EE Book Club: Chapters 2-5 “Evangelical is Not Enough”

Chapter 2: Spirit & Flesh

I grew up in a church that radically eschewed Christian symbolism. We didn't have stained glass, altar, organ music (or musical accompaniment of any kind). We especially didn't have crosses or crucifixes, incense or candles.

But despite our attempts to live a strictly "spiritual" Christian life–we ended up inventing our own kinds of symbolism. The women wore headcoverings, the chairs were placed in a particular order, we read the same passage every week before the Lord's Table.

Howard's observations are correct: "It is difficult to eliminate symbolism…all Christian piety and worship is shot through with symbolism of either gesture or objects or both." (p.23)

Our intention was noble: we fled from anything smacking of idolatry, insisting that true worship takes place in the heart–a temple not made with hands. Which was true, but in all our earnestness to strip every last shred of symbolism from our meeting houses, we unintentionally proved the point: symbolism matters.

It matters because we are human and we see the unseen in the seen. Howard points out that what the commandment against idol worship actually forbids is: "the worshiping of anything manmade." (p.26)

The idea that a simple meeting hall is better because of its spare simplicity misses the point. It is possible to mistake one's own exalted feelings as true worship–but this can happen at a simple kitchen table or, as Howard remarks, in the cathedral at Chartres.

This is where the Incarnation becomes so important. In Christ we see the chasm between spirit and flesh knit back together. Physical is no longer pitted against spiritual. After all, "it is the demand for things that Christ sets us free from, not things themselves." (p.33)

Rather than shy away from symbolism, I find that these things lead me into deeper reflection and meditation with God. They do not distract, they act as arrows pointing the way. For a scatterbrain like myself, it is nothing short of sheer relief to have focal points.

"The principle of focusing and bringing to a point did not disappear with the New Covenant. We mortals are still the same creature. We cannot live with abstractions. We cannot nourish ourselves on generalities." (p.39)

Chapters 3: Christian Worship: Act or Experience? Chapter 4: Prayer: Random or Disciplined?

One thing that often troubles me about the contemporary evangelical church is the idea of worship as an experience. Howard remarks, "Worship, in the ancient tradition, was not thought of as an experience at all; it was an act…the people had come together to make the act of worship. They had come to do something, not to get something. They had not come to a meeting." (p.45)

I grew up going to meetings. Meeting after meeting. The idea was that I went to meeting "hear God's voice" and/or to "get something out of it." Which was fine–to a point. But the liturgical understanding of worship is quite different. It has nothing to do with personal feelings, or The Takeaway. It's not about us, at all.

The liturgy is a form of worship not reliant upon variety, fervor, spontaneous expressions of ecstasy. While some might argue that this kind of worship is "dead," I agree with Howard that "the discipline enables, the structure frees." (p.69) The disciplines of liturgy and praying in an ordered fashion "orders your life" "undergirds it" and "gives it rhythm." (p.69)

One of my favorite parts of liturgical worship is the praying of Psalms. The spare, simple melody of a chanted or sung Psalm is like "a very simple frame around a picture, or an almost invisible setting for a diamond, it sets the text up and permits it to speak, or rather, to sing. The Psalms, after all, were made for singing." (p.51)

I can't tell you how many times my soul has been pierced by the powerful combination of Scripture set to the simple melody of a sung Psalm. There is something almost unspeakably satisfying about joining in the prayers and responses that have been repeated by Christians for thousands of years. It feels like touching eternity.

Perhaps this is why I'm so troubled by the quintessentially individualistic approach to worship that I've seen in many Protestant, evangelical churches. I can see it because I used to believe the same way. I believed that if I couldn't find it in the Bible, then–as Howard states–"I could abjure it." (p.67)

Too often I relied solely on my own Bible reading, and indeed, allowed a prideful attitude fostered by "sola scriptura" to inform my understanding. Like Howard, "there was no such thing as 'the wisdom of the Church.' It did not matter that this divine Word had been read and pondered by sage and holy men and women for two thousand years before my arrival." (p.67)

I was my own authority, able to hash through any and all theological mysteries using my own critical thinking skills. I'm embarrassed by that now. It was like trying to become a skilled neurosurgeon without ever going to school. And honestly, enthusiasm and Christian fervor only go so far.

At some point, I realized I was on this Christian journey for a very long haul. I needed something more solid, deeper, infused with discipline and practice. A catchy little worship song sung by a hip worship band was not going to sustain me for the long journey of faith.

Chapter 5: Hail, Blessed Virgin Mary: What Did the Angel Mean?

If there is one thing that absolutely freaks out evangelicals it can be summed up in one word: Mary.

For myself, it was a casual disregard. I didn't put her on the same level as the disciples or St. Paul. I ignored her because I had inherited the evangelical misconception that Catholics "worshiped Mary." And I didn't want to have anything to do with that. 

But I was wrong. Catholics don't worship Mary. Howard points out that Scripture and the Church teach "nothing may be worshiped but God alone. The ancient Church has always taught this, reserving for God alone the worship known as latria." (p.89) Worship of God alone does not preclude devotion to Mary anymore than many in the evangelical world admire and revere their own particular heroes of the faith: Martin Luther, DL Moody, Oswald Chambers, John Calvin.

Indeed, I had to ask myself: well, does it mean something special that Mary was chosen by God to bear His Son? Yes, it does. It means that "there is one whose dignity is shared by no other. She is a woman, the humblest of them all. No empress, prophetess, or conqueror she, only the handmaiden of the Lord." (p.88)

As an evangelical I used to say, "Well, she's just Jesus' mother." But isn't that it precisely? 

Mary is Jesus' mother. That's no small honor.

God chose her and even the angel calls her "blessed among women." The least I could do is agree with them.

Howard points out that to the extent devotion to Mary attempts to place her above or equal to God, it has gone awry. But I realized that the errant practices of a few ought not dissuade me from acknowledging that, like all who have gone before us in the Faith, "Mary unquestionably stands in the place of preeminence by virtue of her unique role in the drama of Redemption. Whereas all these others bore witness to the Word, she bore the Word." (p.86)

Please feel free to share your own thoughts, feelings and/or questions about Chapters 2-5.
Next week we will discuss Chapters 6-10. 

This entry was posted in The EE Book Club. Bookmark the permalink.
  • http://www.tanyasdays.blogspot.com Tanya

    It seems to me, although I haven’t read the book just your comments about it that the book is explaining how the ancient religions ie. Catholic and Orthodox are the route we should take. I read something once about the Orthodox church(I am baptized Russian Orthodox but haven’t attended for some time) It said that we do not go to church to get, we go to church to give. It isn’t about us, it’s about him.
    That was hard for me to grasp at the time because when you visit Protestant churches, especially contemporary ones, they are *fun*. As a child, I went to an Orthodox church but attended a parochial school so I was in *boring* church alot. The problem *I* see is that the Orthodox church(as well as some Catholic churches) do a very bad job of teaching the meaning of the liturgy. For children, we were told just to be quiet and listen, not to learn. We were not encouraged to ask questions. The Orthodox church is a beautiful church but they are losing members at large rates. I believe it’s because they fail to teach.

  • http://terrybreathinggrace.wordpress.com terry@breathing grace

    As one who is apprehensive about too much emphasis on liturgy, I would say that the Orthodoxy is losing numbrs in large rates, yes, because they fail to teach and allow for the reality that the Holy Spirit has come to guide each of us into all truth- even today.

    But the bigger reason they are losing large numbers is probably because the entertainment saturated American church is drawn to the fleshly, self-centered style of worship that caters more to individual preferences than on developing faith and holiness.

  • Linda

    The Bible does not say much about Mary. However, the Bible tells us enough about her that we need to know. She was the virgin mother of our Lord, whom God chose by His grace to fulfill this special role in the plan of redemption. And for the unique privilege she is called blessed by all Christians and in all ages.

    The Roman Catholic doctrines about Mary, namely, the perpetual virginity, the Immaculate Conception, the Assumption to heaven, and the titles Queen of Heaven, mediatrix, our mother, our life, our hope and others are conspicuously absent from the Bible.

    Why so? Simply because the Bible is a book about another person, who was chosen and appointed by God to be the mediator and savior of the world. That person is Jesus Christ.

    The Lord Jesus said: “Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me” (John 5:39). The Bible is the Book about the Lord Jesus Christ and we should be wholeheartedly devoted to Him.

  • http://faithandfood.morizot.net/ Scott Morizot

    On chapter 2 I have a couple of quick thoughts. This is basically the substance of the seventh and last ecumenical council. Moreover, the appreciation of the material creations as God’s good creation traces deeply back to the Jewish perception of reality as the union of material and spiritual rather than the dualism of, for example, the pagan Greek perspective. And, of course, that perception flowed directly from the ways God revealed himself to them as a people and the way he established worship. Read the descriptions of the tabernacle and the ark of the covenant sometime with this question in mind.

    Christians, of course, held that in the union of God and man in Jesus of Nazareth, God had accomplished the redemption and sanctification of all creation promised to Israel as outlined in texts like Romans, Colossians, Ephesians, Hebrews, and more. As far as I can tell historically, though there is a despite toward the material in Platonism which caused a lot of the problems related to the Incarnation and the person and nature of Jesus, iconoclasm seems to have entered Christianity primarily through the influence of Islam. The danger of iconoclasm from a Christian perspective is that it denies in some ways the efficacy of the Incarnation.

    My next thought is too long and involved for a comment, but the issue of what is meant by ‘symbol’ is one I noticed early on in my association with the SBC Church. ‘Symbol’ (or symbolic) is used in a way that is very different from what those concepts commonly meant in the ancient world. To oversimplify, ‘symbol’ today is typically treated as the opposite of ‘real’. In other words, either something is ‘symbolic’ or it is ‘real’. That’s not a Protestant thing. I’ve been able to find instances of that way of thinking in Roman Catholicism as far back as the 11th or 12th century. Over the past few centuries, it has also been widely present in Orthodox thought, though that may be shifting today.

    And the problem is that that’s not what symbols were at all in most ancient contexts, including (as I’ve found over the past years) in Christianity. Symbols were powerful. They manifested the real. They were imbued with qualities of that symbolized. There were few if any instances symbolic/real dichotomy that is the norm today. You see this all through the prophets. You see it in the ark of the covenant. And if you delve into ancient non-Jewish and non-Christian symbols, you see much the same pattern there.

    And this, I think, can be difficult for people shaped by our modern cultures to grasp. The rejection of ‘symbol’ is an expression of iconoclasm (and ultimately impossible anyway). But even if you embrace ‘symbol’ you are not necessarily approaching them the way they are meant to be approached.

    Hmmm. Longer than I intended. My thoughts on the other chapters aren’t as long. I’ll post them separately.

  • http://faithandfood.morizot.net/ Scott Morizot

    On chapters three and four, coming as I did from a pretty pluralistic background, I initially tried to figure out how to practice this faith and was somewhat dismayed at the paucity of practice and discipline offered me. I wanted to learn how to be Christian and was given almost nothing. I’m not sure I know what sort of person for whom a “quiet time” (in the evangelical sense) works, but though I certainly practiced it with as much discipline as I could muster, I’m not that sort of person. And when it comes to evangelical discipline, that seems to be about it.

