The Services of the Church, the Worship of the World, and the Diversity of Style and Structure

This week's article for the newspapers describes what makes the services of the Church different from the worship of the world and touches on the reason behind the differences in style from church to church:

Q:  What makes Christian worship distinctive, and why is there so much diversity in the structure and style of services from church to church?

If one surveys the world’s major religions, a common pattern emerges with regard to their beliefs.  They begin by observing that the complexity and the beauty of the world indicate the activity of one or more personal creators or creative a force.  Sometimes the personal spiritual experience of a founder is also set forward as evidence for this belief. 

Typically this creator is also understood to influence events in present life and make judgments concerning whatever sort of afterlife or next life they perceive.  In response to this conclusion, they formulate a set of moral rules and/or ritual practices which are to be performed in order to satisfy this creator, influence events in spiritual realms, or compensate for the moral failures of the worshipper.  

This pattern holds true throughout the world for all of the major religious groups, as well as many of the minor ones, with one exception—historic Christianity.  The thing which set Christian faith apart from the beginning is that it set this pattern in reverse.  They acknowledged the existence of the Lord as creator, revealed to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, and other prophets throughout the Old Testament, as well as their sin—that is their failure to live up to the demands of His law. 

But they taught that the Lord took action to solve the problem of their sin and the division it caused between creator and creation.  Rather than specifying a course of actions that humans must take to bridge the divide, Christians believe that God took on humanity in Jesus and lived a perfect life according to the Law to satisfy God in our place, then was abandoned by God the Father in our place while He died by crucifixion—doing all of this in order to exchange places with us so that He suffered the penalty for human sin and humans who rely on His sacrifice receive God’s blessings of forgiveness and eternal life as a pure gift. 

For this reason, historic Christian worship has taken on a certain form.  Since the Bible teaches that God delivers His grace by connecting His Holy Spirit to the reading and preaching of Scripture, to Baptism, and to the Lord’s Supper, Christians have traditionally ordered their service in such a way that emphasizes these things. 

This can be seen even by the words they use.  Rather than speaking of “worship,” (a more recent English term emphasizing what is given to God by the worshipper) Christians in other parts of the world used terms such as Divine Service – emphasizing that in the service God serves man rather than man serving God (as occurs in the rest of the religious world).

In the late 20^th Century, American culture became extremely consumer-oriented – a trend that did not spare the Church – and the attempt began to use the service for the purpose of attracting visitors and gaining membership rather than delivering God’s gracious gifts to humanity.  As a result, styles and structures developed that took attention away from God’s gifts and placed more emphasis on what man offers to God. 

As part of this effort, church music began to shift from telling about God and his actions to talking to God, and instead of receiving forgiveness, life, and salvation from God, emphasis shifted toward offering something (like the worshipper’s heart, praise, or adoration) up to God. 

Even the preaching became more about what those in attendance were to go out and do rather than what God had already done for them in Christ.  As a result, the distinctiveness of the Christian faith became hidden, and its worship and its purpose were redefined to look more like the rest of the world’s religion rather than a unique contrast to them. 

The diversity that is seen is not so much about traditions or preferences, but about what that church believes.  It was said in ancient times, “lex orandi, lex credendi,” which means that the Christian’s worship and their doctrine are intricately tied.  Congregations and denominations whose belief centers on what we have to offer God will worship in a way that emphasizes the things directed from earth up toward heaven, and those whose belief emphasizes God’s grace and gifts to us will conduct their services in a way that emphasizes the things given from heaven down to us on earth. 

Why did High Places anger the Lord?

My article from this week's newspapers deals with a question about the Old Testament High Places:

Q:  What are the “high places” that are spoken of in the Old Testament?  How were they used, and why was God angered by them?

The high places were large platforms  that we today might say resembled a small, open-air stage.  They were often built on mountains or hilltops, but remains of them have also been found in valleys and on plains as well.  They were originally used as sacrificial altars for the worship of idols by the Canaanite people who inhabited the land before the Israelites returned from Egypt. 

For the Israelites, God had ordained the Tabernacle as the place where He would be present among His people.  This tent of worship housed the Ark of the Covenant, where various significant items of divine activity were stored, as well as other divinely-instituted ritual items and furniture for use in the worship of the Lord. 

Later, the Lord would allow Solomon to build a permanent temple in Israel where the divinely-ordained sacrifices and worship would occur, and which would be the promised location of the Lord’s presence. 

When the Israelites returned to their promised land, the Lord demanded that they abandon all idolatry and allow no worship of false gods in the land.  At times, the Israelites honored this command, but at other times they neglected it, sometimes worshipping idols instead of the Lord and at other times mixing the worship of the True God with that of false gods in various ways – a pattern in which the high places were prominent, especially among Samaritans. 

One way in which these high places were used in false worship would be to place an altar to Baal or an Asherah pole alongside of an altar to the Lord.  Often the worship of these false gods did not only include idolatry, but also divination, acts of sexual immorality like ritual prostitution, and acts of murder such as child sacrifice, further amplifying the repulsiveness of these acts of idolatry. 

