A light conversation between the two opposing perspectives will reveal similar terminology and phrases that sound as if we might agree on more than one thinks.  The centrality of the problem lies mostly in the way in which the term justification is understood in scripture.  Is it a one time act?  Or is it a process?  Is it a declaration of a new state of being?  Or is it a word that is used interchangeably with sanctification.  The problem is complicated by a seemingly logical conclusion that flows from the idea of a person being justified in the Protestant sense.  The conclusion begs the question: “You can do whatever you want, right?”  This, I think, is an area where the argument possibly goes awry.  A red herring.1  Though it is a distraction, I think it might be worth analyzing.  Before I do, I want to clarify what appears to be the Catholic position first and then respond.

The Catholic understanding of salvation blends Justification and Sanctification into one.   As a result there is confusion (in the mind of the Protestant) over the issue of works.  I have provided a few quotes below from two Catholic authoritative bodies: councils and catechism.

• “If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema” (Council of Trent, Canons on Justification, Canon 9).” (CARM)

• “If any one saith, that man is truly absolved from his sins and justified, because he assuredly believed himself absolved and justified; or, that no one is truly justified but he who believes himself justified; and that, by this faith alone, absolution and justification are effected; let him be anathema.”2 (Canon 14). (CARM)

• “Justification has been merited for us by the Passion of Christ. It is granted us through Baptism. It conforms us to the righteousness of God, who justifies us. It has for its goal the glory of God and of Christ, and the gift of eternal life. It is the most excellent work of God’s mercy,” (CCC, par. 2020). (CARM)

• “Christ instituted the sacrament of Penance for all sinful members of his Church: above all for those who, since Baptism, have fallen into grave sin, and have thus lost their baptismal grace and wounded ecclesial communion. It is to them that the sacrament of Penance offers a new possibility to convert and to recover the grace of justification. The Fathers of the Church present this sacrament as ‘the second plank (of salvation) after the shipwreck which is the loss of grace,” (CCC, par. 1446). (CARM)

• To understand this doctrine [Indulgences] and practice of the Church, it is necessary to understand that sin has a double consequence. Grave sin deprives us of communion with God and therefore makes us incapable of eternal life, the privation of which is called the “eternal punishment” of sin. On the other hand every sin, even venial, entails an unhealthy attachment to creatures, which must be purified either here on earth, or after death in the state called Purgatory. This purification frees one from what is called the “temporal punishment” of sin. These two punishments must not be conceived of as a kind of vengeance inflicted by God from without, but as following from the very nature of sin. A conversion which proceeds from a fervent charity can attain the complete purification of the sinner in such a way that no punishment would remain.84 3 (CCC 1472)

Simplified, justification, according to Catholicism functions as a doorway where one may enter it only by the saving grace of Jesus Christ and walk upon the path beyond the door by the grace of Jesus.  Justification, therefore, is not a declaration, but a state of being in grace, rather than a metaphysical change of identity–though the righteousness of Christ is attributed to man–it is more so in the form of a title than any actual inward change.  Being in sate of grace is temporary and dependent entirely on one’s behavior, actions, and works.  In this way, justification is the door way and the path of becoming sinless.  One walks the path by grace through the sacraments (since they are the means of grace).  As a result, the Christian’s obedience, love to God, good works, and general benevolence to virtue has a two-fold motivation.  The first is to love and know God and the second is to secure one’s salvation, since it is evidently forever in question–there is never certainty.  My personal conviction is the latter becomes the central focus for living well, because fear motivates one to keep his soul safe.  Since such a fear exists, capitalizing on it would be very tempting.  Johann Tetzel’s chime, “as soon as a coin in the coffer rings, a soul from purgatory springs” becomes the hallmark card for Catholicism’s desire to use fear against people.  It worked well–St. Peter’s Basilica is beautiful.  Again, we have another possible red herring.  Just because the doctrine of indulgences was abused in history does not mean its not true.  Agreed.  However, the doctrine of indulgences creates a setting like a playwright’s stage where the actors perform–not because they love the play or acting but because if they don’t the souls of their loved ones are in danger.  What kind of person are you if you have it in your power  to help your loved ones with a small purchase of an indulgence, but choose to not do so?

The entire focus shifts from obeying God because one wants to love and glorify him to what can I do to take care of my soul or the soul of a loved one.  The audacity of such a doctrine removes Christian piety and in its stead places a system of control where you plug in the necessary factors  into an equation and get the results you want.  It is the difference between in inward focus and and outward focus.  The protestant view of justification, I think, is more biblical in the sense that it fits within the greater gospel narrative of scripture.  The protestant view follows below:

Justification is:

• “Justification is a divine act where God declares the sinner to be innocent of his sins.  It is a legal action in that God declares the sinner righteous — as though he has satisfied the Law of God.  This justification is based entirely on the sacrifice of Christ by His shed blood: “…having now been justified by His blood…” (Rom. 5:9).1 Justification is a gift of grace (Rom. 3:24; Titus 3:7) that comes through faith (Rom. 3:28; 5:1).2 Christians receive Jesus (John 1:12) and put their faith-filled trust in what Jesus did on the cross (Isaiah 53:12; 1 Pet. 2:24) and in so doing are justified by God.  The Bible states that justification is not by works (Rom. 3:20, 28; 4:5; Eph. 2:8-9) because our righteous deeds are filthy rags before God (Isaiah 64:6).  Therefore, we are saved by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone.” (CARM)

• “Built into justification is the idea of imputation.  “To impute means “to set something to one’s account.”  In the Bible imputation is used as a legal term in several different ways. For example, when Paul sent Onesimus back to Philemon, he told Philemon that if Onesimus had incurred any debts they were to be put on Paul’s account (Philemon 17,18).  When a groom says to a bride “with all my worldly good I thee endow”, he is talking about imputation, placing to the bride’s account all of his property.  The Greek verb for imputation is logidzomai. It is used more than 40 times in the New Testament, ten times in Romans 4 alone, the imputation chapter. In the KVJ of Romans 4 it’s translated “counted” in 4:3,5, “reckoned” in 4:4,10, and “imputed” in 4:6,8,11,22,23,24.”4

Christian Liberty:

• “The liberty which Christ hath purchased for believers under the gospel consists in their freedom from the guilt of sin, the condemning wrath of God, the curse of the moral law; and in their being delivered from this present evil world, bondage to Satan, and dominion of sin, from the evil of afflictions, the sting of death, the victory of the grave, and everlasting damnation; as also in their free access to God, and their yielding obedience unto him, not out of slavish fear, but a childlike love, and a willing mind. All which were common also to believers under the law; but under the New Testament the liberty of Christians is further enlarged in their freedom from the yoke of the ceremonial law, to which the Jewish Church was subjected; and in greater boldness of access to the throne of grace, and in fuller communications of the free Spirit of God, than believers under the law did ordinarily partake of.” (Chapter XX, Westminster Confession)

When, Christ’s righteousness is counted to us by grace through faith (Eph. 2:8-9) we take on a new identity within a legal status (imputed righteousness) between us and God.  The tearing down of the wall of hostility provides an opportunity for man to participate in worship, obedience, sanctification for the first time without worry or fear that his salvation is at stake.  Because of the liberty that is gained because of Christ’s works and death, not mine, I am declared righteous in the sight of God.  Here, in the Protestant view, justification is separate from sanctification.  My participation in relational communion, obedience, worship, submission, and community of the church is the sanctification of my heart and mind (soul).  Though my legal status before God is already declared, I am still in need to reflect the holiness of Christ in the way I live.  I am a new creation and I sin.  As the holy spirit whispers to my heart and guides my mind, I am being transformed and empowered to repent, submit, change, and mature.  All of this, again, takes place without any fear that my salvation is in jeopardy.

So in answer to the red herring that challenges this profound freedom with the declaration that the Protestant has total freedom to do as he pleases, “you can do what you want,”  I say, yes, this is true, however, if one has truly submitted his life to the Lord with a sincere desire to be in fellowship with the Father, justification will not prompt disobedience but gratitude, humility, and most of all love for God.

__________________________

1 I say it is a distraction because if one rejects the Protestant view of Justification on the account that they don’t appreciate the effects or consequences of being justified it is like rejecting the existence of God because his existence does not appear to be meaningful.

2 Etymology: Late Latin anathemat-, anathema, from Greek, thing devoted to evil, curse

3 Council of Trent

4 http://www.realtime.net/~wdoud/topics/imputation.html

CARM (Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry – http://www.carm.org/religious-movements/roman-catholicism/roman-catholic-view-justification

Sex sells. Gay sex really sells.

And a Roman Catholic Cardinal who says gays and transsexuals will never get into heaven?

Well, that’s news right? So sayeth Reuters.

Asked if people were born homosexual [Mexican Cardinal Javier] Barragan, whose comments were posted on a conservative Catholic website called www.pontifex.roma.it, was quoted as saying:

“One is not born homosexual but they become that way. This is for various reasons: education, for not having developed their identity during their adolescence, maybe they are not guilty but by going against the dignity of the body they certainly will not enter the Kingdom of Heaven.”

The Vatican rebuked Barragan because the Catholic Church teaches that homosexual acts are sinful but homosexuality in itself is not. Unfortunately, Reuters does not say that until the last sentence of the article, so most readers only will read the headline:

Gays and transsexuals can’t enter heaven: Cardinal

I know that I am a fish swimming upstream here, but it is terribly unfair to Catholics across the globe to see such quotes disseminated in a way that leads people believe the headline is some official Church pronouncement.

