Do Pastors Really Only Work One Day (or One Hour) per Week?

For this week's newspapers, I answered a reader's questions about what pastors do during the week:

Q:  What does my pastor do for the remainder of the week after the Sunday service is over? 

We’ve all heard the joke about pastors working only one hour a week, but hopefully it’s just a joke to the people who say it, because it is certainly not a reflection of reality.  In fact, due to their many commitments in the congregation and the unusual hours in which they must fulfill them—ranging from evening meetings with congregational boards to giving counsel to couples or individuals during most people’s “after work” hours, to the frequent emergency calls to the hospital or the bedside of a dying member—many pastors actually find it a challenge to devote adequate time to their families. 

One of the primary tasks of the pastor’s work week is preparing the sermon and service for the upcoming Sunday.  If a pastor followed the commonly-accepted formula that college speech professors dictate for preparing a public speech, the pastor would spend one hour of preparation for each minute of the sermon.  In the real world, pastors often rely on their education and experience to prepare more efficiently and most report spending 10-20 hours in sermon preparation (or 20-50% of their working hours).    

Unless a congregation has a professional musician on staff or an administrative professional devoted to the task, he is probably also responsible for planning all of the other elements of the service, scheduling those who will perform them, and distributing the materials necessary for them to do so. 

Because the pastor is often the primary staff member to occupy the building in smaller congregations, he may also spend many of his office hours answering phones, responding to correspondence, researching information requested from the congregation’s records, sorting mail, and other administrative and office tasks—or in passing on messages to part-time staff who perform them—beyond sermon preparation and service planning. 

If he teaches weekday or Sunday Bible classes or instructs youth, he will spend about 2-5 hours of preparation per hour of teaching if he is writing his own material, and an hour of preparation per hour of teaching if he is using curriculum purchased from a Christian publisher. 

In rural areas like ours, there is also the element of travel.  When frequently-visited hospitals are an hour away and the drive to the hospitals where congregation members receive more specialized care may be up to 4 hours, pastors spend a significant amount of time traveling.  A visit to a member in Rochester or Iowa City will easily occupy a full day for the pastor.

Pastors will frequently have responsibilities to the denomination to which their church belongs or to the district and regional bodies of that denomination, which equates to additional meetings and travel.  Additionally, much like other teachers, doctors, and other professionals, a pastor who takes his work seriously will devote time to keeping his skills current and expanding his knowledge.  This could take the form of single-day classes that are nearby, but often involves week-long conferences in another part of the country. 

The descriptions above all assume a traditional full-time clergy devoting the vocation’s statistical average 50-52 hours to congregational work, but it is becoming more common, especially in rural congregations, for pastors to serve multiple congregations, or serve the congregation only part-time, while working in another vocation as a supplement for the portion of compensation the congregation cannot provide.  This requires adjustments and choices to be made, both by the pastor and the congregation, to adapt for the reduced flexibility and shorter hours of this arrangement while maintaining the best possible degree of pastoral care in light of the circumstances. 

Do we believe in Jesus because the Bible says so or trust the Bible because Jesus said so?

For this week's newspapers, I answered a question about whether we build belief in Jesus on the Bible's reliability or rely on the Bible because of Jesus Resurrection:

Q:  For someone exploring the authenticity of Christianity, what is the best way to proceed when having doubts about the Bible’s reliability as a book? 

This reveals what is perhaps a disadvantage we North American Christians have in understanding the Christian Scriptures:  that we approach them as a single book. 

Because we lack the connection to the history and the original languages that Christians in other parts of the world, such as Greek-speaking Christians or Middle Eastern Christians, our intuitive approach to the Bible is often to look at the Bible as a single volume, but in reality, it is composed of 66 books written by 40 or more authors over the course of over 15 centuries. 

When we hear a preacher or a Christian proclaiming, “The Bible is God’s Word” or “The Bible is without error”, it’s like skipping to the answer of a complex math problem without showing the work it took to get there.  While the Bible-honoring preacher might be correct, simply stating this to be true is not, and should not, be adequately satisfying to a person who does not yet trust Jesus or believe the Bible to be reliable. 

If we narrow the question to simply determining whether it is reasonable to believe the claims of Christianity, we can start by looking only at the events of the four Gospels:  Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.  Everything of Christianity’s authenticity relies on a single event from these historical records—the Resurrection of Jesus. 

Jesus Himself set this event as the criterion by which to trust in His claims or to write Him off as a fraud or lunatic when He responded to challenges to His authority saying, “Destroy this temple [referring to His body], and in three days I will raise it up again.”  So, the first step is to examine Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John’s historical accounts in light of their number (how many copies we have available to us) and their accuracy (how old and how similar the available copies are). 

Upon recognizing that the Gospels we know are identical or nearly-identical to the original editions written by the authors, we can examine them in light of known history from other sources, from which we will find that, while some names and events have no other confirmation, many of them, such as Pontius Pilate, Herod, and Caesar Augustus did exist at the time and place specified. 

