This past Sunday I caught a glimpse of something that I had not seen or experienced for years. It was like running into an old friend who I never imagined I could live without before we grew apart. The old friend I ran into this past Sunday is named "Sunday The Way It Used To Be." After a wonderful worship service and a spectacular congregational meal, the family and I went home to the manse, played with the dog in the backyard, then went inside just to hang out together as a family. It was obvious that Josselyn was tired so she went down for a nap. As we put her down in her bed we noticed our two cats were crashed out in our bedroom. Then Danielle, Wyatt, the dog, and I went into the living room, putting on one of Wyatt's favorite DVDs. Within minutes every single living creature in our house was snoring--Josselyn in her bed, the cats in our bed, the dog, Wyatt, and I on the living room floor, and Danielle on the couch. When I woke up just after 4 pm I looked up at Danielle and asked, "Did that really just happen?" It was like the stars had aligned perfectly to bring about such an historical event: a family-wide nap! It also reintroduced me to my old friend "Sunday the Way It Used to Be." Hello, old friend, I've missed you more than I'd realized.
This past Sunday reminded me of Sunday afternoons when I was a kid when we did absolutely nothing. After we returned home from worship at Yeaman's Park Presbyterian Church, my dad would fall asleep watching Nascar, my step-mom might do some cross stitching, and my siblings and I would read, watch tv, play basketball, or go fishing. I didn't grow up in 1950's Mayberry, by the way. We're talking about late 1980's and early 1990's suburbia. When I ended up living with my best friend's family during my senior year in high school, we always went over to his grandparents' house for Sunday dinner, then crashed on their couches for naps followed by a little bit of basketball on the driveway, then youth group that evening. Sometimes we thought it was boring. Looking back on it, it seems simply divine.
For many of us, "Sunday the Way It Used To Be" is a friend that moved away a long time ago. In fact, it is a friend that we don't even think about anymore or consider what we've lost in it's absence. When I hear people talk about it, especially parents of kids and teens, they always seem to act like the loss of Sunday sabbath time is something that has been forced on them from the outside. "Stores didn't used to be open when I was a kid. Now all the sales are on Sundays. The sports leagues, dance teachers, and even the schools have taken over Sunday. I hate it, but there's nothing we can do." In response to this very typical form of belly-aching, my response is a phrase I remember my best friend's mom, Donna, saying. "That's a bunch of bunk!" Just because stores are open, nobody is forcing me to go shopping. Just because there are sports and dance and piano lessons, etc. being offered on Sundays doesn't mean I have to participate in them. Society has changed, no doubt, but my issue isn't with society as a whole. I don't expect society as a whole to treat Sunday any differently. I do, however, expect Christians to treat Sunday differently.
I don't want us to go back to legalism or legislation. All you have to do is read the gospels to see that legalism is the enemy of true faithfulness. A friend told me once that his father, a Presbyterian minister in the 1940's and 1950's, used to garden on Sundays wearing a short sleeve dress shirt and a tie. When my friend, then a little boy, inquired as to how that was not breaking the Sabbath, his father informed him that anything you could do in a shirt and tie was allowed on Sundays. That's just silly and sounds a lot more like a follower of the Pharisees than a follower of Jesus. I also have no urge to return to the blue laws that forced businesses to be closed on Sunday. Contrary to a lot of folks on both sides of the aisle, I don't think legislation is the best solution to all our problems. It isn't fair for everyone in our free and diverse society to have to live by Christian rules. So niether a church imposed legalism nor government imposed legislation is the answer. The answer lies in the personal priorities of families, especially parents, and each individual Christian.
I was stuck in the waiting room at the doctor the other day where about ten of us sniffling and coughing folks sat together and watched the Dr. Phil show on the lobby television. Although I don't typically watch the show, I do have to admit that I kind of like Dr. Phil's no nonsense, no excuses approach. This particular episode involved a mother and her grown son who were constantly at each other's throats. The young man kept blaming everything on his mother, much of which seemed to be true. Finally, however, good ol Dr. Phil in his Texas accent said to the man, "You need to quit blaming her for everything. You can't control her. You can only control you." Then came the line I really liked. "You need to take a good look at yourself and clean your own house!" I liked that. And I think that's what we Christians need to be encouraged to do in regard to how we treat The Lord's Day, which is the early Christian word for Sunday. We need to quit worrying about what the store owners, football leagues, dance teachers, and band directors are telling us we are supposed to do. We need to clean our own house.
The very first Christians were all Jews, so they observed the Sabbath on Saturday. However, very early on it appears, after observing the Sabbath on Saturday, these Jewish Christians started waking up early on Sundays to worship God in Jesus Christ and to share the Lord's Supper on a weekly basis. Then, more than likely, they would go to work. But over time fewer and fewer Christians were Jews and the vast majority were Gentiles (non-Jews). Unlike their Jewish and Jewish Christian neighbors, Gentile Christians had never observed Sabbath. Sabbath was, and is still in some ways, a very uniquely Jewish idea. But over time these Gentile Christians, as they studied the Scriptures, started to notice that over and over again God commands God's chosen people to observe the Sabbath. It's one of the 10 Commandments even. So the early Gentile Christians started to think, "Hey, we are now included in the people of God and God has always commanded the people of God to observe Sabbath. Maybe there's something to that. We already wake up early and worship on Sunday, so let's try extending that out into the whole day." So eventually Sunday, or the Lord's Day, came to be considered the Christian Sabbath. Jews still and always will observe Sabbath on Saturday. Seventh Day Adventist Christians also worship and rest on Saturdays. But the vast majority of Christians have come to associate Sunday with Sabbath.
Over the centuries the Sunday Sabbath fell victim to that terrible human tendency of legalism. The Puritans took it to a new level. There were all sorts of rules for what could be done and not done on the Sabbath, even though Jesus repeatedly spoke negatively about such rules when they were made by the Pharisees. There were also all sorts of punishments for what would happen to you if you broke the Sabbath. Then eventually a country called the USA was formed that had a pretty solid Puritan pedigree and blue laws were passed to regulate commerce on the Lord's Day. But all that is gone now, the Church imposed legalism and the government imposed legislation. And I, for one, am happy that it is gone. But now I am responsible for myself and for my family. Shouldn't it be more important anyway that God's Word says I need Sabbath than what anyone else says? God says I need to rest and worship one day a week. Who knows better, me or God? I am often a "Sabbath breaker" but that is no one's fault but my own. I have to clean my own house.
Some people just plain have to work on Sunday. I get that and I don't fault anybody for having to work on Sunday. That's just life, and that's not what I'm talking about. Please, by all means, go to work on Sunday and provide for your family if Sunday work is a required part of your job. But if you have to work on Sunday I would encourage you to rest and worship (in some way) on another day of the week.
