The Pagan Path

Those who wonder are not lost; they are trying to awaken! 'The Sleeper must awaken!'

Monday, June 08, 2009

The Sacrament of Life

First of all; what is a 'sacrament', and why do I say that life is one?

The answers to these questions may be a bit more complex, especially the second, than is at first obvious: for instance; they bring up more questions like 'What do you mean by sacrament?' 'What 'life' are you referring to?' I'm hoping that, by answering the first; I will answer the second, and vice-versa!


Sacrament


As defined by the Merriam-Webster On-line Dictionary; a sacrament is 'a Christian rite (as baptism or the Eucharist) that is believed to have been ordained by Christ and that is held to be a means of divine grace or to be a sign or symbol of a spiritual reality . b: a religious rite or observance comparable to a Christian sacrament'.

Wikipedia gave me some more information;

A sacrament, as defined in Hexam's Concise Dictionary of Religion is "a Rite in which God is uniquely active." Augustine of Hippo defined a Christian sacrament as "a visible sign of an invisible reality." The Anglican Book of Common Prayer speaks of them as "an outward and visible sign of an inward and invisible Grace." Examples of sacraments would be Baptism and the Mass."[1] Therefore a sacrament is a religious symbol or often a rite which conveys divine grace, blessing, or sanctity baptism in water, representing (and conveying) the grace of the gift of the Holy Spirit, the Forgiveness of Sins, and membership into the Church. Anointing with holy anointing oil is another example which is often synonymous with receiving the Holy Spirit and salvation as mentioned in James 5:14. Another way of looking at Sacraments is that they are an external and physical sign of the conferral of Sanctifying Grace.

Also according to Wikipedia; the Roman Catholic Church further says this about 'sacraments':

The Sacraments of the Catholic Church, "instituted by Christ and entrusted to the Church, are efficacious signs of grace perceptible to the senses. Through them divine life is bestowed upon us."[1] They assist individuals in their spiritual progress and growth in holiness. The sacraments contribute to the Church's growth in charity and in giving witness.





The Seven Sacraments by Rogier van der Weyden, ca. 1448.

Though not every individual receives every sacrament, the sacraments as a whole are seen as necessary means of salvation for the faithful, each conferring that sacrament's particular grace, such as incorporation into Christ and the Church, forgiveness of sins, or consecration for a particular service.


I found rather interesting what New Advent.org, a Roman Catholic website, had to say about it.


'Almighty God can and does give grace to men in answer to their internal aspirations and prayers without the use of any external sign or ceremony. This will always be possible, because God, grace, and the soul are spiritual beings. God is not restricted to the use of material, visible symbols in dealing with men; the sacraments are not necessary in the sense that they could not have been dispensed with. But, if it is known that God has appointed external, visible ceremonies as the means by which certain graces are to be conferred on men, then in order to obtain those graces it will be necessary for men to make use of those Divinely appointed means. This truth theologians express by saying that the sacraments are necessary, not absolutely but only hypothetically, i.e., in the supposition that if we wish to obtain a certain supernatural end we must use the supernatural means appointed for obtaining that end.'


Another website, Catholic Online, had this to say;

'The great mystery of the union in Christ of a human nature with the second Person of the Godhead is that the human actions and sufferings of Christ are divine actions and sufferings. The sacraments are a living continuation of this mystery. There are earthly, external signs here which, of themselves, could never acquire any supernatural significance, but the signs of the sacraments have been made by Christ into vehicles of his grace. They effect in men the grace for which Christ made them the sign.


So there are two fundamental ideas which constantly recur in the Church's teaching, on the sacraments. First there is the Church's concern for these instituted by Christ, their number, and their proper preservation and administration; then the grace which Christ has for all time linked with these signs and which is communicated by them.


