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.