John 6: Spirit and Life

Posted: May 15, 2015 | Author: | Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 26 Comments

This may be the most important blog post I ever write. If you are a Christian, I wrote it for you. And it’s my sincere hope that my Evangelical friends and family might understand that my spiritual journey has been one of careful biblical study. My purpose here is to efficiently refute a common argument, thereby helping lead people toward a better understanding of John 6 and ultimately a more biblically-accurate Christian faith.

Communion, or the Lord’s Supper, is an important part of Christian beliefs. It is based on the Last Supper that Jesus shared with His disciples before His crucifixion. The average Christian is probably familiar with this verse:

“And he took bread, and when he had given thanks he broke it and gave it to them, saying, ‘This is my body which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.’” -Luke 22:19

As followers of Christ, the command to “do this” is sufficient to convince us that it must be done, and so Christians everywhere agree that Communion in some form or another is important. But what is the reason why Jesus gave such a clear command?

Is there some deeper essential significance to this that we may not see?

This is where John chapter 6 comes in, where Jesus delivers His Bread of Life Discourse:

“I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.” -John 6:51

“So Jesus said to them, ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.’” –John 6:53,54

“‘For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.’” –John 6:55

“After this many of his disciples drew back and no longer walked with him. Jesus said to the Twelve, ‘Will you also go away?’ Simon Peter answered him, ‘Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life…’” –John 6:66-68a

As Christians, what do we do with those verses? Well, for Christians who have a more liturgical approach to worship, and believe that bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ during Communion, these verses can easily be taken literally.

However, there are many Christians today who prefer a sort of symbolic Communion. They are content with eating crackers and drinking grape juice simply “in remembrance”. They do not believe that they must eat Christ’s flesh and drink His blood, regardless of His words. When asked about John 6:53-55 (“he who eats my flesh… has eternal life…for my flesh is food indeed”), these self-labeled “Bible-believers” often just say “well, I don’t believe He meant that.”

Those who have studied the chapter inevitably base a defense of symbolic Communion on verse 63, where Jesus said,

“It is the Spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are Spirit and life.” –John 6:63

Basically, they say “See? You have to read the whole chapter in context! In verse 63 Jesus clears it up by explaining how His earlier words were symbolic, or figurative, like a sort of parable. His main purpose is to speak spiritually of Himself as the source of salvation, but not that He literally wants us to eat His flesh. To make it extra clear He even says that ‘the flesh is of no avail.’”

Here are six reasons why that common argument doesn’t actually work. Take your time.

  • In the Bible do we ever see a parable begin with “truly truly” (or “amen amen” or “verily verily” depending on your translation)? Jesus says those words when He wants to be extremely clear. Verses 53-55 are obviously intended to cut through any attempt to dodge His literal meaning.
  • When John wrote his Gospel, he had an opportunity to say “Jesus was speaking symbolically” here, but he did not say that.
  • Note that in verse 66, which follows the “clarification” in verse 63, people still leave Jesus over this, and He makes no attempt to stop them to clear up a misunderstanding.
  • Are we as Christians supposed to understand everything spiritual in a figurative way? Is the word “Spirit” in Scripture to be taken as “symbolic”? I hope not.
  • Note the obvious difference between “my flesh” (v. 55) and “the flesh” (v. 63). “The flesh” can be seen as carnal thinking or sinful nature in the following verses:
    Mark 14:38
    Romans 8:3-8
  • Would Jesus declare His own flesh to be “of no avail”? No way! Not if His death on the cross was going to be a sufficient sacrifice.

So, “the flesh” in verse 63 is not the same as Jesus’ flesh, which he says is indeed the food that gives us life. So what is the meaning behind verse 63? Well, it makes sense that the people listening would not understand without the Spirit opening their eyes to the life-giving truth. Peter admitted that he didn’t understand yet… but Peter and those who trusted Jesus stayed anyway. Many others chose not to believe, and went their own way.

Since verse 63 does not offer a symbolic escape hatch, we must take verses 53-55 literally.

“…he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life…”

The significance of this is monumental for anyone who wants to be part of a church that has sound doctrine. If your church has a merely symbolic Communion, do not let this subject rest on excuses or popular preference. Ensure that you are a part of the truly biblical, authentic Christian faith.

“The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread.” -1 Cor. 10:16,17

-Ben 5/15/15

Beginning to Understand Mary’s Important Role

Posted: November 22, 2014 | Author: | Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: , , , , , , | 3 Comments

It was one of those glass-shattering moments for me when I really began to understand the significance of the wedding feast at Cana, as seen in John’s Gospel. It is the first recorded miracle performed by Jesus, when He turned water into wine, but Mary’s role in this event offers us an important lesson for our lives today.

