Category Archives: Salvation

Luminous Christianity (5)

06 Thursday Aug 2020

Posted by in Bible, Catholic Tradition, Faith, Salvation

≈ 21 Comments

Tags

, ,

Eucharist

There are times when it seems as though there is nothing sacred, that is in the sense that nothing is exempt from the tendency of Christians to argue among themselves, and the subject of the fifth and final Mystery of Light, the Institution of the Holy Eucharist is one of those.

It seems simple enough on the page:

26 And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, [a]blessed and broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said, “Take, eat; this is My body.”

27 Then He took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. 28 For this is My blood of the [b]new covenant, which is shed for many for the [c]remission of sins. 29 But I say to you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in My Father’s kingdom.

St Mark’s version, upon which St Matthew’s was most probably based is typically straightforward:

22 And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, blessed and broke it, and gave it to them and said, “Take, [a]eat; this is My body.”

23 Then He took the cup, and when He had given thanks He gave it to them, and they all drank from it. 24 And He said to them, “This is My blood of the [b]new covenant, which is shed for many. 25 Assuredly, I say to you, I will no longer drink of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God.”

We can see from this why one of the rumours spread about the early Christians in Roman society was that they were cannibals and ate the body and drank the blood of their god.

There is no Institution narrative in St John, but what he does have to say about Jesus as the Bread of Life drives hom the sense of the words we get from SS Mark and Matthew. When teaching in Capernum, Jesus told His listeners He was the Bread of Life, they queried His words and their meaning, and Jesus was clear in His response:

52 The Jews therefore quarreled among themselves, saying, “How can this Man give us His flesh to eat?”

53 Then Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For My flesh is [a]food indeed, and My blood is [b]drink indeed. 56 He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him. 57 As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who feeds on Me will live because of Me. 58 This is the bread which came down from heaven—not as your fathers ate the manna, and are dead. He who eats this bread will live forever.”

The result is worth noting: “ From that time many of His disciples went [f]back and walked with Him no more”.

The conventional Protestant explanation (this one from my NKJV Study Bible) is “Jesus was speaking figuratively, but the Jewish leaders took him literally.” But will this really do? We are told that many of His disciples turned away. If they had misunderstood, it would have been easy enough for Jesus to have stated that He was talking figuratively. Instead, He lets them go and even asks “the twelve” whether they, too, will leave Him. It seems a little feeble to explain all of this in terms of figurative speech.

It is St Luke’s versionof the words which seems to have given an excuse for the “figurative” explanation, as there the words of Institution are:

9 And He took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me.”

Hence the explanation that the Eucharist is a “memorial” of His saving passion, as though we are presented with a binary choice. But is it a binary choice? Have we fully understood what Jesus is saying if we assume so.

As usual, the Church Fathers have been here before us and are an invaluable source of wisdom here.

St John Chysostom explained it thus in Homily 47:2:

When we converse of spiritual things, let there be nothing secular in our souls, nothing earthy, let all such thoughts retire, and be banished, and let us be entirely given up to the hearing the divine oracles only.

The argument here is that we understand Christ’s words spiritually and not carnally. It is in the same vein as St Hilary of Poitier’s statement in On the Trinity:

For as to what we say concerning the reality of Christ’s nature within us, unless we have been taught by Him, our words are foolish and impious. For He says Himself, My flesh is meat indeed, and My blood is drink indeed. He that eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him. John 6:55-56 As to the verity of the flesh and blood there is no room left for doubt. For now both from the declaration of the Lord Himself and our own faith, it is verily flesh and verily blood. And these when eaten and drunk, bring it to pass that both we are in Christ and Christ in us.

Orthodox theology, untouched by the scholastic method, argues that in the Eucharist we partake not simply of the physical/material, but of the deified and glorifies Body and Blood of Christ which give resurrection life. Catholic theology expresses the same thought thus:

We believe that at every Mass, bread and wine become Jesus — his body, blood, soul and divinity — even though we can’t fully understand how it happens. The miracle of the Eucharist is a mystery, something that human reason and intelligence can never fully grasp.