Introduction: N. T. Wright’s New Testament Foundations for Ecclesiology

The starting point, the a priori, for any ecclesiology must be an understanding of the Church as the people of God, an eschatological community that exists for the sake of those not yet apart of said community. N.T. Wright lays out the three primary criteria that defined the church in its first few decades, it was essentially baptismal, Eucharistic and disciplined.[1] Wright continues, “The problems which arose in relation to the care of the needy, particularly widows, are most readily comprehensible if we envisage the church, not as a part-time voluntary organization of the like-minded which left normal social and familial attachments unaffected, but as a group with definite boundaries.”[2] The question then becomes what are the boundaries that define the people of God? How should the church understand itself and what would a definitively “charismatic” ecclesiology look like? These are the questions that will be attempted to be addressed in a brief and admittedly shallow treatment, for the sake of space.  Perhaps the two major theological voices in modern ecclesiology and ecumenism are Volf and Küng. By synthesizing these voices into a duet perhaps a definitive and constructive “charismatic” ecclesiology can be ascertained and thus expressed.  The most pressing issue to face the church over the next hundred, or so, years will most likely not be issues of morality or politics but of ecumenism and the church’s self-understanding.[3]

Volf’s Participatory Ecclesiology

Primarily, Volf wants to equate the church with the expression of charisms, “Wherever the Spirit of Christ, which as the eschatological gift anticipates God’s new creation in history, is present in it ecclesially constitutive activity, there is the church.”[4] While this does not necessarily validate the expression or it’s experiential interpretation, it does make room for otherness inside of the community (which is an idea to be explored later). Volf will go on to try and transcend the disagreement between Free Church and Episcopal models of ecclesial criteria for what constitutes a church, unfortunately his definition borders on the overly subjective and begins to side more with the Free Church suppositions.[5] He states directly, “the presence of Christ is not attested merely by the institution of office, but rather through the multidimensional confession of the entire assembly.”[6] The consequence of this statement is the striping of any Sacramentology to the foundation of mere communal confession of faith, not an objective reality.[7] While Volf’s experiment in ecclesiology is right minded and often correct in its aims, the way in which he answers key issues is at the expense of history and ecumenism for the higher church traditions. What is needed is an understanding of the activity of the Spirit that is not objective solely or subjective merely.

Acknowledging the objectivity of the Spirit’s work within the subjective experience and expression is imperative. Room must be made for the work of the Spirit to communicate objectively through otherwise subjective means. Ultimately these experiences and expressions will be misunderstood, misinterpreted and misappropriated, but that does not mean we discard or devalue them. Volf’s disdain for Episcopal authority is directly related to his witnessing its abuse in the Balkans during the late eighties and nineties.[8] What is needed, in order balance Volf, is to embrace theological otherness within the community as a charism. Ecclesiological self-understanding as the community that embodies the objectively subjective work of the Spirit is a priori to a healthy ecumenism and view of the universal as well as local church.

Hans Küng’s Pneumatological Ecclesiology

Kärkkäinen makes an observation about Küng’s ecclesiology that is important. “As a real church, the faith community is composed of sinful men and women and it exists for sinful men and women. Küng’s view comes close to that of Luther, who regarded the church as the community of sinners. Therefore, the communio sanctorum as communio peccatorum is always in need of forgiveness…”[9] This self-perception on the part of the church is essential in that it requires self-criticism, self-criticism that lends itself to a more open ecclesiology, one that makes room for otherness inside of the community. Otherness inside of the Christian community is not only a self-evident fact of the current state of world Christianity as Volf points out[10], but can also be understood as a virtue, which Küng is rightly advocating.[11] When otherness is embraced in ecclesiology, not simply in a vague superficial manner but as ontologically legitimate otherness, it demonstrates two things. First, its mimics and reveals the identity of the church as the image of the Trinity, which is the argument of Ware[12], Lossky[13] and Zizioulas[14]. Second, it shows the church in her glory as the redemptive community that accepts and embraces the strangeness of the other.  Küng argues that without this ability to embrace the otherness that exists inside of the universal church in a real way there is a loss of legitimacy, or genuineness, in the ability to embrace the otherness outside the boundaries of the community.[15]

The natural consequence of accepting otherness as ontologically legitimate in ecclesiology is the ability to not only co-exist but also to enter into dialogue through common language, dialogue that leads toward communion. The goal of any ecclesiology with any legitimacy is not simply the defense of one’s theological system or traditions, as is all too often the case[16], but toward real familial communion that recognizes one Lord and one Baptism.

Küng, not unlike Volf, is explicitly interested in defining the church in terms of the ministry of the Holy Spirit.[17] Kärkkäinen notes, “Küng. . . emphasizes the fact that the Spirit of God who indwells the church is no ‘obscure and nameless power’. . . but is the concrete presence of God in Christ and derivatively in the church. . . the Spirit is the earthly presence of the glorified Lord in the Church.”[18] Küng goes onto to exposit the “charismatic structure of the church” paying much attention to issues of ecclesiastical authority and the tension between the laity and hierarchy. [19][20] The pertinent portions of Küng’s treatment lie in his persistence toward the oneness of the Church.[21] By placing his definition of the church in strictly Pneumatological terminology, Küng proves himself light years ahead of much of his ecclesiastical colleagues, He also provides the linguistic framework for a holistic charismatic ecclesiology, one that, hopefully, places the charismatic-Pentecostal understanding of the charisms within the linguistic traditions of the historical, sacramental church.