Here’s the story:

On the third day there was a wedding in Cana of Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there. Jesus and his disciples had also been invited to the wedding. When the wine gave out, the mother of Jesus said to him, “They have no wine.” And Jesus said to her, “Woman, what concern is that to you and to me? My hour has not yet come.” His mother said to the servants, “Do whatever he tells you.” Now standing there were six stone water jars for the Jewish rites of purification, each holding twenty or thirty gallons. Jesus said to them, “Fill the jars with water.” And they filled them up to the brim. He said to them, “Now draw some out, and take it to the chief steward.” So they took it. When the steward tasted the water that had become wine, and did not know where it came from (though the servants who had drawn the water knew), the steward called the bridegroom and said to him, “Everyone serves the good wine first, and then the inferior wine after the guests have become drunk. But you have kept the good wine until now.” Jesus did this, the first of his signs, in Cana of Galilee, and revealed his glory; and his disciples believed in him. -John 2:1-11

Jesus referred to his mother as “woman”. This seems strange to us at first glance. We know that Jesus would not have broken the 4th commandment and disrespected His mother. His phrasing recalls the prophecy in Genesis 3:15. Satan had been in the garden of Eden in the form of something like a serpent or dragon, tempting Eve to sin. And God said to him,

…I will put enmity between you and the woman,
and between your offspring and hers;
he will strike your head,
and you will strike his heel.” -Genesis 3:15

Jesus’ reference to Mary as “woman” is significant, as she is understood to be the new Eve… the woman who would have a role in redeeming mankind from sin, which makes sense, as the original Eve had a role in bringing mankind into sin.

But let’s return to Cana. Here is the main question that strikes me regarding Jesus’ miracle there:

Would Jesus have turned the water into wine for the wedding guests if Mary had not interceded on their behalf?

John indicates Jesus was unwilling, and Mary’s influence seemed to make all the difference. This helps to explain why Christians so often turn to Mary when there is a need. It’s not always clear if Jesus is willing, but either way it can be a good idea to hope His mother might intercede with Him on our behalf.

It’s also noteworthy that John says that Jesus “revealed his glory” through this miracle, which shows us how Mary’s intercession ultimately brings glory to God.

Part of my spiritual development has been a deeper realization of why various things were recorded in the Gospels… especially John’s Gospel, which was written around 60 years after the events. We’re not talking about some old guy writing down his memoirs for the heck of it, saying “Oh, yeah… and there was this one time…” These stories carry specific lessons for Christians. One lesson we can glean from the story of the wedding at Cana is this:

Mary is observant, and she has a feminine concern for people who need help. If she felt sympathy in her heart for the problem at the wedding, imagine how much she would be concerned for people who are in serious crisis.

How does this apply to us today?

Well, Mary’s concern and ability to intercede is in no way diminished. On the contrary, she’s actually in a greater position to help more people, especially those loyal to her Son:

A great portent appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars… Then the dragon was angry with the woman, and went off to make war on the rest of her children, those who keep the commandments of God and hold the testimony of Jesus. -Rev. 12:1,17

There’s John referring to the “woman” again. But this time he’s given us a glimpse of her in a beautiful place of honor and power, as the mother of Christians.

John, as Christ’s loyal disciple, had a special understanding of Mary’s motherly role, as He was there with Mary at the foot of the cross and heard Jesus pronounce the words:

When Jesus saw his mother and the disciple whom he loved standing beside her, he said to his mother, “Woman, here is your son.” Then he said to the disciple, “Here is your mother.” And from that hour the disciple took her into his own home. -John 19:26,27

As I strive to be loyal to Christ, I want Mary to know she is welcome in my home and I am happy to see God glorified through her intercession on behalf of us, her adopted children.

Scripture does not offer the whole picture of Mary’s significance, but we can definitely see enough to get us started in understanding her better.

-Ben 11/22/14

Queenship-of-Mary

Moment of Truth

Posted: September 29, 2014 | Author: | Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Moment of Truth

I’ve already shared significant portions of my journey from Evangelical Protestantism to Catholicism in my posts Considering Catholicism, On the Road to Rome, and How Francis Chan Helped Me Become Catholic, however I also wanted to share a pivotal moment of my testimony that I haven’t shared on my blog before. By the time 2013 was winding down, I was facing some very real questions about my faith. Some questions had begun to nag me years before, such as why someone as intelligent as G.K. Chesterton could conclude that Rome was right. But others were more recent, such as how Catholics can point to Jesus’ clearly articulated words in John chapter six to explain Christ’s Body and Blood being present in the Eucharist (a.k.a. Communion or Lord’s Supper), while Evangelical Protestant explanations were falling short to say the least in saying our Lord’s words must surely be symbolic.

Facing the very real prospect of being convinced of the truth of Catholicism, but struggling with the unfamiliarity of it compared to my prior beliefs, I began looking for a way out of the spiritual conflict. Turns out, it’s easy to find a way out, especially when you’ve been raised in the fringe minority of Christianity that thrives in modern American culture. It’s easy to lose yourself in American culture whenever you get tired of theology (the study of God). I even found a song that I felt I could adopt as symbolizing my new determination to pursue only minimalist Christianity. “Simple Man” by Lynyrd Skynyrd was how I felt and by determining to believe that God wanted nothing more from me than wholehearted simplicity, I decided to just read the Bible in a simple way, pray in a simple way, and serve others in a simple way, and Christianity didn’t need to be any more complicated than that. The admonitions of my relatives and friends seemed to echo the lyrics of the song:

“Boy, don’t you worry you’ll find yourself
Follow your heart and nothing else
And you can do this, oh baby, if you try
All that I want for you my son is to be satisfied

And be a simple kind of man
Oh, Be something you love and understand
Baby be a simple kind of man
Oh, won’t you do this for me son if you can?”