    I will note that I’ve encountered in several places, from people I trust understand ancient Greek better than I do, that rendering leitourgia as “the work of the people” (in religious worship or cultic terms) is really good theology, but not particularly good translation. I happen to have Fr. Alexander Schmemann’s explanation of the term at hand since I’ve been studying one of his works. I’ll include it just as food for thought.

    “It [leitourgia] meant an action by which a group of people become something corporately which they had not been as a mere collection of individuals — a whole greater than the sum of its parts. It meant also a function … of a man or of a group on behalf of and in the interest of the whole community. … Thus the Church itself is a leitourgia, a ministry, a calling to act in this world after the fashion of Christ, to bear testimony to Him and His kingdom.”

  • http://faithandfood.morizot.net/ Scott Morizot

    My main thoughts on Mary are that I don’t really have a dog in that fight. I wasn’t shaped by any part of the Christian divide when I was a child, so I don’t have any strong emotional reactions.

    I will note that the typical evangelical take on Mary is neither historical nor biblical. Historically, Mary has always been highly honored as the one who bore God. It’s tied to the belief that Jesus, from the moment of conception, was a union of both God and man, the eternal Son and Jesus of Nazareth, son of Mary. Biblically, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, Mary herself prophesies “henceforth all generations will call me blessed.” I haven’t heard very many Protestants rendering Mary honor by calling her blessed. But maybe I’ve missed it.

    The perpetual virginity of Mary is an interesting historical case. It is in line with ancient Semitic concepts of honor — in this case the honor with which Joseph would have treated the womb that bore such a child. In that world, it would have been a perfectly reasonable and perhaps even expected reaction by Joseph given what he was told by an angel of God about the conception of Mary’s child.

    Further, it was pretty much the undisputed teaching or tradition of every branch of the church until the last two hundred years or so. That includes all the main Protestant figures before that time; Luther, Calvin, the Wesleys, etc.

    So the question for me is that given that it’s perfectly reasonable in the context and setting of ancient Israel and that there is no evidence of such a belief until very recent times, why wouldn’t we believe that Mary remained a virgin (as in not having sex with a man — not some technical physical description) her whole life? It seems that when we assert otherwise, we are importing our culture in an anachronistic way. We find it culturally incredible that Mary and Joseph could have acted in such a way, so we discount it. But we’re discounting it based on the way we would have acted in similar circumstances. That’s a pretty shaky basis.

    Some of the other teachings that are specifically Roman Catholic and are pretty recent as formal dogmas (I believe that as actual dogmas, they date from the 19th century?), I’m less inclined to hold. The Immaculate Conception, for instance, I believe is based on mistaken ideas about the nature (and some strange ideas about transmission) of the original or ancestral sin. Further, taken to its logical conclusion, you end up with a Christ who did not fully assume our nature. My beliefs here are definitely much more in line with patristic and Orthodox thought.

    The Assumption (or Dormition) I think should have been left as a matter of pious belief as it remains in Orthodoxy and never made a dogma you had to believe and accept.

    Some of the specifically Roman Catholic titles for Mary also, if nothing else, are prone to be misunderstood and misused. I prefer the title actually affirmed in ecumenical council, Theotokos. Loosely, it could be translated, Mother of God, but “God-bearer” is probably closest. It links Mary to the substance and reason we honor her. She said yes to God and bore and raised Jesus.

  • http://www.blessedisthekingdom.com Fr Christian Mathis

    Hello there EE,

    My last two days have been a whirlwind, and as such I won’t likely be able to post a comment today, but here’s hoping that I will have time tomorrow, as I am thoroughly enjoying this book and the discussion. I will also once again try to post some more lengthy comments at my blog.

    I hope you are doing well!

    FC

  • http://faithandfood.morizot.net/ Scott Morizot

    As far as growth goes, the experience of any particular Church will vary. But overall in America only a few strands of Christianity are definitely growing (based on ARIS data and other studies). Those are the charismatic or pentecostal movement, Orthodoxy, and non-denominational (or people who claim no denomination or tradition, but simply ‘Christian’). Of those, Orthodoxy remains numerically pretty small. Perhaps a million over all? The other two are pretty significant chunks and I believe the no or non denominational is the fastest growing group within Christianity. (Overall, I believe no specific religious tradition at all or no religion is the fastest growing group in the US.)

    A few groups, like Roman Catholics and (I think) Presbyterians are staying roughly even for now.

    Most Christian groups other than those are declining in the US.

    I’ve given up figuring out what such statistics might mean, but those are the ones I’ve seen.

  • http://faithandfood.morizot.net/ Scott Morizot

    Hmmm. I looked back and noticed I got wordy. I have a tendency to do that. If you think my comments are too wordy and getting in the way of conversation, Elizabeth, feel free to delete them. It won’t hurt my feelings. I’m aware of my weakness when it comes to brevity. Even twitter hasn’t helped much in that regard.

  • Gracie

    Scott said, “The perpetual virginity of Mary…was pretty much the undisputed teaching or tradition of every branch of the church until the last two hundred years or so…why wouldn’t we believe that Mary remained a virgin (as in not having sex with a man — not some technical physical description) her whole life?”

    I’ve never heard the first claim you make, but if so, who is supposed to be the mother of Jesus’ brothers in the Bible?

    Scott also said, “The Immaculate Conception, for instance, I believe is based on mistaken ideas about the nature (and some strange ideas about transmission) of the original or ancestral sin. Further, taken to its logical conclusion, you end up with a Christ who did not fully assume our nature.”

    The Immaculate Conception refers to “the conception of the Virgin Mary in which as decreed in Roman Catholic dogma her soul was preserved free from original sin by divine grace,” for which there is no biblical evidence. It isn’t clear here if that’s what Scott is talking about or if he means the virgin birth, which the Bible is very clear about.

  • anonymous

    Linda, I agree with your observations. And, like Gracie, I wonder about Jesus’ brothers if Mary remained supposedly a virgin. I also am under the impression-mistaken that I may be, however-that Catholics at times pray to Mary and/or other saints? I have heard people say they do; I don’t know what the church stance is on this.

    I like some things I have read in Orthodox and Catholic writings. I am not comfortable with all the icons and some aspects of the litergy. However, I am also uncomfortable with much of the ‘moosh’ or soft Christianity that pervades many Protestant practices lately. Where does that leave one? I am comfortable with the bible telling us that the Holy Spirit can teach each of us; that we have no need of earthly priests-only need of Jesus, our High Priest. Yet, there is a place for humans teaching one another also.

    I like the idea of some spontaneous prayer and communion with God, because I wouldn’t like it if my spouse never spoke original thoughts or wrote original expressions to me, much as I may appreciate an occasional choice card or quote written by someone else used to express his feelings for me. Likewise, we have been created to think and express ourselves freely and it seems quite natural to do so with our Creator as well.

    What does it mean when we are told that the time will come when those who worship Jesus will worship Him in spirit and in truth? I don’t think icons, traditions, etc.-whether Catholic, Protestant, or Orthodox-have to necessarily constitute any part of worshiping in spirit and in truth though they can perhaps be used to do so.

  • http://faithandfood.morizot.net/ Scott Morizot

    Hi Gracie, I hope today finds you doing well. On the first question you asked, I wasn’t aware I was making any sort of “claim”. As far as I knew nobody disputes the historical record of the tradition of the church, even if they disagree with that tradition. Basically, there is no evidence of a belief within any even vaguely orthodox (small ‘o’) branch of Christianity that anyone believed that Mary and Joseph had sex after Jesus was born and that she had subsequent children until about two hundred years ago. It’s an extremely recent belief.

    As I said, I don’t particularly care what people do or don’t believe in that regard. I’m not even sure I care all that much what is or isn’t true. (Though if the church was completely wrong for eighteen centuries on such a widely believed and frequently mentioned point, it does call into question whether or not we can trust the rest of what the church has handed over to us, including the text of Holy Scripture.) However, people don’t seem to disbelieve that tradition for any rational historical or exegetical tradition that I can discern. I don’t think it’s even a reaction against Roman Catholicism, since none of the early Protestants had a problem with accepting Mary as continuing virgin.

    As far as the brothers and sisters mentioned in Mark, there are two traditions in the Church. As far as I can discern, the oldest tradition is that they were the children of an older widower Joseph (which is why he had reposed by the time of Jesus’ ministry) and thus what we would call the ‘step-brothers’ and ‘step-sisters’ of Jesus. There’s another tradition that they could be cousins, since families were not like our nuclear families in modern times and cousins raised in the same household were often called ‘brothers’ and ‘sisters’.

    I personally think it likely that it could have been a mix of both of the above. The most important figure is James, the Bishop of Jerusalem and author of the Epistle in our Scripture. When it comes to him, I’m as certain as one could be that older ‘step-brother’ is correct category.

    From a scriptural perspective, the passage in Mark (and I believe there is one other that references unnamed brothers and sisters) are easily explained by the above. It is, after all, what all Christians believed for eighteen centuries, give or take a few decades. However, if you understand the culture of that time, the passage in John where Jesus places Mary in the care of John is very difficult to explain in a non-anachronistic manner if Mary, in fact, had other sons. If she had other sons, it would have been scandalous for anyone other than one of those sons (and really the eldest surviving) to care for Mary. One can read other theological meanings into Jesus’ act (and given that it is part of the theological gospel, one almost certainly should), but I don’t believe we should miss Mary’s only son placing his widowed mother’s care in the hands of his closest friend. That exchange is very difficult to explain in any other way.

    I’m very much aware of what the dogma of the Immaculate Conception describes and I realize my comments were oblique. Those who know and understand patristic theology will understand what I meant. For those of you who don’t, I was oblique because I did not intend to derail the conversation on what would definitely be a rabbit trail of enormous proportions.

    Thanks for the questions. I always enjoy working through such discussions.

  • http://www.elizabethesther.com Elizabeth Esther

    Scott: You are always welcome to post wordy comments. I LOVE reading them! I am so glad you’ve joined this discussion. I’m learning so much from you. Thank you!!!

    EE

  • http://faithandfood.morizot.net/ Scott Morizot

    Anonymous, actually we do need earthly priests. That’s what every one of us are. We are ordained in baptism into the laos, the people of God, royal priests in the order of Melchizedek (who interestingly was the King of Peace and who offered a sacrifice of bread and wine). But that is not to say there are not orders of service within that priesthood. Hardly anyone outside the Quakers dispute that fact. Here, I think some disservice has been done by the translation of two different things into English as ‘priest’ as well as by widespread abuses in medieval Catholicism. (Although they are gigged constantly for the bad, and there was plenty of that, I do want to give a shout out to all that medieval Catholicism accomplished, not least preserving western civilization as we know and appreciate it.)

    The scriptural names for the orders within the royal priesthood of Christ are laos, diakon, presbyter and episkopos (which are synonymous in the Bible, but by the end of the first century or beginning of the second had become distinct orders); that is to say, people, deacon, priest, and bishop. We see this not only in Scripture, but in the writings of St. Ignatius, third bishop of Antioch. He lived through much of the first century and into the early part of the second. He was taught by Peter and Paul and writing in the very early second century, that’s the picture he portrays of the church.