A Proposal for a Charismatic Ecclesiology

The cardinal issue in defining a distinctly charismatic ecclesiology will be with the definition of what constitutes a charism. Charisms, almost without exception, have essentially been hijacked by the Pentecostal tradition and its subsequent offspring in the last century. Rather then accept a rather narrow definition of charismata the definition must be broadened, to the presence of the Holy Spirit in the expression of the Church that is pointing to an eschatological reality.  This understanding of charismata is supported not only by Küng[22] and Volf[23], but also Moltmann[24], Stronstad[25] and even Barth.[26] If considered seriously and examined thoroughly the broadened language defining what a charism is, and by consequence what it means, lends itself towards a mutual vocabulary between the sacramental and charismatic churches.

That which defines the meaning of a sacrament and that which defines a charism are not mutually exclusive. Both only hold meaning in an eschatological sense, and if understood as being objective within their subjective contexts because of the ministry of the Holy Spirit (as explored earlier), the two have a tremendous amount in common. Ultimately the classical argument about the distinction between the two has to do with the effects of each. With the sacrament being a means of grace conferred for the personal sanctification[27] of the participant and the charism being a means of grace by which the Spirit effects the work of the church through but not necessarily in the life of the participant.[28] The difference, in reality, between the two understandings? Semantics.  The commonality between the two definitions is uncanny; both are the activity of the spirit in the life of the church for salvific purposes that point toward an eschatological hope and reality caught between the “already” and “not yet.”  If the commonality is truly present between the two realities then the ecclesiological consequence is that the sacraments are to be understood as charisms and the charisms, conversely, become sacramental; the barriers between ecumenical belief, rhetoric and praxis breakdown.

Last, the church must be understood as “for the sake of the non-elect.”[29] A church ceases to be The Church when it’s charismatic/sacramental expression loses its missional presupposition and purpose.  A church is only The Church in so much that its primary self-understanding and orientation is focused on the culture and community in which it is particularly located.[30] Once this breaks down it becomes just another cult among the plethora offering personal spiritual salvation in the history of Greco-Roman mysticism.[31]

[2] Ibid. 448.

[3] Kärkkäinen, An Introduction to Ecclesiology. (Dovers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2002), 231.

[4] Volf, After our Likeness: The Church as the Image of the Trinity. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 129. While such a definition of the church is valid, what is needed is a more thorough and yet broad understanding of a charism then Volf seems willing to consent to, which will be explored later.

[5] Ibid. 133-135.  Volf defines the ecclesiality of a church it terms of Matthew 18:20, while ideal and true, it does not constitute a complete definition of the church as it does not seem to acknowledge any sense of objectivity in the activity or experience of the community.

[6] Ibid. 152.

[7] Kärkkäinen, An Introduction to Ecclesiology. (Dovers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2002), 137.

[8] Hedges, War is a Force that Gives Us Meaning. (New York, Anchor Books, 2002), 56.

[9] Kärkkäinen, An Introduction to Ecclesiology. (Dovers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2002), 105.

[10] Volf, After our Likeness: The Church as the Image of the Trinity. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 140-141

[11] Küng, The Church. (New York: Image Books, 1967), 230.

[12] Ware, The Orthodox Church. (London: Penguin Books, 1997), 308.

[13] Lossky, Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church. (New York: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1976), 176-177.

[14] Zizioulas, Being as Communion. (New York: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1997), 15.  Interesting to note that all three contemporary Orthodox theologians embrace a view that theirs is the true church and yet have the ability, seeming theological mandate, to embrace those not inside the eastern church in a way beyond the typical ecumenism in the west. See Anglican-Orthodox dialogue and communion.  The Moscow statement of 1976, the Dublin statement in 1984, and the Cyprus agreed statement presented at Lambeth 2008 as “The Church of the Triune God.” Also see Anglican-Orthodox Dialogue by Kallistos Ware.

[15] Küng, The Church. (New York: Image Books, 1967), 169.

[16] Kärkkäinen, An Introduction to Ecclesiology. (Dovers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2002), 231-232.

[17]  Küng, The Church. (New York: Image Books, 1967), 215-18.

[18] Kärkkäinen, An Introduction to Ecclesiology. (Dovers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2002), 109.

[19] Küng, The Church. (New York: Image Books, 1967), 239-247.

[20] Ibid, The Church: Mandated in truth. Trans. Edward Quinn, (New York; The Seabury Press, 1979), 50-51.  This passage particularly deals with the interaction between the Magisterium and laity and tries to lay out a possible future interaction. An interesting read but not overly pertinent to the current discussion.

[21] Ibid, The Church. (New York: Image Books, 1967), 353.

[22] Ibid, 215-18.

