Hail Mary, full of somethin'

Today I went to a catholic mass for the first time for my niece’s first communion and it was an experience I will not soon forget. This may weave back and forth and seem a little discombobulated but I’m trying to cover everything I saw.

First off let me say that I have nothing against anyone who is catholic. You are a follower of Christ just the same as me and in reality as long as you follow what SCRIPTURE says that you should we should all arrive at the same party. That being said here’s how it went down:

We arrive and step into the sanctuary and the first thing that you notice is that it is massive. This place makes apex look like a hole in wall compared to the size of it. The next thing I notice is all the crap everywhere. There are crosses and cups and boxes and thrones and organs and pulpits and tables and chairs and crosses and candles and lanterns and crosses…and this is just the stage. The organ alone was the size of a movie theater screen.

After we find our seats I see that there are three books in front of us in the book holder thing on the back of the pew. Also attached to the pew was a fold out knee rest for those that want to be serious bout some prayin. I opened the first book to check out the Bible, because I’ve always heard that the catholic Bible has more books in it the standard Bible. Alas it was a hymn book. I opened the second book, it was also a hymn book. I knew that the final book was too small to be a Bible, and I was correct, It was another hymnal.

By this time the priest has walked in carrying the largest Bible I’ve ever seen, and I don’t mean in thickness, I mean in size, it was like 30 inches by 20 inches and he held it over his head the whole time. Everyone stands and sings a song and then the priest sing-talks a psalm which was the first thing that freaked me out. He sounded like a monk. And since this post will take forever to cover everything I saw, I’m just going to go over likes and dislikes.


Likes

The Priest: the priest was named father Satish and to my surprise was a young Indian man, rather then a old white dude. He interacted well with the children who were known as the “first communicants” and was engaging. We were there for over an hour and his sermon was only 10 minutes long but what he talked about I enjoyed. He spoke to the kids about something that I found to be completely unbiblical but the main point he was trying to make was heard loud and clear, “accepting Christ into your life is the most important thing that you’ll ever do.” I couldn’t agree more, but the way he wanted the children to go about it I’ll go into in a little bit.

The time: I thought we would be sitting there for 3 hours but it took just over and hour.

The exercise: with all of the stand up sit down, I got a bit of a workout.

Dislikes (this list may be longer)

The idolatry: the two biggest things on the stage had the least to do with Christ, unless there is some meaning that I don’t understand. One was a huge gold and blue sun with stars and triangles all over it. What it had to do with Christ I wasn’t sure. The second was this huge square gold picture hanging from the ceiling. It was divided into four pictures: a lion, a goat, an eagle, and a fourth thing that the sun was glaring off of, so I couldn’t really see it, but again, where is Jesus in this?

Scripture: Father Satish told this to innocent children, and I quote, “once you take this sacrament of the body and blood of Christ, you will then be one of God’s children and be allowed to enter Heaven and have Jesus Christ as your savior.” WOW so I sent out a twitter about it:

“I just learned that in order to be saved you have to take communion. He never said where it says that in the Bible, but im sure its in there.” OH WAIT, IT’S NOT!! You know how you become a Christian, let me tell you.

“Romans 10:9-13”
9That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved. 11As the Scripture says, "Anyone who trusts in him will never be put to shame." 12For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile—the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, 13for, "Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved. “

Or if you don’t like that, then take this one

Acts 16:29-31

29The jailer called for lights, rushed in and fell trembling before Paul and Silas. 30He then brought them out and asked, "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?" 31They replied, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved—you and your household."

None of those have to do with crackers or wine. or baptism for that matter.

Now I did catch some flak for the things I tweeted during service and I’ll address those now.

One person stated:

“I'm not sure this is correct. In order to be saved, you must be baptized - to have the "original sin" removed from our soul. Which is why babies are baptized. We receive communion because Jesus asked that we "take this bread and eat, for this is my body; take this wine and drink, for this is my blood". We need years to understand the Catholic religion...Everyone practicing is still learning! 8-)”

The following comes from www.gotquestions.org

“The Bible is abundantly clear of what baptism is, who it is for, and what it accomplishes. In the Bible, only believers who had placed their faith in Christ were baptized - as a public testimony of their faith and identification with Him (Acts 2:38; Romans 6:3-4). Water baptism by immersion is a step of obedience after faith in Christ. It is a proclamation of faith in Christ, a statement of submission to Him, and an identification with His death, burial, and resurrection.

