Council of Jerusalem Guidelines

I mentioned a couple of times last year that I was leading a Bible study working through the Acts of the Apostles. During that time, Paul Pavao over at The Rest of the Old, Old Story was writing a series of posts working through books of the Bible (he was also recently recently kind enough to advertise this blog).

When my Acts of the Apostles Bible study was just beginning, Paul wrote a post about the Council of Jerusalem which is found in Chapter 15 of Acts. The Council of Jerusalem was the first recorded council of Church. The apostles and elders of Jerusalem were called together to respond to an issue concerning the Gentile converts to Christianity. Did a Gentile convert need to be circumcised? Did he have to become a Jew before he could become a Christian?

Twelve Apostles

The Council’s Response

At the Council there was extended discussion around the issue before Peter stood up and affirmed that the Gentiles did not need to be circumcised. St. James then said:

Therefore my judgment is that we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God, but should write to them to abstain from the pollutions of idols and from unchastity and from what is strangled and from blood. – Acts 15:19-20

In his blog post, Paul wrote:

“The council decides that they will ask just four things from the Gentiles, and they make it clear that circumcision is not necessary for the Gentiles. There may be people who understand why those specific four things were chosen, but I’m not one of them.”

In the comment section of the article I offered my two cents, saying:

“I’ve always seen the requirements from the Council of Jerusalem as measures to ease tensions between Jews and Gentiles in the Church.

“If I was a lifelong Jew who subsequently recognized Jesus as the Messiah I may find it hard to get used to the relaxed restrictions of the New Covenant. I may be a little sensitive about it, so if my gentile brothers and sisters could refrain from consuming strangled meat, food sacrificed to idols and blood, it would be far more likely that family harmony would be maintained.

“Just a thought”

As my own Bible study progressed towards Acts 15, I had the opportunity to do a little bit of research looking at this question and to dig into it a little more…

Read more

Sunday Lectionary: A Talent Worth Sharing

Thirty-Third Sunday in Ordinary Time: November 13, 2011

The readings this week continue with the theme of the Second Coming, particularly focusing upon how we should “spend” our time waiting for the Lord to return…

In the First Reading we hear praise of the “worthy wife”. She is holy, conscientious and industrious. In the Second Reading, St. Paul explains to the Thessalonians what we learnt in last week’s Gospel, that the Lord will come when we least expect, but also that He should find us ready. In the Gospel Reading this readiness is spelt out in concrete terms – we should be using our God-given gifts in the service of the Master. He will someday return and we shall be called to account concerning our stewardship of His gifts…

Read more

Protestantism: Agreeing on essentials?

Reformers

When Catholics critique the contradictory beliefs held in different parts of the Protestant world, we are often told that “Protestants agree on all the essentials”. A statement like this, of course, this begs two questions:

1. Which doctrines should be considered “essential” and which “non-essential”?

2. Who gets to make that categorization?

The second question is particularly important. Who gets the final say as to what is “essential” and what is “non-essential”? After all, what happens when two Protestants disagree on what is “essential”?

To pick an example from the dawn of the Reformation, Luther and Zwingli came into conflict concerning their respective understandings of the Eucharist, so much so that this ruptured their relationship. Could we still say that these two fathers of the Reformation agreed on “essentials”?
Read more

Produce one chapter like it?

I was recently having a discussion online with a Muslim and he said “The Qur’an even tells you exactly how to disprove it if you’re in doubt of its authenticity, so if no one has disproved it in 1440 years, and you can’t disprove it”. Here he was referring to the Qur’anic challenge to “produce a chapter like it”, as evidence that the Qur’an is of divine origin. 

I have to say, this challenge is bizarre for a number of reasons… 

Firstly, the challenge is rather light on details! Do we have to produce it in Arabic? What does it mean to be “like” the Qur’an? What objective criteria can we use to measure it? How do we know when the test has been fulfilled?

Secondly, entire websites devoted to poetry in the Qur’anic style. Why do these fail the test?

