Big Place, Small People

Last week (early December, 2010) the estimated number of stars in the universe was increased three-fold to 300,000,000,000,000,000,000 (give or take a couple). I'm smiling. I'm guessing that's how I'd say, "Don't really know." I'm guessing we're the only species offering doctorates on such things.

Whatever the case, we're part of a bigger picture. That's actually a scientific trend--wherever one stands, things get incomprehensibly bigger and bigger and smaller and smaller. Infinity lies without and within. So, whatever one believes, there is a greater picture and more details. Perhaps this is a fundamental glimpse of the divine--greater and finer than us. Mysteries great and small.

We're surrounded by divinity.

I have a science experiment: Materials: a common nail and a coke bottle. Is it possible, in a single toss, to throw a nail across a yard and have it drop down the neck of a Coca Cola bottle? Scientifically, yes; it's undeniably possible; there's nothing physically blocking the nail from the bottle. Scientifically, no, it's impossible; the variables that would allow the nail to share the same space as the bottle cannot be controlled to meet such an expectation. A successful attempt would be unexplainable.  Sort of.

So, if I throw the nail into the bottle, what's up?

Isn't it odd how something seems impossible until it happens, then it is undeniable to the witnesses and unexplainable to others. Sounds like religion.

If deity is what is beyond our understanding, candidates for divinity are infinite. Denying God is a waste of time. Intellectually, one system is as "god" as another if it explains things. Thus, a deity is where we go with mysteries and imponderables. Atheists profess no hope or expectation in "god," but I'm guessing they have hope and expectations in something else. We run into things that are unexplainable, but undeniable. In the end, the best we can do is speculate on what we think we know, test the waters, and leave the rest to hopes and expectations.

What do people crave? White Castles (see www.whitecastle.com) AND answers, reliability, wisdom, power, joy, truth, transcendence, and more. We want someone to say, "I can explain mysteries." In my scorebook, science qualifies as a religion as much as anything else. Those who turn to science love it's willingness to take on any mystery, impersonally, amorally, and meet needs.

Religion is hope and we frame our religion with expectations. Hope and expectations are our faith statements. These days I grapple with high hopes and low expectations. My hopes are what I believe, my expectations are what I have experienced. This says more about me than I understand. This philosophy is so transparently safe and convenient. Finding older adults with this philosophy is easy. Call it, "learned helplessness" or "idealism meets reality."  I'm optimistic, but experience has taught me I'm not in control of outcomes and outcomes can be painful. When I was younger I had high hopes and high expectations. Many young people are this way.

Things haven't turned out like I expected. Up to a point I thought X would happen because I was doing Y. Something unexplainable and undeniable happened. Perhaps the nail went in the bottle or I assumed it would and it didn't. I don't know. Some people have things happen and then have no hope and no expectations. I understand why this happens--sort of a "deeds become creeds" thing. We all examine our experiences with providence and pain, then manufacture a coherent, logical life story. Some abandon hopes or expectations over unexplainable, yet undeniable circumstances. "Nothing works," they say. 

When things appear to go wrong, I blame myself for lacking the wisdom or will-power to make good decisions or make correct sense of circumstances. I know life has choices and actions have consequences. When someone says their way skips all that, I smile. Thus, I expect there must be some connection between what's happening today and what I did yesterday. Life is full of infinitely small and large choices and actions. How they all work together is a mystery to me. I hope and expect they all eventually work together for good. 

There is an unexplainable rhythm and harmony in the universe that is undeniable. My friends speak in proofs, hypotheses, sermons, commandments, precepts, and theories, but the topic is inevitably the greater without or the more within. My colleagues are all about extending boundaries, but there is always "greater and more." We speak of the unexplainable. What we do not fully know but perceive to be so.  

What's the point?

Well, that's the ultimate question. We are everything from atheist to fundamentalist and in every case our hopes and expectations try to cipher the point of existence. We find our faith in our hopes and mysteries. We hope in what we believe. Our hope is as big as our belief. Christians believe the "greater and more" wants to get personal and be the object of our hopes and expectation. Until Christians get more details and the bigger picture we lean into the Bible and affirm the Apostle's Creed.  

The Psalmist says, God names all the stars and holds the universe in the span of his hand. I like that. My hope is that this is so and my expectation is that I will someday get to see more of the universe than I do now. What do your hopes and expectations have to offer? Reality is what it is regardless, so hope big. If God is for us, who can stand against us? If God isn't, I still have no regrets.  Perfect hope wishes hope for all.

This note borders on being silly because I think I know something. I'm also pretty sure there are 299,999,999,999,999,998 stars in the universe. They counted two stars twice.

Pain and Guilt

Our bodies and spirits have limits within which they work well—move beyond those limits and bad things happen. Martin Luther suggested self-loathing is a condition or penalty of wrongdoing that continues until the cause is appeased. Whether one agrees with Luther or not, humans experience internal dissonance over actions.

Guilt is analogous to pain. Guilt is to the human spirit as pain is to the human body. When the human body moves beyond its physical limits the result is discomfort and pain. When the human spirit moves beyond its moral limits the result is spiritual/mental discomfort and guilt.

The body is limited by its natural design and construction. Force a joint out of place and the result is pain. The spirit has built-in design and construction limitations, too. Go beyond these limits and things get bad. Bottom line: humans have natural limits.

Pain

The body seeks a life free of pain and hurt. We are at our physical best and happiest when we are pain-free. Pain or hurt comes from three sources:

1. When we force ourselves beyond our physical limits (direct choice).

2. From accidents, illness, or attacks (not by choice).

3. As a consequence of placing ourselves in high-risk situations likely to result in accidents (indirect choice).

Pain requiring no healing usually serves as a warning. For example, pain while exercising signals approaching or passed limits. Exercise and practice extend limits; abuse and inaction decrease limits. 

Pain usually requires healing. Healing involves triage (determining the seriousness of ailments), mending and medication, therapy/tending, and time. In severe cases those in pain cannot self-heal. Friends, family, and medical professionals help. Healing is a return to living within the body’s natural limits. In some cases healing returns the body to its former condition; in other cases the body remains scarred or disabled and pain may continue. Some injuries result in lifelong pain. Some injuries result in death.

Pain may be cured or masked by medication. Medication that helps one deal with pain while healing is typically good. Medication that keeps one from experiencing pain while surpassing limits is dangerous. Humans dislike pain so much that they are tempted to self-medicate in order to preempt pain.

Guilt

The human spirit seeks a life free of guilt and emotional hurt. We are at our best and happiest when we are guilt-free. Guilt or self-loathing comes from three sources:

1. When we force ourselves beyond our moral limits (direct choice).

2. From accidents, illness, or attacks (not by choice).

3. As a consequence of placing ourselves in high-risk situations likely to result in accidents (indirect choice).

Guilt that vanishes completely with a change in action usually serves as a warning. Humans learn from guilt experiences.

Guilt requires healing. Healing involves triage (determining the seriousness of moral transgression), changing behavior, apology, and acceptance. In severe cases guilt cannot be self-healed. Friends, family, and mental/spiritual professionals help. Healing is a return to former times; living within moral limits. In some cases healing returns the spirit to its former condition; in other cases the spirit remains scarred or disabled and guilt may continue. Some actions or injuries result in depression and lifelong guilt. Some injuries result in spiritual death.

Guilt may be treated or masked by medication. Medication that helps one deal with guilt while healing is typically good. Medication that keeps one from experiencing normal guilt while surpassing moral limits is dangerous. Humans dislike guilt so much that they are tempted to self-medicate in order to preempt guilt.

Becoming Guilt-Free

Our ultimate goal is to become pain and guilt-free. Humans naturally choose to relieve pain. Unfortunately, humans are not as inclined to admit guilt. As a result there are many unhappy, emotionally scarred and disabled individuals. Unaddressed pain and guilt lead to spiraling bad consequences. One ignores pain or guilt at one’s own risk.

Various religions and philosophies offer suggestions for moral healing: Atheism: Moral pragmatism, Buddhism: Eightfold Path, Confucianism: Right relationships, Hinduism: Dharma, Islam: Islamic law, Judaism: Mosaic Law, Taoism: Non-resistance, and Christianity: Repentance. In most religions, the god-figure is the source of moral authority and requires appeasement for guilt. Guilt is the result of offending a moral authority. Healing is the act of regaining acceptance from one’s moral authority.

Christianity and Guilt

Christianity has ironically become synonymous with guilt. The one faith that proclaims the “good news” of forgiveness and new starts is perceived as mercilessly judgmental. Many feel Christianity causes guilt. Christians are bad at marketing—they believe, “the body is a temple”, but they market it as “no smoking”, “no drinking”, “no drugs”, “no sex”, etc. As if turning sound principles to trite rules weren’t bad enough, some prominent Christians are really judgmental and unkind.

The Christian message is “Forgiveness!” yet many seem to be hearing, “Guilty!” The purpose of guilt is to encourage us to live guiltless and moral lives. Accusation and shame are another matter entirely. Accusation of guilt either hastens the healing or worsens the spiritual wound. Therefore, accusation is dangerous—it helps those who agree and hurts those who do not. Those who judge themselves as good and others as bad are as misguided as the Pharisees in Christ’s day. We are all in need of grace and forgiveness.

Christian-Judeo morality has strongly influenced the United States and Europe for centuries. Historic Christian communities relied heavily upon Mosaic Law to formulate socially acceptable moral limits. Throughout Christian history, grace (the cure for guilt) more often than not received second billing to The Law (the cause of guilt). Western churches emphasized the cause of guilt far more than the cure. Jesus’ principled guidance, “Love God, love your neighbor as yourself, and don’t judge”, was drowned out by the Ten Commandments.

