December 18, 2009

Romeaphobia

Hey boys and girls,

This past semester has afforded me the opportunities to do a rather in depth study of the history of Christian liturgy in the Church.  Liturgical theology is an exciting new frontier for me and I have learned a lot from reading books such as Eutaxia, or the Presbyterian Liturgies, Bard Thompson’s Liturgies of the Western Church, and G.W.O. Addleshaw’s The High Church Tradition along with the insights of the bloggers over at the Reformed Liturgical Institute and RevJATB at Know Tea.

Anyway, if one sets out to study the history of Protestant liturgy, it doesn’t take long before one realizes that after doctrine, matters of liturgy were perhaps the most strongly debated issues of the Reformation.  This is especially evident when considering the English Reformation with the Puritans.  Since many current Protestants can trace their lineage to the Puritans and others (Presbyterians, Baptists, Congregationalists), much of their thinking and ideas have become a part of our DNA, if you will.  Much of this is very profitable and good; we should be very grateful for the contributions of the Puritans in the history of the Church.  However, seeing as they were flawed men just like us, we must evaluate their precepts.  I think that a certain unfortunate feature of Puritanism has implanted itself in the thinking of most Protestants, Reformed and otherwise, and this is the feature of Romeaphobia.

First off, to my knowledge, I coined this term.  ”Romeaphobia” is simply the fear of all things Roman Catholic.  Historically, this evidenced itself in the Puritans in their aversion to things such as clerical vestments, the church calendar, kneeling in church, wedding rings, musical instruments in worship, and some even opposed the saying of the Lord’s Prayer in worship (granted, partly due to their Regulative Principle of Worship).  Today, some more mainstream Protestants think that the Reformed are “kinda Catholic” because they often participate in the responsive recitation of prayers during worship, or because they baptize babies.  In turn, I have heard some Reformed pastors lament the adherence of other Reformed churches to the Church Calendar or the fact that some Reformed pastors have begun to wear “Romanist” clerical collars.

Now, again, I admire much of the Puritan ideas and I am Reformed, but I can’t help but call this what it is and that is an ad hominem.  I just got out of an introductory logic class this past semester where we learned all the fallacies and one of the variants of the ad hominem was the “genetic fallacy” which basically attempts to refute an argument on the basis of something negative and irrelevant about its source.  In other words, just because something is practiced or believed by Roman Catholics does not necessarily make that practice or belief wrong.  The Roman Catholics confess the Nicene Creed along with us; we are together Trinitarian Christians.  There are many false beliefs in the Roman Church that manifest themselves liturgically and we should discern what those beliefs and practices are and avoid them.  But I fear that we often throw a baby of much wisdom and history out with the bath water of “papistry”.

For example, I mentioned that the Puritans were against the adherence to the Church Year.  This is also true today as many of the Reformed as suspicious of it for being Roman Catholic.  RevJATB at Know Tea just wrote a series of posts on the Church Year (he is a Reformed pastor whose church adheres to it) and claims that the Church Year, predating even the Great Schism, is neither Roman Catholic nor Eastern Orthodox, but simply Christian; we have just as much of a claim to it as Rome and Constantinople do.  For that reason alone, he argues, there is much reason for a church to consider structuring the life of the church to the Church Year.

These insights have spurred some questions in my mind.  If we should seriously consider the Church Year because of its historicity and wisdom, what about other liturgical elements that transcend all the divisions of the Church?  If, after we’ve discerned away some of the idolatrous elements of Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox worship, we find some left that are not idolatrous and wise and historical to boot, should we consider those as well?  What immediately comes to mind is the Sign of the Cross, the tracing of the cross from the forehead to the chest and across to the shoulders that is seen in the worship of not only Roman Catholics and the Orthodox, but Anglicans, Lutherans, and some Methodists as well.  Even Martin Luther, who by no means was very favorable to Rome, incorporated the sign of the cross into his 1526 Order of Baptism and Ordination and into his Small Catechism.

