LIVING IN THE REALITY OF CHRIST'S INCARNATION

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

LIVING IN THE REALITY OF CHRIST’S INCARNATION

            The Christmas story is surrounded with miracles, not the least of which is God becoming incarnate and dwelling among humans in the flesh. The incarnation of Christ should never be neglected as a significant miracle, for its implications reach beyond personal preference and into eternal matters. We should live in the reality of Christ’s incarnation and his continued incarnation to this day. I have three primary suggestions and a conclusion regarding the implications of living in the reality of Christ’s incarnation.

Our Incarnate God Is Righteous

            First, our incarnate God, Christ Jesus, is righteous. Scripture tells us that Jesus serves as our high priest, giving us great comfort since he was tempted as we are but did not sin (Heb 4:15). Christ’s righteousness was necessary for him to be the perfect sacrificial lamb. While our nature is evil, Christ’s nature is righteous. This is why the virgin birth is so crucial. If Christ was not born of a virgin and conceived by the Holy Spirit (rather than a man), he was conceived in sin. His righteous nature, however, demanded that he be born of a virgin and conceived by the Holy Spirit. Recently, a popular preacher proclaimed that it is more important for people to believe in the resurrection than the virgin birth. This is blatantly false; the two are equally important. If the virgin birth did not occur, Christ’s sacrifice would have been in vain, for the price was an unblemished sacrificial lamb, namely the Lamb of God. Our incarnate God is righteous. There is no bipolarity; he is fully God and fully man, yet with a righteous nature vastly disparate from our own.

Our Incarnate God Sympathizes with Us

            As we live in the reality of Christ’s incarnation, we should take comfort in the fact that Jesus himself sympathizes with us (Heb 4:15). He was not only tempted as we are and used to sympathize with us, but he continues to sympathize with us as well. Christians do not often consider the continued incarnation of Christ. While he is certainly in his glorified body, he is, nonetheless, fully human to this day. Therefore, he continues to understand our present groanings. I once spoke of this mystery with someone who seemed shocked that Jesus is still human. “What do you think happened to him upon his ascension,” I asked? She responded, “I just assumed he became a spirit.” Contrarily, Jesus remained God in human flesh, and one day we will be able to behold the Lamb who was slain (Rev 5:6). We do not serve a God who does not understand what we face; rather, we serve a God who presently understands and sympathizes with us because he is human. The incarnation ensures his relationship with us as humans. The incarnation implies that Jesus is not far out there but right here with us as God who currently sympathizes with us.

We Share in Our Incarnate God’s Sufferings

            Because Jesus continues to be incarnate and because he understands human suffering, we should also share in his own sufferings, for indeed, that is our call as Christians (1 Pet 4:13) and the very mark of who we are in Christ. Suffering is usually shed in a negative light, but in this matter, the glory of Christ is revealed through our sufferings; it is a noble and joyful experience then. Kallistos Ware says it well:

We should not say that Christ has suffered “instead of us,” but rather that he has suffered on our behalf. The Son of God suffered “unto death,” not that we might be exempt from suffering, but that our suffering might be like his. Christ offers us, not a way around suffering, but a way through it; not substantiation, but saving companionship.”[1]

One might wonder how Christ still suffers. Scripture makes clear the concept of Christ’s suffering through the church’s suffering. On the Damascus Road, Jesus appeared to the Apostle Paul (Saul at the time) and said, “I am Jesus whom you persecute” (Acts 9:5), i.e. it was not primarily Christians whom Saul persecuted, but it was, in fact, Jesus Christ. Additionally, in the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus proclaims, “Blessed are you when others revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you” (Matt 5:11-12). Suffering should be a part of our very existence as Christians, but rest assured that it is not primarily us who are persecuted but Christ himself. In our unpleasant trials, Jesus is there with us and is indeed the very one being persecuted; therefore, we should take joy in our call and participation in the sufferings of Christ. The incarnation of Jesus safeguards his sympathy for us and his suffering with us.