Trust me, if you drive down the road blasting songs like this with the windows down, it’s easy to forget about things like sacraments and ancient beliefs. But some things still rise above the noise:

“The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread.” -1 Cor. 10:16-17

I had a nagging suspicion that the little symbolic crackers that are passed out in Evangelical Protestant churches are not the body of Christ, even if I wished that it might be true, and if it wasn’t “a participation in the body of Christ”, was I even part of the body of Christ: His Church? Nonetheless, all of the Christians I grew up with and hung out with were all able to shrug it off as no big deal, and I was determined to do the same. Forget the Catholics and their evidence, they’re weird anyway! Perhaps the less I think about it, the better… Well, God had a patient way of working in my restless mind, and I should mention that even though I was growing weary of theology and wanted to live a simple life, I was also praying earnestly for God’s direction.

In the mean time, my wife and I decided to back away from Catholicism and we determined to make our Pentecostal church home work for us. We were sitting in a sparsely populated worship service at the Assemblies of God church one Sunday morning, and it was time for communion. I had been raised to take communion very seriously growing up, and I did, using it as a time of quiet reflection and bringing my sins before God. The pastor usually goes out of his way to remind everyone that it’s a symbol, even while hearkening back to Jesus’ words at the Last Supper. Even though I had been wrestling with the biblical, theological, and historical evidence put forth by the Catholics, I decided that I was just going to leave it in God’s hands and take my time figuring it all out… someday.

As we sat in what was nearly the center of the sanctuary waiting for the crackers and grape juice trays to make their way to us, it gradually dawned on me that the ushers had somehow missed us. I tried to think whether in all my years of attending Evangelical Protestant church services this had ever happened to me before… it never had as far as I could remember. How could they have missed us? I had determined that it would be fine to partake of this symbolic communion as I always had, but had God prevented it? A crazy thought… or was it? While the short communion time proceeded without me, I pondered the possibility that God was saying, “I am fine with you taking your time to work through the process of understanding the Catholic Church… but you know better than this.” My wife wasn’t as sure that God had intended to send a clear message, but she did find it strange at least that we were missed, especially since we had been wrestling with whether or not to continue the Evangelical Protestant version of communion in a symbolic way.

An usher came up to us after the service and was genuinely apologetic for having missed us. He didn’t realize it until after he had passed us by. I happily informed him that it was no problem at all. Little did he know how much God may have used him in that moment.

The journey was still long after that point, but it did seem to be the final clincher in the subject of symbolic communion. And knowing what I know now, it would probably be a sin for me to do something that I know to be a symbolic reinvention of what God intended to be a Sacrament, without the defense of unknowing sincerity. I know that people can quickly and easily disregard this story as coincidental (and even bring up instances of being missed in communion themselves), but I see this as being just the sort of thing that God would use to speak to a specific person in a specific way, and in a way that cannot be used as proof for anyone else. In and of itself, it is hardly evidence of anything, but as it was a tipping point for me (on top of a pile of evidence and prayers for God’s guidance), it might be helpful to others in a similar situation.

In closing, I’ve noticed that if there is one subject that even the most biblically-minded Evangelical Protestants like to avoid, it’s the subject of the Eucharist. Once the biblical evidence is honestly examined, you need to do some very creative footwork to justify that communion is a symbolic “ordinance” rather than a sacrament. After ruling out the churches of our upbringing, we still had to choose between the options that remained. For awhile, we tried out the local Episcopal church, and we would have gladly gone to an Anglican church (at the time) if one was nearby. Also, the Eastern Orthodox have some substantial arguments… but we knew we could never innocently go back to where we were before.

“Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord.” -1 Cor. 11:27

-Ben 9/29/14

————————————–

From here, I recommend this post:

John 6: Spirit and Life

-Ben 7/27/15

Something to Think About

Posted: June 24, 2014 | Author: | Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: , , , , , , , | 16 Comments

Protestants say that they don’t put their trust in men, so therefore they don’t trust the Catholic Church. They claim to be putting their trust in the Bible instead.

What if I said that I don’t put my trust in books, so why should I trust the Bible?

Of course I would be told that the Bible is not just an ordinary book. It is the exception to the rule and trustworthy because it is from God and protected by God. This is true.

That’s basically the explanation of the Catholic Church. It’s not an ordinary bunch of men, or simply a human institution. The Catholic Church is the exception to the rule, and trustworthy because it is from God and protected by God.  This is a bold claim I know, but I only wish to point out that trusting the Church is no more of a stretch than trusting the Bible.

The Bible did not appear out of thin air. We trust that God equipped certain men to write the Scriptures, compile them, and preserve them through the centuries. Is it that much of a stretch to believe that God is using men to infallibly interpret the infallible Scriptures so that they were not written, compiled, and preserved only to be misunderstood? It has been necessary to protect orthodox Christianity against heresy since the beginning of the Church, sometimes with the necessity of calling a council.

Before you attempt to bypass the Catholic Church in your pursuit of God’s will, make sure that you are not attempting to bypass what God intends for you. A lifetime, even a long one, does not offer enough time for you to figure much out on your own. You and the Bible alone cannot get very deep. Real understanding comes from tapping into the accumulated centuries of the Catholic Church’s knowledge.

