Often, we find many of our fellow Christians looking down upon us with disdain due to the fact that we do not follow their expectations of us, expectations which are not based upon basic Christian morality, such as the way of love, but rather due to some obscure preferences they have which they want everyone else to not only embrace, but follow in a legalistic fashion. This often happens in liturgical debate; we find in them that there are many who want to undermine and reject recent liturgical development as they would have us follow some previous form of liturgical development, thinking only that form is valid (or, if not the only one which is valid, at least superior to all other forms). Even if it is not the form of the liturgy itself which is in question, it is often things which are done during the liturgy which becomes an issue of debate. Legalists believe there should be only one way to do things, often thinking that what they were raised with or saw done in the immediate past is that way (as they also believe it was the way things have always have been until recent changes). They will not listen to anyone who can demonstrate to them through historical documents that their preference was not how things were always done, as can be seen in the way many who say communion should only be received on the tongue. While, again, there was a time in which that was the norm, before that norm, it was the norm for communion to be received in the hands, showing changes can occur (and, when this documents are explored, there are often good reasons for those changes, such as, for example, an attempt to stop the spread of COVID in recent years).
Often, the liturgical form or practice before the current one becomes romanticized and turned into an absolute which should once again be embraced; those who do this will use the differences between the two to suggest changes are inferior, if not invalid, and so should be rejected. Some will also do so for other things, such as spiritual discipline, or even, cultural norms, all of which change over time, with some people becoming upset about those changes. This was something which we find Paul encountered in his time, but again, in a situation which differed from ours, for, in his time, the ancient forms and practices in question were Jewish ones. The Christian community accepted and embraced its Jewish heritage, but also saw itself transformed, not only because of Christ, but also because many who became Christian were Gentiles. One of the earliest questions the Christian community raised was whether or not Gentile converts should be expected to follow specific Jewish laws and customs, with the answer being determined, they do not need to do so. Gentiles have their own cultural backgrounds and traditions, elements of which were acceptable and can be embraced by the Christian community; they do not need to embrace the way of pre-Christian Judaism as they were not Jews, and what was specifically established for the Jews, was not meant for everyone. This is why it was determined that Gentile converts did not need to be circumcised, however, some Christians ended up taking up circumcision as some romanticized, legalized absolute meant for all so that they told Gentile converts they needed to be circumcised. Paul strongly refuted this mindset, not because he rejected the value which can be found in Jewish traditions; rather, he rejected the way some Christians undermined those traditions by trying to universalize them when they never were meant to be universalized. What was important, what was universal, would be found in and with Christ and the transformation Christ brought to the world. Thus, he said, when we are challenged and told to embrace some sort of legalism which takes us way from the grace and liberty of Christ, we should embrace Christ, not the legalism:
See with what large letters I am writing to you with my own hand. It is those who want to make a good showing in the flesh that would compel you to be circumcised, and only in order that they may not be persecuted for the cross of Christ. For even those who receive circumcision do not themselves keep the law, but they desire to have you circumcised that they may glory in your flesh. But far be it from me to glory except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world. For neither circumcision counts for anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation. Peace and mercy be upon all who walk by this rule, upon the Israel of God. Henceforth let no man trouble me; for I bear on my body the marks of Jesus. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit, brethren. Amen (Gal. 6:11-18 RSV).
It is not the marks of the flesh, it is not exterior forms, which matter, it is the marks of Christ, and the transformation which takes place in us with and through grace, which matter. It doesn’t matter if someone is or is not circumcised; what matters is if someone joins themselves to Christ (in baptism) and let Christ live in them.
What matters, therefore, in the liturgy, is that the liturgy connects us to Christ, and through Christ, with each other. What matters is the way of Christ, which is the way of love, not legalism. We can have our preferences, but we must not confuse our personal preferences as being anything other than that, our own preferences. Sometimes, externals develop in ways to meet the needs of others more than ourselves; when that happens, we must accept those developments, looking for and holding to the way Christ and Christ’s love and grace, knowing that they are preserved, even in ways which we do not prefer. We must hold to what lies beyond all the symbols, beyond all the externals, to the encounter with Christ and the grace which we receive in that encounter, so that through that encounter we will find the marks of Christ developing in ourselves.
We are to take on Christ’s love and engagement with others where they are at, recognizing liturgical developments work for that purpose, knowing cultures and cultural understandings of different actions changes over time. We must not, like Lot’s wife, merely look to what happened before and become stuck; rather, we must let the Spirit to guide us forward. When we realize this, we can properly understand the reaction of Paul, and some of the early church, in regards the way they dealt with those who tried to limit and restrict Christianity to Jewish cultural norms. The problem was not Judaism and its ways, but the attempt to restrict Christianity to one cultural form, even if it was a form connected to the Jews and the central role they had with salvation history. Sadly, Christians lost sight of this, and started to take Paul’s arguments as being hostile to the Jews and the tradition, so that they thought they should likewise be hostile; this line of thought ended up with the creation of anti-Semitism in the church, and ungodly hostility to the Jews which continues to be a problem within Christianity to this day. As Christian anti-Semitism grew, Christians understanding of Paul became more and more warped, so that, in the end, Christians ended up doing the opposite of what Paul intended, as they created a new form of legalism, one which treated the differences from the Jews as absolutes which must be upheld (with the belief the best way to do that is to undermine the Jews and their traditions). Instead of following Christ and his way of love, Christians not only embraced hate, but the violence which comes from such hate. Thus, to confront this tradition of anti-Semitism, we must make it clear: Paul did not want Christians to be anti-Semitic, to look at the Jews with hate; he would have been horrified to see that as the consequences of his words, for he continued to love and value the Jewish traditions and believed the Jews had a special history and relationship with God which all should recognized. What Paul wanted us do is make sure we do not try to confine God, which is what legalism does, for when we enforce such legalism, we end up undermining God’s grace in our lives.
Stay in touch! Like A Little Bit of Nothing on Facebook.
If you liked what you read, please consider sharing it with your friends and family!
N.B.: While I read comments to moderate them, I rarely respond to them. If I don’t respond to your comment directly, don’t assume I am unthankful for it. I appreciate it. But I want readers to feel free to ask questions, and hopefully, dialogue with each other. I have shared what I wanted to say, though some responses will get a brief reply by me, or, if I find it interesting and something I can engage fully, as the foundation for another post. I have had many posts inspired or improved upon thanks to my readers
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In