Our Incarnate God Does Not Only Obey the Word, but He Is the Word

            Jesus is the perfect fulfillment of the law because he is the law (Rom 10:4); he is the word made flesh (John 1); and he indeed is God himself. He is the perfect example of righteousness because he is righteous. Christ then is the ultimate model for life and for righteousness. We should not consider Jesus to be only deity, for he is also human. If we need an example of righteous living as a human being, we should look no further than Jesus Christ. The incarnation of Jesus Christ reveals a matchless level of relationship and understanding. God humbled himself and became a man through the womb of a virgin named Mary. He was conceived by the Holy Spirit in righteousness rather than sin. He faced every temptation we face; yet, he was blameless. He died as the atoning sacrifice for the sin of his people and was then raised in bodily form and ascended in the same manner. Jesus did not only obey the word; he is the word, i.e. the entirety of Scripture points to him as the center of all existence. We, therefore, should look to Jesus, God incarnate, as the author and perfecter of our faith and as the model for righteousness with the realization that we serve a living God who remains incarnate.

---

[1] Kallistos Ware, The Orthodox Way (St. Vladimir’s Seminary, 1995), 82.

BLESSED OR SPOILED?

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

BLESSED OR SPOILED?

            As we approach Thanksgiving, the topic of blessing comes to my mind. In the South, it is common to hear phrases such as, “Bless your heart,” or, “God has blessed us.” The question I would like to answer though is this: as a nation, are we blessed or spoiled? Certainly, it could be both, or it could be one or the other. As a minister of the gospel, I believe God has opened my eyes to some elements of American Christianity that are antithetical to the gospel. My answer to the question then is that we are spoiled. I mention this with an overall picture in mind so this is not to say that every single Christian in the United States of America lives a spoiled lifestyle, but largely, we do. I have four overarching thoughts to support this notion.

The Gospel Never Promises Prosperity but Perseverance

            A common thought among American Christians is that we have prospered because we have honored God. This usually refers to financial prosperity. I would not deny the realm of possibility here, but financial prosperity could also come through evil so it could be unrelated to Christian values. The gospel never promises (financial) prosperity so we should not assume that financial prosperity is the result of honoring God. This thought perpetuates the false idea that God always financially blesses those who honor him. The truth is that we are called to honor him whether we receive anything in return or not, and often, we do not. The gospel presents a message of perseverance and an unwavering joy in Jesus Christ in the face of incredible hardship. Consider people you know who are both rich and poor. It does not take long to realize that many God-honoring people are poor and many who practice constant evil are wealthy. Financial gain is not promised for honoring God so we should not assume that the United States has been financially blessed solely on the basis of morality. Although many of our founders possessed an incredible zeal for God, our financial prosperity could, in fact, be coincidental, i.e. the two should not be explicitly linked.

The United States of America Is Not God’s Chosen Nation

            I commonly hear believers make feeble attempts to apply Old Testament scriptures which clearly speak of Israel in precise contexts to the United States, e.g. Jeremiah 29:11.[1] The United States is not God’s chosen nation. I recently heard someone say that the United States is undeniably the greatest nation in the history of the world. I would beg to differ regarding the deniability of that statement, but let’s suppose that is correct; it is certainly not because we are God’s chosen people. We have never been and never will be God’s chosen nation, although there are likely many within our great nation who are now grafted into the chosen and holy nation of God. Keeping in mind that we are just a nation like any other in the eyes of God will help us live humbly. I doubt our founders had a prideful existence in mind, especially those who desired to honor God. We who honor God receive the blessing of joy in Christ, not the blessing of financial gain alone. The United States is not God’s chosen nation.

Jesus Did Not Die for the American Dream

            A shared belief among many American Christians is that the American dream is somehow a holy item to aspire to. We must remember that Jesus did not die for the American dream and really does not care about it. We should aspire to glorify the Father through the Son and in the power of the Spirit. In many ways, an aspiration to the American dream is not only selfish but also antithetical to a gospel that is solely about Jesus Christ. What if God’s plan for your life is to die as a martyr? What if it is to live in poverty and serve him faithfully bringing many to salvation in Christ? Is it so far-fetched to think that it might be? If we live our lives pursuing the American dream and comfort, we have essentially wasted our time here.

