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. 

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.