Sins, Debts, and Trespasses

For this week's newspapers, I answered a question about the different lengths and translations of the Lord's Prayer in English-speaking churches:

Q:  Why do some churches say the Lord’s Prayer with the line, “Forgive us our debts” while others use “Forgive us our trespasses,” and why do some stop with “deliver us from evil” while others have an additional line afterward?

While the Lord’s Prayer is considered the universal prayer among Christians because it was given by our Lord Himself, the differences noted in the question are matters of text and translation. 

The account of the giving of the Lord’s Prayer is told twice in the Bible—once by Matthew, and once by Luke.  Many ancient manuscripts of Matthew’s account include the line “for thine is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever and ever.  Amen” at the end of the prayer.  The ancient manuscripts of Luke, in comparison, do not typically show this line.  In fact, many of the manuscripts of Luke are also missing the line, “but deliver us from evil.” 

These differences between Matthew and Luke’s recording of the Lord’s Prayer account for the diversity of length in the prayer.  The most likely explanation is that the line, “deliver us from evil” is original to the prayer, but that those who copied Luke’s Gospel accidentally omitted it on a few occasions. 

The longer ending of Matthew’s prayer probably arises because as it was used in the liturgies of the early church of the first century, similar to the way that “Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit, as it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be.  Amen.”  is typically added to the end of Psalms among Christians. 

Since Matthew’s Gospel was intended as a catechism for instructing people who had come to Christianity from Judaism, he would likely have included the prayer in the form it was said in the liturgy.  Some liturgies of the time even included an even longer ending “…and the glory, of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit for ever.  Amen.”  And on rare occasions, an ancient copy of Matthew is even found with this very long ending included in the prayer. 

So, when churches use a longer or shorter version of the Lord’s Prayer, it is primarily just the difference between the version of the prayer recorded in Matthew and the version recorded in Luke—and both are Biblical. 

The difference between “forgive us our debts” and “forgive us our trespasses” is one of translation in addition to synonyms used for sin by Matthew and Luke.  The Matthew version uses a Greek word very similar to the English word “debt,” while the Luke version uses the word that is the typical word for “sins” in the New Testament.  Some more modern attempts at translating the Lord’s Prayer have even attempted to use the translation “forgive us our sins, as we forgive those who sin against us,” but they have not been widely accepted. 

When the word “debts” is used in the Lord’s Prayer, it is because that particular translation is based on the King James tradition of translating the Gospel of Matthew.  The translation of “trespasses” has its roots in the Tyndale Bible and the Book of Common Prayer, which pre-date the King James Bible by several decades, so it is actually the older translation into English, although it may seem new to some who grew up hearing the petition with the word “debts.” 

Because of its use in the Book of Common Prayer for Anglican worship, “trespasses” became the default translation of all the natively-English traditions of Christianity.  For Lutherans (who spoke German upon arriving in America) and Catholics (who conducted the Mass in Latin until recent years), they also picked up the translation “trespasses” upon beginning to worship in English, making it the majority version of the prayer in the present day. 

Regardless of the translation, though, the meaning of the petition is the same.  When we sin, we trespass against the boundary of God’s law, and sins committed by humans create a debt that we owe both to God and the neighbors we sin against, which can only be paid back by Jesus crucified death.  Each of the words emphasizes a different nuance of this truth, but all point to the same problem and the same Savior who is its remedy. 

Flagolatry?

For this week's newspapers, I answered a reader question about displaying flags in church:  

Q:  Why is the American flag often displayed in the sanctuary of churches?  Is it appropriate to have a symbol of the nation in the midst of the worship of God, or does it violate the separation of church and state? 

In spite of the fact that flags have been present for as long as most presently-living individuals can remember, the installation of flags in church sanctuaries is actually a relatively recent and primarily American development. 

The earliest Christians would certainly not have had national symbols among them when they gathered, because they were considered criminals by the Roman Empire for refusing to worship Caesar as god, and throughout Medieval Europe, flags and other national symbols were typically considered something for the ruling classes, and not displayed among the common people or in their churches. 

When the American Revolution began, patriotic sentiments rose among citizens, churches with a more uniquely American ethos began to see the flag displayed outside of churches, sometimes draped from the pulpit for certain occasions and carried in Sunday School or Vacation Bible School processions.  This grew in frequency during the Civil War, but was still not common among more internationally oriented churches, such as Lutherans, Orthodox, and Roman Catholics. 

