The LAW of Spiritual Rest
The last Sunday before I was to transition from parishioner to possessor of the pulpit in my first senior pastor position, I was visiting the Assembly of God Church where a friend of mine. When the pastor was told I was to be installed the following week, he shared the following passage of Scripture with me. It spoke deeply to me since I was anxious over the great responsibilty that came with shepherding God's sheep. This is what the Lord says:
"Stand at the crossroads:
1. Look (at the paths)!
2. Ask for the ancient paths-where the good way is.
3. Walk in it!
"You will find rest for your souls."
But you said, 'We will not walk in it.' (Jeremiah 6:16)
While many of the Emerging Church Movement are running away from religious terminology, structure, hierarchy, etc. there are many of today embracing ancient forms of it. Rick Herlacher, a “former Pentecostal, now Orthodox” friend of mine, recently told me about these five hours of ancient prayer stations.
By the second and third centuries, such African Church Fathers as Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Tertullian wrote of the practice of Morning and Evening Prayer, and of the prayers at terce, sext, and none. The prayers could be prayed individually or in groups.
The Office of Readings (formerly Matins), major hour Morning prayer (Lauds), major hour (6:00 am)
Daytime prayer, which can be one or all of :
Midmorning prayer (Terce) 9:00
Midday prayer (Sext) 12:00
Midafternoon prayer (None) 3:00
Evening prayer (Vespers), major hour (6:00)
Night Prayer (Compline) (12:00)
By the third century, the Desert Fathers (the earliest monks), began to live out St. Paul's command to "pray without ceasing" (1 Thess. 5:17) by having one group of monks pray one fixed-hour prayer while having another group pray the next prayer.
Can you imagine the koinonia (Christian fellowship) and dunamis (power) of the Church praying like this? I think of the Catholic Benedictines?
A Protestant friend of mine wrote me after telling her about these prayer times. She, by the way, is so Protestant that she is protesting Protestants. She is an Emergent Christian and a modern survivor of the hippie and charismatic Jesus People Movement. This was her statement:
I don't see Jesus doing that!
My response: This is certainly not a point to argue about. It made me smile recalling what Assembly of God missionary Irving Rutherford once said. He taught us at an AG camp for a couple of years. He would answer people who would ask, “Would Jesus do that?” with “No, but Paul would!”
Do you think Jesus spent much time in prayer in the Temple and Synagogue? I know of seven accounts where He attended, just from the records. He, as you know, did many things not in the Gospel record. (John 21:25) For example, did He shower? Besides the synagogue, Jesus said He was daily in the Temple. (Mark 14:49) I think it would be stretch to say He was not involved in the prayers as a Jewish Rabbi. Besides, after the Veil was rent and the Temple Sacrifices had ended and the New Covenant established, the Early Church still went into the Temple, the house of prayer for all nations, continuously to pray and worship God: “And were continually in the temple, praising and blessing God. Amen” Luke 24:53 (the last verse of Luke). This was right after the Ascension. Then after Pentecost they, continuing daily with one accord in the Temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart. (Acts 2:46) Peter and John still went to the Temple to pray at the Hour of Prayer (Terce) in Acts after Pentecost: Now Peter and John went up together into the temple at the hour of prayer, [being] the ninth [hour]. (Acts 3:1) One could argue that they merely went so as to evangelize but I am not certain by Luke 24:53 and Acts 2:46 we can say that.
These five hours that the early church prayed was taken from the Hebrew practice of Jesus' day. Ravenhill said, "God's army marches on their knees." I do agree that to make these a mandatory thing like the Muslims do is bondage and legalism. However it isn't a requirement in any of the Churches that practice them (Anglican, Catholic or Orthodox) anymore than Larry Lea's or Dick Eastman's One Hour practice. I think it is just a good idea to be a factory of prayer. It is also interesting that Mohammed likely took his "pillar" of Salah (5x prayer) from Jewish and Christians of his day.