The Institution of the Eucharist invites us into the heart of the mystery of God’s love for us. Like the woman at the well, we discover that Jesus is the Living Water, but oh, with what blessing we reflect that in the Eucharistic Feast we receive His Body and His Blood. In the words of the Catechism:

The Word became flesh to make us “partakers of the divine nature”: “For this is why the Word became man, and the Son of God became the Son of man: so that man, by entering into communion with the Word and thus receiving divine sonship, might become a son of God.” “For the Son of God became man so that we might become God.” “The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods” (CCC 460)

In His Body and Blood we are saved, redeemed and will be glorified.

 

 

Intermission: Luther v Zwingli on the Eucharist

13 Friday Oct 2017

Posted by in Catholic Tradition, Lutheranism, Salvation

≈ 15 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , , ,

Phillip mentioned yesterday that Lutherans have a very clear doctrine of the Eucharist, which is certainly true, and that the controversy between Luther and Zwingli highlighted the differences. That too is true. I didn’t want to go into it on his post, it is a bit far off topic. It is interesting, though, and last night I found a concise summary of the differences by Trevin Wax. It also highlights how it differed from Luther’s contemporary Catholic experience.

Luther’s view

In the medieval period before the Reformation, the mass formed the centerpiece of Christian worship and devotion. Three centuries before Luther began teaching in Wittenberg, the fourth Lateran council of 1215 established the doctrine of transubstantiation, which holds that upon the priest’s consecration of the bread and wine, the accidents (according to the senses) remain the same, but the substance (the internal “essence”) is miraculously transformed into the physical body and blood of Christ.

The implications of this doctrine were widespread. Laypeople began to adore the bread and wine from afar or superstitiously carry pieces of bread back home to plant in the garden for good crops or to give to an ailing animal for good health. To avoid an accidental spilling of the wine, the priests began giving only the bread to parishioners, keeping the cup for themselves. By the 1500’s, even the bread was withheld in most churches.

The mass had turned into a show instead of a sacrament. Some parishioners feverishly hurried from church to church to obtain the blessing of seeing more than one host in a given day.

Luther objected to the extreme practices brought by medieval superstition, but he continued to regard the “images, bells, Eucharistic vestments, church ornaments, altar lights and the like” as “indifferent.”

Two things in particular bothered Luther about the Roman Catholic view of the Lord’s Supper. First, he disagreed sharply with the practice of withholding the cup from the laity. So strongly did Luther believe in the laity’s participation in the mass that he condemned the Roman Catholic practice as one way that “Babylon” holds the church “captive.” (It should be noted however that Luther did not believe that withholding the cup necessarily invalidated the sacrament or that the Christians who were denied the cup during the previous centuries had not received sacramental benefits.)

Secondly, Luther believed that the Roman Catholic understanding of the sacrament as a “good work and a sacrifice” was the “most wicked abuse of all.” Luther argued forcefully that the mass must be seen as a testament – something to receive, not a good work to perform. The only sacrifice at the Lord’s Table is the sacrifice of ourselves. The idea that a priest could sacrifice the body and blood of the Lord was especially appalling to Luther and he considered this belief the most abominable of Roman errors.  […]

Another area in which Luther remained close to Roman doctrine is in the doctrine of the “real presence.” Up until 1519, it appears Luther agreed with the official doctrine of transubstantiation. In 1520, he criticized the idea quite forcefully, painting it as needless speculation based on Aristotelian thought.

A popular misconception among Reformation students is that Luther affirmed and promoted “consubstantiation,” but neither Luther nor the Lutheran church ever accepted that term. Luther simply refused to speculate on how Christ is present and instead settled for affirming that he is there. The presence of Christ in the Supper is miraculous and thus defies explanation.

Roman Catholic theologians strongly emphasized the moment of consecration, when the priest would lift the bread and say “Hoc est corpus meum.” At that moment, bells would be rung and all eyes would be on the elevated host, which had magically been transformed into Christ’s body.

Luther similarly emphasized the words of institution, but only because Christ’s command leads to the change, not because the priest has made a special utterance. In this and other practices, Luther was content to alter the understanding behind Roman Catholic practice without feeling the need to actually change the tradition itself.

Luther believed that the fruit of the Lord’s Supper is the forgiveness of sins. Roman doctrine held that Communion was for the righteous, those who have confessed their sins to the priest. Luther believed Communion was for sinners, those who needed Christ’s incarnation the most.

 

Zwingli’s view

 

Zwingli did not see the need for a “sacramental union” in the Lord’s Supper because of his modified understanding of sacraments.