Because I am from Oklahoma, I must mention a country song at this point although I promise that this one wasn't made famous by Johnny Paycheck who apparently is from Greenfield and commited a heinous crime. How was I supposed to know? Anyway, contemporary country music both exhibits and capitalizes upon the fact that many Americans long nostalgically for a simpler way of life that has been lost. Part of that longing that I've noticed in country songs is for a lost Sunday Sabbath. In the Rascal Flatts song, aptly titled "Mayberry," they sing:
Sunday was the day of rest
Now its one more day for progress
And we can't slow down
Cause more is best
It's all an endless process
My favorite country song about Sunday, however, is called "That's What I Love about Sundays" by Craig Morgan. Here's the chorus:
That's what I love about Sunday:
Sing along as the choir sways;
Every verse of Amazin' Grace,
An' then we shake the Preacher's hand.
Go home, into your blue jeans;
Have some chicken an' some baked beans.
Pick a back yard football team,
Not do much of anything:
That's what I love about Sunday.
Here you can watch the music video and listen to the entire song. It's a good one.
In conclusion, the church will no longer excommunicate me for not observing Sunday Sabbath. The state will not arrest me for going shopping on Sunday. I'm pretty sure God will not smite me for not resting on Sunday. I am free to make my own choices regarding how I observe Sundays. But in making my decision I need to remember that God knows I need rest because God made me that way. So even though nobody is forcing me to observe Sunday Sabbath and pretty much every force in our culture is pulling me away from observing Sunday Sabbath, I need to ask myself if what I am gaining from treating Sunday like every other day is worth what is being lost. So you might consider, if you've lost contact with your old friend, reintroducing yourself. "Hello, Sunday The Way It Used to Be." It's so great to see you again!"
Monday, February 27, 2012
Thursday, February 23, 2012
"Lent Is Not New Year's Resolutions Part Two"
Note: if you were not able to make it to Ash Wednesday worship then it would probably be helpful to you to listen to the sermon from that service on the church website before you read this blog.
Ash Wednesday is a different experience for me as a pastor than any other day of the year. It is quite strange to have people line up to take their turn having me tell them that they are going to die. I said, “From dust you have come and to dust you shall return” to sixty-one people last night as I marked the sign of the cross in ashes on their foreheads. As I mentioned before, that’s basically me telling each person, “You’re going to die and that’s the way it is.” Many people even said, “Thank you.” Strange day, indeed.
It is a strange day that makes us come to grips with something that is absolutely foundational in Christian belief and practice: we are sinners through and through and the grave awaits us all. Because we are sinners we need God now. Because we all have an expiration date, we need God eternally. God has reached out to us in both our present and eternal predicaments through Jesus Christ. So this is how we kick off the season we call Lent: we get real about who we are and how badly we need God. If we are unwilling to begin there and to hold onto that throughout the season of Lent then we are wasting our time with Lent. After all, Lent is not really about giving up some little treats we enjoy or something we shouldn’t be doing anyway. As I read in an article this week, “Lent is not New Year’s resolutions part two.” Lent is about growing closer to God in Jesus Christ. So I offer this blog as an encouragement and to give some practical suggestions for Lent that you can, of course, take or leave.
Firstly, just a reminder that Lent is 40 days because in the Scriptures “40” is a number that signifies a time of testing and reflection: Noah is on the ark for 40 days and 40 nights, the Israelites are in the wilderness for 40 years, and most importantly Jesus spends 40 days in the desert being tempted by Satan. After those periods of “40,” Noah, his family, and the animals rejoice because of the dry land and rainbow, the Israelites enter the land of “milk and honey,” and Jesus returns to civilization to begin his ministry, proclaiming, “The time has come, the Kingdom of God has come near. Repent and believe the good news.” The periods of testing, the periods of “40,” don’t last forever, thankfully, but they do help refine us and make the “return” from the wilderness that much more powerful. So fairly early on, the church invented our own "period of 40" that we can observe each year to prepare for the sheer magnitude of God's love on the cross and the celebration of Easter Sunday.
In the spirit of "40," I encourage you to please take five minutes to watch the following video, making sure that your volume is on. It is a powerful “digital story” about Jesus’ 40 days in the desert. Perhaps it will help draw you closer to God in Jesus Christ, which is not only the goal of Lent, but the goal of Life.
Often I have been asked, “What are you giving up for Lent?” Depending on who is asking and whether or not I think they’ll be offended, my answer is sometimes, “That’s none of your business.” Suggestion number one: Don’t ask other people what they gave up for Lent. Suggestion number two: Don’t go out of your way to talk about what you gave up. If you choose to fast from something during Lent, then like all religious fasts that should be kept between you and God if at all possible. It is so tempting for us to find an excuse to mention what we are doing for God. Jesus talks again and again in the gospels about doing our acts of righteousness not to be seen by others, but to grow closer to God. This holds true with Lenten disciplines as it does with anything. Suggestion three: if you give something up then save up the money that you would have spent on that item each day and give that money to the poor. If you give up your daily Tim Horton’s latte to help remind you each morning of your reliance upon God, then put $3.00 every day in a jar and on Good Friday give that money away to a reputable organization that helps the poor or to a family you know who is in need.
Here’s suggestion number four: consider taking something on instead of giving something up. The rest of this blog will be dedicated to this suggestion. Perhaps, take on a daily prayer time or a daily Scripture reading plan. The point of Lent is to grow closer to God in Jesus Christ. Prayer and Scripture reading will facilitate that much more than giving up chocolate (a little won’t hurt anyway) or celebrity gossip (I’d encourage you to give that up permanently for obvious reasons). Catholic nun and author Joan Chittister writes, “[Ash Wednesday and Lent are] about opening our hearts one more time to the Word of God in the hope that, this time, hearing it anew, we might allow ourselves to become new as a result of it.” Giving up Dr. Pepper may not be the best way to go about hearing the Word of God anew.
If you are a parent of small children pick up one of the “Jesus in Jerusalem: A Daily Sticker Activity for Lent”
packets in the front lobby, but make sure you pick it up this Sunday as the daily readings and stickers started on Ash Wednesday so you don’t want to start out too far behind. Wyatt and I did the Advent version this past December and it provided a wonderful opportunity for us to read Scripture together and learn the story together. He loved the stickers and couldn’t wait each day for us to do it.
Another idea is to download an app to your smartphone such as the Church of England's “Reflections for Lent.” It has a one-time cost of $1.99 and provides a scripture reading and devotion each day of Lent (excluding Sundays) right there on your phone. This is a 21st Century way of doing it and may make more sense for some of us. Another option to find a Bible reading plan for Lent is to look at the three options offered at Bible Gateway. I am always on the look out for ways that we can bring the Scriptures and spiritual disciplines into our technologically connected lives.
