Defending the Faith: The Crucifix and the Cross

The next issue that this series will focus on is one that my brothers and sisters in the Church of God take contention with. And much like the "Father" title, this was an objection that I had no idea why or how it could be an objection. But apparently as I have discussed and studied this topic more, it does seem to be a growing objection. Now let's hope we can stem the growth before it becomes as prevalent as the "Father" objection.

The Evangelical Stance - This stance is more of a group of related contentious questions: Why keep Jesus on the cross when he has risen and defeated death? Why dwell so much on the cross, it's only half of the story? They go on to bolster their objects by citing Exodus 20:4 (the second commandment about graven images), John 4:24 (about worshipping in spirit and in truth), and by making the claim that since the cross was adopted as the official symbol of Christianity during the reign of Constantine (which occurred some 300 years after the death of Christ) and because the Bible does not say anything about the apostles or early Christians representing their faith by displaying crosses - then we should not do so either.

The Counter Argument - We'll start by taking the easiest points in this evangelical stance to correct and move on from there. Firstly, when it comes to the cross being adopted as the institutional symbol of Christianity hundreds of years after the death of Christ AND not expressly mentioned as the same in the Bible, we also should not look to it as the institutional symbol for our faith. This makes little sense. Why?

• The Bible itself is not mentioned in the Bible. A strange assertion I realize, but follow me. Before the codification of the Bible as we know it today, there was no such thing as the Word of God to follow and obey as a practicing Christian. It was not until the early Christian leaders met at the Councils of Hippo (393 A.D.) and Carthage (397 A.D.) that the Bible was canonized and even more surprisingly, there was not even the definitive list that we know today, did not come from an Ecumenical Council until the Council of Trent (1545–63).
• The concept of the Trinity, is never defined in the Bible and the exact word NEVER shows up. This belief was not officially adopted until the Council of Constantinople (360 A.D.)
• The list continues but the purpose is clear - does any Christian church discount the belief in the Trinity or the authority of the Holy Scriptures? No. Of course not. One will also note that both of these iconic examples were adopted well after 300 A.D. See what I'm saying? You can't have it both ways. That option just isn't open to us.

As far as the belief that the cross and crucifix are nothing more than graven images which are condemned by God as idolatries and that John 4:24 is the only true way to worship, we've already addressed that here in our installment about statues and icons. And, after breaking down those verses in that installment, if they held no theological weight then - when it comes to the crucifix and the cross, it certainly does not now.

Now comes the answering of the contentious questions posed at the beginning - Why keep Jesus on the cross when he has risen and defeated death? Why dwell so much on the cross, it's only half of the story?

________________________________________

If we are put into a box and can only give Christ the glory in his resurrected state (as in, without a focus on the cross), then Christmas just got a lot more boring. Because if we can only look to the resurrected Jesus, are we not allowed to worship the Jesus that was in the manger? What about the Jesus that walked on water? Or the Jesus that healed the sick? We are called to worship without ceasing (1 Thessalonians 5:16-18) - not only to worship Jesus as our Risen Savior. All worship is important at all stages, but are there some worship stages that should be more elevated than others? If you ask an evangelical they will most likely say yes - the resurrected Christ. If you ask an Episcopalian or a Catholic they would also say yes - but they would say yes to the crucified Christ. So who's yes wins out? The one with the most substantial Biblical and theological support. And those who choose the crucified Christ would be theologically more correct.

In Revelation 5:6 we see Christ in his perfected state on the throne of Heaven with one very obvious attribute as it pertains to this argument, "Then I saw a Lamb, looking as if it had been slain, standing at the center of the throne, encircled by the four living creatures and the elders." He is seen not as the resurrected Christ, but the slain Lamb.

Looking at what the original church fathers believed - those in authority closest to Christ - can give us all the most accurate view on our Christian beliefs. We can look to Paul's writings to see what the original Christians viewed as most important (not only as far as this issue goes, but most all issues of theological importance). In Romans 6:3-8, Paul emphasizes the importance of the death and crucifixion of Christ and not his resurrection: "For we know that our old self was crucified with him so that the body ruled by sin might be done away with,  that we should no longer be slaves to sin - because anyone who has died has been set free from sin. Now if we died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him." Later, in 1 Corinthians 1:23, we hear him say that, "we preach Christ crucified" not Christ resurrected. And what is the best way to fulfill what Paul is asserting here? Through the visible presence of the cross and the crucifix. Because like a sacrament, the cross and crucifix are visible symbols of an invisible grace. Paul goes on to say that we should not, "know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified. (1 Corinthians 2:1-2)" When Paul writes to the Galatians, he says that they must glory only, "in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ. (Galatians 6:14)"

