Expressions of Faith

an outlet of encouragement, explanation, and exhortation

Category: Questions (Page 2 of 2)

What makes a church? …Contrasting Catholic and Quaker thinking

July 7, 2011 / / 1 Comment

In an essay entitled The Ecclesiology of Vatican II, Joseph Ratzinger (as of 2011, the current pope) explains a Catholic view of what constitutes a church:

No one can make a Church by himself. A group cannot simply get together, read the New Testament and declare: “At present we are the Church because the Lord is present wherever two or three are gathered in His name.” The element of “receiving” belongs essentially to the Church, just as faith comes from “hearing” and is not the result of one’s decision or reflection. Faith is a converging with something I could neither imagine nor produce on my own; faith has to come to meet me. We call the structure of this encounter, a “sacrament.” It is part of the fundamental form of a sacrament that it be received and not self-administered. No one can baptize himself. No one can ordain himself. . . . In the Eucharist, the priest acts “in persona Christi,” in the person of Christ; at the same time he represents Christ while remaining a sinner who lives completely by accepting Christ’s Gift. One cannot make the Church but only receive her; one receives her from where she already is, where she is really present: the sacramental community of Christ’s Body moving through history.

As Quakers, we see things differently. Our understanding is that such matters rest with Christ, not on a human succession – not even an unbroken succession of human apostles (if such a thing even exists). While to a Catholic the other churches seem to presume too much in organizing themselves outside the “one true church”, to a Quaker the Catholics seem to presume too much in claiming an exclusive right to franchise the church, or even in claiming to be the one, first, only, true church! Quakers testify that God has come to teach his people himself. Jesus is the head of the church and can establish a gathering of his people directly without needing endorsement form any particular pre-existing organization.

We believe that Christ has gathered us as a people and called us to a particular testimony – a particular way to follow Him and worship in obedience. We are Christian – followers of Christ – first and foremost. Our theology is orthodox and evangelical. Yet we have been given a particular testimony of the reality of Jesus in contrast to the shadows and symbols and rituals that is somewhat unique. Was this testimony formed under particular circumstances in a particular cultural and historical setting? Of course it was. Yet even these particulars are not outside the providence of God. It is our understanding that Jesus establishes his church; Jesus baptizes his people by his Spirit. Said another way, the Spirit baptizes Jesus’ people into Him. We are not concerned about apostolic succession because we are called by the one who established the original apostles and minister under his direct authority.

For the sake of making this point, I will borrow the beginning text and skeleton of Ratzinger’s comment but change it into something more Quaker than Catholic:

No one can make a Church by himself. A group cannot simply get together, read the New Testament and declare: “At present we are the Church because the Lord is present wherever two or three are gathered in His name.” The element of “receiving” belongs essentially to the Church, just as faith comes from “hearing” and is not the result of one’s decision or reflection. Faith is a converging with something I could neither imagine nor produce on my own; faith has to come to meet me. We call the structure of this encounter, a “sacrament.” It is part of the fundamental form of a sacrament that it be received and not self-administered. No man can baptize another into Christ. No man can ordain another into ministry. These are spiritual realities enacted by Jesus himself to establish and organize his people. A gathering of humans is a church insofar as it reflects these spiritual realities. Human beings cannot make the Church but only receive her; humans receive her by being born from above, immersed into Christ, and gathered by His Spirit. Jesus is really present; he organizes his people himself as he sees fit: the sacramental community of Christ’s Body moving through history.

Christ has come to teach his people himself. Christ has come to baptize, call, ordain, and gather his people himself. Apostolic succession is irrelevant when Christ himself is present and active to call out and establish his church – his people – his family by the power of his Spirit.

How can one reconcile Exodus 20:5-6 with Deuteronomy 24:16 and Ezekiel 18?

November 4, 2010 / / 0 Comments

Colin asks:

I had a question. In verses 5 & 6, as part of the command to not worship false gods, God says “…for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing love to a thousand of those who love me and keep my commandments.”

I’m confused, because in Deuteronomy chapter 24:16 and again in Ezekiel 18, and also when Jesus healed the man who was blind from birth in John 9, it is made clear that children are not punished for the sins of their parents.

The literal Hebrew in Exodus 20 is that the “guilt” (awvone) of the “father” is “visited” (pawkod) on the “sons”. As with many Hebrew words, there is a lot of judgment involved in translating them into English.

The Deuteronomy 24:16 and Ezekiel 18 passages teach that the one who sins is the one who will die for the sin. So, the vocabulary is different between the Exodus 20 passage and the other two. I expect that is significant. The key words in Exodus 20 are the ones translated “guilt” and “visited”. The idea can be that punishment extends to the third and fourth generation or that the guilt of the father extends in its impact to the third and fourth generation.

