Twisted Christian

I've been flirting with the idea of converting to Catholicism. (Converting doesn't seem like the right word though, since it is still Christianity, just not Protestantism.) The key point holding me back: I want to be a pastor, and the Roman Catholic Church does not allow married men to become priests. (A concept I understand their reasoning behind, but do not agree should be the only way.)

I grew up Protestant, but attended Catholic schools for grades 4-12. Our school wasn't very different from the public one, it's not like we wore uniforms or were taught by nuns. Everything was pretty much the same with the exception of Religion class and liturgies. Religion wasn't an official class until high school, and even then there was only one 3-credit class per semester.

At school we had liturgies and assemblies. Assemblies are the same as public schools. Liturgies were usually precided over by the local Bishop and included various Catholic-type things like prayer and whatnot.

This past semester I started attending classes at a local Christian (Protestant) university, and took an Intro to the Bible, and History of Christianity. In these classes I really began to question the Protestant church. I mean, I know guys like Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli (among others) had their reasons for challenging the practices of the Roman Catholic (RC) Church, but their intention wasn't to create an offshoot from Catholicism, but to attempt to fix the problems (Luther anyway, I'm not as studied on Calvin and Zwingli).

See I don't think divisions within the church is God's plan for the church. Verses like 1 Cor 1:10 and others speak specifically to this:

"Now I appeal to you, brothers and sisters, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you be in agreement and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same purpose."

Now these verses can be interpreted in various ways, but to me they specifically speak to divisions in the church, ie. denominations. The more I study the Bible, and the more I learn about the history of the church and the history of Christianity, the more I feel that Protestantism has become a bastardization of what God intended for the Church. Now this isn't to say that the RC Church has it right either, as is painfully obvious from this latest abuse scandal.

Part of my problem with the Protestant church is the fragmentation. While the Reformation challenged problems within the Church, they set Christianity on a slippery slope of fragmentation. Don't like something your pastor taught you? Check the church down the road, they might have something a little more to your liking. Now I think personal interpretation is important, but when people start using the same passage to defend opposing views, there is a problem.

There is just something that speaks to me about the RC Church. Something about being part of the original Church. The Universal Church. This is something I mentioned on Twitter one day and received the response that the church in Rome has no more claim to the Universal Church than does the church in Geneva, Wittenberg, or Nashville. That the Universal Church is spiritual, and seen by its actions and not confined to any one place.

I gave this some serious thought, but haven't come to a satisfactory conclusion. On one side I totally understand where he is coming from, and agree. But another side of me thinks that the physical church, the people, the Church with a capital "C".

I would say my primary draw is the unity of a single Church, though this is far from the only reason.

A question that comes to mind is, "Is it better to be part of a church that you have (minor) theological difficulties with, then to be part of this fragmented church that is obviously not God's intention?" Some would even call this fragmentation a sin, as it is not following God's original plan. (I wouldn't go this far though)

This question is where I get hung up. What constitutes a "minor" theological difference? There are a lot of things about Protestantism that I quite like, mostly because of the freedom to do as I choose, and the power of personal interpretation.

I've started making a list of likes and dislikes, and as I did so it got me thinking, quite a few of the dislikes aren't specific to the RC Church, but more about Christianity in general. But as a Protestant it is okay, because I am allowed to pick and choose. Now this seems very elementary, but helps me see things on a larger scale.

This list is by no means exhaustive, and is dynamic, prone to additions and deletions as I learn and grow and change. And it is very preliminary. Many of these things I don't know everything about and can't rightly make an educated decision on. Nor can I always back up my choices with concrete reasons or scripture (something I believe to be important in the decision making process, especially when it comes to theology).

I'd also like to go into detail about each item on these lists as I learn more about them. To provide insight into where I am, and the conclusions I am drawing. This is to help me solidify things, and hopefully incite response, comments, advice, opinions in case I've missed something or to show another view.

Likes:

• Reverence and Liturgy
• Unity of one physical church
• Transubstantiation
• Veneration of Mary and the Saints (not worship)
• Tradition
• No loopholes; answer for almost everything (whether I agree with the answer or not, I appreciate having things laid out like this to avoid the wishy-washyness I see so often)
• Structured prayer (eg. Rosary)
• Importance of the Creeds

Dislikes:

• Priests cannot marry
• Purgatory and Indulgences
• The ability to lose ones salvation
• The need to be absolved of sin by clergy
• literal interpretation of the Bible
• Complementarianism (that women can't be members of clergy)
• Stance against the use of contraception

And I understand that many of both the likes and dislikes aren't specific to either Protestantism or Catholicism and can be found elsewhere.