I know that I have flooded you with options. You may prefer something totally different or you may think Lent is a bunch of bunk, which that is fine too. My goal as your pastor is to provide opportunities for you to grow closer to God in Jesus Christ and I am excited that this blog is allowing that to happen in a new way. Ultimately the life of faith is about the condition of our hearts in relation to God and others. As St. Augustine once said, "Love God and do what you want." That may seem too easy, but as Gary Wills writes, “The inner religion is not less demanding of the worshiper, but more demanding. It calls for a radical cleansing of the heart not to be achieved by externals.” If we truly love God then everything we want to do will glorify God and serve others in Jesus' name. If Lent helps the condition of your heart then observe it in a way that makes sense for you and whatever you do don't look down on Christians who do not observe it. If it doesn't help, then by all means don't do it, but please don't look down on Christians who do observe it.
Regardless, we are all on a journey toward Jerusalem together, toward a cross on Calvary, and ultimately toward an empty tomb in the garden.
Peace be with you all.
Ash Wednesday is a different experience for me as a pastor than any other day of the year. It is quite strange to have people line up to take their turn having me tell them that they are going to die. I said, “From dust you have come and to dust you shall return” to sixty-one people last night as I marked the sign of the cross in ashes on their foreheads. As I mentioned before, that’s basically me telling each person, “You’re going to die and that’s the way it is.” Many people even said, “Thank you.” Strange day, indeed.
It is a strange day that makes us come to grips with something that is absolutely foundational in Christian belief and practice: we are sinners through and through and the grave awaits us all. Because we are sinners we need God now. Because we all have an expiration date, we need God eternally. God has reached out to us in both our present and eternal predicaments through Jesus Christ. So this is how we kick off the season we call Lent: we get real about who we are and how badly we need God. If we are unwilling to begin there and to hold onto that throughout the season of Lent then we are wasting our time with Lent. After all, Lent is not really about giving up some little treats we enjoy or something we shouldn’t be doing anyway. As I read in an article this week, “Lent is not New Year’s resolutions part two.” Lent is about growing closer to God in Jesus Christ. So I offer this blog as an encouragement and to give some practical suggestions for Lent that you can, of course, take or leave.
Firstly, just a reminder that Lent is 40 days because in the Scriptures “40” is a number that signifies a time of testing and reflection: Noah is on the ark for 40 days and 40 nights, the Israelites are in the wilderness for 40 years, and most importantly Jesus spends 40 days in the desert being tempted by Satan. After those periods of “40,” Noah, his family, and the animals rejoice because of the dry land and rainbow, the Israelites enter the land of “milk and honey,” and Jesus returns to civilization to begin his ministry, proclaiming, “The time has come, the Kingdom of God has come near. Repent and believe the good news.” The periods of testing, the periods of “40,” don’t last forever, thankfully, but they do help refine us and make the “return” from the wilderness that much more powerful. So fairly early on, the church invented our own "period of 40" that we can observe each year to prepare for the sheer magnitude of God's love on the cross and the celebration of Easter Sunday.
In the spirit of "40," I encourage you to please take five minutes to watch the following video, making sure that your volume is on. It is a powerful “digital story” about Jesus’ 40 days in the desert. Perhaps it will help draw you closer to God in Jesus Christ, which is not only the goal of Lent, but the goal of Life.
Often I have been asked, “What are you giving up for Lent?” Depending on who is asking and whether or not I think they’ll be offended, my answer is sometimes, “That’s none of your business.” Suggestion number one: Don’t ask other people what they gave up for Lent. Suggestion number two: Don’t go out of your way to talk about what you gave up. If you choose to fast from something during Lent, then like all religious fasts that should be kept between you and God if at all possible. It is so tempting for us to find an excuse to mention what we are doing for God. Jesus talks again and again in the gospels about doing our acts of righteousness not to be seen by others, but to grow closer to God. This holds true with Lenten disciplines as it does with anything. Suggestion three: if you give something up then save up the money that you would have spent on that item each day and give that money to the poor. If you give up your daily Tim Horton’s latte to help remind you each morning of your reliance upon God, then put $3.00 every day in a jar and on Good Friday give that money away to a reputable organization that helps the poor or to a family you know who is in need.
Here’s suggestion number four: consider taking something on instead of giving something up. The rest of this blog will be dedicated to this suggestion. Perhaps, take on a daily prayer time or a daily Scripture reading plan. The point of Lent is to grow closer to God in Jesus Christ. Prayer and Scripture reading will facilitate that much more than giving up chocolate (a little won’t hurt anyway) or celebrity gossip (I’d encourage you to give that up permanently for obvious reasons). Catholic nun and author Joan Chittister writes, “[Ash Wednesday and Lent are] about opening our hearts one more time to the Word of God in the hope that, this time, hearing it anew, we might allow ourselves to become new as a result of it.” Giving up Dr. Pepper may not be the best way to go about hearing the Word of God anew.
If you are a parent of small children pick up one of the “Jesus in Jerusalem: A Daily Sticker Activity for Lent”
packets in the front lobby, but make sure you pick it up this Sunday as the daily readings and stickers started on Ash Wednesday so you don’t want to start out too far behind. Wyatt and I did the Advent version this past December and it provided a wonderful opportunity for us to read Scripture together and learn the story together. He loved the stickers and couldn’t wait each day for us to do it. 
Another idea is to download an app to your smartphone such as the Church of England's “Reflections for Lent.” It has a one-time cost of $1.99 and provides a scripture reading and devotion each day of Lent (excluding Sundays) right there on your phone. This is a 21st Century way of doing it and may make more sense for some of us. Another option to find a Bible reading plan for Lent is to look at the three options offered at Bible Gateway. I am always on the look out for ways that we can bring the Scriptures and spiritual disciplines into our technologically connected lives.I know that I have flooded you with options. You may prefer something totally different or you may think Lent is a bunch of bunk, which that is fine too. My goal as your pastor is to provide opportunities for you to grow closer to God in Jesus Christ and I am excited that this blog is allowing that to happen in a new way. Ultimately the life of faith is about the condition of our hearts in relation to God and others. As St. Augustine once said, "Love God and do what you want." That may seem too easy, but as Gary Wills writes, “The inner religion is not less demanding of the worshiper, but more demanding. It calls for a radical cleansing of the heart not to be achieved by externals.” If we truly love God then everything we want to do will glorify God and serve others in Jesus' name. If Lent helps the condition of your heart then observe it in a way that makes sense for you and whatever you do don't look down on Christians who do not observe it. If it doesn't help, then by all means don't do it, but please don't look down on Christians who do observe it.
