A Question About Mormonism

A facebook friend wrote to me. Her question is below.

"...Another reason that I am writing is becuase I have some questions about Mormonism. I am not Mormon and I do not want to become one. I am perfectly happy with my faith as a Non-denominational Christian. My curiousity with the LDS and the FLDS is at an all time high though. I have a friend of mine, who really is a great genuine guy who would give the shirt off of his back. He is Mormon. We have had some discussions about it but I am delicate in the conversation because I don't want to disrespect or be judgemental to his beliefs. [...] I guess what I am looking for is the Honest to God truth. I keep thinking there must be some good to it because I know great people who are LDS members and they are happy with their faith and believe what they have been taught is the truth. I also know, aside from the people who I know that are Momon, there are a lot of followers. There is 2 sides to everything and the only information I seem to get is one-sided. One side is truly behind the Mormon religion and the side that is against it. I am hoping with your relgious education, experience, and knowledge, I can get some honest insight [...]

-C."

Dear C.,

I'll tell you my opinion, but I think I'm going to introduce you to a Lutheran friend (pastor) who is a little more versed on the subject of other faiths. But my thougts first...

Trinity

First: Mormons don't belienve in the Trinity (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) in the same way that Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholics, Anglicans (including Episcopalians like me) and Protestants do. For Mormons the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three (or maybe two) separate individuals. That difference greatly alters greatly the conception of God and who Jesus is and what Jesus is all about.

Morality 

Second: I agree. I see many moral Mormons out there. Some Mormons are really, REALLY good people. Indeed, I think that as a whole Mormons could teach many others a great deal about family as a priority, about self-discipline, community, and moral living. I have heard of a non-Mormon who once said that if Mormonism was a civic club or organization they would sign right up (because of the things I just mentioned). The problem for that person was the religious claims of Mormonism, stemming from the Book of Mormon and from the LDS hierarchy.

A Common Problem 

Third: Many Christians ("and Mormons" or "including Mormons" depending on your perspective) believe that living a good (i.e. a righteouss and morally pure) life is what is needed to enter heaven or to "be saved." Orthodox Christianity says that is mistaken. We simply can't be good enough to enter Heaven or save ourselves by doing good things or being good people. When we think that we can, Christ (and the Bible) tell us that we're in denial.

Salvation

Fourth: What saves us is Jesus Christ. Who he is. What he is. What he did, is doing, and will do. And that is why my first point is so important. Mormons and orthodox Christians disagree on who Jesus is, what he meant, and what his actions resulted in. And thus we have a different understanding of what salvation is all about.

Who's In & Who's Out?

Last Point: "Are Mormons saved?" This is undoubtedly the question that comes up next. The answer is "That's up to God." (That is, by the way, is the same answer for each of us when we ask about our own salvation.)

We all have a faulty understanding of Jesus and salvation because we are all sinners. Sin inhibits our view of truth, goodness, and righteousness. We all depend on God's grace through Jesus to straighten us out. And each of us has to choose every day whether to accept that grace or refuse it. In as much as a Mormon or anyone else, accepts Jesus on Jesus' terms, we are promised salvation through Jesus. The question then is how much are we (all of us) embracing what Jesus calls us to, without addition, negation, or excuse.

I personally think the answer to that question will defy denominational and religious boundaries. Best advice I know is to cling to Jesus and not let other things get between the two of you. Much easier said than done.

Homosexuality, a Parish, the Episcopal Church, & the Anglican Communion

From a Presbyterian friend and colleague: "I'm curious, if it's not too complicated to answer-- how does the current turmoil in the Anglican Church affect you and/or St. Peter's? - J."

Dear J.,

A good question that I'm happy to reply to. The simple answer is, "Not much," at least not yet. The Episcopal Church's decisions to move forward with the blessings of same-sex couples and allowing openly gay persons to become bishops hasn't impacted us hardly at all.

These are large decsions dealing with the overall direction of the Episcopal church over a long period of time. As a local parish we're very concerned with individuals, small groups, and shorter periods of time.   

The most imminent struggle and turmoil facing St. Peter's is both more mundane and more important, namely the day to day struggle to keep Christ central in our own lives. The temptation in times like these is to make whatever issue the Church is facing the focus of our activity, thoughts, emotions, and reflections. To give in to that temptation is, of course, idolatry. Christ alone should be the focal point of our lives, thoughts, and actions. The rest falls into place afterwards.

Someone might ask, "Isn't St. Peter's concerned with social justice" or "....concerned with morality or Biblical authority and fidelity to the Gospel?" Of course we are! However, as a small parish our approach is to take one person at a time. The joy of working on the local level is the ability to see a person for who they are, not what group they are affiliated with. Jane is Jane first, not primarily a conservative or a lesbian or a priest or a Japanese American. Jane is Jane, and we are interested in inviting Jane to a life of faith in Christ no matter what descriptors she may use for herself or others of her. 