At other times, the Israelites were more subtle in their idolatry in that they would imitate the acts of worship of an idol, but direct the worship toward the Lord and His name instead. 

But the Lord is not a god who receives self-appointed worship from man.  Just as God saves by His choice and forgives as a pure gift, so He also specifies the methods by which His grace and forgiveness will be delivered, and thus no humanly-invented worship will suffice. 

So, on a few occasions, the Lord even disciplines the people who offer the right sacrifices to the right God in a place of their own choosing, or He disciplines those who offer the wrong sacrifice to the right God in the right place, or even those who offer the right sacrifice to the right God in the right place, but who are not authorized to make such a sacrifice. 

While these things occurred in the Old Testament, their example still reveals much to us about the worship of Christians in the New Testament.  The clearest of these is that mixing the worship of the Triune God with that of another is expressly forbidden – for example, a Christian pastor praying jointly in a public service with a Muslim Imam, a Jewish Rabbi, or a Native Medicine Man. 

It also remains that the Lord has given promises concerning the ways in which He will become present to us.  The most common of these is through His Word.  So, when God’s Scriptures are preached or studied, He is delivering grace to create faith and forgive sin.  Similarly, the Lord’s promises are expressly attached to the Visible Word of His Sacraments.  So, when Baptism is administered and when the Lord’s Supper is received, the Lord is present in a special and tangible way to apply His grace to individual Christians for the forgiveness of their sins. 

These divinely-instituted methods of delivering His forgiving grace are certain and when we come into contact with Him, we can know that we are receiving Him and His promises.  Common elements such as prayer and song surround these gifts, but it is to the gifts of Word, Baptism, and Supper themselves that the Lord has attached His promises.  Therefore, Christian worship has them at its center, and if we seek to find the Lord elsewhere or by our own methods, we surrender the certainty of having received His Grace and run the risk of finding another spirit rather than the Lord who saves. 

What about the Ethics of In Vitro Fertilization for Christians?

This week's article for the newspaper answers a follow-up from last edition's contraceptive explanation, extending the question to in vitro fertilization and other fertility treatments:

Q:  If there are concerns among Christians around the ethics of contraception, are there also similar issues raised in connection with In Vitro Fertilization and other fertility measures in light of Biblical ethics?

The inability to conceive or carry children to term has been a source of great heartache from the beginning of recorded history.  Women from ancient times like Sarah, Rachel, and Hannah were troubled by this problem and we have their stories recorded in the Bible, along with the Lord’s intervention in response to their prayers. 

One of the consequences when sin entered the world through our first parents was that our bodies and the world around them were thrown into general disarray.  We see this in natural disasters and our struggle to keep up with the assaults of the natural world.  We also see it in disease and dysfunction in our bodies – of which infertility is an example. 

Unlike Sarah, Rachel, and Hannah, many do not conceive naturally in answer to their prayers, but today, we have medical knowledge and treatments which could not have been imagined the ancient times in which those women lived.  While these have the potential to be a great blessing for couples seeking children, they also raise moral concerns for some Christians. 

There are a number of interventions which are not a subject of concern among Christians.  These include:  examination of reproductive health, medically correcting hormonal irregularities, and surgically correcting anatomical irregularities. 

The Roman Catholic Church raises the greatest number of concerns regarding responses to infertility.  Among these are concerns regarding the methods of obtaining samples for diagnosis, whether treatments interrupt the couple’s marital intimacy, and whether third parties become involved in the act of conception. 

Other concerns are shared by both Roman Catholics and other denominations of Christians.  For example, there is significant debate concerning the appropriateness of using genetic material from a third party in the process of conceiving a child.  For some, this raises both moral concerns about whether such a treatment constitutes adultery as well as social concerns about the impact on the family by the lack of biological connection to one of the parents. 

Likewise, surrogacy is a topic of debate among some Christians, because even though the genetic material came entirely from the married couple, a third party is carrying and birthing the child, raising similar concerns to those involved with using donor genetic material. 

In Vitro Fertilization requires probably the most complex examination among fertility measures. Some discourage this method based on the assertion that it is an unnatural interference between the married couple or involves a third party in conception, but the majority of consideration revolves around other factors.  The most prominent of these are questions concerning proper respect for human life. 

Because In Vitro fertilization is such a costly process, it is most practical to create numerous embryos at one time and freeze them until they are needed.  In most cases, numerous embryos are implanted into the mother in hopes that one or two will implant and grow to term.  However, when a large number of embryos survive, the mother is left to face the high-risk scenario of carrying all of them to term or the decision to abort several of them to reduce their number, which would be considered immoral by a majority of Christian traditions. 

It also leaves the question of what to do with excess embryos that were created during the process.  Many Christian traditions would consider most of the available options (which include removing them from cold storage to die, leaving them perpetually frozen, or making them the subjects of medical research) as immoral treatments of a living person. 