The two World Wars of the 20^th century, and the racial and ethnic biases that accompanied them, are largely responsible for the wider acceptance of flag display inside of church buildings, even moving them from the entryways or fellowship halls right up into the front of the church itself.  Today, there is no Canon Law regarding flag display, and it is left to the Diocese or Congregation to decide among Roman Catholics.  Flag display is more disputed among the Orthodox, who do not typically have as close a relationship with governments as the Roman Church. 

For Lutherans, who were some of the last holdouts against flag display, and other people who were ethnically German, World War 1 was the advent of flag display in their churches as a way of refuting accusations that they were sympathizers with the Kaiser in Germany because they still conducted services in German.  In World War 2, flag display became nearly universal in order to avoid similar accusations, and German worship also declined rapidly at this time in favor of English. 

The final volley which cemented flag display in churches was the Flag Day proclamation in 1954, in which President Eisenhower signed the act adding the words “under god” to the Pledge of Allegiance.  Coupled with the patriotism which accompanied the Cold War, this convinced most of the remaining holdouts to end their opposition to flag display in churches, and the Russian Orthodox also began adopting flag display at this time because of accusations of Soviet sympathies for conducting services in Russian. 

Today, support for flag display in churches is common, but not as common as it was in the Cold War era.  One concern raised about the display of flags in churches is that it gives the appearance that the nation or its government are being worshipped or that they have a place equal to or nearly-equal to God.  Others raise the objection that the Church is an international body which is composed of all nations, and therefore the appearance of loyalty to a particular nation is inappropriate. 

Others are uneasy with the possibility of giving the appearance that the church endorses the actions of the nation.  This fear arose in the past during wars which might have been considered unjust.  Similar concerns are rising again today when the laws of the nation are becoming more at odds with the teachings of the Church, and the likelihood that the government will become openly hostile to certain churches and their members is rising. 

On the other hand, some point to the fact that obedience to lawful authority is a virtue promoted in the Fourth Commandment and that the New Testament encourages believers to submit to governing authorities, assuming it obvious that obedience to God outweighs loyalty to the nation. 

Today, with a population of pastors and members who are farther removed from the two World Wars and the Cold War, we may very well see more careful examination of the practice of displaying the national flag in churches, but the ultimate conclusion and how that will impact continued display of the flag remains to be seen.  

Can Yoga be Baptized?

For this week's newspapers, I answered a question about Christians doing Yoga:

Q:  What is the source for Yoga exercise and are there any spiritual components to it?  Are there any concerns that Christians should have with engaging in Yoga?

When many North Americans think of Yoga, the image that comes to mind is the slow movements, static postures, and controlled breathing of demonstration videos and popular exercise classes found in the Western world.  Although this discipline gives a first impression of the foreign and exotic, most would not immediately detect anything obviously spiritual about these exercises. 

However, the origins of Yoga are deeply spiritual.  They originate in India and the surrounding area centuries ago, and served as a method of spiritual advancement in the Hindu religion.  In Hinduism, it is taught that people experience many lifetimes in this world through reincarnation, and their experience of subsequent lives is based on Karma—a measurement of guilt they build up based on their actions in previous lives.

Because adherents to Hinduism desire to have a better life in their next incarnation or to escape the cycle of reincarnation entirely and give up their individual identity and be reabsorbed into the divine, they developed a set of spiritual disciplines called Yogas which they believe will achieve that goal. 

The Yoga exercise with which we are familiar in North America is one of those disciplines, called Hatha Yoga.  There are at least 5 other disciplines that involve meditation, knowledge, work, and spiritual devotion, and a final yoga that uses the methods of the others together to achieve the goal of higher consciousness and realization of the divine. 

Hatha Yoga was originally developed with the understanding that one could use positions of the body to achieve spiritual results.  In particular, by imitating the shapes or postures of elements of nature, Hindus understand that they can appropriate the characteristics of those entities for themselves. 

In light of this, and the growing popularity of Yoga as exercise in our country, many Christians have faced the need to evaluate whether Yoga is advisable for Christians, or whether those who participate are flirting with or actually committing idolatry by engaging in the worship of a non-Christian religion. 

Some have proposed that Yoga can be sanitized of its spiritual elements so that a person can attain the physical and emotional benefits that it claims to offer without concerns of spiritual transgression.  Some have even developed “Christian Yoga” classes that replace the Hindu spiritual elements with Scripture or prayer.  Detractors have responded that athletic science is able to formulate a program of exercise that will achieve superior results without the concerns of the spiritual origins of Yoga. 