It also comes to light that Roman historians report within decades of the life of Christ that Christians were worshiping Jesus as God and claiming that He was raised from the dead, indicating that this was not a later exaggeration of the story.  When examined in the light of motives and typical human behavior, it becomes additionally evident that the only reason the Disciples would continue to defend the story of the Resurrection in the face of harassment, torture, and death is if they sincerely believed they witnessed it. 

Combining all these elements, it becomes apparent that it is more reasonable to believe the Resurrection occurred than that it did not.  From that foundation, the rest of the Bible can then be defended.  The Old Testament can be found reliable, because Jesus, who proved His authority by rising from the dead, endorsed its books during His ministry. 

Peter, John, and the other eyewitnesses who wrote much of the New Testament can be relied upon because they were commissioned by Jesus before He ascended into heaven, and wrote their letters as explanations to new communities of Christians about what Jesus taught and how that applies to their circumstances.  And Paul, who wrote the remaining books of the New Testament, was examined by the Apostles, as explained in the books of Acts and Galatians, and found to be faithfully preaching the same message which Jesus had delivered to them. 

Finally, with regard to other challenges to Biblical records of events, such as the time and method of creation, the Resurrection answers these as well, because if Jesus was genuinely raised from the dead, and an all-powerful Father in Heaven exists, as He describes, then in light of the seemingly-impossible event of the Resurrection, the improbability of these remaining event becomes insignificant in comparison. 

Jurassic Eden

My article from this week's newspapers answers a question about how Dinosaurs fit into the Biblical Creation Story:

Q:  How is it possible to reconcile the creation events described in the book of Genesis with the existence of dinosaurs?

For those who disregard the events of Genesis as mere myth, this problem can be solved simply by adopting whatever theory about dinosaur life is current in the scientific community.  However, finding the place where dinosaurs fit into a literal reading of Genesis has been a task that requires more intense examination and which has resulted in diverse conclusions across the spectrum of Biblical scholars and scientists who are convinced of the authenticity of the Hebrew Scriptures. 

Some of the attempts are difficult to consider seriously as they border on science fiction.  These include ideas such as a previous creation that had fallen victim to disrepair or destruction prior to the events described in Genesis and an earth that was created to include evidence of history which never actually happened.  Even less credible attempts have suggested that dinosaur fossils are a hoax or even a demonic plant to lead people into doubt. 

More credible attempts at proposing solutions to this question have taken into account how limited our knowledge of dinosaur life really is, and how little the Bible actually says about that period of history. For example, all we know about most dinosaurs is their bones, which have been preserved as fossils, or perhaps an occasional fossilized footprint.  Many details which we think we know about dinosaurs, though, are merely speculation or educated guesses, including such details as their behavior and the appearance of their skin or other soft tissues, which have long since decomposed. 

We also know that Genesis only devotes two chapters to the creation event itself and 11 chapters to the world, as it existed prior to Abraham, but within these chapters exist several clues that might provide insight into the place of dinosaurs in the Biblical version of creation:

Probably the most important of these details is a massive flood in which all life on earth is destroyed, except for 8 people and 2 or 7 specimens of each animal kind, and there are two significant changes that accompany this event.  The first of these is a decrease in human life span.  In the pre-flood genealogies, the individuals named had lives that spanned six to well over nine centuries.  Following the flood, the sort of life spans we are familiar with today are seen. 

The second of these changes relates to a “firmament” mentioned in the first chapter of Genesis, which appears to be some sort of water canopy in the earth’s atmosphere—something we do not see in existence in our present-day world.  It has been proposed that such a feature could relate to dramatic atmospheric differences compared to what we know today, and may contribute to the differences seen in life spans in the pre-flood and post-flood worlds. 

Taking both of these things into account, and knowing that some species of animals grow throughout their life span, and not only until a certain point of maturity, it has been proposed that species who today live to a certain age and grow to a certain size could grow to exponentially larger sizes if allowed to live to ten times their current life span, resulting in a creature with a skeleton of the size and construction we presently find in dinosaur fossils. 

However one concludes about dinosaurs, though, the Resurrection is the event upon which Christianity stands or falls, because Jesus predicted His resurrection as the evidence that what He proclaimed was true.  If He rose and still lives, then all of His teachings are to believed, including the fact that He took Genesis as an accurate and reliable account of human origins. 

When the limitations of the evidence at hand – both regarding our knowledge of dinosaurs and the few literary details given about the creation event and the pre-flood world – we recognize that there is limitless potential for yet-undiscovered evidence to fill in the gaps in such a way that confirms both the existence of dinosaur life and a literal creation as described in Genesis. 

Inns, Stables, Upper Rooms, and the Holy Family

My article for this week's newspapers answers a question about the details of the stories of Jesus' birth:

Q:  How accurate is the Christmas story that we hear read and see performed in churches around this time of year?  Does the Bible say anything else about the events of Jesus’ birth? 