So this is a lot, I know. But it is where I am at right now. I'm making the slow transition to Pastor, but have encountered a slight bump in the road which I am now trying to navigate.

Sacraments are a frequently misunderstood subject to Protestants and Catholics alike. According to the Canon Code of Law 840, sacraments are:

...signs and means by which faith is expressed and strengthened, worship is rendered to God and the sanctification of human kind is effected, and they thus contribute in the highest degree to the establishment, strengthening and manifestation of ecclesial communion.[1]

During the Protestant Reformation of the 1600s, Martin Luther rejected all but two of the sacraments. Within the Catholic Church, sacraments were still celebrated in Latin until Vatican II in the early 1960s. As such, the understanding and observance of the sacraments remain a confusing subject for the church. This essay will describe the elements of the Catholic Sacraments and their biblical basis.

In the 13th century, there was a scholastic urge to define the number of sacraments. Previously there was no consensus on the standard number of sacraments, with Augustine mentioning several dozen. The Sentences, written by Peter Lombard in 1150, was one of the first publications to establish the seven rites that would eventually become the official sacraments of the Catholic Church.[2]

There are three types of sacrament. The sacraments of Christian Initiation include Baptism, Confirmation, and the Eucharist. The sacraments of Healing are Anointing of the Sick, and Penance and Reconciliation. Finally, the sacraments at the service of Communion are Holy Orders and Matrimony.

Baptism

Baptism is one of the two sacraments that are celebrated by both Catholics and more traditional Protestant denominations, such as Lutherans and Anglicans. The sacrament of Baptism is a one-time event in which the person is received into the body of Christ as a full member. It is the gateway to Christian life, and allows a person to receive the other six sacraments. Faith is the only requirement to receive the sacrament of Baptism, which need not be perfect and mature, but one that is developing.[3]

The word baptise comes from the Greek baptizein, meaning to “plunge” or “immerse.” It is a rite by which sins are washed away, and the recipient enters into the common priesthood of believers. Baptism is the most basic sacrament, and has only one element, water. Without water, there is no baptism, but as Luther said, “Without the Word, the water is no different from that which the maid cooks with.”[4] The baptismal water is consecrated by a prayer of epiclesis, in which the Church asks God for the power of the Holy Spirit to be present in the water so that those who will be baptised will be “born of water and spirit.”[5] [6]

There are examples of baptism throughout the Bible, beginning with the story of Noah and creation’s cleansing by water. During the exodus of the Israelites for Egypt, the symbol of baptism is demonstrated in the crossing of the Red Sea, and again as they cross the Jordan River into the Promised Land. These stories announce that their liberation was wrought by baptism, thus making it important in God’s eyes. In the New Testament, the baptism of Jesus, along with verses such as Mark 16:16, John 3:5, and Matthew 28:19-20 are used to show that Baptism is the divine will of God, and therefore a requirement to be accepted into the brotherhood of Christ.[7] The use of baptism in the early church is reported in Acts 2: 38, 41.

Confirmation

The sacrament of Confirmation is a rite of Initiation accomplished by a laying on of hands, or anointing with oil and the sign of the cross, for the purpose of bestowing the Holy Spirit. Like baptism, it is a one-time event that when conferred, imparts a sacramental character, or seal, upon the individual. This is an indelible configuration which provides a positive disposition for grace, secures divine protection, and supplies a vocation to divine worship to the service of the Church.[8] It is through confirmation that there is an “increasing and deepening of baptismal grace, which unites us more firmly to Christ and renders our bond with the Church more perfect.”[9]

Initially, Confirmation and Baptism were celebrated together, because of the intrinsic link between receiving the Holy Spirit and the forgiveness of sins. This changed in 416, when Pope Innocent I mandated that while priests could baptise, only those in the episcopacy could sign the brow with oil, bestowing the Holy Spirit on the catechist.[10] With the increase of rural parishes, the growth of dioceses, and the multiplication of baptisms throughout the year, it became increasingly difficult for the bishop to be present at all of the baptisms.[11] So, to keep with Pope Innocent’s mandate, a temporal separation of the two sacraments took place, with Confirmation occurring at the age of discretion. The 1917 Canon Code of Law establishes seven years as the age of discretion, making it the standard age for confirmation, after which first communion may be received.[12]

Verses such as Acts 8:14-17, 19:5-6 and Hebrews 6:2 are important to understand the biblical origin of Confirmation. In Acts, the author makes repeated references to the connection between the laying on of hands and the receiving of the Holy Spirit. Hebrews 6:2 is especially important because it lists Confirmation among the first elements of Christian instruction, as it perpetuates the grace of Pentecost.[13]