The second is the effect of the sacraments. They are the signs of Christ's work; the effectiveness of Christ's continuing work in his Church cannot be dependent on man's inadequacy. A sacrament, administered properly in the way established by Christ and with the proper intention, gives the grace it signifies. It is effective not by reason of the power of intercession of priestly prayer nor on account of the worthiness of the recipient, but solely by the power of Christ. The power of Christ lives in the sacraments. The effect of the sacrament is independent of the sinfulness or unworthiness of the minister. The Church has never tolerated any subjective qualification of the objective effectiveness of the sacraments ex opere operato. This would ultimately be to conceive the way of salvation as being man's way to God and not God's way to man.'


In this fairly lengthy quote from Rev. Ken Collins, he explains a little about the origins of the word.

'The Church began in the east among Greek-speaking Jews, and so the language of the ancient church was Greek. The rites of the Church, such as baptism and the Eucharist, were called mysteries of the church, and they still are in the Eastern Church. Mystery is a Greek word that was often used in philosophical and religious discussions to refer to knowledge that was once unclear, but is now revealed. The actual Greek word is μυστηριον (mysterion) in the singular, μυστηρια (mysteria) in the plural.

In worship, we still proclaim the mystery of our faith:

Christ has died
Christ has risen
Christ will come again ( obviously, I can't agree with this statement!-CHS )

The ancient church called this the mystery of our faith because they believed that the Old Testament had been teaching these doctrines all along, but they were only clear in Jesus Christ:

We are not like Moses, who would put a veil over his face to keep the Israelites from gazing at it while the radiance was fading away. But their minds were made dull, for to this day the same veil remains when the old covenant is read. It has not been removed, because only in Christ is it taken away. Even to this day when Moses is read, a veil covers their hearts. But whenever anyone turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away. Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. And we, who with unveiled faces all reflect the Lord’s glory, are being transformed into his likeness with ever-increasing glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit.
—2 Corinthians 3:13-18, NIV

As you can see in this passage, the ancient church believed that Christians are gradually being transformed into the likeness of our Lord. Part of this transformation is the way we live our lives as agents of God’s providence among the people of the world, and part of it takes place in the rites and ceremonies of the church. All of these rites and ceremonies reveal truth to us that was once obscure, so they were called μυστηρια or, as we would say, mysteries.

By the end of third century, Latin had overtaken Greek as the language of common people in the western half of the Roman Empire. Western clergy preached in Latin, western theologians wrote in Latin, and western scholars translated the Bible into Latin. Western Christians heard the sermons, read the writings, and studied the Bible in Latin. The word μυστηριον was a problem. There was no Latin word that corresponded to it. They could have transliterated the Greek word into Latin as mysterium, and they often did that, but that did not solve the problem so much as avoid it, because most Latin-speaking people still had no idea what it meant. So western Christian scholars used the word sacramentum to translate μυστηριον. These scholars included Tertullian, who was one of the earliest Latin theologians, and Jerome, who translated the Bible into Latin about a hundred years later.

But where did they get this word and why did they choose it? They borrowed it from the Roman Army. A recruit for the Roman army became a soldier by undergoing a sacramentum. The sacramentum had two parts: the soldier took an oath of office, and the Army branded him behind the ear with the number of his legion. The sacramentum resulted in new responsibilities and new advantages. The soldier acquired the responsibility for conforming to military discipline and obeying military commands. He also acquired social and legal benefits, because living conditions in the Roman Army were very good and veterans received special privileges and benefits. Ancient Latin theologians seized upon sacramentum as the best Latin equivalent of the Greek word mystery when it referred to a church rite, because the church rite is simultaneously spiritual and physical, and because the person who undergoes the sacrament simultaneously receives new responsibilities and a new spiritual status before God.'


Although I'm sure that many of my readers will disagree theoretically, if not personally, with much of what I've quoted here, I think that my quotations give a fairly accurate definition of the word, and maybe even a little history.


