Tradition, Vestments, and Popes - Oh, My!

Over the past week or so, since the election of Jorge Mario Bergoglio to the Chair of St. Peter, there has been a lot of hullabaloo about the new pope’s “style.” The above meme is one such case in point. The praise is great and abundant, and it comes from all corners of the world and all walks of life. The consensus seems to be that Francis, with his lower key style than his predecessor Benedict, will single-handedly save the church and all Christendom with it by returning to the central things of the gospel of Jesus Christ. All this he does by foregoing pomp and circumstance—and most of all, his red papal shoes.

I will begin by adding my praise of His Holiness for remembering his is a call to serve. In his public actions since the conclave, it appears this pope Francis is willing to meet the people where they are, to share the gospel with them—even if it means doing some things generally uncharacteristic of former popes. His humility is something that we can all take inspiration from and learn from. The earthly office of Christian is one of service to God and others on account of Jesus Christ. By the outward signs we’ve seen thus far, it would appear that Francis gets that message.

I would caution both my Roman Catholic and Protestant friends, however, not to get too excited about the “changes” the new pope is making. While we might initially welcome them with eagerness, we must weigh everything before jumping to the conclusion, “This is what Jesus would do!” Remember the words of the Evangelist John to the church at Ephesus—“Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God; for many false prophets have gone out into the world.” I’m not intending to call the pope a false prophet, but we must be wary, and test everything!

The excitement about the new pope’s departure from standing practice in pontifical custom is grounded in both a mistrust and misunderstanding about tradition and the role it plays in the church at large and the Roman Catholic Church specifically. The papacy with all its trappings represents for many all things about ecclesial tradition that can go wrong. There are good, honest, merited critiques of some ways the papacy has carried out the duties of its office, but to call for a complete abolition of all things traditional under the guise of “serving the gospel” belies myopathy and ignorance toward the role of tradition in Roman Catholicism and the wider church catholic.

For Roman Catholics, tradition plays a huge role in their faith—both Apostolic Tradition and ecclesial traditions. The Roman Catholic Church teaches in its catechism that “the Church, in her doctrine, life and worship, perpetuates and transmits to every generation all that she herself is, all that she believes.” In this way, maintaining the traditions of the Church, both the Apostolic and the ecclesial, serves the larger ends of the gospel for Roman Catholics.

Likewise, Roman Catholics teach that “the liturgical celebration involves signs and symbols relating to creation (candles, water, fire), human life (washing, anointing, breaking bread) and the history of salvation (the rites of the Passover). Integrated into the world of faith and taken up by the power of the Holy Spirit, these cosmic elements, human rituals, and gestures of remembrance of God become bearers of the saving and sanctifying action of Christ.” Here, particular rites and their incumbent ritual, including the use of vestments and other liturgical paraphernalia, come to bear. In these rituals, as in all that the Church does, Roman Catholics believe they serve the gospel of Jesus Christ among themselves and in the wider world.

An issue arises naturally when we suggest foregoing ritual and its accouterments. The truth of the matter is that true worship is directed at God—“In the liturgy of the Church, God the Father is blessed and adored as the source of all the blessings of creation and salvation with which he has blessed us in his Son, in order to give us the Spirit of filial adoption.” This directedness can be misplaced when we focus too closely on the ecclesial traditions and miss the wider message of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

While we don’t want to fall off the side of the horse where the gospel is sidelined, we also don’t want to fall off the side of the horse where the gospel becomes a new law. For evangelical Christians insist that “the two teachings of law and gospel dare not be mingled with the other and mixed together, and the characteristics of one dare not be ascribed to the other.” That is to say, we cannot make the gospel of Jesus Christ, which in the strictest sense is about freedom for condemnation, into a condemnation of freedom exercised in Christ. For St. Paul writes—“there is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death.”

Even within our own parishes we see a wide range of ecclesial expression. We have “high church” congregations and “low church” congregations. We have bishops who’d rather not wear episcopal purple and bishops who wear cope, chasuble, ring, and mitre.

These are all permissible within the expression of Christian piety and worship. And evangelical Christians confessionally uphold them, especially within the mass. For “we do not abolish the Mass but religiously retain and defend it. Among us the Mass is celebrated every Lord’s day and on other festivals, when the sacrament is made available to those who wish to partake of it, after they have been examined and absolved. We also keep traditional liturgical forms, such as the order of readings, prayers, vestments, and other similar things.”