Eucharist

Eucharist comes from the Greek word εὐχαριστία (eucharistia) meaning thanksgiving. During the Last Supper, as Jesus consecrated the bread and wine, he offered a prayer of thanksgiving, and since then the word has been associated with the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper.[14] It is the central sacrament of the Catholic Church and does not consist merely of the breaking of bread and drinking of wine. It also consists of prayers, Scripture readings, and homily.[15]

For a believer that has been brought into the royal priesthood through Baptism, and anointed with the Holy Spirit through Confirmation, participation in the Eucharist completes Christian initiation.[16] Only those who have been baptised and confirmed are able to take part in the sacrament of the Eucharist, and if a mortal sin has been committed, the sacrament of penance must be done first.[17]

The concept of transubstantiation is a central tenet to the Catholic sacrament of the Eucharist, and the element that sets it apart from other Christian denominations. Transubstantiation was defined at the Council of Trent as “a singular and wondrous conversion of the total substance of bread into the body and of the total substance of wine into the blood of Christ, the external appearances only remaining unchanged.”[18]

The Eucharist is a celebration and remembrance of the Last supper, during which Jesus instituted the rite, and requested its repetition. There are four accounts of the Last Supper: 1 Corinthians 11:23-25, Luke 22:14-20, Mark 14:22-25 and Matthew 26:26-29. The verses in 1 Corinthians and Luke make specific reference to repeat what Christ did, and to do it in remembrance of his death.[19]

Penance

The sacrament of Penance and Reconciliation, more commonly known as confession, is the rite in which the penitent makes a confession of sins to an ordained priest or bishop. Penance was originally a “damage-limitation exercise, designed to deal with the problem of post-baptismal sins.”[20] Because Baptism is a one-time event, a supplementary sacrament was required to deal with post-baptismal sin.

Confession consists of three actions on the part of the penitent, and one on the part of the priest. The penitent’s actions consist of interior repentance, confession of sins to the priest, and the intention to make reparation, or penance. The action of the priest is absolution of sins.

Interior repentance is an acknowledgement of sin, and the desire for forgiveness. This is followed by going to confession and confessing mortal sins to the priest. Venial sins may also be confessed, but this is not strictly required as it is with mortal sins.[21] Following the confession, the priest asks the penitent to perform an act, or acts, of repentance. These acts are in no way an earning of forgiveness, rather an act to bring the penitent closer in communion with God.[22] Absolution is then given by the priest on behalf of God, “as by the sacrament of Holy Orders, priests have the power to forgive all sins.”[23]

The sacrament of Penance can only be received after Baptism and Confirmation, and is used to receive sacramental grace from the Holy Spirit. During Confession, the Holy Spirit bestows grace, trust, and openness onto the penitent in which to see the sin and confess it. The priest receives grace and authority through which he bestows God’s forgiveness.[24]

John 20:23 provides the primary biblical support for the sacrament of Penance, as Jesus states, “If you forgive the sins of any, their sins have been forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they have been retained.” With this, Jesus institutes the principles of Penance for all members of the church.

Anointing of the Sick

Prior to Vatican II, Anointing of the Sick was known as Extreme Unction, or more commonly, Last Rites. This involves being prayed over by a priest, with a laying on of hands and anointing with oil that is blessed by the bishop.[25] Anointing of the Sick has a four-fold effect: the gift of strength, peace and courage from the Holy Spirit; a closer unity with Christ; ecclesial grace; and a completion of conformity to the death and resurrection of Christ.[26] It can also include celebration of the Eucharist, and if required, be preceded by the sacrament of Penance.[27] For those about to die, celebrating a special Eucharist known as Eucharist as viaticum is an option.[28]

There is some dissent among church leaders as to whether Anointing of the Sick should still be considered a sacrament, given all the advances that have been made in medicine since the time this sacrament was created. Anointing of the Sick was established during a time of higher morbidity and mortality. Medical progress and accurate knowledge of human anatomy and physiology have greatly advanced disease treatment and prolonged lifespan. For example, it is now known that sickness is not caused by evil spirits, but by bacteria and viruses. Because of this, the question is being asked, “Has the time come to remove unction from the list of sacraments?”[29]

Throughout the New Testament there are many examples of Jesus and his disciples healing the sick by laying their hands on people. Luke 17:11-14 shows Jesus healing lepers, while in John 9:1-7 he restores a blind man’s sight. Luke 13:10-13 shows another time when Jesus is teaching in the synagogue and he cures the ailment that has kept a woman from standing straight for 18 years. In addition to these examples of Jesus’ healing power, James 5:14-15 provides the instruction that led to the sacrament of Anointing of the Sick, stating, “Is anyone among you sick? Then he must call for the elders of the church and they are to pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord; and the prayer offered in faith will restore the one who is sick, and the Lord will raise him up, and if he has committed sins, they will be forgiven him.”