This is not a major issue by any stretch, but after a little research, I found that this practice dates back to the 3rd and 4th Centuries.  Believers initially signified the cross on their foreheads only but soon after extended to cover the other parts of the body as we see in the sign today.  To my knowledge, there is nothing sacerdotal about the practice; nothing is being venerated in its exercise.  It is simply an action that expresses the Trinity.  We Presbyterians already often follow the custom of raising our hands for the reception of the Benediction so the use of the body in worship is not alien to us.  Should we consider incorporating the Signum Crucis into our liturgies?  From my far-from-comprehensive study of the matter, it seems worthy of consideration, especially given that even fellow Protestant brothers and sisters have continued the practice.  I don’t give myself the privilege of saying anything definitive on the subject.

But again, it’s not a huge deal.  However, if we are going to confess belief in “one holy, catholic, and apostolic Church” , it seems to me that we should open ourselves to be taught by the vast legacy of the Church and be their students and seek to embrace their liturgical elements as visible expressions of our unity in that holy catholic Church, provided their is no idolatry or falsehood within them.

So, let’s put ourselves in mindful discerning self-therapy to shed our undue Romeaphobia.

That’s all I have tonight,

Caleb

December 11, 2009

Oh, TULIP…

Hey everyone,

Ok, I have to admit, this post could come across as just another blog rant, but that is really not my intention.  I am rather commenting on an aspect of the New Reformed world and hopefully offering some education and history in regards to the issues at hand.

So, with that said, I can begin.  Everyone knows that Reformed theology has been on the rise in American evangelicalism in the past few years; it still is in the marked minority but with guys like John Piper, Al Mohler, and Mark Driscoll, Calvinism is by no means that weird theology of those frozen chosen any more.  The Five Points of Calvinism, known by the acronym “TULIP”, has become rather well-known with several books being written on the subject.  The doctrines included (Total Depravity, Unconditional Election, Limited Atonement, Irresistable Grace, and the Perseverance of the Saints) are often touted as a summary of Reformed theology and many define themselves by how many “points” they adhere to.  So it is not an uncommon answer to hear when asking whether or not one is Reformed to hear “Oh yeah, I’m Reformed, five point Calvinist all the way!”

Now, I am more than happy that many Christians are discovering the doctrines of grace of the Reformation, but the whole “five points” thing has somewhat bothered me for a little bit. It is rather unfortunate that so many people are under the impression that the end all be all of Reformed theology is the TULIP.  Here are some reasons why I think that TULIP, though true as far as the doctrines go, is an inadequate representation of the depth of Reformation theology.

1) It has a tendency of portraying the essence of Reformed theology as “not Arminianism”.

Yeah, since the way people often discover Reformed theology is through TULIP, it is a common thought to think “Well, I once believed in free will, now I believe in total depravity so I am now Reformed”.  This casts Reformed theology as being in this yin yang like dichotomy with Arminianism, as if Reformed theology is defined by its antithesis to Arminianism.  I think it is unfortunate that this is such a common view, especially among pastors I’ve heard of, because it indicates that the believers of this idea have never actually done much study into the actual beliefs and events of the Reformation.  If they had, they’d know that what we call the “Five Points of Calvinism” is really a summary of a summary of Calvinism derived from an article of a specific church council for a specific purpose, that of answering Arminians.  So as a side note, it is not incorrect to say that TULIP are the opposite of Arminianism, because historically, that’s where they came from.

In 1618-1619, the Dutch Reformed Churches gathered at Dordrecht, Netherlands to dispute the growing followers of Jacob Arminius, known obviously, as Arminians.  The document they produced, called the Canons of Dordt, set out to dispute the incoming document of the Arminians, the Five Articles of Remonstrance.   You can probably guess what the points of the Remonstrance were, the exact opposite of TULIP.  Now, there are many more points in the Canons of Dordt than five, but our TULIP is condensed from it.  So, as you can see, TULIP was never intended to be the summation of Reformed theology.  Even the Wikipedia article notes this in stating that the Canons “were not intended to be a comprehensive explanation of Reformed doctrine, but only an exposition on the five points of doctrine in dispute. These Canons set forth what is often referred to as the Five Points of Calvinism“.  Since Reformed theology had been around for a good century before Arminianism came around, to define it solely by its opposition to Arminianism is shallow and incomplete at best.