Other Christians advocate that Yoga should be avoided completely regardless of emotional or physical benefits it might offer, because it is tainted by its spiritual origins, and that attempts to sanitize it do not render it spiritually neutral.  They argue that because spiritual evil is behind all non-Christian religions, any association with their forms of devotion introduces the risk of spiritual harm, and therefore they are to be avoided. 

They also raise concerns about implications for the witness of Christians to the world, because they believe it gives the appearance of blending religions and communicates that many religions lead to the True God or that divine truth can be accessed apart from Jesus. 

For the Christian, the answer can never be “It’s just exercise, isn’t it?” Instead, it is necessary to contemplate the wisdom of engaging with this spiritual practice of Hinduism in light of their own beliefs about the spiritual world and make an informed evaluation about the effectiveness of sanitizing it of spiritual elements before they conclude how those answers compare to their own conscience as guided by the First Commandment – “You shall have no other gods in my presence.” 

Contemplate or Meditate?

My article from this week's newspapers answers a question about Meditation:

Q:  Is Meditation something that is compatible with the spiritual life of a Christian, or is it a practice that could pose potential spiritual harm?

The word meditation can be found in many English translations of the Bible, the majority of which are in the Psalms, particularly Psalm 119.  Even though the word is used, its context in the Psalms reflects that this is something dramatically different from what we typically mean when we think of meditation today. 

The practice that the word meditation typically refers to is a spiritual exercise which has its source in Eastern religions, particularly Hinduism and Buddhism.  These religions have a fundamentally different understanding of the way that the spiritual world functions than Christians do, and this is reflected in their practice of meditation. 

Meditation as performed and taught in these Eastern religions has diverse outward appearances, and may follow a variety of methods, but their goal and the mechanism by which they purport to function reflects an opposite understanding of the direction in which spiritual ills are cured. 

In Biblical thought, the spiritual problem lies within humans, manifested in such things as selfishness, violence, lust, hatred, and other forms of evil; and the solution to spiritual ills is found outside of us in the cross and resurrection of Jesus, the benefits of which are delivered through God’s Word and the Sacraments. 

In Hindu and Buddhist thought, it is proposed that humans are really one with the divine and the realization of this is found by looking inward through such things as meditation.  So, if the Christian realizes that inside of ourselves we find nothing but sin, filth, and evil, it would be counter-productive to try to seek solutions by looking within oneself. 

The meditation described in the psalms also differs dramatically from Eastern forms of meditation in that it is a thought-filled meditation where one consciously contemplates the content of Scripture to better understand it and discern its message, while Eastern forms of meditation encourage the practitioner to empty oneself of thought to achieve the goal of reaching a supposed higher form of consciousness or awareness which is not accessible through ordinary means.  In fact, contemplation would probably be a more accurate translation of the word the Psalms use, rather than meditation. 

This is also understood by Eastern practitioners to occur because this empty-minded state is said to open one up to the spiritual world around them, which openness then provides a form of enlightenment through interaction with the divine.  However, such a proposition assumes that everything spiritual is good.  In contrast, a Biblical understanding of the spiritual world sees that there are harmful elements in the spiritual world which would deceive and lead us away from what is true, and Scripture repeatedly admonishes people to be watchful and on guard against such things—a state which would not be compatible with the state of spiritual vulnerability created by Eastern meditation. 

While Christian might desire some of the auxiliary benefits often attributed to Eastern meditation, such as relaxation, mental focus, or stress relief, the use of a spiritual exercise from a foreign spirituality which contradicts Christianity would not be and advisable avenue by which to achieve them.  Instead, Spiritual practices like prayer and Scriptural contemplation, along with non-spiritual relaxation and stress-relief techniques from the medical sciences are a more appropriate way to achieve these goals without violating their Biblically-informed conscience or compromising spiritual truth. 

To Re-Baptize or not to Re-Baptize:

My article for this week's newspapers answers a question about re-baptizing:

Q:  I recently began attending church for the first time in my adult life.  If my parents had me baptized as a baby in a different kind of church, should I be baptized again in my new church?

In most situations, the answer would be a clear “no,” regardless of whether the original Baptism occurred as an adult, a child, or an infant. 

A small number of situations could exist where a Baptism would need to be performed, but the only cause for this would be if the first Baptism was invalid for one of two reasons:  The first cause that would render the original Baptism invalid would be if it was performed in the context of a non-Trinitarian religion, such as Mormonism, a Oneness church, or Jehovah’s Witnesses. 