As a result, many Christians who choose to use In Vitro fertilization choose to take several measures to ensure proper respect for human life.  These include creating only as many embryos as can be used (even though this may incur additional cost) and implanting only as many embryos as can be safely carried.  In the event a Christian couple inadvertently finds themselves with embryos they are not able to use (which can happen due to unforeseen circumstances, in spite of attempts to avoid doing so), many are now choosing to offer those embryos for adoption so that they can be given life by another couple who is willing and able to carry them to term. 

Explaining Christian Positions on Contraception

For this week's newspapers, I (very briefly) explain the differences between different types of Christians on contraception and how this relates to Hobby Lobby and other recent Supreme Court and Affordable Care Act issues:

Q:  I am having difficulty understanding the religious convictions which led to the recent Supreme Court cases about health care and contraceptive coverage.  Can you explain why the parties to the case object to providing certain medications or treatments to their employees?

While this story that has received considerable attention and raised some intense emotional responses, the religious elements of the story have, unfortunately, been poorly explained or largely ignored in the majority of news coverage.  This missing element would reveal that rather than a two-position issue (contraception vs. no contraception) there is a vast diversity of approaches to this question among the various branches of Christianity plays a significant role in understanding the convictions represented in these cases. 

For one group of denominations, there would be no prohibitions whatsoever regarding contraception.  It would be viewed as a matter of unrestricted individual opinion, and no further inquiry regarding the method of contraception, nor regarding the mechanisms by which they function would be necessary.  The list of denominations with this approach would largely align with those with accepting stances toward abortion and approving positions toward same-sex relationships.  In some cases, members of this segment of denominations may even provide or promote contraceptive products as a matter of human care or social justice. 

On the opposite end of the spectrum would be those traditions which disapprove of contraception as a matter of principle.  Most notable among this segment would be the Roman Catholic Church, which approves of only complete abstinence or the natural timing of cycles as methods of avoiding or delaying pregnancy.  Additionally, there is an understanding among a small, yet broad, portion of the conservative evangelical community which encourages couples to be open to receive as many children as God would grant them.  Proponents of this end of the spectrum typically point to verses where God commands Adam and Eve, as well as Noah’s Family to “Be Fruitful and Multiply,” and the many Psalms and Proverbs which speak highly of numerous children as a blessing from the Lord.  They may also employ an argument from nature – that it is unethical to interfere with nature by the use of chemical or barrier contraceptive methods. 

The remainder the Christian spectrum falls between these two bookends.  For these Christians, children are acknowledged as a blessing, and openness to children is typically encouraged.  At the same time, it is also recognized that each family’s situation is unique, and some may find it necessary to provide a longer break between pregnancies or that medical, economic, or other reasons make limiting family size the wisest course of action. 

While they trust the conscience of each husband and wife to guide this choice, they place one firm boundary – that it is not permissible to take actions which have the potential to end the life of an already-conceived child.  In most cases, this would allow a husband and wife to use barrier methods of contraception as well as surgical sterilization, without concern, as dictated by their circumstances. 

Many would also be open to the use of traditional contraceptive pills, patches, and shots, although this is less universal due to questions about the potential of these methods to prevent a fertilized egg from implanting. 

IUDs are often seen even less favorably because of their potential to prevent implantation.  Those who observe this boundary would always exclude such methods as “morning after” pills, which intend to prevent ovulation, but have a secondary mechanism of preventing implantation of a fertilized egg.  They would also exclude “week after” pills or any method which exclusively prevents implantation after fertilization. 

It is this final category of contraceptives that were at the center of the most prominent of these cases.  In fact, the most prominent plaintiff in this series of cases actually provides 16 out of the 20 contraceptives specified by the Affordable Care Act, and only objected to providing those methods which have the intention or potential to end already-conceived life, for the reason that they believe they would be contributing to an act of murder by funding such methods in their insurance coverage. 

Why Vestments and Clergy Collars Exist

My article from this week's newspapers answers a question about vestments and clergy apparel:

Q:  As I visit churches, I notice that some clergy wear robes varying kinds, and others do not wear robes.  I’ve also noticed some pastors who wear a special uniform when visiting or teaching while others dress in casual or business attire.  Can you explain these differences and the reasons behind them? 

Pastoral garments are a tradition that has evolved and regressed with great frequency throughout Church history.  For example, the Lutheran tradition has seen at least 3 separate varieties of pastoral robes come and go over the course of the past 100 years. 

Some would suggest that the tradition of Christian pastors wearing special clothing when conducting the liturgy dates as far back as St. Paul who asked Timothy to bring a particular cloak with him when he comes to visit him in 2 Timothy 4:13.  Beyond this, the tradition of religious clothing has Biblical precedent as far back as the priestly robes employed by the priests who served in the Tabernacle after the Exodus. 

Building on these precedents, the particulars of liturgical apparel often begins with churches and clergy holding on to traditions even after the surrounding culture has passed them by.  The most obvious example of this is the Clerical Collar that is a familiar mark of pastors in many traditions, particularly Roman Catholic, Lutheran, and Episcopal, that traditionally includes a black shirt topped with a white banded collar or a white box in front of the Adam’s Apple. 