2) Generally, it is rather hasty to claim a label of any belief system because you agree with five of its tenets.

This is pretty self-explanatory.  I guarantee you I could find at least five things I agree with Roman Catholics on, but that by no means makes me Roman Catholic.  In fact, there are definitely more than five points in the Nicene Creed and I, with every other orthodox Christian, agree with them (I say that, I believe the Eastern Churches still deny the Filioque clause but there have been some developments with that recently).  Are we now all interchangeable?  Yes, in the sense of the Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic faith, but there are obviously many finer points of doctrine to diversify about.  So again, believing in five points of Reformed theology no more makes a person Reformed than believing in five points of Roman Catholicism makes one Roman Catholic.

3) TULIP allows one label himself/herself “Reformed” while maintaining totally un-Reformed beliefs.

This is related to the previous one and it is probably the source of much of my problem with the excessive use of TULIP in defining Reformed theology.  It is not comprehensive because it was never meant to be and yet many supposed Calvinists treat it as such. Many people are calling themselves “Reformed” these days because of adherence to the Five Points when, if they were to sit down and study a more comprehensive expression such as one of the Reformed confessions or Calvin’s Institutes, they’d probably find five or more points of disagreement.  That’s ok, you don’t have to be Reformed to be a Christian; you can disagree with Calvin and the Westminster, but if you disagree with them on say, the nature and constitution of the Church, on covenant theology, on infant baptism, even if you believe in predestination, the label of “Reformed” is not for you.  Again, I’m not saying you’re any less of a Christian, I’m just saying you’re not Reformed.  If you mostly agree with the theology of John Piper or John MacArthur, there is a term for you, and that is a Particular Baptist.  That is the same thing as Reformed Baptist but for the reasons mentioned above, that label bothers me personally because it is a little oxymoronic.  The Reformed are not Baptists, and the Baptists are not Reformed.  Yes, they both may share beliefs in predestination and total depravity but like I said, I share belief in the Trinity with Roman Catholics.  The nature of my disagreement with Rome outweighs any agreement I might have.  Similarly, and this is just my opinion, the disagreements of Baptist theology with Reformed theology outweigh any agreement with TULIP they might share with the Reformed.

So is there a better litmus test for “Reformed”? Yes.  Since Reformed theology has always been a confessional theology, subscription to one of the many confessions (Belgic Confession, Westminster Confession, Heidelberg Catechism, Westminster Larger and Shorter Catechisms, and the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion).  If I had to choose a “point” on which to hang the label of “Reformed” on, I’d probably pick that of infant baptism within in its unique context of Reformed covenant theology.  This would distinguish the truly Reformed from what I call the “Calvinistically-inclined” far better than any of the Five Points.

Again, I really hope that wasn’t just a rant.  I was really trying to be a bit educational in this post, shedding some light on the origins of these things.  I would like it if those who call themselves “Reformed” were those who have really sought out the doctrines and analyzed them to see if they are true in their comprehensive whole, rather than just read a book on the Five Points and start calling themselves “Reformed”.

Also, these are just my personal opinions.  There are many solid, confessional Reformed Baptists out there that I have a lot of respect for, so any beef I have with their name is not in any way associated with them as a group.  I don’t dwell on this all the time and my intention was not to lay out some elitist, esoteric call for the “real” Reformed to “please stand up”.  Hopefully, I sparked some interest into the many documents I mentioned (I’ve linked them all up) so that you who call yourself Reformed can study the matter further to determine if you can subscribe to them.

Thanks for reading that everyone,

Caleb

PS:  Finals are over.

December 9, 2009

Thoughts on the Infant Baptism Debate

Greetings,

Here at DiscoverOrthodoxy, discussions about infant baptism (or more technically, paedobaptism) are not new.  Sean, as a Reformed Baptist, holds to the credobaptist (believers’ baptism) position albeit with reformed inclinations.  Being my best friend, the proximity he and I have shared has lent itself to a large amount of dialogue.  This is not just something that is the case with us.  With more and more evangelicals being introduced to some form of Reformed theology, the issue of baptism, and its proper administration and the nature of its candidates has been thrust into the light as many debates on the subject have been arranged.