The Second circumstance that would cause a Baptism to be invalid is if it were performed using a different formula than the Trinitarian form given in Scripture:  “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.”  If it was performed under any other formula, such as “in the name of Jesus,” or used alternate titles for God, such as “parent, child, and comforter,” or “Creator, Redeemer, and Sanctifier,” then it would be cause to question its validity and responsible spiritual care would dictate that the person be Baptized. 

In cases where the original baptismal ceremony was determined to be invalid, the church administering Baptism to the individual would not consider it a re-Baptism, but rather as the first Baptism, because an invalid Baptism would be understood as being no Baptism at all. 

Often people ask if they need to be re-baptized when joining a new denomination of Christianity, and this is typically not necessary.  All of the Trinitarian denominations which baptize babies recognize each other’s Baptisms as valid Baptisms, and would not see a need to repeat the ceremony, even for adult converts who were Baptized elsewhere as infants. 

The only case in which church leaders might require a Baptism be performed would be if the newly-adopted church practices adult-only Baptism.  This requirement would be made because such churches understand Baptism to be a work that people do in order to show their devotion to God, which requires conscious knowledge and articulation of belief.  As merely an outward acknowledgement of faith by the believer, they do not understand it to deliver grace, forgiveness, or faith from God to the person being baptized. 

On the other hand, a church that sees Baptism as a gift that God gives to a person in order to deliver forgiveness, grace, and salvation, would see it unnecessary to repeat or replace the original Baptism.  This is because the Baptism is understood to be God’s gift to deliver faith in Jesus and the benefits of His sacrifice on the cross to individuals, and therefore not dependent on the ability of the person being Baptized. 

Instead, even if the person doing the Baptism or the church in which it was performed were not in full agreement, or even did not properly understand Baptism, God’s work is not hindered.  Since it relies on God’s faithfulness and not on man’s performance, and God’s work is always complete and effective, and they would acknowledge all Baptisms performed by the correct formula in connection with a Trinitarian church.  They would then instruct the new member in the teachings of their church as drawn from Scripture, and welcome them into membership through Confirmation or another similar ceremony. 

A Safe Bet? Gambling, Lotteries, Raffles, and Games of Chance

My article from this week's newspapers answers a reader question about Christian participation in gambling and other games of chance:

Q:  Are gambling and other games of chance a sin, and what does the Bible have to say about them?

Many people raise concerns about gambling for both moral and practical reasons.  Perhaps this has something to do with the historic connection between gambling, organized crime, and bootlegging during the Prohibition era, and the tendency of some types of Christians to group smoking, dancing, gambling (or even just card-playing) , and alcohol consumption together as sort of a family of evils. 

Other concerns arise more from social justice, because the poor often suffer the greatest losses from gambling while the rich are most likely to benefit from the industry, or because abuse of gambling or unrealistic expectations have had the consequence of financial tragedy for many families. 

In contrast, the perceived connection between Bingo and religious institutions is a familiar cultural element, and raffles or other contests where a donation carries the potential to win money or merchandise is a common way of fundraising for some charitable organizations like religious schools.   

Relying on chance to make decisions does not seem to be spoken against in the Bible.  In fact, we even see an example of this when the Disciples choose a replacement for Judas after the Resurrection by drawing lots among the qualified candidates, and I have encountered a handful of Christian congregations who choose their lay officers or call their new pastor in a similar fashion, by drawing the names from among the qualifying candidates rather than by using a vote as a means of selection. 

An activity that bears a resemblance to betting or wagering is daily fantasy sports, where players deposit money in an account and use it to enter contests based on player performance in various sports.  While there is the potential to win or lose money based on the results, most states consider this a game of skill, like entering a bowling tournament with a cash prize, rather than a game of chance.  Because of the skill and attention involved, as opposed to random chance, this can be a wholesome form of recreation, provided participation is done responsibly. While this means it is technically not gambling, it is subject to some of the same dangers as gambling if a person develops an unhealthy habitual attachment to it or seeks to solve all of their financial problems by means of it.  

No clear, concise statement can be found in Scripture, either for or against the pure-chance sort of gambling, like lotteries and casino games, that we encounter today.  However, several of the Ten Commandments to address issues which might be relevant to a Christian’s decision about whether to engage in particular types of gambling. 

The First Commandment would be the most significant of these.  It forbids having other gods, which is not limited to carved or sculpted idols or deities of other religions, but includes anything from which the person honors or seeks blessing from more highly than God.  It is easy to conceive how gambling or the gains one hopes to achieve from it might become a higher priority to a person than their love, respect, and trust for God.  In this case, gambling, and any other part of human life, can become a false god for a person and therefore sinful. 