    It would be inaccurate to portray any Christian teaching as encouraging people to worship Mary or any saint or angel. Worship is due to God alone. Though individuals can stray from that measure, that is the official teaching of every tradition. Moreover, Christians should not practice divination or forms of spirit communication (channeling, seance, mediums, etc.)

    However, it is also Christian dogma (straight from Scripture and the mouth of Jesus) that those of us who follow Christ will never die, even though our bodies sleep. So we venerate those who have reposed in Christ who have provided exemplary witness to Christ. We venerate them in order to better see Christ as they saw Christ. And asking for their intercession, for their prayers, and for their aid is no different in the reality as Christians perceive it than asking a friend in a bible study or at church to pray for you or to help you.

    Nobody disputes that we can go straight to Jesus with our prayers or even that we should. But that does not then mean that we never need anyone else’s prayers or that we never need anyone else’s help. I think people on both sides of this discussion sometimes speak incautiously and even irreverently.

    I know for certain I do at times. Lord Jesus have mercy on me.

  • http://faithandfood.morizot.net/ Scott Morizot

    And EE, thanks! Does that make you an enabler? ;)

  • http://www.blessedisthekingdom.com Fr Christian Mathis

    I also appreciate you long comments Scott….I hope that enables you to continue sharing your thoughts.

    My invitation to those who question Scott’s claims about Christian thought on the perpetual virginity of Mary and that it is only a recent phenomenon to reject that is to simply do some research. Too often it seems we Christians get into debates based on “what we have heard” rather than what is actually documented in our history. It is true that even reformers like Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, and Wesley believed and taught the perpetual virginity of Mary. You don’t have to take my word for it, but can check it out for yourselves.

    I totally agree with you Scott when you point out that much of our modern Christian sensibility is based not upon historical Christianity, but more upon what the modern world thinks it should have been like. We often have an egocentric take on things modern that clouds our judgement.

    Sometimes I like to imagine which parts of our modern thought will cause people to shake their heads at in disbelief 1,000 years from now.

  • Deborah L

    Hmmm..I’m not sure if the debate on Mary’s “perpetual virginity” is a debate based on “what we have heard” rather than what is documented in the Bible. All translations I have read of Mattthew 1:25 say that “Joseph knew her not until she had given birth to a son.” UNTIL. Why aren’t we going by what is documented in the Bible? I’m confused here.

    Anyway, I didn’t come here to debate whether or not Mary was a perpetual virgin, but I just thought that was an interesting view.

    The chapter on prayer really struck me. I really felt as if Howard was insulting the intelligence of those who don’t use written prayers. He seems to be saying that we need help in the area of prayer – that we just can’t do it on our own. I think the Lord’s prayer is the greatest example of how we should pray. I agree that it is vital that we praise the awesomeness of our God, but I found some of the written prayers that he gave for examples just a little impersonal. But, that’s my opinion.

    Chapter five was a bit disappointing to me. I was hoping that he would explain more the concepts of the rosary and the prayers that are uttered to Mary within the Catholic church. I have heard/read these prayers and I would like for someone to please explain them to me. From what I understand, Mary is plainly and simply being prayed to. I’m sorry, but I just can’t think of an example in the Bible where praying to people in heaven is what we are to do. Most definitely Mary was an extremely important person being chosen to be the mother of Jesus, but she was a PERSON.

    I didn’t get a chance to comment on the first chapter, but I did enjoy it. I am from an evangelical background and I really, really had to smile at the mention of the word “flannelgraph”. In fact, I laughed out loud. I had completely forgotten about the use of flannelgraphs. I thought this was a sweet memory. :)

    I could go on and on, but I need to get to bed.

  • http://terrybreathinggrace.wordpress.com terry@breathing grace

    I was originally uninterestd in the discussion about Mary’s perpetual virginity until I began reading the comments. Like Deborah, my first thought was, “Well the BIBLE says that Joseph knew her not until she had given birth to her firstborn Son.

    Factoring in the Jesus is recorded in the Bible as having had siblings, we have no reason to automatically discount the very real possibility that these were the children of Mary and Joseph.

    Here is my problem with the perpetual virginity and the “sacred womb” angle. It does elevates Mary’s flesh to a place of honor rather than her heart and Spirit of obedience to God’s call. Why would she be somehow tainted by living out the remainder of her life doing what God has commanded and has declared blessed in the Scriptures: loving her husbnad, being fruitful, and multiplying?

    The Scripture says to give honor to whom honor is due. And being the mother of the Messiah, Mary certainly deserves to be held in honorable estate. But to impart a level of holiness to her the the Scriptures do not is to impart to her a type od deity that I feel is unbiblical and dangerous.

  • http://faithandfood.morizot.net/ Scott Morizot

    Hi Deborah, I actually started my part of the virginity discussion because I found it an interesting example of the ways parts of Christianity have changed pretty significantly fairly recently. Further, it’s an example of a change that doesn’t seem tied to anything other than our modern western culture, the way we believe things should work. It’s not a belief I personally feel I need to either attack or defend. I find the shift itself fascinating and I think it says more about us than it does Mary.

    I will note that there’s a danger in pinning an idea to a single word in a text written in another era, another culture, and another language. The concept of what we translate ‘until’ (or ’till’ or sometimes translated ‘to’) did not carry the strongly implied change after the event the way we use it. Rather, it was used to describe a state up to the time/event specified without saying anything at all about what happens after. There are a number of examples in Scripture of a usage where we know the state before continues after.

    I’m not sure where you felt Howard was insulting the intelligence of those who don’t follow a set prayer rule. After all, Howard said his father prayed every day of his life and prayed extemporaneously as far as he knew. But he said his father was an extraordinary man and most of us aren’t that extraordinary. If anything, it seemed to me he was saying that set prayers and a prayer rule are something those of us who struggle to pray need.

    I find the common evangelical perspective on the Lord’s Prayer fascinating. It’s not as clear in the way Matthew assembled Jesus’ teaching in the Sermon on the Mount, but if you read in Luke, the genesis of the prayer and its purpose are both obvious. It’s not primarily an ‘example’ or a ‘model’. Basically, disciples come to Jesus and ask him to give them a prayer like John gave his followers prayers. (The Christian tradition of set prayers flows right out of the Jewish one.) And so Jesus does. He says, “When you pray, say (or recite) this” and proceeds to teach them what to say. The prayer itself is a communal prayer designed to be prayed together. But even when you pray it alone, the use of ‘we’ and ‘us’ draw us into a communal state of mind.

    I don’t mind looking at the common prayer of the Rosary for Mary, if you’re curious about the prayer. (I did go to a Catholic school as a non-Catholic for three years in Houston. One of many schools of all sorts I attended.)

    Hail Mary, full of grace.

    That’s basically the greeting of the archangel Gabriel, messenger of God, to Mary. Given the role of Gabriel, there’s no reason not to look on that as God’s greeting to Mary. Either way, I can’t think of any reason we wouldn’t use it.

    The Lord is with thee.

    Demonstrably, the Lord is with Mary. I mean, if what we believe about Jesus is true, I’m not sure how anyone could have a problem saying that.

    Blessed art though among women,

    As I noted, Mary herself prophesied in the Magnificat that all generations would call her blessed.

    and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus.

    And that, of course, is why we venerate Mary. I doubt any Christian would deny that Jesus is blessed.

    Holy Mary, Mother of God,

    Mother of God, as I mentioned earlier, flowing from Theotokos. We venerate Mary because of her relationship to Jesus and for her ‘yes’ to God, not in any other context.

    pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death. Amen.

    And finally, we ask for her prayers. If you ever ask any other person to pray for you, I’m not sure how you could object to asking Mary to pray for us.

    But then, as I confessed in an earlier comment, I don’t really understand either the rejection of Mary in evangelicalism or the sometimes over the top Marian devotion you sometimes see in parts of Roman Catholicism. I wasn’t shaped by either culture, so I don’t have the gut reaction many seem to have on both sides.

    And in an earlier post, I mentally flipped the Matthew and Mark references to brothers. I think it’s in Matthew that they are named and in Mark that they are unnamed.

  • Fae

    Chapter 6 was a difficult chapter for me too. Actually, I was not sure exactly what Chapter 6 was telling me so I probably need to go back and reread it. I just thought it was saying that Mary deserved special honor just because she was the mother of Jesus. I really did not realize the chapter was talking about a “sacred womb” or perpetual virginity and that may be because I do not know much about the Catholic church and apparently church history. I did think that Catholics prayed to her and that more honor is given to her than is warranted. I guess I am trying to say I never thought of Mary as any different from anyone that God chose in the Bible to do a special job/task – such as Moses, Abraham, Paul.

    I thought that the ideas on prayer were interesting. Coming from a background where spontaneous prayers are said and then having periods when prayer seems hard that having a written prayer can help. I never heard about praying the bible until a few years ago. This has helped me tremendously. I always thought that the argument for not having written prayers was that the prayers would become rote. Over the years, I have found that argument not to be true. I am guilty of being in church services and find that at the end I have attended all by rote because at the time my heart was not right.

    A couple of years ago, I was fascinated with the idea of kneeling to say my prayers. It dawned on me that maybe being in a sitting position was a prideful position. Kneeling is not done in our worship services so I thought I would give it a try during my personal pray times. All I know is that it made my knees hurt terribly so I wondered how people can pray for any length of time on their knees.

    I thought the section on worship – act or attitude was interesting. I grew up calling the place where worship took place the auditorium. My husband calls it the sanctuary which is what I think most people call it. I do not think the place we worship is special but I do know that sometimes in the church I attend it seems that it is so noisy before services start it is hard to get in the right frame of mind to worship God.

    I have always been confused about liturgy. I always thought of it as just a ritual for worship not as the “work of the people”. I can understand the concept that our lives are to be continually worshiping God all day not just on Sunday. I just never thought of that as liturgy.

  • http://www.elizabethesther.com Elizabeth Esther

    I’m really appreciating Scott’s insights. One of the things that helped adjust my perspective on Christian doctrine was that I realized I had unconsciously limited myself to the last 200 years of Christian worship and practice. I also often imposed my modern sensibilities on ancient texts and and completely overlooked cultural context. I would hinge entire beliefs on one word; ie. Matt. 1:25′s “until.”

    Terry: thanks so much for participating in this discussion. I always enjoy your perspective. As far as “elevating Mary’s flesh” goes, I wonder…isn’t that precisely what the Incarnation does? Jesus took on our flesh. His condescension elevated our humanity–not by glorifying the flesh–but by choosing to become one of us, wouldn’t it follow that the womb who bore Him is owed special honor? I mean, the mother of a earthly king is referred to as The Queen Mother. If special honor is reserved for the one who bears the heir to an earthly throne, how much more honor should we give to the one who bore the King of Kings? I guess all I’m saying is that I can appreciate how Joseph (esp. as a devout Jew) would hold Mary in special honor and, in fact, it does seem telling that while hanging on the cross–Jesus would commit his mother into John’s care. If there were other siblings or brothers, as Scott pointed out, this would be nigh scandalous.