It Is Possible to Live a Good Moral and Successful Life and Still Waste It

            Connected to the previous thought, it is possible to live a good and moral life, raise a family in the church, have a good reputation among a local community, and achieve great success yet still waste one’s life. This occurs when Christ is thought of as a therapeutic deity who makes us better while we try to achieve our goals in life rather than the very point of existence in this life. If we all thought of Christ in the latter way, I believe more radical decisions would be made and more believers would sacrifice a life of comfort for a life of service. American Christianity has become an enterprise when it should have always been a way of life centered around the person and work of Jesus Christ. Jesus is not the cool person who makes us feel better about how good our lives are, but he is a radical and life-changing person who calls us to risk our very lives for his sake. If we think of Christ as an important aspect of our lives rather than the very point of life, we are living spoiled rather than blessed.

We Passed Blessed Long Ago

            In short, American Christianity has become an enterprise largely opposed to the gospel. Our great financial success has, in many ways, contributed to our spiritual blindness; we think it’s all about us when it surely is not. God certainly gives his people good and perfect gifts. Nevertheless, material rewards are not promised to God’s people. Why then do we assume that the United States has received material and financial reward because we have honored God? Our financial gain could be based merely on hard work, which is not godliness in and of itself. The truth is that we passed blessed long ago and have been spoiled for quite some time. Our country’s churches control 75% of the global church’s wealth; yet, our churches are deteriorating while closed and persecuted countries’ churches are rapidly expanding. What is the difference? It is a genuine faith that does not look to God as a genie but rather as a covenant God who redeems and restores his people.

As we approach thanksgiving, it is certainly right to give God thanks for any material and financial gifts he has given. We must, however, not neglect to remember that we should honor God irrespective of those material possessions and that our ultimate reason for thanksgiving is his covenant with us, which we, in no way, deserve. With that said, let us give thanks to God.

---

[1] For I know the plans I have for you, declares the Lord, plans for welfare and not for evil, to give you a future and a hope.

WHAT IS ORTHODOXY?

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

WHAT IS ORTHODOXY?

            A term that is often brought up in discussions of worship and theology is orthodox. Orthodoxy implies a sense of normality or a standard which is common across denominational or religious lines. The problem with understanding the term, however, is that most of us do not know what orthodoxy is. Largely, orthodoxy refers to a pattern of conformity to what is generally or traditionally accepted as right or true.[1] I think this definition explains orthodoxy in its broadest sense. Regarding the Christian faith, however, complications arise when determining what beliefs are orthodox. Certainly, there are primary issues of the Christian faith which believers of every tradition hold to. There are, nonetheless, beliefs that many Christians might suppose are orthodox but are, in fact, not. The more I realize the diversity of the church, the less orthodox elements I find, i.e. my eyes are being opened to the reality that exact beliefs on secondary issues vary. In that statement, I am, in no way, implying that orthodoxy does not exist, for it unequivocally does. Knowing that then, I suggest that orthodox beliefs are those which are related to primary issues. The problem therein lies in the disparate ideas of what constitutes a primary issue. To answer the question of what is implied by the term, orthodox, there are two crucial questions to answer. In this commentary, I will answer these questions.

What Are Primary Issues?

            First, it is vital to determine what constitutes a primary issue. If I may give a personal (and I believe accurate) personal constitution, primary issues are those theological issues which are vital to salvation, i.e. they are salvific in nature. I should clarify that most theological stances are secondary rather than primary. The implication then is that primary issues are few. These are essential beliefs of the Christian faith which are crucial to the church. An excellent summary of primary beliefs is stated in the entirety of the Apostles Creed. Even churches which do not utilize the Apostles Creed in worship practice hold to the beliefs found in its text. It is difficult for me to believe that someone who rejects Jesus Christ as God is a Christian since Jesus himself stated as much during his earthly ministry; this then would be considered a primary issue. If there is any ambiguity at all on an issue, even by the slightest amount, it is probably not a primary issue. Understand, however, that explicitness is not subjective; there are objective measures to determine primary issues. An issue is not primary merely because one person or tradition considers it to be so, for if there are other Christian traditions who rightly believe otherwise and possess a biblical backing, it is likely not a primary issue. How explicitly is the issue stated in Scripture? Did Christ rise from the dead? The answer should be a resounding yes; it is clear in the Bible with no ambiguity, and it is essential to believe for salvation. Salvific issues, of which there are far fewer than non-salvific issues, are primary and, thus, orthodox.

What Are Secondary Issues?

