Why does it all have to be so complicated?

Once again – so many different beliefs; so many different views of what worship or sacraments are and how we should relate to them. And again, Baptists and others must choose to agree to disagree with our Catholic and other sacramental friends. I like Gordon Lathrop’s definition of the essentials of Christian worship: “A community gathers in prayer around the scriptures read and proclaimed. This community of the word then tastes the meaning of that word by keeping the meal of Christ, giving thanks over bread and cup and eating and drinking.” He goes on to note that the community gathered together will receive teaching of the mercy and mystery of God, and be washed in the name of that same God (74).¹ Wasn’t this the original idea in Acts??

Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts, praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved (NIV, Acts 2:46-47).

 

It wasn’t rocket science. They didn’t write volumes about where the temple was, or whose house was more appropriate to meet in. No mention was made of who made the salad and whether it was from the Galilee area or Judea. They didn’t talk politics or try to figure out which temple was best to go to because the rabbi was better. So what did they do that was so inviting to others? They met together. They ate together. And they had glad and sincere hearts praising God. They were involved with each other and with God! And they gave up two things that are so valuable today that even pastors and priests are hesitant to speak on it = independence and time. It takes time to meet together; to prepare a meal together; to eat together. It is difficult for Americans to give up our independence and just be with other people. Not expressing our own ideas or listening to ourselves. They ate. They praised. And yes, I am aware that some regard these original ‘Christians’ as different because they expected Christ to return at any moment. My answer to that – Shouldn’t we expect the same thing??? Our church lives are too complicated. I want to return to the basics. I want to have a glad and sincere heart. And I want God to add to our numbers daily those who are being saved.

¹Johnson, Maxwell E., ed.  Sacraments and Worship. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2012. Print.

Lawyer's Week 9 Blog

In reading Nathan Mitchell’s writing on the topic of sacrament, I was not far into the reading when I began to find what I conclude to be an overreaching or over blown perception of term sacrament. With all due respect to the writer and full acknowledgement of his scholarly status, I do not agree with expanding the limited meaningfulness of sacrament as more of a ceremonial practice with the triune identity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Nathan Mitchell reached this conclusion in the first paragraph relying on comments from Richard P. McBrien. This seemed to set the tone and was more like a preview of what to expect in the writing. And, sure enough, as I continued reading further, the writer continued in a pattern of attempting to convey the meaningfulness of the term “Sacrament”. Another instance where this becomes quite obvious is when the writer refers to “Prayer” as an intertwining facet of sacrament. I was really lost on this point. I do not see the relating comparison between “Prayer” and “Sacrament. It does not stop there. I always thought of prayer as something which comes from the heart and is more of a spontaneous expression of what an individual needs to say to God in his or her own behalf at certain specific times in daily life. The writer reached back to the 17^th century to make reference to a prayer preserved by Queen Christina of Sweden to validate and emphasize his misinterpreted importance of the relationship between “Sacraments” and prayer. I do not get it. I definitely have an appreciation for deep thinking but this guy went too far. According to the dictionary, the term sacrament limited to ceremonial and ritualistic practices. Maybe the why I do not agree with the content of the article is because I do not believe in making something simple appear to be so complicated. I also think this article represents a clear example of over-intellectualizing a subject matter. Unfortunately, the habit of doing so is fairly common in Christian writings. The additional drawback falls on the minds of those seeking guidance or the readers who hope to attain insights; they can be either confused, misled, or just starving for the simple truth.

Posting on Behalf of Amos Tekoa: The Physics of Liturgy; The Liturgical Law of Motion Dynamics

Robert Taft provides a very interesting perspective on the understanding of what liturgy means.  In our course text, Sacraments and Worship, Taft offers that “liturgy is not just ritual, not just a cult, not just the worship we offer God.  It is fist of all God’s coming to us in Christ” (82). He further describes his thoughts in that liturgy is not singular or individualistic, but rather the amalgamation of many parts of the whole, joining together in worship to celebrate together as the Body of Christ.  Nathan Mitchell describes liturgy the in the form of “not something beautiful we do for God, but something beautiful God does for us and among us” (97).  He further states that “our work is to feed the hungry, to refresh the thirsty, to clothe the naked, to care for the sick, to shelter the homeless; to visit the imprisoned; to welcome the stranger; to open our hands and hearts to the vulnerable and the needy” (97).   He describes a movement that starts in the form of a ritual, but moves beyond the ritual into that of a performance of action.

Prior to this assignment’s readings, I may have overlooked the significance of the concept of such a liturgical dynamics.   I previously held an understanding of liturgy as mere public display of worship or traditional acts of the church.  I now understand the dynamics of liturgy in a far more meaningful sense.  I now understand it in the context of an overarching energy or sorts.  This energy exists because we as Christians combine our dynamic energies toward an active and participatory performance of our faith.  It is the outpouring of our faith in expression beyond that of a show, but more so as a collective dynamic towards the will of God. 