Personally, I'm more concerned with the individuals being trampled in the dust by all the flag waving by both sides. I try not to worry about making the right call on the issues and worry about missing opportunities to make God's love known to those who are bruised and bleeding, regardless of what "camp" they're in.

Regardless of what decsions we make as a national church, we all remain sinners utterly dependent on God's grace to make us whole and "good people." We cannot save ourselves through righteous living or good legislation. Ultimately, even our best efforts are flawed. Once we realize how dependent we are (a very Calvanist thought, by the way), perhaps we can relax and take Martin Luther's advice: "Love God and do what you will."

Striving to keep Christ in the center, 

Fr. James+

Who wrote the Gospels?

A friend on facebook wrote, "James, ...I recently  learned that the books Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were not written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John, respectively. Who did write them? And, also, if no one was actually at the Garden of Gesemity, then how do we really know what happened there? This is of high interest for me and your expertise would be invaluable.  -C."

Great question, C. 

Like so many important questions about the Bible and the Christian Faith, not everyone agrees. I'll try to break it down into three camps, conservative, moderate, and liberal views. Keep in mind that those distinctions are somewhat arbitrary, that there is a great diversity of opinion out there, and I'm using "broad brush strokes" to paint a big picture.

THE CONSERVATIVE VIEW of AUTHORSHIP: Scripture is written by those bearing the titles of the books. So, for instance, The Gospel of Matthew was written by St. Matthew, The Gospel of John was written by St. John, etc. This is especially true of books that say they are written by someone. The Gospel of Luke/The Acts of the Apostles, a 2 volume set, explicitley say that they are written by Luke.

THE LIBERAL VIEW of AUTHORSHIP: Scripture has been written by many authors, edited, amended, redacted, and changed over time by scribes, scholars, and the communities the read them. This view tends to challenge authorship the most. Ironically, this doesn't bothers liberal thinkers in the least. Rather, it points to how the Holy Spirit has been and continues to be active in the inspiration and formation of the Church.

A MODERATE or "VIA MEDIA" VIEW of AUTHORSHIP: This view holds that some of the books are written by their namesakes and some are not. Scholarship helps us figure it out. While authorship is important, Scripture is Scripture because God has made it so and the community has recognized God's continued action in and through it. This view tries to balance rigourous scrutiny and criticism (Liberal ideals) with the ultimate understanding that Scripture holds authority over our faith (Conservative ideals).

C., I hold the moderate view, myself. And so here are my opinions based on the scholarship I am aware of:

MARK: The first Gospel written was Mark. It is unlikely, yet still very possible, that it was written by John Mark who accompanied the apostle St. Peter on his missionary journeys and perhaps recorded Peter's thoughts. It was written around the time of the destruction of the Temple of Jerusalem (A.D. 70), while many of the Apostles (Peter, James, John, etc.) and their disciples (Mark, Luke, Timothy, etc.) were living and so has the greatest chance of being the work of one of 12 Apostles or their disciples. It is doubtful that it would have survived without having accurately exemplified the teachings of the 12 Disciples.

MATTHEW/LUKE: Matthew and Luke were probably written a little later by the disciples of the 12 Disciples (Barnabas, Clement, Mark, Luke, etc). They could very well be the collected teachings of their namesakes put into Gospel story form. It is also possible, though less likely, that they are the works or their namesakes. It is clear that both used Mark as a base and then made changes and additions as needed. The Gospel of Matthew was written for a Jewish audience. The Gospel of Luke (with it's second volume, The Acts of the Apostles) was written for a Gentile audience. Luke purposefully speaks of researching and collecting data, and thus probably represents the teachings of many apostles and leaders. This fits with what we know of St. Luke's experience of traveling to the various Gentile churches with St. Paul.

JOHN: The Gospel of John was written very late, perhaps A.D. 90 - 120, when Christians were being alienated from mainstream Judaism and persecuted for their faith. Thus is takes a pretty harsh tone towards "The Jews". To modern understanding, it is probably more accurate to read "the Jews" as "the Judeans". Anyway, it was probably written by the disciples of John or the disciples of the disciples of John, and not John himself. St. John was the last of the 12 Disciples to die and the only one to die of old age. Thus the late date of the Gospel makes sense. At best it was dictated by St. John. Otherwise, it is St. John's teachings remembered and collected by his students and written down by one author.