            If primary issues are salvific in nature, secondary issues are not, i.e. there is room for disagreement in the body of Christ. The term, secondary, should not imply a lack of importance, for even secondary issues are crucial because of their place in Scripture, but rather secondary issues are more ambiguous and include subjectivity. There is a fine line here because we should not suppose that secondary issues are not important or that they are overly important. Issues such as immersion baptism, speaking in tongues, female pastors, or transubstantiation are not salvific. A range of views may be held on these issues. It is important for God’s people to know and understand these issues but to do so with an open heart and mind and even to disagree in a loving manner. The church is diverse so those issues which we may not understand until we are with Christ should be considered secondary and not orthodox.

            An issue we find ourselves dealing with often is elevating secondary issues to the level of primary; we must be careful not to do this. Ask yourself the question, “Is this issue essential for salvation?” Most of the time, we will find that it is not, which forces the issue into the category of secondary. Important as it may be, we should not quickly label someone a heretic because of a mere disagreement on a secondary issue, which is done far too often. I’ll be as bold as to say that although I strongly disagree with a gospel which promotes wealth, if those who hold to that particular view confess Jesus as Lord and hold to primary beliefs, they should be considered orthodox.

This is also not to say, however, that one cannot be aboundingly incorrect about secondary issues. Wrongness on secondary issues does not equal damnation though. Correction might need to occur; yet, we should also examine how we approach correction and realize that disagreement is acceptable. Those beliefs and issues which contain natural room for disagreement and are non-salvific are secondary and, thus, not orthodox.

How Is Orthodoxy Defined from Primary Issues?

            How then should we define orthodoxy? By stating that primary issues are salvific, I am saying that they are also orthodox, i.e. orthodoxy is common and right belief on primary issues. Beyond that, theological issues are complicated and diverse. We should understand that what we often think of as orthodoxy may not be orthodoxy at all. Even on secondary issues, there might be common general stances, but the fact that an issue is secondary presupposes there is likely not an orthodox belief. For secondary issues then, we should not presume that commonality is synonymous with orthodoxy; for primary issues though, it absolutely is. Beyond cohesion, we must realize that orthodoxy deals with necessity, i.e. essential beliefs of the church are orthodox in nature. While it may be true that churches are more commonly turning away from historic and truly orthodox teachings, there are still most professing believers and churches who hold to essential truth. Despite disparate approaches to secondary issues, people of God are unified in orthodox teachings. We, therefore, should cling to our common faith in Christ and never waver from what is truly orthodox.

---

[1] “Orthodoxy,” Google definition search, accessed October 12, 2017, https://www.google.com/search?q=orthodox+meaning&ie=&oe

CONFESSIONS: BENEFITS AND PITFALLS

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

CONFESSIONS: BENEFITS AND PITFALLS

            The Apostle Paul tells us that we are to confess with the mouth and believe in the heart to be saved (Rom 10:9). Though many would associate confession with a plea for forgiveness, the term has broader meaning. A confession is a statement of belief; it is, therefore, the resulting act of belief. Confession then clarifies what a person or a group of people believe and cling to. Public and formal confessions of faith have been common in Christianity for centuries including in the early church. I come from a Protestant tradition, which exposes a range of confessions and particular beliefs about confessions. The specific denomination I am a part of largely discourages the use of formal confessions in corporate worship; that is not to say they do not exist in Baptist life because they certainly do. In fact, among the first and most vital confessions of faith in the modern church is the First London Baptist Confession of 1644, which was later clarified and revised in 1689. Largely in an attempt to exercise the Bible alone as the sole authority for belief, modern Baptists have attempted to remove themselves from confessions; yet, my denomination of Southern Baptists have what is referred to as the Baptist Faith and Message. What is that document but a confession, a creed, or a statement of beliefs?

            What are the both benefits and pitfalls of confessions? I am going to discuss these matters so that we might be able to rightly put formal confessions in their place by keeping the good and ridding ourselves of the bad thoughts and perhaps practices that come along with confessions.

Benefits

            First, I would like to discuss benefits. Confessions (I believe) come with both benefits and pitfalls). What are the good elements of confessions? I have a few thoughts regarding this.