The way I’ve come to put it together is something like this. The ultimate penalty for sin comes to the one who sins. The ultimate penalty is that which is between the sinner and God, in which sin leads to eternal death and separation from God. So, no one other than the sinner suffers the ultimate penalty for a sin. That seems pretty clear from the Deuteronomy and Ezekiel passages. But sin is not so neat and clean. As a father, I’m all too aware of the impact my sin has on my children and grandchildren. As a pastor, I shudder to think of the wider consequences of falling into any sin that shakes the faith of those whom I have led and taught and shepherded. God created us to live in community, and our sin is a community matter. Community and family ties are there because God has created a world in which it is so. The impact of my sin on the community or family around me is serious, and God says it will be serious right up front. Think of the complaints directed at God by those who proclaim the suffering of the innocent children and others who are “innocent”. Well, God created the world so that people are connected. It is a precondition for love and for good to flow between humans, just as it enables bad things to be communicated. People don’t give God credit for the good that can be transmitted between us in the connected world that he created, but they do blame him for the evil that is transmitted!

So, by God’s design, our sin impacts those around us – even to the third and fourth generation. However, God says that he will personally show love to a thousand generations of those who love him, magnifying the good that can be communicated . One might suppose that “a thousand” in this context means that he never stops showing love to the generations of those who love him; faithfulness and love toward him cannot be stopped. Big numbers like “a thousand” or “seventy times seven” are usually standing in for the idea of “way more than can be counted”. In modern western terms, we might say “never ending” or “infinite”.

There is likely some significance to “third and fourth” generation. This probably is idiom for “and all his living descendants”. Covenants were made between families, not just between individuals. When A makes a covenant with B, their families are expected to uphold that covenant or face the consequences – as families. I think of the young in Jerusalem when it fell. They suffered the punishment that was brought about by the sin of their fathers and grandfathers and great-grandfathers… and so on. I expect the siege of Jerusalem and its fall took a toll on more than a few who were faithful to God, who suffered only because of the “big picture” of sin in the southern kingdom. And yet, in the ultimate sense of justice, those who were trusting in God would not suffer eternal separation from him, even if they died in the horror of the city’s fall.

That’s how I reconcile it. I wouldn’t pretend that there might not be more to it or deeper things I still don’t grasp; but that’s how I sort it out in my thinking given the whole testimony of scripture and my trust in God.

Does God intend Christians to be healthy and wealthy?

November 4, 2010 / / 0 Comments

Does God intend Christians to be healthy and wealthy? Is the prosperity gospel on target? I say no. Here’s an explanation.

The argument I most often hear for the prosperity gospel is that God loves his people and knows how to give them good gifts. Thus, he gives them prosperity and health. I agree that God loves his people and knows how to give them good gifts. However, what is good?

When Christmas rolled around when I was a kid, the thing I thought about most was gifts. The gifts I wanted were toys, and candy was OK too. However, the gifts my parents wanted me to have were things like clothes or perhaps a Bible. I remember when I opened the gift that turned out to be my first Bible; it was quickly set aside in favor of opening other gifts, hoping for a good toy! My perspective and that of my wiser parents was not the same. I had to grow to appreciate the gifts they knew to be better for me than toys or candy.

Similarly, what gifts does God value for us? According to Romans 8:28-29, the good that God works in our lives as we are called according to his purpose is to conform us to the likeness of Christ. In preparation for eternity, God uses the events of our lives to shape us into the likeness of his son. Another gift that God values is that we come to know him. John 17:3 says that eternal life is to know God, and Jesus whom he has sent. Another scriptural perspective is that God intends us to be “oaks of righteousness” – a display for his splendor and glory (Isaiah 61:3). Similarly, scripture is quite clear that while God cares for us and will provide what we need as we seek first his kingdom and righteousness (Matthew 6:25-34, he gives us no promise of either health or wealth in this life. Consider Job. Consider many of the prophets. Consider the apostles. Other than Elijah, they all died. Some suffered physical ailments. Most were not wealthy by worldly standards.

So, what can we count on as Christians if we are obedient to God? We can count on coming to know God. We can count on being changed to become more like Christ, displaying the fruit of the spirit (Galatians 5:22-23). And we can count on God providing for us what we need. We can count on God redeeming the trials we face for his good and eternal purposes.

