The Church has several rites it performs. The typical term is "sacraments". They're things we do to memorialize and set apart some events. There are things like baptism and marriage. One of these is the "Eucharist", the "Lord's Supper", "Communion". Another -- although you won't ever see this one listed in any list of sacraments -- is "the Lord's Day".
These last two are different than others. We are to be baptized once and married once. That's it. But Communion and the gathering on the Lord's Day are ongoing. Of the Lord's Supper Jesus said "As often as you drink it, do this in remembrance of Me." It is a repeated reminder, not a single event. And we gather on the first day of the week as part of a apostolic tradition as a repeated reminder, not a single event.
Of course, it would seem wise, then, to remember what we are trying to remember. What do these two reminders point to? The first is Christ's death. Communion reminds us of His body, broken for us, and His blood, shed for us. It is a reminder of the "new covenant" in which that Christ died for our sins. It is a reminder of the cost of our sin and the love of the Lord and the price He paid to redeem us. It is a reminder that he who is forgiven little loves little, and the price He paid for us was not little. A constant reminder.
And we gather on the first day of the week because it is the day that our Lord completed the task of saving us. He rose again on the first day of the week. He is alive. His Resurrection declares to us His victory over sin and death, the victory that He imparts to us. It declares the certainty that nothing, not even the grave, can stop Him from saving us and bringing us to be with Him. It is the beginning of the great "Hallelujah!" because it is the absolute confirmation that our Lord God Omnipotent reigns.
Baptism is a good thing, an essential thing. It demonstrates our joining with Christ in His death and resurrection. It speaks to us of dying to sin and rising cleansed, of no longer being a slave to sin, but a slave to righteousness. That's good. And marriage sets apart that relationship of two-become-one, that mysterious union that is the image of the union of Christ and the Church. Important things to remember. But the two things we as Christians want and need to be repeatedly reminded of are the death and the resurrection of our Savior. All good things hinge on those two events. We assure people that we will never forget the victims of 9/11. I'm pretty sure we will. But the death and resurrection of Christ are things that we must never forget. So let's not allow the repeated reminders to become stale and cause us to forget what they are supposed to make us remember. Christ died for us, and He's alive!
12 comments:
Say, I've never asked you, (or if I did I forget), what do you think of the church tradition spoken of in the first part of I Cor 11?
The tradition that God is the head of Christ, Christ is the head of man, and man is the head of woman? I'm in favor of it. But I'm guessing that you're asking about head coverings. Since I'm not at all clear what "head coverings" means (Is he talking about hats, hair, what?) and I'm not at all clear about "long hair" (define "long", since that changes through the ages), I'm not at all clear about the concept. I do believe that women should not present themselves in a disgraceful or defiant manner or in a way that mimics the prostitutes of the day. I know of some groups that require women to wear hats to church. This makes no sense to me. "Hats" were not in view. A "head covering" is something that covers the head. It is a veil. I know of no one that requires women to wear veils to church. But I suppose I've offered a vague answer to a vague question.
Well, yes ;)
For an overview of what I believe the passage teaches, as well as what the church has historically taught, you could read my post here:
http://vonstakes.blogspot.com/p/what-i-believe-headcoverings.html
BTW, where do you find anything about 'the prostitutes of the day' in the text?
The "prostitutes of the day" thing obviously comes from extrabiblical stuff I've read.
I read (some) of the link you included. (It's really quite long, and most of it is telling me what others think.) You explained that you believe that Christian women must literally have their heads covered at church or other meetings with Christian women. You understand it to be a symbol of authority (and, therefore, the failure of women everywhere to do so is a failure of authority).
You did not explain what the covering was. 1 Cor 11:6 seems to indicate that it's hair. Others (including Henry and Sproul) demand that it be a veil. Some have suggested hats. All say that it is a "symbol of authority". (I find it odd about Sproul. Having been to his church and seen that neither his wife nor the other women in his congregation wear veils, I wonder what's up with that?) Your issue appears to be authority. You didn't clarify your position on what the head covering must be. Nor did you indicate in what sense a head covering in today's society would be perceived as a symbol of authority as I find it unlikely that it would be today and since the indication in the passage is exactly that -- an indication.
Nor did you indicate in what sense a head covering in today's society would be perceived as a symbol of authority as I find it unlikely that it would be today and since the indication in the passage is exactly that -- an indication.
The reason that I brought up the prostitutes thing is to reinforce the fact that the actual reasons given in the text say nothing about prostitutes, or what the surrounding culture thinks about the headcovering (which is the other argument that is often used).
I compare it to several of the Jewish laws. God meant things by having the Jews act 'funny'... not eat pork or shellfish, not wear clothes of mixed cloth, etc. But I certainly don't read that as 'the surrounding cultures already know what it means when a group of people don't eat pork: it means they have been chosen as a special people by God. I think it is the opposite, God designs the symbol, and then God filled the symbol with meaning.
I see the same thing with the headcovering. God designed the idea that women should wear something on their head (the linguistics absoloutely don't work for the idea that the actual covering talked about is long hair, but that is a subject for another post) to symbolize their submission to their husband. He did not first look at the surrounding culture and ask Himself 'how do they symbolize authority to their husbands'. He decided what symbol to use, and He mandated it. And the church, up until the mid 1900's, followed that mandate.
I was not aware that the women of the church up until the 20th century wore veils.
Yup. Indeed you will still remember the echo of it with 'Easter Bonnets'. African Christian women (like, in Africa) still do.
http://www.scrollpublishing.com/store/head-covering-history.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_headcovering
BTW the word is 'headcoverings'. Different groups over the years have interpreted that phrase differently, from hats to full veils to what you might see with the Amish or whatever.
Yes, I'm aware of those who have insisted on hats for women. I'm also aware of those who have insisted that "head covering" was hair, and the women of those groups were required to keep their hair long. However, the proponents of this understanding of "head covering" that you included all understood it to mean "veil", not "hat" or hair. Thus my comment. I was unaware of the commonplace use of veils in the Christian Church prior to the 20th century.
Ummm, no. You seem to be making a tripartite division where there are two. One group, a modern group, insists on long hair... basically reading that back into the earlier verses.
The other group, the historical view, insists that the head covering is something external, that can be taken on or off, that literally covers the head. They make no doctrinal distinction between hats, scarves, veils, etc.
And so, for example, a man would be required to take off *his hat* for service or prayer even in a church where the women wore *a veil*.
So it's your understanding that if a woman has her head covered (hat, "veil" of any type, whatever) that the people around will see it as a "symbol of authority".
Fortunately, I'm pretty sure after all this discussion about veils, head coverings, and it's relevance today we've pretty much forgotten all about the post -- "Remember". Yeah, that's pretty much forgotten by now.
Actually im pretty sure that god commands the headcovering as a symbol of authority. And my post ws a btw post
Post a Comment