Regardless, we are all on a journey toward Jerusalem together, toward a cross on Calvary, and ultimately toward an empty tomb in the garden.
Peace be with you all.
Tuesday, February 14, 2012
All Dogs Go to Heaven (Or Do They?)
As I type this entry, next to me on a shelf there is a beautiful portrait that was painted by a friend of ours while we lived in Austin, Texas. It is a portrait of our dog Luke when he was young. Luke died on December 31 of this past year, on our third full day here in Washington Court House. He was a terrier mix who was approximately 13-14 years old. We'd had him for 7 of those years after we took him in as a stray while in Austin. He wasn't the easiest dog to get along with and we had to keep him away from the kids sometimes and always away from guests, but we loved him nonetheless. But he got old, lost his hearing, was losing his vision, and was starting to have bladder problems. I should have put him down in Oklahoma but I couldn't bring myself to do it. "He'll do just fine" I kept saying. Three days into living here I knew I had done the wrong thing.
It wasn't the best way to meet the folks at Fayette Veterinary Hospital, tears rolling down my face. They were extremely sympathetic and comforting. "You're doing the right thing," they assured me again and again as I struggled to keep it together without any luck. They offered to take care of it but I wouldn't leave Luke. I'm not sure if I wanted to comfort Luke or punish myself. Anyway, I forced myself to be with him as they put him to sleep. "Take as much time as you want," they said. When the doctors left I stood and petted him for the last time. I didn't want the kids to be upset by my emotions so before I went home I walked around the reservoir near the YMCA in the midst of a cold drizzle to pull myself together. "Good grief, man," I kept telling myself. "It's just a dog. Get over it." But it wasn't just a dog. It was my dog, and seven weeks later I still get a bit emotional about putting my dog to sleep.
Within a day or two the nice folks at Fayette Veterinary Hospital sent me a pet-specific sympathy card with a poem enclosed called "The Rainbow Bridge." Also, during that time I pulled from my shelf a novel that had been given to us by Danielle's Aunt. It was called The Art of Racing in the Rain. I had no idea what it was about but I wanted something to read to take my mind off of the stress of the move and the loss of my dog. It turns out the novel is not only about a dog, but is, in fact, narrated by a dog! And a dog who is about to go to the vet to be put down and is reviewing his life. What are the chances? He puts his hope in the Mongolian belief that a dog, if "ready," can be reincarnated as a man. It may sound like a strange or silly book but it was one of the most powerful and moving books I've ever read. More than anything it is the story of a family that encounters terrible tragedy and conflict. It is a book that will make you look into a dog's eyes and wonder if there is more going on behind them than we will ever know. Also, interestingly enough, just a couple of days later, with no knowledge of me having to put my dog down, someone asked me over a cup of coffee at Tim Horton's, "This may sound silly, but do you think dogs go to heaven?"
This question makes sense in our current cultural context in which dogs are not generally seen as pests as they have been in some cultures but as companions. In many ways dogs are not even seen as pets anymore. They are seen as members of the family. Dog owners or masters are now dog parents. Granted, loving a dog (or other domesticated animal) is nothing new, but I cannot help but think that our relationships with our dogs have changed in recent years. As humans we are wired to ask the big questions. So if we love a dog, and that dog dies, what happens? Whatever we love, we cannot bear to think of it as being anything other than eternal. What is a Christian to believe?
Firstly, I want to be clear that while "the Rainbow Bridge" is a moving poem it has absolutely no basis in Scripture and since Scripture is our authority on matters of eternal life the poem should be seen as nothing more than what it is: a poem. It's a good one, though, maybe not technically or critically but it is a tear jerker. It speaks of fields where companion animals play after death. However, they are always aware that something is missing. When their human companion dies they are reunited in the field then the animal walks with the person over "the rainbow bridge" into heaven. In other words, heaven is for people but the animals those particular people loved get to go in with them. That sounds very nice as long as we remember that it is merely an idea presented by somebody in a poem that has become popular as we grow more attached to our pets. Part of the reason, I believe, for the popularity of the poem even among Christians is that as Christians we don't really have any way to address the death of our beloved animals that is satisfying to us.
While our Scriptures are absolutely clear that humanity is unique and above the rest of creation, being the only creatures that are made "in the image of God," the scriptures do, however, also testify that God had a place for animals in His creation even before humanity and that animals have been prophecied to be present in the eventual redemption of creation (the lion lays down with the lamb, etc.). As to whether or not those animals will specifically include our beloved pets that have died is anyone's guess. The traditional Christian belief is that humanity has been uniquely gifted by God with an eternal nature and therefore, animals, when they die, simply cease to exist. But, once again, our relationship to some animals has changed over time. For those of us who have stared into a dog's eyes and had chills go down our back when we get the feeling that there is something more in those eyes than just "a part of nature," this traditional belief is hard to swallow.
The brilliant Christian author C.S. Lewis took a stab at this question 60 years ago or so in his book The Problem of Pain. His idea, which I had read years earlier and immediately came to mind when the person at Tim Horton's asked me the question, is strikingly similar in one way to "The Rainbow Bridge." Lewis admits that he is just throwing out an idea with absolutely no Scriptural backing and no real investment in it from his perspective. He's just brainstorming in response to being asked this question over and over again. His idea is that wild animals are irrelevant in the discussion of life after death. If an animal is not associated with a human then it really is just a part of nature. But those animals we love are "in us" in a similar way that we are "in Christ." What he means is that in the same way that we "catch a ride" on Jesus Christ's righteousness, gaining eternal life through his holiness and not our own, that perhaps (just perhaps) maybe our beloved companion animals "catch a ride" with us, gaining eternal life through our holiness (given by Christ) and not their own. That sounds a lot like "The Rainbow Bridge" to me. Interesting. Granted, C.S. Lewis isn't the Bible but I have a lot of respect for anything Lewis wrote.
As mentioned, Scripture is silent on what, if anything, happens for animals after they die. Personally, I don't think that heaven is just whatever we want it to be, filled with all of our favorite stuff. I cannot help but think that when I am confronted with the presence of God that all my favorite stuff will be like rubbish in comparison and that all the love I experienced in my life will pale in comparison to the love I will experience there. More than likely I won't even remember that I had a dog. But I don't know any of that for sure. However if I see a little black dog with his ears sticking up and his tail curled up running across a field to get to me, I'll be filled with joy to pet my little guy again and to experience him in a way that isn't influenced by his past abuse and neglect before he came to live with us. If my Lukey is there, I'd be very thankful for that. Ultimately, though, I put my hope in spending eternity not with my D-O-G but with my G-O-D.