    I don’t think we take glory away from God by honoring Mary. Indeed, those who were chosen to physically participate in the “drama of Redemption” (as Howard calls it) bring more glory to Him.

    I guess all I’m saying is that I realized I couldn’t automatically discount the perpetual virginity of Mary esp. when I realized that so many Christians for hundreds of years (including Martin Luther), believed it. Just a thought for consideration….

    And might I add? I’m loving how respectful this dialogue has been. Thank you, everyone!

  • Mollycar

    I agree with you Elizabeth that the discussion has been respectful. I come at this book for a different perspective. I grew up in a very devout Catholic home. We had morning prayers every morning, The Angelus at 12 noon and 6pm, the Rosary with the litany every evening. We spent an hour a day in prayer. We attended mass several times a week and everyone in the family, with the exception of my father, was a member of the Legion of Mary and attended a Legion meeting every week. We also said novenas for special intentions.
    In the Irish Catholic home I grew up in we never prayed in our own words. We never prayed directly to Jesus other than in mass. Again and again I was told prayers should be directed to Mary and the saints who would act as itermedaries between us and God, the idea of going directly to Jesus in ones own words was a completely foreign concept.The bible was unopened as we could not possible understand it.The first time I read the gospel of Matthew at 17 I was so excited by the Jesus I met there thatI read it in one sitting.
    I think Howard’s book is well written. He eloquently describes his discovery of the symbols, the beauty and the ritual of the Catholic church. I think one should not downvalue the privilage of knowing one can approach Jesus directly in ones own faltering words. The joy of reading the bible and getting to know Jesus. I think the Catholic church has a different flavour in different countries, the experiences of my childhood reflect the branch I grew up in.
    When I left it I was cut off by my family for a long time. No one from my family and none of my old friends attended my non sacremental marriage. Over time we were reconciled My children loved the maternal branch of their family. I hid what had happened from them, the love of grandchildren is a mighty salve.
    I have been greatly blessed by writers like Christopher J.H. Wright,Richard Foster, Eugene Peterson, Dallas Willard, Gordon Mc Donald, C.S. Lewis, G.K. Chesterton, Mark Galli and many more.I’m sure you are already familiar with them, they are a pleasure to read.
    Its late here, I must get to bed. God bless you and yours.

  • http://www.blessedisthekingdom.com Fr Christian Mathis

    This is indeed a wonderful dialogue and I too am happy that it has remained a respectful one. Too often I find that people use the internet as a place to engage in discussions that set aside the normal civility that one would use when talking face to face with someone.
    Glad to know that it is possible!

    I have posted some more of my thoughts, as I did last week on my own blog, so if anyone here is interested in reading a more lengthy reflection on I’m sorry to say only the second chapter of the book, feel free to visit there and comment if you would like. I will post more on other chapters as well. I feel that there is too much to say to simply post in a comment box here.

    This is a great conversation about Mary, but also it allows me to confirm some differences that continue to separate us as Christians and I think only will be resolved by honest dialogue like what is happening here. One of the things that I often wonder about is how Christians who base their belief only upon the Bible come to that belief. My own Catholic belief would claim that the central revelation given to Christians is not in fact the Bible, but Christ Himself. We also would not rely only upon the Bible for our knowledge of Him but also upon the 2,000 year tradition.

    I would respectfully pose the question, “Is not Sola Scriptura in fact a tradition? I don’t recall there being anything in the Bible that instructs Christians to look only to the Bible for knowledge of God.”

    With the regards to the Rosary, I would note that it is primarily a prayer that has Christ as its center, as all prayer should be. As Scott has pointed out, the first half of the prayer called the Hail Mary is taken directly from the Gospel of Luke and the second half asks simply for the prayers of Mary for us. The other prayers used in the Rosary are the Our Father and some other Trinitarian prayers which not Christian would reject.

    The prayers are repeated again and again in order to clear the mind for meditation on 20 “mysteries” of the Christian faith. The majority of these meditations are based upon the life of Christ, for example The Crucifixion, The Nativity, The Baptism of the Lord, etc.

    I hope this helps as a simple explanation of the Rosary.

    There are, I am sad to say, Catholics who seem to in my opinion, cross the line into raising Mary to a level that they should not, but this is not in any way what the church professes. We reserve worship to God alone.

  • http://www.elizabethesther.com Elizabeth Esther

    Here is a direct link to Fr. Mathis’ thoughts on Chapter 2. Thanks, Fr. Mathis!
    http://www.blessedisthekingdom.com/2010/02/04/evangelical-is-not-enough-spirit-and-flesh/

  • http://civillascybercafe.blogspot.com Civilla

    The Bible says that Joseph did not “know” Mary UNTIL after the birth of Jesus. UNTIL implies that after Jesus’ birth, Mary and Joseph lived as a normal man and wife.

    Yes, the Catholic Church teaches that worship is reserved for God alone, but pragmatically, they do worship Mary. I grew up Catholic and went to Catholic school with the nuns. We bestowed upon Mary the love and reverence that should only be for God. We decorated statues of Mary, we prayed to Mary, we sang about Mary, etc. My own father would ONLY pray to Mary. A Catholic priest recently told me that devotion to Mary is very important. Why? We also prayed to our guardian angel, as well as the saints. Jesus seemed down there with all the saints to me. I know that is not “official”, but that’s how it was. We never questioned anything — to have done so would have been seen as rebellion. I understand things are different now?

  • http://www.blessedisthekingdom.com Fr Christian Mathis

    Civilla,

    There is no way for me to know what your experience of growing up in the Church was like, so I will try to speak from my own experience. I can say that there is a distinct difference between worship and veneration. As noted in a comment above, I have seen what in mind would indeed be crossing the line from veneration to worship. This is not, and never has been part of the tradition of the Church.

    Bestowing love and honor upon Mary and the saints does however seem in line with our Christian faith, as does bestowing honor upon every human person. We are all made in the image and likeness of God and therefore should be treated with love and respect.

    I will not claim that there are not Catholics who have been taught things along the lines that you have commented about, but I will claim that those who teach this are in error. Devotion to the Mary and the saints is important, but only to the degree that they point us to Christ. They are important in that they show us that it is possible to model ourselves after Christ and follow him. We each have to find our own unique way to do that.

    My own take is that it is equally mistaken to place too great an emphasis on Mary and the saints as it is to completely ignore them as models of the Christian life.

  • http://faithandfood.morizot.net/ Scott Morizot

    Terry, I read your comment before I headed to work this morning (and what a hectic day it’s been!) and it’s been percolating in the back of my mind. As Elizabeth noted, setting up the immaterial heart over the material body is a form of dualism which in some ways is a denial of what the Incarnation accomplished. We don’t ‘have’ bodies in the sense that we can be distinguished from or separated from our bodies. I’ve practiced beliefs like that in the past (typically involving transmigration of souls).

    Rather, in the Jewish and Christian perspectives, we are our bodies and though we are not merely flesh, we are flesh and spirit intertwined and inextricable. (How God preserves us when our bodies repose is something of a mystery.) That’s why the Christian perspective is utterly rooted in resurrection. I think it’s really important to keep ourselves always grounded in that perspective since there is so much around us today that strives to pull us away from it.

    It’s also not a matter of ‘taint’ or ‘shame’, though I’m aware of the way the madonna/whore complex has often twisted it that way in the minds of many. It can be difficult to enter into another culture, especially an ancient one that we don’t fully understand. But we need to understand that Joseph had been told the child was of God and the Messiah. Even though you were a Jew if your mother was Jewish (think Timothy here), sons were also very significant — so much so that if a man died before conceiving a son with his wife, the man’s brother had to take his widow and conceive a son with her who would be raised as that man’s son. Though Joseph had been chosen by God to provide an earthly name and father for Jesus, try to imagine what it meant that the son Mary bore was ‘of God’. He would not have acted from fear of ‘tainting’ Mary, but from honor and respect for God.

    Of course, our ability to enter that culture from a remove of twenty centuries is always going to be limited. That’s why the witness of the church actually matters and needs to be given weight. It’s unlikely that we will ever find anything that provides us enough knowledge from other sources to either prove or disprove the testimony of the church. But if that testimony is not correct, it’s not like we have any other means to discern what actually happened. If we reject the tradition of the church, it seems to me that the only thing we can say is that we have no idea what happened. It’s lost in the mists of time.

    I will also note that, unlike many who talk about equating honor and veneration with worship of a deity, that I actually have worshiped other gods. I’ve explored, practiced, and/or believed a lot of religions and spiritualities over the course of my life. I know and remember what it means to worship other gods. Nowhere does any tradition of the church teach that worship is due to anyone other than God. Though it has become blurred this millenium, the only proper ontological category distinction is between created and uncreated. And only God is in the latter category.

  • http://faithandfood.morizot.net/ Scott Morizot

    Fae, though you state your thought very gently in your first paragraph, there is a subtle danger in that line of thought. The Incarnation was the unique and unrepeatable center of creation (time and space). It was not a task or a job. It was an utterly unprecedented vocation, to be the mother of God, for he who fills and sustains all things to be compassed within a womb. It was an act of God that surpasses all imagination and expectation.

    When you begin to reduce Mary’s role to that of a job or a task from God, you are progressing along the same lines of thought as those who in the ancient world who wanted to reduce Mary to a mere vessel. If she hadn’t done it, then another vessel would have done. She becomes a tool of God and another tool would have done just as well. That line of thought was soundly rejected, and I agree. It denigrates humanity and parenthood. But it also changes the import of the Incarnation to something more like an avatar and it paints a poor picture of God.

    I don’t think God had a plan B. Mary was free to say yes or no, but had she said no, though God would not have stopped working to redeem creation, what he did would not have looked like Jesus of Nazareth. From the ways we see God act in Scripture, I do not believe he simply would have found another girl and proceeded as though nothing were different.

    In that light, I have long been struck by the picture of Mary we find in ancient patristic theology. The oldest theory of the ‘atonement’ is called recapitulation. We see its roots in Paul, but fleshed out more by Irenaeus and then others over the centuries. In essence, Christ recapitulated humanity. Whereas the adam (mankind) turned from our created nature as icons of God intended to reflect him into creation and priests intended to offer creation back to God in Thanksgiving, choosing death and non-existence instead, Christ was the true man, the true adam. He was the faithful Israel. All Israel, and all humanity was eventually narrowed to Christ on the cross as the eucharistic man. And in his recapitulation, he restored to us our true nature and vocation, in the process redeeming creation. The center of salvation is found in Jesus as the second and true Adam.

    In a similar way, then, Mary was often seen and described as the recapitulation of Eve. Whereas Eve said no to God, Mary said yes. And in that yes, she obliterated Eve’s no. And in her yes, she bore God and created his flesh from her flesh, his nature as man from her nature.

    When you begin to perceive the enormity of Mary’s ‘yes’ in our salvation, it seems to me natural to afford her first honor among the saints. I will note, though, that the church does honor as saints all those who lived a life of witness (martyria), certainly including Abraham and Moses and Paul.