What I find is the Emerging Church’s funny way of seeking to be Christian without sounding Churchy. From reading about Imago Dei, Bridge, Jason’s House Church, Mosaic and Mars Hill they are all interpreting Church as they wish- what is right in their own eyes and they all disagree. They are just attempting to reinvent the wheel. They endeavor to be a church without calling it church. Every denomination has done the same when submission to authority is the real missing element. The Pentecostals said, Church means Assembly so we call our group such. The Church of Christ and Christian Church did likewise. When will we have a denomination called Ecclesia.
They aren’t “Apostles”, that is too religious, so our denominations called them “Missionaries”. Today that is too churchy and Emergents want to be called Kingdom workers. They don’t like Church in the title so they are called Centers or Fellowships. This is what the Charismatics said as well. It is all semantics. If it looks, walks and sounds like a duck, it is probably a duck.
In fact, we don’t have Creeds we have Statements of Faith. We don’t Episcopos (Bishops) or Presbuteros (Priests) we have Superintendents and Pastors.
In the Acts, when a person came to faith, they were never lead to pray a Sinner’s Prayer. They were never instructed to bow their head and close their eyes and raise their hands, to then be told to walk the aisle so the evangelist can get a head count. Rather in each account, if a person professed faith they were immediately baptized without exception. This was because the Gospel they heard told them that entrance into Covenant with God was no longer Circumcision but was Baptism. As you know, Circumcision was to be performed on infants on the eighth day to bring them into the covenant relationship with God (Genesis 17:9-14, Leviticus 12:3). Those who were uncircumcised were not a part of the people of God (Genesis 17:14) and could not eat the Passover (Exodus 12:48-49). St. Paul draws a parallel between circumcision and Baptism in Colossians 2:11-12. Through baptism a person becomes a member of God's family (Galatians 3:26-27), just as through circumcision one became a member of God's people in the Old Testament.
Emergents are like the Church of Christ “Bible Only” Restoration movement in modern day. The say, “We have ‘No Creed but Christ’!” and “We are ‘Red Letter’ Christians. As if the context in black lettering and Paul and the Epistles are somehow less important. Remember Fritz Ridenour “How to Be a Christian without Being Religious”? He is too religious for Emergents today.
Jesus takes us just like we are, even punk rockers with spiked Mohawk pink hair and a body covered with tattoos and piercings riding skateboards. But He loves us way to much to keep us there. The first thing He requires of us in His acceptance is our death, right! Aren’t we buried with Him in baptism? Anything we have say, think and do in rebellion to our parents, church and state must be reversed.
What a major problem in Emergents is that by dumbing down, they do not know where to stop. Emergent Christian Jay Bakker, Jim’s son, has already stated through a body covered with tattoos and piercings, “Homosexuality is not a sin.” Some argue that McLaren’s and McManus’s theology borders on Universalism.
Emergents are saying, contrary to Scripture, “Jesus didn’t start a Church, He started a Kingdom”. Yet He said through Peter and Moses, "You shall be to me a kingdom of priests…" (Ex.19:6) John said, “He has made us to be a kingdom, to be priests unto his God and Father; to him be the glory and the dominion for ever and ever. Amen.” (Rev. 1:6) The Church is the Kingdom people bringing His kingdom rule in every strata of society. You can’t separate the two. That is etymologically impossible. Church is derived from the Kuriakon meaning “The Lord’s”. Kingdom means “Dominion of the King”. It is the Lord’s Dominion. The Church is the Assembly of People in it, assembled because it’s a communion of Saints. Assembled because Jesus said that where and when two or more are assembled together in His Name, the Lord is present. (There is something about fellowship that Jesus likes)
Does “Kingdom talk” sound less religious than “Church talk”? I think Kingdom sounds more problematic since if you have a Kingdom and you talk about opposing worldviews, a pagan world will interpret it as modern day political aggression. Yet,the Church has always understood that a theocracy is only possible in the Second Advent- that God has two established authorities in the world today: The Church and State. (Rom.13:1)
“Blood talk” is also offensive to Emergents. You won’t here songs or sermons about it in Mega or the Emergent churches because it is too churchy. The preaching of the Cross is foolishness especially if you talk about drinking His blood. Yuck!
Bottom line: If we would get about living the Book of Acts we won’t be worried about being politically-correct and attractive. Just have the Agape-Love and all men will know we are His disciples. In Tertullian’s day, they said “Look how they (Christians) love one another" (for they themselves hate one another); "and how they are ready to die for each other" (for they themselves are eager to kill each other).