I, as a committed paedobaptist, have for awhile seen not only its Biblical validity, but its absolute necessity in the Biblical structure of the ekklesia.  However, I have only recently begin to understand that the essence of this debate is not over baptism.  In fact, the conclusions that actually concern baptism are made after another series of presuppositions are established.  What you believe about baptism is a product of what you believe about two main points of doctrine: 1) What is the nature of the Church, and 2) What is the relationship between the Old and New Covenants in Scripture.

Therefore, any debate over the specifics of baptism must first address those two considerations.  Unfortunately, in many debates, that is not the case and after some thought (and help from other pastors/bloggers) I have realized that we on the Presbyterian side often concede to the Baptist’s terms of argument.

The pastor blogger over at KnowTea made some insightful points regarding the debate that I wish to expound upon.  As he rightly stated, most debates over infant baptism begin with the Baptist saying to the Presbyterian, “Show me in the New Testament where infants are baptized as covenant members of the Church.”  to which the Presbyterian often will attempt to show the Baptist where this is the case.  Now, this is indeed possible, for there are several passages from which we can, rather clearly, infer infant baptism.  However, these inferences are rarely enough to convince a committed Baptist.  In addition, we do not have the best footing in the argument because we have agreed to the Baptist’s terms.  We shouldn’t agree to the terms.  Instead, when we receive that charge, we should turn it right back around at the Baptist.  When we’re told to show where infants are made members of the New Covenant, we should instead show them where infants are made members of the Church in the Old Testament through circumcision and then charge the Baptist to show us where in the New Testament they’re put out. Now, this is not a silver bullet in credobaptism but it does return the debate to the rightful topics at hand.  The Baptist then has to argue for both the discontinuity of the Covenants and the exclusive “believers-only” view of the Church.  These, of course, are those two considerations on which the doctrines of baptism are built and therefore, the best subjects to debate in regards to the issue.

Also, for our side, I think there is much more explicit warrant in Scripture for the negations of both the covenantal discontinuity idea and the “believers-only” ecclesiology that Baptists rely on.

Oh, and for the Baptist readers out there, please do not take offense to this post.  I am merely writing to those on the paedobaptist side of things and I am fully aware that there is much debate on this issue and that there has to be much interpretation and study on both sides.

Well, that’s all for today folks

Caleb

December 8, 2009

Interview with Church Planter Andrew Burkhart

Hello everyone,

So we’re doing a DiscoverOrthodoxy first today, and that is an interview.  We’re obviously really excited about not only the interview but the interviewee as well.  I am speaking with church planter Andrew Burkhart, one of the founding leaders of Love & Justice Church in Moore, Oklahoma (just south of OKC), about matters pertaining to church planting in Oklahoma City, the actual story of L & J, and more lofty matters of ecclesiology, missions, new developments in the church such as the Acts 29 Network, etc.  The interview will be linked up below as 4 Youtube videos, the customary manner for poor bloggers like us.  I hope you all enjoy.

Part One:

Part Two:

Part Three:

Part Four:

Peace of Christ to you all

Caleb

December 4, 2009

On Sacraments and the Evangelical

Hello Everyone,

Just for the heck of it, I have decided to post an edited version of my “On Sacraments” posts that has been joined together.  This version is easier to read and has been made more concise.  I briefly pursued publication with it but to no avail.  Here it is.

On Sacraments and the Evangelical

Somewhere and at some point, Protestants became uncomfortable with Biblical Sacraments. Blame who you would like; maybe it’s Zwingli’s fault but I believe one could point a prosecuting finger at a significant compromise behind the doors of evangelical thought.  There is much contained in that statement and it is at this moment intentionally vague.  What if I asserted that behind all of evangelicalism’s public crusades for family values and cries at the demise of the moral fabric of America was a deal between the contemporary Church and modernism over which Gnosticism presided?  What if I said further that this compromise has sterilized one of the most vital resources the Church possesses for its nourishment and unity, that of the Sacraments?  If this seems too large a stretch, bear with me as we uncover the contract.