This all sounds very heady, and the main point could well have been lost by this juncture. To review: at discussion is the excitement about the Holy Father’s embrace of a less formal and less traditional pontifical style and its relationship to the gospel of Jesus Christ. What becomes tricky here for the Roman Catholic Church, and the wider church by extension,* is to maintain its sense of continuity with the past and its claim to authority in the presence.

Throughout history, the Roman Catholic Church has placed a high premium on the role of tradition to link its current reality with the past reality. By doing so, its authority has been cemented in place. To throw out one of the primarily pillars supporting this edifice, however, could have perilous side effects. If a church who bases its witness, its authority, and its credibility on that which has been handed down from generation to generation, all of a sudden strips that tradition bare, on the grounds that it’s not necessary for and gets the way of the proclamation of the gospel of Jesus Christ, what does that say about the past and the authority of the church in the past? What does that say about the teachings of the church, not merely regarding arcane issues such as the vestments but also such fundamental matters such as the creeds, which themselves are traditional in the strictest sense? Were they misguided, founded on unimportant matters? What about today? Is the church today simply indulging an aberration? Is the church today in continuity with the past? If not, which one are the faithful to look to? Against what do we judge and test, as the evangelist exhorts us to do? Can both expressions be in agreement with the gospel of Jesus Christ? To pick away haphazardly at one corner of a foundation could lead to the collapse of the entire structure.

In the end, the question about vestments and tradition is one of undifferentiation—especially for evangelical Christians who believe the church is a unified body made manifest through the preaching of the gospel and the administration of the sacraments. As such, “we also believe, teach, and confess that no church should condemn another because the one has fewer or more external ceremonies not commanded by God than the other has, when otherwise there is unity with the other in teaching and all the articles of faith and in the proper use of the holy sacraments, according to the well-known saying, “Dissonantia ieiunii non dissolvit consonantiam fidei”—“Dissimilarity in fasting is not to disrupt unity in faith.” It is my fervent prayer for the wellbeing of the Roman Catholic Church and His Holiness, Pope Francis, that in all they do, they might serve the great and glorious gospel of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ—who didn't come “into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.” I pray all faithful Christians, Roman Catholic and all others, earnestly join me in this.

-DS

*The reality of Christendom is that, though many of the world’s Christians don’t count themselves among the Roman Catholic family, what happens in Rome has universal churchly implications. Protestants may delude themselves into believing that what happens in Rome stays in Rome, but that simply is not the case. One need only look at the fall from grace experienced by all clergy, regardless of tradition, in light of the recent pedophile scandals to know that isn’t the case.

Book Review - "God Believes in Love" by Gene Robinson

God Believes in Love: Straight Talk about Gay Marriage is Gene Robinson’s latest book. It was published at the end of 2012 by Alfred Knopf, a division of Random House Publishing. It can be purchased in hardcopy for $13.99. ISBN: 978-0-307-95788-7

This book is long in coming. In it, Episcopal Bishop Gene Robinson endeavors to make both the secular and religious case for extending the right to marry to gay and lesbian couples. Robinson is renowned in some circles and notorious in others for being the first gay man to live openly in a committed relationship to be consecrated bishop in a major Christian denomination. His consecration in 2003 sparked many conservative Episcopalians—laity, priests, and bishops alike—to make an exodus from the Episcopal Church and form their own Anglican denomination. The tension his elevation has caused in the Anglican commune has had long-lived and far-reaching effects that are felt throughout the world to this day.

Before turning the book’s merits, let’s first address one of the places it could’ve been stronger. Throughout the book, Robinson resorts to facile argument and sweeping statements to justify his claims. In this way, the book leaves something to be desired by those who’ve been embroiled in the debate, both secular and religious, over gay marriage who seek deeper engagement.

Particularly troublesome is Robinson’s engagement of the concept of freewill—which arguably doesn’t exist in our postcausal reality. He writes, “We are free to love God back—or not.” Here, Robinson goes out into dangerous territory because he insists on the power of freewill in our human interaction with God. Humanity cannot fully love God in a way that doesn’t damn our souls to hell—thus, the sacrifice of Christ on the cross. Humanity is bound to fail in loving God and neighbor time and time again. Acknowledging that each and every one of us—straight, gay, bisexual, Jewish, Christian, European, Asian, or whatever sociological category we find ourselves corralled into—falls short of the perfect love that God envisions for us makes Robinson’s argument for tolerance, acceptance, and love all that much stronger. Instead, he opens himself up to critics’ counterclaim, “If you really love God, you’d keep the command to abstain from same-sex intercourse”—suggesting that apart from Christ we can please God no matter what we do or don’t do. The freewill argument is an important one, and it must be handled gingerly, lest the waters be muddied.