The Letter to Diognetus said, concerning the Church in the World:
For Christians cannot be distinguished from the rest of the human race by country or language or customs.
They do not live in cities of their own; they do not use a peculiar form of speech.
They do not follow an eccentric manner of life.
This doctrine of theirs has not been discovered by the ingenuity or deep thought of inquisitive men, nor do they put forward a merely human teaching, as some people do.
Yet, although they live in Greek and barbarian cities alike, as each man's lot has been cast, and follow the customs of the country in clothing and food and other matters of daily living, at the same time they give proof of the remarkable and admittedly extraordinary constitution of their own commonwealth.
They live in their own countries, but only as aliens.
They have a share in everything as citizens, and endure everything as foreigners. Every foreign land is their fatherland, and yet for them every fatherland is a foreign land.
They marry, like everyone else, and they beget children, but they do not cast out their offspring.
They share their board with each other, but not their marriage bed.
It is true that they are "in the flesh," but they do not live "according to the flesh."
They busy themselves on earth, but their citizenship is in heaven.
They obey the established laws, but in their own lives they go far beyond what the laws require.
They love all men, and by all men are persecuted.
They are unknown, and still they are condemned;
They are put to death, and yet they are brought to life.
They are poor, and yet they make many rich
They are completely destitute, and yet they enjoy complete abundance.
They are dishonored, and in their very dishonor are glorified; they are defamed, and are vindicated.
They are reviled, and yet they bless; when they are affronted, they still pay due respect.
When they do well, they are punished as evildoers; undergoing punishment, they rejoice because they are brought to life.
They are treated by the Jews as foreigners and enemies, and are hunted down by the Greeks; and all the time those who hate them find it impossible to justify their enmity.
To put it simply: “What the soul is in the body, Christians are in the world. Christians are scattered through all the cities of the world. ..Christians dwell in the world, but do not belong to the world…Christians are recognized when they are in the world, but their religion remains unseen…the world hates Christians, even though it suffers no wrong at their hands, because they range themselves against its pleasures…Christians love those who hate them…Christians are restrained in the world as in a prison, and yet themselves hold the world together…Christians are settled among corruptible things, to wait for the incorruptibility that will be theirs in heaven… Christians, when punished, day by day increase more and more. It is to no less a post than this that God has ordered them, and they must not try to evade it.”
(http://www.ccel.org/ccel/richardson/fathers.x.i.ii.html)
Saint Augustine states "You have made us for yourself, O Lord, and our heart is restless until it rests in you."
(For more on this, see http://www.crossroadsinitiative.com/library_article/621/Our_Heart_is_Restless_St_Augustine.html)
Non-Sacramental churches which are hip and fancy will not satisfy us. It is God alone who can. Any Church that encourages you to come and die before it bids you, “Come and dine!” will help you find that rest for your soul so that you can be the Soul to the world. It is the ancient path that we should walk in to find this rest for our soul. The ancient path offers us the Seven Sacraments where we can meet God and find rest for our soul. The ancient path offers us the Magisterium where we can have sound doctrine, not tossed by every wind and wave or new movement (Eph. 4:14; 2 Tim. 1:13). In effect, the ancient path brings us to the Church, the Rock and Pillar of all Truth. (1 Tim. 3:15)
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
The Law of Spiritual Rest
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Wow. You had a lot of good points in this! I’d like to separate a few of them to comment on if I may, as you seem to have blended a few distinct items together and I think they warrant their own comments. The following is a book, so have a seat….
One common thread in your post is a response to Emergent Christianity (capital E). I want to clarify up front that I do not speak on behalf of Emergent, and possibly an accurate description of my current place in faith might even be post-emergent. To be sure, I would certainly classify myself as a postmodern, which in itself is a thoroughly “modern” trait in that I’m running the risk of labeling myself. Ugh. I am full of contradictions, wishy-washiness, and maybe even heresy, with the above a case in point. But all of us humans have a need to define each other, so I thought I’d go ahead and set up the pins for you there, so to speak.