In an effort to cure guilt many reject moral responsibility and declare themselves innocent. They declare: “Outside moral authority does not exist.” If one is only accountable to self; one need have no morals beyond what one approves. Yet, guilt continues. Declaring ourselves “Not guilty!” does not seem to work. The reason this method fails is self-accusation and shame. Self-accusation is when our chosen actions do not agree with our personal moral stance. While guilt is self-loathing, shame is suspecting others loathe us, too. Shame joins guilt when others know our shortcomings and we assume they judge us.

Healing

The first truth about healing guilt is that most of those around us wish we’d get healed, too. Spiritual healing is a return to one’s moral home. The return home is straightforward: Own the guilt, apologize, reject similar actions for the future, and start over. We also feel better if we do something morally good as restitution or a sign of our changed spirit.

The difficult part is taking responsibility for guilt. Physically, no one has trouble owning the pain in one’s body, but spiritually we often deny ownership of guilt. Healing seems simple, but religion can certainly muddy the waters. Religions typically add another step in the healing process. They have formulas for regaining self-respect and acceptance. All religious formulas have at least three common features: Confession, sacrifice, and change. Each religion provides a formula for becoming free of guilt and returning to happiness.

The sacrificial part varies among religions. All religions except Christianity require the guilty ones to do something to earn reacceptance. The actions required typically include offerings, sacrifices, self-denial, or submission to ceremonial cleansing rites. In Christianity, the guilty

1. Confess (admits error) and repent (ceases practicing the error),

2. Accept forgiveness (based upon the example of Christ), and

3. Start over (seeking to live the way Christ lived).

Christianity is built upon the idea that God is a loving father and we (all) are his children. This relationship was taught and demonstrated by Jesus Christ. Jesus made the outrageous claim that he was “one with the Father” (John 10:24-30)—claiming to be God wrapped in human flesh living a human life. C. S. Lewis (2005) wrote Jesus “either was (and is) just what He said or else a lunatic, or something worse.” Christians believe Jesus was who he said he was. Jesus taught we could be “one with the Father”, too.

Becoming a Christian is submitting to the healing process: Confess, repent, and accept God’s way—a life imitating Christ. Regardless of what others might add, the heart of Christian doctrine is grace—loving God with all one’s heart and treating others as one’s self (Matthew 22:37-40).

__________________________
Lewis, C. S. (2005). What Christians believe. San Francisco, CA: HarperSanFrancisco, p. 59.

Luther, Martin. (1517). Disputation of Doctor Martin Luther on the power and efficacy of indulgences. Spaeth, Reed, Jacobs, et Al., Trans. & Eds., Vol.1, pp. 29-38. Philadelphia: A. J. Holman Company, 1915.

The Way, the Truth, and the Life

Generally, the term “way” identifies a method for doing something. We often say, “Do it this way,” meaning one should imitate our actions. Teachers use behavioral tasks because knowledge is invisible, but its application is not. The mind is revealed by the way one behaves.

One may say he or she is a friend, but we know it by the way he or she acts. The way one drives, talks, or does a job reveals inner dispositions. James, one of the leaders in the first church with Peter and John, wrote what some think is the very first apostolic letter. Within about ten years of Christ’s ascension James wrote faith is observed in the way people act.

But someone will say, "You have faith; I have deeds." Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do. You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder. You foolish man, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless? (James 2:18-20, NIV)

This is probably the same James who went on to demonstrate his faith as the first apostle to be martyred. He was beheaded around 62 A.D. The way of faith is not to be lightly dismissed. This epistle suggests one of the earliest issues confronting the church was, “How can we tell who has faith?” James, speaking for the Apostles, answered from his experiences as one of Jesus’ inner circle—the way one lives reveals faith.

Jesus did not command his disciples to believe. He knew saying, “Trust me, I’m God,” was impossible to believe. He simply said, “Follow me.” If they followed, they saw Jesus communing with God and doing things only God could do. Eventually, they could conclude none other than Jesus was the Son of God. His way connected him to God.

Thus, we arrive at a key definition distinguishing Jesus from all others. He said, “My way is the only way to the Father.” This distinction is one culturally sensitive people dislike. Most concede Jesus is a way. They are quick to allow (perhaps with a smirk) that Jesus may be our way, but good, tolerant, inclusive, peace-loving folks acknowledge other ways, too. You may have thought this yourself—how could God be so narrow-minded and exclusive? Not one way, but may ways—Buddha’s way, Mohammed’s way, Moses’ way, or my way. In essence, whatever way anyone decides is best for them—whatever way you decide is best for you.

Well, Christians do not believe this. There are a number of good reasons why this is so. The main reason appears intellectually weak because it claims authority from itself—much like saying, “I’m right because I say I am.” Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life—no one comes to the Father except by me” (John 14:6, emphasis added).

Before anyone gets too upset, remember we are considering the way a thing is done. If I explained, “This is the way to spell ‘Atlanta,’” few would argue that to be fair, other combinations of letters ought to work just as well. “That’s the way to the kitchen,” but shouldn’t all ways lead to the kitchen? That would be absurd. A “way” has two parts, a method (path) and an objective (destination). In the case of Jesus, Buddha, Mohammed, Moses, or L. Ron Hubbard one must consider objectives for the method to make sense.

Many think all religions are basically the same, but this is intellectually shallow and obviously untrue. The objectives of Buddhism and Hinduism are to live above suffering and escape the rebirth cycle. The objective of Islam is to honor God through justice and return to Eden. The objective of Judaism is to honor God through keeping The Law of Moses. The objective of Confucianism is respectful relationships. The objective of Taoism is non-resistance and the middle path. The objective of humanism is fulfilling human potential. The objective of science is empirical understanding. The objective of Christianity is a relationship with God in the way of Jesus.

Some will say, “Its clear Christians are obsessed with this ‘Jesus’ fellow.” Christians believe God became human in the form of Jesus to show us the way to support his side in the Great Rebellion. C.S. Lewis said, “This man we are talking about either was (and is) just what He said or else a lunatic, or something worse.” Christians are crazy—they believe in a heavenly rebellion led by unseen principals, incarnation behind enemy lines, and a grand storyline in which the incarnation conquers death and reclaims our rebel planet. In today’s world this sounds more like a video game than a reality.

Yet, it is the way Christians have historically seen things.

Religions have different ways because they have different objectives. The different paths often cross or merge for stretches, but in the end they lead to distinct destinations. Three of the world’s major religions—Christianity, Judaism, and Islam—attempt to placate God and almost all significant religious paths merge at “Do as you would be done unto,” but only Christianity ends at Jesus as God. Christ as the way applies if you are trying to reach his objective—a personal, meaningful relationship with God.

We live on a rebellious planet. Lucifer started the Great Rebellion and brought it to Earth. The war cry of the Rebellion is, “I am wise—I know what’s best.” Those opposing the Rebellion say, “God is wise and His Way is best.” Christians state, “His Way is revealed in Christ.” A clever rebel will say, “But aren’t you just dreaming up God, Jesus, and this rebellion business? You are guilty of defining your own reality.” I can only reply, “I believe this is not the case.”

I bring this point up now because Christianity leans upon faith and rebels lean upon intellect—the fuel of the Rebellion. Ironically, trusting intellect is faith in self. The Great Rebellion provides a framework for analyzing the many ways of this world. A simple question emerges: From which side of the Rebellion does something flow? The Great Rebellion focuses on reason and self—the human way. Those in the Resistance focus upon God’s way.

I must share a personal note here about how deeply the spirit of rebellion runs. Almost every breakthrough in faith has come at the realization of how selfish I truly am. Throughout my Christian pilgrimage I’ve resisted submitting to just about everything and everybody. My way was always a bit better. I was friendly, had talent, and some engaging ideas. Sadly, if whatever I was involved in didn’t spin my way, entertain me, or agreed with me, I’d check out. Inwardly I’d evaluate prayers, offerings, study techniques, teaching, leadership, and worship styles, etc. For years I rejected repeating the Lord’s Prayer because it seemed “, artificial” and “insincere.” Whenever someone read a prayer or preached a less-than-dynamic sermon I’d secretly think, “I could have done better than that!”

What a jerk! I was more often than not left wanting something more—always looking for Six Flays Over Jesus or Beatles Worship Bands. I’m still learning the discipline of faithful submission—to recognize the Holy Spirit’s power in things I’d formerly dismissed as weak or poor versions of faith. Turns out the greater part of my life has been spent in missing the Spirit’s wisdom and fellowship because I though I was the “active ingredient” in Christianity. It turns out God is everywhere—even in those Catholic masses you can watch on EWTN on cable. Pride is NOT God’s way, but we might consider discussing that later.

Those trying to quit rebelling and join the Resistance eventually must consider, “How can I know God’s way?” If the answer is human it is tainted by the Rebellion with self-centeredness and corruption. If the answer is from God it is perfection and exceeds human capacity. Thus, at the right time, while we were yet rebels, God infiltrated Earth as a human (Romans 5). God became human to demonstrate his love while defeating the principals (and principles) of the Great Rebellion. God became Jesus and demonstrated the way to live on a rebellious planet. The way to the Father is Jesus. God, in Jesus, said, “Do it this way.”

Jesus and Text

Jesus could read (Luke 4:16). He could write (John 8:6). Jesus Christ could have personally written down explicit directions about the way to God.

He didn’t.

The Way of Repentance

What many fail to realize is that the Great Rebellion from our side is about power, but from God’s side it’s about freedom. Ironically, God’s placement of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil within our reach guaranteed we could turn from him any time we wished. God gave humans the freedom (and power) to choose him or the tree.

I suspect God made a similar offer to Lucifer eons ago—probably used the same tree. “Lucifer, you can be with me forever and have anything in the universe, but stay away from that tree on Earth.” Lucifer couldn’t resist, rebelled, and also drew us in, “You think you have everything, but God won’t let you eat the fruit from that tree. Are you his slave that you obey everything he says?”