On occasion, when he knows it will not cause us more harm than good and undermine the things he values most in us, God will bring prosperity – even great prosperity. I don’t believe God casually inflicts his people with ill health or physical problems, but he certainly brings great good from such on occasion as he redeems the difficult experiences of those who struggle with health issues. He may choose to heal physical problems when it suits his greater purposes to do so, and give us health. He may choose to let the trials and problems shape us to be more like his Son.

Prosperity in this world and health in this world will both pass away; they will not last into eternity. The things of prosperity in this world will come to dust, as will our present-day physical bodies. In the new heaven and new earth, we will have new, healthy bodies and live in a heavenly city of plenty. The life we build on the foundation of Christ will last into eternity. The life God builds in us will be shaped like Christ and last into eternity.

We Christians need to get over our fixation on toys and candy… er, health and wealth, and seek the better gifts that God desires us to have in this life and in eternity. What trial am I willing to endure to become like Christ and give glory to God? What trial would I undergo if it meant that I came to know God more nearly and clearly, like Job did? What storm am I willing to ride out in order to display peace and joy that passes understanding and brings God glory because it is not based on my outward circumstances?

I trust you, God – but help me to trust you more. The truth is I don’t relish the idea of trials! Something in me still wants the lesser things, even though I can’t lie to myself and claim these are God’s priority or even what is best for me. May His name be honored. May His kingdom come. May His will be done.

Aren’t the early stories in Genesis repetitions of the stories from earlier cultures?

July 29, 2010 / / 0 Comments

Aren’t the early stories in Genesis repetitions of the stories from earlier cultures? We read similar stories from older sources elsewhere.

Perhaps they are. Let’s consider. If significant event events in human history happened before the time of the Israelites, wouldn’t one expect there might be echoes of these events in the stories of many peoples? So, no problem there.

Well then, one might ask, shouldn’t we be like good historians and go with the older accounts of what happened, separated by less time from the actual events? Speaking as a Christian who believes in God and believes God inspired the books of the Bible, I would say no. God chose to retell his version of the stories to the Israelites so they would understand the past accurately and pass the stories on to us. If God is real and was there to see what happened, then we are hearing from a reliable eyewitness. Of course, such a view depends on taking God and his action in history seriously.

Joy vs. Happiness

June 24, 2010 / / 0 Comments

Sitha suggested that I discuss the difference between joy and happiness.

When I think of happiness I think of a surface-level emotion associated with outward circumstances. Things that make one happy: winning a game in sports, doing well on a test, receiving a compliment, eating good food, etc. Happiness can be fleeting; when circumstances change, happiness may fade or turn to some other emotion. Happiness can be boisterous and demonstrative (and that’s ok, but not necessary). It is more emotional.

I find joy to be a deeper matter than happiness. Joy is related to ultimate things, a contentment and confidence in and from God. It is closely related to trust and faith; that is, without faith in God, it would be very difficult to have joy. It is closely related to love in that knowing that one is loved by God is the foundation of joy. It depends on ultimate hope. Joy runs deep and is lasting; it fuels the Christian life in confident peace. Joy is the ground in which emotional health is rooted. We are restless for joy; knowing that it should be even when it is not… and we long for it.

Consider the introduction to the Sermon on the Mount:

Blessed are the poor in spirit,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Blessed are those who mourn,
for they will be comforted.
Blessed are the meek,
for they will inherit the earth.
Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness,
for they will be filled.
Blessed are the merciful,
for they will be shown mercy.
Blessed are the pure in heart,
for they will see God.
Blessed are the peacemakers,
for they will be called sons of God.
Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

Jesus describes the kingdom of heaven. Being “blessed” is the condition of being favored by God; all is made well. Joy is the internal condition of a Christian as a result of this favor. It does not come through the normal means by which we tend to pursue happiness, but by the attitudes Jesus teaches here and in the remainder of the sermon.

C.S. Lewis described joy as a strong sense or feeling that came to him at unpredictable times. It was often associated with experiencing artistic or creative beauty. He perceived it as a longing for ultimate beauty and good as much as a feeling. To him, it seemed as much a desire as a sense of well-being, though highly desirable in itself. Joy was a clue to ultimate things; a call to relationship with God- the exclusive source of the contentment of which this joy was a clue. See Lewis’ autobiographical book Surprised by Joy for his discussion of joy.

I feel something like what Lewis described as joy from time to time. It comes unpredictably, but with common elements in its appearance. Special times with family, amazing natural beauty, a special connection with an artistic accomplishment, deep worship or special times of prayer, recognition of God’s work and love in the lives of those who are dear…. these have all been times to experience joy as Lewis described it. In spite of the transient nature of these experiences, they seem essentially different from what I have described as happiness. It seems as if the timeless joy of eternity, when all is as it should be, is breaking in to the here and now as a sample of the blessedness that is to be in the kingdom of heaven. The peace and joy of Christ today is a foretaste of what God has in store for his children.