The Bible offers a surprisingly small amount of information regarding Jesus’ birth, preferring to devote more attention to the crucifixion and resurrection than to the birth stories.  Mark simply quotes three Old Testament prophesies, then moves directly to talking about Jesus as an adult.  Rather than telling a birth story, John provides a chapter-long theological discourse about the fact that Jesus is True God in human flesh. 

Matthew provides some information on the circumstances surrounding Jesus’ conception, along with telling the story of the Three Wise Men (which, contrary to popular art, probably occurred well after Jesus’ birth) and the family’s escape to Egypt to flee from murderous King Herod, but he only casually mentions Jesus actual birth in less than a half-sentence.

Luke’s Gospel stands out in its detailed description regarding the events of Jesus’ birth, and thus, is the source for our well-known version of the Christmas story.  It also stands out for its reliability, because, while we honor all of the Bible as accurate and true, we can have a particularly high degree of confidence in Luke’s historical account, because he would have obtained it by interviewing Mary herself – as he mentions when he lays out his method of collecting the historical facts in the first verses of His Gospel.

However, much like when a book is made into a movie, things often become distorted; our perception of the birth story often tends to differ from the version actually authored by St. Luke. 

An excellent example of this is the way we often think of the “inn” in Luke’s story, as we imagine an inn-keeper (a common Christmas pageant character who isn’t actually mentioned in the story) stoically turning away Jesus’ mother and Joseph because there was no place to stay.  Instead, though, the “inn” mentioned in English translations of the story is not what we would think of.  Instead of an establishment that commercially rents rooms to several travelers, the word Luke records indicates the second-story guestroom of a private home – the same sort of room Jesus would use later in life when He gathered with His disciples for the Passover the night before He was crucified. 

Similarly, the place where Jesus was born was not a barn, stable, or cave as popular imagination would suggest.  Instead, homes in that part of the world at that point in history were typically composed of 3 rooms – the main room where the family would cook, eat, and spend the night, the guest room mentioned previously, and a third room, often a half-story lower than the rest that would be used for living space during the day and a shelter for the family’s animals during the night.  Because the guestroom was already taken, this unnamed family would have tied up the animals outdoors and allowed Mary and Joseph to lodge in this room, where Jesus would be born, and the manger that is mentioned would be a ledge dug out between the home’s main room and the lower room where Mary and Joseph would have been staying.

It is highly unlikely that the real events included an overwhelmed Joseph alone with his wife in inadequate shelter as she goes into labor promptly upon arriving in town.  Instead, from what we know of the customs of the time and Luke’s text, Joseph and Mary probably arrived as much as two weeks prior to Jesus birth, found lodging with a relative of Joseph or another citizen who was willing to treat Joseph well because of his royal heritage as a direct descendant of David, and the women of the household and their neighbors – common people like the Luke’s shepherds and their wives - likely assisted Mary with Jesus’ birth. 

Those shepherds would come back from the fields to worship Jesus at the angels’ invitation, Jesus would have been circumcised on his 8^th day of life, and they would then travel to the temple for His presentation and Mary’s purification from childbirth when He was 40 days old before returning home to Nazareth. 

Information in this article was summarized from the interview with Ken Bailey found at:

http://issuesetc.org/2013/12/24/the-first-christmas-dr-ken-bailey-1314/

Love the Sinners; Hate the Pharisees? - 4 thoughts on responding to departures from Scriptural sexuality

For this week's newspapers, I responded to a question about Christian responses to those whose behavior is not consistent with the Lord's creation regarding gender and sexuality:

Q:  How should Christians respond when they are confronted with demands and behaviors that are in conflict with their Scripturally-informed convictions on marriage, sexuality, or gender identity?

It seems that a false dichotomy exists regarding how Christians should interact with people whose behaviors do not match up with their standards or who advocate for causes with which they disagree. 

One stereotypical response is represented by those who surrender the question and modify their articulation of morality to accommodate the standards of the time and place in which they live, while the opposite stereotyped response is to be committed to defense of a historic Christian positions, but do so in a manner that is argumentative and inflammatory. 

Ultimately, neither of these responses is helpful, because both extremes avoid the question rather than engaging it with the honest inquiry it deserves.  One response merely concedes the question to the surrounding world while neglecting the possibility that divine commands could differ, while the other prefers isolation and vocal opposition over genuine interaction with people who are different and who might be in need of compassionate support. 

Some might respond that the middle ground is “Hate the sin; love the sinner,” but besides being a quote from Gandhi rather than a Christian proverb, it is still too simplistic to handle such deeply-felt and potentially sensitive questions.  I am convinced that a genuine Christian response to these sort of questions is both less polarized and more thoughtful than any of the above. 

The first principle that Christians must remember when engaging those with whom they differ in these issues is that they are dealing with people – real humans with whom we share a Creator.  Even though there are times when it may be necessary to act in defense of children or the innocent, and even though Christians must stop short of becoming accessories to immorality, it can be far too easy to diminish opponents into rivals with whom we must do battle rather than real people who face equivalent – although different – spiritual struggles, and deserve to be treated with dignity and compassion. 

