Hi everyone!
Here is a reminder that our Christmas Eve service will be at 11pm on Saturday 24th December, 2005 at St Andrew's Pioneer Church at the top of Mission hill (the one in the cemetery, not the other St Andrew's church at the bottom of Mission Hill). We shall be joining with some of the folks from Living Word Episcopal Church.
Wednesday, December 21, 2005
Our Savior, God and Man
Here is an excellent meditation as we contemplate the incarnation of our Lord. It has been borrowed from an Eastern Orthodox Blog in the Southern USA known as "Orthodixie".
Our Savior, God and Man
We confess one and the same individual as perfect God and perfect Man. He is God the Word Which was flesh.
For if He was not flesh, why was Mary chosen? And if He is not God, whom does Gabriel call Lord?
If He was not flesh, who was laid in a manger? And if He is not God, whom did the angels who came down from heaven glorify? If He was not flesh, who was wrapped in swaddling clothes? And if He is not God, in whose honor did the star appear?
If He was not flesh, whom did Simeon hold in his arms? And if He is not God, to whom did Simeon say: Lord, now lettest Thou Thy servant depart in peace?
If He was not flesh, whom did Joseph take when he fled into Egypt? And if He is not God, who fulfilled the prophesy: Out of Egypt have I called my Son?
If He was not flesh, whom did John baptize? And if He is not God, to whom did the Father say: This is my beloved Son, in Whom I am well pleased?
If He was not flesh, who hungered in the desert? And if He is not God, unto whom did the angels come and minister?
If He was not flesh, who was invited to the marriage in Cana of Galilee? And if He is not God, who turned the water into wine?
If He was not flesh, who took the loaves in the desert? And if He is not God, who fed the five thousand men and their women and children with five loaves and two fish?
If He was not flesh, who slept in the ship? And if He is not God, who rebuked the waves and the sea?
If He was not flesh, with whom did Simon the Pharisee sit at meat? And if He is not God, who forgave the sins of the harlot?
If He was not flesh, who wore a man’s garment? And if He is not God, who healed the woman with an issue of blood when she touched His garment?
If He was not flesh, who spat on the ground and made clay? And if He is not God, who gave sight to the eyes of the blind man with that clay?
If He was not flesh, who wept at Lazarus’ grave? And if He is not God, who commanded him to come forth out of the grave four days after his death?
If He was not flesh, whom did the Jews arrest in the garden? And if He is not God, who cast them to the ground with the words: I am He?
If He was not flesh, who was judged before Pilate? And if He is not God, who frightened Pilate’s wife in a dream?
If He was not flesh, whose garments were stripped from Him and parted by the soldiers? And if He is not God, why was the sun darkened upon His crucifixion?
If He was not flesh, who was crucified on the cross? And if He is not God, who shook the foundations of the earth?
If He was not flesh, whose hands and feet were nailed to the cross? And if He is not God, how did it happen that the veil of the temple was rent in twain, the rocks were rent, and the graves were opened?
If He was not flesh, who hung on the cross between two thieves? And if He is not God, how could He say to the thief: Today thou shalt be with me in paradise?
If He was not flesh, who cried out and gave up the ghost? And if He is not God, whose cry caused the many bodies of the saints which slept to arise?
If He was not flesh, whom did the women see laid in a grave? And if He is not God, about whom did the angels say to them: He has arisen, He is not here?
If He was not flesh, whom did Thomas touch when he put his hands into the prints of the nails? And if He is not God, who entered through the doors that were shut?
If He was not flesh, who ate at the sea of Tiberias? And if He is not God, on whose orders were the nets filled with fishes?
If He was not flesh, whom did the apostles see carried up into heaven? And if He is not God, who ascended to the joyful cries of the angels, and to whom did the Father proclaim: sit at My right hand?
If He is not God and man then, indeed, our salvation is false, and false are the pronouncements of the prophets.
Taken from the most excellent little book, A Spiritual Psalter, from the works of St Ephraim the Syrian, excerpted by St Theophan the Recluse.
Our Savior, God and Man
We confess one and the same individual as perfect God and perfect Man. He is God the Word Which was flesh.
For if He was not flesh, why was Mary chosen? And if He is not God, whom does Gabriel call Lord?
If He was not flesh, who was laid in a manger? And if He is not God, whom did the angels who came down from heaven glorify? If He was not flesh, who was wrapped in swaddling clothes? And if He is not God, in whose honor did the star appear?
If He was not flesh, whom did Simeon hold in his arms? And if He is not God, to whom did Simeon say: Lord, now lettest Thou Thy servant depart in peace?
If He was not flesh, whom did Joseph take when he fled into Egypt? And if He is not God, who fulfilled the prophesy: Out of Egypt have I called my Son?
If He was not flesh, whom did John baptize? And if He is not God, to whom did the Father say: This is my beloved Son, in Whom I am well pleased?
If He was not flesh, who hungered in the desert? And if He is not God, unto whom did the angels come and minister?
If He was not flesh, who was invited to the marriage in Cana of Galilee? And if He is not God, who turned the water into wine?
If He was not flesh, who took the loaves in the desert? And if He is not God, who fed the five thousand men and their women and children with five loaves and two fish?
If He was not flesh, who slept in the ship? And if He is not God, who rebuked the waves and the sea?
If He was not flesh, with whom did Simon the Pharisee sit at meat? And if He is not God, who forgave the sins of the harlot?
If He was not flesh, who wore a man’s garment? And if He is not God, who healed the woman with an issue of blood when she touched His garment?
If He was not flesh, who spat on the ground and made clay? And if He is not God, who gave sight to the eyes of the blind man with that clay?
If He was not flesh, who wept at Lazarus’ grave? And if He is not God, who commanded him to come forth out of the grave four days after his death?
If He was not flesh, whom did the Jews arrest in the garden? And if He is not God, who cast them to the ground with the words: I am He?
If He was not flesh, who was judged before Pilate? And if He is not God, who frightened Pilate’s wife in a dream?
If He was not flesh, whose garments were stripped from Him and parted by the soldiers? And if He is not God, why was the sun darkened upon His crucifixion?
If He was not flesh, who was crucified on the cross? And if He is not God, who shook the foundations of the earth?
If He was not flesh, whose hands and feet were nailed to the cross? And if He is not God, how did it happen that the veil of the temple was rent in twain, the rocks were rent, and the graves were opened?
If He was not flesh, who hung on the cross between two thieves? And if He is not God, how could He say to the thief: Today thou shalt be with me in paradise?
If He was not flesh, who cried out and gave up the ghost? And if He is not God, whose cry caused the many bodies of the saints which slept to arise?
If He was not flesh, whom did the women see laid in a grave? And if He is not God, about whom did the angels say to them: He has arisen, He is not here?
If He was not flesh, whom did Thomas touch when he put his hands into the prints of the nails? And if He is not God, who entered through the doors that were shut?
If He was not flesh, who ate at the sea of Tiberias? And if He is not God, on whose orders were the nets filled with fishes?
If He was not flesh, whom did the apostles see carried up into heaven? And if He is not God, who ascended to the joyful cries of the angels, and to whom did the Father proclaim: sit at My right hand?