Anyway, I think it should be clarified that emergent-type churches are not all of the same line. Certainly, as you said, “they are all interpreting Church as they wish - what is right in their own eyes and they all disagree.” I agree! ...Then again, don’t all traditions do that?
It is important, though, to distinguish between the two major streams within the emerging movement (little e), one that is crypto-evangelistic and the other deconstructionist.
You are right on your statements of many of these groups. They are simply crypto-evangelistic in that they are, as you said, “seeking to be Christian without sounding Churchy.” They are just the same box in different wrapping paper. I will add that these are the groups that may be quick to label themselves “Emergent” (capital E). Most of them, however, are sincerely trying to ensure that the Message maintains relevancy in a postmodern world…and there are definitely pros and cons to this approach.
The other stream, the deconstructionist grouping, is quite different. While some of these people may still have a label of “Emergent,” their approach to spirituality is not to re-wrap the box; it is, more aptly put, to cut up the box and to make it into a paper snowflake or something whimsical like that. They are still using the same materials handed down to them (some are appreciative for those materials and others not so much), but their intention is much more radical than the crypto-evangelists. As I’m sure you know, “radical” has more than one meaning. On the surface, it implies a drastic approach, but its root word is actually “root.” So perhaps the best way to describe the deconstructionist emergent is one who is searching deeply to find the taproot of Christianity.
This brings me to your first/main train of thought: The Ancient Way. Last year I went to a Franciscan retreat in San Antonio, hosted by my friends Gordon Atkinson (google Real Live Preacher) and Paul Soupiset (google soupablog) at Covenant Baptist. Over the weekend, we practiced the Franciscan way, including all the hourly prayers you mentioned. While I had a hard time waking up for Matins/Lauds (we had a 4am prayer), it was a beautiful experience. It was a wonderful time of exploring the Franciscan Rule and creating our own Rules of Life, trying to help our actions line up with our values, centered in the model of Jesus. We gained a deeper appreciation of certain traditions handed down by those such as the African Fathers you mentioned. And we did not merely appreciate those practices for their novelty; we truly learned from them.
Now, many might lump Gordon and Paul under the “emergent” umbrella. But I might suggest that Gordon is a deconstructionist, and Paul may be described as a neo-monastic, which I think may be somewhere in between crypto-evangelistic and deconstructionist. But the fact is: no one really cares. And certainly most of the people at the retreat, many of whom came from faraway places, did not care what label the retreat was under. I will also add here that one of the most beautiful things about the retreat was the fact that it was attended by about a dozen wonderfully spiritual individuals, including traditional conservative Christians, emergents, atheists, agnostics, unitarian-universalists, and those of other belief systems. But we all gained deep spiritual insights by practicing ancient forms of worship in Christ-centered community. And…here’s something that may disturb you…I felt God’s presence very tangibly when Gordon invited us ALL to partake of Christ’s body, saying that Jesus did not qualify who could receive him, so neither do we.
In my mind, practices such as this are radical in every sense of the word. They are radically inclusive, yes (and some may label that universalist), but they are also radically traditional in that they seek to uncover those same values that you and I both feel have been buried under years of religious turmoil…some of which have been protected by the Catholic and Orthodox churches throughout the centuries.
So I think you and many emergent-minded people have much more in common than you think. It’s also more than just the common fact that we (you and I and others) are unsatisfied with the status quo of today’s Christianity. It seems that you want to bring about a renewed appreciation of ancient ways, and so do many postmodern Christians… we all just go about things differently. Some like you and Rick take a thoroughly orthodox route in valuing all tradition as sacred, while others take what you see as a heretical route. Yes, I said it, “heretical.” I will certainly agree that some of what emergent-minded Christ followers hold to may appear heretical, and according to many traditions, that is in fact the case (regarding, for example, issues like homosexuality and universalism). However, that mere fact of heresy does not carry much weight for me. Jesus was a heretic in the eyes of the Pharisees.