This garment began with the black clothing worn by all educated professionals in the Middle Ages.  The white collar or tab began as an undershirt appearing through the opening of the collar or above its top.  As the culture left behind this style, it was retained by the clergy and later given a theologically-significant meaning that the pastor himself is a sinner (represented by the black garment) but speaks the holy Word of God to the people (represented by the white portion being located at his voice box).  Today it serves primarily as a uniform by which pastors can be identified, much like a chef has his hat and jacket or a doctor has scrubs. 

Likewise, the robes seen while conducting the service find their stylistic particulars in older usage.  The black robe, sometimes called a Geneva Gown, worn by preachers of some denominations finds its roots in the academic clothing of the Middle Ages, and parallels can still be seen in the Academic Apparel worn by faculty at college ceremonies or the gowns worn the graduates at a High School Commencement.  Often those who wear such robes emphasize the pastor’s role as a teacher, professional, or expert in their theology. 

The purpose of the white robe worn by pastors of more liturgically-oriented denominations has to do with the belief that the pastor stands as the representative of Jesus Himself while he conducts the ceremonies of the liturgy – speaking Christ’s Words of forgiveness, delivering Christ’s washing in Baptism, and distributing His Body and Blood in the Lord’s Supper.  Thus the pastor’s sinful humanity is hidden beneath a white robe, just as Christ is portrayed in Revelation as wearing a white robe, to emphasize that he does not act of His own authority, but instead represents Christ. 

While this white robe has its origins in a far ancient era, even its particulars are derived partially from ancient fashions that others had left behind.  This is seen as styles which range from a stiff black robe covered by a loose white gown to a wrapped white robe tied with a rope around the waist have their origins in such places as providing warmth to a priest in an unheated sanctuary during a Scandinavian winter to a Roman tunic from the first century. 

While these varying forms of clergy apparel often have mundane origins, their continued use bears the intention that they teach something to those who observe their use.  So investigation reveals that what appears on the surface to be mere style or tradition is actually infused with a great deal of theology and communicates to us something about what that church or that pastor believes. 

Numbering the Seasons of the Church Year

Q:  When I attend church, I often see Sundays numbered with labels, like Epiphany or Pentecost or Advent.  What do these mean, and are they used in all churches? 

From the earliest times, the Christian Church began to mark time in a yearly cycle that guided the Church’s preaching to its members.  This began with the yearly celebration of the Resurrection, which quickly-expanded to an eight week-long event to coincide with the time Jesus spent living on earth following the Resurrection and the arrival of Pentecost, which is the day that the Apostles first preached in Jerusalem after receiving the Holy Spirit. 

Lent was a development that shortly followed, as Christians observed 40 days of fasting to prepare for the Resurrection feast, which mirrored other famous 40s in the Bible, such as the 40 years in the wilderness, the 40 days and nights of rain in the flood, and the 40-day temptation of Jesus in the wilderness, many of which serve as the appointed readings on the Sundays during Lent. 

Since the ancient world observed death dates more frequently than birth dates, the day of Jesus’ birth was not known, but based on an ancient belief that great figures died on the day of their conception, the Church observed the Annunciation (Gabriel’s announcement of Jesus’ conception to Mary) on March 25, and soon after, began to celebrate Christmas – the festival of the Savior’s birth – 9 month later, on December 25. 

Advent, a time of preparation prior to Christmas, centering on themes like the Second Coming of Christ and the events surrounding Mary, Joseph, Zechariah, Elizabeth, and John the Baptizer; arose not long afterward.  Then Epiphany – beginning on January 6 became a season to emphasize the building revelation of Jesus identity and span the time between Christmas and the beginning of Lent. 

So, these seasons, beginning 4 weeks before Christmas and ending 8 weeks after Easter, compose half of the Church Year, and focus somewhat-chronologically on highlights of the life of Jesus.  The other half of the Church Year begins with Pentecost (50 days after Easter) and focusses on the life of the Church and the teachings of Jesus.  Depending on the date of Easter, this season can be as short as 23 Sundays or as many as 28 Sundays before Advent begins again on the Sunday nearest to St. Andrew’s Day, which is November 30. 

These seasons are also marked by changes of color in the church – white for Christmas, Easter, and all festivals of Christ, blue for Advent, purple for Lent, red for Pentecost and other festivals of the Church and commemorations of the Apostles, and green for the “Ordinary Time” Sundays which follow Epiphany and Pentecost.  Other colors, including gold, black, rose, and scarlet are used in some traditions for particular observances. 

Not all denominations and traditions observe these seasons.  Some may only celebrate the Resurrection and Christmas, while others might add a few other significant days, but not the complete calendar.  However, there has been a renaissance of sorts regarding the Church Year in the past decade, in which less liturgical traditions, such as Baptist and non-denominational congregations have begun to discover this treasure of the ancient Church. 

 In the congregations which do follow the full calendar, these seasons and their themes are also accompanied by specified readings called a Lectionary.  Some congregations observe an older one-year schedule of readings, but over the last 50 years or so, most have transitioned to a three-year lectionary which concentrates on one Gospel (Matthew, Mark, or Luke) each year, and includes sections of John spread throughout the three-year cycle. 