If He is not God and man then, indeed, our salvation is false, and false are the pronouncements of the prophets.
Taken from the most excellent little book, A Spiritual Psalter, from the works of St Ephraim the Syrian, excerpted by St Theophan the Recluse.
Sunday, December 11, 2005
Confirmation
Confirmation
Confirmation has been called a ritual in search of a theology. It is not observed by all denominations. That being the case, what is it about?
Becoming a Christian has four parts to it:
Faith: i.e. belief and trust in Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour.
Repentance: turning away from sin and towards God.
Baptism in water, signifying washing away sin and identifying with Christ in his death, burial and resurrection.
Receiving or being baptised or sealed with the Holy Spirit by whom one is made spiritually alive (reborn) in Christ.
Together with these four is the expectation that one be prepared to publicly acknowledge Christ (Romans 10:9-10).
In the conversion accounts in the book of Acts these four aspects sometimes occurred together. They are not all mentioned in every case, and not always in that order. In some instances (eg St Paul’s conversion in Acts 9 and the incident in Samaria in Acts 8) there is an interval in time between conversion and reception of the Holy Spirit. However, they rightly belong together, such that, in different New Testament passages one can read that one is saved by faith (Ephesians 2:8), by believing (John 20:31, Acts 16:29-31), by receiving Jesus (John 1:12), by being baptised (1Peter 3:21), by being born anew by water and Spirit (John 3:5) etc. They are different facets of the same diamond.
In the first Christian generation, therefore, it would appear that immediately upon responding to the Apostles’ teaching, a new convert was baptized in water and received prayer with the laying on of hands for the reception/baptism in the Holy Spirit. God, being sovereign, is able to give his Holy Spirit without human intervention (eg Acts 10:46-47), but he often used the apostles as his agents.
After the first century it became practice for a period of instruction to precede baptism. When a person was baptized he or she would confirm their faith, sponsored by those who vouched for them (Godparents), the presbyter (priest) with the assistance of deacons or deaconesses would baptize the candidates by immersion. Thereafter the newly baptised would be dressed in a white robe and be presented to the bishop in the public service. The bishop would confirm they had been baptized, anoint them with oil, lay hands on them and pray for God to confirm (strengthen) them with the Holy Spirit. Thus Baptism and confirmation were two parts of one ritual.
Still later, as the church spread to many new towns the number of bishops did not increase accordingly. Some pastoral roles in more distant congregations were delegated to presbyters. In the Eastern church presbyters both baptize and confirm. In the Western church confirmation remained an Episcopal prerogative (although in the RC church it can be delegated to a priest) and was separated from baptism, often occurring years later when the bishop finally made a visit to a local congregation, or not at all.
After the Reformation, some Protestant churches, especially those who practice only adult baptism, discarded confirmation along with the office of bishop. Others which retained infant baptism recognized the need for an opportunity for adolescents and adults to publicly re-affirm the promises made by their parents at their infant baptism. The Anglican church made confirmation a pre-requisite to communion. Rather like a Bar Mitzvah in the Jewish faith, it marks the transition into full adult participation in church life. This requirement has recently been relaxed and now confirmation is often dispensed with.
When we compare the practices of different denominations we see that Baptist churches offer parents the opportunity to have a “dedication” service (a dry christening!) for their children who can later, when old enough to make their own profession of faith, be baptized in water. Churches which baptize the infants of Christian parents, offer confirmation as an opportunity for those old enough to do so, to make a public profession (a “dry” adult baptismal reaffirmation). The difference between these two schemas is when the water is applied. Churches from Pentecostal or Charismatic backgrounds also practice prayer with or without laying hands for the baptism in the Spirit, using the same scriptural references to justify that practice as the ‘catholic’ streams of Christianity do for confirmation. One does not have to be ordained to pray for this.
Summary:
Confirmation provides a mature/maturing Christian the opportunity to publicly acknowledge Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour and to reaffirm his/her baptismal vows. The similarity of the service(laying on of hands plus invocation of the Holy Spirit) to the ordination of deacons, priests and bishops lends itself to considering confirmation as the commissioning or “ordination” of the laity to a life of ministry. All Christians are called to ministry, not just those who are ordained.
For those baptized as teens or adults, confirmation almost appears redundant if there is a long delay between baptism and confirmation. They should ideally occur at the same service so that the newly baptised person can immediately be commissioned for service and not gain the impression that entrance into the church requires something more than baptism on profession of faith. If a bishop cannot be present at an adult’s or adolescent’s baptism service then perhaps the Anglican Communion should consider allowing priests to administer confirmation (as is done in the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic churches) in order to restore the link between the two rites.
Confirmation has been called a ritual in search of a theology. It is not observed by all denominations. That being the case, what is it about?
Becoming a Christian has four parts to it:
Faith: i.e. belief and trust in Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour.
Repentance: turning away from sin and towards God.
Baptism in water, signifying washing away sin and identifying with Christ in his death, burial and resurrection.
Receiving or being baptised or sealed with the Holy Spirit by whom one is made spiritually alive (reborn) in Christ.
Together with these four is the expectation that one be prepared to publicly acknowledge Christ (Romans 10:9-10).
In the conversion accounts in the book of Acts these four aspects sometimes occurred together. They are not all mentioned in every case, and not always in that order. In some instances (eg St Paul’s conversion in Acts 9 and the incident in Samaria in Acts 8) there is an interval in time between conversion and reception of the Holy Spirit. However, they rightly belong together, such that, in different New Testament passages one can read that one is saved by faith (Ephesians 2:8), by believing (John 20:31, Acts 16:29-31), by receiving Jesus (John 1:12), by being baptised (1Peter 3:21), by being born anew by water and Spirit (John 3:5) etc. They are different facets of the same diamond.
In the first Christian generation, therefore, it would appear that immediately upon responding to the Apostles’ teaching, a new convert was baptized in water and received prayer with the laying on of hands for the reception/baptism in the Holy Spirit. God, being sovereign, is able to give his Holy Spirit without human intervention (eg Acts 10:46-47), but he often used the apostles as his agents.
After the first century it became practice for a period of instruction to precede baptism. When a person was baptized he or she would confirm their faith, sponsored by those who vouched for them (Godparents), the presbyter (priest) with the assistance of deacons or deaconesses would baptize the candidates by immersion. Thereafter the newly baptised would be dressed in a white robe and be presented to the bishop in the public service. The bishop would confirm they had been baptized, anoint them with oil, lay hands on them and pray for God to confirm (strengthen) them with the Holy Spirit. Thus Baptism and confirmation were two parts of one ritual.
Still later, as the church spread to many new towns the number of bishops did not increase accordingly. Some pastoral roles in more distant congregations were delegated to presbyters. In the Eastern church presbyters both baptize and confirm. In the Western church confirmation remained an Episcopal prerogative (although in the RC church it can be delegated to a priest) and was separated from baptism, often occurring years later when the bishop finally made a visit to a local congregation, or not at all.
After the Reformation, some Protestant churches, especially those who practice only adult baptism, discarded confirmation along with the office of bishop. Others which retained infant baptism recognized the need for an opportunity for adolescents and adults to publicly re-affirm the promises made by their parents at their infant baptism. The Anglican church made confirmation a pre-requisite to communion. Rather like a Bar Mitzvah in the Jewish faith, it marks the transition into full adult participation in church life. This requirement has recently been relaxed and now confirmation is often dispensed with.
