Sacred Space

It’s Sacramental Saturday, and although I (and others) have spent many hours and days exploring proper sacraments in this space; I’d like to briefly consider space, itself, tonight… this space… physical space… mental and emotional space… just… space…

I think we need it: I don’t think we allow for enough of it (simplistic enough).

The only way this ever gets remedied is for us to make space a priority.

And so I am tempted to talk about spiritual disciplines and how we must fill our spaces with them.  I am inclined to lean toward inward disciplines—particularly toward disciplines of abstinence, because it seems as if they might be the ones that best allow for space.  But I want to be careful, because even the thrust toward disciplines such as silence and solitude can become a burden if we do not first recognize the need for clear space… empty space… overall.  These things are not interchangeable.

I live in a culture overwhelmed with noise, and not just the kind you hear.  Even if I manage to sneak away to a quiet corner of my world where auditory noise is almost eliminated (the hum of the air conditioner isn’t something I’m willing to part with on such a hot, humid day); my mind will continue to run. 

Visual noise is, quite possibly, an even greater danger.  How about some stats? The sheer number of screens available to me at any given time is staggering—and addictive.  I should absolutely admit that it is addictive, because as I am typing even this post about space; I am slightly panicked over the fact that I accidentally left the power cord for my laptop 222 miles from where I now sit, I only have 33% battery life remaining (which should last approximately two hours), and I’m concerned that if my battery drops below a certain level I will need to quickly send this particular document to some remote location, so I can access it on one of the other four computers currently at my disposal.  Four!  This will, in turn, bring great irritation to one of my children, because it will leave him or her without a functioning computer for at least several minutes.  Depending on the child this affects, he or she may request the use of a hand held video game or tablet during such time.  And I think there may be eleven available options.  Eleven!  But if none of those devices are sufficient, perhaps one of the three smart phones or the TV will do. 

There is no space.

This post isn’t going in all the beautiful unplugged, hands free directions you might assume, though.   

As it turns out, I’m not much of an advocate for unplugged and hands free, except in rare circumstances (water parks are a good one), because my world requires technology for communication.  And communication matters—a lot.

So no, I’m not going to guilt you into putting your phone down, because you’re missing your life, and, in fact, I might encourage you to pick it up if it includes a camera, because that’s a fabulous way to chronicle the everyday memories that might otherwise be forgotten.

I am, however, going to ask you to think about when… and where… and for how long you might be able to clear some space to simply be covered by the grace that loves you because you exist.  No strings… no requirements… no pressure.

Sacramental and disciplined living is important and transformative, but it must begin with accepting that which we cannot do, if we hope to recognize God at work.

 
L. 

Introduction to the Eucharist

Here's Nazarene Article of Faith #13...

XIII. The Lord’s Supper

13. We believe that the Memorial and Communion Supper instituted by our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ is essentially a New Testament sacrament, declarative of His sacrificial death, through the merits of which believers have life and salvation and promise of all spiritual blessings in Christ. It is distinctively for those who are prepared for reverent appreciation of its significance, and by it they show forth the Lord’s death till He come again. It being the Communion feast, only those who have faith in Christ and love for the saints should be called to participate therein.

(Exodus 12:1-14; Matthew 26:26-29; Mark 14:22-25; Luke 22:17-20; John 6:28-58; 1 Corinthians 10:14-21; 11:23-32)

Like baptism, there is no way to work through this very important topic in a reasonably sized blog post.  The Eucharist simply takes more time and space than this will allow, and, therefore, it will likely become a series of interrelated thoughts and ideas at some point, much like my current work regarding baptism.  For today, let's consider a few main points.

The Eucharist as a memorial... 

In Luke, Jesus does tell the disciples to do this... to take this cup and this bread... in remembrance of him.  The Eucharistic meal is a memorial.  And yet, I think we might lose sight of exactly what we are memorializing.  We say that this is a declaration of Christ's death, but we immediately turn to the benefits for believers, and I don't think we often take the time to consider the depth of the words of Jesus as he instructs us to partake in this meal, not simply as a reminder of life and salvation and spiritual blessings but as a reminder of his body and blood.  The Eucharist should first touch the depths of our beings that understand what it is to mourn, and yet we seem quick to move toward the celebration.

The Eucharist as a communion supper...

In an earlier guest post, found here, the idea of the Eucharist as unifying for the body of believers is explored.  I would encourage you to click over to that post and to consider how practicing this meal brings us together.

The Eucharist as a sacrament...

I'm struggling with the word "essentially" in our definition.  As Protestants, we generally recognize two sacraments, the Eucharist and Baptism.  If we're going to do that, let's really commit to it.  The Eucharist is not "essentially" a sacrament.  The Eucharist is a sacrament.  It is instituted by Jesus, there is an outward sign (the bread and wine... or juice), and grace is imparted through participation in the Eucharistic meal.  But it's this grace (or lack thereof) that is really bothering me most about our definition in the article of faith.  As Wesleyans, we believe in prevenient grace (how many times are we going to come back to this), and yet we seem to have made the Eucharist into an exclusive ceremony by declaring that "it is distinctively for those who are prepared for reverent appreciation of its significance... only (for) those who have faith in Christ and love for the saints..."

If this is a means of grace and we believe in prevenient grace, then there is no possible way we should ever exclude someone from the table.  Perhaps we should take a clue from Jesus who allowed even Judas to participate in the communion feast. 

L.

There's No Salvation Here (or is there)

The Church of the Nazarene is not really evangelical.  Stay with me.  Maybe this is why we get to article #9 before we talk about the crisis moment that so many people understand as conversion.  But read carefully, because the language in this article is not the language we use in everyday encounters.  There's something so much more.  There are some things I would like to expand, but even as it is written; justification, regeneration, and adoption are not about "getting saved".  In fact, salvation is not even mentioned in this article.