If gambling keeps a person from attending services or if one gambles in a way that is illegal, these would be obvious sins against the Third Commandment regarding the Sabbath and the Fourth Commandment which requires obedience to those in authority. 

The commandments which apply the most specifically to gambling are the Seventh, Ninth, and Tenth, which forbid stealing, other forms of dishonest gain, and coveting.  Because the odds in any game of chance are always stacked in favor of the house, those who operate for-profit gambling establishments are very likely taking advantage of their neighbors by their business. 

Likewise those who believe they will get rich quick by gambling are attempting to gain for themselves at the expense of their neighbors who have lost, and those who seek to gain from gambling what they cannot achieve by other conventional means could easily be coveting—seeking to gain something that is not rightfully theirs because they are not content with what they have been given. 

Even if one did not consider gambling a sin, the Bible frequently admonishes believers to use their earthly resources wisely, and this argument from wisdom may be the most compelling reason for Christians either to limit their participation in games of chance to purely recreational levels, or refrain entirely.  For example, a person might use a sum of money for gambling, which they could multiply by a win, but will more likely lose entirely. 

If they were to invest this same sum, they would have a much higher probability of short-term gain and a near-certain likelihood of gain in the long-term.  Similarly, if they were to donate it to a charitable cause, they might give up the potential for multiplication, but would ensure that some person or some cause would be helped by it. 

So, while the Bible does not contain a particular allowance or prohibition toward games of chance, they are certainly sinful if they become idolatrous or a means for dishonest gain, and in the majority of cases, participation in for-profit gambling would be ill-advised on the grounds of being unwise if it goes beyond a minimal cost for purely recreational purposes. 

To Lodge or not to Lodge...

For this week's newspapers, I answered a question about what would keep a Christian from joining or participating in a lodge or other fraternal organization, such as the Masons, Eastern Star, Shriners, Odd Fellows, Eagles, Elks, Moose, etc.  

Q:  Why do some churches forbid their members from joining lodges, secret societies, or other fraternal organizations?

While the reasons behind prohibitions on lodge membership by some churches are explained in diverse ways, they all relate to the common theme of concerns about compromising spiritual convictions. 

In the cases where the organization does not have any decidedly spiritual or ritual elements to their activity as a club, there would typically be no concerns, and members of most churches would be free to participate in organizations like the Lions, Kiwanis, or Rotary.  Only a very small number of churches would raise any objection to participation in these kinds of community service organizations.  When they do it is usually because they do not believe in praying with people outside of their own denomination, but this could usually be resolved by the member excusing himself during the meeting’s opening prayer. 

Other times, the activities of an organization take on such an obviously spiritual quality that a church or denomination classifies them as a religion in their own right, which means that an individual could not be a member of both that organization and his church, because it would amount to being a member of two different religions.  In other cases, the secrecy of the organization’s rituals creates an environment where they are forbidden to members of a church out of caution. 

In the majority of cases, it is a particular element of what is known about a lodge or other organization’s activity and rituals which results in members of a church being forbidden from joining it. 

One example of such concerns would be if a lodge ritual involves prayers where people whose religions worship different gods engage in joint prayer as if they were addressing the same god, or they actively promote all religions as equally valid before god or imply that all religions are just different paths to a common deity.  In such cases, many churches would prohibit their members from participation on the grounds that it would constitute idolatry. 

In other cases, membership in a lodge might involve making promises or acknowledging ideas in membership oaths with contradict Scripture or the teachings of the church.  In these cases, the Christian could not have loyalty to both and would ultimately be left to choose between his lodge and his church. 

These organizations often have a concept of afterlife that is promoted in their rituals, and if that concept contradicts what is taught in Scripture, the Christian could not in good conscience promote the ideas of the lodge against those of his church.  Similarly, there are often ideas promoted about how one reaches the proposed afterlife destination, which usually include upholding the virtues and principles of the lodge, which would be a contradiction to the Christian teaching that salvation comes only through trusting Jesus.  Likewise here, the Christian could not in good conscience promote the ideas of that lodge and remain consistent with the teachings of his church. 

When any of the above are taught or practiced by a lodge or other fraternal organization, it causes a conflict of conscience for Christians of many denominations and creates an environment where membership in it contradicts the teachings of a member’s church.  In such cases, many churches consider lodge participation to be incompatible with Christian teaching and church membership.  

Are holidays and religious festivals suitable for Christians?

