19January2013

Pass that Communion Wafer with an AK-47: Christians & Gun Rights

Written By robfaircloth

Should Christians demand their rights? More particularly, should followers of Jesus Christ demand their rights to assault rifles?For, if we only listen to those directing the media discussions of the matter, we would be led to believe that the Sandy Hook school massacre, Vice President Joe Biden’s task force, President Obama’s 23 “executive orders,” and any resulting discussion should focus very narrowly on magazine capacities and “assault rifles”: scary-looking, military-style firearms that occasionally play a role in mass shootings.

English: Vektor CR-21 Assault Rifle
English: Vektor CR-21 Assault Rifle (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

But citizens of the United States, including the Christian ones, should be well aware that the discussion is about much more than that. Liberty, freedom, the limits of government, and responsibility are all at issue.It is perhaps a bit unsavory to talk about Christians and rights in the context of guns: it is difficult to picture the Rev. Billy Graham holding high an AK-47, waxing Heston-esque and shouting “From My Cold, Dead Hands!”

The Apostle Paul, however…

Christians are more familiar with asserting other rights enumerated in the Constitution’s Bill of Rights, such as the freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and freedom of religion. And, if they were not, they should have been involved in asserting basic civil rights such as were won for Black Americans in the 60s.

But what about the admonitions of our Lord Jesus Christ, himself, who told us that we should give others the coat off our backs, to go the extra mile, to “turn the other cheek” and all that? What about the Apostle Paul, who said that Christians ought rather be defrauded than to assert their rights by going to court? (2 Corinthians 6:7). And that believers were to submit to governing authorities? (Romans 13:1). How do Christians determine which rights to demand and which not?

Some of the answer to that question might depend upon which sort of government in which the Christian citizen lives. If he lives in a monarchy, and the king does not permit his subjects to own certain weapons, then there is little Christian can do that would not resemble unbiblical rebellion against governing authorities. [Governmental authority is not absolute: Christians rightfully defied the Nazis in Germany, for instance.]

If, however, he lives in constitutional republic in which government is “of the people, by the people, for the people,” then it very well could be that lack of submission to government includes failing to participate in that government.  As the Dixie Chicks might say, “Praise the Lord, and pass the ammunition!” Changes in time and occasion count for a lot, as it happens: a Christian living in Colonial America was faced with an entirely  different question in taking up arms against King George than what the Christian living in modern American faces when deciding to preserve the right to bear arms against the political ideations of King President Obama.

It was, after all, the same Apostle Paul who proclaimed “I appeal to Caesar,” asserting his right as a Roman citizen to be given certain procedural rights before being summarily executed. A citizen who happens to be Christian, then, may legitimately exercise rights that government has granted/secured, such as appeal privileges and gun rights. But the question remains whether it is Christian to do so.

Jewish citizens under Roman rule asked Jesus if it were lawful to pay taxes to Caesar, to which Jesus replied “render to Caesar what was Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.

It is important to consider what the response would have been the same had there been a constitutional amendment against Caesar levying those taxes in the first place.

17January2013

How may I take communion: let me count the ways

Written By robfaircloth
English: Communion setting at an Evangelical L...
English: Communion setting at an Evangelical Lutheran Church in America worship service: an open Bible, both unleavened bread and gluten-free wafers, a chalice of wine, and another containing grape juice (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

I previously wrote about a few things to consider when deciding how to approach communion, specifically with regard to the form of the elements that the congregation uses. While there is no “true” bread to use for Communion, and no “authentic” wine to use in the Lord’s supper, what we choose to use can detract from the worship and remembrance that the ordinance is given to emphasize.

Additionally, it is more than likely that congregations in the time that the New Testament books were written celebrated communion as part of regular meals that they enjoyed together. We don’t do that these days (although it might not hurt to try it), so questions regarding the mechanics of serving the communion elements come to mind. If we are deviating from the norm, which involves serving people in the pews and using wafers, plastic cups, and juice (which I encourage every congregation to do, at least once), then these questions might arise:

Do we use one table and serve everyone there, individually? Do we use a common cup and common loaf? Do we have instruction and prayer for the group, or as people are served?