Second, it is necessary to distinguish between fellow Christians in need of correction and people outside of the Church whose behavior is not within our sphere of concern.  When Paul deals with an issue of an illicit relationship in 1 Corinthians 5, he clearly articulates to the Corinthians that while they must admonish and correct their erring brother, that they are not to exercise the same judgment outside of the Church or ostracize sinners in daily, secular life. 

For too long though, American Christians have expected non-Christian neighbors to clean up their act before Jesus will receive them, when the reality is precisely the opposite.  We may live more righteously because our Lord forgives us, but we could never be forgiven based on how righteously we might live. 

Third, respectable defense of Christian morality requires a distinction between Biblical command and culturally-conditioned customs.  Matters of style, preferences in recreation, and other auxiliary details are not equivalent to divinely-established callings.  Because a person does not conform to the expectations and appearances that tradition or local culture dictate does not mean that they are in sin.  Instead, a great deal of diversity in such details is still possible while remaining faithful to Biblical commands regarding these issues. 

Finally, the outcomes of national politics, the victory or defeat of a particular party, or even how well national laws reflect Biblical ones is not determinative of Christianity’s health and vitality.  While it might be expedient for legislation to confirm one’s church’s ideals, the church does not stand or fall based on acts of congress or the decisions of the judiciary.  In fact, Christianity has typically seen its greatest advances when it is surrounded by a culture and government which are a contrast to it rather than which confirm it. 

So Christians live in the hope that their Savior has taken their place in life and death and sealed His promises with resurrected victory, so that regardless of the culture that surrounds His Church or the behavior of its neighbors, their role while they wait for His return is not merely to make the world a more moral place, but to both boldly proclaim and compassionately apply His reconciliation to a world in need. 

Do Christians Fast and Why?

This week's article for the newspapers answers a question about fasting among Christians:

Q:  What place does fasting have in Christianity?  How and why would a Christian fast? 

Fasting—the practice of reducing or ceasing the consumption of food for spiritual reasons—takes on a variety of forms, both among Christians and non-Christians.  While the term fasting has sometimes been used metaphorically to speak of abstaining from any number of things, it historically refers only to food. The concept also includes the idea of hunger, so it is not merely to refrain from a particular item while indulging in an equal or greater quantity of something else. 

Probably the most well-known example of fasting among the world’s religions is that Muslims fast from all foods during daylight hours one month of the year.  Another method of fasting, engaged in by many communities of Buddhist monks, is to eat a single meal prior to noon, then to fast for the remainder of the day. 

Fasting in the Christian tradition actually dates to before the time of Christ, as fasts were common practice for the Old Testament people, and the Pharisees, who lived at the time of Jesus, fasted two days a week—on Monday and Thursday.  Many Jewish Christians continued to fast two days a week, although on Wednesday and Friday, during the first centuries of Christianity. 

Perhaps the most familiar form of fasting among present-day Christians is Lenten fasting, where Christians fast to varying degrees from simplifying their diet, to giving up meals on a certain day or at a certain time of day, to even a full 40-day fast which imitates what Jesus endured while He was tempted in the wilderness.  In fact, the name for Lent in many languages is often related to the word for fasting. 

Jesus addresses fasting two times in the Gospel of Matthew.  On one occasion, a question is raised of Jesus about why His disciples do not fast.  He replies, “Can the wedding guests mourn as long as the bridegroom is with them? The days will come when the bridegroom is taken away from them, and then they will fast.”  From this, it appears that Jesus’ disciples did not fast during His earthly life, although some did later, as seen in the book of Acts. 

The other occasion on which Jesus addresses fasting is in Matthew 6, when He instructs that those who fast should do so quietly, not telling others or looking miserable, but rather to keep their fasting between God and themselves. 

Jesus does not give any instructions how often or how intensely His followers ought to fast, though, nor do the other New Testament authors.  In fact, no text of the New Testament ever commands fasting of any kind as mandatory for Christians.  This is one characteristic that is unique to Christians regarding fasting.  While fasting has a strong history in Christianity and there are occasional references to it in Scripture, it is never required of Christians. 

In fact, fasting is never to be given credit for advancing a Christian’s status before God or earning them anything from God.  It cannot earn salvation or merit any kind of blessing from God for the Christian.  Instead, Christian fasting is a practice used to build discipline by removing distractions or using hunger as a reminder of our Spiritual poverty before God and the needs of less-fortunate neighbors. 

In addition, the Christian who is not burdened by the necessity to prepare and consume food will then have additional time to devote to prayer, and because they have reduced their expenses for food, they are free to give greater gifts to benefit their neighbor who suffer from poverty or offerings to further the Church’s mission of proclaiming the Gospel.

So it is that Christian fasting is not mandatory, nor is it a method of compensating for sin or gaining status with God, but rather a beneficial exercise which a Christian might choose to perform for the sake of devoting Himself more fully to Scripture and Prayer and the assistance of his neighbors. 