I think God would have liked for us all to have ignored the tree, but maybe the tree was like a cross. Pain, misery, death, and loneliness teach us the peace, joy, life, and love God grants to those who seek him. Maybe he knew we couldn’t appreciate him until we spent some time on the outside. “I want a two-way relationship with humans, so I’ll let them rebel—when they see the other side, they might look again to me.”

Jesus is the “fix” for the Great Rebellion. He is the way back to Eden for anyone who wants to return to the cool walks in the evening with God at one’s side. Jesus is the way to a personal relationship with a personal God. Jesus demonstrates the way and attitude necessary as one approaches God.

Perhaps this is a good place to mention a lot of nice things happen on the way to the God. The Rebellion likes to trivialize and redirect our attention to by-products of a relationship with God. Thus, on this rebel planet, who is surprised that Christianity has grown self-centric?

Here are some of the ways the Rebellion has taken the by-products of a godly life and spun them into the objectives of human life:

• eternity in heaven
• salvation from hell and evil
• power in spirit and influence
• healing/physical well-being
• blessings/prosperity
• inside guidance
• happiness, joy, peace, and love
• pride in being right and good
• supernatural abilities

The truth in Christ is these may be found on the way or in God’s presence, but they tend to be paradoxical. Heaven requires one be last. Salvation comes through trials. Power is practiced in meekness. Healing is something to be given to others. Prosperity is valuing the little things. Inside tips are for the betterment of the faith community. Happiness, joy, peace, and love are often bestowed in tribulation and persecution. Pride comes before a fall. Finally, supernatural abilities tend to be most often manifest during martyrdom.

Christ was one with the Father and his life might be seen by many as a first rate tragedy of misunderstanding, hatred, and betrayal ending in a terrible death. The steps up to God’s throne were not an easy climb because he carried the sins of the world on his shoulders. Assuming one has the desire to submit to the will of God, approaching the throne is fraught with challenges. Our sins clutter up the steps.

King David, in Psalms 51, as he attempted to draw close to God, finds he is blocked by his sin. David writes, “For I know my transgressions, and my sin is always before me. Against you, you only, have I sinned and done what is evil in your sight.” As we draw close to God we find our sins stand on the steps—between us and fellowship with God.

Fortunately, Jesus bore the burden of our sins and shared with us the way to take care of sin that separates us from God. He knew sin blocked us from having a relationship with the Father. He even went so far as to submit to the human side of the process with the help of his cousin, John the Baptist, at the Jordan River. After the ascension Peter reiterates the proper way to deal with sin.

The way?

Repentance.

A Conversation with Myself

We live on a rebel planet. The principals here are rebellious, subtle spirits. What if we’re full of our own wisdom and are sleeping with the enemy. We are surrounded by rebellion. Perhaps we self-made Christians yet rebel. Perhaps we love God in our own image.

You are truly daft. You see evil everywhere. I confess, you are overly excited and negative. In fact, you are approaching neurotic paranoia.

Maybe, but even in our best moments we find ourselves tasting good and evil. Remember in church yesterday, you said you could have done the sermon much better than the pastor.

Well, admit it, I could have done better. You know me. It was as if the sermon came from Newsweek instead of the Bible. Pithy clichés are no substitute for in depth Bible study.

You could preach, but you aren’t the preacher, or at least you’ve never submitted to the call to preach. Furthermore, don’t you constantly complain about church—the creeds, the responses, the liturgy, hymns, the sermons, and everything else? You don’t even like to recite the Lord’s Prayer and are bothered by how sacraments or ordinances are conducted!

Why repeat something another has said or written? Spirituality—especially prayer—must be personal. Shouldn’t our faith be expressed in our terms, in our voice?

Granted, empty worship is possible and perhaps happens more than we’d wish, but who decides what is empty or full? Who put us in charge of evaluating everything? The Gospel message is repenting—saying we are wrong and submitting to God in a Jesus-like love. We say we submit to Christ, but constantly find fault with his bride.

You are a fool. “You shall know them by their fruits.” Certainly we are wrong sometimes, but most of the time we are right. Why do you think God gave us brains and spirits, if not to weigh and evaluate? I suppose you’d be happy if the Sunday services were read to us?

Perhaps God gave us brains and spirits to find the best in a poor or meager spiritual offering. Maybe we aren’t the judge. Maybe there’s water in the desert. Perhaps there’s grace in suffering through things we don’t prefer. Maybe we are designed for the garden—not exciting, but fruitful when God provides the rain. We seem to be always trying to make it rain.

You’d make a good Catholic. Close the brain and take whatever comes. The problem with Catholics, Anglicans, and others is they never have a personal experience. They just go through the motions. They worship in dead churches with dead liturgy under the leadership of dead priests.

I must confess I had those same thoughts until recently. I noticed we have the tendency to define our own faith using our own terms based upon our interpretation of the Bible and we search out worship and praise experiences that suit our tastes. Don’t you see a pattern, here? People are going through the motions?! Why should we even consider this?

How many dead, dry worship services have we endured? Are you insane?! You were totally on board with the contemporary worship and practical sermons you heard in Atlanta. What? You don’t think those services are of God?

Well, yes, I think they probably are—no, I know they are, but maybe that’s only true when the heart comes in submission rather than in self-fulfillment or self-indulgence. Rather than worship great experiences we need to experience great worship. Really, is worship or church about us or God? Who is the spectator and who acts? It seems you choose worship like you choose restaurants or movies. Is the main spiritual question really what’s in it for me?

Listen to yourself. You wouldn’t be satisfied with sitting on hard pews, listening to old music, repeating worn phrases, and hearing lame sermons. You are no better than I. In fact, you are always the one trying to figure the spiritual angles.

Certainly I’d prefer quality and gifted ministers, but is it about my entertainment or intellectual stimulation? What if worship is us and the Father sharing the same space and thoughts? Whatever is going on onstage may be secondary, or even a distraction. What if church has evolved into some sort of religious circus and we never find the time to say, “God, here I am. Where are you in this?” Perhaps true worship is seeing God even in common things—the way young love is obsessed by its object.

Are you saying the Spirit isn’t leading anyone but you? We are responsible for our own spiritual formation and growth. That’s why I search for engaging speakers, good music, and Biblical preaching for us.

Yes, but you only like what you like. That includes the way you read the Bible. You are all about some verses, but you are quick to discount or ignore others. Rebellion is afoot. I want to submit to God and rebel against the vanity of this world.

You are taking this a bit too far. I’m not comfortable with assuming the worst in what I think is the best. Have you no hope or grace?

The rebellion is now plain to me. We are in the same situation as Lucifer and Adam and Eve. The rebellion is in thinking we know best—insisting our own will be done. Even when we are good we taint it with pride and self-gratification. This is rebellion. We do not submit. We do not rest. We depend upon God when it suits us and ourselves when it doesn’t.

You’ve moved to a higher plain of paranoia. According to you, we can do no good. We can summon nothing. You describe boredom or death, to me.

Yes, perhaps death is an apt description. If we are dead in Christ, what are we doing living according to our own desires? Death submits to everything—no complaints, no evasions, no selfish choices—just submitting to what is given.

I think you are wrong.

I know you do. That’s your problem—you think way too much for your own good. You mimic the voices of this world—you sweeten them with Christian jargon and your own version of everything. You go to churches that make you feel good and right. Confession, repentance, and humility are a rarity. You don’t submit to God, you try to force Him to submit to your selfish faith. We live on a rebellious planet and the prevailing spirits spin our selfish desires into webs of deceit and false spirituality.

You are sounding like a lunatic. We have choices to make and we have to “work out our salvation” as the Bible says. Failure to strive in the faith is failure to believe.

I’d just have you consider how much of your faith is actually faith and how much is your own design. What in your faith is greater than you? In the end, life is living in loving submission and this defines our relationship with God—just like Jesus taught and lived. Furthermore, worship is submitting each moment to whatever God sends. We come to God empty and broken, like the thief on the cross—like a child.

I won’t listen to anymore of this nonsense. I won’t give up my right to make decisions I know to be permissible.

There! You hit the nail on the head—your rights—that’s the rebellion speaking. I overrule you in this matter. You may speak for the flesh, but speaking for the spirit, we’re going to see what submission has to offer. I think I’ll reconsider all our wanting. The Father’s will is to conform to Him. The question for now is, “In this, whatever it is, are we submitting to God?” I assume you’ll fight me on this.

Yes, because I know you always give in.

Reconnecting with the Sacraments

Baptism: Demonstrated by John the Baptist and commanded by Jesus in the Great Commission. Practiced by Peter (Acts 2:41) and others in the early church. New Testament baptism (regardless of method) was the initial act of turning from sin (and accepting Grace). Sometimes baptism is preceded by the presence of the Holy Spirit (Acts 10:47). In the Roman Catholic tradition baptism has the effect of the “remission of all sin, original and actual; likewise of all punishment which is due for sin. As a consequence, no satisfaction for past sins is enjoined upon those who are baptized; and if they die before they commit any sin, they attain immediately to the kingdom of heaven and the vision of God” (Catholic Encyclopedia, see Baptism). Baptism, in some fashion, is practiced is all Christian churches. All Christians may affirm obedience to Christ and community with him through baptism.

Confirmation: Reception of the Holy Spirit. Usually done by the laying on of hands and prayer by a believer in the Acts of the Apostles. The result is immediate evidence of the Holy Spirit. The exact form of such evidence is unclear (and for this we might be thankful because form often replaces function). The bestowal of the Holy Spirit is demonstrated by Peter and John in Acts 8:14-17 and again by Peter with Cornelius in 10:44-48. The Acts of the Apostles outlines cases in which baptism and being filled by the Holy Spirit are two separate events. In the Roman Catholic tradition confirmation of the Holy Spirit typically occurs after catechism for those already baptized in order to make them strong and perfect Christians and soldiers of Jesus Christ (Catholic Encyclopedia, see Confirmation). All Christians may share their faith in communion with Holy Spirit who makes this possible.

