For Christians Who Don't Worship Like Us

I must study Politicks and War that my sons may have liberty to study Mathematicks and Philosophy.  My sons ought to study Mathematicks and Philosophy, Geography, natural History, Naval Architecture, navigation, Commerce, and Agriculture, in order to give their Children a right to study Painting, Poetry, Musick, Architecture, Statuary, Tapestry, and Porcelaine.
John Adams, in a Letter to Abigail Adams, May 12, 1780

I love that quote.  I have lived in peace all of my life, because my ancestors fought wars to secure the peace I now enjoy.  I am free to study arts and philosophy, because my forebears laid the groundwork, building libraries and universities, courts and legislative halls, monuments and churches.

Not all of the churches in my family's history have believed the exact same doctrines.  My children do not attend the same denominations in which I was raised.  But all of them have been based on bedrock principles of Christ crucified, of Salvation through no other, and of our hope of Heaven.

Today I was listening to Dr. Wayne Braudrick on the radio.  He is pastor of Frisco Bible Church, and all week long he has done an overview of the growth of the Church as told by Luke in the book of Acts.  Today's message was from Acts chapter 21, in which Paul was encouraged by the Gentile Christians not to go to Jerusalem, because he would certainly be persecuted there.  Nevertheless, Paul went, led by the Spirit, despite predictions and prophecies that he would be arrested, beaten, and tried by a Roman court, set out for the center of the Jewish world.

Let's pick it up in verse 17.

When we arrived at Jerusalem, the brothers received us warmly.  The next day Paul and the rest of us went to see James, and all the elders were present.  Paul greeted them and reported in detail what God had done among the Gentiles through his ministry.  When they heard this, they praised God.  Then they said to Paul: "You see, brother, how many thousands of Jews have believed, and all of them are zealous for the law.  They have been informed that you teach all the Jews who live among the Gentiles to turn away from Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or live according to our customs.  What shall we do? They will certainly hear that you have come, so do what we tell you.  There are four men with us who have made a vow.  Take these men, join in their purification rites and pay their expenses, so that they can have their heads shaved.  Then everybody will know there is no truth in these reports about you, but that you yourself are living in obedience to the Law.  As for the Gentile believers, we have written to them our decision that they should abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals, and from sexual immorality.

The elders of the Jewish Christians welcomed Paul with open arms.  They listened intently to what Paul shared with them about his sharing Christ with the Gentiles.  They rejoiced that the Gentiles had come to know Christ, as they themselves had.  But the Gentiles did not keep the Law of Moses: they did not follow the Jewish dietary rules; they were not circumcised; they did not celebrate a Passover meal on Friday night, and they did not go to Synagogue on Saturday.  In fact, many of the Gentile Christians had started meeting for worship on Sundays, the first day of the week.

But now that he was in Jerusalem, the elders advised Paul to make a public show that he had not abandoned his Jewish roots.  There were four men in their midst who had made a Nazarite Vow.  Paul himself had likely made the same vow at various times in his ministry.  The Nazarite vow was a Jewish practice, in which a man would separate himself from the world.  He would commit himself for a season (sometimes 30 days, sometimes longer) that he would not shave or cut his hair; he would not drink wine or anything fermented; he would not touch the carcass of a dead person or animal.  (You will recall from the Old Testament that Samson was to be a Nazarite his whole life--we see the vow being eroded when he killed the Philistines and took their cloaks, or when he found a honeycomb in the carcass of a lion; also when he took a wife from the Philistines, and drank wine among them.  So when his hair was cut, it was like the final straw, the final act of disobedience, and that is why God's presence and power left him.  You will also recall that John the Baptist in the New Testament was to be a Nazarite his entire life.)  Anyway, at the end of the season, whether it was 30 days or longer, the man who made the vow would present himself to the Temple and go through a seven day purification ritual, at the end of which the priest would shave his head.  And finally, an offering would be made, usually a rather expensive gift to the Temple.

If the Jewish Christians would see Paul going through the purification ritual, and paying the offering, not only for himself, but for four other Jewish men, then they would know that Paul had not abandoned the Jewish customs.  By agreeing to do this, Paul demonstrated (at great personal cost) that Christians were free to continue some Jewish customs and to keep their traditions.

On the other hand, the elders in Jerusalem did not require that Gentile Christians be circumcised.  They did not demand that Gentiles convert to Judaism in order to follow Christ.  They did know that some of the Gentile Christians had been raised in cities like Ephesus, where there was a temple to Artemis, a fertility goddess.  They encouraged their new brothers to stay away from sexual immorality, and not identify with the temple prostitutes that were so prevalent.  They also encouraged Gentile Christians not to eat animals sacrificed to idols.  Not only would eating of this meat identify them with the idols, but the way in which the sacrifices were made did not always drain all of the blood out of the animal carcass before it was consumed.  This was not healthy, and a Jew might see it as immoral.  Other than that, the Gentile Christians were free to identify with Christ, while keeping their Greek customs.