    On prayer, I’ll note that the ancient church stood for liturgy and it tended to be hours long. Moreover, before the church was legalized and later made the official religion of the empire, the gentile believers (many of whom were slaves in the early years) did not get a ‘lazy day’ like the Jews were afforded. So they would gather to worship in the predawn hours of the first day (and sometimes more than one day of the week, especially in times of more intense persecution), stand through all of the service, then head off to a full day’s work (typically until dark).

    I’ve sometimes wondered how many of us would choose to be Christian if that were the sort of ‘church service’ we could expect coupled with a threat of execution by the government. I have a feeling I would have been one to take an easier path. Lord have mercy.

    Good thoughts. The history of the church is a large, messy, organic, convoluted thing with many paths and circuits. I know more than some people appear to know, but I actually know fairly little as such things go.

  • http://faithandfood.morizot.net/ Scott Morizot

    Mollyear, I’m part Irish and I and my kids look more Scotch Irish than not, even though it’s not a majority of my genetic heritage. (I have more French and Cajun in my than Irish and almost as much Native American.)

    However, culturally I’m all American, so it’s difficult for me to relate. Even the faithful (or devout) Catholic family or friends I have don’t look much like your description. But then, it’s my observation that any church seems to have within it the ability to become something like what you described in spirit, though the particulars would vary. I think I’ve encountered Southern Baptists for whom a similar description (using Baptist rituals) would hold just as well.

    I deeply appreciate many of the authors you mention as well.

    Grace and peace.

  • http://faithandfood.morizot.net/ Scott Morizot

    Civilla, unlike Fr. Mathis, I can’t really describe the life of a Catholic today from experience. I have observations, but since I’m not Catholic, they are external observations only.

    However, I did want to expand on a point I mentioned earlier in light of your comment. UNTIL does imply what you stated in modern English. There’s just one problem. Matthew did not write in modern English nor was his culture our culture. Most likely, the original (and long since lost) version of Matthew was written in Aramaic. (And here I tend to agree with the unanimous testimony of the witness of the early church that Matthew was the first gospel written, regardless of the assertions of modern textual critics.) Regardless, Matthew is clearly written to Jewish believers and written from within a Jewish perspective. And the word translated until (or till or sometimes to) did not imply the same thing at all in that culture. It was a different perspective on time and causality. The usage actually says and implies nothing about what happens after the event. It’s rather describing the present (within the context of the text). Sometimes the state changes after the event. Sometimes the state remains unchanged after the event (and forever when God is involved). There are plenty of examples of both situations in the old and new testament.

    That’s part of the problem with translation. Even when the words themselves are correct (not a given in translation, so judge well), they do not necessarily carry precisely the same meaning to day that they did then. In fact, that’s the case as often as it isn’t.

    Hmmm. Like Fr. Mathis, I’m also blogging through the book one chapter at a time on my blog. I established a category in the sidebar that’s just for the posts on this book if you want to read those and aren’t interested in the rest of the stuff I might write. The stuff I post there has been and probably will be different from what I comment on here.

  • Deborah L

    Okay, this may get a little wordy. I apologize in advance. :)

    I am enjoying this very mature, respectful discussion and finding it all extremely interesting.

    I have a few thoughts to contribute.

    Scott: Your explanation of the word “until” is interesting. I am not a scholar in the languages of Greek, Hebrew of Aramaic, so I just read my bible and trust that it has been translated as accurately as possible.:)

    You were wondering why I had found Howard’s take on prayer an insult to one’s intelligence. There are a few lines throughout that chapter which made me feel this way, but here is just one example. On page 72 he talks about “blessing” certain things, including wash water. The next line is: “Who of us left to himself remebers to bless the Lord for wash water?” I may be wrong, but it seems to me that he is saying one is unable to think of “ordinary” things to be thankful for without the help of a written prayer. Hmmm….

    Continuing with the thoughts on prayer, what is your take on Matthew 6: verses 7-13? Some of the written prayers outlined by Howard made me think of these verses.

    Thank you for explaining a bit more about the rosary for me. I still have a hard time with the “Holy Mary…” part. Is Mary holy? I believe only God is holy.

    Elizabeth: I think just because “so many Christians for hundreds of years (including Martin Luther)” have believed something, doesn’t necessarily make it accurate. Luther was a flawed human being like the rest of us. I think that too often (and I have done the same thing)people talk about how “so and so” said this and therefore it is true. Shouldn’t we be checking the validity of ideas with the Bible instead? Also, I would have to disagree with the “Queen MOther” analogy. Again, I haven’t seen this idea written in the Bible. The “Queen Mother” designation is entirely a manmade idea.

    Fr. Mathis: You mentioned your skepticism on the idea of “Sola Scriptura”. I do believe the Bible is the only authority we need. I’m not familiar with the “ancient teachings” as some have talked about in this discussion. I would be happy to hear more about them. I”d be interested to hear what your thoughts on 2 Timothy 3:16 and Revelation 22:18-19 are. I do think it is clear that we are to “add nothing to and take nothing from” the Bible.Again, I am open to your or anyone else’s thoughts on this. I don’t pretend to know more of my Bible than I actually do. I’m working on learning more and more.

    Thank you, Elizabeth, for another good discussion. I look forward to the next chapters and the discussion that will ensue.

  • Deborah L

    Oops. Forgot one thing that I was going to mention. Scott, I think you mentioned something about how asking Mary (who has died and gone to heaven) to pray for us is synonymous with asking living people to pray for us. I’m not sure where this comes from. I don’t think the Bible teaches this concept. Can you explain this further? Thanks!

  • http://sue-livingandlearning.blogspot.com/ Sue

    This has been such a fascinating discussion! I am really enjoying reading the various perspectives.

    I can’t remember where I read this (I have been reading like crazy these days!), but the perspective on Mary’s perpetual virginity that really hit home with me was the comparison of Mary, the Ark of the New Covenant with the Ark of the Old Testament which contained the 10 commandments.

    There is an account in the old testament (sorry, I’m squeezing this comment in between bathing children and cooking dinner, so I’m not going to look up the reference) where the Ark is being moved. The Ark was not to be touched by those carrying it, but when it began to slip one of the men reached out to keep it from touching the ground. What happened to that man? Yes, he was struck dead!

    How much more would Mary’s womb, if one considered it the Ark of the New Covenant, be considered holy and set apart by Joseph and the early Christians? That just makes sense to me.

    I’m sorry if I’m not doing a great job with that explanation. If Scott or Fr. Mathis would have anything to add I would be grateful!

  • http://faithandfood.morizot.net/ Scott Morizot

    Deborah, the eternal problem with translation, even between modern languages, is that language and culture are tightly correlated. You can always say things in a language within its cultural context that do not have an exact parallel in another language in another cultural context.

    There are certainly thoughts and expressions that are natural to express, for instance, in Mandarin or Japanese, that cannot be readily expressed in English. Very different assumptions and perspectives on reality have shaped the languages and the cultural perceptions of both the speaker and the hearer. But even in a language and culture much closer to ours (and one with which we even share a lot of thoughts and concepts), like French, it’s still possible to say things that don’t translate well into English.

    When you are trying to translate a text written in a culture that is separated over a large gulf of time and one about which we have often sketchy information, that problem is magnified by orders of magnitude. Thanks to the Dead Sea scrolls and other finds in the past century or so, we have a better picture and understanding today of the culture and context of second temple Judaism than ever. But it’s still a very incomplete picture.

    And then, of course, every translation carries with it the bias of the translator or translators. The better ones, of course, try to limit the impact of bias through translation teams, but teams also inevitably has a bias. It’s impossible to translate any text without getting at least a bit of the translator in it.

    I’m not a scholar of any language, modern or ancient. However, I was deeply interested in history, especially ancient history, long before I was Christian. I was very familiar with the difficulty understanding an ancient perspective, understanding how words were used, and finding parallels with our familiar reference points. Plus I had studied and practiced different Eastern religions from a young age. I knew how difficult it was to perceive reality through different cultural lenses. I didn’t enter Christianity with any expectation that these ancient texts would share my modern, American reference points.

    Given the difficulty of translation, it’s interesting to compare the history of ancient Jewish and Christian attitudes toward translation of holy writings to that of Islam (to pick the sharpest contrast). Well before the time of Christ, most of the Jews outside of Judea came to speak Greek as their native language (or at least a language they spoke and understood well). Hebrew was not understood as well by most of the people. (We see an outgrowth of this in Acts when a dispute arose over the care of the widows of the Greek speaking Jewish Christians versus the Hebrew speaking Jewish Christians that led to the ordination of the first deacons.) And so about two centuries before Christ, the Jewish Scripture was translated into Greek so it could be read in the synagogues in a language the people could understand. Clearly, within the Jewish perspective, the Greek text of the Septuagint was just as much Scripture as the Hebrew text. (It’s the Septuagint that is overwhelmingly quoted in the NT and the Septuagint became the Scriptures of the Christian church, a natural occurrence since within not very many decades most Christians were either Greek-speaking Jews or gentiles.)

    But it’s the idea that the translated text remained Scripture that I find intriguing. It seems to me that, even before Christ, the Jewish people felt that the Ruach (the wind or breath of God) transcended language and could speak and be heard in translation as well as in Hebrew. (Some part of that perception is also undoubtedly tied to the oral nature of the culture, where oral tradition — where you knew who was telling you something and what they were saying — was considered more trustworthy than a written text, but I think there’s more to it than just that.)

    That perception of Scripture flowed into Christianity. Fairly early, Scripture began to be translated in other languages. Obviously, as the East and West separation began to grow, and those in the West began to be less familiar with Greek, Scripture and the liturgies were translated into Latin. In other areas they were translated into other languages. Where a language lacked a written form, as we see for example in the work of St. Cyril and St. Methodius with the Slavs in the ninth century, Christians created an alphabet for the language.

    And in every translation, in every cultural form, the text was considered just as much Scripture as the original text. The liturgy, even in linguistic and cultural variation, was considered part of the one liturgy of the church. And for someone like me who has been shaped and formed by so many spiritualities and who has studied history, that’s simply … fascinating. And largely unprecedented.

    By contrast, within Islam the Qur’an is only actually considered to exist in its original Arabic. Translations of the Qur’an are not actually the Qur’an itself. They are, rather, considered to be “commentaries” on the Qur’an or a concept similar to that one. Christians not only held that the the text and liturgy can be translated and remain what they were before translation, but that additional insights or understanding of God could be revealed in the translation (as long as they did not contradict or contravene the teaching of the apostles, of course).

    However, to get back to the original point, the concept behind the word translated ‘until’ (or ’till’ or ‘to’) is pretty easy to discern. It’s used a lot elsewhere in the text of the Holy Scriptures and that particular perspective and usage remains common in Middle Eastern culture today from what I understand. You can’t translate it into anything else in English because we don’t have a word that can be used that way grammatically and implies the same thing. It’s not an “error” in translation. The translation is as correct as it can be. It’s just a difference in language and culture.

    You have to read the text as a whole and try to make its story your story. Trying to read too much into individual words or phrases, especially in translation, is always going to be treacherous.

