Ordination and Anointing the Sick

My article from this week's Algona Upper Des Moines about Ordination and Anointing the Sick:

Q: Do churches outside of Roman Catholicism practice Ordination and Anointing of the Sick? Are they considered Sacraments in those churches?

There is a wide spectrum of sacramental theology among non-Catholic Christians. On one end of the spectrum, the Eastern Orthodox recognize all seven Roman Catholic Sacraments (and allow the possibility for even more). The Anglican tradition recognizes two Sacraments, but considers the other 5 to be Sacramental Rites. Lutherans recognize at least two Sacraments, but do not specifically limit the number, and most in the Reformed tradition recognize only two Sacraments. Finally, at the opposite end of the spectrum, those in the Baptist and Pentecostal traditions typically recognize no Sacraments, but do still practice Baptism and the Lord’s Supper as “ordinances.”

Specifically regarding Ordination, its use varies widely among the different protestant traditions, and even within them, but it is still retained as a practice in many denominations. There is Biblical evidence for the practice in the many cases, especially in Acts and 1 & 2 Timothy, where it speaks of the Apostles “laying hands on” those who would become pastors. In the Lutheran and Anglican traditions, Ordination is a requirement to perform certain ministerial duties, but is not considered a Sacrament.

Other denominations may make use of ordination for some, but not all, ranks of their clergy. For example, they may allow recognition as clergy and placement into pastoral duties without completion of the full requirements for ordination. They would consider those clergy with lesser training to be licensed or certified for ministry, while reserving ordination only for those clergy who have completed the full educational requirements and have been thoroughly examined by church authorities. In such cases, clergy are often required to complete a probationary period of several years before becoming eligible for ordination.

Still other denominations may not practice ordination in any formal sense. These either take a more corporate approach to certifying their clergy where they license them either permanently or for repeated terms of a definite length. In other cases, denominational officials may practice what amounts to self-ordination where any person who feels they have been called to engage in ministry is recognized as clergy by the denominational authorities.

When it comes to the Anointing of the sick, there is Biblical evidence for the practice found in James 5:14, where it says, “Is anyone among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord.” (ESV) Based on this verse, the use of oil in prayer, especially prayer for the sick, is found on both ends of the spectrum of Sacramental theologies, although not as frequently in the middle.

On one end of the spectrum, Lutherans have a tradition of using this practice, although not requiring it or considering it sacramental, and many Lutheran pastoral texts provide a ceremony for anointing the sick with oil during prayer.

On the other end of the spectrum, the use of anointing is also frequently, but not uniformly, found within the Pentecostal tradition, where physical contact as an element of fervent prayer tends to be highly valued. I am not personally aware of instances where anointing is used commonly among those in the middle of the spectrum of Sacramental theologies, such as Methodists and the Reformed.

Doctrinal Diversity

My article from this week's Algona Upper Des Moines about Doctrinal Diversity:

Q: If all Christians get their teachings from the Bible, why is there so much doctrinal diversity among the various Christian churches? Is Christian doctrine a matter of opinion or fact, and is every individual interpretation of the Bible equally valid?

In today’s churches, there certainly is broad diversity in the doctrines that are taught, even on the most foundational teachings of Christianity. For example, one church might teach that God saves people purely as a gift, while another teaches that God requires that humans port forth a majority of the effort from their own ability in order to earn salvation. One Church might teach that Jesus literally and physically rose from the dead, while another might teach that Jesus’ resurrection is merely a myth meant to inspire us to hopeful living.

The first thing to consider when examining this diversity is whether the question is a doctrinal issue or something called an Adiaphoron (something the Bible has neither commanded nor forbidden).

On the issues of Adiaphora, there may be wise or unwise choices, but there is no Biblical command regarding how they must be handled. This type of issue would include things like church government (whether a congregation’s business affairs are decided by the pastor/priest, a group of elders, or democratically by every member) and the style of music used in the worship service. In this sort of question, there is room for diverse conclusions.