For this week's newspapers, I answered a question about whether it is appropriate for Christians to set aside certain days to commemorate people or events of a religious or civic nature:

Q:  I’ve heard accusations recently that it is unbiblical for Christians to celebrate certain days or seasons as an observance of people or events from church or national history.  When, if ever, is it acceptable for Christians to do this?

We can find evidence that humans have set aside certain days of the year as commemorations throughout history, even when their only tool to do so was the angles of the sunlight shining down on the earth.  In Bible history, we see the same pattern, as the Lord forbids Israel from joining in the religious festivals of their unbelieving neighbors, but also gives them a calendar for their own commemoration of His deeds in history. 

They remembered God’s act of creation on the New Year, the forgiveness of sins on the Day of Atonement, and the giving of the Law on Pentecost.  The Passover was not only instituted to save the people of Israel from the tenth plague upon Egypt, but also given as a yearly commemoration of God’s deliverance from death and from Egyptian slavery.  After the Israelites settled in the Promised Land, they celebrated the Feast of Booths as a commemoration of their ancestors’ 40 years of wandering the wilderness on their way from Egypt, and later, the festivals of Purim and Hanukkah marked other events of God’s deliverance. 

In similar fashion, the Christian Church also holds a yearly cycle of festivals remembering the life of Jesus and His provision for the Church.  Nearly all Christians celebrate Christmas and Resurrection as a minimum.  The most historic churches spend the first half of their liturgical year remembering the major events in our Lord’s earthly life, and the remainder focusing on His teachings as they have been handed down to the Church which preserves and proclaims them.   

While the date and number of these festivals is not given in the New Testament, we do know that the Church began to read Scripture in a predictable pattern from very early on.  Historical documents from outside of Scripture also indicate that the Resurrection was celebrated at the same time as Passover within the lifetime of the Apostles, that Lent became a time of preparation for this festival by the end of the First Century A.D. and that Christmas was a common festival by the first half of the Second Century, giving a strong indication that this tradition of the Church in commemorating feasts and festivals was approved by the Apostles themselves and is an ancient part of the Church’s life. 

We also see today that the Church commemorates other events in the lives of Biblical saints such as the Annunciation, when our Lord’s conception was proclaimed to Mary by the Angel Gabriel, and the Confession of St. Peter, who boldly proclaimed Jesus as the promised Savior.  In addition, other Biblical saints and their roles in the Scriptures are remembered on the dates of their deaths, and other important figures in Christian history are commemorated for their exemplary contributions to the life of the Church. 

The types of feasts, festivals, and commemorations listed above would all be an ancient and acceptable part of Christian tradition, along with other events such as the anniversary of a congregation, when Christians might gather to thank God for providing in a particular way.  The only caution regarding these festivals would be to ensure that they are held in thanksgiving for what God has done, rather than being transformed into worship of the human persons involved in God’s works. 

National and civic commemorations are also appropriate for Christians to engage in outside of their congregations, provided that they do not involve idolatrous worship or a compromise to their confession of Christ to the world.  However, in most cases it is inadvisable to make these commemorations a part of the church’s worship life, but rather to let the nation’s festivals be celebrated by the nation and the Church’s be celebrated by the Church, and allow the members to participate in both according to their vocation. 

The Who, What and Why of prayer:

For this week's newspapers, I answered a question about to whom and for what we should pray:

Q:  When Christians pray, who should they pray to, and what things should they pray for?

The typical formula by which Christians pray is a prayer to God the Father, through or for the sake of Jesus – God the Son, and guided by God the Holy Spirit.  This sort of prayer includes the whole Trinity, and acknowledges that we have no right to approach God in prayer, except because His Son Jesus had died in our place, forgiven our sins, and reconciled us to His Father, and that it is only by the Holy Spirit that we can trust in Him and rely on this. 

The public prayers of several liturgical traditions reflect this by ending with the words, “…through Jesus Christ, Your Son our Lord, who lives and reigns with You and the Holy Spirit, one God, now and forever.  Amen.” 

Sometimes less-formal prayers simply shorten by praying to God “in Jesus’ name,” and other prayers might pray to Jesus Himself without mentioning the other members of the Trinity.  Although permissible in theory, prayers directed toward the Holy Spirit are only rarely seen in the history of Christian prayer. 

Because the Triune God forbids those who trust in Him from mixing His worship with that of other gods, it would be inappropriate for Christians to pray to any god other than the persons of the Holy Trinity, such as the Muslim Allah, the many Hindu gods, or local ancestral deities, or to direct prayers to demons or to lesser spirits associated with other religions. 

