiven. Luther had enough of this thought so he nailed the theses to the door, and thanks largely to the printing press, his theses were published far and wide. One might wonder why he nailed the theses to the church door in Wittenberg. In short, the church door was utilized as a bulletin board for events and important items in the town; nailing the theses to the door then insured that people would read them. Luther made abundantly clear in his theses that the selling of indulgences is wrong.



II.                The Pope has no power over Purgatory


The Catholic Church seemed to imply a special power over Purgatory in the way of forgiving sins. One of Luther’s significant beliefs was priesthood of the believer. This was an unpopular belief in the Catholic Church, which is why parishioners needed to be granted forgiveness by the priest. Luther stated it this way: “Papal indulgences do not remove guilt. Beware of those who say that indulgences effect reconciliation with God.”[4] Themes of repentance are embedded deep within Luther’s theses. Not only should the Christian repent, but he or she should continue living in repentance. The Pope then has no power to grant forgiveness, for each believer is responsible for his or her own actions and repentance. Martin Luther possessed a doctorate in theology so he had a great knowledge of the Bible; he surely would have been familiar with the Hebrews proposition that Jesus Christ serves as our great high priest (Heb 4:14). For Luther, Christ’s position as high priest negates the need for human priests; we no longer need them for matters of eternal forgiveness. While the Catholic Church continued to present a hierarchy of power to forgive in the Pope, Luther went against the grain and submitted the true gospel message, namely that only Christ can forgive. This thought is ever-present in Protestant congregations today; in Luther’s era, however, it was largely unpopular. Many reformers were martyred for this belief during the Reformation.



III.             Buying indulgences gives people a false sense of security and endangers their salvation


Because of the priesthood of the believer, Martin Luther realized the astonishing truth that those who rely on the Catholic Church for forgiveness of sin are in danger of eternal damnation. If salvation is by faith in Christ alone (Eph 2:8-9), each believer must come to the Father through Christ themselves without relying on the clergy; salvation includes a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. Perhaps Luther saw the problem in parishioners’ lack of biblical understanding. Mass was carried out solely in Latin while most congregants were German-speaking. Luther believed in utilizing the vernacular language so that people could not only participate but also understand and think for themselves. The Catholic Church, during this time, taught that buying indulgences played a significant role in one’s forgiveness. 500 years later, we largely realize that Jesus is the only one who can forgive sins. Posting this thesis, Luther was eventually excommunicated as a heretic. Taking the difficult path, Luther desired to preach the truth rather than distort the gospel for his personal gain.



The Many Benefits of the Protestant Reformation


Martin Luther’s goal was not to start a revolt but for genuine reforms to be made among the institution God ordained, namely the church. Posting his 95 theses to the church door in Wittenberg in 1517, an undying fire was started that spread rapidly. To this day, we are still seeing the effects of the Reformation. Luther, zealous for the word of God and the church’s identity in Christ alone, began a good work that we should be thankful for. As we approach 500 years since the Protestant Reformation began, let us thank God where the gospel is preached and where lives are changed.







[1] “The 95 Theses: A Summary,” Uncommon Travel Germany, accessed October 4, 2017, http://www.uncommon-travel-germany.com/95-theses.html.
[2] Ibid.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Ibid.

Monday, October 16, 2017

RITUAL: GOOD OR BAD?

Audio for the following may be found here. You may also listen to podcast episodes here.




RITUAL: GOOD OR BAD?





            I have heard people in Protestant circles speak of ritual in a negative light, as if to imply that ritual is meaningless and disconnected from sincerity. In my recent studies on corporate prayer for my doctoral thesis, however, I have concluded that this thought is unsubstantiated, for sincerity is truly rooted in the heart, not the action. An action might surely stem from a sincere or insincere heart. Nonetheless, the action is the result of the heart. Realizing this should cause us to pontificate upon our ideas of sincerity and furthermore of ritual. In many evangelical camps, ritual is frowned upon; yet, nearly every church participates in some type of ritual (perhaps unbeknownst). I find it ironic that many who churches which admit to not using a liturgy are, in many ways, the most apt to abide by a liturgy, i.e. while they may not strictly follow a lectionary, they certainly abide by their own order, which often lends itself to routine and ritual; what are the roots of those rituals though? Perhaps because the routine is disparate from a liturgical church (those that follow a lectionary), the subconscious thought (in some free traditions) is that ritual is not present; yet, it absolutely is. Here is the question then: is ritual good or bad? If what I propose is true, namely that ritual is disconnected from both sincerity and insincerity, how should we approach it? Should we abandon it or realize its helpfulness? To answer these questions, I have three thoughts regarding ritual.