When we compare the practices of different denominations we see that Baptist churches offer parents the opportunity to have a “dedication” service (a dry christening!) for their children who can later, when old enough to make their own profession of faith, be baptized in water. Churches which baptize the infants of Christian parents, offer confirmation as an opportunity for those old enough to do so, to make a public profession (a “dry” adult baptismal reaffirmation). The difference between these two schemas is when the water is applied. Churches from Pentecostal or Charismatic backgrounds also practice prayer with or without laying hands for the baptism in the Spirit, using the same scriptural references to justify that practice as the ‘catholic’ streams of Christianity do for confirmation. One does not have to be ordained to pray for this.
Summary:
Confirmation provides a mature/maturing Christian the opportunity to publicly acknowledge Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour and to reaffirm his/her baptismal vows. The similarity of the service(laying on of hands plus invocation of the Holy Spirit) to the ordination of deacons, priests and bishops lends itself to considering confirmation as the commissioning or “ordination” of the laity to a life of ministry. All Christians are called to ministry, not just those who are ordained.
For those baptized as teens or adults, confirmation almost appears redundant if there is a long delay between baptism and confirmation. They should ideally occur at the same service so that the newly baptised person can immediately be commissioned for service and not gain the impression that entrance into the church requires something more than baptism on profession of faith. If a bishop cannot be present at an adult’s or adolescent’s baptism service then perhaps the Anglican Communion should consider allowing priests to administer confirmation (as is done in the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic churches) in order to restore the link between the two rites.
Saturday, December 10, 2005
Confirming Faith, Week 12, Baptism and Confirmation
Hi everyone,
Here is the prep that Cynthia has assembled for Sunday. We shall be talking about Baptism and Confirmation. As always we shall respect the various traditions people are coming from.
Attached is a document on Baptism for reference only. I shall attempt to put a few references together on confirmation and post them separately.
David
Baptism and Confirmation – Dec 11th
Information
Baptism was instituted in the New Testament. It is:-
Participation in Christ’s death and resurrection (Romans 6:3-5; Col.2:12)
A washing away of sin ( 1 Cor. 6”11)
A new Birth ( John 3:5)
An enlightenment by Christ (Eph 5:14)
A reclothing in Christ (Gal 3:27)
A renewal in the Spirit (Titus 3:5)
Experience of salvation from the flood ( 1 Peter 3:20-21)
Exodus from bondage ( 1 Cor.10:1-2)
Liberation to a new humanity ( Gal.3: 27-28; 1 Cor.:12-13)
Baptism involves four basic elements:-
Repentance
Belief in the Lord Jesus
Baptism in water
Receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit.
Confirmation means:-
Taking responsibility for your own religious faith.
Being an ambassador for Christ
Public acknowledgement of commitment to Jesus. (Acts 13:1-3)
And
Marks full membership in Christ’s Church.
Confirmation was separated from baptism in the early Church when the local priest was allowed to conduct baptisms but it required a bishop to perform the ‘laying on of hands’ which was done when he visited the parish often around Easter or at some other important festival.(Acts 8:17-18)
Acts is the Biblical book which gives us the most direct information on how unbelievers became believers and proceeded to baptism. (Acts 8, Acts 19)
Discussion Questions
1. Is baptism a one-time event or is there space for rebaptism e.g. in a different denomination?
2. What are the merits of sprinkling and immersion?
3. What do you think about baptizing children of non-believing parents? At what age can a child make his/her own decision?
4. What do you see as the pros and cons of infant baptism?
5. If we receive the gift of the Holy Spirit at baptism when do we open the gift and use it for God’s glory?
6. Is confirmation an essential step in our growth as a Christian? What is the point of a public confirmation service?
7. Can you think of ways to celebrate baptism or confirmation that would be meaningful.
Baptism – A Pastoral Approach.
Church of Our Lord (COOL) is a Christian community within the Anglican Communion. As such, we value the three streams of authentic Christianity which we have received: the catholic or sacramental stream, the evangelical or gospel-centred stream and the renewal stream which has re-vitalized the church’s appreciation for the person and work of the Holy Spirit. Christians, regardless of their background, and those curious about the Christian faith, are welcome to participate in the worship and fellowship of this community. We also enjoy good relationships with members of other denominations in the Valley. With this welcoming approach it is inevitable that questions will arise about the purpose and practice of baptism, in particular about whether infants should be baptized or whether those from nominal Christian backgrounds who may have been baptized as babies should be re-baptized when they come to a living faith in Christ.
A Personal Word:
I was raised in a Baptist family with a Baptist pastor as a father. He used to re-baptize new converts who came to our church from denominations which practiced infant baptism. I was baptized by immersion in a Baptist church at age 15. I am now an Anglican priest who after many years of reading, prayer, and study of both sides of this issue, came to the conclusion that it is right for Christian parents to bring their children to baptism. I understand the issue inside out and offer the following comments to assist sincere believers who want to honour the Scriptures come to an informed decision about their own baptism and that of their children.
What does baptism mean?
As discussed in the companion article “How Can I become a Christian” (found at http://www.coolcommentary.blogspot.com/), baptism is one of the four elements of Christian initiation, the others being repentance, faith (i.e. belief and trust) in Christ, and the reception of the Holy Spirit. It signifies washing away of sin. It is dying to self. It is the mark or badge of being a Christian, as a uniform is the mark of belonging to an army or sports team. It represents incorporation into the body of Christ and a means of his grace through which, by the Holy Spirit, we identify with his death, burial and resurrection. The Latin word applied to baptism, sacramentum, was that used by an officer receiving a commission or giving his oath of allegiance on joining the army. “Believers’ baptism” means baptizing only those who are old enough to personally choose to be baptized.
I recently read a story about an Anglican pastor in South East Asia who, as a young man, had entered a spiritist séance (something to be avoided!). The spiritist leader looked at him and exclaimed, “What are you doing here? You have a cross on your forehead!” The man recalled how, as an infant, he had been baptized and signed with the cross, marking him as Christ’s own forever. This sign was not visible but the spirit world recognized it, just as the demons discerned who Christ and his apostles were. Baptism is the objective part of Christian initiation. Our gratitude to God for the good news of salvation is the subjective element.
Arguments for the exclusive use of Believers’ Baptism.
Scripture teaches that faith and repentance are necessary for salvation. Small infants cannot exercise either, therefore they cannot be baptized. Conversion is a conscious choice to turn from sin and turn to God.
There are no accounts of infant baptism per se in the New Testament.
Infant baptism causes nominal Christianity by falsely reassuring people that they are Christians when they have no active faith. This is true and is a good argument against indiscriminate baptism of children whose parents have no intention of raising them in the faith.
What is the use of baptizing those who may never come to faith or who fall away from the faith of their parents? This occurs among those baptized as adults too. Simon the Magician is one such example. (Acts 8:9-24)
Believers’ baptism emphasizes the individual’s faith and choice. It illustrates the need for individuals to respond in repentance and to die to the old sinful life and rise with Christ. As such it is fully consistent with the New Testament emphasis on repentance, faith, and becoming a “new creation.”