Prayers to creatures that are real and good, but are not God Himself would also be prohibited.  This would include prayers directed toward angels, other Bible characters, and Christians who have died before us.  This is made clear in Scripture when St. Paul writes to Timothy that “there is one God and one mediator between God and men – the man Jesus Christ.” 

At some times and places, a compromise has been suggested that, even though we may not pray to deceased Christians, it is permissible to ask them to pray for us from Heaven instead, much like we would ask a living neighbor to pray for us. 

Even though this idea recognizes that our deceased brothers and sisters still live with the Lord as members of the Church, and some Scriptures even lean toward implying that they do pray for us there, this has typically been discouraged in most times and places.  This is the case because there is not a direct Biblical instruction for us to ask them do so, because it has a significant danger of crossing the line into worshipping the dead, either by confusion or carelessness, and because we have the privilege of asking Jesus Himself intercede for us is, which is of infinitely higher importance. 

In a related note, Jesus’ parable of the Pharisee and the Tax collector also teaches us that the length and number of prayers and those offering them is not an indication of God’s answer, so confining our requests for prayer to the living congregation of believers does not impair God’s ability to answer.  Instead, although persistence in prayer is a virtue, we recognize that the brief prayer offered once is just as likely to be answered as the prayer of thousands offered repeatedly. 

This is because prayer is answered purely as a gift because of Jesus and not because of our effort or worthiness.  In fact, in Jesus perfect prayer given to the Church, He instructs His followers to pray for several things that God has already promised to do and which will happen even without prayer.  Yet we pray for them out of confidence that they will happen, rather than in order to cause them to happen. 

Christians may pray for these things that God has already promised with the certainty that He will grant them.  They may also pray for any other good thing in God’s creation—both earthly and spiritual—even if He has not promised that He will certainly give it.  In such cases, we recognize that God may grant it, or He may know in His infinite wisdom that we are better not to have it, and therefore withhold it for our benefit. 

The number of things for which Christians may not pray is a short list:  They may not pray for those who already died apart from Jesus to receive forgiveness and be saved, and they may not pray for sinful things or things that are harmful to themselves or others.  In such cases, we can be certain that God will not grant what is asked for, because it is contrary to His revealed will.

Prayers for Deceased Christians: Why not?

In response to inquiries regarding last week's question about prayers for deceased Christians, this week's article addresses follow-up questions on that same topic:

Q:  If it is permissible for Christians and their churches to pray for their deceased fellow Christians, then why do so few churches do so?  Even though it’s not wrong to do, is it wise?

The reasons prayer for deceased Christians is so rare among churches are many, but a few stand out most prominently:  because of an incomplete view of eternal life, because of its abuse in the past, and because of the potential for it to cause confusion. 

We Americans have often had handed down to us a mythology that we merely “die and go to heaven,” and that the story ends there.  However, Scripture’s description of life after death is much richer.  Jesus and St. Paul describe Christians as at rest with Christ following death, but that it is not how they will stay forever.  Instead, they will be resurrected on the last day to live again in the body in a new creation free from this life’s sorrows and sufferings. 

Some who recognize this truth of the Resurrection of the Body have chosen to pray as an expression of their confidence that it will one day happen and they will be reunited in real, physical life with their fellow Christians who have died.  However, for those whose understanding stops with a heavenly rest, they would see it as useless or even profane to continue praying concerning those who already rest with their Lord, therefore they do not contemplate the possibility of doing so.

There is also a history of abuse of prayers for the deceased.  For example, at the time of the Reformation, one of the points of contention was concerning purgatory and the use of prayers, indulgences, or masses to advance the deceased person to a better state after death.  Even though both sides continued to use these prayers, the Reformers rejected both a belief in purgatory as well as the idea that prayers offered after death caused any change for the status of the deceased, while the Roman church defended both ideas.

Some have also mistakenly thought that a person who ended their earthly life destined for eternal punishment could still attain salvation after death through the prayers and offerings of the living.  This is an idea that has been almost universally rejected in Christian theologians in all times and places, but because of misunderstanding or influence from other religions, has occasionally crept into the minds of some Christians and the life of the church. 

Because of these abuses, many Christians after the time of the Reformation have chosen to exercise additional caution by avoiding this kind of prayer entirely.  Instead, they chose to limit their prayer to prayers which give thanks for the blessings that the Lord granted to the deceased or for the blessings that He gave to others through them. 