Thirdly, it’s just an odd argument. Even if I couldn’t produce something like the Qur’an, it doesn’t mean it’s divine. I can’t produce a Beethoven Symphony or a Shakespeare sonnet either!  Even if Muhammad was the only person in history to produce something like the Qur’an, I still don’t see why that would demonstrate it’s divine. Alternative explanations would be that Muhammad was uniquely skilled, or you could even suggest that it comes from a nefarious spiritual source.

Personally, I think the poetry of Kahlil Gibran greatly superior to the Qur’an, both in terms of beauty and wisdom. The English is great and I’m sure the original Arabic is as well. 

You don’t know Jack

I was recently a guest on two episodes of The Counsel of Trent podcast to talk about C.S. Lewis. We spent the first episode simply talking about his life. Lewis was a man who left an indelible mark on the Twentieth Century. However, despite being such an influential figure, today many people only know him for his Chronicles of Narnia, and almost next to nothing about the man himself. 

Therefore, in this article I would like to introduce you more fully to the man behind the Lion, and the author behind works which have deeply shaped modern Christianity and apologetics. If you would like to listen to the audio version of these articles, click here.

1. He wasn’t English

Often I have found people assume that C.S. Lewis was English, particularly if they have listened to one of the few remaining audio recordings of him. Lewis was, in fact, born in Belfast, Northern Ireland in 1898. He was, however, educated in England and lived in Oxford for most of his adult life.

2. He had several names…

He was baptised Clive Staples Lewis, but that wasn’t what his friends called him. When Lewis was about four, his dog, Jacksie, died. From then onwards, he stubbornly refused to respond to any other name, although it was eventually shortened to “Jack”. This is why the name of my podcast is Pints with Jack, the “Jack” in question being C.S. Lewis himself.

3. Jack experienced tragedy as a child

Lewis’ mother died of cancer when he was ten. He writes about it movingly in his spiritual autobiography, Surprised By Joy, describing it as follows:

“…all settled happiness, all that was tranquil and reliable, disappeared from my life”

C.S. Lewis, Surprised By Joy

The young Jack was soon afterwards sent to boarding school in England. He disliked England immediately and hated most of his schooling, so much so that in his autobiography, he names one of the schools he attended after one of the most notorious World War Two concentration camps, Belsen. Fittingly enough, the headmaster at that school would later be committed to an asylum.

4. Lewis wasn’t always a Christian

Most people who have heard of Lewis will know that he was a famous Christian of his generation. However, he was not a Christian all of his life. He was raised in the Church of Ireland, but became an Atheist as a teenager. There were several reasons for this…

Lewis loved the old Pagan myths, particularly those of the Norse. As he received his education in classics, he was told that Paganism was all false, whereas Christianity was entirely true. Not only did this assessment seem wrong to the young Lewis, but since he saw clear parallels between the two, he assumed that both Paganism and Christianity were simply fanciful stories. 

Like many who embraced Atheism, the problem of pain and suffering also loomed large in Jack’s mind. He couldn’t reconcile a good God with the world he saw around him or with the pain he himself had endured in his life. He would often quote the Epicurean poet Lucretius who wrote:

Had God designed the world, it would not be
a world so frail and faulty as we see

Lucretius (Epicurean Poet)

5. He was a war veteran

Jack fought in World War One. In fact, he arrived at the front line on his nineteenth birthday. After being wounded in combat about a year later, he returned home. 

During his training he had met a young man named Paddy Moore. The two had agreed that if one of them died, that the other would look after his family. Unfortunately, Paddy did not return from the trenches. Lewis was true to his word, living with and taking care of both Paddy’s mother, Janie, and Paddy’s sister, Maureen, for the rest of his life.

6. Jack was really, really clever…

Upon returning to Oxford after the war, Lewis excelled in his studies, earning multiple degrees. He got a First in Greek and Latin literature (“Moderations”), Philosophy and Ancient History (“Greats”), and finally in English.

It’s clear that Lewis was very intelligent, particularly when it came to language. He was, unfortunately, terrible at mathematics. In fact, his inability with numbers nearly barred his entrance to Oxford. Fortunately, upon returning from war, his military service granted him a dispensation from those exams.

7. He became a theist before becoming a Christian

Over time, Lewis started to become discontented with the imaginative and explanatory power of Atheism. He had originally embraced Atheism, in part, because of the cruel and unjust nature of the universe. However, as he would later argue in Mere Christianity:

…how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust?