However, there is a risk of placing too much emphasis on the individual and not enough on God and on the community of faith. It is no coincidence that denominations which practice believers’ baptism thrive best in cultures which exalt individual autonomy above belonging to the family or the church. Infant baptism arose in the Hebrew and Middle Eastern cultures which place a high premium on family and community.
Arguments in favour of Baptising Infants of Believing Parents.
1. Baptism is the New Covenant equivalent of circumcision (Col 2:11-12). Just as circumcision was received by infants (boys) as a mark of the covenant, so too baptism includes children of Christian families in the Covenant of Grace until they reach the age where they can choose for themselves. Nowhere does the New Testament forbid infant baptism.
2. Jesus’ attitude to children. Jesus said that we are to become like little children for to such belongs the Kingdom of God. He commended child-like faith and blessed infants, chiding his disciples for trying to prevent them from being brought to him (Matthew 19:13-15). If Jesus welcomes infants into his kingdom, who are we to keep them out?
3. Household baptisms were the norm in the early church. A number of instances where whole families were baptized are mentioned in the New Testament. It is inconceivable that none of those households had any children. It was normal for the whole family to adopt the religion of the head of the family. Gentile converts to Judaism underwent proselyte baptism as a family (children included). This served as a model for the early church. Infant baptism places a high value on the Christian family just as Peter (1 Peter 3:20-22) did when he compared baptism to the fact that Noah’s family were saved with him through the flood.
4. The universal practice of the church, from (at the latest) the second century up until the Reformation, (not to mention most of the Reformers too) was to baptize the infants of Christian parents. Tertullian was the only Church Father to object to infant baptism (and then only temporarily) because he thought it placed too great a responsibility on the godparents, not because it was contrary to apostolic teaching. The same early church which gave us the doctrine of the Trinity, that clarified that Jesus had two natures (divine and human) in one Person, and which defined the Canon of Scripture (which was not finalized until the fourth century), also practiced infant baptism. This was not just the practice of the medieval Roman Catholic Church with its later additions to apostolic teaching. Even those sects, such as the Waldensians, who re-baptized Catholics, baptized their own children.
5. It emphasizes the prevenient and sovereign work of God in choosing and saving us before we were capable of responding to his grace. Salvation begins and ends with God, not with us. We love him because he first loved us. He chose us, we did not choose him.
It honours the role of the church as the community of faith which one joins through baptism.
That denominations which exclusively practice believers’ baptism instinctively recognize the benefits of raising their children in the faith, and wish to publicly commit to doing so, is illustrated by the widespread use of Infant Dedication ceremonies, a kind of dry christening. There is no express scriptural warrant for this practice. All the arguments for doing so are equally arguments for baptizing infants. On the other hand, the Anglican and Roman Catholic Churches (as well as some other denominations) provide for an opportunity for adolescent or adult believers to publicly reaffirm their baptisms in the rite of confirmation. When one compares these two scenarios: infant dedication plus believers’ baptism versus infant baptism plus confirmation, it is evident that the only real difference between them is the timing of the application of the water. Surely sincere Christians can learn to live with these differences?
How much water is necessary?
This is a bit like asking how long is a piece of string (long enough to do the job) or how long should your legs be (long enough to reach the ground). The New Testament does not tell us how much water was used at baptisms or that full immersion was always done. We do read about people going down into the water. The word “baptize” does mean to immerse, to sink, to become waterlogged or soaked. Furthermore, the rich imagery of full immersion and rising out of the water vividly captures the symbolism of dying to self and rising to new life in Christ. Early church documents outside of the New Testament indicate that the preference was full immersion in running water. If that was not available, immersion in still water was used. If that was not practicable then pouring water on the candidate was still considered valid baptism. The volume of water is less important than what it signifies.
What about re-baptism?
There is no question about it: God is blessing the work of many denominations - Baptist, Pentecostal, Charismatic or various free churches and missionary movements which practice believer’s baptism. Many of these churches are lively and exciting places where the Spirit seems to be very active; by contrast liturgical churches may appear dull. Often people come to a personal life-transforming faith in Christ after a nominal or dry and ritualistic up-bringing in one of the historic churches. It is natural that, when one has been blessed by contact or involvement with one of these new denominations one may feel called or pressurized to be re-baptized, especially if that is made a precondition to a leadership role in such a congregation. I can understand this need to submit to Godly authority exercised in one’s denomination as I had to submit to adult confirmation (even though I had been baptized as a believer, been baptized in the Spirit and could not see what more confirmation could do for me), in order to be licensed as a lay-reader and subsequently be ordained in the Anglican Church.
Often new Christians feel somehow cheated that they cannot remember their infant baptism and therefore have no “experience” to recall, or that there was not a great deal of faith exercised by their parents and therefore that their baptism was somehow deficient. This is elevating the subjective over the objective.
On the other hand, it can be painful to faithful parents to see their mature children get re-baptized as if their sincere efforts at raising them in the faith were worthless. Michael Green, an evangelical Anglican author and priest, has suggested a pragmatic and generous approach to these situations. Where an adult feels he or she must be re-baptized they should consider this second application of water to be a re-affirmation of their original baptism, a vivid anamnesis (a Greek word for remembering in such a way as to make the memory a present reality) appropriating what God has already objectively offered in baptism.* Expressed this way, one honours one’s parents and their faith and avoids calling the original baptism a sham, for it is a serious thing to devalue what God has done. God’s Word says, “There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.” Ephesians 4:4-6. We can no more have two baptisms than two faiths, two Lords, two heavenly fathers. Whether Baptists recognize it or not, we have been baptized into the same faith regardless of our age at the time it occurred. That is an objective reality whether or not we remember it, or felt it. Salvation is not dependent on our feelings; it is dependent on what God has already done once and for all in Christ. We can debate the wisdom of applying baptism at various ages but we must not disregard what God has promised and achieved in incorporating us into the one Body of Christ.
Points of Agreement:
Christians agree that new Christians who have not been baptized before should obey Christ’s command to be baptized. We can agree that immersion is a powerful image. We can also agree that the indiscriminate baptism of children of non-believing parents is a scandal. We can agree that a ceremony by itself does not guarantee salvation; what is required is personal repentance and faith. Where we may differ is on whether baptism of children from Christian homes is valid or not.
Conclusion: the pastoral approach
At COOL,
1. New Christians who come to faith should be encouraged to be baptized (preferably by immersion) as soon as possible after instruction in basic Christian faith, if they have never been baptized before.
2. If they were baptized previously (eg as infants) then they should be given an opportunity to publicly renew those baptismal vows made on their behalf by their parents and sponsors. Confirmation is one possible opportunity to do this.
3. We will not re-baptize those who have previously been baptized in water, in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, in a denomination which adheres to the Nicene Creed.
4. Infants with at least one believing parent, whose parent(s) and godparents are willing to receive instruction in Christian faith, and understand the promises they are making on the infants’ behalf, will be offered baptism under the understanding that the children will need to subsequently make those promises their own.
5.Infants will not be baptized if neither parent is a committed Christian active in the local church.