It is important for me to make sure that this is understood however - I am not saying that the resurrection is in any way unimportant or not paramount to our faith . It surely is. So much so that Paul also says, "And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. (1 Corinthians 15:17)" There must be a healthy balance. And how do we get that? We first must understand as the early church did, that our emphasis must first be on Christ crucified. If it is not, we can never fully understand or appreciate the resurrection - because there can be no Easter Sunday without a Good Friday. The crucifixion won us redemption and allowed us to be put back right with God as a whole. Then, through the resurrection, we receive new life in Christ - but ONLY because it was afforded to us THROUGH the crucifixion. It is a matter of both/and not either/or. It is through the Eucharist, celebrated every day throughout the world, that Calvary becomes present - with Jesus on the cross and not off it.

Defending the Faith: The 'Father' Title

Today's post is up there with one of the most common objections of the Episcopal and Catholic denominations I come across. When I first heard the objection I was so stunned that it would even be an issue I had absolutely no ammunition to back up why we use the title in question. That soon changed however...

The Evangelical Stance - Those denominations that call their priests or preachers "Father" are directly disobeying the commandment of Jesus Christ Himself when He says, "And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven. (Matthew 23-9)" I have lost track of the times I have heard this argument - especially, it seems, from Church of God, Primitive Baptists, and many non-denominational members.

The Counter Argument - Is Jesus prohibiting the use of the word "father" as a religious title? In a word, NO. And the evidence to refute that claim made by the evangelicals is so numerous, it's scary.

• Acts 7:2, "And he said, Men, brethren, and fathers, hearken; The God of glory appeared unto our father Abraham, when he was in Mesopotamia, before he dwelt in Charran..."
• Luke 16:24, "And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame."
• Romans 4:12, "And the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised."
• Romans 9:10, "And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac..."
• John 4:12, "Art thou greater than our father Jacob, which gave us the well, and drank thereof himself, and his children, and his cattle?"
• Acts 4:25, "You said through the Holy Spirit, by the mouth of our father David Your servant: Why did the Gentiles rage and the peoples plot futile things?"

You get the idea. But it doesn't stop there - in the same Acts 7:2 quoted above, the "fathers" made mention of are the religious Jewish elders. In 1 Corinthians 4:15-16, Paul calls himself Father. With this massive amount positive evidence in contrast to the evangelical argument against it, we can take this even farther. In the two verses that sandwich Matthew 23:9, (Matthew 23:8,10) we read, "But you are not to be called ‘rabbi,’ [which means teacher] for you have one Teacher, and you are all brothers....Nor are you to be called instructors, for you have one Instructor, the Messiah." Again, is Jesus prohibiting the use of the words teacher and instructor as a religious title? And again, NO. The evidence for this is also there -

• 1 Timothy 2:7, "And for this purpose I was appointed a herald and an apostle—I am telling the truth, I am not lying—and a true and faithful teacher of the Gentiles."
• 1 Corinthians 12:28, "And God has placed in the church first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healing, of helping, of guidance, and of different kinds of tongues."
• James 3:1, "Not many of you should become teachers, my fellow believers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly."

One never hears these verses quoted with the regularity of Matthew 23:9 and there's reason for that - if we believe Matthew 23:9, we must also believe vv.8, 10. And if we must believe vv. 8,10 - we can kiss the organized church system goodbye because all pastors, lay leaders, Sunday School teachers, VBS instructors, and seminary professors will have to look for other avenues of work. It doesn't make sense. Because if Jesus is saying look only to Him and there should be no other teachers or instructors of the faith, why would Christ Himself appoint teachers to carry on his cause? Why would Peter call himself a teacher? Why would James explain the merits and hardships of being a teacher and an instructor for Christ? The evangelicals' argument has cracked and simply cannot hold water.

___________________________________

So what does Christ mean by this commandment he sets down in Matthew 23:8-10? Christ uses hyperbole in these instances to emphasize the equality of God's people which the Pharisee's had lost sight of. And before you start to question the use of hyperbole in the Bible - this isn't the only time Jesus uses it. Look at Luke 14:26, "If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters—yes, even their own life—such a person cannot be my disciple." Is Jesus actually telling us that the only way we can be His disciple is to hate our family, our children, and our very life? No, of course not. That's why it's called hyperbole - an exaggeration that is used to evoke strong feelings or to create a strong impression, but is not meant to be taken literally. Another example of hyperbole is Romans 9:13, "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated." Obviously, Christ hates no one because God is love and cannot exist with hate (1 John 4:8) so he cannot love Jacob and turn around and hate Esau. These are not even close to covering all the hyperbole examples inside Scripture, but enough so that people may understand what is occurring in Matthew 23:9.