I don’t like to put my trust in men either. Therefore I hesitate to trust myself, or pastors that fulfill my own ideas of trustworthiness. I won’t put my trust in the writings of guys like Martin Luther, John Calvin, or Loraine Boettner. I also do not want to be part of a human institution like the Southern Baptist Convention. We all trust people to some extent. Make sure they’re qualified.

-Ben 6/24/14

The Great Question

Posted: June 14, 2014 | Author: | Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

This short video goes a long way in explaining the central issue among Christians regarding Church authority.

How Francis Chan Helped Me Become Catholic

Posted: June 6, 2014 | Author: | Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: , , , , , , | Comments Off on How Francis Chan Helped Me Become Catholic

Francis Chan’s book Crazy Love was basically a life-changing book for me. He challenged me in a powerful way to really live out the Christian life as though it is true (because we believe that it is, right?). Jesus really died for us, and this should be life-changing knowledge. If we are to truly follow Jesus, then eternity really matters more than enjoying this life. The all-powerful Creator loves us so much, and our love for Him and others should reflect this knowledge. But I read Crazy Love at a crazy time in my spiritual life, and as excited as I was to live the life that Francis described, he left me with more questions than answers. Eventually, further down the road, I found the answers in the Catholic Church.

Francis Chan motivated me in 3 overall ways that ultimately helped lead me to the Catholic Church (for which I am honestly grateful to him). I will briefly cover them in this post.

Christianity Takes Courage

“Jesus’s call to commitment is clear: He wants all or nothing. The thought of a person calling himself a ‘Christian’ without being a devoted follower of Christ is absurd.”-Crazy Love, 2nd ed. pg. 85

Courage is an essential aspect of Christianity. Sacrificing, loving, and living with a reckless reliance upon God should be a normal aspect of life as a Christian. If you’re in your comfort zone, then you might not be on the right track. Obeying Christ in everything is not optional for Christians, even if it involves being poor so that others might have enough, or being ridiculed by people who don’t understand, or even giving your life for the faith.

Thanks in part to Francis Chan (and Dietrich Bonhoeffer), I really began to see how a true pursuit of the Christian life will naturally meet with opposition and hardship.

Jesus said,

“He who loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; and he who loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; and he who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. He who finds his life will lose it, and he who loses his life for my sake will find it.” -Matthew 10:37-39

I wanted to take my motivation to live a real Christian life and use it to serve God with all my heart. But what would that look like? What sort of things should I be doing to live courageously for God every day? I had it in my mind that no cost was too great, but I wanted my service to be God’s will, and not just my own ideas… so I needed direction.

“Should you put your house on the market today and downsize? Maybe. Should you quit your job? Maybe. Or perhaps God wants you to work harder at your job and be His witness there. Does He want you to move to another city or another country? Maybe. Perhaps He wants you to stay put and open your eyes to the needs of your neighbors. Honestly, it’s hard enough for me to discern how to live my own life!” –Crazy Love, 2nd ed. pg. 166

I began to get frustrated. How are Christians supposed to be living? Does anyone know?

“…I cannot say in this book, ‘Everyone is supposed to be a missionary’ or ‘You need to sell your car and start taking public transportation.’ What I can say is that you must learn to listen to and obey God, especially in a society where it’s easy and expected to do what is most comfortable.” –Crazy Love, 2nd ed. pg. 168

I must learn to listen to God …how? Partially thanks to this book, I began to ponder what this really means. It didn’t help when I stepped back and began to see that there are thousands of denominations of Protestant churches with different ideas of what God is saying to us. I believe I did indeed learn how to listen to God enough for him to guide me to the Catholic Church, where people are not figuring out from scratch what it means to live a Christian life.

Take the Bible Seriously

Francis Chan had a great way of explaining how real Christians must study the Scriptures in a direct and painfully honest way, not allowing our preferences to explain the meaning. This means not skimming over verses that we don’t understand or don’t like. Courage must be applied when reading the Bible. I began to realize, however, that direction can not only be obtained from reading the Bible, but must also be obtained for reading the Bible.

Understanding and obeying instructions from the Bible is essential, but for the Protestant, this is subject to personal interpretation. Chan’s conclusion seems to be that the more extreme you are in your interpretation, the more likely you are to be correct.

Reading the Bible honestly is not enough. You must have it explained (Acts 8:30-31), or you will end up extremely frustrated (if you’re honest). The question is: who do you trust to explain it, especially when there are thousands of differing opinions? If you’re going out onto the mission field, you need to have concrete answers to people’s theological questions, not just your opinions about what you think the Bible means. I don’t assume that Francis Chan’s book was intended for deep theological instruction, but it would be nice to know that someone has straight answers.

“Pray. Then read the Bible for yourself. Put this book down and pick up your Bible. My prayer for you is that you’ll understand the Scriptures not as I see them, but as God intends them. I do not want true believers to doubt their salvation as they read this book. In the midst of our failed attempts at loving Jesus, His grace covers us.” –Crazy Love, 2nd ed. pg. 87

How do we know we’re true believers? What does that mean?