Fear of causing confusion to those who are unfamiliar with the church’s history and theology has also been cause for avoiding prayers for deceased Christians in the church’s recent life.  Because the visible, audible action of what is done in the church is often more accessible to the average Christian than the abstract words on the page of a theological explanation, Christians who place a high value on clearly communicating the truth about Jesus have often preferred the safer route of foregoing these sort of prayers over the risk of giving their fellow Christians or those outside the church the false impression that it would be possible to offer assistance after the fact to a condemned soul who had died. 

Paul writes twice in his first letter to the Corinthians that even when certain things are permissible among Christians they are not always helpful or wise, and that may be the case regarding the wisdom of engaging in this practice among Christians in our time and place. 

The wisdom of making use of this freedom by Christians will ultimately depend on the spiritual maturity of those within a given congregation and the presuppositions that exist in the community it serves.  It may very well prove that one pastor and congregation will determine to take up the challenge of safeguarding against abuse and confusion as they engage in this practice while another may conclude that these risks exceed the potential benefits and choose not to exercise their freedom to do so. 

Whether a given congregation or family determine to pray or not to pray, the key element when approaching this question is to properly understand the foundational Scriptural teachings about death, resurrection and salvation, and choose what will best communicate timeless truth into the particular time and place where they live and serve.  

May we pray for the deceased and why?

For this week's newspapers, I addressed a question about praying for our fellow Christians who have died:

Q:  Are Christians allowed to pray for people who have already died?  If so, why would they do so?

God frequently invites His children to come to Him in prayer for the things they need.  He also invites Christians to pray for one another, and not merely for themselves.  In many quarters of Christianity, it is recognized that God’s Church is not enclosed within a boundary that limits it only to this physical world, but that the souls of the faithful departed are also just as much a part of that Church. 

The Church’s liturgies recognize this when they make statements such as that we worship “with angels and archangels and all the company of heaven,” or when funeral liturgies pray for God to “Give to Your whole church in heaven and on earth Your light and Your peace…”

So, just as the Church itself is not limited to the souls of the living, prayer is not necessarily bound by that limitation.  However, it is a practice to be approached with caution, because of the subtle ways in which it could go astray. 

For example, in segments of Christianity which believe there are potential destinations for the deceased other than eternal rest and eternal punishment, such as a purgatory, it is common to offer prayers in order to speed the deceased’s trip from such middle states into the Lord’s presence.  For those of us who do not hold to a third destination such as purgatory, it would be inappropriate to offer prayers that seek to change the destination of deceased persons, since it is held that their reward or punishment are already determined, based on verses like Hebrews 9:27 and the story of the Rich Man and Lazarus in Luke’s Gospel.

We often teach about prayer that there are things which God has forbidden that will not be granted through prayer, things which God has promised, which He will grant whether we pray for them or not, and things God has neither promised nor forbidden which He will answer in whatever way is most beneficial for us, since His wisdom is higher than our own.  For Christians who do not believe in a purgatory, yet still find it allowable to pray for their departed brothers and sisters in the faith, it falls into the second of those categories. 

Just as children might ask their parents for things the parents had already determined to give, Christians might pray that God would fulfill the promises that He had given in Baptism and His Word to forgive the sins of those who trust in Him and grant them eternal life, in light of the fact that they still await the Resurrection of the Last Day, even though their destination is already secure. 

We pray similarly in the Lord’s Prayer when we pray that God’s name would be holy, His kingdom come, or that His will would be done.  These things will be done even without our prayer, but we pray for them anyway – not to change God’s intentions, but because we believe our Father’s promise and acknowledge it through prayer. 

This is similar to what we do when we confess our sins and receive forgiveness or when we receive the Lord’s Supper.  Christians do not build up a debt of sin, which they periodically purge by Confession or Communion.  Instead, they who rely on Jesus already live in a state of perpetual forgiveness, but continue to receive from the Lord through these acts, because they are the thing to which He has attached His promise. 

Likewise, because our Lord has promised these things and invited us to pray, we pray for the things He has promised, even for those whose souls rest with the Lord, but still await the fullness of eternal Life which will come at the Resurrection. 

Christians are not required to pray for their departed faithful in order that they receive the Lord’s promises, nor are they forbidden from doing so because their reward is already secure.  Instead, they trust what the Lord has promised for them, and many choose to express that trust to their Father at His invitation to prayer in anticipation of the day in which both those presently alive and those previously departed will be reunited in eternal, resurrected life. 

Part 1 of a two-part answer on this topic.  Check back soon for the conclusion of this answer.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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