Holy Orders

Following Baptism, believers enter into the common priesthood of the faithful. This is the common level of which all believers are members. Those seeking to enter ministry must undertake the sacrament of Holy Orders, or Ordination. This sacrament separates ministerial priesthood from the common priesthood by “conferring a sacred power for the service of the faithful”[30] onto those that have taken this role.

There are three degrees of the sacrament of Holy Orders: bishops (episcopacy), priests (presbyters), and deacons. As St. Ignatious of Antioch describes, “These roles make up the organic structure of the church, for without them, one cannot speak of the Church.”[31]

Members of the episcopacy have received the fullness of the sacrament of Ordination. Episcopacy is derived from the Greek episkopos, which can be translated as bishop, or overseer. This makes a bishop the visible head of the church entrusted to him, and part of the apostolic succession.[32] The bishop is the minister of Ordination and he alone is able to confer the sacrament of Holy Orders on others.[33]

Presbyters are the majority of those receiving this sacrament. While bishops are often distant figures to the congregants of most churches, the priest is at home among them, and his is the familiar face of the local church.[34] Priests are the “coworkers of the Episcopal order,”[35] and as such share in the duties performed by the bishop.

The deaconate was created to serve the episcopacy and the presbyterate. It is the lowest level of the church hierarchy, for those called, “not unto the priesthood, but unto the ministry.”[36] They receive the sacrament of Holy Orders, but the term sacerdos does not apply to them. Sacerdos is Latin for priest, and in this context, stresses certain priestly functions applied only to priests and bishops.[37]

Matrimony

Within the Catholic Church, the sacrament of Matrimony is an indissoluble contract made between two baptised people before God, to commit to one another in a lifelong relationship as husband and wife. Marriage perfects the human love of spouses, symbolizing the union of Christ and the Church. It is the only sacrament not conferred by an ordained individual directly, as the man and woman confer marriage upon each other. It is, however, still a liturgical sacrament, over which an ordained minister must preside, at Mass within a church.

There are three purposes for marriage: creation and education of children, a remedy against sin to avoid pre-marital sex, and companionship and help for one another. These three purposes were laid out in the Common Book of Prayer in 1662, and despite reorganization and rewording through the years, they remain at the core of the sacrament.[38] With procreation and education of children being key to the very nature of the institution of marriage, the Church may refuse to marry those unwilling to have children. This is laid out in Pope Paul VI’s Humanae Vitae, in which he also condemns the use of all forms of artificial birth control, both to limit or encourage procreation.[39]

Marriage was part of God’s original plan for creation, even before the Fall. In Genesis 2:18, God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.” He then creates a companion for man, and tells them to be fruitful and multiply. Throughout the Old Testament there are many examples of marriage, including those of Isaac, Jacob and Samson, but it is in the New Testament that Jesus raised the dignity of marriage to a sacrament. Matthew 19:3-9 is a key verse for biblical support of the sacrament of Matrimony, where Jesus describes a man leaving his father and mother to be united with his wife.

Despite the confusion surrounding the sacraments, they are an integral part of the Catholic Church, supported by a strong biblical foundation. Their tradition is grounded in a long standing history. Even though the majority of the sacraments have been rejected by the Protestant faith, the Catholic Church has re-evaluated their use to continue engaging with them in a meaningful way. They provide a solid framework on which faith is built, and provide occasions to express and strengthen faith, as well as celebrate the grace of the Holy Spirit. Each of the seven sacraments has a role, and while not all are necessary in the life of each individual, all are available to bring one into closer communion with God.

---

[1] New Catholic Encyclopedia, s.v. “SACRAMENTS.”

[2] James F. White, The Sacraments in Protestant Practice and Faith (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1999), 16.

[3] Catechism of the Catholic Church, (Ottawa: Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops, 1994), 1253.

[4] Martin Luther, The Large Catechism of Martin Luther, trans. Robert H. Fischer (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1959), 83.

[5] John 3:5.

[6] CCC, 1238.

[7] Ibid., 1218-0999999-27.

[8] Ibid., 1121.

[9] Ibid., 1303.

[10] Monika K. Hellwig, “Confirmation,” in The Modern Catholic Encyclopedia, 1st ed. (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1994), 779.

[11] CCC, 1290.

[12] Hellwig, Confirmation, 780.

[13] CCC, 1288.

[14] New Catholic Encyclopedia, s.v. “EUCHARIST (AS SACRAMENT).”

[15] Hellwig, Eucharist, 288.