Confessions Summarize

            First, confessions summarize belief, e.g. the Apostles Creed (4^th C.) could be considered sort of like a Cliffs Notes of the Bible, especially in a day and society when the vast majority of people were uneducated and illiterate. Confessions summarize essential doctrines and beliefs for a group of people. Far be it from an unsubstantiated source, a good confession clarifies the truths of Scripture so that a people might resort to it and know and realize their primary beliefs. When one verbally states a confession, he or she is stating what they believe in a clear and organized fashion. In this manner then, confessions benefit God’s people by way of summarizing essential beliefs.

Confessions Clarify

            Confessions also clarify. Confessions are usually worded carefully by a plurality of scholars and clergymen who have grappled with the concepts and doctrines in the confession, i.e. it is not sloppily pieced together randomly by a single unskilled person. There are surely times when confessions need to be clarified more, e.g. the Second London Baptist Confession (1689 A.D.) clarified some items the First London Baptist Confession (1644 A.D.) did not. Christians should understand that there are difficult aspects of the faith which are hard-pressed to explain and clarify. Confessions help us in that way. By the employment of confessions, we can rightly know and explain what otherwise might be confusing truths and doctrines of our faith.

Confessions Preach

            Thirdly, confessions preach, i.e. they (should) proclaim the truth of Scripture. When God’s people state a good confession, the body of Christ preaches the truth of the Bible. That is, of course, assuming that the confession is derived from the text of Scripture. (I believe the most common and important confessions are.) Stating a formal confession or statement of beliefs then preaches the gospel message. The word of God does not return void so if a confession proclaims the word of God, the gospel message is proclaimed. This is a marvelous benefit of confessions.

Confessions Unify

            Lastly, regarding benefits, confessions unify. Specifically, they unify a common group of believers. Many people are opposed to organized religion. Often, the assumption in these cases is that the church universal should not have divisions, i.e. the Protestant Reformation should have never happened. I do not want to speculate on that specific issue, but the truth is that the church is diverse and within the diversity, local churches are disparate in thought and in practice; and that is acceptable. I also suggest that humanity in general needs structure; we were created with an innate need for structure. Consider your own daily affairs. Structure encircles you because, as humans, we need it to function. What confessions do then is provide structure to groups of people with common beliefs. While the church varies on secondary issues, we (should) agree on primary and salvific issues.[1] The church is founded upon Jesus Christ; this is the singular commonality along with all elements that surround him as Lord and Savior. Nonetheless, within our individual delineations of people with varying beliefs on secondary issues, confessions unify; confessions provide a sense of focus for a group of people. In that sense then, confessions are certainly beneficial.

Pitfalls

            Aside from benefits, there are also pitfalls of confessions, but I would like to approach the pitfalls from the perspective of what might happen as a result of confessions, not what absolutely will happen.

People Might Make Confessions Equal to the Bible

            First, people could easily place confessions on the same level as Scripture. While confessions themselves are derived from Scripture, they should not be canonized and are certainly not Scripture. There is a clear distinction. Why do we believe what we believe and why do we utilize confessions to state those beliefs? It is because the Bible teaches the doctrines we confess. Consider it this way: without the Bible, there would be no confessions because confessions are built upon the foundation of Scripture. Confessions are a useful tool in proclaiming the gospel message, but holding to a confession above the Bible is wrong. If confessions are exercised in a given context, a people should be careful to realize the underpinning of the confessional text and not place the confession itself on the same plane as the Bible.

Confessions Might Hinder Personal Spirituality

            Secondly, confessions possess the potential to hinder personal spirituality. If a local church relies largely on confessions and pre-ordered statements of belief for their spiritual growth and discernment rather than personal study of the Bible, spirituality is hindered. Confessions should be viewed as a tool to proclaim the source rather than the source itself. If Christians desire to grow spiritually, they must take the initiative to know God himself through prayer and the word, which ensures a two-way relationship between humankind and God through Jesus Christ. Confessions must never be relied on as the sole medium for spiritual growth. Believers rather should study the word and commune with God themselves and then employ confessions (if they are going to at all) as a tool for stating precise beliefs.

Conclusion

            Are confessions beneficial? Yes. Do confessions possess pitfalls? Yes, potentially. These are waters we must navigate through as the church and especially as worship leaders. Confessions in and of themselves are not bad but are, in fact, excellent tools of proclamation. Let us hold firm then to the truth of Scripture and boldly confess our beliefs while standing firm upon the foundation of the word.

