What Makes a Sacrament?

I had this great podcast interview, this morning, which will post tomorrow.  It’s the first in a series of podcasts covering various sacraments, and the truth is the conversation was so good that we only managed to cover about half of what we intended to talk about.  Less work for me, because that means one transcript is going to stretch for two episodes, but I did want to touch briefly on a foundational sacramental identity issue.  What makes a sacrament?

As Protestants, we insist on three qualities:

Dominical institution:  I actually really hate it when people use this phrase, and I’m about to tell you why (surprised much?).  I don’t like this phrase, because it’s not accessible.  I feel like people use this phrase, because they want to look really smart, and honestly… it’s so great when you know Latin.  I mean that.  There is absolutely no sarcasm here.  I promise.  I love language.  I’m going to learn Latin, too, someday.  But when you say this to the average person; it doesn’t make any sense.  Before we ever begin a conversation about the sacraments, we have lost the ear of the vast majority of people in the entire world.  So here’s the definition, friends: Dominical institution simply means that it is a direct command (and perhaps promise) of Jesus.  Look for the red words in Scripture.  You’ll find it.

Now, I was not even going here, but rabbit trails seem to be the story of my life, lately, and it’s all just coming out of my fingers onto this screen, so here we go…

Sacraments are too important to lose people because we’ve made them feel stupid.  And if you don’t think that’s a real thing, I have a story.  Several months ago, I sat down to dinner with a friend of mine.  We started to talk about life and theology and education, because… let’s be real… that’s mostly what I talk about.  As is often the case with conversations such as these, we began to muse over shared experience and mutual acquaintances in the world of theology, and I don’t know if it’s a curse or what, but more often than not these conversations lead to a single name of a shared friend, and everybody…  I mean everybody says, “Oh wow, I really want to meet him someday…” 

So I was just bracing for my typical response when his name came off her lips and she said, “Oh wow, he really made me feel stupid…”

I’m glad I had not yet taken a drink of my Coke, because I seriously would have spit it all over the restaurant!  This friend of mine—she’s really smart… really educated… top 8.9%.  If somebody made her feel stupid, there’s a problem, and it’s not with her.

And I’m so far down this rabbit trail; I think I fell in a hole, but the point is we have to be more conscientious than this.  The average adult in the United States has a 3^rd-8^th grade reading level.  If we’re making people with graduate level degrees feel stupid, what must we be doing to the general population?

Today was originally about confession, so I’m sorry.  I will use more accessible words.

Oh… goodness… sacraments…

So, the second qualification is that the sacrament must be a means of grace.  Nobody… and I mean nobody… should feel as dumb as me on this one, because I have asked a ridiculous number of questions most often phrased as, “What grace is this?”  That concept is a topic for another day… another blog… another podcast, but it matters deeply, because we have often assigned specific types of grace as worthy of sacramental value, and I don’t think we can ignore our human inclinations in this.  Most often, the grace imparted is salvific (leading to salvation) or communal in nature.  Sacraments tend to embody the grace of God that initiates, transforms, or redeems identity and community of some sort.  So, that’s what you’re looking for.

And third, the sacrament must have an outward sign.  This might be the most subjective of the sacramental attributes, and I have to be honest here; sacramental people (me included) can kind of be snobs about this.  So, if you’re going to fight for more than two sacraments in the Protestant Church or more than seven in the Catholic Church, just be ready… you might have to pay with your orthodoxy card (and your reputation… and the relationships you fought so hard to have, grace and all).  There are definitely some undeniable ones—the water of baptism, the bread and wine (body and blood) of the Eucharist, but there are others that are difficult to sell (I think I live to see another day as a Protestant… maybe).

God makes this grace available to everyone, but I’m afraid we might limit it with our human standards and insistences.  So maybe we could work together to stop that… or to change it?

L.

Atonement is Available... Now What?

When I was first determining the order in which I wanted to "tackle" the articles of faith, I found it strange that prevenient grace came after atonement.  In many ways, I think prevenient grace should come just after the articles about God, because I think prevenient grace is actually a part of God's nature.  Without it, I do not believe we understand who God is (not that we completely comprehend this, there is room for mystery to be sure, but grace is essential because it is such an enormous component of love).  I'd like to explore that further, but in regard to the articles, I think I "get it" now.  Perhaps this order was chosen to highlight the belief that there is only one way, in the Church of the Nazarene, to attain atonement.  And it requires prevenient grace. 