Some pursue happiness, longing for joy. Certain forms of happiness can be a poor substitute – even additive. But fundamentally, where there is no Jesus – no kingdom of heaver; there is no lasting joy, only the hints and foretastes of joy that point to the ever-lasting joy that God intends for those who trust him.

Hope

May 29, 2010 / / 0 Comments

Esther asked: “What is hope? What does it mean to have hope? How does one come to have hope?”

I really like the way the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament defines the Old Testament idea of hope. Hope is expecting something good. It is related to trust and yearning, but is very different from fear. According to Ecclesiastes 9:4, hope is associated with life. That is, so long as there is life, there is hope!

“The life of the righteous is grounded in a hope that implies a future because its point of reference is God. To hope is to trust. It is demanded even in good times. It is not our own projection but confidence in what God will do. God is our hope (Jer. 17:7).”

The idea is that things are messed up now, but in the “eschatological future” things will be as they should be… because of God, that is. Hope is fundamentally a statement of belief in God’s character, purpose, and love for us. It is fulfilled in the new creation.

I was having difficulty nailing down the difference between hope and faith. Martin Luther, in his Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians to the rescue:

Faith and hope are so closely linked that they cannot be separated. Still there is a difference between them.

First, hope and faith differ in regard to their sources. Faith originates in the understanding, while hope rises in the will.

Secondly, they differ in regard to their functions. Faith says what is to be done. Faith teaches, describes, directs. Hope exhorts the mind to be strong and courageous.

Thirdly, they differ in regard to their objectives. Faith concentrates on the truth. Hope looks to the goodness of God.

Fourthly, they differ in sequence. Faith is the beginning of life before tribulation. (Hebrews 11.) Hope comes later and is born of tribulation. (Romans 5.)

Fifthly, they differ in regard to their effects. Faith is a judge. It judges errors. Hope is a soldier. It fights against tribulations, the cross, despondency, despair, and waits for better things to come in the midst of evil.

Without hope faith cannot endure. On the other hand, hope without faith is blind rashness and arrogance because it lacks knowledge. Before anything else a Christian must have the insight of faith, so that the intellect may know its directions in the day of trouble and the heart may hope for better things. By faith we begin, by hope we continue.

I was pondering all this when I ran across a quotation from Heretics by G.K. Chesterton in the blog Every Thought Captive. I had forgotten it entirely, I think!

Hope is the power of being cheerful in circumstances which we know to be desperate. It is true that there is a state of hope which belongs to bright prospects and the morning; but that is not the virtue of hope. The virtue of hope exists only in earthquake and, eclipse.

And later, this:

For practical purposes it is at the hopeless moment that we require the hopeful man, and the virtue either does not exist at all, or begins to exist at that moment. Exactly at the instant when hope ceases to be reasonable it begins to be useful.

Well, I’m not sure that hope is necessarily cheerful, but I think whatever it is, it is in spite of immediate circumstances. The whole idea of hope hinges on the fact that the moment seems hopeless!

I’m working through the thought that faith is fundamentally a matter of reason and hope a matter of the will. I understand the point, but wonder if faith and hope may not be a gift. Of course, faith is listed as a gift of the spirit. I wonder of hope is not there with faith, as a gift. As Luther says, they cannot be separated. In my case, I believe I have the gift of faith. It is a pure gift. I mean to say that it is based upon no particular characteristic of my personality or talents. It is, rather, based upon the fact that God has spoken to me. So I have faith regarding that which he has spoken. It has not been based upon circumstances or my discernment of potential. It is, purely and simply, from clarity in what God has said and rooted in my experience of him.

(Aside: humanly speaking, hope is related to discernment of circumstances. That is, we look at the wreckage that causes us doubt about the future, and see potential for change that is reason for hope. Christian hope is not in seeing such potential; it is in seeing God and trusting him.)

How does one get hope? Fundamentally, I don’t think we can get this kind of hope on our own. Jesus is the one who said “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him.” God draws us to Jesus, we respond in faith, and hope is born. I don’t see hope in the Christian sense outside of that. Once we are in Christ, then we come to know him and love him and hope is the natural result. Losing ultimate hope would be akin to doubting Christ and his love for us. Hope is knowing that because Jesus is Lord and because he loves us that things will turn out right even when we can see no reason (other than him) to think this will be the outcome.