The reason I related this message I heard from Dr. Braudrick today is that my son, who has left our Protestant denomination and has identified with Greek Orthodox teaching, posted something on Facebook this week.  He frequently has to explain to his friends and family why he is more comfortable in a High Church worship setting than in a camp-revival-all-day-singin'-and-dinner-on-the-grounds type of unstructured worship he grew up with in the Baptist church.  But the post he shared was part of a Reddit stream, where young people were discussing Religion vs. Relationship.  Here is the excerpt that caught my eye:

"I'd say it [the idea that Christianity is 'not a religion, just a relationship'] has less to do with Sola Scriptura than it has to do with a shift from what theologian David Tracy calls the "analogical imagination" to the "dialectical imagination."
A couple things happen that are important here:
1) A loss of a sense of mediation between the created and the uncreated. Patristic theology could see communion with God as the end of spiritual life, while still seeing that communion as mediated by created realities that participate in God's own being and goodness--the bread and wine and the eucharist, the water of baptism, the icon, etc. Protestantism tended to amplify the gulf between the created and the uncreated, and in some cases (especially in Reformed cases) the only real "mediation" we're left with is the sovereign will of God. So someone like Karl Barth can go as far as to say that there's nothing "inherent" in any created thing that makes it more conducive to divine revelation than any other thing; even the Bible, for Barth, becomes divine revelation not because of what it is, but because God freely elects to make the words revelation for church by the power of the Spirit.
What does that have to do with "religion"? It basically devalues the material mediators between the divine and the human, the concrete "stuff" of religious practice. The relationship becomes one of the obedience of the human will to the sovereign will of God. Sacramental practices remain, but no longer as real mediators; they in many cases cease to be sacraments at all and become "ordinances," something we do because Christ commanded it, not because the water or the wine unite us physically to the life of the God who became flesh and dwelt among us.
2) The dialectical imagination amplifies the dichotomy between God and the world by focusing strongly on the total depravity of the fallen world. Every human striving towards God, because it is corrupted by sin, becomes effectively useless. Someone like Barth could identify "religion" with such vain striving, and say that Christianity is not a religion because it is the actual self-revelation of God. I've always thought of the religion-vs.-relationship thing as a dumbed-down version of this attitude. Religion is useless because it's a futile attempt at self-redemption, when it's really a relationship with Christ that saves us. While it's certainly true that it's a relationship with Christ that saves us, the absence of any sense of mediation and the association of mediatory practices with vain "religion" detaches that relationship from a robust sense of Christian sacramental and institutional life. The result is that the relationship is pitted against the "religion.""

Now, there are some things in this excerpt that are not well explained.  Some of it might have to do with the forum, where non-theologians and lay people (non-clergy) can weigh in on what they think and feel, and couch it in theological terms.  (To be fair, I do not know the author of this post; he or she may have graduated suma cum laude at some seminary, where this was part of their doctoral dissertation; or, he or she may be a college sophomore with more passion than knowledge on the subject.)  To that end, I will ignore the part about "the created and the uncreated".  I will assume that the term "uncreated" refers to the Creator, and let it go.

The part I wish to address is the defense of sacraments as acts of mediation between a holy God and a sinner saved by grace.  Of course, my theological background is based on the premise that salvation is by grace alone, through faith alone, by Christ alone.  Any church tradition or dictate that I should have to abide by church teachings and perform sacraments in order to continue "working out my salvation" smacks of legalism.  And bestowing upon the eucharist some kind of mediation power--like when God killed a bull and divided it in two so that He and Abraham could walk between the two halves to establish a covenant between them--that is foreign to my understanding of the New Testament promise that "there is one mediator between God and man, the man Jesus Christ, who gave himself as a ransom for all men." (1 Timothy 2:5-6). I believe that there is no need to confess to a priest, or to pray to a saint, because we have direct access to God through Christ, and that we are all saints, all kings and priests (Revelation 1:6) so we do not need to confess to a man who wears a black frock with a funny collar.

It is imperative, however, that I make this argument in love, as these devout followers of Christ simply have different customs and backgrounds than I.  We do not need an internecine war, especially in these days.  The spirit of antichrist is so prevalent in the world today, and I believe with all my heart that we could be in the final generation before the Glorious Appearing of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, who will establish Himself as ruler on the throne in Jerusalem for a thousand years, and after that will create a new heaven and a new earth.  Who am I to tear down another's faith?  I personally could not convert, because I do not believe in the veneration of Mary or in the prayer to the saints.  Are these heresies beyond God's grace?  No more than my family's church regulation that all new members should be re-baptized to be a part of our fellowship.  I'm sure that other criticisms could be made of the worship style, music, etc.  I can spend time defending my denomination, or I can work to build up the body of Christ with its diverse members and diverse gifts.

My spiritual forebears studied doctrine so that I could be free to live under grace.  My children are free to rebuild the foundation of their faith with more structured forms of worship, so that their progeny will have a better view of God in Christ, and have their own relationship with Him.