One of Francis Chan’s motivating verses became the biggest example of my frustration:

“So then, none of you can be my disciple who does not give up all his own possessions.” –Luke 14:33 (NASB)

I have long believed that truth is not relative. I knew that it was up to me to discover what Jesus meant, and that I did not have the liberty to decide for myself what He meant. I wanted to be a real disciple even if everyone else was making excuses not to be, but what did Jesus mean when He said things like He did in that verse? How was I to understand it? Did anyone have definitive explanations?

I found that we don’t need a fresh look at the Bible. We need an infallible interpretation of the Bible. Otherwise we’re all walking around following our hearts like Disney princesses… or going crazy trying to find the actual truth and never being sure if we’ve found it.

I came to the conclusion at the end of it all that the only thing that really makes sense is if God placed something exactly like the Catholic Church on the earth to be the infallible interpreter of Scripture for the whole world. Otherwise it’s basically just relativism, and I didn’t want to live a life of courage and sacrifice for a Christianity of my own making. If God fits into a box of my assumptions and preferences, then chances are I’m not serving the real God.

“Not being able to understand God is frustrating, but it is ridiculous for us to think we have the right to limit God to something we are capable of comprehending.” –Crazy Love, 2nd ed. pg. 33

We Have Work to Do

We’re here to love God and love other people. This means serving God on His terms, not our own, and serving others even at the expense of our own preferences and prosperity.

“So we can follow our own course while still calling ourselves followers of Christ? So we can join the Marines, so to speak, without having to do all the work?” –Crazy Love, 2nd ed. pg. 85

“Lukewarm people say they love Jesus, and He is, indeed, a part of their lives. But only a part. They give Him a section of their time, their money, and their thoughts, but He isn’t allowed to control their lives.” –Crazy Love, 2nd ed. pg 72

I knew that I wanted to offer my God-given strengths and abilities as part of the Body of Christ, His Church. I wanted to do whatever I could to help. But I was running into a similar problem that Francis Chan did…

“But I think we all feel deeply, even if we haven’t voiced it, that the church in many ways is not doing well.” –Crazy Love, 2nd ed. pg. 22

“…I quickly found that the American church is a difficult place to fit in if you want to live out New Testament Christianity.” –Crazy Love, 2nd ed. pg. 68

Thanks in part to Francis Chan, I could see that an Americanized Christianity was not original or likely to be correct, and fitting in too much can be an indicator that I wasn’t living the faith authentically. Yet I wanted to be giving my all as part of the Church. This was a quandary. All of the acceptable Protestant options that I tried seemed so inadequate if I wanted to be part of a biblical culture and a more ancient mindset.

I knew from experience that being on fire to make the necessary changes to a flawed system does not turn out well. Ideally, it would be better to find the system that isn’t flawed. And I was even open to the possibility that what might appear as flaws to me might actually be my own flawed criteria. Jesus promised that the gates of hell would not prevail against His Church (Matt. 16:18), so I knew the Church still exists, but I also knew that it could not simply be a general unity of agreement between Christians about basic doctrines, because I could see so many disagreements even on fundamental issues. I also was not content to sit back and announce that my preferred interpretation of Scripture and Christian beliefs is right while everyone else’s is wrong, thereby insisting that my location is the location of the Church, like many people seem willing to do.

Biblically, Christians must be part of the Body of Christ, His Church. But what does His Church look like? Around the time I read this book, I had a couple of experiences where I could see plainly that the Evangelical Protestant concept of Church authority is hollow. Without universal authority in spiritual matters, how can you be the Church in possession of the Truth? The instruction we see in Matthew 18:17 to “…tell it to the Church…” seems to require a singular, authoritative Church, but where could this Church be found? Jesus prayed earnestly for His followers as recorded in John 17: 20-23: “…that they may become perfectly one, so that the world may know…”

Francis Chan was onto something, but he was only scratching the surface of a much bigger picture. Christians must be part of a globally united Church that possesses the authority and unity of Truth. Then they can effectively reach the world with the message of God’s crazy love.

The Catholic (“universal”) Church has been there all this time (going on 2,000 years). Many of us have just preferred to ignore it so that we can do our own thing. But what if Christians really had courage and a commitment to truth like Francis Chan is encouraging us to have? Then it’s no longer about doing our own thing, is it?

-Ben 6/6/14

An Introduction to the Sacrament of the Eucharist

Posted: May 19, 2014 | Author: | Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: , , , , , , | Comments Off on An Introduction to the Sacrament of the Eucharist

John 6:51-66

51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats of this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh.”

52 The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” 53 So Jesus said to them, “Very truly, I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood have eternal life, and I will raise them up on the last day; 55 for my flesh is true food and my blood is true drink. 56 Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood abide in me, and I in them. 57 Just as the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever eats me will live because of me. 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven, not like that which your ancestors ate, and they died. But the one who eats this bread will live forever.” 59 He said these things while he was teaching in the synagogue at Capernaum.

60 When many of his disciples heard it, they said, “This teaching is difficult; who can accept it?” 61 But Jesus, being aware that his disciples were complaining about it, said to them, “Does this offend you? 62 Then what if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before? 63 It is the spirit that gives life; the flesh is useless. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. 64 But among you there are some who do not believe.” For Jesus knew from the first who were the ones that did not believe, and who was the one that would betray him. 65 And he said, “For this reason I have told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted by the Father.”