Holy Eucharist (Communion): The taking of bread and wine in the manner Christ commanded in the Gospels, often referred to as the Lord’s Supper. In the Roman Catholic tradition Communion it is the partaking of bread and wine in accordance with Christ’s admonishment and literally imparts grace. "An outward sign of an inward grace instituted by Christ" (Catholic Encyclopedia, see Holy Eucharist). All Christians may join Christ in his last supper and the community of Saints in keeping an eternal remembrance of Christ until his return.

Penance (Confession). The forgiveness of sin as demonstrated by Jesus and the Apostles, usually accompanying healing. An admonition of Jesus as recorded in Mark 20:23 when he appeared to his disciples after the resurrection (also associated with Jesus’ words to Peter regarding the Keys to the Kingdom in Matthew 18:18). In the Roman Catholic tradition penance is a sacrament instituted by Christ in which forgiveness of sin committed after baptism is granted through absolution to those who truly and sorrowfully confess their sins and promise to change. “No Catholic believes that a priest simply as an individual man, however pious or learned, has power to forgive sins. This power belongs to God alone” (Catholic Encyclopedia, see Penance). All Christians are encouraged by another’s assurance of Christ’s absolution of guilt and sin for those of a contrite heart.

Extreme Unction (Healing). The dismissal of evil spirits and the healing of the physical body as demonstrated by Jesus and the Apostles throughout the New Testament, often accompanied by a proclamation of the forgiveness of sin. In the Roman Catholic tradition Extreme Unction is a sacrament instituted by Christ to give spiritual aid and comfort and perfect spiritual health, including, if need be, the remission of sins, and also, conditionally, to restore bodily health, to Christians who are seriously ill (Catholic Encyclopedia, see Extreme Unction). All Christians may find hope and healing in a community of Christ and the Saints.

Holy Orders. The hierarchy established by Christ: Apostles (Mark 3:13), disciples, deacons, overseers, and elders. Jesus chose the Twelve and gave them authority to heal and cast out demons. Jesus declares Peter the “Rock” on which the future church will be built, states he shall hold the “Keys to the Kingdom” (Matthew 16:18 & 19), and finally, specifically commands him to “Feed my sheep” (John 21:15). Jesus’ decree became reality in the Jerusalem and Rome Churches. After the Ascension the Acts of the Apostles describes the Believers in Jerusalem as being under the leadership of Peter. The other Apostles did not dispute Peter’s leadership and dedicated their time to prayer, healing, and sharing with others their experiences with Christ (they apparently maintained the spiritual authority given earlier by Christ). All Christians may find rest under the authority of Christ-minded overseers.

In the Acts of the Apostles, seven deacons were appointed to serve the needs of believers, but also functioned in a manner similar to the Apostles (see accounts of Stephen and Philip in Acts of the Apostles). Paul joined the group and became an Apostle (demonstrating the spiritual authority bestowed by Christ on the Disciples). Peter and Paul spent their final years establishing the Church in Rome. Peter, Paul, and John provided guidance and specific instructions to other churches through letters and visits (see New Testament epistles). In the Roman Catholic tradition the Sacrament of Orders is the sacrament by which grace and spiritual power for the discharge of ecclesiastical offices are conferred. This sacrament differentiates laity from clergy or the various ranks of the clergy, and thus spiritual power (Catholic Encyclopedia, see Holy Orders).

Luther became bitterly opposed to papal authority and clerical appointments. He suggested the “Keys” were given to all believers. He encouraged congregations to choose pastors with the support of nearby pastors and bishops. This hierarchy was perhaps the greatest bone of contention between Luther and the Roman Church and remains so for modern Protestants. The ascendency of reason caused Protestants to dispute authority—we only submit to that which we deem reasonable. One cannot help but wonder if human nature’s steadfast tendency to question authority is good or bad.

Matrimony. Christ used the matrimonial relationship to describe his relationship with his church. The Church is the Bride of Christ. Jesus’ choice of this relationship to describe his personal commitment to each believer sets it apart. In addition, Christ performed his first recorded miracle at a wedding in Cana. In the Roman Catholic tradition matrimony is a figure of the union of Christ, and the Church. However, Marriage has been disputed as a Holy Sacrament throughout the history of the church. The Roman Catholic Church has recognized marriage officially as a sacrament since the 13th Century. Sacramental marriage is between two baptized believers (Catholic Encyclopedia, see Holy Marriage). Martin Luther found matrimony a particularly compelling spiritual model (McCain, 2005). All Christians may jointly anticipate the coming of the Bridegroom and celebrate community in this transcendent relationship.

Keys to the Kingdom - You have one

Ministry involves clearing pathways to Christ. We use the keys to open or close doors to those around us. The keys are in use whenever one says, “You must _____ to enter the Kingdom of Heaven.”

Matthew 16
17 Jesus answered and said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven.
18 And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.
19 And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

[Matthew 16:17-19, NKJV]

The Roman Catholic Church defends its ecclesiastic hierarchy and authority upon Peter and the Keys of the Kingdom mentioned in The Gospel of Matthew. The Eastern Orthodox Church considers patriarchal councils similarly. Martin Luther effectively argued The Keys were being misused in granting indulgences (to escape purgatory; temporal punishment). Evangelical Protestants vigorously question anyone or any council’s authority to speak “in cathedra”, or to authoritatively represent Christ on contemporary spiritual matters. The irony for all concerned is that in all likelihood both sides are correct to some degree, but not in the way they think.

Rather than specific practices, such as indulgences, or an apostolic succession, we find a principle of spiritual authority and responsibility for all shepherds—including the Pope of Rome, Patriarch of Constantinople, local pastor, or our Sunday School teacher. The sobering truth is that spiritual keys are often wielded without the least thought of consequences or responsibility among most evangelicals. Perhaps the “keys” are the conditions or barriers we establish between our community and Gospel of Christ.

Roman Era Keys

As one reads the narrative of the Keys of the Kingdom one suspects those hearing Peter’s profession and Jesus’ response had an understanding of keys. Jesus followers were not thinking in terms of the metal things we inserted in padlocks or deadbolts—their experience, if any, would have been simple latches or door bolts. In fact, the original Greek word used for “key” originally meant, “bolt”. What is noteworthy is that in Jesus’ day a door was only bolted or latched from the inside. Common security in Jesus’ day was to close and bolt one’s home from the inside at night and keep someone at home, watching the door, during the day. The one holding the “key” or bolt was inside and could make the door impassible to those outside.

Therefore, when Jesus said, “I will give you the keys to the kingdom,” his disciples were imagining someone inside a house or fortress who controlled the door or entrance. Once someone was inside, they, too, could bolt the door. In essence, he was telling Peter he could bar the door to the kingdom. How was Peter to know when and to whom to bar the door?

As one reads the New Testament and history, one may rightly conclude a number of things:

1. Jesus’ followers began the first church in Jerusalem after his ascension.

2. Peter “watched the door” and was considered the spokesman, leader, and shepherd of the group.

3. The approximately 120 members of the group (Acts 1:15) identified themselves as Jews.

4. The membership included the elite of all Christendom—Jesus’ mother, family, Apostles, and other followers who personally knew Christ.

5. The congregation grew as Peter preached and other Jews repented and were baptized into faith in Christ and membership in the group.

6. Peter and the first church faced a dilemma when unbaptized Gentiles were filled with the Holy Spirit (Acts 10:47).

7. Eventually, Peter and members of the first church formed a council to decide whether to bolt the door to the kingdom to Gentiles and uncircumcised (Acts 15).

8. The council decided, “It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things.”

Peter and the Jerusalem Council, under the leadership of the Holy Spirit, all agreed it was not good to burden new believers beyond a very few gently worded recommendations on minor points of the Law.

What?!

Given the opportunity to define orthodoxy for the new church, the Council of Jerusalem put together a letter to the Church in Antioch that said nothing about baptism, sacraments, or other doctrines—they chose to unbolt the door and trust the Holy Spirit to lead.

Another conclusion one may draw is that all of the Apostles and followers of Jesus witnessed him using his keys. Jesus used his keys to unlock the Law and open Grace. He dined with sinners, visited with Samaritans, blasphemed church leaders, healed and journeyed on the Sabbath—taking liberties with the Jewish Law and the cultural assumptions of his day. Jesus made it clear that the Law was to serve, not rule. Jesus revealed “sin” as an obstacle to one’s relationship with God and others. The Apostles and Jesus’ followers regularly witnessed Jesus us his keys for the sake of the lost and downtrodden.

How do you use your keys?

Blending Old and New

Evangelical Protestants—or perhaps better defined as post-Protestants—may value the legacy of doctrines and traditions handed down by the Church Father who remained true to the Gospel of Christ and were responsible shepherds of their flocks. Flocks initially led by Peter, John, James, and Paul and later by their disciples Linus, Anacletus, Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Rufinus, and their spiritual descendants.

How should modern Christians respond to this legacy and its corruption? We may safely assume a principle: With authority comes responsibility. Spiritual leaders are certainly responsible for those who submit to their authority. If one has no authorities before God, whatever befalls will fall squarely upon the shoulders of the believer. Furthermore, the believer with no authorities misses the blessings associated with submission.

Protestants believe (or hope) in anointed self-authorization—every believer is a potential Peter, depending on the needs of the local congregation. We often carry this a step further with the assumption all believers are Peter and we have little need for overseers or pastors. Protestants often appear to owe allegiance or obeisance to no human—each standing alone before God. Is this really what we wish? We certainly wish Jesus by our side, and if Peter and Paul could stand with us it would certainly be good. In fact, if all the Saints could join us, we would be more comfortable. If Church authorities are spiritual umbrellas, one might ponder why Protestants have chosen to stand in the rain with Bibles over their heads.