Did Christians Steal Pagan Festivals?

My article for this week's newspapers answers a question about the accusation that Christian holy days were imitations of pagan festivals:

Q:  Is there any validity to the claim that Christian holy days like Christmas and Easter were borrowed from pagan festivals, or that religious leaders designed them to replace pagan festivals?

These accusations have taken several shapes over the years.  The least accusatory of these claims assert that Christians created new holy days to replace the pagan festivals of the people who had converted in new lands.  More aggressive versions claim that the Christians simply recycled the pagan festival by making them about Jesus, but using the same traditions as the pagan festival and giving them new meaning. 

The most offensive of these accusations construct a scenario in which the authors would have us believe that even the person of Jesus and the events of His life were lifted from previous Egyptian or Middle Eastern religious systems rather than being genuine historical events. 

This most severe accusation is the simplest to answer.  The first people to make such claims were two 19^th century authors named Gerald Massey and Godfrey Higgins.  Prior to their assertions, there is no evidence that anyone had ever drawn these connections.  Additionally, there is no evidence that early Christians had access to any information about Egyptian mythology in order to imitate it. 

In addition, there is ample evidence to the historicity of the events of Jesus’ life and that His disciples began teaching and believing the familiar teachings about Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection during the generation who witnessed His crucifixion.  This evidence comes from both Christian and Roman historical documents.  When putting the events recorded in the Gospels about Jesus on an even playing field with any other event or person of the Greek and Roman world, we find that the evidence relating to Jesus is superior both in quantity and consistency. 

Regarding the proposed links between Christian holy days and Roman or other pagan festivals, we find that the evidence is similarly lacking.  No accusation of these links existed during the times contemporary with their initial celebration by the churches, but only arose, like Massey’s and Higgins’ assertions, only in the 19^th century. 

In fact, prior to the reign of Emperor Constantine around 313 B.C. the Christians were well-documented to avoid all things Roman rather than to imitate them.  So, since we have documented evidence that Christmas was observed by the churches at least a century prior to this date, it certainly would have caused enough controversy if Christians were imitating the Roman Saturnalia what we would have record of it, which we do not. 

Instead, we know that the Church has observed the festival of the Annunciation (Jesus conception when Gabriel announced Jesus coming birth to Mary) on March 25 since very early times, making it only logical to celebrate his birth 9 months later – on December 25.  This is done not because anyone believes Jesus was born then.  In fact, most evidence would indicate his actual birth was in another season of the year, but this is ritual time that enacts Jesus life and its events in the course of a year, rather than celebrating the literal date of events. 

Likewise with accusations that Easter was an imitation of a festival to the goddess Oestre, because of the similarity of names and common time of year.  The weakness of this accusation is that it is only the English-speaking world that uses the word Easter to refer to the day we celebrate the Resurrection of Jesus.  The rest of the Christian world uses terms related to Resurrection or Passover in their names for what we call Easter.  In addition, Resurrection Sunday was a well-established festival of the Church centuries before Christianity ever reached the English-speaking world. 

It is often said that every legend and false understanding has some grain of truth at its core, and that grain is this:  In lands where Christianity was being preached for the first time, people were often attached to the seasonal festivals and traditions that were related to their former gods.  In order to alleviate anxiety about leaving behind their former rituals, Christian pastors often pointed people to the already-existing Christian ceremonies that occurred around the same time of year, as an outlet for their natural desire to gather in communal celebration of common faith. 

Congri-presby-piscopal Church Structure and Governance

For this week's newspapers, I answered a question about different types of church government:

Q:  How does a church or denomination handle its business?  What is the meaning of all those unfamiliar words I see on church signs, like Congregational, Episcopal, or Presbyterian?

If we begin with the Bible, we find that the New Testament has very little to say about how a congregation or a group of congregations govern themselves.  While there are exhortations for Christians to unite with a single mind around the doctrine of the Apostles and to help support one another in times of hardship, there are no details of structure given to govern how this is to be administered. 

There are three traditional forms of structure that have been adopted by groups of churches, and these bear the labels of the three terms listed in the question above.  Often, if a denomination is convinced that one of these forms is Biblically mandated, they make the choice to include that term in their name. 

When the term Congregational is used this typically indicates that the congregation is externally independent of control from a larger national or regional authority.  Internally, this usually means that the congregation is operated as a true democracy with congregation members having equal influence over decisions of the congregation.  While Congregational churches may join together as a denomination, this is usually for the purpose of joint work like missions or seminary training and affairs are governed from the congregational level upward to the denominational leadership. 

The term Episcopal is derived from the Greek word for a bishop, and is used to refer to a structure in which one or more levels of bishops are given authority to govern a group of churches.  While bishops are given a great deal of influence toward the congregations over which they are assigned, they also bear a great deal of responsibility to exercise care for them as a pastor would his congregation, particularly by being a pastor to their pastors. This is the most top-down of the structures, and often the local clergy exercise a high degree of influence over congregational life just as the bishop exercises influence over the congregations under his care.  