The book addresses a wide range of topics in less than 200 pages—ranging from why straight individuals should care about gay rights to how specific biblical texts have been used and abused in the discussion about gay rights through the ages. In an effort to cover these variegated topics, detail in each seems to have been sacrificed. It’s, in short, a case of quantity over quality.

It needs to be said, however, that quality of the arguments aren’t bad per se. They are in fact all good points, and Robinson should be lauded for handling them in a candid and forthright manner. The way that he weaves secular and religious concerns together to make a cogent case for equality is one of the primary strengths of text.

Particularly important is the question of separation of church and state that he addresses in his chapter entitled “What if my religion doesn’t believe in gay marriage?” The salient point he makes in this chapter—which might be considered the archetypal theme of the book—is that the state has no real interest in barring gay and lesbian couples from wedlock. Should nonetheless continue to preclude them from marriage, the state is in fact infringing on the free exercise of those clergy and denominations that would join same-sex couples in marriage but are barred from doing so by the government. This is an important argument, and it’s refreshing to see it being made by a respected member of the faith community.

The most important strength of Robinson’s case is his honest handling of the biblical texts. He insists that the bible is not a static book that ceased to speak dynamically to the reality of its adherents after it had been written. He believes, justified with Scriptural grounding, that God continues to guide us today, and claims that “this understanding of God as being active in the creation—not just in biblical times, but to this very day—is at the heart of Christianity.”  This activeness of God, in and through Scripture from ancient to contemporary times, is foundational to how Robinson approaches understanding how Scripture speaks to the question of gay and lesbian relationships.

Bishop Gene Robinson endeavors to make both the secular and religious case for extending the right to marry to same-sex couples.

He addresses the few biblical texts related to same-sex intimacy directly and fairly and offers easily understandable explanations for both the Old Testament and New Testament “texts of terror.” And where the text is unclear, or where it finds itself among others that have become culturally and temporally inapplicable to our present-day circumstances, Robinson offers this forceful yet nonetheless truthful and pastoral rejoinder to those who would hold up passages that condemn same-sex intimacy based on the mere fact that they’re in the bible—“Biblical literalists cannot have it both ways, picking and choosing which proscriptions will still be enforced as eternally binding and which may be casually tossed aside or explained away.”

This book is a good one for those who are struggling with the question of faith and society as it regards the question of gay and lesbians who are calling for just treatment under the law. Those who want honest answers from someone who has a personal stake in the debate would appreciate this book. It is not a book that provides a great deal of academic fodder, but it is pastoral and conversational in approach—two things oftentimes lacking from the acrimonious debate regarding same-sex relationships both in the church and in the wider society. I recommend it.

A big and hearty thanks to my friend Josiah for giving me this book for Christmas. May God bless you!

-DS

Do Lutherans Honor Mary? Isn't that Idolatry?

Christians the world over confess—oftentimes each Sunday, depending on the tradition—either the Apostles’ or the Nicene creeds. When we gather and make confession this way, we are taking a stand about our faith. Evangelical Christians—that is, Christians centered on the gospel of Jesus Christ—join countless others the world over in confessing their faith with these words from the creed. For them, adherence to the creeds as accurate and true summations of the faith is a core tenet of self-identification as Christian.

In the second article of the creed, Christians confess that we believe in “in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, begotten from the Father before all the ages, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one Being with the Father, through whom all things were made. For us human beings and for our salvation he came down from the heavens, was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, and became a human being.”

Here the Virgin Mary is named specifically as the woman of whom Jesus Christ was born. This is remarkable because there are only three people named in the creeds—Jesus himself; Mary, his mother; and Pontius Pilate, his executioner. 

For many Christians, this inclusion and confession of the “Virgin Mary” is troublesome. How can we confess a virgin birth? Doesn’t that fly in the face of reason? And how can we include Mary in our confession of faith? Isn’t Mariology nothing more than idolatry? These are good questions, and ones that evangelical Christians can answer.

For Martin Luther, the question of honoring Mary was one about faith in Jesus Christ. Luther didn’t oppose honoring Mary, but he insisted that that honor be given her because of her role as the Mother of God, not because she had won special favor with God of her own accord or merit.