66 Because of this many of his disciples turned back and no longer went about with him.

Matthew 26:26-28

26 While they were eating, Jesus took a loaf of bread, and after blessing it he broke it, gave it to the disciples, and said, “Take, eat; this is my body.” 27 Then he took a cup, and after giving thanks he gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you; 28 for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.

Luke 24:13-31

13 Now on that same day two of them were going to a village called Emmaus, about seven miles from Jerusalem, 14 and talking with each other about all these things that had happened. 15 While they were talking and discussing, Jesus himself came near and went with them, 16 but their eyes were kept from recognizing him. 17 And he said to them, “What are you discussing with each other while you walk along?” They stood still, looking sad. 18 Then one of them, whose name was Cleopas, answered him, “Are you the only stranger in Jerusalem who does not know the things that have taken place there in these days?” 19 He asked them, “What things?” They replied, “The things about Jesus of Nazareth, who was a prophet mighty in deed and word before God and all the people, 20 and how our chief priests and leaders handed him over to be condemned to death and crucified him. 21 But we had hoped that he was the one to redeem Israel. Yes, and besides all this, it is now the third day since these things took place. 22 Moreover, some women of our group astounded us. They were at the tomb early this morning, 23 and when they did not find his body there, they came back and told us that they had indeed seen a vision of angels who said that he was alive. 24 Some of those who were with us went to the tomb and found it just as the women had said; but they did not see him.” 25 Then he said to them, “Oh, how foolish you are, and how slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have declared! 26 Was it not necessary that the Messiah should suffer these things and then enter into his glory?” 27 Then beginning with Moses and all the prophets, he interpreted to them the things about himself in all the scriptures.

28 As they came near the village to which they were going, he walked ahead as if he were going on. 29 But they urged him strongly, saying, “Stay with us, because it is almost evening and the day is now nearly over.” So he went in to stay with them. 30 When he was at the table with them, he took bread, blessed and broke it, and gave it to them. 31 Then their eyes were opened, and they recognized him; and he vanished from their sight.

1 Cor. 10:16-17

16 The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a sharing in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a sharing in the body of Christ? 17 Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread.

1 Cor. 11:23-30

23 For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took a loaf of bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body that is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” 25 In the same way he took the cup also, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” 26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.

27 Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be answerable for the body and blood of the Lord. 28 Examine yourselves, and only then eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29 For all who eat and drink without discerning the body, eat and drink judgment against themselves. 30 For this reason many of you are weak and ill, and some have died.

A Case for the Sign of the Cross: St. Francis de Sales and his Defense of a Christian Practice

Posted: January 23, 2014 | Author: | Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: , , , , , , , , | 19 Comments

On January 24th, Christians around the world honor the memory of St. Francis de Sales, who is remembered for his bold yet graceful defense of the Faith in the 16th century area of Switzerland. Before January 24th came along this year, I had the opportunity to read a copy of St. Francis’ book, The Sign of the Cross, in which he defends the practice of making the Sign of the Cross by referring not only to the historic traditions of Christianity, but also relating powerful stories of its use, and the biblical roots of its importance.

The Sign of the Cross can be made over the forehead or mouth, but the most familiar method is touching the fingers of the right hand to the forehead, followed by the lower/center chest, left shoulder and then right shoulder. This is done while saying “In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit”, which some consider to be “the fifteen most powerful words in the English language”. St. Francis is decidedly Catholic, as are his apologetics, but non-Catholics should not be too quick to dismiss the Sign of the Cross simply because Catholics have gotten the most use out of it. My question is whether all Christians should be using it, and I’ll cut to the chase for a moment: if the Sign of the Cross is inherently (and historically) Christian, and does indeed stand against both evil and false doctrine, then it seems to me that all followers of Christ should be identifying themselves with the Sign of the Cross. Because I prefer to examine Christianity in its full historical context, I am willing to think outside the box on this, even though I’m still technically classified as an “Evangelical Protestant”.

St. Francis’ chapter titles offer some insight into his approach to the subject: “A Public Profession of Faith”, “The Use of the Sign of the Cross in the Church of the Fathers”, “A Reproof to the Antichrist”, “A Defense against Demons”, etc.

Along with scripture references to explain to people why they should not assail such a wonderful Christian practice, St. Francis also quoted many important people from Christian history, such as St. Athanasius: “Every magical art is rebuffed by the Sign of the Cross, and by it every spell is broken”. Or St. Antony: “The demons come in the night pretending to be angels of God. Seeing them, arm yourselves and your homes with the Sign of the Cross, and immediately they will be reduced to nothing, for they fear this victory sign by which the Savior despoiled the powers of the air and made them laughable.” And St. John Chrysostom: “St. Paul calls the Cross a prize, and it should not only be made with the hand on the body, but, in truth, first in the soul. For if in this way you impress it upon your face, not one of the demons will dare attack you, seeing the lance by which they received the mortal blow.”

St. Francis de Sales himself was a very interesting guy. Particularly interesting to me, he is the patron saint of writers, and known for his stand against the harmful ideas of his time that posed a real threat to him personally and caused great spiritual damage to the region in which he lived. According to the biographical note at the end of the book, “…St. Francis’ unflagging poise and kindness in [his] mission led to its eventual success. By the turn of the century, the majority of the area’s inhabitants had returned to the Catholic faith.”

