I know, I know, how many friggin blogs, articles, magazines, chat rooms, news specials, SERMONS etc. are there going to be dedicated to this Da Vinci crap? Well instead of turning this post into a tar and feather session for Dan the Man Brown I hope to use this opportunity to do something else. I hope to infuse to life the frozen Zygote of an idea laying dormant in every professing Christian's Spirit. An idea that goes against our Protestant roots but yet we hear the still small voice because it comes from the very Holy Spirit that lives in us. We have turned our deaf ears to this call long enough... Division. (no not the call, I'll get to that in a sec.)
Admit it, there is something about it that appeals to us Protestants. The very word Protestant means to Protest. We don't like for people to tell us what to do. If we decide we don't think you need to be Baptized and it is extraneous then we just do the old denominational switch. If we don't like the color of hair dye our pastor uses, we switch denominations. We mix and match our Denominations to describe ourselves and our beliefs as if it is a combining of ethnicities or a recipe for a gourmet souffle. "I am a Practicing Baptacostal with a dash of Episcopal sensibility, topped with a flurry of Anabaptist pacifism" Well, I have begun to yearn for something different. I am beginning to think all that mix and matching, cut and pasting, taylor making our beliefs is a bunch of nonsense. I am ready for something else. Unity. It is because of this tendency to compartmentalize that has given the world so many different definitons of Christianity.
I will begin my quest for this grail with an excerpt taken from the FAQ section of Dan Brown's Official Website. (Dan Brown is the author of "the Da Vinci Code" if you have been living in a third world country tilling the earth behind your mule for the past 6 months)
ARE YOU A CHRISTIAN?
"Yes. Interestingly, if you ask three people what it means to be Christian, you will get three different answers. Some feel being baptized is sufficient. Others feel you must accept the Bible as absolute historical fact. Still others require a belief that all those who do not accept Christ as their personal savior are doomed to hell. Faith is a continuum, and we each fall on that line where we may. By attempting to rigidly classify ethereal concepts like faith, we end up debating semantics to the point where we entirely miss the obvious--that is, that we are all trying to decipher life's big mysteries, and we're each following our own paths of enlightenment. I consider myself a student of many religions. The more I learn, the more questions I have. For me, the spiritual quest will be a life-long work in progress."
I look at this quote and I think that it is time that Christians Particularly Protestants get together and agree on a few things. The whole reason we have most of the doctrines we have today, written down and agreed on by the church in ages past, is because of claims just like the ones made in this Da Vinci Code. The early church fathers would get together, pray, debate and pretty much say, "Nope. Sorry Arius, you're out. And here is why..." More and more we see the need for unity in the Body of Christ. What does it mean to be a Christian? Who is a Christian and who is not? Is it okay to ask that second question? The gospels and letters of Paul make things so simple when it comes this and we make things complex. But is there more? I don't have the answers to all these questions but I am ready to learn. I have my ideas for points of agreement for an across the board agreement on what it is to be a Christian. Honestly, they are not my ideas, they have been around a long, long time. What would be yours? What can a Church of Christ layman and a Catholic priest agree on to call each other brethren? What about Pentecostal and Baptists? Anabaptists and Fundamental right-wing politically minded, talk-radio-addicted Baptists?
If you were to send out a letter to every church Claiming to be a Christian denomination stating "this" is what it means to be a Christian then what would it look like?
The Dan Browns writing inaccurate depictions of our faith, and the rest of the unbelieving world is waiting.
The early Christians used to put these statements of belief in a song or prose. I like that idea.
16 comments:
YES YES YES!!!!! I am so sick of mushy, easy-going christianity. That is what is popular today. Whatever kind of christian you want to be. the sprinked on the head as a baby, mafia kind is just fine too.
I think what you say is very true about unity, however, I am just a little baffled as to how we would ever get it done. Maybe a few hundred blogs like this one, to get the seed planted?
One thing is for sure at the risk of sounding preachy, which I already do, I am sure...we need to get together and agree that Jesus Christ is Lord and that the Bible IS, yes do not gasp, the living word of God. (aside--some christians don't believe that.)
you got it!!!!! this is the Apostles Creed, I think that Rich saw the importance of this ancient creed and put it to song. Amazingly it is the only way the most of us protestants were introduced to this Creed. This is one of the things that I would send across the country to every church for an agreement in brotherhood.
Can you immagine the power of a united Church? A church who worked collectively together? Oh man it gets my blood boiling. The poverty in the world eradicated, wars gone, love prevails.
Anyway another one is the Nicene Creed. I loved this creed so much because it is such a beautiful depiction of the Trinity.
We believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen.
We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father.
Through him all things were made.
For us and for our salvation
he came down from heaven:
by the power of the Holy Spirit
he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary,
and was made man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered death and was buried.
On the third day he rose again
in accordance with the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end.
We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son.
With the Father and the Son he is worshiped and glorified.
He has spoken through the Prophets.
We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come. Amen.