6. We shall respect parents who, after careful consideration, wish to postpone baptism of their children until they are old enough to decide for themselves. They may opt for a simple “Thanksgiving” ceremony to thank God for the birth of their children.
I believe this approach is consistent with Scripture and is genuinely welcoming to all faithful Christians.
David Bowler, Church of Our Lord, Comox Valley. BC.
Advent 2005.
*Green, M. Baptism P. 125 (Hodder Christian Paperbacks 1987)
Suggested Reading:
Packer, J.I. I Want to be a Christian (Kingsway Publications 1977)
Packer is and Anglican theologian of the Reformed persuasion.
Bridge, D. and Phypers, D. The Water that Divides (Intervarsity Press 1977)
Bridge is a Baptist pastor; Phypers an Anglican.
Pawson, D. The Normal Christian Birth
Pawson is a Baptist of an Arminian persuasion.
Green, M. Baptism (Hodder Christian Paperbacks 1987)
Green is an evangelical Anglican priest.
Here is the prep that Cynthia has assembled for Sunday. We shall be talking about Baptism and Confirmation. As always we shall respect the various traditions people are coming from.
Attached is a document on Baptism for reference only. I shall attempt to put a few references together on confirmation and post them separately.
David
Baptism and Confirmation – Dec 11th
Information
Baptism was instituted in the New Testament. It is:-
Participation in Christ’s death and resurrection (Romans 6:3-5; Col.2:12)
A washing away of sin ( 1 Cor. 6”11)
A new Birth ( John 3:5)
An enlightenment by Christ (Eph 5:14)
A reclothing in Christ (Gal 3:27)
A renewal in the Spirit (Titus 3:5)
Experience of salvation from the flood ( 1 Peter 3:20-21)
Exodus from bondage ( 1 Cor.10:1-2)
Liberation to a new humanity ( Gal.3: 27-28; 1 Cor.:12-13)
Baptism involves four basic elements:-
Repentance
Belief in the Lord Jesus
Baptism in water
Receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit.
Confirmation means:-
Taking responsibility for your own religious faith.
Being an ambassador for Christ
Public acknowledgement of commitment to Jesus. (Acts 13:1-3)
And
Marks full membership in Christ’s Church.
Confirmation was separated from baptism in the early Church when the local priest was allowed to conduct baptisms but it required a bishop to perform the ‘laying on of hands’ which was done when he visited the parish often around Easter or at some other important festival.(Acts 8:17-18)
Acts is the Biblical book which gives us the most direct information on how unbelievers became believers and proceeded to baptism. (Acts 8, Acts 19)
Discussion Questions
1. Is baptism a one-time event or is there space for rebaptism e.g. in a different denomination?
2. What are the merits of sprinkling and immersion?
3. What do you think about baptizing children of non-believing parents? At what age can a child make his/her own decision?
4. What do you see as the pros and cons of infant baptism?
5. If we receive the gift of the Holy Spirit at baptism when do we open the gift and use it for God’s glory?
6. Is confirmation an essential step in our growth as a Christian? What is the point of a public confirmation service?
7. Can you think of ways to celebrate baptism or confirmation that would be meaningful.
Baptism – A Pastoral Approach.
Church of Our Lord (COOL) is a Christian community within the Anglican Communion. As such, we value the three streams of authentic Christianity which we have received: the catholic or sacramental stream, the evangelical or gospel-centred stream and the renewal stream which has re-vitalized the church’s appreciation for the person and work of the Holy Spirit. Christians, regardless of their background, and those curious about the Christian faith, are welcome to participate in the worship and fellowship of this community. We also enjoy good relationships with members of other denominations in the Valley. With this welcoming approach it is inevitable that questions will arise about the purpose and practice of baptism, in particular about whether infants should be baptized or whether those from nominal Christian backgrounds who may have been baptized as babies should be re-baptized when they come to a living faith in Christ.
A Personal Word:
I was raised in a Baptist family with a Baptist pastor as a father. He used to re-baptize new converts who came to our church from denominations which practiced infant baptism. I was baptized by immersion in a Baptist church at age 15. I am now an Anglican priest who after many years of reading, prayer, and study of both sides of this issue, came to the conclusion that it is right for Christian parents to bring their children to baptism. I understand the issue inside out and offer the following comments to assist sincere believers who want to honour the Scriptures come to an informed decision about their own baptism and that of their children.
What does baptism mean?
As discussed in the companion article “How Can I become a Christian” (found at http://www.coolcommentary.blogspot.com/), baptism is one of the four elements of Christian initiation, the others being repentance, faith (i.e. belief and trust) in Christ, and the reception of the Holy Spirit. It signifies washing away of sin. It is dying to self. It is the mark or badge of being a Christian, as a uniform is the mark of belonging to an army or sports team. It represents incorporation into the body of Christ and a means of his grace through which, by the Holy Spirit, we identify with his death, burial and resurrection. The Latin word applied to baptism, sacramentum, was that used by an officer receiving a commission or giving his oath of allegiance on joining the army. “Believers’ baptism” means baptizing only those who are old enough to personally choose to be baptized.
I recently read a story about an Anglican pastor in South East Asia who, as a young man, had entered a spiritist séance (something to be avoided!). The spiritist leader looked at him and exclaimed, “What are you doing here? You have a cross on your forehead!” The man recalled how, as an infant, he had been baptized and signed with the cross, marking him as Christ’s own forever. This sign was not visible but the spirit world recognized it, just as the demons discerned who Christ and his apostles were. Baptism is the objective part of Christian initiation. Our gratitude to God for the good news of salvation is the subjective element.
Arguments for the exclusive use of Believers’ Baptism.
Scripture teaches that faith and repentance are necessary for salvation. Small infants cannot exercise either, therefore they cannot be baptized. Conversion is a conscious choice to turn from sin and turn to God.
There are no accounts of infant baptism per se in the New Testament.
Infant baptism causes nominal Christianity by falsely reassuring people that they are Christians when they have no active faith. This is true and is a good argument against indiscriminate baptism of children whose parents have no intention of raising them in the faith.
What is the use of baptizing those who may never come to faith or who fall away from the faith of their parents? This occurs among those baptized as adults too. Simon the Magician is one such example. (Acts 8:9-24)
Believers’ baptism emphasizes the individual’s faith and choice. It illustrates the need for individuals to respond in repentance and to die to the old sinful life and rise with Christ. As such it is fully consistent with the New Testament emphasis on repentance, faith, and becoming a “new creation.”
However, there is a risk of placing too much emphasis on the individual and not enough on God and on the community of faith. It is no coincidence that denominations which practice believers’ baptism thrive best in cultures which exalt individual autonomy above belonging to the family or the church. Infant baptism arose in the Hebrew and Middle Eastern cultures which place a high premium on family and community.
Arguments in favour of Baptising Infants of Believing Parents.
1. Baptism is the New Covenant equivalent of circumcision (Col 2:11-12). Just as circumcision was received by infants (boys) as a mark of the covenant, so too baptism includes children of Christian families in the Covenant of Grace until they reach the age where they can choose for themselves. Nowhere does the New Testament forbid infant baptism.