In closing, the description on the back cover of the book is worth quoting at length:

“Embodying the zeal of youth and the wisdom of age, this gentle jewel of Catholic apologetics traces the origins of the Sign of the Cross back to the Fathers of the Church, to the Apostles before them, and finally to our Lord Himself…

“Outside the Creed itself, there are few topics to which the Fathers testify as universally and unanimously as the pious practice of making, frequently and well, the Sign of the Cross…”

I would be curious to hear the thoughts of my fellow Christians on this matter. Why are so many of us not making the Sign of the Cross? As a Christian, I have been longing for a way to identify myself boldly with Christ, express spiritual feelings outwardly, bless and be blessed, and separate myself from heretical versions of the faith. History and Christian tradition may have provided the answer. What do you think?

-Ben 1/23/14

“If this sign were not applied to the forehead of believers, or to the water with which they are regenerated, or to the chrism oil with which they are anointed, or to the sacrifice by which they are nourished, none of these would be as perfect as they should be.”
–St. Augustine

Considering Catholicism

Posted: October 19, 2013 | Author: | Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: , , , , , | 14 Comments

Why? There is no way to list all of the reasons here, but I will at least attempt to offer a glimpse of my basic reasoning process. The Christian faith must surely be a durable one, and has nothing to fear from my questions. Even if you do not trust my judgment as I look into this, perhaps you can read my thoughts out of curiosity, and I can read your comments in the same manner. My goal is the fullness of the Christian faith, and this is not intended as a condemnation of people who choose to believe differently, or are content where they are spiritually. Think of it this way: someone who is in pursuit of a master’s degree is not necessarily doing it in condemnation of people who are content with a bachelor’s degree. I am grateful beyond words for those who have brought me up in the Christian faith, and I do not wish to appear as though I’m shrugging off their love and legacy by digging deeper.

First of all, let me establish what is NOT being questioned. Christianity itself, in a nutshell, is the core of this whole thing. My faith is grounded in Jesus Christ, who is (and always will be) my Lord and Savior. The Gospel and the Creeds make up my basic declaration of faith which I can refer to as “mere Christianity.” The questions I’m asking arise out of matters of authority within the Church, proper interpretation and understanding of Scripture, the role of tradition within the faith, and the way that Christians are to live their lives. These questions lead to disagreements over the possible answers. Resolving them ultimately requires putting trust in some person’s ability to understand God (even if you only recognize your own ability). So, the overarching question becomes, “Who do you trust, and why?” I ask this in the sense of a trustworthy source that everyone can use. For me this question is separate from questions like “Who has cared about you?” or “Who has invested most in you?” or “What has your family long believed?” It is important to recognize the distinction. Also, you shouldn’t simply point to the Bible as the means of understanding the faith, when the Bible itself is part of what Christians are attempting to understand. If someone is wondering how a masterful work of art was painted and how to interpret its meaning you don’t simply hand the painting to them as an explanation.

One of the first things about Catholicism that becomes apparent to the inquisitor (no pun intended) is that non-Catholics (and even many Catholics!) have many misconceptions of what Catholic beliefs and Church history actually are. I have learned a lot in the past few weeks simply by allowing myself to see the Bible through a Catholic lens instead of a Protestant one. Note: this “lens” concept is important to realize, especially when bringing up points about what the Bible says. Even if I do not end up joining the Catholic Church, I cannot help but have a greater respect for Catholics and a greater sympathy for them as they face constant misunderstanding and mockery in our culture. It has become somewhat amusing to me (yet frustrating) to see the Catholic Church held up to a standard of perfection and be demonstrated as imperfect, while the great many branches of Protestantism are barely held up to any standard at all and are thus demonstrated to be adequate.

In many ways my spiritual journey began years ago, in my frustration with the various churches that I have been a part of. I ended up experimenting with the house church concept, based loosely on an attempt to understand New Testament house churches. Stephen Ray (a convert to Catholicism from Protestantism) tried a similar experiment earlier in his life and described reverting back to the New Testament house church as being like an attempt to take a full-size tree and revert it back into the form of the acorn that it came from. It is an unnatural disregard of what has transpired within the Church since its founding. I realize now that a person can protest their way completely out of the picture. I suppose my attempt at house church could be thought of as the final product of Protestantism.

In other ways this spiritual journey of mine began as a result of my parents’ divorce, causing me to re-evaluate many aspects of the foundation of my upbringing, and the inadequacies of churches that value freedom more than doctrine. In other ways it resulted from my faith being challenged during my time in a secular college, and hours-worth of discussion with a Muslim friend of mine as we compared our faiths. My encounters with Calvinism and various forms of egoism led me to ponder what Christianity would look like apart from those influences, since Christianity seems naturally opposed to them anyway. It appears to me that many Protestants are more Calvinist than they realize or are willing to admit. Calvinism has a foothold in American churches in a profound but immeasurable way.

The Catholic Church seems to naturally repel Calvinists.

I developed a frustration from reading books like “The Cost of Discipleship”, “Crazy Love”, and “Radical”. These books alluded to a very real and powerful way to live the Christian life, but left me with far more questions than answers.