With this in view, infant baptism is not a Biblical practice. An infant cannot place his or her faith in Christ. An infant cannot make a conscious decision to obey Christ. An infant cannot understand what water baptism symbolizes. The Bible does not record any infants being baptized.

Baptism does not save a person. It does not matter if you were baptized by immersion, pouring, or sprinkling - if you have not first trusted in Christ for salvation, baptism (no matter the method) is meaningless and useless. Water baptism by immersion is a step of obedience to be done after salvation as a public profession of faith in Christ and identification with Him. Infant baptism does not fit the Biblical definition of baptism or the Biblical method of baptism.”

But to the point at the bottom, I’ll completely agree with that. “We need years to understand the Catholic religion...Everyone practicing is still learning!” To me this just states that there are so many rituals and rules within your faith that it needs a huge overhaul.

Here are the rules for Christianity

1.Love the Lord and Savior of mankind, Jesus Christ, as your own personal savior and follow his commandments.

2. See rule number 1.

The one thing that I did not mention of the above is the endless chanting. There was a constant call and response during the whole service. “and praise be to you” “Thanks be to God.” “and also with you.” “Praise to you, Lord, Jesus Christ.” “Glory to you, oh Lord” “Lord, hear our prayer.”

I again caught flak for this too.

“For those raised in the Catholic faith, it is not mindless repetition. I think we gain the same benefits as you gain from your church. Every individual experiences different emotions. We seek what inspires us, speaks to our heart. Isn't it funny that every religion thinks it is "THE" religion, and all others are lost?”

Now I hate to keep quoting the Bible, but it is the inerrant word of God, so here goes.

Matthew 6:7-8
7And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words. 8Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him."

Now I’m not saying that Catholics are pagans, far from it, but what I am saying is that prayer is not a ritual. Rather, it is personal conversation between you and God. It is not the length of the prayer that makes it effective, but the sincerity of heart, the depth of faith. "Christians' prayers are measured by weight, not by length." Don't bore God with many words, but no heart! (www.scripturestudies.com)

When I was hearing these people pray at this church, I couldn’t honestly say that God was there. I know that may sound harsh but the point I’m making is that if your prayers sound like they are hurting you, STOP DOING THEM! It’s a slap in God’s face to just be going through the motions and checking the boxes. If you’re going to pray, do it with zeal and heart or don’t do it at all.

All this being said, I know I’ve made some people rather upset with me today but you know what, I looked at today’s experience through biblical lenses and what I saw is what I saw. If you can argue for anything I saw today with SCRIPTURE, let me know I’d love to see it. I was not judging any person in that building today, nor am I saying that my way is the right way, but what I am saying is that if the Christian faith is based upon the Bible and I saw and heard things today that are not in there, then it’s simply not something I can follow.

L’Chayim,
-Ryan

Letters to God

It's things like these that make me enjoy the youth group.

A response to Mere Christianity

About a month ago I posted an article about my disliking to the C.S. Lewis book "Mere Christianity" you can read that post here.

and for the first time in a long while I'm going to repost a comment left by one of you lovely readers. so without further ado, here's Joel.

Hey Ryan,

I don't read your blog, but Rady tagged this post. I'm a huge CS Lewis fan, mainly from the standpoint that I'm a reason/logic guy and most of his writings use that approach.

Your points are solid. I've been reading his work for a long time and thought I might offer a perspective on some of this that comes from reading his other works as well.

1. He can be very long winded. Just because he's held in high regard doesn't mean he says things simply. I do often read his books when I intended to fall asleep. I still learn a great deal from him.

2. The Apostle Paul wasn't married either, and in fact uses much the same disclaimer in 1 Cor 7 when speaking about such things. We would still consider his teachings very thoroughly (God's Word afterall, right?).

3. I've long disagreed with CSL on his stance of evolution. The Problem Of Pain is another great work of his. But he says some really outlandish things that really end up sounding more like a man searching for truth while confidently stating things he isn't really sure of. After considering this for a while I realized that he was born in an era when science really was starting to take off. Creationism was being challenged, and there really wasn't an antidote or clear response from the Christian community. He was a man of logic and to that point his scholarly friends and influences were bringing seemingly logical arguments for which there was no better, more "logical" Christian response. He was bound by the limits of the knowledge he had to work with. I wonder if he'd have a much different view of things if he were alive today.