The possibilities are almost endless regarding how a church decides these issues, and a best practice might be determined only after trying several of them. Here are a few main points of how Covenant Grace Baptist Church is handling communion, at present:

BY FAMILY GROUP — Those receiving communion come, by family group, to the front to be given the elements. Whether singles, couples, or full houses, having people come for communion this way seems to work well, and emphasizes that the family of God is made up not of individuals, but of families, regardles of family size.

TO HEAD OF HOUSE — For those family groups that have a husband/father, the server (not necessarily the pastor!) gives a portion of bread and cup of wine to the head of household, who then distributes them among the believers of his house. This emphasizes the important role of male leadership in the home.

GROUP INSTRUCTION, PRIVATE PRAYER — Instruction by the elder usually precedes taking the communion elements, and sometimes follows. Brief reminders about the symbolism of the bread and wine is given to the family group as it takes them, with prayer for that group following.

WINE & BREAD — We alternate between unleavened bread and wafers, and have them portioned beforehand. We use real wine, but make juice available for those who prefer it.

We have also taken communion seated in smaller groups around a table, passing the wine and bread as they might have done in New Testament times. Occasionally we provide extended times for reflection and repentance.

The point about thinking now about communion elements, and how we serve them, is so that there is little thought about those mechanical matters during communion itself. Our focus during communion should not be that the stale wafer is now stuck in my back molar, or that the juice cup resembles a thimble. Instead, we should focus on what the bread and the wine represent. A little thinking ahead of time will help the congregation do that.

1January2013

How May I Take Communion: Considering Communion Tools

Written By robfaircloth1 Comment on How May I Take Communion: Considering Communion Tools

For the first twenty years of my life, or so, I had no idea that the Lord’s Supper could be celebrated using anything other than plastic thimble-sized cups of grape juice and mass-produced, stale wafer “Chiclets”.

The expansion of my liturgy horizons came when I attended worship with my Episcopalian fraternity brother. I had no idea what that short, padded bench was for (kneeling), and I was sure that eating Communion bread from a common loaf and drinking real wine from a common cup would result in the revocation of my Southern Baptist ID card, should someone important find out about it.

A cursory reading of the New Testament should reveal to believers that Communion in the early church usually occurred regularly, and whenever believers gathered for meals, which was often. It is difficult to imagine a partaking of the elements that didn’t involve a regular glass of wine and regular loaf of bread, things that would have been on hand at most meals. In modern evangelical church practice, there are many reasons that Communion has been relegated to a once-quarterly practice that occurs exclusively in a formal worship service, not many of them good. But in that context, it is easy to see why plastic cups and wafers become the norm — ease of use — despite the fact that few of us would serve these to a guest in our home.

Serving food and drink during worship presents practical difficulties, because we are not usually eating meals during our formal services. The simplest, most efficient way of distributing food and drink to the congregation, under the circumstances, is to use uniform portions and assembly-line delivery: “Chiclet” wafers, thimble drinks, and plate-passing.

Many believers observe, however, that the typical elements of grape juice and wafers, and devices such as disposable plastic cups, seem unsubstantial, somehow. And unsubstantial elements might tend to make the commemoration of the Lord’s Supper unsubstantial, as well.

The typical Communion I grew up with remains standard practice for many Southern Baptist churches. Wafers are distributed to members by passing plates down the pews, and cups of juice are distributed afterward in the same way. Congregants consume the elements separately, usually with some instruction or Scripture reading between. Oddly, the juice and wafers are usually served with nice, impressive, substantial plates and trays. Meaningful Communion can certainly be conducted this way, but I would encourage churches to consider whether there is not, in this traditional method, some incongruity between the serving tools and the elements themselves.

Additionally, congregations that continue to use the typical method should be especially aware of the limitations that traditional elements and methods pose, and be deliberate in planning ways to overcome them.

Many congregations are exploring alternatives to the typical Communion scene that I have described here. Churches are scheduling Communion more frequently, at times other than the formal worship service, and with different forms of the elements and methods of serving them.

Look for my next article, in which I discuss some of these options: “How May I Take Communion: Let Me Count the Ways.”

© 2012 Rob Faircloth

22December2012

3 Reasons Why We Shouldn’t Make Policy Changes in the Midst of Tragedy

Written By robfaircloth

It is difficult for us to process the fact that one person would intentionally kill almost thirty people at one time, twenty of the victims grade-school children. But that is exactly what happened a week ago in Newtown, Connecticut.