[23] Volf, After our Likeness: The Church as the Image of the Trinity. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 129.

[24] Moltmann, The Church in the Power of the Spirit. Trans. Margaret Kohl.  Munich: Fortress Press, 1993.  294.

[25] Stronstad, The Charismatic Theology of St. Luke. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1984. 81-82

[26] O’Grady, The Church in the theology of Karl Barth. Washington: Corpus Books, 1968.  250-268.

[27] The Catechism of the Catholic Church.  Image Books, 2^nd edition , 1995.

[28] Stronstad, The Charismatic Theology of St. Luke. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1984. 73. Stronstad makes a strong and clear argument for the purely vocational understanding of the “baptism of the Spirit.”

[29] Wright, The New Testament and the People of God. (London: Fortress Press, 1992), 334, 447.

[30] Volf, After our Likeness: The Church as the Image of the Trinity. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 141-147.

[31] Wright, The New Testament and the People of God. (London: Fortress Press, 1992), 152-166.

Today we celebrated the end of the Church’s year with this great feast.  Sometimes people have a difficulty with the concept of Christ as a King.  It is easy to do “gentle Jesus meek and mild” at Christmas, or Jesus the kindly rabbi, even for non-Christians.  The Risen Christ presents a greater challenge, of course.  But Christ risen and returning is harder still.  And, the most difficult of all to come to terms with is the Jesus who is risen and returning as the great judge upon the rainbow, looking upon whom every creature will either enter the new creation with him or face annihilation.  This may be something to do with Protestantism; Luther was certainly unhappy with the Mediaeval dooms presented to him during his youth and felt that his life was blighted by fear of the Great Judge ruling the universe with a rod of iron.  Many Catholics today seem to share this horror at any kind of fear; as if it is the thing which above all else destroys faith.  It may be that the wrong type of fear – one which paralyses and becomes a terrible mental burden – does indeed strangle faith.  But a healthy fear, awe in the presence of the Lord who creates all things and by his will holds them in being, who will return and to whom we must be able to look without shame, is not an evil.

The image of Monarchy is also one which continues to evoke a sense of great wonder in us.  Although today the idea of the Monarch is so debased (for many tourists a glimpse of the British Royal Family is a part of what draws them to the palaces and houses of England, and that for many British people a tea party a Buckingham Palace is still a social event of some importance) we can hardly see how it can be said of Christ that he is a King.  Or our historical imaginations have been so filled with appalling tyrants (Henry VIII) or sparring relatives (Maude and Stephen) or fops (George IV), that we think of Monarchs as thoroughly disreputable.  We are tempted then to minimise Christ’s monarchy, or to interpret it only in terms of his words before Pilate, my kingdom is not of this world, as if that meant no earthly King could or would be like him, or indeed he like them.  Yet, on the contrary, the kings of Europe and Byzantium understood themselves in terms of Christ’s kingship (at least, this was the ‘ideal’).  They ought not be tyrants on the ancient eastern model, nor figureheads in the way a modern monarch is.  People often trace this back to Constantine or Charles the Great, and very much imagine that Jesus did not foresee any such arrangements: these two great Roman and Frankish emperors simply used the monotheistic principle to back up the monarchical one, and so used Christianity to their own advantage.  But there was another, civilising, side to the arrangement.  If the kings and queens claimed that their authority and right to govern came from God, and that they themselves were an image of Christ the King, there was a consequential obligation upon them to act as if they really believed it.  Like all human beings they did not always live up to their obligations, and the example of Ambrose and the Emperor Theodosius shows us that; but it also demonstrates not only (as people like to say) the “power” of the Catholic Church, but also the weight of moral obligation felt by monarchs who had accepted Christianity and the Christian model of kingship.  The smaller kings of Mediaeval Europe too experienced this sense that they were to be royal shepherds and some – St. Louis, St. Edward the Confessor are but two examples – lived it out fully.

Today there is no Christian kingship, just as there is no Christendom.  Instead we have technocracies, democracies, dictatorships and communist republics and the Church must live in such a world, preserving the truth which she has been given and giving expression to it.  The feast of Christ the King helps us to do this.  The Catechism says:

Christ already reigns through the Church. . .

Jesus Christ is Lord: he possesses all power in heaven and on earth. He is “far above all rule and authority and power and dominion”, for the Father “has put all things under his feet.”. Christ is Lord of the cosmos and of history…  Christ dwells on earth in his Church. the redemption is the source of the authority that Christ, by virtue of the Holy Spirit, exercises over the Church. “The kingdom of Christ (is) already present in mystery”, “on earth, the seed and the beginning of the kingdom”…

We are already at “the last hour”. “Already the final age of the world is with us, and the renewal of the world is irrevocably under way; it is even now anticipated in a certain real way, for the Church on earth is endowed already with a sanctity that is real but imperfect.” Christ’s kingdom already manifests its presence through the miraculous signs that attend its proclamation by the Church.