Personally; I am more in accord with the Quakers when it comes to the use ( or non-use ) of sacraments. Here is what their founder had to say concerning the 'sacrament' of 'the Lord's Supper';


'Another great objection they [the other sects] had, "That the Quakers denied the sacrament," as they called it, "of bread and wine, which" they said, "they [the other sects] were to take, and do in remembrance of Christ to the end of the world." A great deal of work we had with the priests and professors [of the other sects] about this, and about the several modes of receiving it in Christendom, so called: for some of them take it kneeling, some sitting; but none of them all, that ever I could find, take it as the disciples took it. For the disciples took it in a chamber after supper; but the sects generally take it before dinner; and some say, after their priest has blessed it, it is "Christ's body." But as to this matter, Christ said, "Do this in remembrance of me." He did not tell them how often they should do it, or how long; neither did he tell them to do it always as long as they lived, or that all believers in him should do it to the world's end. The apostle Paul, who was not converted until after Christ's death, tells the Corinthians, that he had received from the Lord what he had told them concerning this matter; and Paul relates Christ's words concerning the cup thus: "This do you, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me" and himself adds, "For as often as you do eat this bread and drink this cup, you do show forth the Lord's death until he comes." So according to what Paul here relates, neither Christ nor he instructed the people to do this always, but leaves it to their liberty, "as often as you drink it,"... The Jews used to share a cup of wine, and to break bread and divide it among themselves in their feasts; as may be seen in the Jewish Antiquities; so that the breaking of bread and drinking of wine were Jewish rites, which were not to last forever. They also baptized with water, which made it not seem a strange thing to them, when John the Baptist came with his decreasing ministration of water baptism. But as to the bread and wine, after the disciples had taken it, some of them questioned whether Jesus was the Christ? For some of them said, after he was crucified, “We trusted that it had been he who should have redeemed Israel,".. And although the Corinthians had eaten the bread and wine, and had been baptized in water, the apostle told them they were "reprobates, [still captive to sin] if Christ was not in them;" and told them "examine themselves." And as the apostle said, "As often as you do eat this bread, and drink this cup, you show forth the Lord's death until he comes;" so Christ had said before that he was the "bread of life," which" came down from heaven;" and that "he would come, and dwell in them;" which the apostles witnessed to be fulfilled in themselves; and they exhorted others to seek that which "comes down from above;" but the outward bread and wine, and water, are not from above, but from below.'


Another famous Quaker, Robert Barclay, had this to say:

'The communion of the body and blood of Christ is inward and spiritual, which is the participation of his flesh and blood, by which the inward man is daily nourished in the hearts of those in whom Christ dwells; of which things the breaking of bread by Christ with his disciples was a figure, which they even used in the church for a time, who had received the substance, for the cause of the weak; even as "abstaining from things strangled, and from blood;" the washing one another's feet, and the anointing of the sick with oil; all which are commanded with no less authority and solemnity than the former; yet seeing they are but the shadows of better things, they cease in such as have obtained the substance.'

While I'm sure I couldn't agree with the Quakers on every point of theology; I can agree with these statements insofar as I have already indicated in my statement of belief. From the beginning; I have not been convinced that when Jesus blessed and broke the bread and poured the wine at the 'Last Supper', where He had just celebrated His last Passover Seder with His disciples, that He was instituting the Lord's Supper, but was rather giving them instructions that, whenever they gathered to eat, they were to do so in memory of Him, and in thankfulness to Him. Paul later said to the disciples of Christ at Corinth, '
Therefore, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God". As I pointed out in a recent article; Paul's point of contention with the Corinthian believers, in chapter 11, was not that they were not meeting to observe the Lord's Supper, but that in their supposed love-feasts; they were neglecting the 'body', by not recognizing poorer members ( James 2:1-13 ) of the congregation as part of the same 'body' and eating to the full, while their brethren had little to eat!

Life

When I speak of life as a sacrament; I have in mind primarily the true Life that we have in Christ alone, which may be called a spiritual existence ( John 11:26 ), but also, and maybe even more importantly, humanly speaking, this physical life that we have been given in which to serve God, through serving each other.

Paul speaks, in Romans 12, of offering our bodies ( lives ) as living sacrifices to God. After God has cleansed our hearts, giving us spiritual life, we should live the physical lives that He has given us as 'an outward sign of an inward reality', i.e., we should show, by our everyday lives, by what the apostle Paul calls our conversation, what the blood of Christ and His Holy Spirit have done in our hearts, making us 'new creations' in Him!