    Hmmm. Well I wandered off on quite the rabbit trail this time. I’ll start a new comment and try to stay vaguely on the topic of discussion this time.

  • http://www.blessedisthekingdom.com Fr Christian Mathis

    Deborah: Thanks for keeping the conversation going. Can I first ask a question, and I hope that you do not take offense at it. I realize clearly that there are many Christians who believe that the Bible is the only authority, but I have yet to find one who can point in the Bible itself to validate this claim. So the question is where did you come to believe it to be the only authority? Most of my friends who believe this will tell me it was taught to them by their minister, their parents, etc. All these sources are themselves outside of the Scripture. So it has always looked to me from the outside from both the history of the Church and from what I have observed that this is a tradition.

    You ask me to comment on two passages in the New Testament. “All Scripture is inspired by God and useful for refuting error, for guiding people’s lives and teaching them to be upright.” I have no issues with what Timothy wrote. Catholics, myself included, believe this to be true, but we don’t limit ourselves only to the Bible. There are other things that do the same things, I can think of the examples of hymns, sermons, devotional books, the lives of other Christians, etc. that are also useful for refuting error and showing us the way to upright lives. With regard to the passage of Revelation, I think it is important to distinguish between the book of the Bible as a whole and the individual books within it. The Bible is not one book, but in fact a collection of books. There are Old and New Testaments that are not the same. There are histories, poetry, wisdom, law codes, Gospels, letters, etc. All these were compiled by the Church. This fact above all is why it seems Sola Scriptura doesn’t work. There was a Christian community before the Bible was written. For example, where did St. Paul hear the Gospel? It seems from his own testimony in the Bible, and the from St. Luke in Acts that he heard first directly from the risen Christ and later Peter and some of the other Apostles. He passed that on in writing letters to communities. One of the reasons I find it important to look to the Ancient, meaning the first Christian communities is that many of them either knew Jesus personally, or knew someone who did, like the Apostles. It would make sense to believe someone who had been taught by Peter, James or John might have a better idea of the faith than we do. The great gift we have are their writings, many written before the Bible was compiled.

    When we study our own Christian history it is not hard to find that the Bible was compiled at the Council of Carthage in the year 397. They used the following criteria: the book had to be apostolic in origin, authoritative in spiritual content, and had to be universally accepted by the churches at the time.

    Sue: Glad that you brought up the image of Mary as the Ark of the New Covenant. I was going to bring it up myself, but didn’t know if it would be helpful. Many Christians have throughout the ages referred to Mary as the Ark of the New Covenant drawing the parallel that the people of Israel created an Ark to hold the tablets of the law, aaron’s rod and part of the manna. The things inside represented God’s presence among the people and as such the Ark was also considered holy. It wasn’t considered holy for its own sake, however, but because of what it contained.

    Mary in turn has been considered the Ark of the New Covenant since she carried in her womb the greatest gift the Father has given to us, His Son. Christ is Himself the law, Christ is the eternal high priest that takes the place of aaron’s priesthood, and he is the living bread come down from heaven. Mary, like the Ark, is not holy in herself, but because of what she carried in her body.

  • http://faithandfood.morizot.net/ Scott Morizot

    Deborah, I went back and read that section of Howard’s book. I think you’re misinterpreting what he’s saying about prayer. It’s not about ‘able’ or ‘unable’. It’s about our natural human tendencies. We were made in the image of God to bless creation and offer it in thanksgiving to God. That’s the vocation from which we’ve turned. Judaism, in both its modern and ancient forms, is filled with blessings. These have a set form in order to help us remember that we are to bless and to thank God. I’m reminded of the scene in Fiddler on the Roof where they ask the rabbi if there is a blessing for Tsar. It’s funny and intended to be funny, but there is a truth behind the humor.

    Most of us don’t naturally or easily do that, at least for more than short bursts. We’re very good at cursing people and things with our mouths and our bodies. (I’m sure everyone can think of words and gestures.) We do not find it nearly as natural or easy to use our mouths and bodies to bless people and things. (If you wanted to bless someone with a gesture, for instance, what would you do?)

    A rule of prayer where we join the larger church (in spirit if not in body) in common prayers at regular intervals helps turn our minds and hearts toward God the way they should be. Learning set blessing and prayers help the words be on our lips. And doing so can turn our hearts.

    Maybe your experience is different than mine. But the spontaneous prayers that seem most common in an evangelical context seem revolve around intercessions with some thanks for what God has done and some praise of God. None of that is wrong or bad. But is that all prayer should be? The answer evangelicalism tends to offer (if it offers one at all) to the question, “How do we pray without ceasing?” tends to be an unsatisfactory answer, at least to me.

    Evangelicalism largely seems to lack an appreciation for prayer as a mystical (that is direct and unmediated) means of communion with God and with the people of God. But then, it’s my observation that evangelicalism has a weak sense of communion in general. I could be wrong, but over the course of fifteen years, that’s my observation. We tend to reduce it to “fellowship” as in an association of like-minded individuals.

    So I didn’t think Howard was insulting anyone’s intelligence. He was just describing our natural tendencies. And he clearly recognized and honored those who, like his father, were able to pray fully and consistently over the long haul without the discipline and the tools most of the rest of us need. That’s the goal for which we’re striving, to naturally live in constant prayer, in constant communion. It’s not impossible. It just runs counter to our tendencies.

  • http://faithandfood.morizot.net/ Scott Morizot

    As far as Matthew 6:7-13 goes (and make sure to read that in parallel with Luke 11:1-4), you can’t lift it out of the context of the narrative of Scripture and interpret it. Corporate prayer at set hours was a part of Jewish life. At home, in the synagogue, in the temple, in blessings, basically permeating the whole of life were prayers. That certainly doesn’t mean there weren’t spontaneous prayers, but they were held within the framework of set prayers and blessings. References to them permeate the New Testament, especially the narratives of the gospels and the acts of the apostles. (Scot McKnight’s book, Praying with the Church does a good job of simply and easily showing those connections.)

    And though it’s less clear to us the way Matthew is written (not in what Matthew meant — that translation and cross-cultural communication thing again), Luke is perfectly clear. The disciples wanted a prayer like John taught his disciples prayer. Jesus did not tell them they weren’t supposed to pray like that. They were supposed to come up with their own words all the time. No. He gave them a prayer and told them to say (a word which could also be translated recite) that prayer.

    The “vain repetitions” in Matthew 7 do not reference Jewish practice, but rather the practice of the gentiles with their gods. (Interestingly, the encounter between Elijah and the priests of Baal is a good one to keep in mind here as a reference point.) I’ve actually practiced other religions. And while I’ve not practiced any of the Greek or Roman religions Jesus would have been referencing in the text, I am familiar with them.

    Though it’s not an exact parallel with the sort of repetitions Jesus is referencing, I have practiced the mantras used in Eastern meditation. The purpose is not identical, but there are some similarities. In the religions Jesus was referencing, the purpose of the repetition of your request or of your lengthy recitation of title after title and honor after honor for the god was to try to be heard on the one hand and to avoid offending the god in the latter case. In Eastern religions, the reasons can vary greatly, but one reason or use is to try to clear or empty the mind through the repetition. But as I said, that varies a great deal. (Hmmm. Shinto may be closer to what Jesus was describing. I’ll have to think about that.)

    Anyway, the emphasis is on vain or useless, not on repetition in and of itself. Jesus gave his disciples a prayer to recite or repeat together. Heck, Christian life itself is a process of repetition. We train ourselves through repetition, just as any athlete does (to borrow Paul’s metaphor).

    I suppose I would again say that context within the narrative of Scripture and its consistent interpretation through the centuries as well as at least some grasp of the cultural setting is necessary if you aren’t simply going to read your own cultural biases into the text.

  • http://faithandfood.morizot.net/ Scott Morizot

    Holy. I actually have a reflection titled “Holy, Holy, Holy” on my blog. It’s something upon which I’ve reflected for years. Holy, of course, means apart or separate or other and as God is the only uncreated is a word that simply describes that God is other. However, when you say that ‘holy’ can only be used to refer to God, you immediately run into conflict with the whole narrative of Scripture.

    Just to pull out a few quick examples, when Moses approached the burning bush, he was told to remove his shoes for he was standing on holy ground. The ark of the covenant was holy, so much so that improper contact with it could kill and idols of other gods were toppled and broken in its presence. The bones of Elisha were so infused by the breath of God that contact with them was able to raise the dead. The list goes on and on. In the Christian perspective, though God is apart and other, he is also everywhere present and filling all things. All creation is sustained in Jesus, in the Word or Act of God. And it’s clear that parts of creation can be particularly infused with the holiness of God. We see wonderful images of that in the smoke of God’s shekinah filling Solomon’s temple and in Isaiah’s vision.

    Moreover, we Christians claim that the matter of our bodies has become the temple of God. We say the Ruach, the Pneuma, the Spirit, or Wind, or Breath of God inhabits or indwells our bodies. All humans are holy in the sense that they are icons or images of God. But we teach that Christians become temples of God in our bodies. I’ve always liked the way C.S. Lewis put it.

    “Next to the Blessed Sacrament itself, your neighbor is the holiest object presented to your senses.”

  • http://faithandfood.morizot.net/ Scott Morizot

    Deborah, Revelation 22 can’t be referring to what we would call “the Bible”. No such collected text existed at the time Revelation was written, nor would it exist in that form for some centuries to come. Clearly (at least to me and most Christians over the centuries) “this prophecy” is the prophecy referenced in Revelation 1:3 and “this book” is the book John is instructed to write in Revelation 1:11. In other words, the book and the prophecy are the Apocalypse itself. Any other reading is at best anachronistic and at worst incoherent. I’ll hardly claim to understand more than segments of the Apocalypse, but I’m not aware of anyone suggesting that we add to it or take away from it.

    Nobody disagrees with 2 Timothy 3:16, either, at least as far as I know. Once again, the Scriptures referenced in the text are the Old Testament and (given Timothy’s setting) almost certainly the Septuagint version of it. But I’ve never understood how one extrapolates ‘sola scriptura’ from the text. Certainly, the Holy Scriptures are infused with the Ruach of God and the Spirit speaks through them. And the Scriptures are useful in many ways. But nothing in that verse says that all we need are the Scriptures. Personally, I find 1 Timothy 3:15 a much stronger statement, when the Church is called the pillar and ground of the truth. But I generally find that often used practice of dueling scriptures a waste of time. I’m not sure much is ever gained from it.

  • http://faithandfood.morizot.net/ Scott Morizot

    Deborah, your question about prayer (to Mary or any who repose in Christ) drives to the heart of what prayer is or isn’t and how reality does or does not function in a Christian perspective. Is prayer a means of communion or not? Are we one with which each other as the Father and the Son are one or not? What are we doing when we pray as Christians? I think until you iron out those questions, it’s difficult to answer the one you asked.

    However, I certainly find the communion of the saints in Scripture. After all, the restoration of communion (with God and with each other) is a central point of the Incarnation. The NT certainly talks about it a lot. And the NT also tells us that Jesus broke open the gates of Hades (death), that he defeated death, that those of us in Christ will never taste death, will never see death.