Some people get their tail feathers ruffled because of the "catholic" part but catholic simply means Universal.
Operamama, a few hundred blogs and lots of time. I believe that the Church will have this unity someday. I think that it will be necessary. Persecution comes in many guises and when it comes the Church will need to unite. We will come together and be one again.
I think that the bible is a big part of the talking that will go on but I think that it will have to come down to the creeds or some kind of creed statement. You can still believe what is said in these creeds and still believe that there are differences in the genealogies in Matthew and Luke or that the Garden of Eden was an Allegory. Don't choke on your food some of you, take a breath and realize that you can.
Very pretty design! Keep up the good work. Thanks.
»
Operamama,
We don't know eachother, and I'm just trying to understand how sprinkling on a baby's head=mafia.
I was wondering that myself. I thought she was implying the Godfather . But then again I am male and most things in life can be traced back to the Godfather if you are a guy.
So operamama, clear up this mystery for us.
sorry to offend. I was refering to all the scenes in the Godfather where they go to a baby baptism, then blow people away in the next scene. I probibly shouldn't have been so careless, because I do respect Catholics. Not just saying that. and, I must admit...I am a fan of the Godfather movies.
Dan Brown is writing inaccurate depictions of Christianity, but not from the lack of the church's doctrinal substance. More out of his own stubborness to refuse to accept Christianity for what it really is, the profession of Jesus Christ as the Son of God and Savior to men, by the grace of God the Father.
Yes, I know we have multiple sects of Christianity, but would you not agree that we all agree on that one thing? That salvation comes through Jesus Christ, and Jesus Christ alone? Help me here.
Seth - I like this idea of unity, and think that we should be able to come up with definitive unifying statements, like the creeds mentioned.
The problem is, there have always been teachers of errors and heresies that try to come into the Body and say "Hey look at me, I'm one of you too!" and then lead people astray.
Me personally, I'm at ease with accepting people with radically different doctrines and customs, as long as they profess faith in Christ and something similar to these creeds. But if you get 10 sincere believers in a room, and tried to draft a unifying, all-encompassing doctrinal creed, you could probably get something pretty cool. But what if you expanded that to 100 believers, or 1000 believers, and so on.
How many items in your creed would you gradually have to strike out because they conflicted with some doctrine that a believer holds to. And at what point do you say "No, we won't strike that line from the creed, because it is fundamental to who we are and what we believe"? Would you then have to turn that "believer" away as a teacher of heresy?
I don't really have a point here, I'm sort of asking these questions aloud as I ponder the points you've raised here. I realize that I'm a bit of an idealist in some ways, but pragmatically, I expect that the unity of which you speak will not be realized in the organized church until Christ returns. Notice I say "organized church", because I am fully aware, and believe that the true church is not found in any one place, but is the fellowship of true believers the world over, which is born again through Christ and led by the Holy Spirit, without respect to organizations, doctrines, and structures of man.
C.H. there is something about these Creeds that I believe resounds in every Christian. And yes, if someone came forward and said "well I believe it all except the Jesus being true God from true God part"
That person would not believe in the Triune God so therefore would not be considered to be a part of the Universal Church professing Jesus as Savior AND Lord. There is one part in the Apostles Creed that might rustle some feathers but not mine. "the Communion of Saints" I personally believe in that but Communion of Saints as something that even the Catholics would agree that you don't NEED to believe to be a Christian.
Fancy, I think that we could definitely agree on Jesus Christ Son of God and Savior to men but then there are a few religions that make those claims but still do not profess to believe in the Triune God. I.E. Mormans, and Christian Scientists. (no offense meant to any reader who are of these religions) Where they believe that Jesus is one of many sons, but the only one made flesh. Or that "Jesus was the Christ but certainly not God"
Operamama,
Thanks for clearing that up for me. It is unfortunate that the Godfather (though they are amazing movies...all but 3), portrays Italian-Americans (Catholics) in such a poor light, especially during the baptism scene.
Seth,
Okay this is totally off of the subject of your blog and our conversation, but I am temping and the woman who I am sitting next to listens to CCM. I don't ever listen to a CCM radio station, but I totally know what you mean about CCM artists covering mainstream artist's songs. At this moment, I am listening to someone singing one of my favorite U2 songs (In the name of Love),and I think people who don't know U2 wrote it will believe the original is from this CCM group (the woman next to me didn't know U2 wrote this song!). I have been surprised and kind of annoyed b/c this has been happening all day. I am experiencing the Mozart/Giovanni analogy first hand. Do people who only listen to KLTY really not know who recorded these songs first? I am amazed...definitely not much originality.
Seth, I see what you're saying. Those beliefs would be considered heresy in the early church. But these days, we just start a new sect. Not good. I would argue that believing that Jesus is God must also be a doctrine that ALL believers should accept for salvation.
Jesus prays for unity of believers. Since Jesus tells us that whatever we ask in His name will be given, then we know that when He asks in His own name, it WILL be done.