. . . until all things are subjected to him

Though already present in his Church, Christ’s reign is nevertheless yet to be fulfilled “with power and great glory” by the King’s return to earth. This reign is still under attack by the evil powers, even though they have been defeated definitively by Christ’s Passover.  Until everything is subject to him, “until there be realized new heavens and a new earth in which justice dwells, the pilgrim Church, in her sacraments and institutions, which belong to this present age, carries the mark of this world which will pass, and she herself takes her place among the creatures which groan and travail yet and await the revelation of the sons of God.” That is why Christians pray, above all in the Eucharist, to hasten Christ’s return...

In addition, today is also the fourth anniversary of my reception into the Catholic Church.  These have been years not without trials but not unhappy ones either.  In fact, I can say with all honesty that I could not now imagine being still an Anglican; I sometimes long for the old “ways” (especially at a particularly banal refrain of an awful hymn), but believe that all the elements which make the Church can only be found where I now am.  This conviction has only increased over the past years and has become an defining aspect of my conscience which has helped my very much through some difficult patches.  In the Anglican tradition they have a short season “of the Kingdom” leading up to today’s feast.  It is not really a season in it’s own right, but the propers are all of a piece with the theme and it means that the feast does not just pop up from nowhere like a sort of ecclesial new year’s eve.  I wonder if this is something which will be adopted in the Ordinariates?  We shall have to wait and see…

Of your charity, please pray for me on the special anniversary, and for all of you, I will pray too.

[As stated in my About, I want to tell the world about the Orthodox faith. Up to this point, my blogs have somewhat unorganized to do that. Now God has given me a more coorinated way to do that. I will be sharing articles from the Orthodox Faith.

This will be a long series, but I trust it will be profitable to you in learning about the Orthodox faith. From time to time, I will also provide addition blogs of interest.  - Herman Art]

Prayer

Prayer is essential to Christian life. Jesus Christ himself prayed and taught men to pray. No one who does not pray to God can be a follower of Christ.

In the Orthodox Church all prayer is Trinitarian. We pray in the Holy Spirit, through Jesus the Son of God, and in his name, to God the Father. We call God “our Father” because Jesus has taught us and enabled us to do so. We have the capability of addressing God as Father because we are made sons of God by the Holy Spirit (see Rom 8).

In the Church we also address prayers to Christ and the Holy Spirit, the Divine Persons who are one with God the Father and exist eternally in perfect unity with him, sharing his divine being and will.

In the Church we also pray to the saints — not in the same way as we pray to the Persons of the Holy Trinity, but as our helpers, intercessors, and fellow-members of the Church who are already glorified with God in his divine presence. Foremost among the saints and first among the mere humans who are glorified in God’s Kingdom is Mary, the Theotokos and Queen of Heaven, the leader among our saintly intercessors before God. We can also pray to the holy angels to plead our cause before God.

In the traditional catechism of the Church three types of prayer are listed: asking, thanking, and praising. We can add a fourth type which can be called lamenting before God, questioning him about the conditions of life and the meaning of our existence, particularly in times of tragedy and confusion. We very often find all four kinds of prayer in the Bible.

Sometimes prayer is defined as a dialogue with God. T his definition is sufficient if we remember that it is a dialogue of silence, carried on in the quiet of our hearts. In the Orthodox Church a more ancient and traditional definition of prayer calls it the lifting of the mind and heart to God, the standing in his presence, the constant awareness and remembrance of his name, his existence, his power and his love. This is the kind of prayer which is also called “walking in the presence of God.”

The purpose of prayer is to have communion with God and to be made capable of accomplishing his Will. Christians pray to enable themselves to know God and to do his commandments. Unless a person is willing to change himself and to conform himself to Christ in the fulfillment of his commandments, he has no reason or purpose to pray. According to the saints, it is even spiritually dangerous to pray to God without the intention of responding and moving along the path that prayer will take us.

Praying is not merely repeating the words of prayers. Saying prayers is not the same as praying. Prayer should be done secretly, briefly, regularly, without many words, with trust in God that he hears, and with the willingness to do what God shows us to do (see Mt 6:5-15; Lk 11 and 18; Jn 14-17).

The Orthodox Church follows the Old Testament practice of having formal prayers according to the hours of the day. Christians are urged to pray regularly in the morning, evening and at meal times, as well as to have a brief prayer which can be repeated throughout the day under any and all circumstances. Many people use the Jesus Prayer for this purpose: “Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner!” Of course, the form of the prayer is secondary and may vary from person to person. It is the power of the prayer to bring us to God, and to strengthen us in doing his divine will that is essential.

The prayers of a person at home differ from those in church, since personal prayer is not the same as the communal prayer of the Church. The two types of prayer are different and should not be confused.

When we go to church to pray, we do not go there to say our private prayers. Our private prayers should be said at home, in our room, in secret, and not in church (Mt 6:5-6). This does not mean that we do not bring our personal cares, desires, troubles, questions and joys to the prayer of the Church. We certainly can, and we do. But we bring ourselves and our concerns to church to unite them to the prayer of the Church, to the eternal prayer of Christ, the Mother of God, the saints and the brothers and sisters of our own particular church community.