When I say that a compromise has allowed modernism entrance into the Church, I don’t necessarily mean the more obvious examples such as Christian teens not believing in Biblical creation or the divine inspiration of Scripture.  Rather, this is modernistic Christianity that I speak of and unfortunately, this worldview has not been confined to mainstream liberal Protestantism.  In fact, the staunchest fundamentalist is susceptible to its precepts.  So what is this idea?

As already stated, modernistic Christianity is essentially a compromise between the Church and modern culture.  Even though modernism is opposed to religion in general, it has to admit that religion does often provide personal and therapeutic benefits to its parishioners.  And since moderns are all about utility, therapy, and individuals, it has made an exception for religion as long as it stays within some clearly established boundaries.  The compromise has happened because the Church in the West has largely accepted these boundaries.

The heart of modernism is that human reason and science are or should be the measure of truth and reality.  All things that are real can be experienced by the senses or by scientific investigation.  Anything that is outside the reach of those two mediums is either nonexistent or irrelevant to serious inquiry.  Subsequently, religious truth would fall in the unreal and/or unnecessary categories. However, out of the goodness of their hearts, moderns have given us a set of conditions in which we can still play our little “faith games” if they mean that much to us.  Generally, the conditions can be summed up as follows: you can pursue your personal faith and piety and participate in the customs of the Church until your heart is content, just do not dare declare that faith and liturgy actually accomplish anything or that anything objective is associated with them.  To the modern, if religion is to exist, it must remain within the realm of the private, personal, and subjective.  If it breaches into the objective, into the really real, then religion is something to be reckoned with.  Moderns won’t tolerate this reckoning.

It is then quite easy to see how the very concept of a sacrament is utterly incompatible with modernistic Christianity.  A sacrament is a tangible, objective sign of a spiritual reality that the Spirit accomplishes.  But unfortunately, whether due to modernistic Christianity or maybe to a general suspicion of Catholic liturgy, or both, Protestants have shied away from asserting any objective reality associated with the sacraments.  The Lord’s Supper is a memorial service; baptism is a wet testimony.  In doing this, Protestants have compliantly fallen in line with the demands of modernistic Christianity by reducing the sacraments to personal and subjective acts of devotion.  Sacraments are not seen as having any real efficacy; they don’t do really anything. Of course, it’s not the bread, wine, or water that do anything, it’s the Spirit through them, but moving right along.

As an ironic side note, with the removal of the objective spiritual realities of the Eucharist and baptism, comes a decreasing level of appreciation and respect for physical elements of worship.  Take church architecture for instance.  When walking through a medieval cathedral, one realizes that every brick and every pane of glass is meant to communicate the attributes of God, in essence, to preach a silent sermon.  The priorities in the construction of a cathedral were not first practicality and utility, rather, it was understood that architecture, something objective and tangible, is not neutral.  Medieval Christians believed that God was a perfectly holy God and that consequently, the place in which He was to be worshipped was to reflect His nature.  They understood that we are not solely spiritual or intellectual beings and that merely believing in our hearts and minds that God was holy was not always enough.  The place in which they worshipped God needed to invoke the proper responses to His nature, that of humble fear and reverence.  This is true, as anyone, believer or unbeliever, who has ever walked into a century-old cathedral and felt the need to tip toe will tell you.

Contrast this understanding with the current understanding of many Protestants toward church architecture: Find the most recently vacated Home Depot and roll out the folding chairs.

Since many of us don’t view things sacramentally anymore, we don’t see something like the building in which we worship having any relevance to the worship that we offer.  We are fearful of suggestions that through the Lord’s Supper, the nourishing grace of God is actually applied or that someone’s covenantal status is actually changed by baptism.  We have submitted so thoroughly to modernism’s insistence that religion must remain private and subjective that we now consider the highest elements of Christianity to be the elements that are between God and the individual.

This is why I attached “Biblical” to the Sacraments that Protestants are uncomfortable with.  Because of our individualistic and overly spiritual worldview, we have unwittingly instituted a set of alternative “grace-appliers”, pseudo-sacraments, if you will.  I will approach that later but this provides a perfect platform on which to proceed to the next participant.