In addition to instructing about the life of Christ on a yearly cycle, this also has the benefit of ensuring that the congregation receives a balanced diet of the Scripture each year, since the preacher does not have the potential to focus in only on his favorite subjects.  Furthermore, it has the collateral benefit that, with the exception of a few exceptions particular to a given denomination, congregations across denominational lines are following approximately the same thematic structure on any given Sunday. 

Do I Pledge Allegiance?

My article for this week's newspapers answers a question about participation in patriotic acts and government service:

Q:  Are Christians allowed to serve in elected office or the military, salute or pledge allegiance to the flag, vote, and participate as jurors or parties to a court case; and what is the line where a Christian’s involvement with secular government becomes inappropriate?

Every so often throughout history, a few Christian leaders start to raise questions about whether a Christian may participate in secular government.  Under older systems of empire or monarchy, this largely meant employment as a government official or soldier. 

In those cases, the permissibility of Christian service hinged largely on whether the job included duties that would be sinful (such as ancient Roman tax collectors who made a living by cheating citizens) or whether it required idolatry (such as the requirement for Roman Soldiers to worship Caesar as a god). 

In our American experience, this question takes on a new twist, because we citizens are the government in many ways.  While elected officials write and enforce our laws, those officials are chosen by the people’s vote, and the people serve in applying and carrying out the law in such actions as jury service. 

Although the early Christians were often at odds with government as members of a forbidden religion and a despised minority, it was not government in and of itself which they were separating from, but rather the actions of a government that was hostile to their faith and demanded that they disobey both God’s law and their own conscience in order to be citizens in good standing. 

Understood within the boundary that the Christian’s first allegiance is to the Triune God, and that the Christian must “obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29), the Bible is actually quite positive toward government and other earthly authorities.  Beginning with the understanding that the Fourth Commandment, “Honor your father and mother,” extends beyond parents to include all who are in positions of authority, and reinforced by numerous New Testament commands to obey those in authority, the Bible intends that Christians would be honest and obedient citizens and be a blessing to their governing authorities and their nation.  St. Paul even writes that governing authorities have been “instituted by God.”  (Romans 13)

So Christians are permitted to salute their flag and pledge allegiance, not by idolatrously considering their government equal or superior to God, but acknowledging that God has instituted earthly authority and called them to respect and obey it.  Military service (as explained more fully in a previous column) is also an honorable vocation for Christians who desire to defend and protect their neighbors. 

Likewise, the courts have been instituted to defend the rights of citizens to their safety, reputation, and property, and Christians may certainly use them, when necessary to prosecute crimes or settle disputes over property.  When Paul criticizes the Corinthians (ch. 5) for their lawsuits against one another, he does not do so because they made use of secular courts, but because they were doing harm to the reputation of the Church by airing grievances between fellow believers in public rather than settling them amongst themselves within the congregation. 

Finally, voting and public office are certainly appropriate pursuits for Christians.  It would be easier to say that one is sinning by refusing to participate in these functions rather than by exercising the privilege to do so.  In a government where the people themselves set the direction of policy and choose who will lead, what better way for a Christian to serve his fellow citizens than by voting for honorable public servants and advocating for moral and beneficial laws? 

The only limitation that a Christian faces in their participation is that they may not give the government higher honor than God or disobey God’s revealed law in order to obey the government’s policy or statutes.  Beyond this, the Christian is free honor his government and its flag and privileged to exercise his faith by honorable service to his neighbors. 

Was Jesus Married, and what was His family like?

My article for this week's newspapers responds to an inquiry about Jesus' family:

Q:  What was Jesus’ family like?  Did he have brothers, sisters, a wife, or children?  Was the same true for His disciples? 

From the early chapters of the Gospel of Luke, we learn about Jesus’ family at the time of His birth.  We know that His mother Mary was a virgin who was engaged to a man named Joseph when an angel initiated her pregnancy with the announcement that she would give birth to the Savior. 

Mary was likely young, as women were typically married shortly after the age where they were physically capable of childbearing.  Joseph was probably older, because it was expected that a man have a home and an established trade before he was considered eligible to marry. 

After Mary and Joseph flee to Egypt to escape Herod’s attempt to kill Jesus, the only other event Scripture records from Jesus’ childhood is when he was unintentionally left behind in Jerusalem by his parents and discovered in the temple discussing theology.  Although Joseph was not Jesus’ biological father, he was His earthly guardian, but after this event, Joseph is never mentioned again in the Gospels, leading many to believe that He died some time when Jesus was between the ages of 12 and 30. 

This would have left Mary as a widow, and Jesus, her oldest son, would have likely been left as the primary provider for the family.  Even though there is not a record of the birth of Jesus’ siblings, the Gospels do mention His “mother and brothers” on one occasion, and on another occasion names four brothers (James, Jude, Simon, Joses) and refers to unnamed “sisters,” indicating two or more daughters born to Mary and Joseph. 