Honoring Mary is rooted in the incarnation of God among us in Jesus Christ, as the one who brings release to captive sinners one and all. Thus, the confession that Christ is born of the Virgin is not so much a confession about Mary, but rather one about Christ himself. He was truly born of a human flesh—of a virgin by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

This confession—“incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary”—confesses and underscores the reality that Christ is both man and God, and the virgin birth raises the ante. Christ is not merely a man, but God—so much so to be born truly of a woman, albeit a virgin. Nothing short of a miraculous occurrence ordained by God the Most High could bring about this sort of incarnation.

Mariology—that is, “the study of Mary”—is closely and inextricably related to Christology—that is, “the study of Christ.” When Christians confess a belief in Christ, they make a claim about God’s activity in the world through Christ—namely, that “for us human beings and for our salvation he came down from the heavens.”  Christ born of Mary became incarnate to redeem lost sinners, one and all, from their damnable sinful condition. To redeem them from the coarse, wretchedness foisted upon them by their own action and the action of the world against them.

But a Christian doesn’t merely confess that Christ is the Savior of the world. A Christian confesses that Christ redeems the whole world—even the individual confessing. Christ born of Mary came to redeem all who believe, and that means you and me along with all the great saints like Mary, James, John, and Peter and Paul. Mary did not give birth to the Christ for her salvation alone or even for the pillars of the Christian church. Christ’s birth of Mary was for the whole world and its salvation. Christ is not merely Mary’s child, but is the Lord and Savior born of a virgin for the whole human race, every sinner who falls short of the Glory of God.

Mary, a poor girl of no account, is the faithful, graceful vessel God chose to turn the world around. In this virgin girl from a nameless background, God turns conventional wisdom and reason on its head and shows the world and its order the nature of God’s saving power and intention. In the weak and lowly God’s power is shown at its highest and most impressive. In a virgin girl God plants the saving seed for all humanity and creation.

When we honor Mary, we don’t do so because she is the greatest of saints. We do so because we recognize that in her God chose to come among us in the least expected place. In her, God chose a young woman, not a great a great King, to raise and nurture the Savior of the world, my Savior and Lord Jesus Christ. In a Christmas Day sermon in 1530 Luther addresses this very issue. He goes to the heart of the question about Mary and the individual salvation of the believer within the collective salvation of the world—

“But even if you believed as much”—namely, that Christ is the Savior of the world—“it would still not be enough, unless there were added to it the faith that he was born for you. For he was not born merely in order that I should honor the mother, that she should be praised because he was born of the virgin mother. This honor belongs to none except her and it is not to be despised, for the angel said, ‘Blessed are you among women!’ But it must not be too highly esteemed lest one deny what is written here: ‘To you this day is born a Savior.’ Here he was not merely concerned to be born of a virgin; it was infinitely more than that. It was this, as she herself says in the Magnificat: ‘He has helped his servant Israel;’ not that he was born of me and my virginity, but born for you and for your benefit, not only for my honor’” (LW 51:215).

Lutherans, and all Christians alike, honor Mary because she was highly favored by God the Most High to be the Mother of God, but more than that, we honor her because she was the first to hear and believe the unadulterated message of God’s salvation in the Christ child. For countless generations the people of Israel had the promise of salvation proclaimed to them by prophets and patriarchs, but in these last days, God came among us and preached to us through the Son, born of Mary. God’s promise took on flesh in blood in Christ Jesus, and was born of a virgin named Mary.

We don’t honor Mary because she earned special favor in God’s sight, but because she, like so many other saints before us and living among us now, had faith in the promises of God to crush sin, death, and the devil underfoot and win for all faithful people a place in God’s kingdom. Mary, the Mother of God, was the first to hear this promise proclaimed as by a Christ—and of her own flesh and blood. We honor Mary for her faith in to God and the promise, and more importantly because of God’s faithfulness toward us shown through her in Jesus Christ, the sure and solid Rock of our faith.

-DS

A Brief Reflection on the Pope's "Untraditional" Actions

The selection of Pope Francis shocked the world because he never seemed like one of the top choices for Pope. We should not be surprised because the Holy Spirit works in ways that we cannot understand. God continuously calls individuals flying just below the surface to lead the strong. The information that filtered through news sites this morning that the Pope would again break tradition caused many to question the Pope's decisions. In the first few days of the new Pope’s office he has not been doing things “traditionally”. He disappoints liturgical junkies in his lack of vestments and now he plans to hang around a youth detention facility on Holy Thursday.