As one reflects upon the momentous repercussions of Luther’s reformation and the legacy of the Church Fathers one is inclined to blend oral traditions and text to formulate a realistic picture of an average believer’s life in the early church. Luther connects the ancient oral tradition with the newer textual tradition. Early Christians lived under the authority (and responsibility) of their pastors. Each pastor passing on the Way from one generation to the next—perhaps just as Luther encouraged in his introduction to the Small Catechism (McCain, 2005). The reach of the oral tradition should not be too quickly discounted—this writer can recount narratives passed on by his grandmother of events from her grandfather’s life almost 200 years ago. Oral creeds and sacramental celebrations were almost certainly among the earliest traditions of the Church. While we may disagree on their substance and efficacy, we do well to consider their scriptural origins, validity, and meaning.

One need not turn from the fundamental doctrines of Protestantism (the absolute supremacy of Scripture, the Grace of Christ, and the priesthood of all Believers) to complete this task. In fact, one is drawn to appreciate the Sacraments in light of the Scriptures, Grace, and a personal relationship with God through Jesus Christ. In so doing, we renew our commitments and practices to Christ and perhaps heighten our appreciation of those Sacraments or ordinances we choose to maintain. At the very least we reconnect with celebrations the First Church considered essential.

As Protestants, each one a “priest”, we seek the Spirit’s leadership in discerning the significance and universal truths invested in the Sacraments. A troubling point may be that the Sacraments have been utterly abandoned by mainstream Protestants. Today’s nominal Christian questions miracles and dismisses out-of-hand the notion that mere acts might have spiritual substance (impart grace). We admit no such authority. In addition, we may honor Billy Graham, but we rarely revere Clement, Ignatius, Irenaeus, Polycarp, Augustine, and others—many who paid the ultimate price for their faith in Christ.

Sola Ratio? The Trouble with Reason

Might we recapture some of the sacredness of our heritage without entirely returning to Catholicism? Do we wish to rest entirely upon our own wisdom and forsake traditions rooted in the First Church? Perhaps the Age of Reason has robbed us of belief in the miraculous and has left us with a disdain for the extraordinary. Awe and beauty are often destroyed by understanding—that which we “master” loses its allure. Animals as biological specimens, love as neural chemistry, and humans as clever primates leave us with little wonder or comfort. Might the same be true (to some degree) of our understanding of the Sacraments and the Church Fathers? Must something be intellectually “mastered” to be effective or substantial?

Perhaps we should consider the consequences of categorically denying spiritual authority in what we consider illogical places. Logically, the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil in the Garden of Eden should have been a potato, hidden underground. Or if a tree, at least surrounded by dense thorns and a wall! Each Christian must privately decide how to respond to authority, whether the policeman, tax collector, pastor, or Pope. We may find an exploration of the Church Fathers enriching. The Catholic Encyclopedia (1917) found at www.newadvent.org is very informative and thought provoking.

Perhaps the Sacraments and Catechism are something to which we submit by faith. Something we don’t entirely understand. Something that remains mystical and sacred. The Sacraments and Catechism are certainly earthly acts with heavenly connections—how shall we respond? Perhaps a thoughtful return to the mystical and miraculous is what we need. Who knows what we might discover in a post-Protestant era?

Authority - Whom do you trust?

At the heart of the Reformation, one finds shifting authorities. With this in mind, a quick overview of religious authority is useful. In the simplest sense, authority connotes trust and dependability. Authorities have two key attributes—validity and reliability. A valid authority is authentic—it demonstrates it is what it represents itself to be. A reliable authority remains trustworthy and consistent over time. A religious authority is a valid and reliable connection between humans and the Divine.

Religious authorities generate focus, reverence, and expectations. Authorities have not always been as they are today. While vestiges of former authorities persist, each generation contributes to the whole—each leaving a legacy for the next. Probably the most elusive authority is Scriptural (New Testament Canon) authority because under one term we find two significant distinctions—the authority of Scripture versus the authority of the translator or reader. Thus, one may believe Scripture is authoritative without believing specific translations or interpretations are authoritative. The authority of the Roman Catholic Church Fathers is another case entirely. Unfortunately, for most modern Protestants, the possibility of spiritual authority among the Church Fathers from 100 A.D.-1500 remains an unasked question.

The following religions authorities are evident in a variety of cultures and religions.

Natural authority: Authority from the perception of the Divine in nature. Few natural religions remain. Scientific authority: Authority from empirically verifiable evidence of the Divine.

Revelation authority: Authority from personal encounters with God followed by covenants defining conditions of relationship. The revelations of Abraham, Moses, Old Testament prophets, Christ, and Apostles are largely accepted among Christians. The revelations of David Koresh, Jim Jones, L. Ron Hubbard, and Sun Myong Moon are less accepted. Apostolic authority: Authority from those who knew Christ and were his disciples. The Apostles were the sources of the Gospels and letters to churches.

Tradition authority: Authority from traditions passed on from one generation to the next. Traditions are passed on through celebrations, ceremonies, and stories. Church Fathers: The disciples of the Apostles—authority from traditions established by the Apostles and their spiritual descendants—the emerging church (95-325 A.D.). Various writings attributed to the Apostles were considered authoritative, but an official canon did not emerge until 1549 at the Council of Trent.

Institutional authority: Authority from leaders or priests as covenant responsibilities shift from individuals to representatives. Covenants are codified, orthodoxy defined, and forms established. Council and denominational authority: Leaders or representatives define orthodoxy for the membership. The New Testament Canon and Sacraments of the Roman Catholic Church were established by the Council of Trent.

Divine (incarnation) authority: Authority by example: Jesus Christ—God Among Us. Jesus illuminates the Old Testament, initiating a reformation of Judaism while revealing the Kingdom of God through metaphors, similes, and analogies. Jesus Christ was God demonstrating “The Way”.

Personal authority (Reformation): Individual priesthood. Technology (printing press) and the emergence of an educated middle-class of freemen ushered in the Age of Reason—the authority of the individual and the masses. Personal abdication or disbelief: Authority does not exist.

Scriptural authority. Scriptural authority, as understood by most Protestants, is a relatively new phenomenon. The writings included in the New Testament were considered authoritative before they were canonized. However, personal access was severely limited until the advent of the printing press and education of the masses—beginning about 500 years ago. Scripture, depending on one’s point of view, may derive authority from one, all, or none of the previously mentioned authorities.

Which of these describes your experiences?

The Apostle's Church

I grew up in a church that disliked creeds. Creeds were considered an imposition on personal faith and priesthood of the believer. Good Baptists didn't recite creeds, liturgical prayers, or rote confessions. The prevailing paradigm: "The Bible says it. I believe it. That settles it." In our weaker moments we sanctioned responsive readings. I grew up a true Protestant--questioning all tradition and religious authority apart from the Bible.


I don't believe that way so much anymore. As I began to look into the origin of the Apostle's Creed, I became more and more convinced there was something I was missing. Rather than being words that bind one to a church or denomination, the Creed reminds one of the foundation blocks of the early church.


Charter Members

• Apostles: Peter and Andrew, James and John sons of Zebedee/Clopas (Jesus' cousins), Philip, Nathaniel, Matthew, Thomas, James son of Alphaeus, Thaddeus, Simon "the Zealot", Matthias; Justus (runner-up; lost the toss to Matthias)
• Deacons: Stephen, Philip the Evangelist, Prochorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas, and Nicholas
• Jesus' Family: James, Judas, Joses, Mary, sisters
• Jesus' Relatives: Salome/Mary, wife of Zebedee/Clopas (Mary's sister), John Mark and Barnabas (Jesus' nephews)
• Others disciples: Joseph of Arimathea, Nicodemus, Mary Magdalene, Joanna, and Suzanna, Cleopas, bishop of Jerusalem, Ananias, who baptized Paul, and was bishop of Damascus, Prochorus, bishop of Nicomedia, Nicanor,  Timon, bishop of Bostra, Parmenas, bishop of Soli, Nicolaus, bishop of Samaria, Silas, bishop of Corinth, Silvanus, bishop of Thessalonica, Crisces (Crescens), bishop of Carchedon in Gaul, Epænetus, bishop of Carthage, Andronicus, bishop of Pannonia, Amplias, bishop of Odyssus, Urban, bishop of Macedonia, Stachys, bishop of Byzantium, Phygellus, bishop of Ephesus,  Hermogenes, Demas, who became a priest of idols, Apelles, bishop of Smyrna, Aristobulus, bishop of Britain, Narcissus, bishop of Athens, Herodion, bishop of Tarsus, Agabus the prophet, Rufus, bishop of Thebes, Asyncritus, bishop of Hyrcania, Phlegon, bishop of Marathon, Hermes, bishop of Dalmatia, Patrobulus, bishop of Puteoli, Hermas, bishop of Philippi, Linus, bishop of Rome, Caius, bishop of Ephesus, Philologus, bishop of Sinope, Olympus and Rhodion (martyred in Rome), Lucius, bishop of Laodicea in Syria, Jason, bishop of Tarsus, Sosipater, bishop of Iconium, Tertius, bishop of Iconium, Erastus, bishop of Panellas, Quartus, bishop of Berytus, Apollo, bishop of Cæsarea, Sosthenes, bishop of Colophonia, Tychicus, bishop of Colophonia, Epaphroditus, bishop of Andriace, Cæsar, bishop of Dyrrachium, Artemas, bishop of Lystra, Clement, bishop of Sardinia, Onesiphorus, bishop of Corone, Tychicus, bishop of Chalcedon, Carpus, bishop of Berytus in Thrace, Evodus, bishop of Antioch, Aristarchus, bishop of Apamea, Zenas, bishop of Diospolis, Aristarchus, Pudes, and Trophimus, who was martyred along with Paul. (according to Hippolytus of Rome)

Similar versions of the Apostle's Creed could be found around the Mediterranean within a century of Christ's ministry. Folk tradition attributes the twelve parts of the creed to the twelve apostles in Jerusalem. One thing is certain, first generation churches around the Mediterranean used creeds to keep in step with the first church established in Jerusalem by Peter, James, and John. The church was dispersed through persecution. As members of the first church left Jerusalem and began new churches, they took the Creed with them. Creeds were a confessional statement of agreement with the first church. Essentially, the Creed defined orthodox faith and served as a guard against heresy.