In a nutshell, it comes down to a word - putting this verse in CONTEXT. Most evangelicals forget to do just this and only read what they perceive a verse to be on it's face value. And any true theologian will tell you - context is the name of the game when it comes to proper and responsible biblical interpretation. So let's zoom out and stop looking at Matthew 23:9 alone and focus on the full context of Jesus' words. Matthew 23 begins with Jesus talking to the crowd about the Pharisees. He accuses them of being hypocrites. He also makes a point to say that they, "love to be greeted with respect in the marketplaces and to be called ‘Rabbi’ by others." THEN comes vv. 8-10. Jesus is admonishing the Pharisee's hypocritical nature and their love of honorific titles and uses vv. 8-10 hyperbolically to emphasize that fact. That's the verse in context. That's what really is going on and it has nothing to do with me addressing my priest as "Father" or me referring to my Sunday School leader as my teacher.

Click here for Defending the Faith: Repetitious Prayer
Click here for Defending the Faith: Statues and Icons

Defending the Faith: Repetitious Prayer

We continue our defense of the Episcopalian and Catholic denominations of Christianity by looking at another argument we can hopefully be able to finally put to rest at the end of this post - repetitious prayer (specifically the type of prayers used in the Rosary and the Jesus Prayer).

The Evangelical Stance - Many evangelicals will condemn repetitive prayers (to say nothing of who the Rosary is seemingly built around) because of Matthew 6:7 which states, "But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking."

The Counter Argument - The first question that must be asked is, was Jesus ever in the habit of condemning Himself? A strange question with a very obvious answer - No. Absolutely not. So why ask this question in the first place? Because Jesus, for all his Messianic-ship, was a devoted Jew who devotedly followed the Jewish customs. One of these being, meditating upon the Psalms daily - in particular, Psalm 136. There's probably not a more repetitious prayer-Psalm in the entire Bible - 26 times we read, "for his mercy endureth for ever", "O give thanks" 4 times, and the "To Him" exhortation 8 times. As a devoutly practicing Jew, Jesus would have prayed through the Psalm on a weekly, if not daily basis. Even when faced with his certain death, Christ prays in the Garden of Gethsemane in a repetitive fashion, as is noted in Matthew 26:39-44 where he prays to his Father to "let this cup pass" 3 times. So is Jesus condemning something He Himself does?

In heaven, we are told in Revelations 4:8 that the angels rejoice in prayer without ceasing three words - " Holy, Holy, Holy". It is important to note that these can be identified as the exact same angels who repeated this exhortation to Isaiah - identifying this repetitive exhortation had been going on incessantly since at least the time of Isaiah up until the writing of Revelation, some 700 years. There is little doubt that their repetitive exhortation of prayer stopped after Revelation - so it can be safely surmised that it continues to this day and will continue in the future. Would Jesus condemn his own perfect kingdom and angels in heaven for thousands of years of praying this repetitive exhortation? No. Of course not. There's more to this story ...

___________________________________

So what then is Matthew 6:7 talking about? To start with, the best translation of this verse is NOT the King James Version because in it's translation (it was used in the beginning because it is the standard translation many Evangelicals turn to), it looses the meaning of the original words used in Matthew's writings. A closer translation to Matthew's original words can be found using the NIV or ESV (to name only a couple) that translate the original more specifically using the words "babbling" and "empty phrases". Why is this distinction important? Because in the culture of the Gentiles of this time in history, their daily life and conduct had no connection to their sacrificial systems and prayer lives. This is why Matthew uses the choice words that is most accurately translated as "babbling" or "empty phrases" and not "repetitious prayer". The 'prayers' of Gentiles were traditionally a jumble of words which we void of meaning, value, truth, and love.

To make the distinction even more concrete, Matthew 15:7-9 says, "This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men." To put it more succinctly, if there's honor with your speech but not your heart, then your worship doesn't matter and is in vain. Christ is not condemning repetitious prayer (obviously not or He would be guilty of what He Himself was condemning) but babbling, empty prayer that is empty and devoid of love, worship, and truth that comes from the heart of a person in love with their Creator. 

That is why repetitive prayers like the Rosary and Jesus Prayer must be animated with and by love alone. We are called to meditate on God's word night and day and these types of repetitious prayers provide us with an option do just that on a convenient rope. Every single phrase in these repetitious prayers have their birth and creation rooted in the words in Holy Scripture and the love that springs from them. And this is where all our prayer lives should originate from - repetitive or not. And I'm not just babbling about that, either.

 

 

Click here for Defending the Faith: Statues and Icons. 

Defending the Faith: Statues and Icons

I have decided to take on a series of blog posts devoted to answering a selection of the criticisms and objections that some Christians take with the Episcopalian and Catholic stances on certain theological issues. As we go through these issues, note that I love all my evangelical, Bible-believing brothers and sisters immensely (even if, in certain instances, they are off a bit theologically) - and I'll never talk badly about them.