While death surrounds us on a daily basis, mass-murder and large-scale disaster are especially troubling for us for many reasons, not the least of which is the mere fact that the body count is high, and readily observable. We are somewhat capable of understanding when one man kills another in the heat of passion, but when one man kills dozens of people who don’t even know him, we find it much more difficult to comprehend. We are somewhat capable of handling one man drowning in the surf, but when a tsunami kills thousands, we find the carnage shocking.

There is nothing wrong with that. Death of fellow humans on a mass scale is difficult enough in wartime, when death is expected, but when it is unexpected — as in the case of school murders or tsunami casualties — the scale of death makes it even harder to find, or even desire, satisfactory explanation.

Which is why we tend to avoid understanding and opt instead for action. Frequently, though, our action or decisions occur during the midst of tragedy and the grief that surrounds it. There are several reasons that we should avoid making certain decisions while we are too close to tragedy.

1. Tragedy Affects Our Perspective

Because the immediacy and immanence of death and other tragedy loom so large, it is natural for them to take on a significance that for a time displaces other concerns. For those suffering the death of a loved family member, for instance, prior concerns about career or finances are momentarily of no concern.

But the immanence of tragedy does not only displace concerns of other types. It also tends to displace the same type of tragedy suffered by others. Twenty children and six adults died at the hands of the murdered in Newtown, Connecticut. Many more die each day in car accidents, may more are aborted each day, and many more children die each month by drowning. The carnage of automobile death on an annual basis is no less grievous because it distributed throughout the year; it’s simply less visible.

Because of this distortion in our perspective, we should avoid making decisions about policy while suffering the effects of grief or emergency. For example, if I observe looters approaching my home, I hide the valuables and bar the door; I don’t call my congressman to discuss the crowd control and assembly laws.

2. Tragedy Offers Easy Targets

In the midst of tragedy the temptation will be to do something, anything, to ensure that this sort of thing “never happens again.” But with a perspective distorted by grief, we might fall victim to one of two errors. First, we might wrongly conclude that this sort of thing can be prevented. Second, we might wrongly determine what would actually prevent it.

This particular danger becomes more pronounced when politicians seek to gain mileage for their causes. Recently government officials have expressed their opinion that politicians should not let crisis “go to waste,” and that the Newtown, Connecticut massacre particularly be “exploited” by the current administration for political purposes.

In the midst of tragedy, we should resist hastily casting about for boogeymen to target, such as violent video games, deficient mental health services, and scary-looking firearms. Instead, the better course is to protect lives and bind wounds in the present before seeking to solve all problems in the future.

3. Tragedy Obscures Real Problems

In addition to offering easy, false targets, tragedy tends to obscure the real problems from our field of vision. Should we decide that the number of annual automobile deaths is unacceptable, the real problem is not likely the car. Or, if it is, we will decide that it is not the problem that we want to solve out of the equation. Instead, given that we want to keep the car, we look to other safety matters such as road conditions, driver ability and sobriety, and crash-worthiness.

In the case of mass murder, the easy target is the tool used by the killer or the mental health services provided him. The real problem, however, might lie completely elsewhere. As we have seen in recent events, tragedy tends to prevent us from considering other factors: mass shootings tend to occur at “soft targets” — movie theaters and schools where there is not likely to be much resistance; this lack of resistance is advertised to the bad guys with signs such as “This school is a gun-free zone”; those given responsibility over “soft targets” are not themselves allowed to carry firearms; “mental health” services offered to troubled people typically don’t include the notion of personal responsibility for sin; the eviction of religious orthodoxy from public schools leaves troubled students with no concept of God’s command, “thou shalt not murder.”

Conclusion

I do not offer a solution to the problem of the mass murder in Newtown. One primary reason is the glaring fact that the “solutions” offered by the “experts” and politicians — including the assault-weapons ban in effect at the time the Connecticut massacre occurred — did not prevent this one.

What I do offer is the orthodox belief of the Christian church that the death, disease and disaster that currently plague the world are the result of original sin and the individual wickedness that are in the hearts of all of us. We should remember, too, that it is not only those who commit mass murder who are effected by sin, but also those who would propose grand solutions to prevent their offenses.