Some have attempted to describe Joseph as a widower, and these 6 or more siblings as children from that previous marriage, and not with Mary.  Others have described them as cousins or other relatives.  While both of these explanations are possible based on the words used in the Gospel for Jesus brothers and sisters, the plain usual meaning of this word is literal, biological siblings, and usage of that word for step-siblings or cousins would be far less common, making the most plain and reasonable conclusion that these 6 or more siblings are Jesus’ half-siblings born to Mary and Joseph. 

This is further supported by Matthew’s description of the marriage of Joseph and Mary, when he says Joseph “took Mary as his wife, but did not know her until she had given birth to her son.”   Compare this to the statement “John did not eat breakfast until he had showered.”  Such a statement indicates that John did actually eat breakfast, but only after he had showered.  Likewise, Matthew’s statement indicates that Joseph and Mary do consummate their marriage, but only after Jesus has been born. 

Some vague fragments and superstitious stories have arisen from time to time about Jesus having a wife, perhaps Mary Magdalene, but none of them are remotely reliable from a textual perspective, and most have conclusively been proven as forgeries that were not written until 300-400 years after the Resurrection of Jesus.  This results in the clear conclusion that Jesus had neither a wife nor children. 

Regarding the disciples, it appears that most of them had wives and typical families.  Paul was single, and he refers to the benefits of this status for His mission and ministry.  At the same time, his words in 1 Corinthians 9 imply that marriage and family were the norm among the other Apostles, and he specifically mentions Cephas [Peter] and the Lord’s brothers [probably James and Jude] as being married.  Luke specifically mentions Peter’s mother-in-law, who was healed by Jesus of a high fever, at the end of chapter 2 of his Gospel, indicating that Peter was certainly married. 

In spite of agenda-driven explanations to the contrary, the simplest explanation that can be drawn from Scripture regarding the family life of Jesus and the disciples is that Mary and Joseph carried on a normal married life after the birth of Jesus, that Jesus remained single and childless throughout His life, and that the average disciple, including their leader Peter, seems to have been married, with Paul as the one notable exception. 

Is Grandma watching over me?

My article from this week's newspapers deals with the question of relatives watching over us from heaven:

Q:  After the recent death of a relative, a friend tried to comfort me by saying that the relative was “watching over” me from heaven.  Is this true, and how do we know?

I’m not sure how far it goes back, but this belief has become increasingly popular among many Americans, even Christians.  And while it may have a bit of truth at its core, it goes farther than Scripture goes in describing the lives of our loved ones who have died. 

The first thing to consider is that “heaven” as we think of it is only a minor theme in Scripture.  Most of the Bible’s descriptions of afterlife are about something else – namely the Resurrection at the Last Day. 

At death, the body is buried, and the soul is judged.  For those who rely entirely on Jesus for forgiveness of sins this has the result that their soul goes to be at rest with Jesus.  However, this is not the soul’s final destination.  Instead, the body will be raised to be reunited with the soul on the Last Day, after which eternal life is lived in the body as a whole person. 

What we typically think of as “heaven” is referred to by theologians as the Interim State, indicating that the time while our souls rest with Christ is only an in-between time during which we await the full, embodied life which will commence at the Resurrection. 

From scripture we learn that these souls who rest with Christ are not unconscious or asleep, but seem to have some awareness of what is happening on earth.  We see this as the figures in Luke 16 are aware of events on earth even while they are at rest or in torment, and the souls under the altar in Revelation 6 long for the Resurrection of their bodies and the vindication of their fellow martyrs who suffer on earth. 

Scripture, though, does not credit the dead with "watching over" us, appearing to us, contacting us, or otherwise intervening in any way here on earth. Those things are the sole ability of the Lord, and Luke 16 makes very clear that there is no return, communication, or intervention between this world and the deceased.

It also seems preferable to speak of the saints with the Lord as "aware" of events here on earth rather than sensory language like "see" or "hear," since that sensory language implies a body, which they lack until the Resurrection on the Last Day. The language of watching over also might give the impression that they are occupied with earthly events or attentive to minor or embarrassing details here on earth or cause concern that they sorrow over the sin and suffering they witness.  Instead, they are occupied with the Lord while they are present with Him, and it seems that in some mysterious way, their souls share in some portion (even if incomplete) of His perfect knowledge and understanding of earthly events.

Ultimately, while it might be comforting to think of our deceased loved ones as watching over us, we have an even greater promise – namely that Christ Himself watches over us.  While they are beloved, they are merely human  and have not received supernatural power or authority, while He is the possessor of all divine power, and He who has forgiven our sins has promised that He will order all things for the good of our souls and the forgiveness of our sins so that we too would join Him and them in the eternal, resurrected life that is without end. 

Is Heaven for Real?

I've been meaning to answer this question (review this book) for years now, but it just stayed on the back burner.  With the movie being released soon, I thought it had simmered long enough:  

Q:  I found the book Heaven is for Real very touching, but I can’t help but wonder whether the boy’s experience was genuine.  Can you offer any guidance to help me sort this out?

