An ex-evangelical turned Catholic priest named Dwight
Longenecker has, in his current religious incarnation, become a fan of ritual and symbolism.
“The most difficult thing for an Evangelical to accept in a conversation about the sacraments is that God actually uses physical means and liturgical ceremonies to dispense his grace and administer salvation. The typical Evangelical is heavily conditioned to dismiss all physical components of religion as useless and distracting ‘man-made traditions.’ ”
Hmm, let me think: Could I be one of Mr. Longenecker’s heavily
conditioned, typical evangelicals? Possibly.
I’m not keen on being known as ‘Christian plus a Bunch of Adjectives’, whether they be relatively innocent terms like “evangelical”,
“dispensational”, “premillennial” or whatever. But if we take the word “evangelical” simply to mean that I believe
in the Great Commission, so called, well, I suppose you had better include me
in that bunch.
Leaving aside the obvious straw-manning of his claim that
typical evangelicals dismiss all symbolism and liturgical components of
religion as useless, distracting, man-made and traditional, and regardless of whether
I am “heavily conditioned”, I agree with Mr. Longenecker that there’s considerable
disagreement within Christendom about the role of “physical components” of
religion.
Which merits a few thoughts:
“Physical” Doesn’t Mean “Useless”
First, Mr. Longenecker and I would undoubtedly agree that
certain physical objects in the church are not useless. The bread and the wine,
for instance, are physical objects of which we partake and by which we remember
the Lord, as he commanded.
Certain physical objects make good reminders. That’s far
from useless, since we have a tendency to easily forget.
“Physical” Doesn’t Mean “Distracting”
Second, far from being a distraction, a physical object may
well focus the mind quite effectively. I have often been in worship meetings where
different believers take part. Some of these believers are more spiritually mature
than others and have greater familiarity with scripture. Occasionally one of
the less mature Christians wanders off into personal anecdotes or bizarre
analogies inappropriate to the occasion.
But when reminded it is time to break bread and share a cup,
the introduction of these physical objects more often than not actually serves
to focus the concentration of the congregation, rather than to distract it. We
often came right back to the subject of Christ himself, which is where we
should be.
“Physical” Doesn’t Mean “Man-Made”
Third, nothing about a physical object necessarily makes it “man-made” in the sense Mr. Longenecker uses the term.
The Lord Jesus said, “For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you
proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.”
So nobody can argue that the symbols of “this bread” and “this
cup” originated with man. Yet they are indisputably physical aids to worship. If evangelicals object
to physical objects, it is to objects that originate in the fantasies of man rather than in the commands of God.
In which case, their criticism doesn’t come from “heavy
conditioning”, but from simple observation and the use of common sense.
The Real Issue
So far Mr. Longenecker and I have no reason to disagree. I’m
not dismissing his “physical components”, his symbols and even his sacraments.
Where we have an issue is this: Mr. Longenecker insists that
“God actually uses physical means and liturgical ceremonies to … administer
salvation.”
And that’s a problem.
I believe at the root of much of this insistence on the
performance of symbolic acts is the failure to observe the role of a symbol in
relation to the greater, spiritual reality of which it is only a poor picture
at best.
To be fair, Mr. Longenecker avoids the obvious trap of
insisting that any symbol is sufficient on its own. He says the opposite in
fact. But then he comes right back to the necessity of symbols or sacraments. Without
them, he insists, salvation is not possible:
“In addition to believing and confessing with our lips, we need to be baptized.”
And the moment we make a symbol “necessary” rather than merely useful, we have added human effort to the work of Christ as our means of salvation.
But symbol is not reality. No symbol can administer salvation.
The Symbol and the Reality
The Law of Moses provides a number of examples of a symbol or
symbolic act being very much distinct from the spiritual reality it was
intended to depict:
a) Tithing
Tithing was a physical act. It required taking a tenth of
something out of whatever container, pen or pocket you kept it in, and walking
it down the road or across the fields to the temple or synagogue where you
would hand it to the priest or his designate in lieu of giving it to God. That
was the physical act, the symbol.
The things symbolized by the tithe were spiritual: justice,
mercy and faithfulness:
- Tithing, properly observed, was an act of justice in that it was the recognition by a faithful Israelite of an obligation to God brought about by God’s goodness to him in the material sphere. That obligation was just, fair and reasonable. It demanded an appropriate response, which God carefully spelled out to Israel through Moses. Tithing also reminded the godly Israelite that justice should mark every interaction he had with other Israelites and even with those outside the nation.
- Tithing, properly observed, was an act of mercy in that it provided for the needy. For example, a variant of the tithe involved deliberately failing to harvest every scrap of grain that grew in one’s fields. The gleanings and bits around the edges were to be left for the “poor and the foreigner residing among you”. Doing so was a small symbolic gesture that required the owner of the field to both be merciful and to contemplate God’s mercy to him.
- Tithing, properly observed, was an act of faithfulness in that it provided for the material needs of the priesthood. It was an act of obedience that ‘kept faith’ with the priests. Without it, the temple service quickly degenerated and was discontinued, as in the time of Nehemiah. In Malachi, God calls failing to bring in the “whole tithe” a form of robbery.