2. Jesus’ attitude to children. Jesus said that we are to become like little children for to such belongs the Kingdom of God. He commended child-like faith and blessed infants, chiding his disciples for trying to prevent them from being brought to him (Matthew 19:13-15). If Jesus welcomes infants into his kingdom, who are we to keep them out?
3. Household baptisms were the norm in the early church. A number of instances where whole families were baptized are mentioned in the New Testament. It is inconceivable that none of those households had any children. It was normal for the whole family to adopt the religion of the head of the family. Gentile converts to Judaism underwent proselyte baptism as a family (children included). This served as a model for the early church. Infant baptism places a high value on the Christian family just as Peter (1 Peter 3:20-22) did when he compared baptism to the fact that Noah’s family were saved with him through the flood.
4. The universal practice of the church, from (at the latest) the second century up until the Reformation, (not to mention most of the Reformers too) was to baptize the infants of Christian parents. Tertullian was the only Church Father to object to infant baptism (and then only temporarily) because he thought it placed too great a responsibility on the godparents, not because it was contrary to apostolic teaching. The same early church which gave us the doctrine of the Trinity, that clarified that Jesus had two natures (divine and human) in one Person, and which defined the Canon of Scripture (which was not finalized until the fourth century), also practiced infant baptism. This was not just the practice of the medieval Roman Catholic Church with its later additions to apostolic teaching. Even those sects, such as the Waldensians, who re-baptized Catholics, baptized their own children.
5. It emphasizes the prevenient and sovereign work of God in choosing and saving us before we were capable of responding to his grace. Salvation begins and ends with God, not with us. We love him because he first loved us. He chose us, we did not choose him.
It honours the role of the church as the community of faith which one joins through baptism.
That denominations which exclusively practice believers’ baptism instinctively recognize the benefits of raising their children in the faith, and wish to publicly commit to doing so, is illustrated by the widespread use of Infant Dedication ceremonies, a kind of dry christening. There is no express scriptural warrant for this practice. All the arguments for doing so are equally arguments for baptizing infants. On the other hand, the Anglican and Roman Catholic Churches (as well as some other denominations) provide for an opportunity for adolescent or adult believers to publicly reaffirm their baptisms in the rite of confirmation. When one compares these two scenarios: infant dedication plus believers’ baptism versus infant baptism plus confirmation, it is evident that the only real difference between them is the timing of the application of the water. Surely sincere Christians can learn to live with these differences?
How much water is necessary?
This is a bit like asking how long is a piece of string (long enough to do the job) or how long should your legs be (long enough to reach the ground). The New Testament does not tell us how much water was used at baptisms or that full immersion was always done. We do read about people going down into the water. The word “baptize” does mean to immerse, to sink, to become waterlogged or soaked. Furthermore, the rich imagery of full immersion and rising out of the water vividly captures the symbolism of dying to self and rising to new life in Christ. Early church documents outside of the New Testament indicate that the preference was full immersion in running water. If that was not available, immersion in still water was used. If that was not practicable then pouring water on the candidate was still considered valid baptism. The volume of water is less important than what it signifies.
What about re-baptism?
There is no question about it: God is blessing the work of many denominations - Baptist, Pentecostal, Charismatic or various free churches and missionary movements which practice believer’s baptism. Many of these churches are lively and exciting places where the Spirit seems to be very active; by contrast liturgical churches may appear dull. Often people come to a personal life-transforming faith in Christ after a nominal or dry and ritualistic up-bringing in one of the historic churches. It is natural that, when one has been blessed by contact or involvement with one of these new denominations one may feel called or pressurized to be re-baptized, especially if that is made a precondition to a leadership role in such a congregation. I can understand this need to submit to Godly authority exercised in one’s denomination as I had to submit to adult confirmation (even though I had been baptized as a believer, been baptized in the Spirit and could not see what more confirmation could do for me), in order to be licensed as a lay-reader and subsequently be ordained in the Anglican Church.
Often new Christians feel somehow cheated that they cannot remember their infant baptism and therefore have no “experience” to recall, or that there was not a great deal of faith exercised by their parents and therefore that their baptism was somehow deficient. This is elevating the subjective over the objective.
On the other hand, it can be painful to faithful parents to see their mature children get re-baptized as if their sincere efforts at raising them in the faith were worthless. Michael Green, an evangelical Anglican author and priest, has suggested a pragmatic and generous approach to these situations. Where an adult feels he or she must be re-baptized they should consider this second application of water to be a re-affirmation of their original baptism, a vivid anamnesis (a Greek word for remembering in such a way as to make the memory a present reality) appropriating what God has already objectively offered in baptism.* Expressed this way, one honours one’s parents and their faith and avoids calling the original baptism a sham, for it is a serious thing to devalue what God has done. God’s Word says, “There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.” Ephesians 4:4-6. We can no more have two baptisms than two faiths, two Lords, two heavenly fathers. Whether Baptists recognize it or not, we have been baptized into the same faith regardless of our age at the time it occurred. That is an objective reality whether or not we remember it, or felt it. Salvation is not dependent on our feelings; it is dependent on what God has already done once and for all in Christ. We can debate the wisdom of applying baptism at various ages but we must not disregard what God has promised and achieved in incorporating us into the one Body of Christ.
Points of Agreement:
Christians agree that new Christians who have not been baptized before should obey Christ’s command to be baptized. We can agree that immersion is a powerful image. We can also agree that the indiscriminate baptism of children of non-believing parents is a scandal. We can agree that a ceremony by itself does not guarantee salvation; what is required is personal repentance and faith. Where we may differ is on whether baptism of children from Christian homes is valid or not.
Conclusion: the pastoral approach
At COOL,
1. New Christians who come to faith should be encouraged to be baptized (preferably by immersion) as soon as possible after instruction in basic Christian faith, if they have never been baptized before.
2. If they were baptized previously (eg as infants) then they should be given an opportunity to publicly renew those baptismal vows made on their behalf by their parents and sponsors. Confirmation is one possible opportunity to do this.
3. We will not re-baptize those who have previously been baptized in water, in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, in a denomination which adheres to the Nicene Creed.
4. Infants with at least one believing parent, whose parent(s) and godparents are willing to receive instruction in Christian faith, and understand the promises they are making on the infants’ behalf, will be offered baptism under the understanding that the children will need to subsequently make those promises their own.
5.Infants will not be baptized if neither parent is a committed Christian active in the local church.
6. We shall respect parents who, after careful consideration, wish to postpone baptism of their children until they are old enough to decide for themselves. They may opt for a simple “Thanksgiving” ceremony to thank God for the birth of their children.
I believe this approach is consistent with Scripture and is genuinely welcoming to all faithful Christians.
David Bowler, Church of Our Lord, Comox Valley. BC.
Advent 2005.
*Green, M. Baptism P. 125 (Hodder Christian Paperbacks 1987)
Suggested Reading:
Packer, J.I. I Want to be a Christian (Kingsway Publications 1977)
Packer is and Anglican theologian of the Reformed persuasion.
Bridge, D. and Phypers, D. The Water that Divides (Intervarsity Press 1977)
Bridge is a Baptist pastor; Phypers an Anglican.
Pawson, D. The Normal Christian Birth
Pawson is a Baptist of an Arminian persuasion.
Green, M. Baptism (Hodder Christian Paperbacks 1987)
Green is an evangelical Anglican priest.