Sincerity Is Not Linked to Ritual or Spontaneity


            We should be careful not to falsely link sincerity to either ritual or spontaneity. Sincerity is a matter of the heart, for out of the heart, the mouth speaks (Luke 6:45). The idea that sincerity is somehow dependent on either ritual or spontaneity is unsubstantiated, i.e. there is no practical and (much more) biblical support for the idea. I would define sincerity as genuineness of the heart, i.e. one’s words and actions reflect the attitude of their heart. It is important that God’s people are sincere in worship; yet, sincerity is not found in the routine actions we employ in our worship practices. Additionally, sincerity is found apart from spontaneity. What might be derived from the truth here is that one may surely be sincere in both ritual and spontaneity. Certainly, the Holy Spirit guides spontaneously; however, he also guides God’s people through rigorous and careful planning. What we can imply then is that the one who prays using a scripted and prepared prayer could be equally as sincere as the one who prays extemporaneously. For sincerity to protrude from the believer’s life, the heart must be found in right standing with God in the righteousness of Jesus Christ.



We Are Not Formed without Repetition


            James K.A. Smith says, “. . . there is no formation without repetition.”[1] Logic would ask to consider Smith’s statement and likely conclude the truth in it. I speak from personal experience when I say that the areas of growth in my life have come largely from repetition. Whether spiritual growth or growth in an area such as musicianship, athletic ability, or academic growth, the more I repeated something, the better I became at it. Spiritually speaking, many of the deep and mysterious truths of the faith that I acquired over the years were planted in me through repetition, e.g. scripture memorization, attending weekly worship growing up, and singing hymns consistently. In those cases then, sincerity is certainly evident in the routines. The routines themselves did not bring about sincerity. Sincerity, in fact, was neither caused nor hindered by routine. Through routine, however, I was formed in the power of the Holy Spirit. If we consider our spiritual journeys and those in our lives who have been largely responsible for fostering our growth, we might remember repetitive practices such as memorizing scripture, worshiping with God’s people on a weekly basis, reading the Bible, and praying with God’s people. These are repetitive actions, but through repetition, God has formed and continues to form us. When an athlete trains, they repeat; when a musician rehearses, they repeat; why would Christians not do the same in their spiritual journeys then? Far be it from us to criticize repetition because there is no formation without repetition.



Much Liturgical Ritual Comes from Deep Roots


            As already mentioned, nearly every church adheres to some type of liturgy, i.e. while there may not be a strict adherence to a lectionary, an order of worship is usually present.     With that in mind then, we should understand that many of our weekly worship practices and routines are deeply rooted in an unmatched depth of theological reason. Even in Protestant and rather progressive traditions, our rituals stem from historically and biblically based practices, many of which are centuries old. I know of no one who would suggest ridding the local church of the communion table; yet, it is an ordinance of the church instituted by Jesus himself the night before he was crucified. It is, therefore, an old tradition. The same is true for practices such as proclaiming the mystery of faith.[2] Not only is this proclamation found in the text of Scripture, but it has been proclaimed since the early church. These are two examples among many; the point is that routine is not always empty. Certainly, it can be if the heart is not right. The roots of many rituals, however, are deep and both biblically and historically based. We then should not be so quick to throw the baby out with the bathwater.


            We should answer the original question then: is ritual good or bad? The answer is yes, implying that ritual may be either good or bad depending on the heart. I submit, nonetheless, that routine or ritual in and of itself should not be the determining factor to answer this question. Rather the heart should be. Sincerity is not solely linked to tradition or spontaneity; it is, in fact, a matter of the heart. If a tradition possesses deep roots and is beneficial for the church in a substantial manner, why would we not keep it? Let us carefully examine all our worship practices and act accordingly. There is no formation without repetition so let the church cling to the ever-true mysteries of the faith and worship God in sincerity and with a clean heart.







