Tr8s

Showing posts with label apostles. Show all posts
Showing posts with label apostles. Show all posts

Monday, June 14, 2010

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?

Saturday, April 10, 2010

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.

Thursday, March 4, 2010

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.