    So if it is true that it is no longer the nature of man to die, that death has been defeated, and if it is true that our proper communion with God and with each other has been restored (even if we break it time and again, the communion itself is present and unending), then that necessarily means that we are in communion with all those who have believed and found their life hidden with Christ in God, whether or not their bodies presently sleep.

    And then, of course, we come back to the question of what we believe prayer to be.

    Interestingly, Scripture doesn’t actually talk very much about life after death. Personally I can only think of three places where it does. Jesus says in the upper room in John that he is going to prepare rooms for us in his father’s house. (The KJV, for instance, translates it mansion, but the Greek actually refers to temporary dwelling places, rooms in the inn, sort of.) Jesus tells the thief on the cross that the thief would be with Jesus in “paradise” that day. (Obviously Jesus didn’t stay there.) And Paul writes that to sleep in the body is to be with Christ, which is far better. Those are the only references I personally recall that refer to our immediate continuing life when we repose in our bodies in the present reality.

    Most of Scripture is focused on resurrection instead. I like N.T. Wright’s way of putting it as “life after life after death.” So I think there is a degree of mystery surrounding the present reality of the communion of the saints. But the presence of mystery makes it no less real and the total testimony of Scripture seems to me to attest to its reality.

    I also can’t imagine that when I repose in my body that I will be less concerned and less prayerful for those I have loved and will continue to love. If anything, I hope I will love better and pray more fully for and with them.

  • Deborah L

    Fr Mathis and Scott: I thank you gentlemen for your comments. I have a busy day ahead with my children, so won’t be able to comment in depth until they are asleep tonight. I am eager to continue this discussion as I have many more thoughts to contribute. Have a splendid day!

  • Fae

    Scott, I appreciate your comments. I think this discussion is a little intimidating. I wanted to respond earlier but it got a little bit busy for me. Now, I am doing it on my lunch break so I hope I am communication well. Everyone else seems to know a lot about very early church history and this subject of Mary.

    Anyway, I guess I just never thought about Mary’s role so much. I never thought about her ability to say “no”. That God chose Mary and that was God’s will so it was that way. Probably a very simplistic view. I have never heard about the explanation between Eve and Mary. That was quite interesting.

    When I was a child my mother and father always complained about the length of the service – especially if it ran over time. It was a totally new experience for me when I went to synagogue with my husband the very first time over the High Holy Days and services were all day. Anyway, I quit complaining when I realized that as a Christian I should want to be in worship services. By the way, maybe I should give some thought about trying to pray on my knees even though it hurts – because that is the point I think you were trying to make to me.

    I need to get back to work. I will give a little more time tonight – probably late to read all the posts.

  • http://faithandfood.morizot.net/ Scott Morizot

    Deborah, I’ve enjoyed the conversation myself. I hope your day is going well. I was reflecting on comments I had made on ‘sola scriptura’ and realized some clarification was in order.

    I don’t have much problem understanding historically what the Reformers meant in the sixteenth (and probably into the seventeenth) century by ‘scripture alone’. In essence, they were using that as a way of asserting the authority of their interpretation over against the interpretation of the late medieval Roman Catholic magisterium. Right, wrong, or indifferent, they definitely did not believe that everyone could interpret scripture as they saw fit. That’s clear from both their statements and actions.

    Europe was also a political mess at the time. The Reformation was not simply some spiritual or ecclesiastical thing. It was intertwined on all sides with the politics of nations and kings. In fact, it’s unclear what the Reformers would have done without their own state support, but those states definitely had their own reasons for their actions.

    So I understand it in that context.

    It’s when you move into the 19th and 20th centuries and people start treating the texts as though they had some inherent meaning or authority effectively independent from interpretation, trying to place authority in the text itself, reducing the role of the Spirit from giving life to the scriptures and in part exercising authority through them to merely revealing the truth that the scriptures apparently contain in their own right, that I begin to get really fuzzy about what people mean and the way they are viewing reality begins to become opaque to me.

    As the conversation shifts in that direction, words like ‘inerrant’ (which doesn’t even make sense to me the way it’s used) and ‘infallible’ (ditto) begin to enter the equation.

    I’m not convinced that the interpretation of the Reformers was an improvement even over that of the late medieval Roman Catholic church. And the Roman Catholic Church of that era and place had major problems. No doubt about that. In fact, I would say that John Calvin’s interpretation, at least, was much, much worse. But at least it’s reasonably clear what they were doing and asserting.

    Nowadays? Not so much …

  • http://faithandfood.morizot.net/ Scott Morizot

    Fae, I wasn’t suggesting that you try praying on your knees because it hurts. The point is never pain for the sake of pain, at least in a Christian perspective. The focus should always be Christ and others – whatever the practice or discipline.

    I was just pointing out that we tend to be a little quick to complain at minor discomfort or inconvenience. When you compare the brevity and relative comfort and safety of many of our modern American worship services to the experience of other Christians, from the ancient church practice I described to the plight, for example, of so many Christians under communism in the 20th century, well, we have it pretty easy.

    The experience of the modern Jewish worship during the High Holy Days is a good illustration. I think there are still similar parallels in at least Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism. Worship has generally been more serious than we tend to treat it today.

  • http://faithandfood.morizot.net/ Scott Morizot

    Oh, and Fae, I meant to say that I wasn’t specifically recommending or suggesting any particular practice or discipline or posture for you or anyone else. I would not presume, especially in a forum like this. Such decisions should involve a spiritual mother or father or adviser who knows you personally. In the absence of such a relationship, I would say it can only then be between you and the Spirit, perhaps in consultation with the teachings and practices of the church.

    But I don’t want anyone to run out and do anything on the basis of something I wrote. At most, I want to encourage people to dig deeper into our faith and ask better questions. Sometimes I’m just thinking through something myself as I type.

    But I have no insight on what is good or useful for anyone else’s salvation. I’m not even sure I can discern how to work out my own salvation in fear and trembling. I’m certainly not a guide for others, especially people who might just read something I write.

  • Fae

    Scott, I think you said it correctly when you stated that worship has generally been treated more serious in the past than it is today and it is easy to complain about these little inconveniences. Forgive me for implying that you were recommending a particular position to pray in. Sometimes, I am not very good about putting my thoughts down accurately. I think I was trying to say that I should not be so easily to give into my physical comfort when my focus and heart really should be on worshipping God. Thanks so much for your insight.

  • Fae

    Scott, I quickly noticed you have a webpage. T think I will check out some of what you have blogged about regarding this book.

  • Deborah L

    Father Mathis: Absolutely I first came to believe the Bible as the ultimate authority under my parents’ guidance. Isn’t this how all young children come to their first conclusions? I’m assuming that Catholic children begin to believe all the things they believe as a result of their parents’ teaching them. As an adult, I have made up my own mind about the Bible. I see you refuted my example from Revelation by saying that it referred to that one book alone. I guess we each have our own interpretation of this. I still think that 2 timothy 3:16 is an obvious one in claiming the authority of God’s Word. Can other teachings claim what is claimed in these verses? Are other teachings “God-breathed” and “profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness”? I think Proverbs 30:5-6 also provides backup for the idea of not adding to God’s Word.

    You stated that “hymns, sermons, devotional books, the lives of other Christians, etc. are also useful for refuting error and showing us the way to upright lives.” I’m not denying that these tools are helpful or useful BUT they need to be Bible-based to be authentic. They need to be checked against the authenticity of scripture. You cannot go by these “tools” alone.

    I think we are going to have to agree to disagree. :) I believe in the inerrancy and authority of the Bible alone. You do not. I think that is just how it is going to be. I’m sure we’ll have some more dialogue next week as we continue with the book!

    Scott: I went back to read your comments, and I’m finding it all a touch dizzying.:) I’ve been trying to keep track of what you have said and what I have said and I’m rapidly losing track. I appreciate your learned insights and do have some remarks, but I fear we will be taking over this blog. :) Seriously, though, I would like to reply to your comments, but it will have to be either tomorrow or the next day. I wish I had more time! (Don’t we all?) Now, off to bed.

  • http://www.blessedisthekingdom.com Fr Christian Mathis

    Deborah: We can certainly agree to disagree on this one! : ) It seems to me that we are closer in agreement than disagreement in many ways. May I suggest one particular verse in the Bible that seems to point to a non-written tradition? The verse is 2 Thessalonians 2:15. Would you be willing to share your thoughts?

  • deborah l

    Fr Mathis: I think you’re so right! We probably do agree on much more than is coming out in this dialogue. Please know that I respect you very much as a Christian brother. I’m by nature a non-argumentative person, so I’m sorta struggling with this. :) I do have to say, this conversation has made me want to know my Bible even more – and that can only be good, right? I will definitely look up the passage you suggested. Sorry, I don’t know it offhand. I am hosting my little daughter’s birthday party right away, so I won’t be able to comment until later tonight, but I’m very interested in seeing what that verse says. Thank you for your kindness in your posts.

  • http://faithandfood.morizot.net/ Scott Morizot

    Deborah, you asked questions and made comments that touched on deep subjects. I love that, and did what I could to treat each one seriously.

    I don’t know that I’m really “learned” when it comes to Christianity. It’s a twofold thing really. When it comes to faith and spirituality, I don’t really have a ‘default’ from my childhood formation. (Or rather, ‘no default’ is my default position.) That means I have to take any choice I make seriously. It’s a constant conscious choice not just at the beginning, but every day. That has always driven me to do my best to understand anything spiritually I’ve ever chosen to practice. Even the option to believe nothing is one I had to consider on equal footing.

    And then I’m also insatiably curious. For good or ill. ;)

  • Deborah L

    Fr Mathis: I looked up Thessalonians 2:15. Hmmm. I don’t really see any evidence of anything else having been used as “teachings passed on by word of mouth or by letter” other than what was recorded in scripture. Couldn’t the inspired Word have been taught by “word of mouth” before it was recorded in the epistles? I think if this verse was referring to “other traditions” outside of recorded scripture, it would be dreadfully obscure. Why would there be sudden reference to traditions outside of the Bible? That’s my idea, anyway. I was also thinking about how Jesus quoted scripture – I don’t see evidence of Him having quoted from other sources. I’m horrible at articulating, so I hope you see what I’m trying to say, even if you don’t agree with it. I’d like to hear your thoughts on this verse. Oh, and what did you think of Proverbs 30:5-6? (And please do not think I am calling you or anyone else a liar – I just wanted to hear what you think these verses are saying.) Thanks!

  • http://faithandfood.morizot.net/ Scott Morizot

    Deborah, part of the problem is that we’re from a literate culture rather than a oral culture. The people in an oral culture did not necessarily not know how to read and write. Very often they did. However, things said were trusted over things written. You knew who was saying it. And they could tell you from whom they received it. With a written text, you didn’t know if it was really from whom it said it was from or if it had been altered. Basically, it’s almost the opposite of the default position in our modern literate culture where we tend to trust a text or other documentation over what people say.

    2 John 12 actually illustrates that well. The verse Fr. Mathis referenced is not actually the only such reference, it’s just one of the clearer ones.