In church we pray with others, and we should therefore discipline ourselves to pray all together as one body in the unity of one mind, one heart and one soul. Once again this does not mean that our prayers in church should cease to be personal and unique; we must definitely put ourselves into our churchly prayer. In the Church, however, each one must put his own person with his own personal uniqueness into the common prayer of Christ with his Body. This is what enriches the prayer of the Church and makes it meaningful and beautiful and, we might even say, “easy” to perform. The difficulty of many church services is that they are prayers of isolated individuals who are only physically, and not spiritually, united together. The formal Church services are normally rather long in the Orthodox Church. This is so because we go to church not merely to pray. We go to church to be together, to sing together, to meditate the meaning, of the faith together, to learn together and to have union and communion together with God. This is particularly true of the Divine Liturgy of the Church. If a person wants merely to pray in the silence of his heart, he need not — and, indeed, he should not go to the church services for this purpose. The church services are not designed for silent prayer. They exist for the prayerful fellowship of all God’s people with each other, with Christ and with God.

http://www.oca.org/OCchapter.asp?SID=2&ID=60

C. True Discipline within the life – These people are changing in their lives because they love the Lord and want to please HIM!  This is how we should be all the time but aren’t.

Jn. 14:15, 21, 23, “If ye love me, keep my commandments…He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him…Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.”

Jn. 15:9-16, “As the Father hath loved me, so have I loved you: continue ye in my love.  If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father’s commandments, and abide in his love.  These things have I spoken unto you, that my joy might remain in you, and that your joy might be full.  This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you.  Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.  Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you.  Henceforth I call you not servants; for the servant knoweth not what his lord doeth: but I have called you friends; for all things that I have heard of my Father I have made known unto you.  Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you.”

These verses show that if we truly love the Lord then we will want to obey Him and keep His commandments.  What are the two commandments that sum up all the law and the prophets?  Love the Lord your God with all your heart, strength, soul and mind is the first one.

The first commandment deals with our relationship to God and our response to Him.  We’ve been going over catechisms with our children and one of the questions goes something like this, “What do the Scriptures principally teach?”

The answer responds in this manner, “The Scriptures principally teach what man is supposed to believe concerning God and what duty God requires of man.”  We are expected to have a relationship with God if we are true believers and we cannot have one if we are not being renewed in our minds daily.

What is the second commandment?  Love your neighbour as yourself.  If you notice the Bible doesn’t say that you must learn to love yourself before you can love your neighbour.  That is taking Scripture out of context.  All people automatically love themselves and you can tell by how selfish they are.  But, you protest, what about those people who want to commit suicide?  What about those people who never bathe or drug addicts, or…?  You can fill in the blank with any thing else and the same reply will be, “They are being extremely selfish and want only to please themselves!”  Take the person who commits suicide…they are being selfish because they think that they can’t endure life anymore with all it’s problems and so they kill themselves to end their life.  What about their family and friends?  What pain and anguish is left behind when they do this!  As we look at these verses, we realize that we will love others before ourselves and seek to do what Philippians 2:3- 4 tells us, “Let nothing be done through strife or vainglory but in lowliness of mind let each esteem other better than themselves.  Look not every man on his own things, but every man also on the things of others.” So much for the “love yourself” demonic doctrine that’s floating around in the church these days!  This second commandment deals with our relationship with those around us!  How important it is to keep both relationships right for in so doing we will be obedient and in submission to God’s will.

Rom. 6:18-19, “Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness.  I speak after the manner of men because of the infirmity of your flesh: for as ye have yielded your members servants to uncleanness and to iniquity unto iniquity; even so now yield your members servants to righteousness unto holiness.”

1 Cor. 9:25-27, “And every man that striveth for the mastery is temperate in all things.  Now they do it to obtain a corruptible crown; but we an incorruptible.  I therefore so run, not as uncertainlly; so fight I, not as one that beateth the air: But I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection: lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway.”

Eph. 5:2, “And walk in love, as Christ also hath loved us, and hath given himself for us an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweetsmelling savour.”

2 Tim. 4:8, “Henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, shall give me at that day: and not to me only, but unto all them also that love his appearing.”

Heb. 12:1-2, “Wherefore seeing we also are compassed about with so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which doth so easily beset us, and let us run with patience the race that is set before us,  Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.”

James 1:12, “Blessed is the man that endureth temptation: for when he is tried, he shall receive the crown of life, which the Lord hath promised to them that love him.”

1 Jn. 2:3-6, “And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments.  He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.  But whoso keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of God perfected: hereby know we that we are in him.  He that saith he abideth in him ought himself also so to walk, even as he walked.”

1 Jn. 3:16, “Hereby perceive we the love of God, because he laid down his life for us: and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren.”