So why do this? For two main reasons:

1. We are commanded in Proverbs to study our faith and grow in knowledge - "Let the wise hear and increase in learning, and the one who understands obtain guidance." (Proverbs 1:5)

2. We are called by Peter to, "always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect, having a good conscience..."

Knowing this then, it is important to put aside preconceptions about things you've heard through the grapevine, rumors, and/or blissful ignorance and crack open the Bible with a heart of contextual openness instead of bias. With that being said, let's move to the first common misconception.

____________________________

The Evangelical Stance - Catholics (and some Episcopalians) have statues of people like Jesus, Mary, Joseph, and other saints long dead in their church and they bow before them, worship them, and pray to them. This is completely against the Ten Commandments, because the second commandment states, "You shall not make for yourself a graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth." (Ex. 20:4) 


The Counter Argument - The first question that must be asked is simple: Can God get confused? ..... Of course, the answer is a resounding NO. Why ask that question? For this reason - if God is condemning absolutely the making of images and statues, then what other reason besides confusion (and possibly forgetfulness) would God have for commanding statues and images to be made? But God is not confused. And he certainly is not forgetful. So there must be more to this issue than meets the eye.

Just five chapters later in Exodus 25:18-22 one who reads the second commandment in an absolute sense will be met with a major obstacle to their argument - God commands statues and images to be made to go on top of the Ark of the Covenant. But if God is against all carved images, why is he instructing them to be made? Cherubim, which are angels, are from heaven and are heavenly beings. Doesn't this fly in the face of the second commandment? One can also look to 1 Kings 6:23 (where God commands and blesses Solomon for filling the temple with statues and engraved figures and images), Numbers 21:8-9 (where God commands Moses to build a bronze serpent attached to a pole that had healing powers), and 1 Kings 6:29 (where King Solomon replicates through images and engraving the original Garden of Eden in the middle of his temple) which really seems to put God at odds with his own second commandment. But can that be?

What then is God talking about in Exodus? He is prohibiting acts of natural idolatry. The word "graven" in Hebrew refers only to a very specific type of image - one made out of only stone or wood solely made to be worshipped. And in the culture of Moses, only the pagans practiced these types of graven idol worship. So God is speaking in a specific way for a specific culture in terms that they would understand immediately. God is prohibiting the worship of false pagan gods made out of these natural materials.

At this point, from an academic standpoint, it should be reasoned without question that Catholics and Episcopalians are not guilty of idolatry because the statues and images in their churches are not false gods diametrically opposed to Christ himself, but are in fact aids that propel us deeper in our relationship with Christ.

But even with that, some evangelists will counter the academic evidence with John 4:24 saying that these "aids" are still idolatrous because we, "must worship in spirit and truth." Again, the question must be, is Jesus confused or forgetful? The answer is still no. Evangelists would like to pigeonhole us into believing that John 4:24 must be in direct opposition to anything material. But not only does it not say or imply that, but there are many examples in the Bible that show worshipping in in the material sense is just as acceptable as worshipping in spirit and truth. We see the many examples in Solomon's temple (commanded and blessed by God himself) that refutes that claim. But we also can look to Numbers 15:38-39 where God commands his priests to wear special tassels so that their parishioners can, "look at and remember all the commandments of the Lord, to do them..." and in Genesis 9:13 where God uses the rainbow to create a materialistic sign of his invisible covenant with his chosen people. John 4:24 is not an either/or commandment. It is a both/and.

And yes, we do bow down in front of statues. But is this idolatry? Absolutely not. In 1 Kings 2:19, King Solomon bows down to his mother when she enters in King's court. Is he worshipping her? No. He is showing her honor. The posture of bowing simply doesn't always denote worship and adoration. When a man proposes to his hopeful bride, he bows down before her on one knee. Is he worshipping her? No. He is showing her his honor and respect.

Most evangelists who are quick to dismiss this practice of the veneration of images and statues in the Catholic and Episcopal church as outright idolatry, easily forget the images in their own stained glass windows, the Bible picture books and coloring books used in Sunday School classes, the live nativities and crèche scenes that are so abundant in their churches during the Christmas season, and the countless paintings of Christ himself that adorn so many pastors' studies and church hallways. If they absolutely believed Exodus 20:4, then they also are equally guilty of outright idolatry.

But here's the bottom line: in churches that understand the importance and the biblical precedence of incorporating material worship aids like statues, icons, and other sacred imagery into their church experience to get closer to Christ, they honor and show affection not for these images themselves but what they represent. And there is nothing idolatrous about that.