In the handful of years since this book was released, it has become very widely known because of its touching images and inspiring portrayal of childlike faith.  At the same time, I, like the many readers who have sent me this question, wonder whether the accounts of heaven it communicates are accurate and trustworthy – whether Colton Burpo’s experience was genuine or from another source. 

Beyond the difficulty of communicating any individual's experience to those who do not personally share it, this book faces the challenge of a third party – his father – communicating the experiences of his preschool-aged son.  For the sake of being both concise and charitable, I am willing to forego any accusations that the experience was fabricated for fame or financial gain and to assume that Colton really did experience the events he describes. 

The bigger question that seems necessary to ask is regarding the source of Colton’s experience.  The possibilities that immediately come to mind are those of hallucination, a dream, or the boy’s mind integrating diverse fragments of information during a semi-conscious state or under the influence of sedatives and anesthetic. 

Those would be easy conclusions, except that the account in the book also includes information that the authors claim could not have been known within the limitations of time and space in its circumstances.  These include knowledge of a deceased grandfather’s appearance in an era generations ago, the existence of a previously-unrevealed miscarried sister, and the location and behavior of Colton’s parents during his surgery.  If we concede that these were not fabricated, then we are left to consider spiritual origins for this experience – but from what spiritual source? 

Scripture gives clear guidance regarding those who claim to have experienced extraordinary spiritual revelations – namely, that they must present complete accuracy.  Predictions must be completely fulfilled (Deut. 18), and claims to truth must match completely with those already known in Scripture (Deut. 13, 1 John 4), which is the point where this account raises concerns for me. 

Many of the descriptions of heaven in the book are untestable because they are neither confirmed by Scripture nor contradictory to it.  Many others are consistent with what we should expect from an experience of heaven based on Biblical revelation.  On a few occasions, though, Colton’s experiences directly contradict truths known from Scripture or history. 

First, and most significant of these is the location of Jesus’ crucifixion wounds (in the palm rather than at the junction of the forearm bones at the wrist).  Another worrisome description is the repeated references to the winged appearance of deceased believers.  Additionally, while the Bible clearly states that death must precede entrance into the states described in the account (Hebrews 9:27), medical records showed that Colton did not die. 

Finally, Colton says about Pop, “He’s got a new body.  Jesus told me if you don’t go to heaven, you don’t get a new body.”  Scripture, on the other hand, very clearly describes death as separation from the body (2 Cor. 5:8 et. al.) and that all people, not only believers will receive a resurrected body – but that it will be on the Last Day, and not in the temporary, spiritual state which precedes it. 

This leaves us with two choices:  First, we can dismiss these discrepancies as the result of a child’s limited comprehension or communication ability, but then we would be left to doubt all the rest of the account on the same grounds.  Alternatively, we could wonder, in spite of Colton’s and his Father’s sincere belief that the account is genuine, if the experience was introduced from another, spiritually hostile source which conveyed a great deal of truth mixed with just enough error to be distract from what is most important. 

This leads to my final concern – heaven is never described as the end game in Scripture.  We have only a handful of descriptions of it, and very few direct references to it.  Instead, the big idea in Scripture regarding afterlife is that it is lived out in an eternal resurrection, which follows the Last Day.  Too much focus on “heaven” (which we Americans have been guilty of for generations) distracts from that truth that we will physically live again forever. 

Yes, Heaven is for real.  We know this because eyewitnesses saw our Lord resurrected, and He told them it was true.  This book, however, leaves serious questions of credibility, which we cannot overlook.

Since my local newspaper column is limited at 800 words, this review is exceedingly brief.  Perhaps after Holy Week, there will be time for me to provide an expanded critique, offering the insights I lacked the space to include here.  

Do Christians Believe in Extra-terrestrial life?

My article from this week's newspapers answers a question about Christians and extra-terrestrial life:  

Q:  Do Christians believe in aliens or that life exists on other planets?  What evidence is there from the Bible for or against this idea?

While it would be convenient if the Bible contained information about every conceivable topic, the fact is that it only contains the information relevant to its purpose – to provide the history of God’s interaction with man and His ultimate revelation in the crucified and risen Christ.  Even though the Bible never mentions aliens or other life forms, it does contain a number of concepts that would influence the way Christians respond the question of extra-terrestrial life. 

From Genesis, the Bible portrays humanity as the pinnacle and crowning element of creation.  In relation to all other life on earth, Adam and Eve are placed as the superior caretaker and described with qualities not attributed to other creatures.  While God speaks other creatures into existence, He forms Adam from the dust and breathes life into him.  He then gives Adam the task of naming the rest of creation, then creates Eve from Adam’s rib as a fitting complement to Him. 

When the creation account describes the rest of the creation beyond the earth’s atmosphere, it describes everything in relation to earth.  Sun and moon are created for the purpose of creating a fitting environment on earth.  Stars and other planets are described as being tasked with marking time and seasons – both purposes that center on activities here on earth, and not out in space. 