[16] CCC, 1322.

[17] Ibid., 1415.

[18] The Catholic Encyclopedia, Revised ed., s.v. “Transubstantiation.”

[19] NCE, Eucharist.

[20] John Macquarrie, A Guide to the Sacraments (New York: Continuum Publishing Company, 1997), 89.

[21] CCC, 1457-58.

[22] Macquarrie, Sacraments, 96-97.

[23] CCC, 1461.

[24] Maria Rule, “Authority in the Sacraments,” The Ecumenical Review, January 1, 131-136. http://www.proquest.com/ (accessed February 21, 2010).

[25] CCC, 1519.

[26] Ibid., 1520-23.

[27] Ibid., 1517.

[28] Ibid., 1524.

[29] Macquarrie, Sacraments, 158.

[30] CCC, 1592.

[31] Ibid., 1593.

[32] Ibid., 1594.

[33] Macquarrie, Sacraments, 169.

[34] Ibid., 190.

[35] CCC, 1562.

[36] Ibid., 1569.

[37] Macquarrie, Sacraments, 168.

[38] Macquarrie, Sacraments, 216.

[39] Pope Paul VI, “Humanae Vitae,” Vatican, http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html (accessed March 1, 2010).

In my history class last week, we were studying the Benedictine Order, and I was struck by how they read scripture in Mass or Liturgies. When reading scripture aloud, there is no animation or expression in their voice. This is to avoid imposing their interpretation onto the listeners, as expression or animation would imply interpretation.

The early Catholic Church was not, nor is it now, fond of personal interpretation of scripture, so I found it interesting that they would approach the readings this way. On one hand it makes sense, in that the homily will provide the interpretation, but on the other hand, it is giving freedom to interpretation by the individual.

Lately I've been struggling with where I fit into the church, not my church locally, but in the grand scheme of things. As seems to be the story of my life, I’m a jack of all trades, master of none, and the same applies to my theology. I grew up going to United and then Alliance churches, but also went to a Catholic school though the latter part of elementary school until high school. This included liturgies at school, and going to the occasional mass at the local parish. So I have this mix of protestant and catholic background and I’m somehow trying to merge in my head.

I really love the liturgical elements of the Catholic Church, and I’ve almost come to romanticize it in my head. It’s been years since I’ve been to mass, though I am actually hoping to go this weekend. The problem is that in most evangelical churches, they have turned their backs so completely on their Catholic roots and have totally removed all trace from their services.

There is also a lot about the Catholic Church that I’m not a fan of (though this might be just because I don’t understand it fully) such as: their focus on church hierarchy, the transubstantiation of the Eucharist, and their view of sacraments. These are things I believe the Protestant church has improved on, but it isn’t as though the Protestant Church is without its faults, a major one being how fractured and separated the church has become.

The Protestant Church (universally) that I grew up in was a loving, caring, kind place, if you subscribed to the rules and guidelines they interpreted the Bible as laying out. As soon as you didn’t fit that mould, it didn’t seem like such a loving, caring, kind place, and while there are pockets that are a little more accepting, by and large, there is no room for you at the inn.

Now with the emergence of the emerging church, it brings a new view of things, but I see it as the pendulum having swung too far (isn’t that the case with so many things?). It has gone from something the originally seemed reactionary, to something more revolutionary, and not necessarily always in good ways. Often the emerging church comes across very wishy-washy, much like the baha'i faith, or in other words, a giant cop-out. Many of the ideas and concepts the emerging church is putting forth, I am on board with, and are similar to those I grew up with in the Protestant Church, that of love, caring, kindness, etc., but without the mould. It is much more about personal experience, and less about metanarrative. It is more about the Holy Spirit, and less about Scripture, though I’m not as sure about the demotion of scripture as a source of authority. I’m still torn on that one.

The concept of personal experience really resonates with me though. Just because what is right for me, means it has to be right for you. I don’t think God is only working in Christianity, or Judaism, or Islam. So while I think Jesus is the one true way to heaven, I don’t think that has to be true for everyone. For example, Genesis 1-11 focuses on creation as a whole, where as Genesis 12-50 narrow the focus to the story of Abraham and his descendents. This isn’t to say that when the focus of the stories narrowed to Abraham, that God stopped being at work in the rest of creation. This is the story the writers of the Pentateuch chose to focus on, as it was the story of their lineage. I believe God was just as much at work in the lives of the Babylonians, and the Philistines, and the Moabites as he was in the lives of the Israelites. No, they didn’t call him Yahweh, but does that mean he wasn’t at work? I don’t think so.