In doctrinal questions, such as whether Jesus actually rose from the dead or whether God actually forbids theft, murder, or sexual immorality, there are definite factual answers, and when disagreement arises, only one position can be correct.

The reasons behind the doctrinal diversity we see today are complex, but I can see three primary factors that account for a majority of the differences:

The first of these is what a church believes about Scripture. Some churches believe that the Bible was given by God to human authors who accurately recorded the message they were given. As a result, they believe that the Bible (in its original languages) is without errors and completely trustworthy. Others believe that the Bible is a recording of human contemplation about God, and as a result, contains both elements of divine truth and elements of myth or opinion. This difference will certainly play a large role in accounting for the differing conclusions reached on important questions.

Secondly, what a church considers valid sources of doctrinal authority will play a role in determining its answers to doctrinal questions. Many churches see the Bible as the only authority for Christian Doctrine while others see the Bible as one authority alongside of others, such as traditions, the past rulings and proclamations of church authorities, or personal revelations claimed by individuals or church leaders through such means as dreams or visions. Again, this question will have a significant impact on conclusions reached regarding other doctrinal questions.

The third of these factors is assumptions that are brought to the table when discerning what the Bible says on a given topic. For example, Americans tend to highly value personal freedom and the value of individual effort, which has the potential to distort our understanding of what the Bible is saying. On other occasions, we may approach the Bible with a conclusion we are seeking for it to affirm rather than a question we desire for it to answer. If we are not careful to clear away these sorts of assumptions while we study the Bible, we may find ourselves making the Bible say what we want to hear rather than listening for what it has to teach.

When Christians arrogantly approach the Bible seeking to affirm their existing opinions or trying to harmonize it with what is taught by the world or human authorities, they will probably come to whatever conclusion they desire, but when Christians humbly approach the Bible, acknowledging its authority, they will certainly be led to a deeper understanding of Him about whom all the Scriptures bear witness—namely Jesus, who is the Truth in human flesh.

Pastoral Confidentiality

My article from this week's Algona Upper Des Moines about Pastoral Confidentiality:

Q: Are pastors required to keep everything they are told confidential? Are there any cases in which a pastor is allowed to expose the things that are revealed to him?

Pastoral Confidentiality is a subject which certainly has its share of myths. I have heard numerous stories from pastors about the assumptions about this that they have encountered in the course of ministry. The common assumption that I hear expressed regarding this ethical question is that all communication with a pastor is considered confidential, but this is only partially true.

The myth that every statement made to a pastor is confidential arises from the idea of the “Confessional Seal.” This is a vow taken by priests and pastors of several denominations when they are ordained as pastors. In the case of my Lutheran ordination vows, the pastor promises “never to reveal the sins confessed” to him.

Because of the long history of this practice in the Christian Church, it is even recognized as privileged communication in most courts, meaning that the pastor cannot be compelled to testify concerning what was confessed to him. But, this does not cover every statement made to a pastor, but only requires the pastor to maintain confidentiality when the information is revealed to him in the course of the ceremonial act of confessing sin to the pastor for the purpose of receiving forgiveness.

In addition to the “Confessional Seal,” there is also a professional expectation that pastors will maintain confidentiality regarding what is said to them in a counseling setting. However, as is also the case even with a psychologist or licensed counselor, this is not an absolute confidentiality. For example, pastors may break confidentiality in a counseling setting to preserve the safety of the person they are counseling. This could occur, for instance, if the counselee states that they intend to harm themselves or others.

To give a similar example, many states now require pastors to be “mandatory reporters” in cases of child abuse, much like teachers and medical professionals. Most (but not all) of these states, though, do make exceptions to this law for the “Confessional Seal” mentioned above.

Beyond these two expectations of confidentiality, pastors are also held to the same spiritual standard as all Christians. Particularly, the Eighth Commandment says, “You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor.” When Martin Luther explained this commandment in his catechisms, he taught that this does not only forbid lying about our neighbors, but even telling true things about them when those things are uncomplimentary or harmful to their reputation.