VII. Prevenient Grace

7. We believe that the human race’s creation in Godlikeness included ability to choose between right and wrong, and that thus human beings were made morally responsible; that through the fall of Adam they became depraved so that they cannot now turn and prepare themselves by their own natural strength and works to faith and calling upon God. But we also believe that the grace of God through Jesus Christ is freely bestowed upon all people, enabling all who will to turn from sin to righteousness, believe on Jesus Christ for pardon and cleansing from sin, and follow good works pleasing and acceptable in His sight.

We believe that all persons, though in the possession of the experience of regeneration and entire sanctification, may fall from grace and apostatize and, unless they repent of their sins, be hopelessly and eternally lost.

(Godlikeness and moral responsibility: Genesis 1:26-27; 2:16-17; Deuteronomy 28:1-2; 30:19; Joshua 24:15; Psalm 8:3-5; Isaiah 1:8-10; Jeremiah 31:29-30; Ezekiel 18:1-4; Micah 6:8; Romans 1:19-20; 2:1-16; 14:7-12; Galatians 6:7-8

Natural inability: Job 14:4; 15:14; Psalms 14:1-4; 51:5; John 3:6a; Romans 3:10-12; 5:12-14, 20a; 7:14-25

Free grace and works of faith: Ezekiel 18:25-26; John 1:12-13; 3:6b; Acts 5:31; Romans 5:6-8, 18; 6:15-16, 23; 10:6-8; 11:22; 1 Corinthians 2:9-14; 10:1-12; 2 Corinthians 5:18-19; Galatians 5:6; Ephesians 2:8-10; Philippians 2:12-13; Colossians 1:21-23; 2 Timothy 4:10a; Titus 2:11-14; Hebrews 2:1-3; 3:12-15; 6:4-6; 10:26-31; James 2:18-22; 2 Peter 1:10-11; 2:20-22)

Wait.  What?  Prevenient grace is not what I thought it was.  At least, not by this definition.  Can I be honest?  That's stressing me out just a little bit.

I have often heard prevenient grace defined as, "the grace that goes before".  With this thought in mind, I would have considered prevenient grace to be the kind of grace that we explored, last week, as a modifier to efficacious atonement.  It is the grace that covers those who cannot be held morally responsible.  I'm not sure that's what we're saying here, though...

I have often heard prevenient grace defined as, "the grace that draws us to God".  With this thought in mind, I would have considered prevenient grace to be the nudging toward recognition of our lost-ness.  It is the grace that desperately calls to us even when we're not listening.  I'm not sure that's what we're saying here, either...

As I re-read this article, this is what it said to me.  Here's a recap.  All people are morally responsible, since we have been made Imago Dei (in the image of God) and all.  And depraved.  We're all depraved (because, you know, that's really Imago Dei).  But don't worry.  There's grace for that... if you want it... which is really unlikely, since you're wicked.  It could happen though, since grace exists.  If it does, seriously watch your step, because if you slip and fall, it's over.  Eternal damnation.  That's prevenient grace.

Maybe I'm cynical... or jaded... or fallen.  Heaven knows I've been accused of all three.  But I just wasn't satisfied with this definition, so I did a very little bit of research.  Thankfully, as it turns out, both Wesley and Arminius seem to have had better definitions.  As a side note, why do we do this?  If the original definition is a good one, why do we change it?  Am I doing that right now?  If I am, please feel free to let me know.  But I digress...

Prevenient grace, according to Wesley, elicits, "the first wish to please God, the first dawn of light concerning His will, and the first slight transient conviction of having sinned against Him" ("On Working Out Our Own Salvation", Sermon #85).  The grace that draws us in...

According to Arminius, "Free will is unable to begin or to perfect any true and spiritual good, without grace.... This grace [prœvenit] goes before, accompanies, and follows; it excites, assists, operates that we will, and cooperates lest we will in vain" (The Works of James Arminius).  The grace that goes before... and with... and after.

To be fair, I think we have one really important line in our article about prevenient grace.  "But we also believe that the grace of God through Jesus Christ is freely bestowed upon all people, enabling all who will to turn from sin to righteousness, believe on Jesus Christ for pardon and cleansing from sin, and follow good works pleasing and acceptable in His sight" (Article VII).  I don't think our line is as succinct as that of Wesley or Arminius, but it is probably sufficient to describe the grace that goes before, particularly in light of the word "enabling", although I think that same word is too passive to describe a God who seeks and draws.

But the rest of the article?  Even if we believe it to be true, how is this even related to prevenient grace?  If these words belong anywhere, the early ones belong in article V, and the later ones belong in article XVI.  Do we really want to conflate sin and judgment with prevenient grace?  Just think about that.  It doesn't even make sense.

I think I'll send a resume to someone who's hiring for desert mothers now.  I already know how this discussion is going to end.

L.