The way that this Pope is acting is similar to the way Jesus acted. Jesus dined with a previously dead person, prostitutes, the least, the lost, and the lowly... Pope Francis reflects the image of Jesus, led by the Holy Spirit, to kiss the feet of prisoner! Instead of celebrating the Lord’s supper in St. Peter's Basilica or the Basilica of St. John Lateran, the Pope will be washing the feet of the youth rejected by society. Individuals who are no longer able to participate in society, those who are seen as sinful (despite our own sinfulness), and people whose sinfulness has landed them in confinement are welcomed to the Lord’s table by Pope Francis.

This leads to a much needed decrease in the distance from the lay to ordained members of many Christian churches. The Pope comes down from the elevated altar to the place where the lost are living. How much more can we minister to the people who need to hear the gospel if we are not so far away, if we don’t need to yell, if we can just whisper. This is not to say that we should do away with the leaders of the church! Leaders of all Christian denominations can learn from the Holy Father’s example. We need to dwell among the least of these because that is where Jesus is (Matthew 25:45)!

-LB

WHAT WE TALK ABOUT WHEN WE TALK ABOUT GOD - Book Review

WHAT WE TALK ABOUT WHEN WE TALK ABOUT GOD is Rob Bell’s newest addition to his published work. The book was copyrighted in 2013. It is found in the Christianity/Religion section of all major booksellers and costs $25.99. ISBN: 978-0-06-204966-7

Bell writes this book because it is a deeply personal question that he continues struggling with throughout the entirety of the selection. He writes as one would speak in conversational prose. His extended question becomes: How do we talk about God? Bell also writes this book because he recognizes the need for conversation, and he recognizes the importance of rethinking who God is and how we talk about God.

Bell uses simple words to title his chapters, and these words also serve as the themes or topics of each chapter: open, both, with, for, ahead and so. Bell attempts to release the certainty of doctrine and most beliefs about God for something bigger. In many ways, Bell asserts, that certainty and dogma are too confining for a God of infinity. He wonders, “Can God keep up with the modern word?” This question is striking and is a punch to the gut eliminating all air from one's lungs. Was God left behind by our knowledge of the world, our daily workings, and our computer interfaces? Bell does not seem to think that God is dead or even that God was left behind, but he does insist that we must rethink the ways that we traditionally think about God. (I think he is right here)

In thinking about God, Bell brings doubt to the forefront. Doubt is often the ugly elephant in the room that many church people don’t want to talk about. Bell comes from a deeply personal place when he talks about being a pastor with doubts.

I should pause here and say that when you’re a pastor, your heart and soul and
          paycheck and doubts and faith and hopes and struggles and intellect and responsibility     
          are all wrapped up together in a life/job that is very public. and Sunday comes once a
          week, when you’re expected to have something inspiring to say... (12)

Fortunately, Bell does not leave the reader in that place for long because he asserts a way forward. The only way forward is to take the plunge into doubt and to be emerged in it. This leads to the emergence out of doubt into a world, not of certainty, but of integrity and faith. This emergence comes from the humans ability to embrace doubt AND fear.

The reader can take away useful information from this book. It gives the reader a chance to reflect on doubt, one’s personal convictions about God, dogma, doctrine, and one’s ability to remain open in doubt AND conviction.

Unfortunately, this book does not serve the meat and potatoes that a reader needs. I would like to say that Bell scratches the surfaces, but I am afraid that is not true. The only thing that Bell makes clear is that traditional theology does not work in this time. Here again, I think this is an oversimplification! We won’t lose God. Rob Bell and anyone else you don’t have to worry! The Triune God sustains the church, not theology.

This book would be helpful for people who want to begin the conversation about how we talk about God. This book would be better for people who are not theologically trained as an introduction to systematic theology. Like I said before, this book does not even scratch the surface, but it is not an entire wash. It can be useful, even as a devotional material to spark conversations about God.

-LB

Just an introduction

Grace and peace to you and mercy from God our Father and our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, the Source of all Wisdom and Truth. We thought that it is important to introduce ourselves. We are both Lutheran (ELCA) seminarians. We are also both seeking ordination in the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America. This blog will serve as an outlet to present theological interest and information that we come across. In this blog we will post book reviews, reactions to the news through a theological lens, and simply post anything under our theological umbrella of interest.

-Lauren and Daniel