This is an invitation to more dialogue on this subject. Last time I brought this up, there were concerns that I was overstating my case.
As far as I can tell the "biblical case" for talking to the dead in Christ is based upon the teaching of Hebrews which clearly tells us that we are surrounded by the great cloud of witnesses. And a verse in Revelation presents the saints in heaven offering bowls of incense before the lamb on the throne, and those bowls of incense are the prayers of the saints (Rev. 5:8). My question is, "Am I missing anything?" Those Scriptures do not tell us to talk to the saints in heaven, and they do not tell us that they can hear us. Nor do they imply this. And part of our interpretation of these passages needs to include the rest of the apostolic traditions in Scripture.
Paul in particular has numerous occasions where he might make mention of such a reality. He is constantly writing to churches while he is in prison, awaiting trial, and having to deal with the reality of persecution, death of saints, and the doctrine of the resurrection. Why does Paul never make mention of this? And in fact, why does he seem to present things in a way that actually pushes against any notion of prayer to the saints?
Examples:
In Philippians Paul is struggling with whether or not it would be better to live or die. He of course says plainly that to die is gain since that would mean he would be with Christ (1:21-23). But he says that for him to remain in the flesh is better for the Philippians. Staying alive a little while longer, staying in the flesh, means Paul gets to "remain and continue" with them for their progress and joy of faith. But by the logic of prayers to the saints, Paul has it backwards. It would be better for Paul to die and go to heaven so that his prayers might be more effective for the Philippians. The arguments defending invocation of the saints insist that those who have died and gone to be with the Lord are more sanctified and in closer union to the Trinity and therefore their intercessions are that much more potent. But Paul says just the opposite. He says that staying in the flesh is more needful and more useful for the Philippians. Dying does not mean that he will go on to heaven and carry on a more effective ministry on their behalf. Neither does dying mean that Paul will "remain and continue" with them, only via the Holy Spirit. Paul assumes that his death will be a departure from the Philippians and that his ministry to them and for them will change significantly. Do not misunderstand me, Paul is carrying on worship and prayer before the lamb even now, but Paul knows nothing of the doctrine of the invocation of the dead.
Another example is 1 Thessalonians 4. Paul wants the Thessalonians not to be "ignorant" concerning those who have fallen asleep, and he wants to give comfort to those who are alive (1 Th. 4:13-18). First, here's a perfect opportunity for Paul to explain how those who have died in Christ actually can hear us when we talk to them. Here's a perfect opportunity to dispel our ignorance regarding those who have fallen asleep in death. But the comfort that Paul brings is the comfort of the resurrection, the comfort of the promise of Christ's appearing. The doctrine of the invocation of the saints is not the comfort Paul offers. Talking to the dead, far from being an affirmation of the doctrine of the resurrection, actually seems to be at odds with it. We are not gnostics, and therefore the victory of the resurrection of Jesus has only begun to burst out into this world. But the fullness of that victory will occur when I get my body back from the grave. When the worms and maggots are deprived of their gluttonous feasting, then we shall be reunited to speak to one another again. Prior to the resurrection, death is swallowed up in victory because Jesus is risen and he is busy driving death and evil out of this world, but talking to dead people is some form of hyper-preterism. Why do we need the resurrection if death is already done away with? The sting of death is gone; sin does not plague believers and therefore we can die and rest in peace in Christ. But death is still a reality; death does separate us from direct contact with those we love. Lastly, on this Thessalonians passage, Paul uses the description of the dead as being "asleep." I fully grant that this is metaphorical language, and I am not a proponent of the doctrine of "soul sleep." At the same time, the metaphor means something. And if Paul is trying to dispel our ignorance regarding those who have died in Christ, he is in no way suggesting that we ought to pray to them, ask them to pray for us, or in any way try to communicate with them. We don't talk to people when they're taking a nap or in the middle of the night when they're sleeping. The metaphor doesn't invite us to think that we ought to be talking with them. Rather, it invites us to think that we must wait for them to "wake up" at the resurrection.
Ok. Please hear me carefully. I'm throwing these passages out for discussion. I invite honest interaction here. I know I may sound polemic at points, but my point is not to offend anyone or suggest that people who don't agree with me are fools. My point is simply to restate what I've said before. We cannot invoke the saints in faith because God has not invited us to do so in His Word. At best, we are ignorant of how we commune with the departed saints. The biblical writers have countless opportunities to clarify, and they do not ever suggest that we can keep talking to them and they hear us after they have died. They are with Christ, they are worshipping the lamb on the throne, death is swallowed up in victory and we do not mourn like unbelievers, and yes their lives and legacies surround us as a great cloud of witnesses. And yes, in the Holy Spirit we are united together, and all of our lives are hid with God in Christ. Yes, and Amen. But to extrapolate beyond that, that we can and ought to talk to departed saints is to speculate beyond the Word of God.