1 Jn. 5:3, “For this is the love of God that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous.”

2 Jn. 1:6, “And this is love, that we walk after his commandments.  This is the commandment, That, as ye have heard from the beginning, ye should walk in it.”

Let’s take a look at these verses and find out some important elements:

1. How we know if we truly love the Lord – Jn. 14:15, 21, 23; Jn. 15:9-16; 1 Jn. 2:3-6; 1 Jn. 5:3
2. The results in our life if we love the Lord – Rom. 6:18-19; Eph. 5:2; 2 Tim. 4:8; James 1:12; 2 Jn. 1:6
3. What we need to be careful of if we do love the Lord – 1 Cor. 9:25-27
4. Who is watching us and how we will respond if we do love the Lord – Heb. 12:1-2; 1 Jn. 3:16

Here are some questions you need to ask yourself and others around you.  Find a godly lady you can be accountable to and who desires to be accountable to you.  This must be someone you know who will share the good, the bad and the ugly of your life in a loving manner.  They must also be willing to listen and desire to change in their life just as you must be willing to change in your life.

• Do you seek to please the Lord in every area of life or is it too much effort?
• If there is not true discipline within your life, what do you think would be the reason for not loving the Lord and desiring to please Him?
• Which of these reasons for lack of discipline would you say is keeping you from being totally obedient to the Lord?
• Where has the Lord convicted your heart about changing?
• In what way can you work on this area so that you will begin changing to become more like the Lord Jesus Christ?
• Would you be willing to be accountable in this area so that you can grow?

I pray the Lord will use this in your life as you seek to follow Him.

Isaiah 46:

¹⁰Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:

Ephesians 1:

¹¹In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will:

Hebrews 6:

¹⁷Wherein God, willing more abundantly to shew unto the heirs of promise the immutability of his counsel, confirmed it by an oath:

Romans 9:

¹⁵For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. ¹⁸Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.

James 1:

¹³Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:

1 John 1:

⁵This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.

Acts 4:

²⁷For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered together, ²⁸For to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done.

John 19:

¹¹Jesus answered, Thou couldest have no power at all against me, except it were given thee from above: therefore he that delivered me unto thee hath the greater sin.

Numbers 23:

¹⁹God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?

Ephesians 1:

³Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ:

⁴According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:

⁵Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,

London Baptist Confession, “God hath decreed in himself, from all eternity, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably, all things, whatsoever comes to pass; yet so as thereby is God neither the author of sin nor hath fellowship with any therein; nor is violence offered to the will of the creature, nor yet is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established; in which appears his wisdom in disposing all things, and power and faithfulness in accomplishing his decree.”

On the Ref-net today, someone was asking about a list of psalms to go with Lord’s Days from the Heidelberg Catechism.  Such lists have long been published in Dutch church books.  I’ve just uploaded the list (“register”) from the 2002 Gereformeerd Kerkboek.  You can find it by following the link, “Liturgical Helps”  on the right side of the page.  And no, you don’t need to read Dutch to be able to use this resource.  As long as you know that Zondag = Lord’s Day, you’re good to go.

We are rather pressed to it than enter ourselves volunteers.  What we call service to God is done naturally much against our wills; it is not a delightful food, but a bitter potion; we are rather haled, than run to it.  There is a contradiction of sin within us against our service, as there was a contradiction of sinners without our Saviour against his doing the will of God.  Our hearts are unwieldy to any spiritual service of God; we are fain to use a violence with them sometimes: Hezekiah, it is said, “walked before the Lord, with a perfect heart” (2 Kings xx.9); he walked, he made himself to walk: man naturally cares not for a walk with God; if he hath any communion with him, it is with such a dulness and heaviness of spirit as if he wished himself out of his company.  Man’s nature, being contrary to holiness, hath an aversion to any act of homage to God, because holiness must at least be pretended.  In every duty wherein we have a communion with God, holiness is requisite: now as men are against the truth of holiness, because it is unsuitable to them, so they are not friends to those duties which require it, and for some space divert them from the thoughts of their beloved lusts.  The word of the Lord is a yoke, prayer a drudgery, obedience a strange element.  We are like fish, that “drank up iniquity like water,: (Job xv.16) and come not to the bank without the force of an angle; no more willing to do service for God, than a fish is of itself to do service for man.  It is a constrained act to satisfy conscience, and such are servile, not son-like performances, and spring from bondage more than affection; if conscience, like a task-master, did not scourge them to duty, they would never perform it.

The following page:

How many grudge to spend their best time in the serving the will of God, and reserve for him the sickly and rheumatic part of their lives; the remainder of that which the devil and their own lusts have fed upon!  Would not any prince or governor judge a present half eaten up by wild beasts, or that which died in a ditch, a contempt of his royalty?  A corrupt thing is too base and vile for so great a King as God is, whose name is dreadful. (Mal. i. 14)  When by age men are weary of their own bodies, they would preset them to God; yet grudgingly, as if a tired body were too good for him, snuffing at the command of service.  God calls for our  best, and we give him the worst.