I just want to find a middle ground. I want to find someplace where I can immerse myself in the liturgical elements of the Catholic Church. I want to worship among believers who aren’t tied down by the guilt of sin that often comes with a Catholic heritage. I want to worship in a place that is not judging, and loves, and accepts everyone, and doesn’t just subscribe to the adage, “love the sinner, hate the sin.” I want pastor in a church like this. Does it exist? Or am I just setting myself up for disappointment of spending 4 years and racking up more debt to come out and find there isn’t a place for me in ministry of the Christian Church.

A major shift in North American Christianity is currently taking place, with the advent of the emergent or emerging church. In The Great Emergence, Tickle provides a history of this phenomenon, explaining the primary nature of the changes, and the historical reasons for it. She does this by answering three questions about the Great Emergence: what is it, how did it come to be, and where is it going?

Part 1 answers the question, “What is it?” Tickle explains Christianity undergoes major cultural shifts about every 500 years, starting with Jesus’ arrival in the 1st century, followed by changes during the time of Gregory the Great in the 6th century, the Great Schism in the 11th century, and most recently, the Great Reformation, 500 years ago. During these major upheavals, the Church holds a giant “rummage sale” of ideas, discarding some, keeping others, in an effort to answer the fundamental question, “What is Authority?” The Great Reformation’s answer was sola scriptura, which resulted in a split of Christianity into two traditions, Catholic and Protestant. Christianity was due for a new shift, and this time the Great Emergence is questioning the authority of sola scriptura.

Part 1 also introduces Tickle’s analogy for describing religion as a social construct. She uses the metaphor of a boat attached to shore by a cable, representing the human social unit attached to some purpose or power greater than itself by the cable of meaning. (34) The cable is composed of three parts which must be examined before the great time of change can be complete. These parts are: the outer shell, which is the story or shared narrative of the social unit; the inner mesh sleeve, which is the common imagination or common agreement of the social unit; and a three part interwoven core of spirituality, corporeality, and morality. Part 3 explores some of the impact the Great Emergence has had on the Church’s current cable of meaning.

In Part 1, Tickle emphasises how events in the years preceding each great change set the stage for the major shift to occur. Part 2 answers the question, “How did it come to be?” by describing first, the conclusions of the Great Reformation, and second, the developments of the peri-emergent period. It is the changes from the Great Reformation, the last major shift, that provide the basis for the challenges confronting the Great Emergence. The Great Reformation answered the question of authority by transferring authority from the papacy to scripture, encapsulated by the concept sola scriptura, scriptura sola.

Developments in science, psychology, and technology during the peri-emergent period have provided the agents of change that sparked the questioning of authority which has led to the Great Emergence. Tickle points to scientists like Darwin and Faraday, and psychologists like Freud and Jung as catalysts of change. Their contributions –the theory of evolution, the role of the subconscious in human thought- shattered many of the illusions held by Christians, challenging beliefs explained away for centuries as “another one of God’s mysteries.” These factors helped erode the concept of sola scriptura, bringing up anew the question, “What is authority?”

The increasing complexity of technology, culminating in the internet, allowed easier broadcast of these challenging ideas. New concepts that would have been rejected as heresy coming from the pulpit were now beamed into people’s homes via mass media. This allowed people to process potentially discomfiting ideas and information outside of the church, in a place where they felt comfortable and in control. These developments in science, along with technological globalization, and the “I’m spiritual, not religious” movement initiated in the 60s and 70s brought the spiritual strand of the cable of meaning under examination. Tickle describes a final blow to sola scriptura due to debates over the ordination of women, slavery, divorce and homosexuality. These contentious issues made it clear that, while scripture as the source of authority may not be dead altogether, the protestant method of teaching scripture was in need of serious overhaul. (101)

Part 3 answers the questions, “Where is it going?” Tickle is humble enough to admit “there is a certain temerity, if not outright arrogance, in thinking that any of us can answer before the fact such a question as where a cataclysmic shift in human affairs ultimately is going to go,” (119) but she does give a run down on the changes taking place, and the questions that need to be answered before the Great Emergence is complete. The central and overarching question that must be answered is, “Where now, is the authority?” As sola scriptura remains the foundational source of authority for Protestantism, this becomes the dividing point of contention for the Great Emergence.

Tickle proposes a series of images to understand the growth of the emergent church in the future. She begins by placing Christian denominations on a quadrilateral diagram, then shows a centripetal force of exchanging ideas swirling from the centre, which is the evolving emergent church. Finally, she points out the importance of resistance, which keeps the centripetal force of swirling ideas from spinning out of control. Tickle also touches on how the Great Emergence addresses issues like metanarrative and logic.