    Other than the Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, and the Apocalypse, the NT texts exist largely because the one writing them could not be present with the recipients. Most of the teaching occurred in person and that is what Paul is referencing. Much of Christian practice is simply missing from the NT because it was “handed over” (traditioned) orally.

    For example, there is no detailed description of Christian worship in scripture. Yet we know it was traditioned orally because we do find it in surviving first and second centuries texts from those the apostles taught or who were taught by the disciples of the apostles. (And we’ve lost a lot of that record as a result of the various waves of Roman persecution, especially Diocletian’s. They didn’t just kill Christians. They burned their texts everywhere they could find them.)

    That’s also why most of the epistles we have are from Paul, rather than from all of the apostles. As the one on the vanguard of the mission to the gentiles, he established churches across what was then a huge arc. When problems arose he could not always be there to resolve them — sometimes because he was a prisoner. (Even his letter to Rome seems to have been written to stabilize a budding controversy before the fact in order to have a solid base for his planned mission to Spain.)

    Yet if you read Paul’s letters, you see he usually talks about who is carrying the letter. That’s significant. The person carrying the letter in an oral culture was at least as important as the letter itself. That was the person who could vouch for its origin. It was also the person who could read and deliver the text as the writer intended. (Ancient texts did not have mixed case, punctuation, or spaces between the words. Think about that.)

    So much of what was traditioned to the Church by the apostles (and not just the Twelve + Paul, but all the apostles) was never written down by them. It would never have occurred to them that it needed to be written down.

    Nothing in the text of scripture says or even implies that scripture alone has authority. And there are texts that actually say or imply something different. But even more than that, placing all the emphasis on scripture and excluding oral tradition is utterly anachronistic. There is absolutely no way the apostles thought that way or that anyone in the first centuries of the church ever thought that way. It’s an example of reading the assumptions of a literate culture into the text of scripture.

    As far as Proverbs 30 goes, from a historical perspective I note that’s an oral tradition that Solomon (or someone) finally record and added to the wisdom literature of Israel. It’s saying don’t add to what God has instructed — orally. Again, not a literate culture, but an oral culture.

    However, Christians have traditionally interpreted the OT through the lens of Christ. And though I haven’t looked up anything from patristic literature on that proverb, I immediately note that verse 4 directly references Son and so, keeping John 1 in mind, my first inclination is to interpret “word” as a foreshadowing of Jesus and the subsequent “he” in that verse to be referring back to the “word of God”. I could be wrong, but one thing I do know. Very rarely, if ever, does “word” in our Holy Scriptures refer to a written text, even if a written text might capture some of that “speech act” of God. From a Christological perspective, whatever else we might read from a text, if we read “word” and do not think of Jesus first, we are probably not on the right track.

  • anonymous

    Interesting…waiting for someone to address the matter of Jesus’ brothers. The bible doesn’t say ‘stepbrothers’. Also, I see no biblical examples of people praying to those deceased from earthly life, nor any instructions to do so, though the O.T. does make a definite statement against seeking the spirits of those who have ‘gone on.’ I agree with the earlier commenter that tradition and years of practice do not in and of themselves constitute validity, else egalitarianism would be dead in the water (from a majority tradition standpoint).

    While I value many insights of mystical writers from Catholic or Orthodox faiths, I have no desire to add the trappings of icon usage, prayers to those bodily absent from this earth (‘dead’), requisite recitation of many prayers, etc., to my own practices. I found it interesting that in the book, He Leadeth Me, the Catholic who wrote it said that while in Soviet prison, the older priests-also imprisoned- had a more difficult time without the icons/elements because they were so acclimated to the usage of such. That seems to me to indicate the use of icons/elements can definitely be a hindering crutch rather than a help. I think, as well, that Protestant practices contain similar ‘crutches’ or ceremonial tools/practices/traditions of their own.

    I do not need my wedding ring, nor letters saved, photos, mementos, etc. of my husband to facilitate my communication and relationship with him. They may at times create a small tug on my emotions, but generally not an overwhelmingly guiding influence. I also very much appreciate when he can express-in writing or speech-his own feelings and thoughts to me and not have to rely upon the words of others written in cards, etc., though those can be touching at times. Likewise, written prayers may have helpful applications but I wouldn’t want to have to depend upon them in a large scale way.

    While I am definitely not enamored of all things Protestant, I am likewise not seeing a reason to gravitate towards Catholicism, Anglicanism, etc., either. These discussions are very eye-opening and certainly thought-provoking. I am aware, of course, that no one is proselytizing here. Thank you, Elizabeth, for hosting this discussion.

  • http://faithandfood.morizot.net/ Scott Morizot

    anonymous, “stepbrother” is a modern term. That’s why you don’t see it in Scripture. The way we consider household, family, and relationships just doesn’t correlate to our modern experience and language and when you try to either find our modern usage in the ancient text or read modern terms and thoughts into it, you’re going to either be frustrated or come up with highly anachronistic readings.

    The traditional exegesis of those verses and the relationships involved (the earliest of which, remember, were recorded in the second century when people who had known and been taught by people who had known an apostle or even James, Bishop of Jerusalem and brother of our Lord) makes perfect historical sense in the cultural setting. That’s *why* everyone at the time accepted it. It seems to me that the burden of proof really falls on those who, in the last couple of hundred years, have come up with the innovative interpretation you cite. And I’ve looked. There isn’t a shred of actual historical evidence to support such a dramatic shift in interpretation. It’s an innovation that seems to have been pulled out of thin air simply because people didn’t like the traditional interpretation and for no other reason I can discern.

    Actually, you do have one example of prayers for the dead in the NT text. That’s in 2 Timothy, when Paul prays that Onesiphorus find the Lord’s mercy on that day (the day of the Resurrection). If 1:16-18 weren’t clear enough, the difference in the direct address to Prisca and Aquila versus the house of Onesiphorus in 4:19 makes it pretty clear that Onesiphorus has reposed by the time Paul wrote that letter.

    Prayers for the dead are also referenced in the Maccabees in the OT. Of course, that gets into canonical issues because Protestants actually use the wrong (from a Christian perspective) OT canon. In their efforts to get back to “original” texts rather than the Latin Vulgate (not really a bad decision, all in all) the Reformers looked to the Greek NT. However, for the “original” OT, they selected the Jewish Masoretic canon rather than the Greek Septuagint (not that there’s a single version of the Septuagint, but the variations aren’t too major). The problem is that the Greek Septuagint is actually considerably older than the Masoretic canon. (Lots of history there.) Moreover, in almost every place where there is a difference between the Septuagint and Masoretic texts as quoted in the NT, the NT quotes the Septuagint version. So if you want more actually texts beyond the overarching framework of the entire NT narrative that I described, get the Scriptures the Apostles used, rather than the OT canon that began to be put together in the second century as rabbinic Judaism was being established as its new form following the destruction of the temple (and according to Christian apologists at the time, which was being changed to weaken prophecies that were fulfilled in Christ).

    I will also note that Christianity also condemns the sort of spirit communication through mediums or invocation or other practices that are condemned in the OT. If you believe that’s what the Christian doctrine of the Communion of the Saints is, then there isn’t much I can say, really. Except that you have profoundly misunderstood it.

    I don’t personally venerate icons myself, though I don’t have any aversion to the idea either. It’s just not part of my present practice. But I am not an iconoclast. Your comments were not the sort of negative ones I have often heard in my evangelical setting. But it is not a “trapping” and we need to be careful how we speak. Iconoclasm was ultimately condemned in the seventh ecumenical council because at its core it is a denial of the Incarnation. I take that council as seriously as I take the other six councils. Its logic and theology about Christ flow directly from the previous ones. If you believe the earlier councils, then the conclusions of the seventh need to be read carefully as well.

    Since the only church I’ve ever really belonged to is an evangelical one, I could hardly “proselytize” anyone (though that doesn’t feel like the right word to me in any discussion between Christians). I’m mostly just sharing some of my personal thoughts, discoveries, and conclusions.

    Connecting written prayers (or prayers in general) to emotions or feelings strike me to some degree as flowing from a different understanding about the purpose and meaning of prayer than the traditional (and I would argue scriptural) Christian meaning of prayer. Maybe that’s part of the communication problem? Maybe people have widely varying concepts of the purpose and meaning of Christian prayer? If so, that would explain why we so often seem to talk past each other today. Hmmm. Something for me to think about anyway.

  • mary ann

    I think initially the reformers wanted to purify the church,although,I know there were political motivations as well.Indulgences and Mary worship come to mind;also the subject of justification by His grace alone and not by works so noone can boast.It would have been nice if the hierarchy at the time would have listened to some of the grievances brought to them by the reformers.People were doing all kinds of things to try to earn their salvation and there was much corruption and superstious behaviors.Yes,you do have to look at how things have happened historically and put them into context.So, think how much nicer it could have been for the Christian church had both groups been able to reconcile instead of breaking communion.There is plenty of blame to go around on both sides.

  • mary ann

    I would also like to add that ritualism and sacramentalism can hinder one’s santification by giving him or her a false sense of self righteousness.

  • mary ann

    I’m sorry,
    I also think that the Protestant way of thinking that if you live a certain way,(cross all your t’s and dot your I’s) is trying to earn salvation and can be works based.It really takes knowing someone to know the difference.

  • http://www.minthegap.com MInTheGap

    When it comes to symbolism, it’s a weird question– because there are clearly some passages of Scripture which state that we shouldn’t have images of God– but what do we do with movies and paintings that help us think through what happened because we’re such a visual people?

    I think you strike the appropriate balance when you say that as long as the image isn’t worshiped, and it points us to understanding God better.

    As far as Mary, I have no trouble saying that she was very blessed. Abraham was very blessed to be the father of many nations, David was very blessed to be king and to be the father of the line that would bring the Messiah. Mary was highly favored in that God would stoop Himself to be born of her.

    She is made special by who she bore, not because she was anything more special than any other sinner. To me, I see nothing to suggest in the Scripture that Mary had any qualities (other than her pre-marriage virginity and coming from the line of David that didn’t go through the cursed Jehoichin) that would allow her to boast in and of herself. She would be recognized as being blessed because she was chosen– because of who did the choosing.

    To me, the problem comes into play when Mary becomes practically deified. When religions start bestowing on her attributes of her own rather than allowing her blessing for what He did, then it’s a grey area bordering on apostasy.

    Also, please take this the right way, you need to be more careful with your general statements where you paint whole movements with a broad brush. You paint all of evangelicalism and fundamentalism with a negative brush because of your experience with a specific church or group of churches. (From what I’ve read, they were overboard and need to be criticized.) But you also paint those that would be totally opposite those points of view in the most sympathetic and glowing comments.

    Such as your statement that “Catholics don’t worship Mary.” I would argue that in many ways they do– as in, anyone that would pray to Mary would be worshiping her as an avenue to getting prayers to Jesus, etc. It may be your experience that the Catholics in the church you visit/attend do not, but that does not mean the group as a whole or their doctrines agree with your representation.

    Please be careful with the broad brush, towards both people. After all, they also are on Spiritual Journeys just like yourself. Don’t give people the opportunity to judge you for such small things!