The term Presbyterian refers to leadership by a group of elders and is derived from the Greek word for elder.  Presbyterian denominations typically govern each congregation with a group of elders, and each level of structure above the local congregation is usually governed by a group of authorities rather than a single individual.  If a single individual is named in a leadership role, his role would be primarily administrative, consisting largely of organizing and facilitating the work of the larger group that actually does the governing. 

Some denominations do not bear one of these words in their name, even though they do adhere to one of the above structures.  The most prominent example of this would be the Roman Catholic Church, which has an episcopal form of governance.  Other denominations do not fit into any of these categories of governance, but instead have a hybrid form of governance, which might embrace elements of two, or even all three structures.  Many times, several denominations in the same theological family, bearing the same name, might all have different forms of governance.  Lutherans, for example, can be found with any of the three traditional structures or a hybrid form of governance. 

Still other congregations consider themselves independent, or might prefer the term non-denominational.  If a congregation is truly independent, then they would have only internal governance and would not be accountable to a larger structure beyond the congregation.  They could also structure that internal governance in any way that they were convinced was proper. 

However, most congregations have found that there is great wisdom to having accountability beyond their own congregation, so even those that are not part of a formal denomination have begun to form "networks" in recent years.  These networks are considerably looser than traditional denominations, but allow their member congregations to provide accountability for one another and to work together on things such as mission work. 

Ultimately, it is what a congregation teaches, and not how it governs itself, that is of primary importance.  Each of the forms of governance has its benefits and its challenges, but when used properly they do not become the focus of attention.  Instead, their intended role is that of supporting and advancing the Church’s proclamation of Christ.  

What is the Appropriate Age to First Receive the Lord's Supper?

For this week's newspapers, I answered a question seeking an explanation for the diversity of ages at which different types of Christians begin receiving communion:

Q:  Why do different types of Christians begin allowing children to receive communion at so many different ages?  Is there a connection between Communion and other rituals such as Baptism or Confirmation? 

The most likely reason that there is so much diversity on this matter of congregational practice may be that there is no instruction given on the topic in the Bible.  Church history, likewise, has shown significantly mixed outcomes on this question. 

We do have writings from the second generation of Christians that show evidence that young children were being Baptized soon after birth, and an instruction that only the Baptized are to be communed.  However, it does not specify whether communion ought to begin immediately after Baptism or if there is a time later in life where communion reception is initiated. 

In today’s churches, we see that the Eastern Orthodox are communing even babies so young that the bread and wine must be mixed together and fed to them with a spoon.  Roman Catholic Christians begin communing children during their elementary years, then administer confirmation during adolescence.  Some Sacramental denominations outside of Catholicism also commune children prior to Confirmation, while others begin administering communion to children at the same time as confirmation, usually in their early teenage years. 

Among Christians who emphasize the Sacraments to a lesser degree or who see them as merely symbolic acts, there is a greater diversity of practice.  Some allow children to commune immediately upon being baptized (although not as babies, but at an age old enough to request Baptism).  Others allow children to commune when the parents and pastor deem them ready at some point after Baptism, while still others have disregarded the Baptismal connection altogether and allow individuals to make their own decision about communing, regardless of Baptismal status. 

The only Bible verse that approaches an answer to this question comes from Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians, when he says,

“Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord. But a man must examine himself, and in so doing he is to eat of the bread and drink of the cup.  For he who eats and drinks, eats and drinks judgment to himself”

Paul instructs the Corinthians that those who receive the Lord’s Supper need the ability to examine themselves before receiving it.  This includes some degree of awareness regarding sin, repentance, and what is actually occurring at the Lord’s Supper, but beyond that it does not seem possible to discern a particular age from Paul’s instructions. 

At some times and places, it was assumed that children were not capable of reason until a particular age – usually around puberty.  This same assumption, which comes from human observation rather than from Biblical research, is the source of both the tendency for protestants to commune children around that time as well as the Baptist and Anabaptist assertion that an “age of accountability” exists prior to which children are not responsible for their sins and should not be baptized. 

However, based on purely Biblical considerations, we are left only with the imprecise requirement that communicants be capable of examining themselves.  The broadness of this command leaves us with a situation where, except for those communing babies and toddlers or communing the unbaptized, the rest of the Christian world seems to be within the boundaries of New Testament instructions on the matter. 

With the understanding that the Lord’s Supper is one of the diverse ways that our Lord delivers His grace, along with His Word and baptism, and with the understanding that it is the Lord’s promise that makes His Supper valid and effective, it would be unnecessary either to fear that a church is withholding salvation by delaying admission to communion until a certain age, or that one must necessarily complete certain additional milestones to be admitted.  

Instead, within the previously mentioned boundaries – that recipients of Communion be baptized and capable of self-examination - it is the responsibility of congregations and denominations to discern what is wise for their circumstances and develop a consistent practice that accurately reflects the doctrine that they teach. 