Eastern Orthodoxy and Anglicanism are worthy of serious consideration, but for various reasons I have set them aside. I would be willing to reconsider them or discuss my thoughts if asked.

The issue as I see it is not whether we will accept a human authority on this earth, but which human authority we accept. Some accept the established doctrines of the Catholic Church, others accept the doctrines of their Wesleyan church, or Baptist church, while others establish doctrines on their own, based on their ideas, readings, preferences, etc. What doctrines are the most legitimate? Again, who do you trust, and why? This is NOT ruling out the Holy Spirit as a guide. It is simply an honest acknowledgement of the countless divisions found within the faith, and the logical assumption that divisions are not a sign of strength. If there is one universal Church, it would be great news to anyone like me who is sick and tired of opinions and guesses being used to determine important questions within the faith. Obviously the legitimacy of the Catholic Church’s doctrine is still questionable in my mind at this point (hence the title of this post), but I cannot help but wonder how it can be less legitimate than all of the various ideas that people outside the Catholic Church come up with on any given day. Established doctrines can mean less freedom it’s true, but I for one am willing to release my grip on doctrinal freedom if Truth is found to supersede it.

I admit that much of the appeal of the Catholic Church is its universality. It spans not only the centuries, but the globe. It still boggles my mind that there are 1.2 billion members of the Roman Catholic Church. From what I’ve heard that’s far more than all other versions of Christianity combined. Somebody might be quick to claim that he is smarter than all of those people, but I am not that quick. Like Socrates, learning has made me realize how little I know. An American Evangelical Protestant shaking his fist at Catholicism and declaring it to be “pagan” or some other similar term seems rather self-destructive considering that he is part of a small sliver of the overall Christian population of the world, with the vast majority being Catholic. If the Catholic Church is not Christian, then the legitimacy of all churches around the world looks a bit shaky. It’s more of a question of whether we can justify being outside of it or not. Perhaps we can, but we’d better be sure.

Many different people interpret the Bible in many different ways, and some are quick to accept the responsibility for taking interpretive authority upon their own shoulders. James said “Let not many of you become teachers, my brethren, knowing that as such we will incur a stricter judgment.” Knowing Greek is not the same as understanding the Greek of the New Testament, and reading the Bible does not mean we can teach ourselves or others correctly. The “Magisterium” of the Catholic Church takes that awesome doctrinal responsibility upon its shoulders (I wouldn’t want it!), and the Catholics believe that the gates of Hell will not prevail against the Church. Even if the Catholic Church is simply regarded as an institution apart from God’s divine preservation, G.K. Chesterton said, “There is no other case of one continuous intelligent institution that has been thinking about thinking for two thousand years.” It has the accumulated experience of centuries, dating back to the beginning of the Church. We individuals with our limited experience have to sift through more concepts and ideas than we have time for on this earth. There is simply not enough time to get it all figured out, so why try? But it’s still important to base our beliefs on the best sources of instruction. Our eternity may depend upon it.

A few miscellaneous thoughts may help offer some insight as well: I have begun to question Americanized Christianity, allowing myself to be humbled by the age and enormity of the faith outside of our usual perception of it. I have discovered the early Church Fathers. Guys like Ignatius of Antioch, Clement of Rome, Polycarp, Irenaeus, and Justin Martyr are some of the best resources Christians have in order to better understand what Christianity was intended to be. The Catholic Church cherishes the writings of the Fathers, while Protestants seem content to ignore them and rely more on their own judgment and modern commentary. I find that to be interesting. I have developed a greater appreciation for great works of Catholics, from the architecture of cathedrals to the imagination behind The Lord of the Rings trilogy. Things like crossing oneself for prayer and the psychological need people have for confession (and even penance) are making more and more sense. Also, the “age of the earth” debate that Protestants constantly stumble through is practically nonexistent within the Catholic Church, because there are fewer misconceptions running rampant about how to understand the Bible. G.K. Chesterton’s writings have helped me to better grasp the balance between human intellect and the sanity of mystery. I could go on and on, but I’ve shared enough for now.

I ask for your prayers as I continue to follow Christ. Feedback is welcome, and encouragement is always appreciated. I put a lot of careful work into my writing, and this post is no exception. Bear in mind that this post is NOT a declaration of intent to join the Catholic Church. These thoughts are meant to be taken only as thoughts, and I encourage you to keep an eye out for future posts. You may have noticed that I’ve hardly discussed any theology in this post. There will be plenty of time for that. I merely wanted to create a basis from which to launch my future ruminations on the subject of the Catholic Church. Stay tuned…

-Ben 10/19/13

What if Chesterton was Right?

Posted: October 6, 2013 | Author: | Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: , , , , | 5 Comments

“It is impossible to be just to the Catholic Church. The moment men cease to pull against it they feel a tug towards it. The moment they cease to shout it down they begin to listen to it with pleasure. The moment they try to be fair to it they begin to be fond of it. But when that affection has passed a certain point it begins to take on the tragic and menacing grandeur of a great love affair.”

-G.K. Chesterton in his book The Catholic Church and Conversion, ch. 3

Intrigued? Click here for an essay that Chesterton wrote in 1926 called “Why I am a Catholic”

Stay tuned…

-Ben 10/6/13