In the meantime, my family and I are loading up this Saturday to drive to Cincinnati in hopes of adopting a Labrador from Cincinnati Lab Rescue, because while I don't know if there are dogs in heaven, I know that a good dog (or horse or cat) can be a little glimpse of heaven here.
Just something to think about.
It wasn't the best way to meet the folks at Fayette Veterinary Hospital, tears rolling down my face. They were extremely sympathetic and comforting. "You're doing the right thing," they assured me again and again as I struggled to keep it together without any luck. They offered to take care of it but I wouldn't leave Luke. I'm not sure if I wanted to comfort Luke or punish myself. Anyway, I forced myself to be with him as they put him to sleep. "Take as much time as you want," they said. When the doctors left I stood and petted him for the last time. I didn't want the kids to be upset by my emotions so before I went home I walked around the reservoir near the YMCA in the midst of a cold drizzle to pull myself together. "Good grief, man," I kept telling myself. "It's just a dog. Get over it." But it wasn't just a dog. It was my dog, and seven weeks later I still get a bit emotional about putting my dog to sleep.
Within a day or two the nice folks at Fayette Veterinary Hospital sent me a pet-specific sympathy card with a poem enclosed called "The Rainbow Bridge." Also, during that time I pulled from my shelf a novel that had been given to us by Danielle's Aunt. It was called The Art of Racing in the Rain. I had no idea what it was about but I wanted something to read to take my mind off of the stress of the move and the loss of my dog. It turns out the novel is not only about a dog, but is, in fact, narrated by a dog! And a dog who is about to go to the vet to be put down and is reviewing his life. What are the chances? He puts his hope in the Mongolian belief that a dog, if "ready," can be reincarnated as a man. It may sound like a strange or silly book but it was one of the most powerful and moving books I've ever read. More than anything it is the story of a family that encounters terrible tragedy and conflict. It is a book that will make you look into a dog's eyes and wonder if there is more going on behind them than we will ever know. Also, interestingly enough, just a couple of days later, with no knowledge of me having to put my dog down, someone asked me over a cup of coffee at Tim Horton's, "This may sound silly, but do you think dogs go to heaven?"
This question makes sense in our current cultural context in which dogs are not generally seen as pests as they have been in some cultures but as companions. In many ways dogs are not even seen as pets anymore. They are seen as members of the family. Dog owners or masters are now dog parents. Granted, loving a dog (or other domesticated animal) is nothing new, but I cannot help but think that our relationships with our dogs have changed in recent years. As humans we are wired to ask the big questions. So if we love a dog, and that dog dies, what happens? Whatever we love, we cannot bear to think of it as being anything other than eternal. What is a Christian to believe?
Firstly, I want to be clear that while "the Rainbow Bridge" is a moving poem it has absolutely no basis in Scripture and since Scripture is our authority on matters of eternal life the poem should be seen as nothing more than what it is: a poem. It's a good one, though, maybe not technically or critically but it is a tear jerker. It speaks of fields where companion animals play after death. However, they are always aware that something is missing. When their human companion dies they are reunited in the field then the animal walks with the person over "the rainbow bridge" into heaven. In other words, heaven is for people but the animals those particular people loved get to go in with them. That sounds very nice as long as we remember that it is merely an idea presented by somebody in a poem that has become popular as we grow more attached to our pets. Part of the reason, I believe, for the popularity of the poem even among Christians is that as Christians we don't really have any way to address the death of our beloved animals that is satisfying to us.
While our Scriptures are absolutely clear that humanity is unique and above the rest of creation, being the only creatures that are made "in the image of God," the scriptures do, however, also testify that God had a place for animals in His creation even before humanity and that animals have been prophecied to be present in the eventual redemption of creation (the lion lays down with the lamb, etc.). As to whether or not those animals will specifically include our beloved pets that have died is anyone's guess. The traditional Christian belief is that humanity has been uniquely gifted by God with an eternal nature and therefore, animals, when they die, simply cease to exist. But, once again, our relationship to some animals has changed over time. For those of us who have stared into a dog's eyes and had chills go down our back when we get the feeling that there is something more in those eyes than just "a part of nature," this traditional belief is hard to swallow.
The brilliant Christian author C.S. Lewis took a stab at this question 60 years ago or so in his book The Problem of Pain. His idea, which I had read years earlier and immediately came to mind when the person at Tim Horton's asked me the question, is strikingly similar in one way to "The Rainbow Bridge." Lewis admits that he is just throwing out an idea with absolutely no Scriptural backing and no real investment in it from his perspective. He's just brainstorming in response to being asked this question over and over again. His idea is that wild animals are irrelevant in the discussion of life after death. If an animal is not associated with a human then it really is just a part of nature. But those animals we love are "in us" in a similar way that we are "in Christ." What he means is that in the same way that we "catch a ride" on Jesus Christ's righteousness, gaining eternal life through his holiness and not our own, that perhaps (just perhaps) maybe our beloved companion animals "catch a ride" with us, gaining eternal life through our holiness (given by Christ) and not their own. That sounds a lot like "The Rainbow Bridge" to me. Interesting. Granted, C.S. Lewis isn't the Bible but I have a lot of respect for anything Lewis wrote.
As mentioned, Scripture is silent on what, if anything, happens for animals after they die. Personally, I don't think that heaven is just whatever we want it to be, filled with all of our favorite stuff. I cannot help but think that when I am confronted with the presence of God that all my favorite stuff will be like rubbish in comparison and that all the love I experienced in my life will pale in comparison to the love I will experience there. More than likely I won't even remember that I had a dog. But I don't know any of that for sure. However if I see a little black dog with his ears sticking up and his tail curled up running across a field to get to me, I'll be filled with joy to pet my little guy again and to experience him in a way that isn't influenced by his past abuse and neglect before he came to live with us. If my Lukey is there, I'd be very thankful for that. Ultimately, though, I put my hope in spending eternity not with my D-O-G but with my G-O-D.
In the meantime, my family and I are loading up this Saturday to drive to Cincinnati in hopes of adopting a Labrador from Cincinnati Lab Rescue, because while I don't know if there are dogs in heaven, I know that a good dog (or horse or cat) can be a little glimpse of heaven here.
Just something to think about.