According to Zwingli, the sacraments serve as a public testimony of a previous grace. Therefore, the sacrament is “a sign of a sacred thing, i.e. of a grace that has been given.” For Zwingli, the idea that the sacraments carry any salvific efficacy in themselves is a return to Judaism’s ceremonial washings that lead to the purchase of salvation.

Whereas Luther sought to prune the bad branches off the tree of Roman Catholic sacramentalism, Zwingli believed the problem to be rooted at least partly in sacramentalism itself. […]

What Zwingli could not accept was a “real presence” that claimed Christ was present in his physical body with no visible bodily boundaries.

“I have no use for that notion of a real and true body that does not exist physically, definitely and distinctly in some place, and that sort of nonsense got up by word triflers.”

Zwingli’s theology of the Lord’s Supper should not be viewed as an innovation without precedent in church history. Zwingli claimed that his doubts about transubstantiation were shared by many of his day, leading him to claim that priests did not ever believe such a thing, even though “most all have taught this or at least pretended to believe it.”

Had Zwingli’s modified doctrine of the “real presence” been an innovation, it would probably not have been so eagerly accepted by his parishioners. The symbolic view spread rapidly because Zwingli had given voice and legitimacy to an opinion that was already widespread.

In Zurich, the mass was abolished in 1525. The Lord’s Supper was celebrated with a new liturgy that replaced the altar with a table and tablecloth.

The striking feature of the Zwinglian observance of the sacrament was its simplicity. Because the bread and wine were not physically transformed into Christ’s body and blood, there was no need for spurious ceremonies and pompous rituals. The occasion was marked by simplicity and reverence, with an emphasis on its nature as a memorial.

Zwingli’s denial of the “real presence” did not result in the neglecting of the sacrament that would characterize many of his followers in centuries to come. He saw seven virtues in the Lord’s Supper that proved its importance for the Christian life.

Do read the articles linked above. While what he says on Lutheran doctrine is in accordance with what I know and believe, and what I know of how it was derived, and I am sort of assuming that as an Evangelical he knows a fair amount about Zwingli, I don’t know enough to comment intelligently about it. My original church had a fair amount of Reformed in it, but it was long ago, and I’ve long since come to believe in The Real Presence myself, actually before I became a Lutheran. It is just more consonant with the Lord’s words and the disciples’ reaction to them.

Ps, the short form

Being Saved

04 Tuesday Jul 2017

Posted by in Bible, Faith, Salvation

≈ 25 Comments

Tags

, , , ,

When Christians say they are ‘saved’, what do they mean? Let us begin, as we should, with what Our Lord says. To be saved, we must believe:

Most assuredly, I say to you, he who hears My word and believes in Him who sent Me has everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment, but has passed from death into life.

Jesus goes on to say: “Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in Me has everlasting life”. So, as simple as that. If we have faith, we are saved. But Jesus does not stop there. One problem with the way we read the Gospel is that it tends to be in chunks, when, if you have ever seen early codices, you will see it was meant to be read in its entirety; chapters and verses are relatively novel; designed to help us, our fallen nature so often ensures it does no such thing.

Jesus told those who followed him asking for more bread: “For the bread of God is that which comes down from heaven, and gives life to the world”, to which “They said to Him, ‘Lord, give us this bread always’”. To clear up any doubt, Jesus told them: “I am the bread of life. He who comes to Me shall never hunger, and he who believes in Me shall never thirst.” We are told, now, by some, that this is a sort of metaphor, that all food gives us life, or some other explanation, but Jesus is clear. Indeed, he was so clear that the Jews listening were shocked. How could the son of Joseph be the ‘bread’ come down from heaven, and how could a man give them his flesh and blood to drink?

This was the perfect opportunity for Jesus to reassure them that he was not speaking literally. Why should they have thought he was? In verses 54-58 Jesus uses the word ‘trogo’. This is a word found only five times in the New Testament, and these are four of those times. It means ‘to chew’ or to ‘gnaw’, and in Greek is often used to describe the feeding habits of cattle and pigs. Up to this point in the Gospel, Jesus had been using the more usual word, ‘esthio’ (verses 49-53 all use it), so in changing the word he uses, Jesus is emphasising the literal nature of what he was saying; that was why the Jews took fright. He was telling them that to be saved we must eat his body and his blood – the connotations of cannibalism and of non-kosher food horrified his listeners – as he knew it would. He had ample opportunity to reassure them he was not talking literally. Indeed, as some left him, he had every reason to do so. He could quite easily have stopped many leaving him, but he did not do so.

