Blessed is the Kingdom

The Kingdom of God is Within You
  • .: Welcome :.

    Blessed is the Kingdom is an online forum for the exploration of the Christian faith. I am a priest and pilgrim, attempting to walk the path of conversion.

    If you are new to the site, please introduce yourself here.
  • February 2010
    S M T W T F S
    « Jan    
     123456
    78910111213
    14151617181920
    21222324252627
    28  

    Sabbath Sunday: Be Kind and Gentle

    Posted By Fr. Christian Mathis on February 7, 2010

    Today’s post for the Sabbath Sunday is a reminder to myself of the need to keep the words shared in last year’s Father’s Day post close to my heart. You can find it here.

    Once again you are invited to join me in promoting the Sabbath by taking a break from your normal blogging.  Please share an older post from your blog that is near and dear to your heart. Make sure to leave your name and the URL of your post below and share a comment if you so desire. I look forward to reading your recycled posts!

    Saturday Evening Blogpost: Forgiveness

    Posted By Fr. Christian Mathis on February 6, 2010

    Today I am happy to be participating again in Elizabeth Esther’s Saturday Evening Blogpost. I am choosing to share a post called Forgiveness as Participation in the Divine. The words of Metropolitan Anthony have continued to echo in my heart and mind for some time now. Please make sure you check out the many other bloggers’ favorite January posts over at Elizabeth’s blog.

    Evangelical Is Not Enough: Christian Worship

    Posted By Fr. Christian Mathis on February 5, 2010

    Continuing with discussions on Thomas Howard’s book, Evangelical Is Not Enough, we come to the chapter entitled, “Christian Worship”.  If you haven’t had the opportunity to see the wonderful dialogue at Elizabeth Esther’s blog, which is the inspiration for this series of reflections, I invite you to do so. In this post I hope simply to comment on several subjects relating to Christian worship noted by Howard in chapter three of his book.

    A Position for Prayer

    Howard spends a good deal of time speaking about the proper position for prayer. He describes his journey to understanding the value of kneeling for prayer. As a Catholic growing up in the South I have always had to field questions about why we are constantly in motion during our celebrations of worship. We sit, stand, kneel…..sit, stand, kneel….genuflect, make processions, cross ourselves, etc. Our worship is a very physical act which again harkens back to the Incarnation of Christ. Christ did not come only to bring salvation to our spirits, or to our minds, but to our entire being. This includes the physical and so our prayer mirrors that. It is impossible to get around the fact that we are physical beings. We need to eat, sleep, exercise and do many other physical tasks in order to live. Our prayer mirrors this.

    Posture in prayer is a powerful tool. Traditionally I can think of three primary postures that can aid us in prayer. The first posture is the most ancient which is standing. Standing with arms outstretched is the oldest posture of Christian prayer. It physically mirrors the image of Christ crucified. We use this posture today to communicate praise and thanksgiving. In our Catholic liturgy we see it most often used when we are singing, when we are addressing a prayer directly to God the Father, when the Gospel is proclaimed and in many countries for the praying of the Eucharistic Prayer. It makes sense to me that we would choose to stand upright when giving praise and thanksgiving to God. The second posture for prayer we often see is sitting. Sitting is a posture of reception, one that indicates a willingness to listen to God and to receive what he offers to us. In the liturgy we see this posture most readily in the proclamation of the readings from Scripture. We sit in order to receive the Word of God. The third posture is kneeling. Kneeling has long been seen as a gesture of penitence but also in our country has come to symbolize reverence, which is why in the United States we kneel during the Eucharistic Prayer.

    From Attitude to Act

    Howard notes also that,

    Worship, in the ancient tradition, was not thought of as an experience at all, it was an act.

    This past December our parish took on the challenge of what is being promoted by a group of Christians as the Advent Conspiracy. One of the four tenants of the Advent Conspiracy is the challenge to “Worship Fully”. This past year I have spent a good amount of time reflecting upon what it means to worship fully and my conclusion is that it involves offering our entire life fully to God. We gather each Sunday to give thanks to God for all he has given to us and we offer Him our lives. We place our triumphs and our failures upon the altar of sacrifice. Doing this each week should draw us each week closer to the God who gave Himself completely to us in His life, death and resurrection.

