Today's clarification is based on a conversation with a good friend, Jason Laurie over at School of Fish, who I respect for many reasons. One of which is that while we heartily disagree on many topics (probably more than we agree on), we remain friends. Yep, that's possible. We have spirited discussions, albeit mostly via the interwebs due to a proximity issue, push on the weak spots of the other's argument, and still treat one another as equals who deserve respect. Thus without further ado, I give you Mr. Laurie's perspective on Lent, followed by mine.
|| Lent means something in particular and it does not mean to the Roman Catholic (leadership) what we have made it into on the Protestant side. It is yet another sacrament in Romanism and sacraments, not observances, are let’s just say problematic for me. “The two elements which are especially characteristic of Lent – the recalling (a nice way of saying renewing or redoing) of baptism or the preparation for it, and penance” – Vatican Council II. Since AD 325 Lent has been celebrated for “renewing baptismal commitment.” Baptism in Rome is not baptism in Protestantism it is a sacrament. I don’t think it’s accurate to compare Lent to the order of service and of course baptism and communion are biblical so that doesn’t work and we don’t celebrate either as sacraments anyway. Furthermore, Roman Catholics don’t give up things to point to Christ but: to point to how an extremely watered down gospel (an unsaving one in my opinion) that puts salvation on human perseverance, punishment and indulgences is more obvious to participant thus forcing them into rebaptism so they can be [sic] be “resaved” after a period of reflection leads them to better understand how they have wronged the Roman Catholic church.
|| Lent means something in particular and it does not mean to the Roman Catholic (leadership) what we have made it into on the Protestant side. It is yet another sacrament in Romanism and sacraments, not observances, are let’s just say problematic for me. “The two elements which are especially characteristic of Lent – the recalling (a nice way of saying renewing or redoing) of baptism or the preparation for it, and penance” – Vatican Council II. Since AD 325 Lent has been celebrated for “renewing baptismal commitment.” Baptism in Rome is not baptism in Protestantism it is a sacrament. I don’t think it’s accurate to compare Lent to the order of service and of course baptism and communion are biblical so that doesn’t work and we don’t celebrate either as sacraments anyway. Furthermore, Roman Catholics don’t give up things to point to Christ but: to point to how an extremely watered down gospel (an unsaving one in my opinion) that puts salvation on human perseverance, punishment and indulgences is more obvious to participant thus forcing them into rebaptism so they can be [sic] be “resaved” after a period of reflection leads them to better understand how they have wronged the Roman Catholic church.
Most of my friends, obviously including yourself, do
participate and it’s probably okay, but it is a conscience issue in my mind and
I can’t in good faith participate in a religion that I believe is adverse to
the true Christ. ||
For the sake of
continuity, I will start with where we do agree:
Like Mr. Laurie, I do not believe that sacraments have salvific properties, nor will they cause me to be ‘holier’ in God’s eyes, for God only sees me through Christ; I am hidden in Him through my faith and thus deemed righteous. Neither do I believe that good works will assure my standing as righteous before God. If my so-called good works could get me in, undoubtedly my bad works would get me kicked out!
I do not believe that any church can effect my standing before God either, Roman or otherwise. Thus, my loyalties lie in Christ alone – no human can save me from my sins. Excepting, of course, the fully Divine \and equally\ fully human person, Jesus Christ. He is the only Savior.
Like Mr. Laurie, I do not believe that sacraments have salvific properties, nor will they cause me to be ‘holier’ in God’s eyes, for God only sees me through Christ; I am hidden in Him through my faith and thus deemed righteous. Neither do I believe that good works will assure my standing as righteous before God. If my so-called good works could get me in, undoubtedly my bad works would get me kicked out!
I do not believe that any church can effect my standing before God either, Roman or otherwise. Thus, my loyalties lie in Christ alone – no human can save me from my sins. Excepting, of course, the fully Divine \and equally\ fully human person, Jesus Christ. He is the only Savior.
I also agree that the sacraments
within the Roman Catholic tradition have been considered to have inherent salvific
properties that are antithetical to the gospel of Christ; thus the Catholic Church
places too great an emphasis on sacraments.
However, I believe that in our
Protestant, knee-jerk reaction to avoid any semblance of association with
salvific sacraments, we threw the proverbial baby out with the bath water. {This is where I refrain
from saying anything about how the catholic – universal – church existed centuries before Luther was born, and is
the stem from which modern Protestantism grew; the root obviously being
Judaism. But again, I am refraining.} The practices and creeds of the early
catholic church were both formative and protective; and I believe that when the
Roman Catholic Church loyalties have been sifted out, are still of great
benefit to individuals and the whole Church alike.
As such, I will continue
to use the word "sacrament," for in contemporary vernacular it is defined as: “An
important Christian ceremony (such as baptism or marriage)” Mirriam-Webster // “Ecclesiastical. A visible sign of inward grace.” Dictionary.com. Thus, baptism and communion are sacraments
within the Protestant traditions. I
would further clarify that these practices are also expectations within the Protestant church because once we pronounce
our faith in Jesus Christ, we are admonished to make this a public declaration
by participating in the act of baptism and partaking of communion. We expect followers of Christ who wish to become a new family unit to participate in the sacrament of marriage; in fact, we know it is sinful for two consenting adults to have intimate relations outside of this sacrament. Therefore, the ceremony has spiritual ramifications for each person's soul. Thus giving
credence to my argument against the position held by Mr. Kassis.
I am continually convinced that we, who
follow Christ in less liturgical ways, can find value in these ancient
practices. Is it not beneficial to me to
recall – renewing or reaffirming – my baptism?