4. Lastly, to your point about scripture. He rarely ever uses scripture to back up his arguments, especially in Mere Christianity. I liken this to someone using the color green to describe the color green to someone who has never seen green. If you are an atheist or a "normal person" and you don't believe the validity of the Bible, using scripture to describe truth is going to seem really inadequate, and maybe even comical. He uses other approaches to reveal that the Bible, more importantly God, is who He really is. If you want solid Biblical teaching to back up what you believe, there are many many other authors who approach things from a scriptural context. He doesn't often intend to reach the reached. His writing, as I've viewed it, is intended to reach those who view scripture very skeptically.

So overall, I don't disagree with your observations. He was after all just a man. He was flawed. I see a lot of his approach in myself. I often times must make a "confident" argument known to then begin disassembling it in my own mind to make sure it can be stated as confidently as I originally presented it.

The coming evangelical collapse

I thought this was a very thought-provoking article from The Christian Science Monitor, which by the was is not related to Christan Science at all.


Oneida, Ky. - We are on the verge – within 10 years – of a major collapse of evangelical Christianity. This breakdown will follow the deterioration of the mainline Protestant world and it will fundamentally alter the religious and cultural environment in the West.

Within two generations, evangelicalism will be a house deserted of half its occupants. (Between 25 and 35 percent of Americans today are Evangelicals.) In the "Protestant" 20th century, Evangelicals flourished. But they will soon be living in a very secular and religiously antagonistic 21st century.

This collapse will herald the arrival of an anti-Christian chapter of the post-Christian West. Intolerance of Christianity will rise to levels many of us have not believed possible in our lifetimes, and public policy will become hostile toward evangelical Christianity, seeing it as the opponent of the common good.

Millions of Evangelicals will quit. Thousands of ministries will end. Christian media will be reduced, if not eliminated. Many Christian schools will go into rapid decline. I'm convinced the grace and mission of God will reach to the ends of the earth. But the end of evangelicalism as we know it is close.

Why is this going to happen?

1. Evangelicals have identified their movement with the culture war and with political conservatism. This will prove to be a very costly mistake. Evangelicals will increasingly be seen as a threat to cultural progress. Public leaders will consider us bad for America, bad for education, bad for children, and bad for society.

The evangelical investment in moral, social, and political issues has depleted our resources and exposed our weaknesses. Being against gay marriage and being rhetorically pro-life will not make up for the fact that massive majorities of Evangelicals can't articulate the Gospel with any coherence. We fell for the trap of believing in a cause more than a faith.

2. We Evangelicals have failed to pass on to our young people an orthodox form of faith that can take root and survive the secular onslaught. Ironically, the billions of dollars we've spent on youth ministers, Christian music, publishing, and media has produced a culture of young Christians who know next to nothing about their own faith except how they feel about it. Our young people have deep beliefs about the culture war, but do not know why they should obey scripture, the essentials of theology, or the experience of spiritual discipline and community. Coming generations of Christians are going to be monumentally ignorant and unprepared for culture-wide pressures.

3. There are three kinds of evangelical churches today: consumer-driven megachurches, dying churches, and new churches whose future is fragile. Denominations will shrink, even vanish, while fewer and fewer evangelical churches will survive and thrive.

4. Despite some very successful developments in the past 25 years, Christian education has not produced a product that can withstand the rising tide of secularism. Evangelicalism has used its educational system primarily to staff its own needs and talk to itself.

5. The confrontation between cultural secularism and the faith at the core of evangelical efforts to "do good" is rapidly approaching. We will soon see that the good Evangelicals want to do will be viewed as bad by so many, and much of that work will not be done. Look for ministries to take on a less and less distinctively Christian face in order to survive.

6. Even in areas where Evangelicals imagine themselves strong (like the Bible Belt), we will find a great inability to pass on to our children a vital evangelical confidence in the Bible and the importance of the faith.

7. The money will dry up.

What will be left?

•Expect evangelicalism to look more like the pragmatic, therapeutic, church-growth oriented megachurches that have defined success. Emphasis will shift from doctrine to relevance, motivation, and personal success – resulting in churches further compromised and weakened in their ability to pass on the faith.