Monday, February 6, 2012
Baptism: The Sign & Seal of the Covenant
As I mentioned last week, the Church, which is made up of all baptized Christians, has also been referred to by Presbyterians as "the Covenant Community." At His last supper Jesus said, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood." Through Jesus, God made a covenant with the Church. Since the very beginnings of the Church (see Acts 2) those who are a part of the Covenant Community are marked with the sign and seal of that covenant-- baptism. This Sunday, the portion of the Covenant Community that meets on the corner of Market and Hinde Streets in WCH, Ohio, has the opportunity to place the sign of this covenant upon Victoria (Tori) Ann Patton, daughter of Jeremy and Sandy Patton, granddaughter of John and Carol Halliday. Since we will celebrate the Sacrament of Baptism (sign and seal of the Covenant) this Sunday I thought it was a good time to remind us of why Presbyterians and the majority of Christians throughout the world (and throughout history) baptize the children of professing believers even before they can make a profession of faith themselves, bearing witness to the fact that God chooses us before we can choose God.
Firstly, we have to recognize that our beloved friends, neighbors, and brothers and sisters in Christ from churches that only baptize those who are old enough to make a profession of faith have some really good points and a strong argument in favor of their beliefs in regard to Baptism. Secondly, we need to recognize that it is almost impossible for, let's say a Presbyterian and someone from the Church of Christ to have a very fruitful conversation about baptism. Believe me, I've tried! That is because we think of baptism so differently that it is like we are talking different languages. As scholar James White says, "Pedobaptists (those who baptize infants) and those baptizing only believers can never agree because they begin with two entirely different concepts of Sacraments-- an act of God or a human act?" As Presbyterians we believe that baptism is the sign and seal of God's actions on our behalf, not the sign and seal of our response to those actions.
Although the "Directory for Worship" in our Book of Order has a great deal about Baptism, the best brief explanation of the Reformed (Presbyterian) understanding of Baptism I have found is the two-page entry in Essential Truths of the Christian Faith by R.C. Sproul. A lot of PC(USA) folks don't care for Sproul because he is a strict Calvinist and because he thinks the PC(USA) has gone to hell in a hand basket, but while I certainly don't agree with Dr. Sproul on everything, he is as Reformed as they come and does a great job of laying out the most basic tenets of traditional Reformed Christianity. Here are his major points, most of which I have paraphrased:
"The New Testament neither explicitly commands infants to be baptized nor explicitly prohibits them from being baptized."
In order for a child to be baptized that child must belong to Christian parents. At the beginning of the Church all Christians were brand new adult converts. Of course the NT doesn't record infant baptisms because you can't have infant baptisms until you have adult converts. The NT was concerned with that very first generation of adult converts. We must also remember that in his Pentecost sermon, Peter told all the very first adult converts that the promise of the gospel is "for you and for your children."
1/4 of the baptisms recorded in the New Testament were "household" baptisms. Back then the father of a family had complete say over everything in his household. So if he became a Christian then the whole family became Christians, even the servants and slaves. Nowhere does it say that only the adults in the household were baptized. Everybody was baptized. Of course, there is no guarantee that those households had young children, but there is a likelihood of children being present in a "household."
As circumcision was the visible sign of the Old Covenant, baptism is the visible sign of the new covenant. Jewish males were circumcised when they were 8 days old. Females were included in the covenant as well, but there was no physical sign of it. "In general, the New Covenant is more inclusive than the Old Covenant." Now, through Jesus Christ, the New Covenant includes not just Jewish people but Gentiles as well and now both males and females receive the physical sign of the covenant. Why would the New Covenant, which is more inclusive than the old, all of a sudden exclude all children, who had always received the physical sign of the old covenant?
"Church history bears witness to the universal, noncontroversial practice of infant baptism in the 2nd century AD."
Here's a few points I'd like to add:
When reformers like John Calvin and Martin Luther were trying to get rid of all the bad things in the church, they didn't seem to even consider getting rid of infant baptism. They thought of the "radical reformers" who had stopped baptizing infants as going way too far and being out of step with church history.
Although it isn't the case in many parts of the USA, throughout the world, infant baptism is still the majority belief and believer's baptism didn't really begin to flourish until it came to America where there was a greater sense of individualism and less of a sense of historical rooted community.
We also cannot forget that Jesus said, "Let the little children come to me and do not hinder them." As Presbyterians we believe that the way to come to Jesus is to be a part of the covenant community of the church, entering through the visible sign and seal of that covenant, which is baptism. If we do not allow the children of believers to be baptized, therefore keeping them out of the covenant community, then aren't we hindering them from coming to Jesus?
I never really understood why we Presbyterians do the Sacraments of Baptism and the Lord's Supper the way we do until I came to understand the Reformed/Presbyterian emphasis on Covenant. Covenant is the key word to understanding so much of what we do as Presbyterians. When we lose that emphasis on covenant then we lose our anchor and start floating around all over the place coming up with all sorts of ideas and ways of doing things that don't jibe with our Presbyterian heritage.
In conclusion, make sure that you plan, as a member of the Covenant Community (at least the portion of it that calls itself FPC-WCH), to come this Sunday morning to participate in celebrating with the Patton family as we place the sign and seal of God's covenant of grace, mercy, and love made possible through Jesus Christ on Tori Patton, one of the sweetest, prettiest little girls I've ever seen. We will celebrate the promises of God, Tori's parents will promise to raise her to follow Jesus, and we as the congregation will promise to do everything in our power to support her parents in raising her up to follow Jesus. See you this Sunday!
Firstly, we have to recognize that our beloved friends, neighbors, and brothers and sisters in Christ from churches that only baptize those who are old enough to make a profession of faith have some really good points and a strong argument in favor of their beliefs in regard to Baptism. Secondly, we need to recognize that it is almost impossible for, let's say a Presbyterian and someone from the Church of Christ to have a very fruitful conversation about baptism. Believe me, I've tried! That is because we think of baptism so differently that it is like we are talking different languages. As scholar James White says, "Pedobaptists (those who baptize infants) and those baptizing only believers can never agree because they begin with two entirely different concepts of Sacraments-- an act of God or a human act?" As Presbyterians we believe that baptism is the sign and seal of God's actions on our behalf, not the sign and seal of our response to those actions.
Although the "Directory for Worship" in our Book of Order has a great deal about Baptism, the best brief explanation of the Reformed (Presbyterian) understanding of Baptism I have found is the two-page entry in Essential Truths of the Christian Faith by R.C. Sproul. A lot of PC(USA) folks don't care for Sproul because he is a strict Calvinist and because he thinks the PC(USA) has gone to hell in a hand basket, but while I certainly don't agree with Dr. Sproul on everything, he is as Reformed as they come and does a great job of laying out the most basic tenets of traditional Reformed Christianity. Here are his major points, most of which I have paraphrased:
"The New Testament neither explicitly commands infants to be baptized nor explicitly prohibits them from being baptized."
In order for a child to be baptized that child must belong to Christian parents. At the beginning of the Church all Christians were brand new adult converts. Of course the NT doesn't record infant baptisms because you can't have infant baptisms until you have adult converts. The NT was concerned with that very first generation of adult converts. We must also remember that in his Pentecost sermon, Peter told all the very first adult converts that the promise of the gospel is "for you and for your children."