He asked the Apostles if they wished to go; they did not, even thought they did not understand. It was only when they came to the Last Supper that they understood. That is why from the beginning. Christians have met to worship and to consume his body and his blood. St Paul passed this on to the Corinthians, as he had received it from the Apostles. Paul is clear about the literal nature of what was passed on to him, as he tells the Corinthians:

For he who eats and drinks in an unworthy manner eats and drinks judgment to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body.

Jesus told us “Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life”. So, yes, we must believe in Him as Lord, but we must also partake of His body and His blood. Dos that mean there is no other way to be saved? God alone decides who will be saved, and anyone who pronounces on that issue takes upon him or herself the power of God – and I suspect God will not be mocked in that way, He is a merciful and compassionate God, who alone knows the devices and desires of our hearts, and who, alone, can read what is written there. He is the only Just Judge, and we can leave such questions to Him. Our part is to serve obediently where we feel we have been called.

‘He rose again’

14 Wednesday Jun 2017

Posted by in Bible, Faith, Salvation

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

, , ,

jesusresurrectionstory

Christianity has a content. Its most important content is that Christ died and rose again from the dead to redeem us; if we do not believe this, then, as Paul said, our faith is in vain. There are clever theologians who have constructed whole edifices of scholarship providing explanations of the things modern intellectuals find uncomfortable about Christianity; but such attempts raise questions about the content of our belief.

The Resurrection either happened or it didn’t. Anyone who thinks that the first Christians were channelling their spiritual experience of Christ needs to re-read the account of St Thomas and his doubts. The NT goes out of its way to make clear that the resurrection was a physical reality. It does so because clearly there were those at the time who denied it and sought more philosophical explanations; it is not by such that we are saved.

The world has always had trouble with Jesus. It had it whilst he was Incarnate in the flesh in this life, and, just when it thought it had disposed of him by crucifixion, he came back and has given it trouble ever since. He tells us things we do not want to hear: we are sinners; we need to repent; if we don’t we shall go to hell. All of this makes us uncomfortable. There are three reactions to this: the orthodox Christian one – that we should indeed repent and mend our ways and follow him; the other is that we decline to believe any of this Bronze-age nonsense; the third, and in many ways more worrying one, is to explain it all away as being not what most Christians have believed for most of history.

It is most worrying because of the impulse behind it. People want to have Jesus, but on their terms. They want a Jesus fit for North Oxford or Islington salons; they want a Jesus who would be at home in the senior common room; they don’t want to be laughed at by their sophisticated friends; they want a Jesus worthy of them. In this, they play God. God created us in his image; these men recreate God in their own, and in worshipping him, they are actually worshipping themselves. But they do more. They tend to make other people feel insecure. This is not what the Apostles did. Christianity is either something that we can all grasp, or it is nothing; whatever these sophisticated philosophical explanations might be, they have a tendency to empty Christianity of its content.

I believe in God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit, Three in One and One in Three. I do not believe in the prime mover, the secondary mover and the inspiration, or any other set of variants on the opening of the Creed. I believe Jesus rose from the dead and ascended into heaven. I do not believe that the Apostles had some kind of collective group-think; I don’t, because they didn’t. What I do not believe in is the superior wisdom of modern man, the church of good fellowship without Christ, or the life of the philosophy to come.

If Jesus did not rise, physically rise, then the whole of Christianity is a bad joke and should be discarded.

The Feast of the Annunciation

25 Saturday Mar 2017

Posted by in Bible, Lent, Marian devotion, Salvation

≈ 36 Comments

Tags

, , ,

The earliest English text on the Annunciation was by the Venerable Bede, and to celebrate today’s Feast of the Annunciation, let us spend some time in his company, meditating on this great event which truly changed history. The text in bold is the Magnificat, the commentary by Bede himself:

My soul proclaims the greatness of the Lord, my spirit rejoices in God my Saviour.

The Lord has exalted me by a gift so great, so unheard of, that language is useless to describe it, and the depths of love in my heart can scarcely grasp it. I offer then all the powers of my soul in praise and thanksgiving. As I contemplate his greatness, which knows no limits, I joyfully surrender my whole life, my senses, my judgment, for my spirit rejoices in the eternal Godhead of that Jesus, that Saviour, whom I have conceived in this world of time.