In addition to a modern suspicion of the historic, objective, and Biblical religion, there is another offender in the compromise by the name of Gnosticism.  And even more unfortunate is the fact that this Gnostic Christianity has seen a revival (quite literally) and has been particularly successful in the last 200 years in evangelicalism.  Put simply, Gnosticism is a belief system that believes that all things physical (bodies, pleasure, the earth, etc.) are inherently evil or inferior and all things spiritual are inherently good and superior.  In addition, it states that truth and grace are not primarily received through the hearing the Word rightly preached or partaking of the Sacraments rightly administered, but rather through a mystical achievement of a “higher knowledge” that is bestowed by God himself onto the individual.  To ascend to this higher level requires an abandonment of the “distractions” of the physical world and a sold out focus on “spiritual” things, since of course, a perfect God would never deal with the dirtiness of the physical world.  In the Church, this idea went so far as to deny the humanity of Christ because obviously, what would be more impossible in this sort of spiritual=good/physical=bad universe than the Incarnation?

Connecting modernism with Gnosticism may seem rather difficult because they arrive from polar opposite views.  Modernism sees only the physical; Gnosticism sees only the spiritual.  However, they form an alliance against Biblical Christianity because of Jesus Christ and his Incarnation that just won’t be ignored.  When it comes to dealing with the Gospel, there is nothing modernism loves more than Gnosticism. Gnosticism, though centuries old, just so happens to fulfill all of modernism’s stipulations on religion perfectly.  Modernism says that religion must remain private and subjective; Gnosticism says that the only way to truly “get” religion is to focus on it privately and subjectively. Modernism says that religion must not enter into the realm of the physical and the objective; Gnosticism says that it is only compromised and tainted if it does.  This is why Gnosticism is so human.  Here we have a roughly two thousand year old philosophy still satisfying the desires of unregenerate man.  The only thing connecting the two is the people who believe it.  Though they approach religion from different perspectives and motives, they still end up promoting the same things.  This is because they’re both vain philosophies that cannot deal with Jesus Christ.

Just as it was with modernism, the very concept of a sacrament goes completely against the grain of Gnosticism.  To define a sacrament again, it is a physical element or act that through its partaking or exercise, the Spirit accomplishes a spiritual reality.  Gnostic Christianity fundamentally denies the possibility of this because truth and grace are exhibited spiritually, privately and personally, as opposed to physically/spiritually, publicly, and corporately.

Bear in mind, though, that modern evangelicals do not generally have a problem with the Lord being especially present or with grace being applied through various means.  You will often hear modern Protestants say such things as “the Lord’s presence just filled the sanctuary at my worship service”.  But the assumption involved is that during the passion often involved in a contemporary service, God becomes more present in the music or the people than He was just by virtue of being omnipresent.  In other words, He was already in the building because God is everywhere, but now that the lights are low, hands are raised, tears are falling, guitars are strummed, and the religious fervor is heavy, God must now be especially present in a different way than usual.   I am not necessarily denying any of this, for God can reveal truths about himself or the person through song that can be quite moving to us.  What I am pointing out is that many Protestants have turned the worship service into something that resembles a sacrament.  However, it isn’t a real sacrament firstly because Christ did not institute it as such and secondly because a sacrament involves something physical accomplishing something spiritual by the power of the Spirit.  It is here that I think we Protestants can often have an unhealthy double standard. We can be experiencing and declaring God’s special presence and special grace on us during the worship choruses but when Communion comes around, it is made quite clear that God has left the building.  So cautious are we of avoiding the Roman error of transubstantiation or baptismal regeneration that we hop into the opposite and equally flawed ditch prepared for us by Gnostic super-spiritualism and Modernistic subjective religion. When we assert that the Sacraments are mere memorials or testimonies, we are guilty of heralding the compromise.