C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity

Jack moved through a number of philosophical evolutions before he finally accepted the inevitable. In his autobiography he writes:

You must picture me alone in [my] room…, night after night, feeling… the steady, unrelenting approach, of Him whom I so earnestly desired not to meet. That which I greatly feared had at last come upon me. [I eventually]…gave in, and admitted that God was God, and knelt and prayed: perhaps, that night, the most dejected and reluctant convert in all England”.

C.S. Lewis, Surprised By Joy

He was not yet a Christian, but the seeds had already been sown…

8. He really loved his friends

Contrary to some depictions of Lewis, he was not an isolated stoic academic. He loved good beer and good conversation. He really loved his friends and they would play a huge role in his life, particularly J.R.R. Tolkien, the author of The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings. In fact, Tolkien fans owe a great debt of gratitude to Lewis, as he was for a long time the only audience for these works and he did much to encourage Tolkien to finish them and get them published. Unfortunately, Tolkien disliked much of Lewis’ work, even The Screwtape Letters, a book which Lewis dedicated to him! 

Many other names could be added to the list of Lewis’ close friends, such as Hugo Dyson, Charles Williams and Owen Barfield. All of these men shared a love of literature. In The Four Loves, Lewis would write:

Friendship is born at that moment when one person says to another: ‘What! You too? I thought I was the only one!’

C.S. Lewis, The Four Loves

Later these men would come together to form The Inklings, a literary discussion group where they would debate ideas and where they would read their work to each other. They would meet on Tuesday mornings in their favourite pub, The Eagle and Child, affectionately known to locals as The Bird and Baby, but they would also meet on Thursday nights in Lewis’ rooms at Magdalen College where they’d have a drink and smoke.

9. Speaking of smoking, Lewis really loved tobacco

I recently came across a biography of Lewis which estimated that he smoked sixty cigarettes a day! Now, since I’m marginally better at mathematics than Lewis, I sat down and worked out that, assuming he was awake for 14 hours a day and that it takes approximately five minutes to smoke a cigarette, that he spent a third of his waking life smoking!

Last year I visited Lewis’ home and although they had repainted the walls in the living room, they left the ceiling untouched so you could see how it was thoroughly stained by the nicotine!

10. His friends helped bring him to Christ

After converting to Theism, Lewis began to suspect that Christianity might be true. However, it was after a long, late-night conversation with Tolkien and Dyson that the last major obstacle was removed. Lewis had regarded Christianity as a myth like any of the other Pagan myths – “lies breathed through silver” – emotionally moving, but false.

Owen Barfield, Tolkien, Lewis and Charles Williams

Over the course of their conversation, Tolkien and Dyson helped Lewis see that Christianity was the true myth. For centuries before Christianity, man’s myths had intuited a dying and rising God. However, in Jesus of Nazareth, that myth became fact.

That’s the end of the first part of this series! The concluding part will be published tomorrow…

Part 1 | Part 2

Quick Apology: Making present again?

I’m going to take a break from my “Quick Apology” series concerning Mary and Saintly Intercession. Today’s “Quick Apology” will be a very brief and concern the Eucharistic liturgy…

Objection

The Catholic Church teaches that, in the Eucharist, the sacrifice of Calvary is made present again. In response to this, some Protestants object in this way:

“How can you say the sacrifice of calvary is made present again? The Epistle to the Hebrews says that His sacrifice was once for all. He’s no longer bleeding…”

Obviously, there is a lot that could be said in response to this, but how might we respond briefly?

Response

In reply to this objection, sometimes I challenge Evangelicals over the very language they use in talking about salvation. Don’t they often talk about “being washed in the blood”, upon accepting Christ as their personal Lord and saviour? However, given the objection they raised above, isn’t there a problem? Hasn’t Jesus stopped bleeding? Wasn’t His sacrifice 2,000 years ago?

When Evangelicals talk about “being washed in the blood”, they’re talking about the the grace of the cross being applied to their souls in time in a real, substantial way. Given this, is the idea of the Eucharist being a participation in Calvary really that alien?

The Passion

1 80 81 82 83 84 137