 

The Almighty has done great things for me, and holy is his name.

Mary looks back to the beginning of her song, where she said: My soul proclaims the greatness of the Lord. Only that soul for whom the Lord in His love does great things can proclaim his greatness with fitting praise and encourage those who share her desire and purpose, saying: Join with me in proclaiming the greatness of the Lord; let us extol His name together.

Those who know the Lord, yet refuse to proclaim His greatness and sanctify His name to the limit of their power, will be called least in the kingdom of Heaven. His name is called holy because in the sublimity of his unique power He surpasses every creature and is far removed from all that He has made.

He has come to the help of His servant Israel, for He has remembered His promise of mercy.

In a beautiful phrase Mary calls Israel the servant of the Lord. The Lord came to his aid to save him. Israel is an obedient and humble servant, in the words of Hosea: Israel was a servant, and I loved him.

Those who refuse to be humble cannot be saved. They cannot say with the prophet: See, God comes to my aid; the Lord is the helper of my soul. But anyone who makes himself humble like a little child is greater in the kingdom of Heaven.

The promise He made to our fathers, to Abraham and his children for ever.

This does not refer to the physical descendants of Abraham, but to his spiritual children. These are his descendants, sprung not from the flesh only, but who, whether circumcised or not, have followed him in faith. Circumcised as he was, Abraham believed, and this was credited to him as an act of righteousness.

The coming of the Saviour was promised to Abraham and to his descendants forever. These are the children of promise, to whom it is said: If you belong to Christ, then you are descendants of Abraham, heirs in accordance with the promise

Thus wrote Bede more than 1400 years ago. How sad, then, that now there are some who claim the name of Christian who make the claim that Mary had no choice but to accept God’s fiat. What image of God do such people possess? It is that akin to the old gods of Greece and Rome who impregnated human women with out their consent. It is not, perhaps, then, so strange that they should fail to perceive this massive beam in their own eye whilst claiming with great shrillness that our veneration of Mary is a form of goddess worship. Christianity began with Mary’s ‘yes’ and through her heroic virtue, the Christ became incarnate and the miracle of our salvation was begun. On this day, holy to our ancestors, we celebrate, with a ‘great crowd of witnesses’ the actions of Our Lady and pray, through her, to God, that His will be done here on earth, as it is in heaven.

https://richardnye.info/annunciation.html

 

On being ‘saved’

06 Friday Jan 2017

Posted by in Anti Catholic, Blogging, Faith, Salvation

≈ 99 Comments

Tags

, , , , ,

How can I know I'm saved

To the evident discomfort of some here, we have a long-time contributor who goes by the name of Bosco, who criticises the Catholic Church and all ‘religions’, preferring, instead, his own unmediated connection with Jesus. He recently committed some of his thoughts to a piece here, and it, and the comments it provoked provide an interesting insight into the strengths and limitations of that view.

Its strength is obvious.As Bosco recently put it:

When one is born again, one is changed. Theres no two ways. You know you have had something happen. You know Jesus is rite there with you. He lets you know. he starts working with you. Theres no uncertainty. No confusion with the holy ghost. Its real.

Not all the insults he directs at my Church can take away from that. It can make me doubt his level of theological literacy, and it can make me lament the language he employs about my own Church; but it cannot detract from the effect he says it made on him. I, too, would be an even worse person were it not for Jesus.

But in this attitude there is, it seems to me, some confusion. He states: ‘If you ask him to reveal himself to you, and he does, you wont have all these worries.’ But then, when asked whether one could lose this sort of salvation, Bosco states he does not believe in ‘once saved, always saved‘, although he thinks ‘its really hard to lose ones salvation‘. This puzzles me. You know you are ‘saved’ Bosco says, but you can lose salvation. Does that mean that the promise of salvation Bosco has could be lost if God changes his mind? This seems, at least to me, a strange version of God.