The trouble that deconstructionist emergents have with tradition is really about accepting tradition for tradition’s sake. In fact, many are so hesitant to call themselves emergent because Emergent already is forming its own unwritten rules and hierarchy. For instance, I have a female friend (who writes for the Wittenburg door) who told me that if you want to be respected in Emergent circles, you have to have the three Ps: Phd., Published, and penis (asserting that it’s a heady, male-dominated world). Also, it is assumed that one must maintain a geeky-chic appearance, use a Mac, and turn his nose up at commercialist, consumerist Christianity to be an emergent. In point of fact, Emergent (again, capital E) itself already has become a consumerist machine, complete with publishing lines, video series, conferences, and so-on. This in itself may not all be “bad,” but emergents must accept it as fact. The anti-establishment becomes the establishment. And we all must admit that, whatever our tradition (or non-tradition), we are parts of a system that is co-opted by the human way of doing things (and usually the Western way of doing things).
Now, one thing I must point out is that, in addition to lumping all emergents under one umbrella, you also lump emergents in with mega-churches, etc., seemingly because all appear to you as non-sacramental. While I agree that some crypto-evangelistic Emergent churches may hold some things in common with mega churches (also crypto-evang-elAstic in the eyes of some), most emergents abhor the rampant commercialism of megachurches, seeker-friendly churches, etc. (even though the Emergent line also has commercialism to it). I definitely do see your point, especially looking from a high-church, liturgical perspective, but I think it’s a stretch to lump everyone together…that is an overly broad generalization, and I think that is one of the biggest troubles with tradition-focused churches, and one of the biggest things against which postmoderns react: non-contemplative exclusivity.
Of course, I don’t have a problem admitting that truth must at some point be absolute, and I’ll even concede the possibility that certain traditions may have been appointed guardians of some truth, but that is not what I’m talking about here. I am talking about a posture of unconscious arrogance.
I’m not talking about logistical, philosophical exclusivity by right of a superior argument…I’m talking about social exclusion. Most traditions, including everything from the Emergent non-tradition to apostolic Orthodox or Catholic lines, have evolved a kind of arrogance about them. And that is the exclusivity that I think deserves accountability.
It is so much easier for us all to slap a label on someone’s forehead and dismiss anything they say as just “talking points” of “the other side.” It is much more difficult to sit quietly and listen deeply to that person’s story and truly see them as a “person,” as a child of God, and even as Jesus himself (“…the least of these”), and realize that they may be able to add value to our lives, regardless of their theology (or lack thereof).
One thing deconstructionists/post-moderns try to point out is the flaw of arrogance in established traditions. They try to bring about a more humane conversation as opposed to a debate. And they assert that we are all on the same level, at least in one respect, and by admitting that, we can learn from each other…from all traditions and even “non-traditions.” And this makes me think of the account that you posted…
“For Christians cannot be distinguished from the rest of the human race by country or language or customs. They do not live in cities of their own; they do not use a peculiar form of speech. They do not follow an eccentric manner of life.”
If I think of many (alright, most) Christians today, I would not identify them with the above. We DO live in “cities” all our own. We DO use peculiar forms of speech. And certainly many of us DO follow an eccentric manner of life. And this is doing the cause of the Message no good. Additionally, while we may appear to others quite different, peculiar, and even eccentric, this seems to be getting us nowhere. I think of statistics showing the fact that today’s Christians are statistically no different, in terms of overall morality, than non-Christians. And so this is another assertion that postmodern Christians are trying to make: Orthodoxy may not be the transformative thing we have thought it to be for the past thousand years or so.
So what is that thing that really transforms us? If right belief seems only to create exclusive social groups that only welcome those who submit to their criteria for inclusion, and if this right belief, before which we have prostrated ourselves for centuries, statistically is not the essence that both initiates and sustains transformation, perhaps we need to admit the value of semper reformanda, humble ourselves before God and each other, and keep searching...Or at least admit that we may not be so sure as we have led on.
As a reminder, the Fathers said to each other during the canonization process, (you know the exact council more than I do, I’m sure), “This seems right to us and the Spirit…” They were not certain. I think we have all become so certain that all we are about is proving the validity of our certainty. And I’m willing to venture beyond that.
Thanks for your post. I love hearing the apparent depth of your research and your willingness to leave no assertion unexplored. Let’s have a pint some time. Peace to you and yours.
Post a Comment