IX. Justification, Regeneration, and Adoption

9. We believe that justification is the gracious and judicial act of God by which He grants full pardon of all guilt and complete release from the penalty of sins committed, and acceptance as righteous, to all who believe on Jesus Christ and receive Him as Lord and Savior.

9.1. We believe that regeneration, or the new birth, is that gracious work of God whereby the moral nature of the repentant believer is spiritually quickened and given a distinctively spiritual life, capable of faith, love, and obedience.

9.2. We believe that adoption is that gracious act of God by which the justified and regenerated believer is constituted a son of God.

9.3. We believe that justification, regeneration, and adoption are simultaneous in the experience of seekers after God and are obtained upon the condition of faith, preceded by repentance; and that to this work and state of grace the Holy Spirit bears witness.

(Luke 18:14; John 1:12-13; 3:3-8; 5:24; Acts 13:39; Romans 1:17; 3:21-26, 28; 4:5-9, 17-25; 5:1, 16-19; 6:4; 7:6; 8:1, 15-17; 1 Corinthians 1:30; 6:11; 2 Corinthians 5:17-21; Galatians 2:16-21; 3:1-14, 26; 4:4-7; Ephesians 1:6- 7; 2:1, 4-5; Philippians 3:3-9; Colossians 2:13; Titus 3:4-7; 1 Peter 1:23; 1 John 1:9; 3:1-2, 9; 4:7; 5:1, 9-13, 18)

In an earlier post about atonement, I considered skipping ahead and combining these two articles but thought better of it because of the sometimes ignored material in-between.  And yet, here we are, now discussing not what atonement is but what it does.

Justification - What a funny word to use.  I can remember hearing this described, in a clever play on syllables, as "just... as... if... I'd" never sinned.  What does that really mean?  Because we're human, and I think our understanding is, perhaps, a bit limited, we return to this concept of guilt and punishment.  If we are justified, we escape the consequences of our sin.  Don't misunderstand, please.  If "the wages of sin is death" (see Romans 6:23), and I think it is since that's Scripture, then we clearly need atonement.  No one wants to pay those wages.  No one can afford to pay those wages.  But, in light of all of my recent work on confession, penance, and repentance; I'm not sure that atonement really makes things as though the sin had never happened.  If I stop to think about our definition of original sin, it seems to follow that there is no moment at which we had never sinned.  This would essentially mean that justification is actually "just... as... if... I" never was, and I'm not sure we really want to go there.   

Of course, if we want to take another step and consider the common, non-theological definition of justification, it is "the action of showing something to be right or reasonable."  Why did we choose this word in connection with sin?  In many ways, I think that using this terminology actually makes sin much more palatable.  Who wants that?  I completely understand the desire to make sin and all of its consequences magically disappear.  Believe me, I get it.  I understand it from the perspective of one who has sinned... grievously.  I understand it from the perspective of one who has been sinned against... also grievously.  I understand it from the perspective of one who desperately longs for corporate confession and systemic change, and I understand that I am a part of the problem.  Justification, for me, is just too easy.  Making things right with God, through Jesus, is essential, but we are way too comfortable with this, "just... as... if..." the only thing that matters after that is what happens to us.  Perhaps, even more than justification, what we need is the ability to both give and receive forgiveness, because sin has happened, sin does happen, and calling it what it is and dealing with it is much more redemptive than pretending it doesn't exist or ignoring its effects. 

Regeneration -  I like this word, because it fits so nicely with renewal, restoration, and redemption.  After doing some very quick research, I found that in the world of science, regeneration also carries with it the property of resilience, and I love that for more reasons than I currently have time to get into.  But what we say here, in the article, sounds a little at odds with itself.  I continue to struggle with the idea that we are completely incapable of faith, love, or obedience, in any way, pre-regeneration.  The prefix, "re," means again, or even again and again, or sometimes to go back or to return to something that once was.  To be regenerated, then, is not so much to be made new but to be restored or made right.  I think we get wrapped up in original sin and we forget that there was a time when God looked at us, created Imago Dei, and called us good.  Regeneration, then, is to be returned to what we were created to be.  How can we accept this, however, without some capacity for faith or love?  My inclination would be to tie this, tightly, to prevenient grace.  The grace that goes before and draws us close is, then, the beginning of the salvific process.  But we have such a difficult time framing salvation in anything more or less than a crisis moment.  This is problematic in many ways, but perhaps especially so regarding regeneration which both requires and imparts faith.   

Adoption - I'm pushing back against this definition, because I have quite a few friends who became parents, through adoption, and I can't think of a single one who required something like justification or regeneration before their children were fully accepted and declared a part of their families.  Of course, I also have difficulty dealing with images of a loving parent God who would readily accept eternal separation from children, sending them into a state of eternal, conscious torment.  I'm a mom.  I'm a loving mom.  I can't think of anything in all the world that one of my children could do that would cause me to inflict that kind of punishment, and I know I'm not a more loving parent than God.  Just think that through for a moment.  Is our adoption as children definitively contingent on justification and regeneration?  Maybe, but if we want to accept this language, then I think we absolutely must acknowledge prevenient grace as the beginning of justification and regeneration.  This is much more about what God does than what we do.  After all, what child chooses his or her parents?  It's just not the way family is created.

"Justification, regeneration, and adoption are simultaneous."  That's a little bit hard to swallow, given the strong preceding language that seems to make justification and regeneration prerequisites to adoption.  But what if we began to look at these concepts through a slightly different lens and accepted them as simultaneous but not instantaneous.  Perhaps this is not as linear as we have imagined.  Perhaps this is a process that goes on and on, without end, as we continue to be those who seek God.

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.