•Two of the beneficiaries will be the Roman Catholic and Orthodox communions. Evangelicals have been entering these churches in recent decades and that trend will continue, with more efforts aimed at the "conversion" of Evangelicals to the Catholic and Orthodox traditions.

•A small band will work hard to rescue the movement from its demise through theological renewal. This is an attractive, innovative, and tireless community with outstanding media, publishing, and leadership development. Nonetheless, I believe the coming evangelical collapse will not result in a second reformation, though it may result in benefits for many churches and the beginnings of new churches.

•The emerging church will largely vanish from the evangelical landscape, becoming part of the small segment of progressive mainline Protestants that remain true to the liberal vision.

•Aggressively evangelistic fundamentalist churches will begin to disappear.

•Charismatic-Pentecostal Christianity will become the majority report in evangelicalism. Can this community withstand heresy, relativism, and confusion? To do so, it must make a priority of biblical authority, responsible leadership, and a reemergence of orthodoxy.

•Evangelicalism needs a "rescue mission" from the world Christian community. It is time for missionaries to come to America from Asia and Africa. Will they come? Will they be able to bring to our culture a more vital form of Christianity?

•Expect a fragmented response to the culture war. Some Evangelicals will work to create their own countercultures, rather than try to change the culture at large. Some will continue to see conservatism and Christianity through one lens and will engage the culture war much as before – a status quo the media will be all too happy to perpetuate. A significant number, however, may give up political engagement for a discipleship of deeper impact.

Is all of this a bad thing?

Evangelicalism doesn't need a bailout. Much of it needs a funeral. But what about what remains?

Is it a good thing that denominations are going to become largely irrelevant? Only if the networks that replace them are able to marshal resources, training, and vision to the mission field and into the planting and equipping of churches.

Is it a good thing that many marginal believers will depart? Possibly, if churches begin and continue the work of renewing serious church membership. We must change the conversation from the maintenance of traditional churches to developing new and culturally appropriate ones.

The ascendency of Charismatic-Pentecostal-influenced worship around the world can be a major positive for the evangelical movement if reformation can reach those churches and if it is joined with the calling, training, and mentoring of leaders. If American churches come under more of the influence of the movement of the Holy Spirit in Africa and Asia, this will be a good thing.

Will the evangelicalizing of Catholic and Orthodox communions be a good development? One can hope for greater unity and appreciation, but the history of these developments seems to be much more about a renewed vigor to "evangelize" Protestantism in the name of unity.

Will the coming collapse get Evangelicals past the pragmatism and shallowness that has brought about the loss of substance and power? Probably not. The purveyors of the evangelical circus will be in fine form, selling their wares as the promised solution to every church's problems. I expect the landscape of megachurch vacuity to be around for a very long time.

Will it shake lose the prosperity Gospel from its parasitical place on the evangelical body of Christ? Evidence from similar periods is not encouraging. American Christians seldom seem to be able to separate their theology from an overall idea of personal affluence and success.

The loss of their political clout may impel many Evangelicals to reconsider the wisdom of trying to create a "godly society." That doesn't mean they'll focus solely on saving souls, but the increasing concern will be how to keep secularism out of church, not stop it altogether. The integrity of the church as a countercultural movement with a message of "empire subversion" will increasingly replace a message of cultural and political entitlement.

Despite all of these challenges, it is impossible not to be hopeful. As one commenter has already said, "Christianity loves a crumbling empire."

We can rejoice that in the ruins, new forms of Christian vitality and ministry will be born. I expect to see a vital and growing house church movement. This cannot help but be good for an evangelicalism that has made buildings, numbers, and paid staff its drugs for half a century.

We need new evangelicalism that learns from the past and listens more carefully to what God says about being His people in the midst of a powerful, idolatrous culture.

I'm not a prophet. My view of evangelicalism is not authoritative or infallible. I am certainly wrong in some of these predictions. But is there anyone who is observing evangelicalism in these times who does not sense that the future of our movement holds many dangers and much potential?

• Michael Spencer is a writer and communicator living and working in a Christian community in Kentucky. He describes himself as "a postevangelical reformation Christian in search of a Jesus-shaped spirituality."


Feel free to leave any comments, I'd love to hear from you.