One last thing to keep in mind: Our understanding of authorship is not the same as the ancient understanding. Many people did not write, some could read, but most were illiterate. When writing a letter or a book, a person hired a scribe who would take down what one dictated. Part of the job description of the scribe was to make the work clear to the reader and thus a scribe might put in phrases or words to further clarify what the speaker was trying to communicate. The final work was still considered authentically the work of the speaker so long as the ideas contained therein were preserved acurately. By those standards, any Gospel that preserves the acurate thoughts and message of its namesake can be considered to be authored by that person. 

I hope that helps!

Fr. James+ 

Currently rated 5.0 by 1 people

Is the Book of Common Prayer Important?

The Book of Common Prayer (a.k.a. "the Prayer Book" or "the BCP") has, indeed, been a central part of Anglicanism since the Protestant Reformation (AD 1500's). It has been second only to the Bible in influencing Anglican (Episcopal) beliefs, morality, spirituality, ethics, and culture. One reason is that the Prayer Book was devised as an intricate recipe to bring various and seemingly contradictory factions into the union of worshiping God together. In the beginning these opposing factions were Protestanct and Roman Catholic. Later, other oposing factions emerged, such as Anglo-catholic and Evangelical. In these cases the Book of Common Prayer was instrumental in bringing about a Middle Way - a way of including both groups into one church.

Today we still have opposing perspectives: Global vs. local, liberal/moderate/conservative, progressive vs. traditional, ritualistic vs. freeform, etc. The Prayer Book remains for us a way of drawing apparently opposing perspectives toward Christ and toward unity. Our Prayer Book connects us with our Christian family globally and locally, whether liberal or conservative, progressive or traditional, etc. When we disregard the Prayer Book as having no importance or authority, when we pay it no attention or ignore it in favor of our own personal preferences (even if it's for the sake of inclusion), we ultimately undermine one of the chief ways Anglicans have been unified one to another throughout time and across the entire globe. In otherwords we exclude others and exclude ourselves from the vast community it represents.

Why is the Book of Common Prayer important? Because it represents our best and most careful efforts to be united to God and to one another throughout time and space in prayer and in belief. It is our living and evolving creed.   

Simplicity Made Simple

Simplicity is one of those spiritual disciplines not often recalled when making a list of spiritual disciplines. You or I might think of prayer, fasting, or hospitality first. That's probably because most in our materialistic culture there is a way to market many of the self-disciplines, but not simplicity. Simplicity seems to fly in the face of an advertising culture that shouts out "Buy me!" or "This is important!" or "You need me!"

So is simplicity then not buying things? Is simplicity having less or doing without? Is it just a permanent fast? Well, yes and no. At the heart of simplicity is the idea of keeping first things first. You can have a simple life style and still own many things. If your top priortiy is to aquire things, then that is a simple way of life as long as you are consistent. The problem arises when we want to place two or more things at the top of our priority list. Richard Foster calls this "duplicity" in his book Celebration of Discipline. If I want to make my top priority to aquire things and then decide I want to enjoy them too, life begins to get a little more complicated! How much time do I spend making money? How much time spending money? How much time enjoying what I've bought? Now suppose I discover that happiness requires that I have someone to enjoy my aquasitions with. Well, now I have to split my time between making money, spending it, investing time in my relationship, and enjoying what I have. It's getting more complex now and opportunities for conflicts are everywhere. I will become torn between my many priorities.That's why simplicity appears incredibly foolish to a secular world.

If we would live sacred lives and make our time on earth holy, beautiful, and pleasing to God then it's really very simple. Place the Creator/Source of all that is at the top of your priority list. Don't make room for anything else. Even family comes under God (remember family is usually a bunch of people who all have differing opinions on what your priorities should be.) Instead, come to understand what Ancient Israel did in calling God, "The Most High." When God is Chief of your priorities, the rest begin to fall into place. After all, who else who know best how to live life, how to love, and all the while keep it simple, but Life's Great Engineer.

One last thing: R. Foster reminds us that to live simply is not to make simplicity our top priority. God is the Most High. Thus the question is not whether buying something or doing something violates our idea of simplicity. The question is, "What does God wants of us?"

Simple, huh?

- Fr. James+

Lenten Abundance and Joy

From the early days of of the Church, fasting has accompanied the season of Lent. Jesus was in the wilderness, Moses on Mt. Sinai, and Noah on the ark each for forty days. In each story there is imagery of physical scarcity. So it's easy to see Lent as a time of scarcity, an upleasent time when all we talk about is the negative. Give this or that up. Get rid of your sins through repentance. Get rid of your comfort in church by kneeling more. Fast.

But scarcity is only half of what Lent is about. Lent is about emptying ourselves, surely. But Lent is also about being filled back up, too. What we are to be filled up with holiness or with love or with God's presence or with the Holy Spirit or with anything that is good, pure, righteous, and Godly. Thus fasting is not simply about doing without - it's about replacing what we've become dependent on (our idols) with whatever God has in store for us. 