Tickle provides an informative and insightful perspective on the phenomenon she calls the Great Emergence. Writing a history of an event that is currently underway is a tall order, but I find her focus on the past sets the foundation for truly understanding what is happening in the present. In his review, Jonathan Brink states, “It’s much more than a history book. It’s a clear and concise look into the strings that moved and are moving the system.”[1] We cannot understand the events unfolding around us without some knowledge of the preceding events that brought about the current changes. Her discussion of the Reformation and its effect on the peri-emergent period, and explanation of the various events that shaped the beginning of the Great Emergence are invaluable for understanding where we are going.

In that regard, although the history lessons of Parts 1 and 2 are important, I felt more time needed to be given to Part 3’s discussion of the future for the emerging church. Tickle does touch on changes happening inter-denominationally, and which questions have not yet been answered for the culmination of the Great Emergence, but more discussion on what changes to theology the Great Emergence will cause would complete the analysis. I also think an introduction of some key emergent leaders, such as Brian McLaren and Rob Bell, and their work, would add depth to the final section.

I also found it strange that Tickle rarely mentions God. I understand she is focused on the underlying issue of the authority of scripture, but as Phil Bourne asks in his review, “Where does God, as the Bible describes him, fit into all of this?”[2] Christianity is God-centric as much as it is scripture-centric, and with the belief that he is an active participant in our history and the shaping of our world, I thought mention of him would be important.

The Great Emergence is a great resource for those looking for a brief history of the important events that set the stage for this shift in Christianity, as well as an overview of the changes that are currently taking place. While I found it had a few shortcomings, and could have cited a few more sources in order to give her claims a little more authority, I found it to be a great book for those interested in the history behind the emergent church.

[1] Phil Bourn, "Book Review: Phyllis Tickle, The Great Emergence: How Christianity is Changing and Why." St. Francis Magazine 5:6, December 2009: 178-186, http://www.stfrancismagazine.info/ja/13%20PhilBourne-bookreview(1).pdf
[2] Jonathan Brink, “The Great Emergence Book Review,” October 7, 2008, The Adventurous Way, http://jonathanbrink.com/2008/10/07/the-great-emergence-book-review/

I came across an interesting forum topic yesterday where someone was asking whether the word "them" in Gen 1:25.
"So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them."
Does the word "them" mean just Adam and Eve, or does it mean many people. I figured there was a question that superseded this one: Is the story of Adam and Eve merely a metaphor for the fall of humanity, or is it an actual historic recounting of events?

It isn't something I know a lot about, but it is something that interests me (all Christian Theology does to some extent). So I started reading through Genesis to see what I could find.

As I was reading, I found it interesting that there are two separate stories of creation, that of Genesis 1 and that told in Gen 2-3. And there are so many holes in the story if one were to take it literally. Something just didn't sit right with me thinking that this story was to be read literally.

Who did Cain, Able, and Seth marry? Their sisters? If others were created alongside Adam and Eve, wouldn't the others still be perfect and in the Garden?

To me, it seems like the story is more of a metaphor, and less of a historical recounting of events. Though I think the Bible is full of metaphorical stories, and not always to be read literally.

I asked the question on my Facebook status whether people thought the story of Adam and Eve was a metaphor, or if it actually happened.

So a friend of mine chimed in with an answer that provided some great insight and knowledge. (And it was cool to have someone with education and knowledge on the subject far superior to mine, validate and support my position. :) )

The following is from my friend Tim who has a Ph.D in Biblical/Theological Studies.

"It is a mythological account intended to represent the universal human condition. There are several textual indicators to point the reader (both ancient and modern in this direction). For example, 'adam is the Hebrew word for "human" (not even "man" ... there is a separate word for gendered human distinctions) and is derivative from the Hebrew word for "ground/dirt" ('adamah). These are meant to be universal persons so that we can each see ourselves in them. Moreover, the Adam/Eve story is a part of the second creation account (Gen. 2-3) which differs significantly from the first account (Gen. 1). In the first account, the humans are the last creation (after plants/animals) whereas in the second account they are created before the plants/animals. The first account begins creation in a wet, chaotic environment (hovering above the waters) while the second account begins in a dry, barren, desert-like environment. Also, the words used for God (Gen. 1: 'el and Gen 2: yhwh)are different in the two stories. These stories are intended to communicate different truths about God and creation. Neither is intended to be "historical" in the sense we think of it (a renaissance and enlightenment imposition upon the biblical text). My use of the word "mythological" to describe the Genesis 2 narrative is not intended to say "false" but rather indicate the literary genre through which its truths may be communicated (who is God? and who are we?). By far the majority of both Protestant and Catholic biblical scholars would agree to the basic outlines of what I've described above."