Can a Christian be an Environmentalist?

My article from this week's newspapers answers a question about Christians and Environmentalism:

Q:  Can a Christian be an environmentalist?  What should be a Christian approach to care of the environment? 

Responsible care of creation is a concern which should resonate with most Christians.  From the beginning, the Bible’s account of creation portrays man as the caretaker of creation.  Even before sin entered the world, Adam was tasked with the work of tending to the Garden in which the Lord had placed him, and both creation and Adam’s care for it were very good in the eyes of God. 

Throughout Scripture, humans are described as the stewards of the material blessings of the earth.  A steward is one who does not own the things he manages, but has been given authority by the owner to distribute and use those things, but with the understanding that he is also to care for them responsibly – since they are not his own, but belong to the master. 

In this case, man is the steward, and God is the master to whom it belongs.  We do not truly own any of the things that we possess or use in this world, but instead, they belong to God Himself, and we are given the privilege to use them for a time along with the obligation to care for them responsibly. 

Even though commands in the book of Genesis such as “be fruitful and multiply” or “fill the earth and subdue it” are occasionally taken out of context to conclude that man can carelessly consume the earth’s resources without limitation or concern for the consequences, a proper reading of Scripture leads the Christian to take this concept of stewardship to heart – that while we have the authority to consume resources, advance society, and build upon the earth, both form comfort and survival, we are not to do so carelessly. 

While abuses have occurred in history, be it out of selfish malice or simple ignorance, toward the earth’s resources, the focus of modern environmental movements may be both an overcorrection as well as a moral concern for Christians. 

One reason for concern is the connection of modern environmentalism to other spiritualities.  Much of the activism that surrounds the environment has foundations in philosophies and religions that are not only foreign to Christianity, but are even in opposition to Christianity.  For example, the Hindu earth goddess Gaia played a significant role in early environmental activism, and much of the underlying ideology of the environmental movement arises from an understanding of the earth as “mother” that comes to us from Wiccan and other pagan sources.  Because of this, it is important for the Christian to make sure it is science, and not assumptions based on foreign spiritualities which are informing their concern. 

Additionally, and of a more practical concern, are the tendencies within some sectors of environmental activism to portray humanity as the enemy of the created world.  This flawed assumption directly contradicts Biblical descriptions that man is the high point of God’s creation and the divinely-appointed steward of nature and its resources.  It also creates a worldview in which children, particularly large families, are to be avoided and frowned upon as burdens to the environment rather than understood as divine blessings to be desired and received with thankfulness. 

Ultimately, while responsible care for the environment is absolutely consistent with the Lord’s commands to humanity, it is necessary to use caution that we do not make the world or its care into an idol which supplants the Lord who created it.  At the same time, Christians should be at the forefront of responsible environmental stewardship out of respect for the Lord who created the world and appreciation toward Him who is the supreme source of its many blessings. 

Why Do Churches Excommunicate?

My article from this week's newspapers responds to a question about excommunication:

Q:  What is excommunication, and what are the implications if a church has excommunicated a person? 

Although the term excommunication might initially evoke mental images that resemble an Amish shunning or a scene from the Scarlet Letter, the reality is much less dramatic and much less common than many might imagine. 

Christians believe a person is saved as a gift from God because of the crucifixion of Jesus for them.  All who trust that this sacrifice forgives their sins confess them – that is they agree with God’s law concerning their actions – and receive God’s forgiveness.  This occurs privately between the person and God, as well as being spoken corporately in the services of many types of churches, and in some traditions also occurs privately between the person and his pastor or priest. 

While many sins are known only to the sinner and to God, occasionally a sin becomes known to a person’s pastor or their fellow Christians, who may need to confront them regarding that sin.  When the person who has committed the sin agrees with God’s law about his actions, he receives forgiveness.  In such a case, his pastor and fellow Christians would not have further concerns about his spiritual condition, even though it may still be necessary to provide counsel and support to help him overcome any inclinations to return to that particular sin. 

However, when a member is confronted with a sin and either denies its sinfulness or disregards its sinfulness, concern about his spiritual condition quickly intensifies.  In Matthew 18, Jesus instructs His disciples that if the correction of one person does not convince the person they ought to take along 2 or 3 people with authority in the church and confront him again.  If after this second intervention the person still defends his sin, Jesus says to take the matter before the whole church to plead with him, following which he is to be excluded as long as he does not repent. 

Paul instructs the Corinthians in his first letter to them to do this regarding a particular man in their congregation who is involved in an illicit intimate relationship with his step-mother, saying to “Expel the evil person from among you.”  But, contrary to what many first impressions might be, this is not an effort to keep the congregation pure by removing sinners.  Instead, it is intended as a method by which the unrepentant would be guided to recognize their sin.  Paul makes this clear when he says, “you must deliver this man over to Satan… that his spirit might be saved in the day of the Lord.” 