Really, what nails the coffin shut on Gnostic and Modernistic Christianity is the Incarnation. Christ himself is sacramental.  God in man, Word in Flesh. His real perfect blood was spilt atoning for our sins and satisfying the wrath of God for His People.  If Gnostic Christianity were true, there would not have had to be an Incarnation.  Christians who believe that the Supper is merely a memorial service and deny the application of grace in its tangible partaking need to more thoroughly consider what the Eucharist is directly connected to.  Yes, Christ said that it was to be done “in the remembrance of me”, but he also proclaimed that the bread was his body broken and that the cup was his blood poured out as the sign of the New Covenant.  The Supper is the Gospel of Grace made real for us to taste and drink.  Just as His blood covered our sins, so the elements gracefully nourish our spirits in a similar way that physical food nourishes our bodies.

The memorial view of the Supper is modern in that it admits, to the world’s approval, that the Eucharist is something accomplished only by the individual as what is often a quarterly act of personal devotions.  It is also Gnostic in that, out of its anti-physical prejudice, strips Communion of its spiritual reality that Christ himself instituted and thus undermines the means by which we as physical people partake of the Gospel.

In conclusion, where do we go from here?  First, we need to begin shedding the modern presuppositions that many of us have regarding the nature of religion and truth, to begin to see that there is a spiritual dimension to everything we do and cease dividing the world and religion into the sacred and secular, spiritual and physical/worldly.  Finally, we need to honestly revel in the glory of the Incarnation, to give thanks that God in His grace, sent His Son into our world with hair, arms, skin, teeth, muscles, and bones in order to save His flock, for we would’ve been hopeless without a physical Christ whose physical blood was to be shed for us.  We must return to the Scriptural view of the Sacraments in order to more properly understand the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

December 3, 2009

Trinity Reformed Church on Reformed Catholicity

Hello Everyone, Caleb here,

As I stated a few days back, life has been fairly busy for us here at D.O. with school and engagements.  Despite the lack of writing, I have been reading, a lot, and this is one of the thing that I found that I think is really good, worthy reading.  It is a joint statement from the session at Trinity Reformed Church (CREC) in Moscow, Idaho on Reformed Catholicity and its relationship with Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy.  Again, I think it is very clear and thought out and expresses some things that I think we Reformed people often forget very easily.

Here is the link.

Peace of Christ be with you,

Caleb

December 1, 2009

Current Status

So judging by the blog stats, there are not many of you reading but that’s understandable given the lack of posts in the last month.  As an unapologetic excuse for the absence, two of us, us being Sean and I (Caleb), have gotten engaged in the last month or so in addition to all the Thanksgiving festivities.  Now, it’s dead week and next week are finals.  So this is where we’re at.  DiscoverOrthodoxy is still something I want to be a part of, it just may be a little more infrequent with the craziness of my current life.

So for those of you who have been annoyed when visiting this blog wondering if it is becoming yet one more of those stagnant blogs cluttering up the internet, we thank you for your patience and hope we can get some posts coming your way, perhaps over the break.

Thanks everyone

Caleb

November 3, 2009

D.G. Hart on High Church Presbyterianism

Hello All,

I thought I’d give you all an article that I found highly informative and good.  As a Presbyterian who loves highchurchmanship, this article from D.G. Hart is encouraging.  We need to hear this.

Here’s the link.

Enjoy

Caleb

October 23, 2009

A Case for Weekly Communion

The frequency of the Eucharist.  Perhaps you’ve never considered this as a pertinent issue.  Isn’t it enough to remember Jesus’ sacrifice once a quarter?  In fact, wouldn’t it be more meaningful if it is administered less frequently?  We wouldn’t want the Lord’s Supper to become cold habit, a dead ritual, would we?

If the subject of Communion’s frequency in the church comes up, these are some of the questions that I have heard.  In my own tradition, it is a hot topic and many churches are considering moving toward weekly administration.  So is this a big deal?  Should the Eucharist be administered every week in the local church?  What of the objection mentioned earlier and others?

First off, my thoughts are not original on this point (as usual).  Here is an article by D.G. Hart that deals with the historical nature of the debate and argues from that so I don’t have to.  Read that now, for it will frame the discussion that follows.