Confirming Faith Week 11, The Sacraments
Last week we discussed the Sacraments in general, and Communion in particular. We were privileged to have Kathy King, an AMiA misionary, share with us a study on the Eucharist.
I don't have her handout on line but here is the one we used for background.
Confirming Faith Week 11 The Sacraments
Have you ever seen a movie in which a courageous band of soldiers defend or rescue their regimental colours or standard, or watched a news clip of raging mobs burning and stamping on the Stars and Stripes? What’s with a piece of cloth anyway?
What do the items in the following lists have in common with each other? What are the similarities and differences between the lists?
A dollar bill A photograph of money
A marriage certificate A gold band on the third finger of the left hand
A license to practice medicine A white lab coat
An officer’s commission from the queen A soldier’s uniform
A maple leaf The Canadian flag
An icon on you computer desk top The wallpaper on the screen.
A hug An E-card from Dayspring
Do you recall the illustration about the million dollar cheque when we talked about the Holy Spirit? What conditions had to be met by for the recipient to actually be a million dollars richer?
As we begin to think about the Christian sacraments we will quickly find ourselves wrestling with concepts of “reality” on the one hand and “symbolism” on the other. As always at COOL, we respect a range of perspectives, but, to be a bit provocative, the first column represents a catholic understanding of reality, the second a protestant view of symbolism. The Anglican way attempts to keep the two together. Sometimes that’s a stretch. In the world of the Old and New Testaments, symbolism and reality were closely connected. That was the case for the first 1000 years or so of the Christian church. That is still the approach of the Eastern Church and of the Anglican middle way.
What is a sacrament?
A sacrament is an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual reality. It is a tangible way in which God’s grace is received by faith. The word comes from Latin sacramentum which was the oath of allegiance taken by a soldier. Eastern Christians call them “mysteries” because God works through them in ways we cannot fully define.
How many are there?
Christians have had a variety of answers as to which practices should be considered sacraments. About 800 years ago the Roman Church set the number at seven. The Eastern Church recognizes the same seven but is not fussy about the number. The Protestant reformers reduced them to two. Some Protestants discarded them altogether. Some call them “ordinances” instead of sacraments. Anglicans regard two (Communion and Baptism) as sacraments of the gospel which Christ himself commanded be observed and which “are generally necessary for salvation”, but we also use the other five “commonly called sacraments” or sacramental rites. Only the first two apply to all Christians, although confirmation could. This week Kathy King will be leading a discussion on the Eucharist. Next week we look at baptism and confirmation with Cynthia’s help. Later we hope to touch on the others briefly.
The seven are:
The Eucharist (Communion, Lord’s Supper or Mass)
Baptism in water.
Confirmation (or chrismation, not to be confused with cremation!)
Marriage
Confession (also called Reconciliation or Penance)
Ordination
Anointing the sick (unction)
How are the reality and the symbol connected? What one believes about this affects how one responds.
Roman Catholics would say that the symbol becomes the reality when the proper words and actions are performed by the proper person (the priest). Baptism makes one a Christian. The bread and wine become Jesus’ body and blood and therefore can be worshiped after they are consecrated.
Some Protestants would say they are purely symbolic; they only point to the reality which is spiritual. One becomes a Christian by conversion; baptism is an optional outward symbol of what has already occurred within. The bread and juice remain bread and juice and left-overs can be discarded.
Anglicans and some other Protestants would say that the symbol conveys the reality when received by faith. Anglicans therefore reverently consume any remaining elements at communion because they have been set apart for holy use.
Two dangers to avoid.
When approaching the sacraments one should avoid the two extremes: An overly “real” approach can lead to superstition and idolatry or to a mechanical view of how God acts which neglects the importance of faith and a right attitude of heart. The other extreme lacks the proper reverence for God’s actions. To neglect the sacraments is to be disobedient to Jesus and to lose out on what he has to offer through them.
What is the point anyway? The bottom line.
God knows how we are made. He made our senses. He is Spirit and we are to worship him in spirit and in truth. We are also to worship him with all that we are. If we elevate the importance of physical things we can make idols out of them. Nevertheless, he knows we need things we can see, touch, feel, taste, smell. The one who is Spirit became material in Jesus so we could see the human face of God. Similarly, Jesus and his apostles used physical things: wine, bread, oil, water, and human hands to be means of receiving his grace. Try as we might we can never fully comprehend how he works. We simply receive with thanks what he gives.
The Eucharist: the following section is a bit technical and historical and is provided for reference only:
Based on the command of Christ and the example of the apostles who broke bread from house to house, Christians have been receiving spiritual sustenance at the Lord’s Table since the church began. What Christ intended as a fellowship meal in his memory has unfortunately often been an occasion for disagreement over exactly what happens in the Lord’s Supper. For the first few centuries Christians did not speculate on exactly how the Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Christ but accepted that they were so. As early as 150 AD Justin Martyr (Apology 65-66) wrote:
For we do not receive them as common bread and drink; but as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation; similarly we have been taught that the food which is blessed by the word of prayer transmitted from him, and by which our blood and flesh are changed and nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.
This is the faith that was passed on by the apostles only two generations earlier. Even today the Eastern Church accepts that the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ at the epiclesis (prayer for the Holy Spirit) but they do not presume to explain how. A holy mystery is by definition inexplicable. We in the West tend to be reductionist, reducing things to their component parts, separating what rightly belongs together and insisting on either/or when both/and might serve better. So it was that in the ninth and tenth centuries controversy arose in the West between those (such as Ratramnus and Belanger of Tours), who described the elements as symbols, and those (eg Paschasius and Lanfranc) who insisted on their physical reality. Finally, in 1215 the Fourth Lateran Council adopted transubstantiation as the Roman church’s official position.
Roman Catholic scholars borrowed philosophical concepts from Aristotle to explain exactly how this occurs. They also taught during the Middle Ages that Jesus was re-sacrificed by the priest each time Mass was said. Rome no longer expresses it that way but still regards the Mass as a sacrifice. The Reformers, teaching from the clear words of the book of Hebrews, maintained that Jesus’ one sacrifice was totally sufficient and unrepeatable, and that he is our only high priest.
The Reformers disagreed on the best way to replace the Roman Catholic sacramental theology. Luther believed in the ubiquity of Christ’s body and that the Body and Blood of Christ very received in, with and under the elements of bread and wine (“consubstantiation”). Zwingli in Zurich is said to have taught that the elements were merely symbols and that the Lord’s Supper is only a memorial. Calvin took a different line, teaching that the sacraments are means of grace but that the Body and Blood of Christ are received in a spiritual manner by the faithful. Cranmer, as Archbishop of Canterbury at the time of the Reformation, held several different positions: Catholic, Lutheran and Reformed, at different times. What has come down to us in the Anglican Liturgy of the Book of Common Prayer is essentially a Reformed service of Holy Communion which, as befitting the via media, is sufficiently nuanced or ambiguous enough to permit for a range of understanding of the Eucharist between, but not including, transubstantiation on the one hand and mere symbolism on the other.
Queen Elizabeth 1 is credited with the following verse regarding the Lord’s Supper:
"Christ was the Word that spake it:He took the Bread and brake it;And what that Word did make it,That I believe and take it."