In any of the Bible’s descriptions of the origins of life, the whole story is centered on earth and only on earth.  We are not given any positive indication that there are intelligent creatures elsewhere – or any form of life at all.  We also are not given any absolute denials that God could have created life elsewhere beyond our planet.  The question is simply not addressed.    

While there have been attempts made by imaginative individuals to explain some of the unusual images of the book of Revelation, as well as other prophetic elements as descriptions of future alien encounters, these ideas are not well-supported by textual study or church history, and are more likely wishful thinking or exceeding the appropriate bounds of creativity in handling these portions of Scripture.

What we do know is that the Bible describes the creation of life here on earth.  We do know that it describes the fall of that creation into sin at the hand of our first parents, and we do know that it describes the perfect life, death, and resurrection of Jesus as our substitute and points us there as the remedy for every spiritual ill, and directs us to the Resurrection of the Last Day as the end of all earthly suffering that is the consequence of sin. 

While we cannot dogmatically say that there is no life beyond our own planet, we also have no confirmation that there is, nor do we have any instruction to seek it out.  If God desired to form other creations in far-away solar systems, that look and operate differently than we do, it would certainly be within His ability and rights to do so.  However, because we have found no credible evidence that this is true, nor has it been revealed to us in Scripture, there is no warrant for Christians to introduce such ideas into discussion of spiritual things, because even if they did exist, it would apparently be of no consequence to us or our salvation in Christ– which is the purpose and central theme of God’s revelation. 

What is a Christian to make of Psychics, Mediums, etc.?

My article from this week's newspapers answers a question about psychics, mediums, and other similar practitioners:  

Q:  How should a Christian understand the existence of psychics and mediums?  Are their services genuine, and if not, what is their source?

The two typical reactions to psychic phenomena and those practitioners who engage with such things is either to embrace it as real and genuine, or on the other hand, to reject it as fantasy or mythology.  However, it seems that a fair treatment of this question must acknowledge that there are several explanations for this sort of experiences. 

The criticism that these experiences are pure imagination is certainly plausible, and on several occasions is probably an accurate analysis.  A person who believes herself to have psychic powers or communicate with another realm of spirits could potentially be imagining her experiences, but convinced in her own mind that they are genuine.  Legitimate mental illness is also a possibility, as is the individual simply misinterpreting otherwise natural phenomena as more than they really are. 

It also must be acknowledged that there are those practitioners who are skillfully fabricating these paranormal experiences.  They may be adept at reading their clients or subtly mining them for details that they can use to better create the desired experience and give the appearance of a psychic connection.  In such a case, nothing spiritual is occurring, but simply a fraudulent manipulation. 

On other occasions, these logical explanations do not seem adequate.  Perhaps the medium knows something that they could not have possibly known, or the psychic makes a prediction that is ultimately found to be accurate, making it necessary to explore spiritual causes. 

The Christian can rule out that genuine communication with the spirits of deceased humans has occurred, because Jesus description of the Rich Man and Lazarus from Luke 16 describes a gulf that cannot be breached between the habitation of the deceased and the world of the living.  Hebrews also explains that “it is given man once to die, and then to face the judgment.” 

It can also be ruled out that the revelation is angelic, as every instance of angelic revelation in Scripture is unmistakably clear, and not concealed or mysterious.  Nor is the Holy Spirit a plausible source, as Scripture’s record of the His role never describes Him working in the ways seen in relation to psychic experiences, and when Jesus Himself describes the Holy Spirit’s work in Gospel of John, He describes a work of pointing to Jesus and reminding of Jesus words – and not one of revealing anything new or hidden. 

Assuming that a chance guess is not a satisfactory explanation, it would be necessary to explain the source of such knowledge, which is the more challenging task – and one that brings potentially unwelcome conclusions. 

If an experience cannot be explained after ruling out human, divine, and angelic sources, only one option remains – the demonic world.  Although we may be hesitant to make such claims, Scripture’s revelations about the demonic world do make this a plausible explanation. 

We know that demons are immortal spirits and so have knowledge that reaches beyond that available to living generations, making it possible for them to reveal events and details of the past that could not be known except by an eyewitness.  We also know that their goal is lead people away from Jesus by any means, which allows that they may even provide appealing and comforting revelations for the sake of distracting a person from Jesus. 

So, it is possible that a demon might impersonate a deceased spouse or parent, revealing little-known details to the psychic, because the demon witnessed the life and relationships of the deceased.  Or perhaps a demon can reveal the location of a body or weapon to a psychic who has been asked to help with a murder investigation because he was the one who inspired the murderer to commit the crime in the first place. 

Ultimately, the Christian can be certain that Mediums, Psychics, and similar practitioners, no matter how sincere, are not what they seem, and that there is no cause to consult them.  Even when it is difficult to discern what is happening in the spiritual world, the Christian can be sure that through Baptism they are protected from those spiritual forces which would seek to harm or deceive them.  God’s promises, having been applied to them through the water, defend them from the devil, his angels, and even death itself with the certain and unconquerable power of the Cross of Christ.