1/4 of the baptisms recorded in the New Testament were "household" baptisms. Back then the father of a family had complete say over everything in his household. So if he became a Christian then the whole family became Christians, even the servants and slaves. Nowhere does it say that only the adults in the household were baptized. Everybody was baptized. Of course, there is no guarantee that those households had young children, but there is a likelihood of children being present in a "household."
As circumcision was the visible sign of the Old Covenant, baptism is the visible sign of the new covenant. Jewish males were circumcised when they were 8 days old. Females were included in the covenant as well, but there was no physical sign of it. "In general, the New Covenant is more inclusive than the Old Covenant." Now, through Jesus Christ, the New Covenant includes not just Jewish people but Gentiles as well and now both males and females receive the physical sign of the covenant. Why would the New Covenant, which is more inclusive than the old, all of a sudden exclude all children, who had always received the physical sign of the old covenant?
"Church history bears witness to the universal, noncontroversial practice of infant baptism in the 2nd century AD."
Here's a few points I'd like to add:
When reformers like John Calvin and Martin Luther were trying to get rid of all the bad things in the church, they didn't seem to even consider getting rid of infant baptism. They thought of the "radical reformers" who had stopped baptizing infants as going way too far and being out of step with church history.
Although it isn't the case in many parts of the USA, throughout the world, infant baptism is still the majority belief and believer's baptism didn't really begin to flourish until it came to America where there was a greater sense of individualism and less of a sense of historical rooted community.
We also cannot forget that Jesus said, "Let the little children come to me and do not hinder them." As Presbyterians we believe that the way to come to Jesus is to be a part of the covenant community of the church, entering through the visible sign and seal of that covenant, which is baptism. If we do not allow the children of believers to be baptized, therefore keeping them out of the covenant community, then aren't we hindering them from coming to Jesus?
I never really understood why we Presbyterians do the Sacraments of Baptism and the Lord's Supper the way we do until I came to understand the Reformed/Presbyterian emphasis on Covenant. Covenant is the key word to understanding so much of what we do as Presbyterians. When we lose that emphasis on covenant then we lose our anchor and start floating around all over the place coming up with all sorts of ideas and ways of doing things that don't jibe with our Presbyterian heritage.
In conclusion, make sure that you plan, as a member of the Covenant Community (at least the portion of it that calls itself FPC-WCH), to come this Sunday morning to participate in celebrating with the Patton family as we place the sign and seal of God's covenant of grace, mercy, and love made possible through Jesus Christ on Tori Patton, one of the sweetest, prettiest little girls I've ever seen. We will celebrate the promises of God, Tori's parents will promise to raise her to follow Jesus, and we as the congregation will promise to do everything in our power to support her parents in raising her up to follow Jesus. See you this Sunday!
Wednesday, February 1, 2012
Who Can Take Communion in the PC(USA)?
While in seminary, my area of greatest emphasis in course work was the Sacraments of Baptism and the Lord’s Supper. I took every single class offered on that subject in my three years. I love the Sacraments and I hold them close to my heart and experience God in a very real way every time I share in these with my brothers and sisters in Christ. This Sunday will be my second time to celebrate the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper with you. The reason I want to write about it this week is because after we celebrated it together on January 8 there was some confusion expressed to me by members here at FPC about who is able to partake of the Sacrament.
The way things used to be done in the PC(USA) is that someone would be baptized as an infant but would not participate in communion until they were around twelve-years-old and could go through a Communicants Class. They would then make their profession of faith and be admitted to the table based upon that profession of faith. The Lord’s Supper was for only those who were both baptized and old enough to believe and to have a sense of what is going on in communion. This practice was based upon Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians 11:28-29, “Examine yourselves, and only then eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For all who eat and drink without discerning the body, eat and drink judgment against themselves.” Can a four-year-old really examine herself or discern the body? Many churches, including the Roman Catholic and many Reformed denominations, continue to follow this traditional practice.
Although I know it was at some point prior to my going to seminary in 2003, I’m not sure when exactly our understanding in the PC(USA) shifted, but according to our Book of Order it is no longer our denomination’s understanding that a communicants class is required to be admitted to the Lord’s Table. That is why we won't have a Communicants Class anymore; we will have a Confirmation Class. Some here at FPC have said that it is when Rev. Charlotte O’Neill was here that the change was introduced. If that is the case, let me assure you that it wasn’t something she came up with just to mess with you. She was merely encouraging this congregation to come in line with the change that had already occurred many years earlier. Our Book of Order states “The invitation to the Lord’s Supper is extended to all who have been baptized, remembering that access to the Table is not a right conferred upon the worthy, but a privilege given to the undeserving who come in faith, repentance, and love… Baptized children who are being nurtured and instructed in the significance of the invitation to the Table and the meaning of their response are invited to receive the Lord’s Supper, recognizing that their understanding of participation will vary according to their maturity.”
In the Reformed tradition, of which the PC(USA) is a branch, the word COVENANT is of paramount importance. Our understanding is that through Jesus Christ, the Triune God made a binding COVENANT with the Church (all Christians). In Reformed writings the Church is often called the COVENANT community. When we are baptized, whether as infants or as adults, we are marked as being a part of the COVENANT community. The Lord’s Supper is, in essence, among other things a COVENANT renewal meal between us and God, as well as between those of us within the COVENANT community. That is why you have to be baptized to take communion. How can you take part in a COVENANT renewal if you are not in the COVENANT community in the first place, a community marked by baptism? This question holds for both the traditional way of understanding admittance to the Table and the newer understanding that includes baptized children.
Over time many folks in the PC(USA) began to wonder why, if baptism is the mark of inclusion in the covenant community, adult faith was being used as the determining factor in admittance to the Table. The proponents of the newer understanding said, "Whoever is baptized, whether they are 1 day old or 100 years old, is in the covenant community, right? So why can't everyone in the covenant community participate in the covenant renewal meal?" Opponents of changing our understanding cited the above passage from 1 Corinthians about being able to "discern the body" as evidence that children should not take communion. Proponents responded by asking, "Who can really discern the body? Who really understands the mystery of the Lord's Supper? Is adult faith really more trusting than childhood faith?"
Eventually, as evidenced by our Book of Order, the more open understanding won out. However, it is explicitly spelled out that the baptized child must be trained by her or his parents to have at least some understanding of what is going on. "It isn't just a snack. It is a reminder that Jesus loves us and that we love each other" and so on. Once when Wyatt was about a year old he was brought forward for communion. I didn't want to cause a scene so I went ahead and gave it to him but I was very upset because he had no idea what was going on. To me, it cheapened the Sacrament. And that was my own child! Would I, as his parent, let Wyatt take communion now? Only after some training about the Lord's Supper that I haven't done yet. With this in mind, if you would like to hold your baptized child out of Junior Church on Communion Sundays so they may partake with you as you instruct them please feel free to do that, even encouraged to do that.