It opens up some odd prospects, and ones of which St Paul was only too well aware, as his letters to the Galatians and Corinthians show. If one is ‘saved’ and one has that assurance, then one is amongst the ‘elect’ and if God is faithful, then one cannot lose that election, whatever one does. St Paul clearly warns those early converts against such an attitude. Salvation, for him, is like a race, and one must keep running to the very end to win the crown of the victor. Nowhere does Paul talk like Bosco and tell us of his assurance that he is ‘saved’. He remains convinced he is a great sinner, and he keeps up the effort to be worthy of the Lord whom he serves. For him, as for the sort of Christian I am, salvation is a process. We were saved from sin when we were baptised; we are saved from the effects of sin by our sacramental life; and we hope that, at the end, God will judge us worthy of his greatest gift of being with him for eternity.

Bosco tells me ‘One cant unmeet Jesus. If you ask him to reveal himself to you, and he does, you wont have all these worries.’ But what of all those who ask for this (and it is not clear from his own account that Bosco ever actually asked Jesus to reveal himself) and do not get it? Are they not part of the ‘elect’? If so, then why should they bother trying to lead a good and moral life? If, whatever they do, they are damned to hell, why not h=behave as badly as the law will allow and ensure that at least in this life, you have the best time possible. It isn’t a question of damning the consequences, after all, because if you have asked and Jesus has not turned up, then you are already damned.

This seems to me as far away from the message Jesus offers us as you could possibly get. Jesus came so that all could have eternal life. Not everyone will receive him, but to as many as will receive him, he offers eternal life. There is nothing here about a random set of appearances to sup with the elect, such as Bosco. There has always been, within Christianity, the danger of various forms of pharisaism, that sense that others are unworthy where one is, oneself, worthy, but of all of them, it seems to me the idea that Jesus will appear in a random way to some of those who ask him to appear (and to some who don’t) is one of the worst. It offers no hope to many, and an unconditional offer of salvation to others, regardless of the lives they lead. This is certainly how a cult would operate, but it is not how the Church founded by Jesus has operated, nor is it how most Christians, in whatever church, looked upon these things. It is, perhaps, a form of hyper-calvinism which speaks to the contemporary need to be special. I’d be interested in your view.

 

 

 

A message of joy and hope?

02 Monday Jan 2017

Posted by in Church/State, Faith, Salvation

≈ 16 Comments

Tags

, , ,

pictures-of-jesus-with-peter_2

In an interesting sermon at Midnight Mass last week, The Right Reverend Mark Davies, Bishop of Shrewsbury, made reference, as our Prime Minister, Theresa May has, to the difficulty which many Christians feel about expressing their faith in public:

However, there has been a danger of a strange silence falling over our land which has recently led the Prime Minister to urge Christians never to be afraid of speaking freely in the public space. She insisted that our Christian heritage is something of which everyone can be proud, and Christians must ‘jealously guard’ their right to speak publicly about their faith. The Prime Minister is doubtless conscious of the strange phenomenon of local authorities and public bodies who fear that even to mention the word ‘Christmas’ might be a cause of offence. Somewhat more sinisterly, people tell me how they have felt inhibited or even intimidated in their places of work when speaking of their Christian faith and how it shapes their conscience and values. In a country founded on the Christian faith, it is a terrible perversion of political correctness that would so intimidate people from speaking of Christianity: the very faith and moral path which has shaped our way of life. It is the joy which Christmas announces.

In a world where ‘identity politics’ seems increasingly prevalent, and divisive, it seems strange that an identity which transcends all human ones should be marginalised; or maybe not? Perhaps the need for an identity one forges oneself has good reason to shun an identity which emphasises what we all have in common, and one which eschews ego and its seductive tones. The Gospel message is one of great joy. It tells us that we are saved. But that recognition demands something from us which the ego is reluctant to give – which is that we have sinned and that by our own efforts we can do nothing to save ourselves from the consequences. That is a startling message, and it is one from which even as Christians we sometimes try to resile. If we are not careful (and we are not always careful) an emphasis on good works and earning merit can come to seem as though we are co-workers in our own redemption, and that it is something we can, at least in part, earn. We do not like to be helpless, we like to feel that if we are not actually masters of our own fate, we have a great influence on it. Of course, properly understood, the language about ‘merit’ and ‘good works’ does not mean that, but it can sound like it. No one likes to be a beggar, and yet that is what we are, each one of us. God’s Grace of salvation is one He freely bestows on all who will receive it. Tidings of great joy indeed.