In the Council of Nicaea in 325, church leaders (overseers/bishops) from around the known world met and compared their various creeds.  Amazingly, the creeds in use in Italy, France, Africa, and Asia Minor were similar--suggesting a common source. As the church in Jerusalem sent forth Paul, Barnabas, Silas, Timothy, and others, and was eventually dispersed, one of two things happened. Either those who left took and imitated the practices of the Jerusalem church, or the apostles purposefully developed a "church starting kit" that included a faith statement for use in the new church.
What I have come to appreciate in the Apostle's Creed is it's nearness to the church immediately after Christ's ascension. I believe the Creed is very close to what Peter would have stated if I asked him to share his faith. The first church started with approximately 130 people who lived day-to-day with Jesus. The congregation included not only the Disciples, but the three Marys, Stephen, Barnabas, Timothy, John Mark, and others--a literal Hall of Fame group.


I find myself drawn to this first church and questions arise as I compare what can be seen in the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches--those related to Jerusalem started in Antioch, Ephesus, Rome, Thessalonica, and churches around the Mediterranean Sea.


Rightly or wrongly, the church experienced a quantum shift in 1550s when faith in overseers and traditions passed to faith in the Bible as interpreted by the individual. I hope replacing a relational faith and practice with textual faith and practice wasn't a mistake.

Elevating Text and Forgetting Tradition

Faith expressions begin with revelations and covenants producing traditions and, eventually, institutions. Revelations and covenants are embraced in a personal fashion, usually with enthusiasm. They are the “heart” of faith. Traditions are ceremonies or celebrations intended to nurture faith. Institutionalization often focuses on orthodoxy. A faith group begins with exuberant adherence to the initial covenant and traditions, but often stagnates when form replaces heart in traditions (see Isaiah 1). When an institution shifts from its revelation, traditions, and mission to becoming an end in itself a variety of excesses may arise—fanaticism, greed, power, crusades, jihad, religious wars, or inquisitions. Students of history may quickly identify secular objectives behind most religious excesses.

Few Protestant Christians would disagree with the “solas”—only Scripture, only Christ, only grace, only faith, and only to God’s glory (Boice, 2001). While one might embrace the notion of the authority of the Bible, the Grace of Christ, or Priesthood of the Believer, one might pause to consider whether Luther was entirely inspired in his root philosophical assumption—human reason is the first and most reliable authority. Most would agree Luther was justified in his condemnation of Pope for peddling condolences to build St. Peter’s, but was the dismissal of the Holy Sacraments in churches what he intended?

A study of Luther’s sermons and letters in their historical context provide insight into his inevitable break with the Roman Church. Considering the historical and philosophical challenges of his age, were he to have recanted and returned to the folds of the Roman Church, another would very likely have emerged to advocate the supremacy of reason over tradition.

Reason coupled with text (Bible) became the ascendant spiritual authority after the Reformation. The appearance of such was inevitable as laity became educated and gained personal access to the Canon. One might argue the Roman Catholic priesthood held a monopoly (or trust) with regard to Scripture (and authority) prior to the advent of the printing press and Bibles translated into the language of the masses. With such authority came responsibility. As the Bible became available in the vernacular, the teachings of the Roman Church became subject to scrutiny. For thoughtful Christians, Luther’s dilemma continues to be our dilemma—have we prayerfully balanced personal responsibility and submission to church authorities?

Protestantism emerges from a context that rejects the mindless acceptance of church traditions. While Protestants typically practice baptism, communion, and matrimony similar to the Roman Catholic Church, they consider these acts symbolic and ceremonial. For many Protestants, the Sacraments are outer indicators of inner dispositions or perhaps vestiges of a superstitious past. Of the Holy Sacraments of the Roman Church established by the Council of Trent, few remain in mainstream Protestant churches.

As one reconsiders the Reformation, one does well to consider the very different contexts from which Catholicism and Protestantism emerged. Catholicism flows from the traditions of the first 500 years immediately following The Acts of the Apostles while Protestantism flows from the relatively recent New Testament Canon of the last 500 years. In addition, we all fall somewhere between reasoning believers and mindless sheep—both conditions having merit. Five hundred years into the Age of Enlightenment, it appears Protestants have lost sight of the first significant years of the Church and Catholics have perhaps failed to acknowledge members are partners with the priesthood because the Scripture and “mysteries” of the Faith are now part of the public domain.

As thoughtful Christians consider the meaning of the Sacraments, a key consideration may be whether Christ charged his Apostles and followers to establish the Church upon faith or reason. Reason certainly had/has its place—Jesus typically asked one to merely watch or follow and belief (and usually baptism) followed later. Faith came after following and was the result of Christ’s actions and teaching. Yet, is reason always a prerequisite for faith? What are we to do with the repentant thief on the cross? What of Peter’s declaration and Jesus’ response—“this was not revealed by man, but by the Father” (Matthew 16:17)?

Have you ever wondered why Jesus didn’t write anything down? We know Jesus read from Isaiah in the synagogue. If he could read, he could probably write. We are forced to conclude that Jesus purposely chose people and traditions over text. In Christ we find one who accepts outsiders, teaches deep truths through parables and riddles, answers questions with questions, and entrusts his message to fishermen. Given the choice between text and people to share the Good News of his incarnation, God chose people. Jesus could have written an absolutely unquestionable, airtight Book of Prayer and Practice for My Church, but he did not. If faith was to become text-based, Jesus could have supplied the text. One cannot help but wonder if Jesus knew something about text we do not.

The traditions of Church Fathers flow from people-based ministry and the authority of witnesses—the earliest recollections of which were later included in the New Testament. Each succeeding generation bore witness of the previous generation’s teachings and actions. The New Testament, as we know it, did not exist. Early Christianity modeled Jesus' ministry—disciples under the authority of teachers. Jesus forgave sins, healed the sick, and cast out demons. He gave his disciples authority to heal and cast out demons—and they did so. The Apostles passed on this authority to an overlapping third generation that included deacons, Barnabas, and others. Paul and Barnabas appointed leaders and elders in their new congregations. The Antioch Church was perhaps one of the most preeminent in early church history and grew under Barnabas, Paul, and Ignatius. The fourth generation is perhaps where contention begins—oral and written traditions describe continued “signs and wonders” and martyrs, but they are not a part of the New Testament Canon.

The first generation of the Jerusalem Church under Peter had an impressive membership. Not only were the Apostles gathered together but also an impressive group of followers who personally knew Christ. These probably included Christ’s mother and natural family, soon-to-be-deacons, Barnabas, Mary (the mother of John Mark), as well as Paul and others. John certainly followed Christ’s instructions from the cross and adopted Mary (Christ’s mother) as his mother. Her influence in the early church is not recorded in the Canon, but the early church’s appreciation of her is evident among succeeding generations.

History tells us the Jerusalem Church scattered under persecution; those with the authority, faith, or ability to perform signs and wonders spread across Asia Minor. As new congregations assembled, they received guidance from the Jerusalem Church—the Apostles and those who were also witnesses of Christ’s life and resurrection. New Testament Epistles indicate these fledgling congregations associated and established common faith and practice through visits and letters from Apostles or those who represented them. The latter are the “bit players” or “extras” in the New Testament, they have no “lines” and are mentioned perhaps once or twice in greetings or post-scripts. After the deaths of Peter and Paul, three of these: Linus, Anacletus, and Clement go on to become leaders of the church in Rome (Bishops of Rome; Popes in Roman Catholic tradition).

The Canon, Holy Sacraments, and Traditions of the Roman Church Fathers flow from this stream. On whose authority were these traditions established? The article on “historical criticism” in the Catholic Encyclopedia is well worth reading (Catholic Encyclopedia, historical criticism). From a Protestant perspective it appears the Council of Trent was inspired in establishing the Canon, but not the Sacraments.

The sacraments of the Roman and Eastern Orthodox Churches do not merely signify divine grace, but by virtue of their institution by Christ, cause grace in the souls of men. "Signum sacro sanctum efficax gratiae"–a sacrosanct sign producing grace, is a succinct definition of a sacrament (Catholic Encyclopedia, Sacraments). Protestants, in general, reject this notion. The Council of Trent (1545-1563) defined seven sacraments: Baptism, Confirmation, Holy Eucharist, Penance, Extreme Unction, Orders, and Matrimony. With reference to sacraments, “God is not restricted to the use of material, visible symbols in dealing with men; the sacraments are not necessary in the sense that they could not have been dispensed with. But, if it is known that God has appointed external, visible ceremonies as the means by which certain graces are to be conferred on men, then in order to obtain those graces it will be necessary for men to make use of those Divinely appointed means” (Catholic Encyclopedia, Sacraments).

Christians may benefit from a review of the narrative from which the Sacraments sprung. In the celebration of the Sacraments we may very likely find ourselves imitating the words and deeds of the Apostles as taught directly by Christ. The end of such an exercise is connecting personally with the historical legacy of the early church. We may find a subtle blessing and yearning as we reconnect with our lost legacy. We may find comfort in reenactment—repeating the words and celebrations of our Fathers as they repeated and celebrated what they learned from Christ.