In John 17, Jesus prays:
v.20,21
"I pray also for those who will believe in me through their (apostles') message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you.
And then, v.22-23
"I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one: I in them and you in me. May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me."
The question is then, has "complete unity" occurred? It seems from the text that it WILL occur on this earth because Jesus says, "to let the world know that you sent me..."
Could complete unity be ours through Christ but not LOOK like unity to us? Jesus says, "I in them and You (the Father) in me." Perhaps the "I in them" brings unity even though we disagree on certain levels of doctrine. (Baptism, Inerrant Word of God, Communion of Saints, Veneration, Fundies, Moderates, Liberals, and so forth)
Seth - You mentioned the Communion of Saints, and I've read stuff that you wrote before about that.
I was wondering - do you have scriptural references for that belief? Are there certain scriptures that are commonly used to support that belief?
I'm just curious, because even though I have never really believed it, I can't say that my position against the belief is any more based on scripture than someone's belief in it is. Does that make sense?
I guess I'm just saying, I'm open-minded on the matter, so "teach me". :-)
First let me say that this is a doctrine that I personally have no problem with. This does not mean that I think that you or anyone else needs to dwell upon or adhere to this doctrine. I do not believe that you a wrong for not embracing the Doctrine, however I feel that you might be missing out on something beautiful. I do not believe like I said before that it is necessary for ones Salvation.
I think that the communion of Saints is a very misconceived doctrine in the Church. We are the Church, the body of Christ and somewhere along the way some of us Protestants were led to believe that when our loved ones die that we are disconnected from them somehow and they no care about us, feel for us or no longer can pray for us. What is prayer? Intercession. Do our loved ones talk to God? Do they worship Him, why would we think they do not care for us or cease to pray?
So what does intercession of the Saints mean? It means that we are ALWAYS connected to the Body of Christ now and forever. Those people that have gone on are still a part of us and we are a part of them and they can still intercede on our behalf, just like we ask our brothers at church to pray for us now. The danger of course it to believe that God hears their prayers more than He heasr the prayers of my pastor. Just like it is dangerous for one to believe that God hears the prayers of those who speak in tounges more than those who do not. It does not mean this. It is simply a recognition of the Unity that we share. It has NEVER meant that Jesus ceases to be our High Priest, our Mediator, it means what it means. The communion, or fellowship of Saints, on earth and in heaven.
In Romans 12:5. it says "So we, being many, are one body in Christ; and every one members one of another" Once again are we members of only the ones here on Earth, no, "EVERY ONE MEMBERS of one another"
In Ephesians 1:21-23 Paul addresses the Body in this world and the world to come.
(21)"Above all principality and power and virtue and dominion and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come.
(22.) And he hath subjected all things under his feet and hath made him head over all the church,
(23.) Which is his body and the fullness of him who is filled all in all.
In Ephesians 6:18 Paul talks about prayer for ALL the Saints. "By all prayer and supplication praying at all times in the spirit: and in the same watching with all instance and supplication for all the saints"
I will stop here though I could go on for a while, just want to check to see If I am answering your question.
Yes, that is definitely answering the question, thanks.
I've got to admit, I just haven't really given the idea much thought before. If we're one Body, then it does make sense that we're still one Body when part of that body has already passed on and part hasn't.
I have always believed that loved ones who have passed on before us are in the presence of the Lord, and they are certainly not any less "members of the Body" than they were when they were here living their earthly life.
Hmmm. Very interesting ideas. I honestly don't know whether I do or don't believe this idea, but I'm not sure I can really present an alternative viewpoint.
I certainly don't believe in "soul sleep" (a doctrine that some people get from misunderstanding certain scriptures referring to "sleep", such as 1 Corinthians 15), so it would be true that those passed on are still actively awake and alert.
I wonder if the problem people might have with this idea isn't necessarily from the idea that the saints who have died are still awake and alert, but rather when people start talking about "praying to the dead" or "praying for the dead", or revering dead people as having special powers, or something like that.
So what is the typical opposition answer to this view? What are the arguments against this idea for those who don't believe it?
Honestly they are usually arguements against the misconception of Communion of Saints. Even Luther, Calvin believed in this to an extent. I think that when you get into praying "to" Saints then you get all jumbled up. It is not praying "to" Saints but rather asking them to pray for you. There is a fine line between superstision and true spiritual reality.
Again it is not something I dwell on, it is something I except as a reality. In that there is a true beautiful picture that comes to life. So when I read scripture such as this from Hebrews:
22. But you have come to Mount Zion, and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to innumerable multitudes of angels,
23 to the general assembly and assembly of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven, to God the Judge of all, to the spirits of just men made perfect,
24 to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling that speaks better than that of Abel.
I am caught up in the beauty of the Union that is now and forever with my Brothers and Sisters here and for those who are in Heaven.
Remembering that we are aliens here. Our home is somewhere else. Those that have gone before have simply done that, reached home before us.
Anyway, thanks for asking.
Good information. Thanks for taking the time to explain it, Seth.
Post a Comment