    In Spirit and In Truth

    One of the things that certainly tends to be a sticking point between the Evangelical churches and the more Liturgical ones is the use or non use of set prayers. We as Catholics use many set prayers, but not to the exclusion of spontaneous prayer. Our prayers used for worship follow a set pattern. We pray to God the Father, through God the Son, in God the Holy Spirit. There are many different words that we use throughout the liturgy and throughout the liturgical year, but they all come back to this set structure that the Church has followed from the early centuries of Christianity. Probably the most important reason we do this is to protect those of us who have received the faith from error. When looking at the history of the early Church it is easy to see that words matter. Changing one or two words like changing one degree of the compass when setting a direction can lead to disastrous results. This seems to be one area, in my opinion, where Evangelicals seem to follow a similar course. At least when it comes to the Bible, all Christians–Catholics, Orthodox, Protestants–would agree that we cannot change the words of the Scripture.

    It also seems from my own observations that most Evangelicals do follow a pattern in prayer. Usually the prayer begins by addressing God the Father, it then moves into a section of prayer of thanksgiving or praise (we just praise you for your care for us), there is a petition (we ask you to watch over us with your care) and the prayer ends with the phrase, “in Jesus’ name we pray”. This doesn’t seem at all that different from the Catholic pattern that is described above.

    Howard also notes something that he noticed with regards to repeated or memorized prayer by pointing out the beautiful tradition of hymns that have developed over the centuries in the protestant church. Hymns composed by the likes of John Wesley and learned by countless Christians have helped us to pray and to maintain our faith through repetition and song.

    Attire

    As a priest who often is seen wearing vestments while leading prayer, Howard’s comments on attire seemed right on target. It has often suggested to me that perhaps we Catholics have it wrong in dressing our clergy in special attire that is meant to draw more attention to them. It has always been my understanding that the vestments are meant to draw our attention away from the person wearing them. Catholic clergy first put on the white garment of baptism to remind us of the common call we share with all Christians. Then we wear vestments as a sign that it should be Christ who is speaking through us. This, in fact, is another reason for having set prayers for the Eucharist. In these most significant prayers it is the words of Christ that matter most, not my words or the words of any of my brother priests. We are, in a sense, to become invisible through the wearing of vestments so that that Christ can be made more visible.

    ——–

    Thanks again to Elizabeth for beginning this book discussion. It has been very enjoyable and engaging so far and I hope many of you will continue the respectful dialogue which she has begun.

    Evangelical Is Not Enough: Spirit and Flesh

    Posted By Fr. Christian Mathis on February 4, 2010

    From reading recent comments in Elizabeth Esther’s recent book discussion on Evangelical Is Not Enough, it would seem that the discussion is starting to heat up. If you get the chance to visit her blog, you will see what is so far an excellent example of respectful dialogue. It is tempting for me to simply jump ahead to the topic of Mary, but I will stick with my original plan to take one topic at a time, in order to give each one its due.

    Thomas Howard’s chapter entitled, “Spirit and Flesh” struck me as being centered very firmly around the central tenet of Christianity, that being the Incarnation of Christ. Christians have spent a great deal of time over the centuries debating the implications of the Incarnation and we as modern Christians are no different.

    One of the continual questions that I have faced as a Catholic in the Bible Belt is why we worship statues. First of all, I must say that we as Catholics do not worship statues, but we do adorn our churches and homes with holy images of both Christ and the saints in the same way that most of us place pictures of family and friends in our homes and workplaces. One of the most common challenges I hear to this from my friends who are part of evangelical churches comes from the book of Exodus, specifically from the decalogue,

      Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.(Exodus 20:4-6)
    When I hear Scriptural arguments, however, it is always important to place the passage first into the context of the whole Bible, and even more important as a Christian to always have the person of Christ as the lens of interpretation. While it is true that the book of Exodus lists one of the commandments as a prohibition against the making of graven images, it is also true that God Himself later in the same book commands the same people to create graven images in the construction of the Ark of the Covenant.
      Have them make a chest of acacia wood—two and a half cubits long, a cubit and a half wide, and a cubit and a half high. Overlay it with pure gold, both inside and out, and make a gold molding around it. Cast four gold rings for it and fasten them to its four feet, with two rings on one side and two rings on the other. Then make poles of acacia wood and overlay them with gold. Insert the poles into the rings on the sides of the chest to carry it. The poles are to remain in the rings of this ark; they are not to be removed.  Then put in the ark the Testimony, which I will give you.Make an atonement cover of pure gold—two and a half cubits long and a cubit and a half wide. And make two cherubim out of hammered gold at the ends of the cover. Make one cherub on one end and the second cherub on the other; make the cherubim of one piece with the cover, at the two ends. The cherubim are to have their wings spread upward, overshadowing the cover with them. The cherubim are to face each other, looking toward the cover. Place the cover on top of the ark and put in the ark the Testimony, which I will give you. There, above the cover between the two cherubim that are over the ark of the Testimony, I will meet with you and give you all my commands for the Israelites. (Exodus 25:10-22)
    If we look upon these passages simply on the literal level, without any outside interpretation, we might find ourselves utterly confused. How could God first give the command to make no graven image, and then order the construction of the Ark of the Covenant to specifically include graven images? Here is where the tradition of the early church begins to help us to see more clearly what is being communicated through the Scriptures. It is also where the Incarnation becomes the key to understanding why all Christians seem to have some form of physical representation of the holy. Whether it be in the form of icons, statuary, a painting of the last supper, a cross, etc. it seems that all Christians in one way or another choose to represent God in physical form. While it would certainly be impossible to create a physical representation of God the Father in heaven, whom we have not seen, the Incarnation of Christ makes it not only possible, but in fact normative to engage the total person in our worship and life as Christians. This includes not only our minds and spirits, but our bodies as well. The seventh ecumenical council, held in Nicea in 787 had this very debate of whether it was permitted to create and venerate holy images at the heart of its proceedings. Two quotes by St. John of Damascus sum up the debate very well.
      Concerning the charge of idolatry: Icons are not idols but symbols, therefore when an Orthodox venerates an icon, he is not guilty of idolatry. He is not worshipping the symbol, but merely venerating it. Such veneration is not directed toward wood, or paint or stone, but towards the person depicted. Therefore relative honor is shown to material objects, but worship is due to God alone.
      I do not worship matter, but the Creator of matter, who for my sake became material and deigned to dwell in matter, who through matter effected my salvation…
    Howard notes how he was taught in the Evangelical tradition and what he finds lacking in this understanding when he says,
      If someone had asked me why we disallowed crosses on the one hand but at the same time permitted wedding rings, which are, after all, solid objects in the physical world whose sole function is to represent and embody something that exists in a much more profound realm, I am not sure what answer I would have given. I had heard it said, especially with respect to the crucifix, that we worshipped a risen Christ, not a dead one. The eventually came to sound facile to me, since no Christian can pretend that the Cross does not stand forever as focal for Christian vision; to pit the Resurrection against it is flippant. Furthermore, the same people who said this had little objection to manger scenes; they would have jibbed, however, if someone had asked them if they worshipped a Christ who was still an infant.

    What I find increasingly fascinating and important in our modern debates over Christianity is this very thing. Too many times we look only at the disagreements at the surface level, failing to recognize that these distinctions arise from a difference in belief on a much deeper level. Those of us who practice our faith primarily through sacraments understand the faith not only with our intellects, but in many ways with our entire being. Sometimes our intellect almost doesn’t matter at all. One example that comes to mind is the observance of Ash Wednesday that we will soon be celebrating. Every year it is one of the most widely attended celebrations in the Catholic Church, but it is not a holy day of obligation. People attend because somehow they know it is important to receive these ashes on their foreheads that remind us of our mortality and the continual need for conversion. It is a very physical act.

    Christ, in His Incarnation, has healed the brokenness of the Fall not by showing us the way to some world that is devoid of flesh, but by becoming flesh. In His body, God and humanity has been reconciled. One of the most beautiful passages in Howard’s book describes well what happened in the Fall, of how God’s design for the human race was warped,

      Our work, formerly synonymous with our freedom and dignity, is now drudgery. It breaks our backs. Childbearing, presumably in some sense the crown of human experience–something that we, made in the image of God, would experience and the angels only could envy–is now marred with pain. Our bodies, the very statuary of God so to speak, are now torn from our spirits in the ultimate division called death, which yields in the place of the noble creature called man two pitiable horrors, a corpse and a ghost. When the physical is divided from the spiritual, there results the cacophany that brays and clashes in the abyss outside the harmony of the divine order. Division. Hell.
    Christianity is not ultimately about rejecting our humanity, it is about embracing a God who has redeemed it. It is about giving thanks to a God who entered the world to restore us to His image and likeness so that we can once again be fully human.