---

[1] Primary and salvific issues here refer to items of the Christian faith which are explicit in the text of Scripture and contain no room from wavering.

UNDER ALL, SOME, OR NONE OF THE LAW

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

UNDER ALL, SOME, OR NONE OF THE LAW

            Discussions of the law can be both frustrating and confusing. I was once asked a question by an atheist that went something like this: “Why do you pick and choose which biblical laws you obey? Why do you believe that homosexuality is a sin, but you wear mixed fabrics[1] and eat shrimp?”[2] When I first began pondering questions such as this, I was dumbfounded and had inadequate responses, which, in my mind, legitimized the questions. Attempting to move beyond embedded theology into deliberative theology, I had to ask myself why indeed I obey some laws but not others. I heard many explanations from very intelligent people, but nothing was satisfactory. The ultimate question then is, “Are we, as Christians, under some, all, or none of the law?”[3] To answer this ultimate question, I have three thoughts to give clarity to the issue.

The Threefold Division of the Law

            A significant view held regarding the law is the threefold division of the law, i.e. old covenant laws include the moral law, the civil law, and the ceremonial law. Those who hold to this view will likely assert that the civil law and the ceremonial law were only applicable to Israel; we, therefore, are no longer bound by them. An example of such a law is Leviticus 19:28, which reads, “You shall not make any cuts on your body for the dead or tattoo yourselves: I am the LORD.” (ESV) This is a law that applied only to Israel before entering the Promised Land. If it applied to us today, we should not only assume that tattoos are sinful, but many of us are also sinning by disobeying the law just prior to it, which commands not to trim the edges of one’s beard. The context then makes it apparent that this is not a moral law but a civil law. Those who hold to the threefold division of the law perspective would likely argue that moral laws are still common in the New Testament.

            I see two primary problems with this view. First, there is no explicit biblical foundation to support a threefold view, i.e. the threefold division of the law, while it makes sense, is something human minds have devised. Nowhere in Scripture is such a division presented. Secondly, even if there is a threefold division of the law, it is often difficult to determine which laws belong to which category. The truth is that the law is the law no matter which division it may be in so disobedience to it is disobedience to God. We can try to compartmentalize laws, but we still find ourselves utterly failing at keeping them. While the threefold division of the law might make sense for a good argument, it is explicitly unfounded.

Christ Fulfilled the Law

            Christ said that he came not to abolish the law but to fulfill it (Matt 5:17). When considering our obligation to the law, Jesus’ words make the most sense to me, as they should. According to Jesus himself, he fulfilled every part of the law, implying that we no longer must; therefore, we are no longer under the law at all. We are not under all of it or some of it because it has been fulfilled. Even though we are no longer under the law, however, we should not assume that it is futile to obey God. Fulfillment of the law does not negate conformity to the image of Christ, i.e. Christians cannot live however they want. The law has no transforming power, but Jesus Christ does. Therefore, because of his atoning death on the cross and because he has fulfilled the law, our lives are changed.

We Conform to God’s Transcendent Character, Not a Law

            How do we reconcile obedience with Scripture then? We conform to the image of Christ. The reason it may seem we obey certain biblical commands is because they are transcendent and timeless as a part of God’s character, i.e. we do not obey laws, but we obey God. There are certainly commonalities in both the New Testament and Old Testament; these commonalities exist, however, because they deal with God’s character, not because the laws in and of themselves are still relevant. We do not murder because it is in the Ten Commandments, for we are no longer under the Ten Commandments; we do not murder because God is not a murderer. This is why we seem to pick and choose. We pick and choose God’s character as our point of obedience, which is often evidenced in New Testament and Old Testament scriptures. Let me challenge all of us to live by the transforming power of Jesus Christ rather than conformity to a powerless law. Christ has fulfilled the law so we do not have to (because we never could anyway). Now we are changed by Jesus Christ so our obedience is in conformity with his character. We are no longer under the law but under the grace and mercy of Jesus Christ.

---

[1] Lev 19:19.

[2] Lev 11 reference to unclean animals.

[3] The law(s) of God under old covenants.

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 500^th 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.

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.”