Quote for the 4th

For some reason a quote came to my find today and figured that it was worth re-posting here, especially given that this one of the most patriotic weekends of the year.

This quote is from the Epistle of Diognetus which is a very early christian apology (probably 2nd century). I first heard this quote in a sermon at Asbury given by Dr. Bauer and then later found it in Raniero Cantalamessa's book The Eucharist Our Sanctification.

The quote:

[the Christian is one who] lives as an alien in a homeland, who participates in everything like a citizen but bears with everything like a pilgrim; one for whom every foreign land is a homeland and every homeland a foreign land.

Take that for what you will.


- Ben

More thoughts on the Celebration of All Saints Day

As I continued to think about my previous post on All Saints Day and why I think Protestants need to celebrate it, I started thinking through possible resistance to this idea that I assume many low-church/fundamentalist Protestants would have. What I'm speaking about is not those who are merely ignorant of the Christian practice of All Saints Day, but those who would oppose it as irreligious, unchristian, Catholic, or for various other reasons.

One thought in particular that I had in regard to this and the current political fervor surrounding almost everyone right now was that many of these same Protestants who object to celebrating All Saints Day are some of the very same Christians who will be the first to remember the fallen who gave their lives for this country on Memorial Day and Independence Day.

On Memorial Day and Independence Day many Americans will proudly remember the long heritage of this Country. They will tell stories of the fallen who have show themselves to be heroic in face of the enemy. These same fallen men and women will be celebrated because it is on their dream and dedication that America now stands. In essence these two American holidays (holy days) are nothing more than despiritualized political versions of All Saints Day for our nation-state.

So to those Christians who strongly object to celebrating All Saints Day and yet proudly celebrate Memorial Day and Independence day I ask you where your citizenship lies. Are we Christians and then Americans or are we Americans and then Christians? How dare we celebrate the heritage of this nation and celebrate the lives and deaths of the fallen for this country and yet neglect heritage of the Church and those who have been killed for Christ by the governments of this world. How dare we seek to follow the example of those who fell for this country and yet allow the example of the Martyrs to be void from our churches? In my opinion it is indefensible for us to claim citizenship in heaven and yet act as though we are Americans first and Christians second.

Before I get labeled Anti-American let me say that I'm not arguing that we shouldn't celebrate Memorial Day and Independence Day as Christians, but I am arguing that those who call themselves Christians and chose to celebrate these holidays while refusing to celebrate All Saints Day show by their actions that they consider themselves citizens of the world first and citizens of heaven second.

To those who proclaim Christ while refusing to remember his Church, his martyrs, and the saints before us and yet celebrate this nation's heritage I challenge you to start celebrating the heritage of your true home (the people of God) or cease celebrating the rising of this nation. There is no other Christian option.

Nations and political causes rise and fall but those who lived and died for Christ will reign with him in glory forever.

Let us take joy in the fact that we are Americans, but let us never forget that we are Christians first and everything is secondary to that. So celebrate and remember those fallen for our country if you feel so compelled, but as a Christian remember St. Stephen the first martyr, remember Sts. Peter and Paul who were killed by the Romans . Think also of those Christians who were imprisoned in the Gulag during the Soviet regime in Russia or those who die as I type in China at the hand of the Communists or the Philippines at the hand of militant Muslims. Follow Christ as Polycarp and Ignatius of Antioch followed him even to their deaths and allow Maximus the Confessor who had his tongue cut out and his right hand cut off for confessing the truth of Christ to be your role model. Remember them and the cloud of witnesses that surround them for it is their blood that is the seed of the Church by the power of the good and live-giving Holy Spirit!

Summer Ramblings II

My declaration that I would try to post more often seems to be in vain, as I haven't found the time to post because I've been so busy with work. Here are some random thoughts that go back as far as the weekend around July 4th.

-------Thoughts from the Road------

I found myself in Dayton, OH on the days immediately preceding the 4th of July and had and interesting conversation with one of the guys that works occasional weekends with our company. He found out I was studying to be a pastor and was trying to strike up conversation with me when he asked "What do you think about those new churches people are going to now?" I replied that I didn't know what he meant, to which he replied: "You know, those new churches like Quest and [another large church in our area]. I realized that both of these churches were well known for being "seeker churches" in fact the people at Quest define themselves solely as a "seeker church". I tried to control myself and not launch into a long lecture on the evils of seeker churches and how they are destroying the very fabric of the church, so I told him something ot the effect of "I guess they're ok, I personally don't enjoy them, but you know..."