Doctrine will certainly become a bone of contention if allowed. A Roman Catholic view of heaven, hell, purgatory, grace, cardinal and venal sins, etc., are not required beyond a contemplation of their entry into the narrative. Language usage certainly gets in the way—associating penance and confession with “Rise and walk, your sins are forgiven,” or the “Keys to the Kingdom,” to forgive sin is a stretch for Protestants. Luther believed the “Keys” were “that special authority which Christ has given to His church on earth to forgive the sins of repentant sinners, but to withhold forgiveness from the unrepentant as long as they do not repent” Lutheran Missouri Synod, 2009, p. 14). Thus, confession or penance encourages those who repent with a contrite heart and warns those who do not.

Trustworthy witnesses have validated “signs and miracles” by Jesus, the Apostles, early deacons (Philip, Acts 8:13), and others (Barnabas and others, Acts 14:3). Yet, we do not see much along those lines in mainstream churches. By adhering strictly to the Canon narrative, Protestants have distanced themselves from centuries of Church practices and perhaps the work of the Holy Spirit through them.

Sola Mio

Two significant issues become apparent when contemporary Christians consider spiritual authority. The first issue is that reason guards the door—we espouse a rational faith. We wonder about personally irrational statements, such as Paul’s censure of women speaking in church (I Cor. 14:33-39). The second issue among evangelical Protestants is near fanatical reliance upon the biblical canon and near complete ignorance of its history or Christian authority prior to the Reformation.

These issues emerge as a scaffold for authority and by extension, personal orthodoxy. I suppose this is true for most evangelicals. Authority (for Protestants) was forever transformed when the New Testament Canon entered the public domain. Five hundred years into the Protestant Reformation we find very literal “New Testament Churches”. In many cases “New Testament” is not a complementary descriptor—we find pastors and believers who use the Bible for purposes other than the liberation of sinners. Instead of Precepts and Promises (Luther’s description of the Bible), many modern Protestants find an “inerrant and infallible” text used to proclaim exclusion, narrow orthodoxy, and excommunication for all who do not agree. Does anyone else remember Martin Luther and an “inerrant and infallible” papacy proclaiming doctrines of exclusion, narrow orthodoxy, and excommunication for all who do not agree?

This is evidenced by other, subtle “soli” hidden among authorities professed by Calvin and adopted by most evangelical Protestants (Callies, 2007).

• Sola Scriptura (Scripture alone),

• Sola Gratia (Grace alone),

• Sola Fide (Faith alone), and

• Solus Christus (Christ alone).

Within “Sola Scriptura” and “Sola Fide” lies “Sola Ratio“ (reason alone). “Of this I have knowledge and in this I have faith,” seems to be the order of the day. Systematic theology is a logical (and modern) extension of this phenomenon. There is cause for concern if the ultimate authority for orthodoxy among evangelical Protestants is “Sola mio” (me alone).

Today’s Protestants are an ironic crowd. They are people of the Word, but few comprehensive mastery of it or know its history or antecedent creeds. This has led to Bible verses being used in exclusive manners to defend slavery, racism, and subjugation—a practice reminiscent of a papal oligarchy defending the sale of indulgences to build St. Peter’s Church. In the following sections we will ponder whether Protestants are in danger of repeating the mistakes of their forefathers who were called as shepherds and priests—reconcilers between God and humanity—but became self-centered and self-serving. As we do this we will also consider Christ’s model as a shepherd and the conditions of the first generation of Christians after his resurrection.

Faith of our Fathers - Reconnecting with our Past

Evangelical Protestants around the world practice their faith with little reference to the non-textual antecedents that formed their fellowships and doctrines—particularly from around 100-300 A.D. Evangelicals shy away from apostolic traditions (such as the Apostles Credo; “I believe”) and simple deductions about the life of laity under their leadership.

Creeds and early church traditions were primarily oral traditions that inscribed Jesus’ teachings and early Christian doctrine in the hearts and minds of the laity. Evidence supporting the historic authenticity of the Apostles Creed is similar to that supporting the New Testament Canon affirmed at the Council of Trent in 1546. Multiple, similar versions of the Apostles Creed emerged from various locations dated around the Second Century. One may easily compare the early creeds recorded by Irenaeus in Gaul, Tertullian in Carthage (north Africa), and Rufinus in Rome. The main difference the New Testament and Apostles Creed being the Nicene Council settled the creedal question 1300 years earlier (Schaff &Wace, 1890).

What appears to have been missed by many evangelical Protestants are those traditions of the Catholic Church Luther did find authentic. A study of Luther’s introduction to the Smaller Catechism and the Catechism’s substance speaks volumes. Martin Luther, a former Augustinian monk, planted the seeds of Protestantism roughly 1500 years after Jesus walked the Earth. Luther’s original problem was with the Pope peddling indulgences (deliverance from purgatory) to raise funds for the building of St. Peter’s Church in Rome (McCain, 2005). An indulgence is similar to an executive pardon. It is the remission of the temporal punishment (consequences and/or time in purgatory) due to sin that has been forgiven by the exercise of the power of the “Keys” (Matthew 16:19; Catholic Encyclopedia, see indulgences). The greater problem was an institution that had strayed far from its original mission—to the point of putting price tags on grace, holy orders, and ecclesiastic offices. The Roman Church of Luther’s day was apparently rife with avarice and greed in high places (McCain, 2005).

Most modern Protestants do not know what to make of indulgences, purgatory, venal sin, acts of contrition, and the authority of the Pope with regard to releasing souls in purgatory. Luther suggested if the Pope had such authority he should equally and freely release all in the Name of Christ (McCain, 2005). Luther became a formidable plaintiff against Rome for neglecting its spiritual duty. Blatant disregard of Scripture led Luther to declare every believer a potential priest. Luther called for completely localized spiritual authority for pastoral overseers well versed in the Bible. According to Luther’s introduction to the Small Catechism the primary duty of the pastor or priest was to make sure each communicant understood and practiced the Ten Commandments, the Creed, and Lord’s Prayer (Lutheran Missouri Synod, 2009). A perusal of Luther’s writings suggests he examined and clarified many Catholic traditions—baptism, confession, mass, prayers, and Christian duty (McCain, 2005).

Questioning the Pope’s authority to grant forgiveness through selling indulgences eventually led to a wholesale revolt against the significant political and spiritual excesses prevalent in the Roman Church at the time. The Roman Church of Luther’s day, by all appearances, was not the Church of Peter and Paul. Unfortunately, a casualty of this revolution was the loss of many of the traditions from the early Church Fathers—traditions passed down from the first generation of churches in Jerusalem, Antioch, and Rome.

The first churches turned to Peter, for leadership, fulfilling Jesus’ words in The Gospel of Matthew (16:18). Peter was the overseer (bishop) in Jerusalem and later in Rome, where he and Paul were martyred. Under Peter’s leadership the Church authorized Barnabas, Paul, and others to serve as missionaries and overseers of churches. One may conclude from Luther’s writings that he considered a priest worthy if his congregation could recite and apply the Catechism (Lutheran Missouri Synod, 2009). In this depiction Luther has provided a glimpse of what he considered an effective Medieval Church. Effective overseers in pre-Reformation Churches shared at least two characteristics: They proclaimed the Gospel of Christ and led their congregation in practicing the oral traditions passed down from the previous generations.

Because of the great excesses found in the Roman Church in the 1500s, Protestant Christians revolted against ecclesiastic or papal authority vigorously. The intent of Luther’s reformation was to return the church to its humble origins where those wishing to lead, served. During this violent upheaval Protestants all but dismissed “overseer authority” as it became possible for the average member to check their pastor’s leadership against the Bible.

The Reformation is part of a larger historical context best described as the Age of Reason. The Protestant Reformation holds much in common with the philosophical, political, and technical revolutions that began at approximately the same time. One does well to consider Martin Luther’s break with the Rome in the context of an emerging middle class and a pivotal invention—the printing press. These circumstances gave birth to “freethinking”, the rise of rationalism, a tradition-shattering shift from feudalism to pluralistic governments, and Western civilization’s newest spiritual authority: Reason. Prior to this time, when questions of orthodoxy arose “learned” councils were called to search the letters and writings of the Church and determine doctrine (as the Council of Trent did in Luther’s day). With the advent of the common Bible, every educated believer became a council unto him or herself.

Luther proclaimed a spiritual revolution—freedom from a feudal arrangement in which believers were ruled by those claiming “divine authority”. This was not entirely different from the masses revolting against a “divinely anointed” monarch. This rebellion within the Church of Rome was the prelude to five centuries of rebellion based upon a common premise—let the people decide for themselves. Upon the heels of the Reformation we find declarations of independence from virtually all authorities attempting to rule humankind’s free will. In the greater picture we see two things—one good, the other bad.

The good thing is that those who ruled by domination, oppression, or birthright were placed on notice. Only responsible and benevolent leaders who ruled with reason were likely to find support. An educated populace became the heart of church and government. Reason became the chief authority and education became the order of the day. A “good Christian” became the product of personal Bible study more than through recitation of the Catechism. Emphasis shifted from teachers (priests) to text (Bible).

The bad thing is that a significant number of today’s Protestant churches have abandoned what were almost certainly apostolic traditions. The recitations and congregational responses of old are deemed irrelevant in modern society. While traces of the oral traditions may remain in a few congregations, many have adopted mega-church models that stress fellowship, self-help, and evangelistic endeavors. Sacramental remembrance appears to be less and less a part of the modern church. Ironically, others may have worn the Sacraments threadbare through empty, rote recitation.