Thomas R. Kelly, as quoted on the website Conservative Quakers of Canada, writes,

''The life that intends to be wholly obedient, wholly submissive, wholly listening, is astonishing in its completeness. Its joys are ravishing, it peace profound, its humility the deepest, its power world-shaking, its love enveloping, its simplicity that of a trusting child."

The website Acts 20:24 Ministries, quotes A.W.Tozer on the sacramental nature of life:

"We can meet this successfully only by the exercise of an aggressive faith. We must offer all our acts to God and believe that He accepts them. Then hold firmly to that position and keep insisting that every act of every hour of the day and night be included in the transaction. Keep reminding God in our times of private prayer that we mean every act for His glory; then supplement those times by a thousand thought-prayers as we go about the job of living. Let us practice the fine art of making every work a priestly ministration. Let us believe that God is in all our simple deeds and learn to find Him there."

Here is a quotation from an article written by a Quaker ( Friends ) pastor, Keith Huffman, entitled 'Living the Highest Sacrament';

The purpose of sacrament is to communicate what is inward and spiritual through outward means, but this comes with a risk. There are at least two abuses of sacrament. The first is to over emphasize the symbol. A dozen roses may outwardly communicate inward affection, but if the beloved admires only the beauty of the roses, and does not think of the lover, the sacrament’s message is missed and the beloved’s adoration is misplaced. As it relates to God, misplaced adoration is idolatry! A second abuse is incongruity between inward reality and outward expression. The same dozen roses could be given as a ruse to cover the giver’s selfish motives; a loving gesture with an unloving intent! That is hypocrisy!

The goal is to live sacramentally, yet above idolatry and hypocrisy. To do this we must be attentive to the workings of God within and allow expression to flow from the inside out. This is not always easy in the clamor of the outward, but the spiritual disciplines, such as silence, worship and meditation, help us remain centered in the Spirit.

I have always felt, concerning the Christian witness that we are to bare before the world, or 'witnessing' as it is termed by most evangelical Christian, is better done by living what you preach, rather than just preaching, though you may not live up to your words. I like this quotation by one of the founding fathers of Quakerism, George Fox: he wrote,

"Let your lives speak."

Another quotation that I like to use is;

'A life lived is better than a thousands words spoken!'

The apostle James wrote;

21 Therefore lay aside all filthiness and overflow of wickedness, and receive with meekness the implanted word, which is able to save your souls.
22 But be doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves. 23 For if anyone is a hearer of the word and not a doer, he is like a man observing his natural face in a mirror; 24 for he observes himself, goes away, and immediately forgets what kind of man he was. 25 But he who looks into the perfect law of liberty and continues in it, and is not a forgetful hearer but a doer of the work, this one will be blessed in what he does.
26 If anyone among you[b] thinks he is religious, and does not bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this one’s religion is useless. 27 Pure and undefiled religion before God and the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their trouble, and to keep oneself unspotted from the world.

Here is a rather interesting quote from James Boswell in 1776, from the website Staffordshire Quakers;

"I have always loved the simplicity of manners of the Quakers; and observed that many a man was a Quaker without knowing it".

In some ways, even though I was brought up in the Reformed BaptistReformed traditions; I find myself having adopted, to some extent and without realizing it, the Quaker outlook on life, along with their stance on some other subjects; Baptism and The Lord's Supper, among them. Let me reiterate that I would most likely have some disagreement with my Quaker friends, in some areas more or less serious; but I think that, on the whole, "I could call them, as others that I have quoted here, my brothers, though we would disagree, to whatever extent, on certain subjects.

I hope, by writing here, not to down-play the utilization of the traditional sacraments, whether you be the staunchest Roman Catholic or the simplest member of the Church of the Brethren, but to impress upon my readers the importance of viewing and living our lives sacramentally, devoting and dedicating our every action, both publicly and privately, to our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ!

May God bless you with this study, as I have been blessed in compiling it!

In His service, and for His Kingdom and Glory,

Charles Shank






















No comments: