Tradition in our Pews

“Bless this food to our bodies. Amen”

I grew up saying this prayer right before dinner. Luckily, punishment was mild if caught sneaking food before the prayer. That just meant you were the one who had to pray. (This is a lot of pressure when you’re a kid, but nevertheless, no real harm done.)

Millions probably say a similar type of prayer dinner. It’s tradition. It’s just what you do, right?  When I think about it, I pray that the greasy pizza is going to bless my body, but in reality, I know it really won’t. Less saturated fat please. So I guess I’m not really praying, just acting out what I’ve been taught.  And in this case, it’s harmless.  But what’s scary is that this same human pattern can get us into big trouble. Tradition for tradition’s sake.   It’s just the way things are done.  Being completely blinded to truth, honoring tradition instead of the Lord.

Jesus’ warnings of keeping empty traditions are very real in the gospels. Over the past two days, these scriptures keep finding me. So here they are….

“This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from Me. And in vain they worship Me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’ For laying aside the commandment of God, you hold the tradition of men – the washing of the pictures and cups, and many other such things you do. All too well you reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your tradition.” Mark 7:6-9

“Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition.” – Matt. 15:6

Yikes.

I’m fine with saying grace before dinner, but today I’m very aware of the ease of mistaking our traditions for “God’s will”, and missing out on God’s will all along.

I borrowed this story from a note written last week.  Here is another story. 

I was discussing forgiveness of sin with my Bible study group.  Have you noticed that in every service on every Sunday, there is a prayer of confession that is followed by an absolution by the priest?  This is done for a reason.  We need forgiveness of our sin and God provides it.  We live in a tension between being citizens of this age and the age to come, simultaneously sinners and transformed.  Because we are aware of this tension, we recognize our imperfections and continually repent throughout our Christian lives.

The first comment about this was that one person needed more forgiveness, from friends and other people, than he felt was offered through the absolution of the priest.  This part of the service was just not sufficient for him.  There had to be more than just a prayer and an absolution.

These two stories are very similar.  There is clearly a disconnection between rote responses and the theology behind them.  In the first story, the writer clearly recognizes the problem and equates the rote behavior with Law.  In the second story, the second man not only does not recognize the problem, but insists that there is no problem by running away from the issue to a human solution.  There have been several solutions to this disconnection problem proposed, and I would like to address two of them, the second being the model of what Paul always did in these situations. 

The first solution that is often proposed is that the rote practices are a part of the rabbinical law that was eliminated by Jesus.  Since we cannot ground the responses, they must not have any value any longer.  Before going in this direction, we should first discuss whether these types of rote responses are indeed the sort of behaviors referenced by Jesus in passages above or something else.  In the first example, the question is whether a prayer over dinner is Biblically correct in terms of the New Covenant.  In the second example, the question is whether a prayer of repentance that exists within the context of a service is sufficient for the forgiveness of sin. 

The prayer at meals seems to be specifically authorized by Jesus at the last supper.  However, the writer makes a very good point.  Blessing the pizza is probably not what Jesus had in mind.  As you may recall, Jesus was more interested in our remembrance of Him than in whether or not our pizza had too much saturated fat.  So, we can say that the recognition of a problem was spot on, but perhaps the diagnosis was off the mark.  Is prayer at meal time a part of rabbinical law?  Clearly, the type and shadow of this behavior is the Seder meal at Passover as set out in Leviticus.  The question becomes one of whether Holy Communion is the fulfillment of that type and shadow and whether prayer over a meal is therefore Judaizing.  That is harsh criticism it would seem to me, but it is at least worthy of discussion.

In the second example, the issue is whether the confession of sin in the house of the Lord followed by the absolution administered by the priest or pastor as the worldly representative of Christ is sufficient to do what it says that it is doing.  The doctrine in this example is completely disconnected from the prayer.  The second man does not understand the doctrine behind the prayer and absolution, and therefore he cannot take solace in these events.  Is this doctrine a part of rabbinical law?  In this case, it would be very hard to argue that point.  Jesus was in the business of forgiving sin.  He authorized his apostles to do the same.  Subsequently, elders and others were given this calling.  The problem is not rabbinical law in this case, but a lack of understanding of the system that Jesus created.

A second solution, and a better solution in my mind, is to reconnect the action to the doctrine.  All imperatives absolutely must be grounded in the indicative, or they will only turn into Law, and Law only convicts when it is not grounded in the Gospel.  The second story bothers me far more, so let’s work it out in terms of the Law and Gospel distinction and see if we can try to reconnect the rote actions to the doctrine.

The purpose of worship is to glorify God.  I don’t’ think anyone will argue this point very much.  The issue becomes one of deciding on how to go about worship.  The doctrines that cause the components of a Eucharistic service and the order of those components come directly from the story of redemptive history as revealed in the Bible.  The doctrines line up and spell out what should happen and in what order.  The first doctrine that is important is that God is Holy.  We seem to take that for granted.  If you believe that God is the creator, regardless of how He did it, you have to believe that God is infinitely Holy as well.  The role of the creature is to worship the creator.  This was basically the only thing that was expected of Adam.  After the fall, God has to work out a rescue mission for His creatures.  His creatures have offended His infinitely just nature, and the only possible outcome is death.  This idea of original sin is so completely lost that it needs a bit more work in this brief outline.

I have already posted for your reading pleasure, Jonathon Edwards’ sermon on the Wrath of God, but I wanted to expound on the condition of sin.  We often think that our own individual sin is all that really matters.  We consider that Adam’s sin couldn’t possibly be imputed to us.  We don’t think it would be just.  Our idea of just may make some sense in a civil context, but the Bible is quite clear on what the condition of sin from Adam has done to man.  We are all dead in sin from the moment of our conception.  God knew we would be born and so we were even in sin before the moment of our parents’ conceptions.  Our situation is already dire.  This does not require that we actually do anything particularly horrible.  This situation requires a rescue, and God has that worked out already.

Next, God gives man the Law, in the form of the Decalogue, or the Ten Commandments.  He spells out the types and shadows for a temple, a priesthood, a second type of sacrifice, and He establishes a royal lineage.  He gave prophets who tell of a coming King, a messiah who will be prophet, priest and king, all three in one.  Jesus comes into the world and becomes the perfect sacrifice, sufficient for the sin of the whole world.  But His sacrifice is only efficient for the sin of His chosen people.  This elect is not at first clear, but the prophets hint at the vastness of the number and that they will come from far off, presumably in both space and time.  He sends the second Paraclete, the Holy Spirit to round up His sheep.

Here is the key.  How does salvation work?  The answers to the parts of the Eucharist are given in the answers to salvation.  This is what we call the Gospel.  The Gospel is the Good News of the Salvation plan.  So, what is that plan?  Paul tells us that we are all evil and would never take the first step.  How, then, can we get started?  We don’t.  That is the key.  The Holy Spirit gives us the gift of belief.  Our first reaction to the touch of the Holy Spirit is to realize the Awesome Holiness of God.  The second reaction is to realize the depth of our despair due to sin.  Next, we repent our sin and receive absolution through Baptism.  Upon entering into the Covenant community, we hear the Word, we hear the Word preached, we receive the Sacrament of Holy Communion.  Notice that all of our steps to justification occur because the Holy Spirit enables us to do it.  We receive the gift of that ability to recognize our sin and ask forgiveness.  Then in sanctification, it is all about receiving again.  Be still, listen and receive.  Ps 46:10.

OK, now let’s go through a Eucharist.  The service begins with an invocation.  This is where we ask God to be present.  We, as a group of believers gathered together, call His name.  The manner of invocation is in the form of praise.  We are not demanding His presence.  We are in His house and we are praising His name.  Next, we confess our sins, and then receive absolution from the priest or pastor.  We then pray for the whole world.  Next, the Word is read to us.  Then the Word is preached to us.  Then we have the prayer of consecration.  Then we receive communion.  Then we are given a blessing and our marching orders for the week.

Did you notice how the service mirrors the initial sequence of transformation?  Then, the parts of sanctification are spelled out clearly in the service.  The service has been thoughtfully laid out as a renewal of our faith and an opportunity to receive God’s grace.  Our part is to show up and receive.  God is the divine waiter who serves His Grace to us.  He gives us everything that is necessary and sufficient for our salvation.  And this is the point I would make to the second man in the second story.  God’s Grace is sufficient even for you.  My question is why you would believe that it is not sufficient for you.  There is really a limited range of possibilities.  You might not understand the faith yet.  You might understand, but not believe.  No man can give you this belief; that is the power of the Holy Spirit.

One final issue, how did we get into this situation?  The blame must fall squarely on the shoulders of our priests and pastors.  If catechesis still exists in some churches, it is the last and only time lay people are taught this sort of thing.  There is an assumption that we know the doctrine and that we know the role of each part of the service.  Clearly, this assumption is faulty.   The solution to this problem is catechesis.  We need to be taught the doctrine that makes up the faith and we need to be taught the reasons for the words that we recite.  We need a return to the Reformation.  Luther told Pope Leo that there had been many calls for reformation before him and many would come after him.  But the Catholic Church would remember Luther, because while the other calls for reformation were all about morals and deeds, Luther was about reforming doctrines and understanding creeds.  When what is lost is the understanding of doctrines and the importance of the creeds, what type of reformation do we really need today?

What did Paul say to the church in Rome?  I know you are having problems, so let's talk about doctrine.  What did Paul say to Corinth?  I know that you are having problems, so let's talk about doctrine.  What did Paul say to Galatia?  I know that you are having problems, and this particular problem makes me furious, so let's talk about doctrine.  To Philippi, to Ephesus, to Thessalonia?  I know you are having some problems, so let's talk about doctrine.  That was Paul's solution.  I think it would work well here and now.

--Ogre--