As I am baptized in Christ, would not my reaffirmation be to Him as
well? We agree that baptism has no salvific properties; it is an outward sign of inward grace.
In our western, Protestant culture, we renew wedding vows to celebrate milestones in our marriages. This renewal does not void the previous commitment, nor extend it; rather, the renewal honors the original and celebrates it. In this celebration we again chose to stand in front of those whom we love, those who would hold us accountable to our promises, and publically declare our commitment to this person with our entire lives. Does Protestant baptism differ from this? Would we do wrong by reaffirming our commitment to Christ? Like marriage vows, I believe we would not; I also believe this reaffirmation is not a requirement. It is, as I said before, a way to honor and celebrate the original.[1] This type of somber meditation does not imply that one's baptism "didn't take." Rather, it expresses the desire of a sinful person to remember their sins, the cost of these transgressions, and the power of the Resurrection of our Risen Lord and Savior.
In our western, Protestant culture, we renew wedding vows to celebrate milestones in our marriages. This renewal does not void the previous commitment, nor extend it; rather, the renewal honors the original and celebrates it. In this celebration we again chose to stand in front of those whom we love, those who would hold us accountable to our promises, and publically declare our commitment to this person with our entire lives. Does Protestant baptism differ from this? Would we do wrong by reaffirming our commitment to Christ? Like marriage vows, I believe we would not; I also believe this reaffirmation is not a requirement. It is, as I said before, a way to honor and celebrate the original.[1] This type of somber meditation does not imply that one's baptism "didn't take." Rather, it expresses the desire of a sinful person to remember their sins, the cost of these transgressions, and the power of the Resurrection of our Risen Lord and Savior.
Further, I see both
examples of Protestant baptism as circumstantially dependent, and therefore
relevant. These being: spontaneous
baptism (which is found in Scripture) and an examined, albeit delayed,
baptism. Thus, for congregations who
practice examined baptism, isn’t the time leading up to this particular event
akin to Lent? Are we not exhorted to
recall our sins and the price Jesus paid for them, so that we may be born again
and baptized into new life in Him?
As for penance (which was
originally the sacrament of confession),
we agree that it does nothing to improve, or detract from, our standing with
God. Christ alone is our righteousness. However, I do see great benefit for me to be immediately and intimately aware of
the price of my sins. For they cost
Christ’s blood. Should I not be
brokenhearted over the grief I cause the Holy Spirit when I sin? Should I not recognize the pain I have caused
the Father in that He gave the life of His Only Son to pay for the damage I
have inflicted? Further, as Jesus succinctly
summed up the greatest commandment and its second (“Love your God with all your
heart, mind, and strength…and the second is like it, ‘love your neighbor as
yourself.’”), should I not strive towards reconciliation with those whom I have
wronged, so far as I am able to do so without inflicting further harm? Even to the extent that this reconciliation
might require some sacrifice from me?
Is that not the love of Christ, to give sacrificially of one’s self for the sake of another?
As you well know, I am not Roman Catholic, thus my Lenten practices are not to express my loyalty thereto; nor are they intended to better my standing with any church. I do hope that my practices will improve, in me, my loyalty to the Church, Christ's bride; for something my Lord loves so much is also something I should aspire to love. My Lenten practices are to recall, in my body, mind, and spirit, the miracle that is Easter; to strain, with all that I am, away from wordly distractions, reaching ever more toward the power and beauty and hope that is the Resurrection of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.
Is that not the love of Christ, to give sacrificially of one’s self for the sake of another?
As you well know, I am not Roman Catholic, thus my Lenten practices are not to express my loyalty thereto; nor are they intended to better my standing with any church. I do hope that my practices will improve, in me, my loyalty to the Church, Christ's bride; for something my Lord loves so much is also something I should aspire to love. My Lenten practices are to recall, in my body, mind, and spirit, the miracle that is Easter; to strain, with all that I am, away from wordly distractions, reaching ever more toward the power and beauty and hope that is the Resurrection of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.
This is Lent.
It is death – me trying daily to die more to myself so that Christ may live more fully in me.
It is resurrection – all things being made new: me, my relationship with my Heavenly Father and my relationships here on earth, the relationships between all humanity, the relationship between humanity and creation.
It is victory – recalling that the Spirit of Almighty God resides in me, as He does in every believer, so that neither death nor demons nor any part of creation may ever separate me from my Heavenly Father again.
It is hope – the truth that what has been broken will be made whole, what was been wounded will be healed, what has been wronged will be made right. Now and in the Time to Come.
It is a way to celebrate who Christ is and who we are in Him.
It is death – me trying daily to die more to myself so that Christ may live more fully in me.
It is resurrection – all things being made new: me, my relationship with my Heavenly Father and my relationships here on earth, the relationships between all humanity, the relationship between humanity and creation.
It is victory – recalling that the Spirit of Almighty God resides in me, as He does in every believer, so that neither death nor demons nor any part of creation may ever separate me from my Heavenly Father again.
It is hope – the truth that what has been broken will be made whole, what was been wounded will be healed, what has been wronged will be made right. Now and in the Time to Come.
It is a way to celebrate who Christ is and who we are in Him.
Lord, have mercy on us. Christ, have mercy on us. Amen.
[1] People
in recovery ministries celebrate their sobriety by telling their stories on
their anniversaries. If we look at life
in Christ through this lens, we might do well to remember our “before and after”
lives, tell the stories of each, and celebrate with others our recovery from
sin and death, so that we can now walk in life and truth. Similar to the practice of “sharing our
testimony;” which is one element by which the enemy is overcome. As we contemplate Easter, would this also not
be a timely practice? Remembering what
our sins cost – the cross – and then proclaiming what it has won – our lives.
No comments:
Post a Comment