We can use Newton’s 1^st and 2^nd Law of Motion to help us understand this liturgical concept.  For the purposes of this blog, I’ll call it the Liturgical Law of Motion Dynamics.  In Newton’s first law, an object either remains at rest or continues to move at a constant velocity unless acted upon.  His second law, states that the force of an object is equal to the mass of the object multiplied by the acceleration of the object (you may be familiar with F=ma).  In our Law of of Motion Dynamics, we are like the objects that remain at rest, until the Holy Spirit, through the Grace of God, moves us into active participation in the community of faith.  Our active participation can be explained by the second law, in which we are like the object (mass) that is multiplied by the acceleration (a) of our faith.  This mass (us) and the acceleration of our faith (acceleration) is equal to the force that we make in fulfilling our expression of faith, hope and love.  In other words: Force  = Mass x Acceleration can also be describes as Dynamic Faith Force = Us x Active Faith.  How large is our Dynamic Faith Force?

http://www.khanacademy.org/test-prep/mcat/physical-processes/newtons-laws-and-equilibrium/v/newton-s-second-law-of-motion

Johnson, Maxwell. Sacraments and Worship The Sources of Christian Theology. Louisville:Knox, 2012. Print

The readings this week look at the evolution of the notion of sacraments in the Church.  . Jesus called people to” repent and believe the good news” (Mk 1:15), and he told Nicodemus that “no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit” (Jn 3:5), but we don’t hear that those who followed Jesus needed to be baptized.    Only after Jesus had ascended into heaven and the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the disciples do we hear Peter call people to “Repent and be baptized, every one of you” (Acts2:38).  So baptism comes after Jesus’ life on earth has ended.   As Leo I said, “What was visible in our Redeemer when on earth has become operative in sacramental signs” (Johnson 4).

As far as the Eucharist is concerned, Vondey makes it clear throughout People of Bread that “the sharing of bead is the purest form of companionship” (195).  At the Last Supper, Jesus gave the breaking of bread a whole new dimension, “a new form of unity between God and humankind,” which “forms the heart of its sacramental nature in the world” (195).

I don’t know when the Church began using the term “sacrament,” but St. Augustine speaks of it as some sort of physical element which, combined with the words proper to it spoken in faith, will cleanse the soul (Johnson 2). In the passages cited from Augustine, he says nothing about the number of the sacraments” James F. White notes that Augustine called almost anything a sacrament (Johnson 4, 30-31).

Peter Lombard (12^th century) names seven sacraments.  The basis for their being included seems to be that they are practiced within the community and they contain the power which they signify.  Thomas Aquinas (13^th century) says the sacraments are necessary for salvation and are the cause of grace.  He also states that baptism, confirmation and orders imprint a perpetual character on the soul, and only God can institute a sacrament. (6-7, 9)

During the 16^th century and the Protestant Reformation, there is a radical shift.  Martin Luther denies that there are seven sacraments, and the main thrust of the reformers is to accept only two sacraments, baptism and the Lord’s Supper (12-20).

The Catholic Reformation, also in the 16^th century, is remarkable for its defensive holding on to its positions of the past, going so far as to insist that all seven sacraments were instituted by Jesus Christ, and to damn anyone who did not agree with them (21).  It made me sad to read this.

A hundred years later the Society of Friends rejects all external sacraments, believing that “All true and acceptable worship to God is offered in the inward and immediate moving and drawing of his own Spirit…”  (23).  They believe that both baptism and communion of the Body and Blood of Christ are inward and spiritual.

In the modern period, there are exciting developments.  Edward Schillebeeckx, in Christ, the Sacrament of the Encounter with God, sees sacraments as “not things, but encounters of men on earth with the glorified man Jesus by way of a visible form…. They are the visible and tangible embodiment of the heavenly saving action of Christ”  (Johnson 26-27). 

Karl Rahner sees the Church as “the primal sacrament,” and says that sacraments are not always based on a definite, preserved statement spoken by Jesus himself.  There can be many sacraments:  “A fundamental act of the Church in an individual’s regard, in situations that are decisive for him, an act which truly involves the nature of the Church as the historical, eschatological presence of redemptive grace is ipso facto a sacrament” (Johnson 29).

James F. White, a Protestant theologian, has developed a classification of the sacraments: 

 Dominical – instituted by Christ:  Baptism and the Lord’s Supper.                                             Apostolic – continue action of the apostles: reconciliation, healing, confirmation             
 Natural – marriage and burial.

What I see in this sacramental development is:                                                                       
 First,  emergence from traditional community customs of sacred rituals following the example of Jesus;  development of other sacred rituals based on the needs of the community and continuing the “intentions and actions of Jesus”;  development of sacred rituals to mark key moments of the human life-cycle.  None of these were rigidly structured.  All made Jesus present in their everyday lives.

Second,  analysis of the structure of these rituals and their classification.  They become more formalized and rigid.  Sometimes rules could take attention away from their purpose.

Third,  return to the roots; realization that some of the structures meant to facilitate an encounter with God were hindering it.  Work to ‘enlarge the tent’ so that God can break through everywhere, including through feminist, liberation, Asian, African, and other local theologies, even in the prison.