    Don’t Give Up

    Posted By Fr. Christian Mathis on February 3, 2010

    Do not be surprised that you fall every day; do not give up, but stand your ground courageously. And assuredly, the angel who guards you will honour your patience. –St. John Climacus

    For the Life of the World

    Posted By Fr. Christian Mathis on February 1, 2010

    This past Friday I mentioned here that perhaps my favorite book of all time is For the Life of the World, by Fr. Alexander Schmemann. It is a book about the sacraments, but even more so about the implications of having the sacramental world view that both Catholic and Orthodox Christians share in common. Though this book approaches the sacraments from the standpoint of Eastern Christianity, it has certainly helped this Western Christian to see them with new eyes and has deepened my understanding of the Christian life. With this in mind, I have decided to spend some time reflecting on the thoughts that Fr. Schmemann presents in his book and to share them here. I am not the first to reflect upon this book and will certainly not be the last, but I hope that by spending some time with this book to encourage a greater dialogue about the sacraments here at this blog.

    I will be taking a very slow approach to the book, examining small sections at a time and do not plan to focus the next few months exclusively on the book, as I enjoy the variety of subjects that have been part of this blog from the beginning. My hope is that this will allow readers and myself the opportunity to digest Fr. Schmemann’s words and enter into a more full dialogue.

    Fr. Schmemann begins his book by quoting one of the great atheist philosophers, Ludwig Feuerbach, who sought to use the statement, “man is what he eats,” in order to prove there was nothing beyond our material world. Contrary to Feuerbach’s belief, Schmemann reminds his reader that this idea is a very Biblical one:

    He (man) is indeed that which he eats, and the whole world is presented as one all-embracing banquet table for man. And this image of the banquet remains, throughout the whole Bible, the central image of life. It is the image of life at its creation and also the image of life at its end and fullfillment: “…that you eat and drink at my table in my Kingdom.”

    Fr. Schmemann goes on to present the question of what it means that Christ gave Himself for the life of the world. He points out that there are two general patterns to this answer among Christians. One group of Christians believe that this life is limited to religious life, in other words a world that is separate and opposed to the secular world. Those who take this viewpoint believe the purpose of Christianity is to invite as many people as possible to enter into the “spiritual” life and as a result it is only in the activities of church, prayer and piety that any real meaning exists. On the other side of the coin are those that believe Christ came “for the better life of the world”. These are those who could be described as activists, those who believe that through our actions as Christians we can restore the world to what was lost in the fall. They place less importance upon worship and much more on what has sometimes been called the “Social Gospel”.

    Fr. Schmemann responds to these two interpretations of the life offered to us by God with the statement,

    Whether we “spiritualize” our life or “secularize” our religion, whether we invite men to a spiritual banquet or simply join them at the secular one, the real life of the world, for which we are told God gave his only-begotten Son, remains hopelessly beyond our religious grasp.

    My observations of the modern Catholic Church are that we have in many places fallen into looking at our faith in the same inadequate categories described by Fr. Schmemann. We have too often accepted this so called divorce of the spiritual and the secular, needlessly separating the two. One of the first places I encountered the struggle to bring the two together was in the Catholic Worker movement inspired by Dorothy Day and Peter Maurin. Catholic Worker communities insist upon engaging in both worship and work, in prayer and action.

    What has been your experience of seeing these categories either united or divorced within the Christian community?

    Sabbath Sunday: Evangelization

    Posted By Fr. Christian Mathis on January 31, 2010

    This week for Sabbath Sunday, I chose a post from last year called, Being Messengers of the Good News. Pope Benedict has recently encouraged Catholics, especially the clergy, to take advantage of new forms of communication, such as blogs and social networking, in our work of Evangelization. About a year ago I asked readers of this blog how we might continue to better meet the challenge of preaching the Gospel in the high paced world of today’s society. I am still looking for good ideas and hope some of you will share your thoughts on the subject.

    Once again you are invited to join me in promoting the Sabbath by taking a break from your normal blogging.  Please share an older post from your blog that is near and dear to your heart. Make sure to leave your name and the URL of your post below and share a comment if you so desire. I look forward to reading your recycled posts!