And if God has not spoken, then we cannot act in faith.
Wednesday, September 03, 2008
Let's Talk More about the Invocation of the Dead in Christ
Posted by Toby at 4:45 PM
Labels: Why I Won't Convert
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
2 comments:
What if instead of the biblical evidence of talking to the dead coming from a direct biblical passage, it is a Christological conclusion?
First, we know that part of being human is being able to hear all our prayers, for Christ as a Man hears our prayers. If a saint has received the fullness of his humanity, he would be able to hear us. Of course, the saints haven’t been resurrected yet, so perhaps this falls short. But it seems the Christological point is important. Christ as man hears our prayers. As He was like us, so shall we be like Him. Including, presumably, the ability to hear prayers.
Second, we know the Church is the body of Christ. As such, we can and should receive the Comforter not only from Christ in his natural body, but also from Christ in his ecclesiastical Body. So, for instance, it says in II Corinthians 1 that we Comfort by sending the Holy Spirit. That means, in the first instance, that we are to look to living breathing Christians to be Christ for us. She has received the Sacrament, and hence is the Body of Christ, and so as she has received Christ as bread, so I can receive Christ as her. I trying to say, I believe, more or less the same thing you were saying in your theology of other people sermons.
But that means we should be able to receive comfort from Christ’s Body, St. Francis, or the Theotokos, or St. Martin Luther. It wouldn’t be idolatry to do so, and indeed would be, in certain circumstances, commended.
Protestants usually agree with this, but conclude we may think about the saints, but not to them. Thus the Augsburg Confession says: “Of the Worship of Saints they teach that the memory of saints may be set before us, that we may follow their faith and good works, according to our calling, as the Emperor may follow the example of David in making war to drive away the Turk from his country.”
But if we are to be comforted by the saints, it doesn’t seem enough think of them in the abstract third person. To actually be comforted by the saint himself, and not merely by his actions, we need to use the personal second person. We must use the second person because it is only in the second person that we adore things above us. In the third person we study static things below us. But our relationship to the saints must be one of adoration, and “worship” not rational control, for they are Christ. If we merely talk about the saints rather than to them, we make the Body of Christ not an object of devotion, but an object of study. We set ourselves over-top mysteries above us. Or we deceive ourselves into believing we are adoring when in fact we are studying, thus imposing a rationalistic world-view.
So on this view, prayers to the saints would be kinda like prayers to the Holy Spirit. The one never commanded, but implied by Triadology. The other never commanded, but implied by Christology.
I’m not quite sure about those passages. It’s really hard to prove something the Bible doesn’t mention is contrary to the Bible, and it seems stronger to say that it isn’t anywhere mentioned and faith doesn’t presume. The arguments you have here seem to be a bit like a Baptist saying “so you think Baptism is important…well…why didn’t St. Paul tell the Philippian Jailer to be Baptized, but only to believe?”
Matthew,
Thank you for your interaction.
As you yourself noted, I think your first point falls short for the very reason you noted: the dead in Christ do not have bodies. They have not yet been raised up from the dead.
On the second point, I would heartily agree that we are to receive comfort and be comfort in the body of Christ. The problem is that once again, the Scriptures always assume that this takes place between persons who can speak to one another, touch one another, and otherwise communicate with one another.
Example: While it is true that I am joined to the saints in China by the Holy Spirit, I do not try to talk to them in my prayers. If one of them called me up on the phone or sent me an email, I would be happy to correspond and interact with them. But just because they are in Christ and part of his Body, I do not assume that I can or should ask them to pray for me, unless we actually establish contact.
The only way living saints in China comfort me directly is through their faithful and courageous examples. And this leads to your last point. The writer of Hebrews does not seem to agree with your linguistic point. He is perfectly fine with the third person and doesn't seem to think it is any less comforting or any less honoring of the body of Christ. Nor is it abstract. The writer of Hebrews lists numerous saints and refers us to the many more of history and says that the stories of those saints, their lives and legacies surround us, and that is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things unseen. Protestants are merely imitating Hebrews. Where is the Scriptural support for the 2nd/3rd person distinction?
Again, I would appeal to the passages I have brought up (and others). I agree that an argument from silence is tenuous, but that is part of my problem with prayers to saints. The RC/EO traditions on this point are built on the silence of Scripture. They are arguments from silence. And the very places where Paul or others have opportunities to give us some hint in this direction, their language and descriptions push us in an entirely different direction.
Post a Comment