[1] James K.A. Smith, Imagining the Kingdom: How Worship Works (Baker Academic, 2013).
[2] “Christ has died; Christ is risen; Christ will come again.”

Monday, October 9, 2017

THE SERMON IS NOT THE WORD

Audio for the following may be found here.

THE SERMON IS NOT THE WORD

            I am going to suggest something that may seem controversial at first; that is until it is reasonably thought through. My suggestion is that the sermon is not the word. The service of the word in corporate worship is a crucial component, which includes far more than a mere sermon. The sermon certainly is part of the service of the word, but it should usually not be the entirety of the service of the word. I would dare say that the sermon is not the most important part of the worship service as well but that all components should be harmonious in the entire dialogue between God and his people. In fact, in many traditions, the word does not take precedence, but the table does. While the sermon is derived from the word and while, in fact, God speaks through the sermon to proclaim his word, it is not the word.

            My tradition prides itself on being people of the word. I think what people usually mean when they say that is that they place a high priority on the Bible. This is good in and of itself. The word, however, involves more than merely placing an apparent emphasis on the Bible. Often, to prove a zealous appetite for the word, many churches extend the sermon to take up much of time in corporate worship; I think this does nothing but deceive people into believing that their mere head-knowledge of the Bible is equated with a high priority on the word. To further think through the disconnect we find in our churches regarding the word and to illustrate the fact that the sermon is not the word, I would like to answer the question: what is the word?

The Word Is Jesus

            First, the Word is Jesus. John 1 begins with, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” This passage is one of the most evident references to the Trinity in all the Bible. The Apostle soon after this verse mentions the fact that the Word dwelt among us and was rejected by his own people. It then becomes obvious that the Word here is Jesus. When I first grasped this concept at a young age, it baffled me that the Word is Jesus, yet, we also refer to the Bible as the word. That is because the Bible itself centers around Christ. The Bible is a redemptive narrative, which points to Christ as the mediator. It is not that Jesus only knows the word or that he proclaims the word; what Jesus does is proclaim himself because he, in fact, is the Word. Preaching then centers around the person and work of Christ. When the Bible is proclaimed, Jesus is proclaimed. We must be careful not to place the Bible above Jesus. What I mean by that is that we must strive to preach Scripture as a derivative of who Christ is, i.e. Jesus supersedes the Bible. The Bible should be of utmost importance in our churches not because it is the authority in and of itself but because it is the authority in who it declares. We declare Christ in our preaching.

The Word Is the Bible

            Paradoxically, the word is also the Bible. I make this point after suggesting that Jesus is the word to illustrate the fact that the Bible is centered around Christ. Jesus is not subordinate to the text of Scripture, for he, in fact, is the one who created Scripture. Nonetheless, the Bible is crucial in its message about the Savior, Jesus Christ, which is precisely why many evangelical churches claim to be people of the Bible. “People of the Bible” likely implies a high view of Scripture; it is the authority for life and for godliness. If Jesus Christ is God and the very Word himself, then the Bible’s trajectory is toward Jesus Christ and the church must obey and proclaim its words. The Word is Jesus and the word is the Bible so the preacher’s message must be derived from Scripture. The sermon is not the word, but the sermon proclaims the word through the Bible.

The Word Is a Fold of Worship

            I have already suggested the point that the word is a fold of corporate worship. Many churches do not operate under the historic fourfold order, but traditionally, there has been a fourfold order of gathering, word, table, and sending.[1] My point in this commentary is to submit that the word is not merely the sermon. The sermon (or homily), in fact, should be a portion of the service of the word. The Bible is vital to corporate worship, which is why an entire fold is dedicated to it. Nevertheless, we must not make the mistake of equating the sermon with the word, for the sermon proclaims the word, both Jesus and the Bible.

            As the people of God, a narrative of creation, fall, redemption, and consummation has been given to us through the text of Scripture. We should absolutely treat this text with reverence, hide its words in our hearts, and obey it as a transcendent narrative of God’s character in the person of Jesus Christ. What we should not do, however, is treat the sermon as such. The sermon is crucial, but it is not the word. Oddly though, God chooses to use the foolishness of preaching when the preacher preaches the message of Scripture (1 Cor 1:21). When we begin to treat the sermon as the word, we might easily fall into the trap of following celebrity pastors or taking scriptures out of context by failing to see the Bible as a narrative which centers around the person and work of Christ. Let us then be hearers and doers of the word and, in the same manner, followers of Christ, for he is the Word.