So, faithfully observed, a little physical act — a symbol or
ritual, if you like — could signify things that were much greater. It spoke to
a spiritual reality not visible to those who failed to exercise faith.
But it should be evident that the symbol and the thing
symbolized are not one and the same.
When, for instance, a faithful Israelite deliberately
practiced the symbolic act of leaving the edge of his fields for the poor and
foreigners, it is quite possible that if he did so in a time of prosperity,
nobody would need to take him up on the offer and the only beneficiaries of his
generosity would be the birds. The symbol would exist — mercy in principle
would have been extended — but no effective act of mercy would be performed
even though the symbolic gesture was made in goodwill.
And it was very possible to tithe without justice, mercy or
faithfulness, as in the practice of corban at the time of Christ, which involved a tithe given to the temple service
that was actually stolen from one’s parents. The symbol could easily exist
without the spiritual reality it was intended to represent.
This is the issue the Lord addresses with respect to tithing
when he says:
“Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices — mint, dill and cumin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law — justice, mercy and faithfulness.”
In saying this, the Lord makes it clear that the symbol is
not the thing symbolized. It is only a reminder of that which the Lord says are
the “more important matters”. Should the Israelites have bothered continuing to
tithe mint, dill and cumin then? Absolutely: “You should have practiced the
latter, without neglecting the former,” he says.
But it was, in fact, possible to practice the latter
(justice, mercy and faithfulness) while neglecting the former, just as it was
possible to maintain the symbol in the absence of the spirit that should
rightly accompany it. Unlikely, I suspect, but possible.
So the symbol and the thing symbolized are very much
distinct, and it is the thing symbolized that is most important and of the
greatest concern to God.
But how do human beings measure the “more important matters
of the law”? They are, necessarily, the province of God alone, since they
concern the motives of men’s hearts. It’s easier by far to total up quantities
of dill and cumin, divide by ten and pat yourself on the back for a job well
done, hence the Pharisaical tendency to feel superior because one has offered
something tangible and measurable.
It’s a whole lot easier to perform a ritual than to live
justly, mercifully and faithfully.
b) Oxen
Here’s another example: Paul tells us, “It is written in the Law of Moses: ‘Do not
muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain.’ ” It’s a little symbolic
gesture that happened to be perfectly reasonable and kind at the same time,
like so much of the Law: give the poor ox a break and let him have lunch since
he’s the one doing the work.
But again, a greater spiritual reality is in view. The
symbol is not the thing symbolized.
Paul adds, “Surely he says this for us, doesn’t he? Yes,
this was written for us, because whoever plows and threshes should be able to
do so in the hope of sharing in the harvest.”
Here Paul makes it clear that the thing symbolized is not
only MORE important than the symbol, it is MUCH more important: “Is it about
oxen that God is concerned?” he asks rhetorically. If it is a matter of
weighing the comparative value of the symbol and the thing symbolized, the
weight of God’s concern, Paul says, is very much in favor of the latter.
c) The Sabbath
One more. When the hungry disciples walked through grain fields
on the Sabbath and helped themselves to a few heads of grain to ease their
hunger, the legalistic Pharisees complained that they were “breaking” the
Sabbath by “working” during it. Jesus told them, “The Sabbath was made for man,
not man for the Sabbath”.
The Sabbath was a weekly symbol of the rest of God into
which every faithful believer of all ages is called to enter. The “rest of God”
is indisputably greater than a mere symbol or rule, and so the Lord reminds
them “the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath.”
You can bet the disciples went right on breaking it.
Conclusion
The symbol serves the spiritual reality, not the other way
round. There are good reasons to retain the symbols and “physical components”
of the faith given to us in the New Testament. These are fewer and further
between than Mr. Longenecker probably acknowledges. In fact there are precisely two. I hope to consider them in
detail in future posts.
But the moment we insist that the symbol or act itself is critical to salvation or grace, we have lost the plot. We have made legalism and human works of equal value with the sacrifice of Christ.
Because being a Christian means not being under law at all.
It means living day by day in a higher reality where the law is written on your
heart and earthly symbols never lose their actual proportion in relation to
that which they represent; where you observe a higher standard than that which
is commanded because love is the motive in everything you do.
And mere symbols, rituals or symbolic acts, while they may
serve to aid memory and focus the mind, do not save.
The symbol is not the point.
"And mere symbols, rituals or symbolic acts, while they may serve to aid memory and focus the mind, do not save.
ReplyDeleteThe symbol is not the point."
Yes and No. If a symbol will not save, will it therefore also not condem? Thus, the symbol may not be the point but it is making a point. E.g. the Eucharist in the Catholic Church implies when received that a communion exists between you and your creator. The governor of NY (Cuomo) just implemented the most barbaric abortion law possible and yet he will, as a Catholic, continue to receive communion. The point made of a union with your creator is obviously lost on him. Now, since God will probably not strike him down immediately it seems clear that ignoring the symbolism (or, in the Catholic Church the reality) of the Eucharist may be detrimental for the governor in the long run and may indeed contribute to his condemnation. So there is more than just a memory aid and focussing your mind involved.
Fair enough, Q. I quite agree that Mr. Cuomo is in a truly unpleasant position ...
Delete