Similarly it is not done in order to place condemnation onto the man, but rather to recognize the fact that he has already separated himself from God’s forgiveness by refusing to acknowledge his sin.  Jesus reflects this same understanding when He assigns His disciples the task of forgiving and withholding sins in John 20, saying, “If you forgive the sins of any, they have already been forgiven them; if you withhold forgiveness, it has already been withheld.”

Many traditions prefer the term Church Discipline rather than Excommunication to refer to this process, because it emphasizes the intended result that the person be restored to the congregation rather than the method that they are placed outside the church’s fellowship.  Correspondingly, a public removal from the congregation is not the only form of church discipline. 

Instead, on some occasions, a pastor might privately exclude the individual from the Lord’s Supper in the congregation because of the danger of doing spiritual harm to them, according to Paul’s warnings in 1 Corinthians 10-11 against receiving Communion while unrepentant.  On some occasions, this is a first step before formal removal from the congregation, but frequently it results in the restoration of the person to a repentant and forgiven status without proceeding to bring them before the congregation for removal.    

Regardless of the procedure by which this is achieved, the goal is the same – restoration of the sinner to the reception of the Lord’s forgiveness.  While such a practice might appear intolerant to the world outside of the Church, it is done as a matter of responsible spiritual care, in order to avoid the most dreadful consequence that a Christian would abandon His Lord’s forgiveness in favor of defending and embracing his own sinful acts.

Why (Real) Lutherans Do Not Do Eulogies

For the newspapers this week, I wrote a bit about the Eulogies and Christian Burial:

Q:  Why do some churches always include eulogies for the deceased, while others forbid eulogies during the church service?  What is the nature and purpose of a Christian funeral?

A eulogy is commonly understood is a speech or piece of writing that praises someone or something highly, typically someone who has just died. In some traditions, this might be given by a pastor, or perhaps the floor might be handed over to a close friend or relative to give a positive description of the person’s life.  On some occasions, congregations even open the microphone to any person with something to say about the deceased.

For many congregations, particularly among individualistic Americans, this seems a natural thing to do during the services following a friend or relative’s death, but for others, a eulogy would be extremely foreign, and in fact, would be understood as a standing against what that congregation believes and teaches.  While there are many factors which influence how a congregation or denomination approaches the practice of giving eulogies, several seem to be most prevalent: 

First, if a congregation understands the Office of the Ministry to be something instituted by God to preach His Word to the congregation and administer His Sacraments, it would be unheard of to hand the pulpit over to a non-pastor in the midst of a service or to allow non-ordained persons to speak authoritatively in the course of any service of the church.  This would immediately rule out most eulogies. 

Additionally, in congregations which take seriously the responsibility to proclaim only pure teaching, it would be unthinkable to allow speeches in front of the congregation which may include elements contradictory to the congregation’s beliefs. 

Similarly, a congregation’s understanding of worship plays a large role in their approach to eulogies.  Much like congregations who see worship as an offering from the individual or congregation up toward God worship in one way, while congregations which understand worship to be an occasion where God delivers His grace down to the congregation, particularly those who focus that delivery in the Word and Sacraments, worship in other ways; approaches to eulogies follow a similar pattern. 

If a congregation understands a funeral’s purpose to be that of honoring the deceased and making the mourners feel better, a eulogy is a natural element to include.  However, if a congregation understands the purpose of a funeral to be that of honoring God by proclaiming Christ and to give the grieving hope in the face of death through the promise of Resurrection, eulogies would be potentially difficult. 

The most important factor, though, seems to be the church’s understanding of salvation.  The historic position of Christianity, and that by which it stands out from the world’s other religions, is that God saves by grace alone, through faith alone, because of Jesus alone, and that good works play no role in this.  Historically, Christians even discourage the faithful from looking at their good works as evidence of salvation.  In such a case, the giving of eulogies during the funeral service would only confuse the communication of that belief, and if the eulogist is not particularly careful, may even explicitly contradict that belief.  Therefore congregations which this approach to the idea of salvation by grace alone typically do not include eulogies. 

In contrast, some denominations believe that the Christian cooperates with God in saving themselves by doing good deeds.  Based on that understanding, recounting the deceased person’s goodness at their funeral would fit what they believe. 

Even those which do not believe that the Christian helps save themselves by good works often turn them back to their deeds by other routes.  For example, John Calvin strenuously defended salvation by grace alone, but he directed believers to look at their own good works as comfort and evidence that God had saved them.  John Wesley looked at the Christian’s good deeds even more favorably than Calvin, going so far as to assert that Christians were capable of moral perfection in this life and relying heavily on the Christian’s good works in their remaining saved after conversion.  In these cases also, it makes sense that eulogies would be part of a congregation’s funeral ceremony. 

Like most questions about worship, the inclusion or exclusion of eulogies comes down the connection between belief and practice.  Churches who believe in certain ways will naturally lean toward eulogies, while churches which believe in other ways will find them to be problematic and request that such expressions be shared privately among the mourners or reserved for the visitation or the funeral luncheon rather than included in the services of the church.