Perhaps that is the right way to approach this mystery.
I don't have her handout on line but here is the one we used for background.
Confirming Faith Week 11 The Sacraments
Have you ever seen a movie in which a courageous band of soldiers defend or rescue their regimental colours or standard, or watched a news clip of raging mobs burning and stamping on the Stars and Stripes? What’s with a piece of cloth anyway?
What do the items in the following lists have in common with each other? What are the similarities and differences between the lists?
A dollar bill A photograph of money
A marriage certificate A gold band on the third finger of the left hand
A license to practice medicine A white lab coat
An officer’s commission from the queen A soldier’s uniform
A maple leaf The Canadian flag
An icon on you computer desk top The wallpaper on the screen.
A hug An E-card from Dayspring
Do you recall the illustration about the million dollar cheque when we talked about the Holy Spirit? What conditions had to be met by for the recipient to actually be a million dollars richer?
As we begin to think about the Christian sacraments we will quickly find ourselves wrestling with concepts of “reality” on the one hand and “symbolism” on the other. As always at COOL, we respect a range of perspectives, but, to be a bit provocative, the first column represents a catholic understanding of reality, the second a protestant view of symbolism. The Anglican way attempts to keep the two together. Sometimes that’s a stretch. In the world of the Old and New Testaments, symbolism and reality were closely connected. That was the case for the first 1000 years or so of the Christian church. That is still the approach of the Eastern Church and of the Anglican middle way.
What is a sacrament?
A sacrament is an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual reality. It is a tangible way in which God’s grace is received by faith. The word comes from Latin sacramentum which was the oath of allegiance taken by a soldier. Eastern Christians call them “mysteries” because God works through them in ways we cannot fully define.
How many are there?
Christians have had a variety of answers as to which practices should be considered sacraments. About 800 years ago the Roman Church set the number at seven. The Eastern Church recognizes the same seven but is not fussy about the number. The Protestant reformers reduced them to two. Some Protestants discarded them altogether. Some call them “ordinances” instead of sacraments. Anglicans regard two (Communion and Baptism) as sacraments of the gospel which Christ himself commanded be observed and which “are generally necessary for salvation”, but we also use the other five “commonly called sacraments” or sacramental rites. Only the first two apply to all Christians, although confirmation could. This week Kathy King will be leading a discussion on the Eucharist. Next week we look at baptism and confirmation with Cynthia’s help. Later we hope to touch on the others briefly.
The seven are:
The Eucharist (Communion, Lord’s Supper or Mass)
Baptism in water.
Confirmation (or chrismation, not to be confused with cremation!)
Marriage
Confession (also called Reconciliation or Penance)
Ordination
Anointing the sick (unction)
How are the reality and the symbol connected? What one believes about this affects how one responds.
Roman Catholics would say that the symbol becomes the reality when the proper words and actions are performed by the proper person (the priest). Baptism makes one a Christian. The bread and wine become Jesus’ body and blood and therefore can be worshiped after they are consecrated.
Some Protestants would say they are purely symbolic; they only point to the reality which is spiritual. One becomes a Christian by conversion; baptism is an optional outward symbol of what has already occurred within. The bread and juice remain bread and juice and left-overs can be discarded.
Anglicans and some other Protestants would say that the symbol conveys the reality when received by faith. Anglicans therefore reverently consume any remaining elements at communion because they have been set apart for holy use.
Two dangers to avoid.
When approaching the sacraments one should avoid the two extremes: An overly “real” approach can lead to superstition and idolatry or to a mechanical view of how God acts which neglects the importance of faith and a right attitude of heart. The other extreme lacks the proper reverence for God’s actions. To neglect the sacraments is to be disobedient to Jesus and to lose out on what he has to offer through them.
What is the point anyway? The bottom line.
God knows how we are made. He made our senses. He is Spirit and we are to worship him in spirit and in truth. We are also to worship him with all that we are. If we elevate the importance of physical things we can make idols out of them. Nevertheless, he knows we need things we can see, touch, feel, taste, smell. The one who is Spirit became material in Jesus so we could see the human face of God. Similarly, Jesus and his apostles used physical things: wine, bread, oil, water, and human hands to be means of receiving his grace. Try as we might we can never fully comprehend how he works. We simply receive with thanks what he gives.
The Eucharist: the following section is a bit technical and historical and is provided for reference only:
Based on the command of Christ and the example of the apostles who broke bread from house to house, Christians have been receiving spiritual sustenance at the Lord’s Table since the church began. What Christ intended as a fellowship meal in his memory has unfortunately often been an occasion for disagreement over exactly what happens in the Lord’s Supper. For the first few centuries Christians did not speculate on exactly how the Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Christ but accepted that they were so. As early as 150 AD Justin Martyr (Apology 65-66) wrote:
For we do not receive them as common bread and drink; but as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation; similarly we have been taught that the food which is blessed by the word of prayer transmitted from him, and by which our blood and flesh are changed and nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.
This is the faith that was passed on by the apostles only two generations earlier. Even today the Eastern Church accepts that the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ at the epiclesis (prayer for the Holy Spirit) but they do not presume to explain how. A holy mystery is by definition inexplicable. We in the West tend to be reductionist, reducing things to their component parts, separating what rightly belongs together and insisting on either/or when both/and might serve better. So it was that in the ninth and tenth centuries controversy arose in the West between those (such as Ratramnus and Belanger of Tours), who described the elements as symbols, and those (eg Paschasius and Lanfranc) who insisted on their physical reality. Finally, in 1215 the Fourth Lateran Council adopted transubstantiation as the Roman church’s official position.
Roman Catholic scholars borrowed philosophical concepts from Aristotle to explain exactly how this occurs. They also taught during the Middle Ages that Jesus was re-sacrificed by the priest each time Mass was said. Rome no longer expresses it that way but still regards the Mass as a sacrifice. The Reformers, teaching from the clear words of the book of Hebrews, maintained that Jesus’ one sacrifice was totally sufficient and unrepeatable, and that he is our only high priest.
The Reformers disagreed on the best way to replace the Roman Catholic sacramental theology. Luther believed in the ubiquity of Christ’s body and that the Body and Blood of Christ very received in, with and under the elements of bread and wine (“consubstantiation”). Zwingli in Zurich is said to have taught that the elements were merely symbols and that the Lord’s Supper is only a memorial. Calvin took a different line, teaching that the sacraments are means of grace but that the Body and Blood of Christ are received in a spiritual manner by the faithful. Cranmer, as Archbishop of Canterbury at the time of the Reformation, held several different positions: Catholic, Lutheran and Reformed, at different times. What has come down to us in the Anglican Liturgy of the Book of Common Prayer is essentially a Reformed service of Holy Communion which, as befitting the via media, is sufficiently nuanced or ambiguous enough to permit for a range of understanding of the Eucharist between, but not including, transubstantiation on the one hand and mere symbolism on the other.
Queen Elizabeth 1 is credited with the following verse regarding the Lord’s Supper:
"Christ was the Word that spake it:He took the Bread and brake it;And what that Word did make it,That I believe and take it."
Perhaps that is the right way to approach this mystery.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