Being a child of God gives us an identity which transcends all human distinctions, for in Christ there is neither Jew nor Gentile, freeman or slave, or even man and woman. This os one reason that Totalitarian regimes of all hues have always distrusted Christianity, and why many have sought to extirpate it. They would like us to identify with whatever their ideology is – be it Communist, Nationalist or some other ideology, and they demand that the richness that is human life in Christ should be reduced to one, usually utilitarian, aspect of our identity. They seek to restrict and constrict that humanity to which the Holy Spirit gives life and life abundantly.

We are made in the image of God, and that image is fully restored in us through the gift of the redeeming love of Christ. We should never sell that birthright for any mess of pottage.

Doctrine Really Does Matter: So Does Evangelization

15 Thursday Dec 2016

Posted by in Consequences, Faith, Prayers, Salvation

≈ 21 Comments

Tags

, , , , ,

This is very interesting, although I’ve heard this anecdotally for years, here are some real results. From On Religion via The Catholic Herald.

When they set out to find growing mainline churches, sociologist David Haskell and historian Kevin Flatt did the logical thing – they asked leaders of four key Canadian denominations to list their successful congregations.

It didn’t take long, however, to spot a major problem as the researchers contacted these Anglican, United Church, Presbyterian and Evangelical Lutheran parishes.

“Few, if any, of the congregations these denomination’s leaders named were actually growing,” said Haskell, who teaches at Wilfrid Laurier University in Branford, Ontario. “A few had experienced a little bit of growth in one or two years in the past, but for the most part they were holding steady, at best, or actually in steady declines.”

To find thriving congregations in these historic denominations, Haskell and Flatt, who teaches at Redeemer University College in Hamilton, had to hunt on their own. By word of mouth, they followed tips from pastors and lay leaders to other growing mainline churches.

The bottom line: The faith proclaimed in growing churches was more orthodox – especially on matters of salvation, biblical authority and the supernatural – than in typical mainline congregations. These churches were thriving on the doctrinal fringes of shrinking institutions.

“The people running these old, established denominations didn’t actually know much about their own growing churches,” said Haskell, reached by telephone. “Either that or they didn’t want to admit which churches were growing.”

I found that fascinating, the growing churches, are simply putting their head down and growing the church, but they are not really telling the hierarchs what they are doing. I can’t say I’m surprised, though, I can remember when I was a trustee of my home church, even the council paid no attention to the mission fundraising, we were a fairly conservative E & R church in the maelstrom of the UCC, it was not a happy combination. You know, we traditional types were not enamored of supporting Dr. Jeremiah Wright, who was and is a part of the UCC. Continuing:

In growing congregations, all the clergy interviewed said it was crucial to encourage non-Christians to convert. In declining ones, only half the clergy agreed.

The study found that, in growing churches, pastors were even more orthodox than their congregations. In declining ones, the pastors were even more liberal.

Growing congregations were likely to be younger and have more children.

via On Religion – Canadian researchers find that doctrine really does matter, in terms of church growth – Columns

I don’t really think I have much to add to that, except that I told you so, and so did a lot of others here. A lot of the mainstream churches have become political clubs, or as I said once, coffee shops full of do-gooders, not houses of God. Well, the ones that remember the mission seem to be progressing in the mission.

Funny how that works, isn’t it?

Punishing & Healing

02 Friday Dec 2016

Posted by in Faith, Salvation

≈ 17 Comments

Tags

, , , , ,

wrath_of_god-463x620

As human beings we are very familiar with legal codes and penalties; if we are caught transgressing the law, we can expect to be tried and, if found guilty, to pay a penalty of some sort. We see this in the Old Testament in the Deuteronomic Code: I sin, I am punished, I repent, God forgives me and restores me to his love. Te most revolutionary aspect of the Gospel message is that God still loves us though we are far off: Saul of Tarsus was not repentant, and yet God’s love reached him and he repented and followed God even unto death; unearned Grace saved him, and it is the same Grace, similarly undeserved, which will see us home of we repent and follow God’s precepts.