The simple way we do that is to turn to God in some form of discipline whenever we crave what we are fasting.

One of the things I'm fasting is refined sugars since sweets are a comfort food for me. The other day I was craving ice cream as we drove past an ice cream shop. I tried to cleverly entice my wife to pull over and get some. She said to me rather glibly, "Shouldn't you be praying? Didn't you just preach a sermon about how you're supposed to turn to God whenever you crave something?" I was miffed. She was right. I didn't like it. I grabbed the Book of Common Prayer and begun chanting the Great Litany, which goes on forever. "I'll show her!" I thought. I was hoping she would be annoyed. She wasn't. She wanted to join in.

So there we were, driving down the highway chanting the Great Litany as the highway droned under us and cars wizzed by carrying stressed and weary drivers. About halfway through the Litany it really became a prayer for me. I began praying with my wife, to God, for the world. The drone of the chant sank into my soul and the hubbub around me faded. God was here/now. My wife was here/now. I was here/now. I was spending time - really being present - with the two I love most in this world: God and my wife. How beautiful it was! And just think, I could have missed this richness for something as trivial, fleeting, and cheap as ice cream. 

Lent isn't about making ourselves miserable. It's about emptying ourselves, getting rid of the lesser, so that God can fill us up with what is GREATER. Don't miss out by letting Lent pass you by. Take time to fast. In the end, you'll find God has given you more than you started with.

- Fr. James+ 

Beginning Lent

The Christian spirituality of the English peoples (including Angles, Saxons, Celts, Brittons, Irish, Scottish, and Welsh) has long been tied to the seasonal changes of nature. Prior to the arrival of Christianity, religion on the British Isles included worship of the Sun, Moon, planets, and cosmic forces that marked day and night, summer, winter, spring, and fall. With the coming of Christianity and the conversion of so many of the English peoples, seasonal patterns became linked to Christian events. Christ’s birth (Christmas) was associated with the winter solstice, marking the end of the darkest time of year and the beginning of Light’s triumph over darkness. Christ’s resurrection (Easter) became associated with spring, a time of new life, of new birth rising from the dead of winter.

Between Christmas and Easter is the forty day season of Lent. The word “Lent” comes from the Old English “lengten.” It means “to lengthen” and refers to the lengthening of daylight hours as we approach springtime. Lent is a time preparation for the new birth of spring, for the spiritual Resurrection we participate in at Easter and ultimately for our resurrection to eternal life after our death.  

In his second letter, St. Peter, says to us, “What kind of people ought you to be? You ought to live holy and godly lives as you look forward to the day of God and speed its coming.” (2 Pet. 3:11b-12a) I encourage us to set aside these days of Lent as a special time of spiritual challenge, to strive to live holy and godly lives. Stretch yourself. Study, fast, examine your life, give selflessly to others in need, and pray often. As Jesus says, “Be perfect… as your heavenly Father is perfect.” (Matt. 5:48)

Sometimes we will succeed. Sometimes we will fail. And yet neither success nor failure is the point. The goal of Lent is to become ever more aware of how God’s unconditional love, not righteousness or sinfulness, is the foundation of our daily living and the core of our faith.

What is the Season of Epiphany?

January 6th marked the beginning of the church's liturgical season known as Epiphany. The word "epiphany" means a moment of clear understanding, an "aha" moment where everything comes together to finally make sense. In Advent we anticipated the coming of the Messiah who would put things right. In Christmas we witness the birth of the Messiah, though we have little time to ponder what that will mean, only that this is the beginning of the fulfillment of our hope for "peace on earth and [God's] goodwill to [all] people."

Epiphany is the final season of the Advent-Christmas-Epiphany trilogy. In this season we ponder who Christ is, to whom he was sent, and what that will mean for us. In the story of the Wise Men, we learn that the Messiah has come not only for the Jews, but for the Gentiles, not only those near, but those afar, and not only for those "like us", but those who are "not like us." In the Baptism of Christ we discover that we all must convert and be transformed. In Jesus' day, baptism was how a non-Jew became a Jew. It was a radical thing that John the Baptist was calling for the Baptism of all, Jews and Gentiles, as a sign of their repentence. And notice that Jesus, himself, did not escape Baptism. At the Wedding at Cana, we see Jesus' first miracle prefiguring the second sacrament of Communion and its necessity in the Christian life. We also see Mary, mother of Church and first Christian, model the essential Christian response to Christ when she says, "Do whatever [Jesus] tells you."

It is in these and other stories we learn who Christ is and that he was sent from Heaven to gather us, you and me, into the Kingdom of God, through baptism, eucharist, and quintesentially through himself. As the mystical nature of Christ's mission to us becomes clearer to us, we join in having an Epiphany.   

May your Epiphany not be a season only!

Fr. James+