Many of my pastoral colleagues in the PC(USA) have taken it a step further than our Book of Order allows for and don't even mention baptism in the invitation, saying "All who trust in Jesus and want to trust in him more are welcome." I slipped up on January 8 and said that in the midst of my nervous fumbling at the Table. Once I realized what I had done it was too late to correct myself. In my own personal opinion, my good friends who follow this practice are breaking with the Reformed understanding of COVENANT and the Sacraments being marks of the COVENANT. They do this out of pure motives, though. They want everyone to be included. But, to me, taking communion before baptism is putting the cart before the horse, and admitting all who trust instead of all who are baptized actually takes the initiative out of God's hands and puts it in our hands.
In closing, from now on my invitation to the Table will be word-for-word from the Book of Order because I take it seriously that in my ordination vows I promised to abide by the polity of the PC(USA). After I have clearly stated the parameters set out by our shared and agreed upon constitution, if someone comes forward who has not been baptized I will serve them anyway and would expect our elders to do so as well. It will have been their choice to partake, after having heard what our Book of Order states, and I don't think God is in the business of smiting people because they took communion before they were baptized. I will, however, contact that person in the following days to encourage them to make their public profession of faith and be baptized or if they are a young child I will encourage the parents to have their child baptized.
This is important stuff. After all, "It isn't just a snack. It is a reminder that Jesus loves us and that we love each other." What could be more important than that?
The way things used to be done in the PC(USA) is that someone would be baptized as an infant but would not participate in communion until they were around twelve-years-old and could go through a Communicants Class. They would then make their profession of faith and be admitted to the table based upon that profession of faith. The Lord’s Supper was for only those who were both baptized and old enough to believe and to have a sense of what is going on in communion. This practice was based upon Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians 11:28-29, “Examine yourselves, and only then eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For all who eat and drink without discerning the body, eat and drink judgment against themselves.” Can a four-year-old really examine herself or discern the body? Many churches, including the Roman Catholic and many Reformed denominations, continue to follow this traditional practice.
Although I know it was at some point prior to my going to seminary in 2003, I’m not sure when exactly our understanding in the PC(USA) shifted, but according to our Book of Order it is no longer our denomination’s understanding that a communicants class is required to be admitted to the Lord’s Table. That is why we won't have a Communicants Class anymore; we will have a Confirmation Class. Some here at FPC have said that it is when Rev. Charlotte O’Neill was here that the change was introduced. If that is the case, let me assure you that it wasn’t something she came up with just to mess with you. She was merely encouraging this congregation to come in line with the change that had already occurred many years earlier. Our Book of Order states “The invitation to the Lord’s Supper is extended to all who have been baptized, remembering that access to the Table is not a right conferred upon the worthy, but a privilege given to the undeserving who come in faith, repentance, and love… Baptized children who are being nurtured and instructed in the significance of the invitation to the Table and the meaning of their response are invited to receive the Lord’s Supper, recognizing that their understanding of participation will vary according to their maturity.”
In the Reformed tradition, of which the PC(USA) is a branch, the word COVENANT is of paramount importance. Our understanding is that through Jesus Christ, the Triune God made a binding COVENANT with the Church (all Christians). In Reformed writings the Church is often called the COVENANT community. When we are baptized, whether as infants or as adults, we are marked as being a part of the COVENANT community. The Lord’s Supper is, in essence, among other things a COVENANT renewal meal between us and God, as well as between those of us within the COVENANT community. That is why you have to be baptized to take communion. How can you take part in a COVENANT renewal if you are not in the COVENANT community in the first place, a community marked by baptism? This question holds for both the traditional way of understanding admittance to the Table and the newer understanding that includes baptized children.
Over time many folks in the PC(USA) began to wonder why, if baptism is the mark of inclusion in the covenant community, adult faith was being used as the determining factor in admittance to the Table. The proponents of the newer understanding said, "Whoever is baptized, whether they are 1 day old or 100 years old, is in the covenant community, right? So why can't everyone in the covenant community participate in the covenant renewal meal?" Opponents of changing our understanding cited the above passage from 1 Corinthians about being able to "discern the body" as evidence that children should not take communion. Proponents responded by asking, "Who can really discern the body? Who really understands the mystery of the Lord's Supper? Is adult faith really more trusting than childhood faith?"
Eventually, as evidenced by our Book of Order, the more open understanding won out. However, it is explicitly spelled out that the baptized child must be trained by her or his parents to have at least some understanding of what is going on. "It isn't just a snack. It is a reminder that Jesus loves us and that we love each other" and so on. Once when Wyatt was about a year old he was brought forward for communion. I didn't want to cause a scene so I went ahead and gave it to him but I was very upset because he had no idea what was going on. To me, it cheapened the Sacrament. And that was my own child! Would I, as his parent, let Wyatt take communion now? Only after some training about the Lord's Supper that I haven't done yet. With this in mind, if you would like to hold your baptized child out of Junior Church on Communion Sundays so they may partake with you as you instruct them please feel free to do that, even encouraged to do that.
Many of my pastoral colleagues in the PC(USA) have taken it a step further than our Book of Order allows for and don't even mention baptism in the invitation, saying "All who trust in Jesus and want to trust in him more are welcome." I slipped up on January 8 and said that in the midst of my nervous fumbling at the Table. Once I realized what I had done it was too late to correct myself. In my own personal opinion, my good friends who follow this practice are breaking with the Reformed understanding of COVENANT and the Sacraments being marks of the COVENANT. They do this out of pure motives, though. They want everyone to be included. But, to me, taking communion before baptism is putting the cart before the horse, and admitting all who trust instead of all who are baptized actually takes the initiative out of God's hands and puts it in our hands.
In closing, from now on my invitation to the Table will be word-for-word from the Book of Order because I take it seriously that in my ordination vows I promised to abide by the polity of the PC(USA). After I have clearly stated the parameters set out by our shared and agreed upon constitution, if someone comes forward who has not been baptized I will serve them anyway and would expect our elders to do so as well. It will have been their choice to partake, after having heard what our Book of Order states, and I don't think God is in the business of smiting people because they took communion before they were baptized. I will, however, contact that person in the following days to encourage them to make their public profession of faith and be baptized or if they are a young child I will encourage the parents to have their child baptized.
This is important stuff. After all, "It isn't just a snack. It is a reminder that Jesus loves us and that we love each other." What could be more important than that?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)