His response (the reason for retelling this story) was: "Yeah, I don't like them, I really don't get much from them. They're no real message to em." When he said that I about fell off of the case I was sitting on. It just blew me away that this guy who wouldn't call himself a Christian who doesn't claim to live the Christian life or anything along those lines, is repulsed by the seeker churches in the area. It seems that he would rather have the church be the church instead of trying to mask itself and pretend that it is something it's not (entertainment). I just find it amazing that the people these seeker churches are trying to reach aren't interested in them because they're not Christian enough. Crazy!!

I'll avoid getting on my soap box again and allow the above comments to suffice. I just thought it was a cool story.

----- Thoughts on the 4th of July----
Yes, I know it was a while ago, but it still burns me up. It it wasn't for the super-cool combination of fireworks and BBQs I'm very sure I would hate the 4th of July. I don't hate it because I hate America or anything like that. My biggest problem with Independence day is the reaction the protestant church in America has to it. I firmly believe that the Sunday closest to the 4th of July is the most syncretistic day in all of Protestantism. It is a day when we mesh our worship of a Holy and Triune God with our worship for our nation-state. We, as a church, take this Sunday as an opportunity to jump on the "hooray America" bandwagon and become idolators of our nation.

Frankly this syncretism makes me want to vomit. I am not opposed to being patriotic and I am not opposed to supporting our nation's leaders and things of that nature. But there is absolutly no way that the people of God should be so enamoured with a nation-state, whether it be the USA, England, Iraq, or even the political nation of Israel. To be completely supportive of a nation-state is to lose sight of the kingdom of which we are true citizens - namely the Kingdom of God.

There is also absolutly no way that the work of the people of God (the truest sense of liturgy) should be bastardized with hymning any nation! Yes, it is meet and right to thank God for our freedoms and it is good that we should praise him for the blessing of a stable govermental system surrounding us, but we cannot allow that to be the focal point of our liturgy on the Sunday of Independence day, or on any Sunday. I would even go so far as to argue that to sing patriotic songs in the church is a corruption of the purpose for the gathering of the church.

This problem is not isolated to merely the 4th of July, no, this syncretism runs deep within American Christianity and we must begin to uproot it and rid ourselves of it. We must always remember that our hearts and our homes are not of this or any nation-state, we are citizens of the Kingdom of God. Our citizenship is sealed by partaking of our Lord's death. No one and no nation can lay claim upon us except the one into who's death we have been baptized - our glorious bridegroom Jesus Christ.

------- Topics from the list --------

On my last post I put a list of things I was thinking about at the bottom. Here is one of them.

My church history musings:

A while back I got into a discussion about the start of the papacy with some friends and the issue has been nagging me ever since. Most protestant historians date the start of the papacy with Leo the Great (approx. 450ad) some scholars date this earlier and some a little later, but this seems to be the time of general concensus.

My contention is that there could not have been a "Pope" in the way most would understand it until after the Great Schism (1054). I think that any assertion of a papacy before this date is due to anachronistic and westernly biased reading of the early church documents. Although the common arguments for the papacy first originated with Leo the Great it is very clear from reading church history that he is not taken as the supreme bishop. His word does not sway all the other bishops and he does not have the power to control all the other regions of the church. It is my thought that protestant scholars have read church history through a western lens for so long that they fail to understand the eastern idea of "order of primacy." Order of primacy simly means that one is the highest among equals. In other words if the Roman bishop (Leo) had the highest order of primacy he would not have more power than the other bishops, but his opinion would have been held with a little (note little) more weight than some of the others. This does not imply that he has more power, it is just an issue of respect.

I may have not explained that clear enough, but this is what I think we have in the case of Leo and the other early bishops of Rome that the protestant scholars like to refer to as popes. To be clear it is obviously absurd to think that the Great Schism happened and "poof" we have a pope. Yes, this was a growing political force which finally came to a head when the Bishop of Rome acted upon the power he thought he had and inserted a phrase into the Nicene Creed.

I argue that the Bishop of Rome could not have been a true Pope at the point of the Schism because if he was then the rest of the Bishops would have naturally followed his lead by adding this phrase into the creed because he would have been the theological supreme. However, not a single bishop followed this move and thus the Bishop of Rome did not have the power he believed himself to have (and the power which protestant historians credit to him).

I am not intentionally trying to take an Eastern line on this subject, this is just what makes the most sense to me. I think that our historians are reading church history ignoring the concept of "order of primacy" and are thus misconstruing our perception of church history. Yes, I admit I could be wrong, these scholars have much more training than I, but somehow this seems to make the most sense, especially after growing up seeing church history with western eyes and now trying to view it with eastern eyes.

----------

Well I think that's all I'm going to post for now. I'm tired and need to go to bed. Hopefully I'll post a little more frequently.


Blessings,


Ben