Just to complete the circuit, it seems appropriate to note that praying and fasting would be a good Christian response to starting to doubt – losing hope. As hope diminishes, prayer and fasting may lead us back into his presence, and thereby into hope. There is no guarantee that one’s subjective perception of hope will increase – just a seeking after the Lord. When we experience him, hope returns. Sometimes it may be after a “dark night of the soul”; I’ll leave writing on that to others more experienced than I. And prayer and fasting is an appropriate response to desperate situations even when we retain ultimate hope in Christ. We may still go to him for hope regarding what comes in this life.

Fasting

May 29, 2010 / / 0 Comments

Esther asked: “Is there an appropriate way/time to approach fasting? What was it traditionally for? What is it for in the modern day?”

Nine days. That’s how long it takes me to think of what I’d like to say in response to Esther’s excellent questions.

I found myself starting by thinking to myself what fasting is not. It is not a way to control God. That is, people (rightly) think of fasting in times of trouble. What would not be right is to imagine that if we fast long and hard enough that this will convince God to do what we want him to do. Rather, I think fasting in this sort of situation is a way to express that we are concerned beyond the normal concerns of life, so much so that we are forgoing the normal activity of life, even eating! It’s a way of expressing that normal human action is not going to suffice to deal with whatever the situation is, that the situation so has our attention and focus that eating isn’t in the picture. Ideally, we’d be using our extra focus to reach out to God and ask him to intervene. We might be showing our contrition or helplessness or need. For example, in biblical times, people fasted when a massive army was on the way to attack. Or when some other calamity was coming – particularly when the calamity was prophesied as the consequence of sin. The repentant or righteous would fast and pray for forgiveness, agreeing with God in his view of the sin. So fasting in the face of dire circumstances or in repentance from sin is a normal biblical phenomenon.

Another thing that fasting is not is a way to impress onlookers as to one’s religiosity. Jesus was pretty harsh on this tendency that we have to do things like fasting in order to impress others and appear to be holy. His counsel? Don’t do it. When you fast, do it in secret and dress nice so others can’t tell you are fasting. And more to the point, fasting is no substitute for obedience. Fasting will not make one right with God when one remains in sin.

So much for the via negativa. What is the right time and way to approach fasting today? (I mean, besides when the Assyrians are on the horizon.) Consider this. In our times, I think busyness is one of the most damaging enemies of spirituality. It may be that we are caught up in the mundane or even the profane. Or it may be that we are so caught up in ministry that we have little time to focus on God. Either way, praying and fasting can be a way to restore proper focus on our Lord. It’s not magic. It is a discipline that even Jesus undertook at the beginning of his ministry (see Matthew 4). I get the sense that Jesus knew that his life was about to change, and that he wanted to make sure that he was close to his Father in advance of that change. There was focus, and devotion, and probably more than that. Similarly, Paul and Barnabas were set aside as missionaries during a period of prayer and fasting (Acts 13:2). I’m not sure if they were making themselves available to focus on God without a sense of the import of the moment or if they had some idea that something was coming up and sought God for direction. Either way, the praying and fasting is a way of bringing focus away from the every day stuff of life and onto our father God.

Then, it says that after they prayed and fasted (Acts 13:3), the others laid their hands on them and sent them on their way. I get the impression that the time of prayer and fasting was to confirm God’s call on Paul and Barnabas. Again, the others were making themselves available to God – focus – and God confirmed his direction. Later, as they appoint elders, Paul and Barnabas pray and fast (Acts 14:23). So it seems like there is something about prayer and fasting before God in order to make good decisions.

Wrapping it up, it seems to me that fasting is a way of humbling oneself. I don’t think it is really different in modern times than ancient times other than perhaps we are less in tune these days with what we lack in a time of material wealth and distraction. Fasting is not celebration; Jesus said his disciples wouldn’t be fasting while he was with them – they’d be fasting later when he was gone. (See Matthew 9:14-15.) There’s a time for partying and a time for mourning. Fasting is more associated with the mourning that comes from being in that now-but-not-yet time before Jesus returns and sets everything right. I’m thinking there won’t be much fasting in the new heaven and new earth after the resurrection, because the occasion for fasting will be long gone. There are times in this age that are shadows of the celebration time to come, and times that are clearly associated with the not yet. Fasting is an acknowledgment of what is not yet, but should be and will be. It’s us groaning with creation in anticipation of what we hope for. (…which brings me to Esther’s first question, but that’s another response.)

Newer posts »

© 2024 Expressions of Faith

Theme by Anders Noren — Up ↑