At some point, faith confronts understanding. If faith is trusting in the unseen or unknown, the demand for understanding eventually becomes antithetical. In fact, Jesus stated we must become “as a child” to enter his kingdom (Matthew 18:2). In what manner are we to become as children? While we should not want to glory in ignorance, is not our faith trusting in a process we cannot comprehend? The repentant thief on the cross is an enigma because he apparently lacked everything (including understanding) but found grace.

Thus, let us reflect upon the role of faith and limits of reason in the context of the Church Fathers. In so doing we may prayerfully consider spiritual authorities and traditions. We may find it beneficial to gently reconnect with 1500 years of Christian tradition—not necessarily to change congregations, but to enrich our faith as we reunite with those who “lived by faith” prior to Martin Luther.

Martin Luther - An Imaginary Letter to Protestants

Martin Luther almost certainly did not intend his protests against Rome to end in the abandonment of early church traditions and the splintering and fracturing of the Church through selective use of Scripture. What would Luther say about the papers, debates, commentaries, declarations, manifestos, books, denominations, conferences, and conventions protesting and literally excommunicating others based upon personal priesthood and biblical authority? What would he make of self-authorized theology, Christian marketing, and mega-church pastorates? What would he write in his introduction to the Small Catechism if he were writing it today? I think it would go something like this:

Martin Luther to All Faithful and Godly Pastors and Preachers:

Grace, Mercy, and Peace in Jesus Christ, our Lord.

The deplorable, miserable condition which I discovered lately when I, too, was a visitor, has forced and urged me to prepare [re-publish] this Catechism, or Christian doctrine, in this small, plain, simple form. Mercy! Good God! What manifold misery I beheld! The common people, especially in the mega-churches, have no knowledge whatever of Christian doctrine, and, alas! Many pastors [especially television evangelists] are altogether incapable, incompetent, and disinclined to teach [so much so, that one is ashamed to speak of it].

Nevertheless, all maintain that they are Christians! Some baptized (according to infinite biblical interpretations), some not, some partaking occasionally of the holy Sacraments—nay monthly ordinances, or quarterly “Lord’s Supper”, some not. Yet they [do not understand and] cannot [even] recite either the Lord's Prayer, or the Creed, or the Ten Commandments; they live like dumb brutes and irrational hogs; and yet, now that the Gospel has come, they have nicely learned to abuse all liberty like experts.

O you pastors and elders! [to whom this charge has been committed by God,] what will you ever answer to Christ for having so shamefully neglected the people and never for a moment discharged your office? [You are the persons to whom alone this ruin of the Christian religion is due. You have permitted men to err so shamefully; yours is the guilt; for you have ever done anything rather than what your church required you to do.] May all misfortune flee you! [I do not wish at this place to invoke evil on your heads.] You do not command the Sacrament in any form [but is not this the highest ungodliness coupled with the greatest impudence that you administer the Sacrament in form only, and number it among your ancient traditions] and insist on your human laws, and yet at the same time you do not care in the least [while you are utterly without scruple and concern] whether the people know the Lord's Prayer, the Creed, the Ten Commandments, or any part of the Word of God. Woe, woe, unto you forever!

Therefore I entreat [and adjure] you all for God's sake, my dear sirs and brethren, who are pastors or preachers, to devote yourselves heartily to your office, to have pity on the people who are entrusted to you (and for whom you will be held to account), and to help us inculcate the Catechism upon the people, and especially upon the young. And let those of you who cannot do better [If any of you are so unskilled that you have absolutely no knowledge of these matters, let them not be ashamed to] take these tables and forms and impress them, word for word, on the people, as follows:

In the first place, let the preacher above all be careful to avoid many kinds of or various texts and forms of the Ten Commandments, the Lord's Prayer, the Creed, the Sacraments, etc., but choose one form to which one adheres, and which one inculcates all the time, year after year. For [I give this advice, however, because I know that] young and simple people must be taught first by uniform, settled texts and forms [that they may recognize the Spirit’s voice and ways], otherwise they easily become confused when a teacher to-day teaches them thus, and in a year some other way, as if he wished to make improvements, and thus all effort and labor [which has been expended in teaching] is lost. Encourage Bible study and meditation as befits reconciliatory ambassadors and imitators of God (I Cor. 5:18-20, Ephesians 5:1).

Also our blessed fathers understood this well; for they all used the same form of the Lord's Prayer, the Creed, and the Ten Commandments. Therefore we, too, should [imitate their diligence and be at pains to] teach the young and simple people these parts in such a way as not to change a syllable of their legacy, or set them forth and repeat them one year differently than in another [no matter how often we teach the Catechism].

Hence, choose whatever form you please (under the Holy Spirit’s leadership), and adhere to it forever. But when you preach to edify the body (I Cor. 14:26) in the presence of learned and intelligent men, you may exhibit your skill, and may present these parts in as varied and intricate ways and give them as masterly turns as you are able. But with the young people and new believers stick to one fixed, permanent form and manner, and teach them, first of all, these parts, namely, the Ten Commandments, the Creed, the Lord's Prayer, etc., according to the text, word for word, so that they, too, can repeat it in the same manner after you and commit it to memory to share with their children.

But those of your congregation who are unwilling to learn it should be told that they deny Christ and are no Christians, neither should they be admitted to the Sacrament, accepted as sponsors at baptism, nor exercise any part of Christian liberty, but should simply be turned back to the world, yea, to the devil himself and known again as an unbeliever (I Cor. 5:4). Moreover, one could wish their parents and employers should refuse them food and drink, and [they would also do well if they were to] notify them that such rude people have nothing to contribute to the country, etc.

For although we cannot and should not force any one to believe, yet we should insist and urge the people that they know what is right and wrong with those among whom they dwell and wish to make their living. For whoever desires to reside in a town must know and observe the town laws, the protection of which he wishes to enjoy, no matter whether he is a believer or at heart and in private a rogue or knave.

In the second place, after they have well learned the text, then teach them the sense also, so that they know what it means, and again choose the form of these tables, or some other brief uniform method, whichever you like, and adhere to it, and do not change a single syllable of our spiritual heritage, as was just said regarding the text; and take your time to it. For it is not necessary that you take up all the parts at once, but one after the other. After they understand the First Commandment well, then take up the Second, and so on, otherwise they will be overwhelmed, so as not to be able to retain any well.

In the third place, after you have thus taught them this Short Catechism, then take up the Large Catechism, and give them also a richer and fuller knowledge. Here explain at large every commandment, [article,] petition, and part with its various works, uses, benefits, dangers, and injuries, as you find these abundantly stated in many books written about these matters. And particularly, urge that commandment or part most which suffers the greatest neglect among your people. For instance, the Seventh Commandment, concerning stealing, must be strenuously urged among mechanics and merchants, and even farmers and servants, for among these people many kinds of dishonesty and thieving prevail. So, too, you must urge well the Fourth Commandment among the children and the common people, that they may be quiet and faithful, obedient and peaceable, and you must always adduce many examples from the Scriptures to show how God has punished or blessed such persons.

Especially should you here urge parents to teach their children well, showing them why it is their duty to do this, and what a damnable sin they are committing if they do not do it. For by such neglect they overthrow and destroy both the kingdom of God, the legacy of the Church, and that of the world, acting as the worst enemies both of God and of men. And make it very plain to them what an awful harm they are doing if they will not help to train children to be pastors, preachers, clerks [also for other offices, with which we cannot dispense in this life], etc., and that God will punish them terribly for it. For such preaching is needed. [Verily, I do not know of any other topic that deserves to be treated as much as this.] Parents and magistrates are now sinning unspeakably in this respect. The devil, too, aims at something cruel because of these things [that he may hurl the nations into the greatest distress].

Lastly, since the tyranny of the Pope has been abolished, people are no longer honor the Sacrament and despise it [as something useless and unnecessary]. Here again urging is necessary, however, with this understanding: We are to force no one to believe, or to receive the Sacrament, nor fix any law, nor time, nor place for it, but are to preach in such a manner that of their own accord, without our law, they will urge themselves and, as it were, compel us pastors to administer the Sacrament. This is done by telling them: Whoever does not seek or desire the Sacrament at least some four times a year, it is to be feared that he despises the Sacrament and is no Christian, just as he is no Christian who does not believe or hear the Gospel; for Christ did not say, This omit, or, This despise, but, This do ye, as oft as ye drink it, etc. Verily, He wants it done, and not entirely neglected and despised. This do ye, He says.

Now, whoever does not highly value the Sacrament thereby shows that he has no sin, no flesh, no devil, no world, no death, no danger, no hell; that is, he does not believe any such things, although he is in them over head and ears and is doubly the devil's own. On the other hand, he needs no grace, life, Paradise, heaven, Christ, God, nor anything good. For if he believed that he had so much that is evil, and needed so much that is good, he would not thus neglect the Sacrament, by which such evil is remedied and so much good is bestowed. Neither will it be necessary to force him to the Sacrament by any law, but he will come running and racing of his own accord, will force himself and urge you that you must give him the Sacrament.

Hence, you must not make any law in this matter, as those of petty orthodoxy do. Only set forth clearly the benefit and harm, the need and use, the danger and the blessing, connected with this Sacrament, and the people will come of themselves without your compulsion. But if they do not come, let them go and tell them that such belong to the devil as do not regard nor feel their great need and the gracious help of God. But if you do not urge this, or make a law or a bane of it, it is your fault if they despise the Sacrament. How could they be otherwise than slothful if you sleep and are silent? Therefore look to it, you pastors and preachers. Our office is now become a different thing from what it was under the Pope; it is now become serious and salutary. Accordingly, it now involves much more trouble and labor, danger and trials, and, in addition thereto, little reward and gratitude in the world. But Christ Himself will be our reward if we labor faithfully. To this end may the Father of all grace help us, to whom be praise and thanks forever through Christ, our Lord! Amen.

Adapted from Martin Luther’s Introduction to the Small Catechism