Even further, pastors ought to consider the impact that their statements make on their own reputation and their ability to effectively minister to those they are called to serve. Even if something a pastor was told did not come in the course of confession or counseling or does not harm the reputation of another person, he would be wise to consider how his speech will reflect upon his character and ministry. Many pastors choose to guard very closely what they reveal about anything said to them simply for the reason that a pastor who says too much, even when he is not violating an expectation of confidentiality, may be perceived by others as unreliable or untrustworthy.

Essentially, the only absolute spiritual requirement upon a pastor to maintain confidentiality is when a statement is made in the course of confession. At the same time, there may be other earthly standards of confidentiality which many pastors choose to maintain, even when not religiously mandated. If you have concerns about the confidential nature of something you intend to speak with a pastor about, it is certainly acceptable to clarify with him at the beginning of your conversation to what degree he will consider it confidential.

Christians and Body Art

My article from today's Algona Upper Des Moines about Christians and Body Art:

Q: Are Christians allowed to have tattoos? What about other body modification such as piercing? Are there any other Biblical laws regulating the appearance of Christians?

There is one verse in the Old Testament which specifically mentions tattooing. Leviticus 19:28 says, “You shall not make any cuts on your body for the dead or tattoo yourselves.” However, this does not forbid Christians from having a tattoo for two reasons: First, this command does not stand alone, but rather, it is part of a command against idolatry. It forbids the Israelites from having tattoos because of the relation of that practice to the worship of false gods. Second, because it is part of the Old Testament’s ceremonial law, which governed only the people of Israel and only in Old Testament times. Since this law is not related to any of God’s moral demands (summarized in the Ten Commandments) and is not endorsed by New Testament authors, it is not intended to bind the consciences of Christians in the New Testament era.

As Christians, we ought to certainly be careful that we not sin or cause sin in others by our appearance, and the Ten Commandments can serve as our guide in this. For example, Jesus tells us that the Sixth Commandment, which forbids adultery, is broken even when a person harbors lustful thoughts about someone to whom they are not married. In light of this, Christians ought to be careful about how their clothing both reflects on their reputation and whether it might unnecessarily promote lust in another person.

Throughout Christian history, movements have arisen from time to time which insist that there are particular regulations on the appearance of Christians which exceed those in the Ten Commandments. The passages typically cited by those promoting these movements are 1 Peter 3:3 and 1 Timothy 2:9, which they insist forbid such things as the wearing of make-up or jewelry and the braiding of hair.

These verses, however, do not forbid jewelry, elaborate hairstyles, or cosmetics in an absolute sense. In fact, they do not forbid them at all. What they forbid is for a person to rely only on those things for their beauty and reputation rather than on inner qualities such as faithfulness, respect, modesty, and self-control, or to use external beauty or adornment to disguise deficiencies in spiritual character.

Any time that Christian leaders attempt to burden the consciences of Christian people with laws that are unbiblical or that are taken out of the Bible’s proper context, they commit the same error as the Pharisees did in Jesus’ day, with the result that their new laws ultimately lead people away from Jesus rather than to Him. This sort of approach to Christian morality runs the danger of leading Christians either to despair when they fail to live up to the humanly-imposed demands or to pride when they are misled to believe they have pleased God by following human regulations.

In 1 Corinthians 6:19-20, Paul says, “Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God? You are not your own, for you were bought with a price, so glorify God in your body.” The last words of this verse make everything clear. It is not the act of tattooing or piercing itself that glorifies or offends God. It is the message it gives to our neighbors about or Lord.

Ultimately, there is no Biblical law binding Christians on these matters, and each is free to judge based on their own conscience and context. A tattoo (depending on its content) or piercing may be just as God-glorifying as any other choice a Christian makes in dress or appearance. The Christian’s concern ought not to be in making a list of rules and regulations about what we may or may not pierce, tattoo, or wear, but instead, about how our appearance advances or detracts from the message of the Gospel.