Allow me to again beat what has become a thoroughly dead horse on DiscoverOrthodoxy, that of the necessity of Biblical Sacraments.  Biblically, there are two Sacraments, baptism and the Eucharist.  We all know that and generally speaking, we Protestants are good at maintaining the importance of baptism, albeit with often less-than-ideal understandings (sorry Sean) but practically speaking, it is our only sacrament.  The Eucharist, something of equal importance, is often relegated to this once-a-quarter event; the other thing we do with plate-passing, only this time there’s juice and crackers.  Because after all, we’re remembering Jesus in a special way.  Special meaning that it’s once a quarter.  I am not faulting this view.  I am merely asserting that it is completely consistent that a church would feel it acceptable to administer the Eucharist so infrequently given that the memorial view.  The fact is that we remember, should remember, and be made to remember Christ’s sacrifice every week by virtue of the preached Word; we don’t necessarily need juice and crackers to facilitate the memory.  Consequently, with this view, the Eucharist inherently leans on the obsolete side of things.  This is especially true in our Western, modern view of things where Truth is conveyed intellectually rather than mystically as well.  All of that is to show that the prevalent view of the administration of the Eucharist is completely sensical and consistent with our common presuppositions.

One problem.  What if the Eucharist is more than a mere memorial?  Quoting the Westminster Confession, what if it is an actual means of grace?  What if the Eucharist is not only “for the perpetual remembrance of the sacrifice of Himself in His death” but also “the sealing all benefits thereof unto true believers, their spiritual nourishment and growth in Him, their further engagement in and to all duties which they owe unto Him; and, to be a bond and pledge of their communion with Him, and with each other, as members of His mystical body”?  Given this description, it becomes rather plain that more is resting on the administration of the Eucharist than just our thoughtful remembrance.

I don’t want to restate all the “why’s” over again but with the statements of the Westminster, the thoughts of D.G. Hart, and the thoughts of parts 2 and 3 of my articles on Sacraments, I will just rest my argument that the Eucharist should necessarily go hand in hand with the preached Gospel, both being administered every Lord’s Day.

Now what of the objection that weekly administration will make it less meaningful, that it will become just a mindless habitual church routine.  First I would say that given the rarity of administration that’s commonplace, there’s not much room to speak of it becoming less meaningful.  Secondly, I would go to a higher discussion that deals with the worldview of our culture today which is one that views things that are informal and spontaneous as that which is sincere, and things that are formal and ritualistic as dead and insincere.  It is the modern obsession with novelty that has unfortunately invaded the minds of many evangelicals.  It explains much more than just the issue at hand.  Everything from worship style debates to church programs often show this insatiable desire to be new and spontaneous because those are the categories in which we have placed the sincere, the meaningful, and the sacred.  I would argue that if administered with the correct understanding, the weekly partaking of the Eucharist would do more to make it more meaningful to the Christian than anything else.  But, the goal is not to make it more meaningful.  Christ gave it it’s meaning in the Upper Room.  I am merely calling for us to raise our unfortunately low view of the Eucharist to the standard it maintains in Scripture and this vast history of the Church.

If you would like further explanation as to why the Eucharist is understood in this way as opposed to the memorial view, or why it should then be celebrated weekly, then tell me so I can write a follow up post.  The lack of detailed analysis was due to my desire not to restate many things I’ve already said in previous articles.  However, if that is necessary, I will gladly write more on this topic.

Thanks for reading guys

Godspeed,

Caleb

PS:  Oh, and while we’re at it, after we get our understanding of the Eucharist correct, let’s continue the correction and ditch the Welch’s or at least make it a secondary option to the proper element of wine.

October 19, 2009

“Beauty in Music…” Lectures from Composer John Hodges

Hello everyone,

Just a little update, I am so sorry for verging on becoming one of those annoyingly stagnant blogs that clutter the internet.  I do have some things going right now as I am currently waiting on a possible interview that will be posted on DO if all goes well.  But I again want to link up another series of worthy lectures.  These are by a symphony conducter named John Hodges and are titled “Beauty in Music: Toward a Christian Aesthetic”.  They have been entirely fascinating and insightful not only in their educational value in music but also in their clear outlining of the truly Christian view of beauty in music and worship, etc.

Here is the link

Caleb