This runs so counter to our experiences as fallen human beings that we have trouble comprehending it. Jesus asked (Luke 7:42) who would love more, one forgiven a small debt, or one forgiven a large one? As the Word Incarnate he knew that true love stemmed from receiving forgiveness rather than from fear of being punished. It is understandable that so often the Christian message gas been spread in terms of the fear of God, but it is hard to see that as the main message coming from Jesus himself. He offers salvation to all who will receive him and his message, and that message is not based on frightening us, but on enlightening us, not on fear, but on love. I know there are those who have a visceral reaction to the word ‘love’ because of its use to effectively obscure the consequences of not turning to God and repenting. It may well be that there are those who have turned to God because of fear, but we are not presented with any examples in the New Testament of Jesus or the Apostles using such methods.

Punishment does not heal us. It may make us mindful enough to avoid whatever behaviour got us punished, or it may make us cunning enough not to get caught again, but it will not heal us – it will not make us good. Where Scripture talks of the ‘fear of God’ the Greek word ‘phobos’ is better translated as ‘respect’ or ‘awe’. In encouraging us to call God “Father”, Jesus encourages us to think in a way which can help us. So, though it may run counter to some modern child care theories, fathers do set boundaries, and they do so for the sake of their children; there are some things which are bad for children which they would, nonetheless, embrace if allowed (think child, think sweet-shop, think unlimited access to same). But a father who punished his child for an infraction with the threat that they would burn forever unless they behaved would not command ‘awe’ or ‘respect’, he would be someone to be reported to the authorities for child cruelty.

We have free will from God. He wants us to use it to embrace his love for us and to love him back. If we turn away from that offer, if we refuse that free Grace, then we exile ourselves – and in so doing, thwart his will for us which is that he should be all in all to us. In this Advent Season let us not turn away, but tread the road to Bethlehem.

Saved? An Advent reflection

30 Wednesday Nov 2016

Posted by in Advent, Catholic Tradition, Faith, Salvation

≈ 37 Comments

Tags

, , , , ,

AdventWeek1

The major, but often unstated argument against the idea of universalism – that is that all will be saved – is that Christ was incarnated, died and was resurrected to save us. If we are all saved by God’s mercy, the question arises why did he bother? There was a purpose in his mission, his suffering and in the work of the Church he founded, none of which can be adequately accounted for in the belief that we are all saved. At the very least, the requirement for salvation is faith that Jesus is Lord and that we are saved through faith in him. It follows from this that, embracing our salvation, our new life in him should bear witness to the changes it has wrought in us. That’s not asking for the sort of behaviour which some of us might find excessive (although we might pull ourselves up a bit here and ask how else one is supposed to respond to the Good News that we are saved?), but it is to say that a faith which in no way evidences itself is a strange phenomenon (St James has harder things to say about this, of course). Now we can, and we do, argue about the Church, but as four years or so here shows (and as history confirms) this is a fruitless pursuit; but the churches all have in common the view that Jesus came to save us, and to offer us eternal life.

Now it may be, as some would argue, that the alternative to eternal life is death, extinction, non-existence, and we have discussed this here many times (as the link will show, a surprisingly large number). In my simple way, I take the many mentions of hell in the New Testament by Jesus to mean that there is a hell. I am quite content to think, with St Isaac the Syrian, that it is a state of separation from God that sinful and wilful men bring on themselves, and that the realisation of what one has done is like a burning pain, and I am uneasy with the literal view; but I know what my Churches teaches and reject the crude caricature foisted on us by atheists who ought to know better. But whatever view one takes, there is a place of separation from God, and it is a place from which, if we but knew it, we should pray to be saved. But we do not need to pray for a Saviour – we have one in Christ Jesus. Although, as a Catholic, I would, of course, say that the best place to find him is in the Church he founded, I don’t, as I say, want to be side-tracked by confessional disputes. I know many people who are better followers of Christ than I am if judged by their behaviour, and many of them are not Catholics, and if pressed I should simply say God is the only Just Judge and he alone can say who is saved and who is not; I should also add that I have found the Catholic Church the best place to find my Lord and could only say, if asked, that I am sure others would find it so too. But, and this gets us back to the main point of this post, the fact remains there is something from which to be saved. That being so, then unless all men embrace Christ as Saviour, they cannot be saved. Those who are ignorant of his holy name are in another category – that of invincible ignorance, and the failure is that of those who preach his name, not of those we have not reached. But again, the conclusion is that people need saving.

Our friend Bosco tells us truly that Christ is knocking at the door of our heart – and we should let him in, not because we fear hell-fire, but because we recognised in his out-stretched arms the love he first had for us. Now there’s a thought for Advent.