[1] Robert E. Webber, Planning Blended Worship: The Creative Mixture of Old and New (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 1998), 21.

Thursday, October 5, 2017

THE VITALITY OF THE KISS OF PEACE

Audio for the following may be found here.



THE VITALITY OF THE KISS OF PEACE

Most churches have a time of greeting during their worship gatherings. When I was younger, I did not realize the purpose and importance of greeting one another in the name of the Lord. My ignorance, however, was derived from a lack of understanding about unity in the body of Christ as well as the historic significance of greeting. In many contexts, including my own, the greeting is placed toward the beginning of the worship service. Historically, there has been a fourfold order in the church: gathering, word, table, and sending.[1] Placing the greeting during the gathering portion seems appropriate considering the concept of God gathering his unified people to a place and attitude of worship. I have also seen the greeting placed at the end of the service of the word as the people of God move to the service of the table to symbolize the perpetual communion and fellowship in Christ. No matter where the greeting is placed, it is certainly an important and sacred act of worship.


            The Apostle Paul says to “greet one another with a holy kiss” (1 Cor 16:20). The thought of a casual kiss in greeting someone may seem foreign to Americans. Nonetheless, a kiss was a common form of greeting during Paul’s time. It was the equivalent of our handshake, hug, or even fist bump in a modern context then, i.e. we are to greet one another with a holy gesture, whatever that may be. How is that any different than shaking hands in a business deal then? The word, holy, surely implies some sort of difference.


            My aim here is to describe the kiss of peace and specifically its uniqueness to in the body of Christ. Because it is no ordinary act, I have three items I would like to suggest regarding the kiss of peace.


The Kiss of Peace Is a Sacred Act


            First, the kiss of peace is a sacred act. Many traditions refer to the kissing of peace as passing the peace. The idea is that the peace of Christ is ever-present in the church. It is no ordinary act; therefore, it should not be treated as such. The kiss of peace has been a part of Christian gatherings since the early church. It is not an extension of the previous week’s conversations of sports, entertainment, and other trivial items. The kiss of peace is a holy greeting in the name of the Lord; it is a rendering of peace. My observations in most contexts have led me to conclude that most churches’ greeting times do not employ a passing of peace, i.e. it is not a sacred act treated with utmost reverence. When we realize that the kiss of peace is a sacred act of worship, we treat it as a part of the dialogue between God and his people. The kiss of peace is unique, and it is a sacred act.

The Kiss of Peace Is a Holy Act


            Secondly, the kiss of peace is a holy act. It is set apart from other acts of worship but also distinctly from other (even friendly and kind) gestures we participate in daily. The kiss of peace itself is holy in a practical sense because it is an act of corporate worship unlike a handshake in a business deal. We should not treat our greeting times as mere moments of entertaining conversation. We should approach the kiss of peace with reverence and a realization that we are participating in a holy act of worship.


It is set apart practically, but it is also set apart spiritually, i.e. only the church can rightfully participate in the kiss of peace. Tertullian says, “The unity of the church of God is a perpetual fact; our task is not to create it, but to exhibit it.”[2] Because of the unity in Christ through the power of the Holy Spirit, the kiss of peace is a display of the body of Jesus Christ. Those who are not Christians lack the ability to participate in the kiss of peace. The holiness of the kiss of peace then points further to the uniqueness of the act. The kiss of peace is a holy act of worship; we should then approach it as such.

The Kiss of Peace Points to a Deeper Reality


            The deeper reality which the kiss of peace points to is the perpetual unification of the people of God. Tertullian had it right when he proposed that the church is already unified in Christ; we must simply display it. It should break our hearts when we see God’s people casually worship in any fashion, not the least of which is through the kiss of peace. In our times of greeting, let us realize the sacred act we participate in, and let us be a people who embody the peace of Christ. Far from a casual time of merely saying hello, we have the privilege and right to participate in a sacred and a holy act of worship when we offer the kiss of peace.




[1] Robert E. Webber, Planning Blended Worship: The Creative Mixture of Old and New (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 1998), 21.
[2] Dow Kirkpatrick, ed., The Doctrine of the Church (New York: Abingdon Press, 1964), 187.