17December2012

What To Do In A Tragedy

Written By robfaircloth

Events in Newtown, Connecticut last Friday were certainly tragic. When there is no worldview sufficient to explain, and then deal with, such tragedy we are left with immediate 24-hour coverage of the explanations and recommendations of mental health experts and social theorists, and of the proposals and strategies of law enforcement officials and security specialists.

It is into this competition of theories and solutions that those with a Christian worldview — those who are followers of Jesus Christ — can, and should, speak.

Others have ably addressed the theological and worldview implications raised when people endure such suffering, and how those who might have answers should answer, such as Albert Mohler, Russell Moore, and David Platt.

To their treatment of those issues I would add a few practical suggestions for those of us who observe suffering happen.

First, Don’t Speak Too Soon (if at all)

In the book of Job, his friends sat in silence with him for quite some time before ever uttering a word, which was welcome comfort for Job. It was when they offered verbal counsel that they ran into trouble. We’re told in Ecclesiastes that there is “a time to weep, and a time to laugh; a time to mourn, and a time to dance” and that there is “a time to keep silence, and a time to speak” (Ecclesiastes 3:4, 7).

The existence of instant communication via social media is not a justification to race to use it. While quick notice is useful, helpful and even in some occasions life-saving, a quick flood of uninformed opinion is not.

Second, Acknowledge Our Ignorance

Followers of Jesus Christ believe that our God has revealed answers to even the greatest of life’s problems. Yet we acknowledge that he has not revealed everything to us, those things the Bible calls “the secret things of God.” While we believe that the underlying reason for suffering in the world is the decaying effects of sin, the curse of Adam, we don’t know the specific reasons that a specific sinner sinns in a certain way. We don’t know specifically how God is glorified in specific suffering, nor do we know exactly how He will accomplish justice for those who suffer wrongly at the hands of others. We just know that He will.

Third, Acknowledge Our Knowledge

We don’t know specifics. We do know that men commit heinous acts that inflict suffering and death on other people not because their medications are out of balance, or because professionals don’t see warning signs, or because they have troubled childhoods, or because security is lax. Men commit heinous acts because they — because we — are sinners. Neither drugs, nor precautions, nor barriers can do anything to solve that problem.

Jesus Christ can.

31October2012

What to do with Halloween

Written By robfaircloth

Russell Moore has a good article about Halloween and how people of different Christian persuasions treat it. See where you fit on Moore’s spectrum:

An evangelical is a fundamentalist whose kids dress up for Halloween.

A conservative evangelical is a fundamentalist whose kids dress up for the church’s “Fall Festival.”

A confessional evangelical is a fundamentalist whose kids dress up as Zwingli and Bucer for “Reformation Day.”

A revivalist evangelical is a fundamentalist whose kids dress up as demons and angels for the church’s Judgment House community evangelism outreach.

An Emerging Church evangelical is a fundamentalist who has no kids, but who dresses up for Halloween anyway.

A fundamentalist is a fundamentalist whose kids hand out gospel tracts to all those mentioned above.

I’ve always wondered why churches sponsor “Trunk or Treat” activities and “Fall Festivals.” The kids are dressing up, and there is lots of candy, so there is little to distinguish them from Halloween celebrations other than the fact that they occur on church property and no one speaks to strangers.

OK, so I get the fact that putting on costumes, playing games, and eating lots of candy is fun. But there is already a day for that: Halloween.

Some churches would say that they do Trunk or Treat and Fall Festival in order to provide a safer alternative to Halloween, and to provide opportunity to reach out to the unchurched community and witness the gospel to those participating in the activities.

But here’s a little test. Today is Halloween. It’s also Wednesday, the traditional mid-week, prayer/supper/Bible study day for many churches. How many of your churches are having Trunk or Treat or Fall Festival today? And how many faithful Trunk or Treat and Fall Festival participants will be noticeably absent from church services tonight?

I’m just asking.

16August2012

Prayer

Written By robfaircloth

At times, God permits us to see the results of answered prayer immediately, as when you pray that He would get you to work despite that flat tire and a church member drives up just as you’re saying ‘Amen’.

It is at those times that we should make a record of God’s providence: write it down in your journal. But not only that, we should also tell others what happened, so that everyone can see and praise God’s goodness.

Because most of the time we don’t see prayer answered so directly, so immediately. Yet it is the same God who answers one as certainly hears the other.