Part 3: Crossing the Line

It has been a long time since I have read a book that has been as thought-provoking as The Naked Gospel. I appreciate being able to sit down and read something that challenges my beliefs, yet isn't insulting. I like to think that I'm a pretty liberal Christian, but I find that this book pushes even my limits, which is awesome. The Naked Gospel is causing me to grow in so many ways and I'm questioning previously unchallenged beliefs and coming away with strengthened resolve in some things I currently hold close, and with new ideas that are helping me grow in other areas of my faith.

There are a number of main points in Part 3 that Farley uses to further illustrate the point that we should be saying "out with the Old and in with the New" all while backing it up with scripture.

Farley starts off Part 3 by laying the foundation that Jesus' teachings were for Jews, not Christians, and that the new covenant came with the death of Jesus, not his birth.

This idea has the potential to drastically change the way Christians read and interpret the Bible. To say that Jesus' teachings are for Jews, and not instructions on how Christians are to live is a pretty major deviation from traditional Christian theology, and not one that I'm quick to accept. I do like that Farley backs up everything that he says with scripture, but then scripture can be interpreted to say almost anything you want, so I'm still not 100% sold. It is definitely an interesting idea, and something that deserves more thought than I've presently given it.

Following those initial foundational points, Farley goes on to say that while the Old isn't necessarily abolished, it has no place in the life of a Christian and that we shouldn't be making our own covenant that is a mix of Old and New. Creating a mix allows us to avoid the "suffering under the stringency of the entire law," but it also means we don't "enjoy the bliss of unconditional favour." Without giving ourselves fully to the guidance of the Holy Spirit within us, we will always find that there is something missing.

I'm one of those people that finds his Christianity to be a mix of the Old and New. And while I don't suffer from any of the guilt associated with not being able to meet the expectations of a perfect law, neither do I think that we can just throw it all away. Many of the laws from the Old Testament create the very moral fabric of our society, and I don't understand how the Holy Spirit wouldn't guide us along similar paths. I don't understand why we can't keep some of the old laws, without the guilt associated with not living up to them.

The final main point to this part is Grace. "Grace isn't just a treatment for sin; it's actually the cure for sin!" Farley does an excellent job with his description of grace in this section. He explains that grace isn't necessarily a response to sin, but rather something much greater. Grace was what allows "Jesus to produce through us what's needed in the moment." Grace is the opposite of guilt. Grace doesn't leave room for guilt, or inadequacy, nor is it merely nothing more than mercy. Grace is the Holy Spirit inside of us. Grace is the New Covenant. Grace "deactivates our pride and when we remove the law from our lives, our self-effort is no longer prodded to control behaviour."

Farley ends Part 3 with a section that is meant to give us a sense of comfort; that it is okay to feel shaken and uneasy by all of these new ideas he is putting forth. But also don't feel like just because you've read it, that it makes it true. He reminds us to keep an open, yet critical, mind as you read, and keep an open dialogue with God through prayer; allow Him to speak to you as you read and grow. There are some amazing ideas in here, but I don’t think we should adopt them just because they are a cool new thing. Try them on for size, see how they fit, but don't just accept them outright because someone wrote them in a book. Growth is a very important part of Christian life, and Farley puts forth some great ideas to get the brain thinking.

Now, despite my reservations about some of the idea's Farley puts forth, I'm loving this book and would recommend it to all Christians. It is something that needs to be read with an open mind, and if you don't agree with everything, that's fine, but just opening your mind to the possibility can bring so much growth. It will expose your weaknesses so that you may better explore them, and help to strengthen your beliefs.

A couple of weeks ago I mentioned I was taking part in this group blogging project about the book, Servolution by Dino Rizzo. First off, I want to say, what an amazing book! It's exactly what I need right now. It's easy to read, clear, concise and to the point, but it's the content that really got my attention. Oh, and today was my day, where I wrote a bit about chapter 14 and the importance of community and serving with others.

For the past few months I've been looking for a way to get more involved in my church, but I've been unsure of the path to take. I expressed an interest in joining the board (elders), but they are in a sort of transition in the way the board is doing things and the way membership works so that will have to wait awhile. I play bass twice a month, but that isn't enough. They are also putting together a building team to do work on the church building as they are hoping to get some building maintenance done this summer.

I feel the need something more.

Then along comes this amazing book, and instantly I know what I need to do, serve. So now that I know what I need to do, I need to figure out how I'm going to go about doing it.

I'm going to read through the book again and see if I can glean some more information from it and figure out what I want to do. I'm really excited to get out there and start a servolution. And if you haven't read it yet, please hit up your local Christian bookstore and get a copy and read it. Then let me know what you think. :)