Author: Robert Arakaki (Page 58 of 89)

Should Protestants Make the Sign of the Cross? A Response to Pastor Doug Wilson

February 3, 2013 / Robert Arakaki / 38 Comments

In a 30 December 2012 canonwired podcast, Pastor Doug Wilson was asked what he thought about Protestants crossing themselves. Apparently, this question was asked because growing numbers of Protestants have started crossing themselves. In short, Pastor Wilson’s answer was: “It’s lawful, but it’s not appropriate at all.”

He elaborated that it would not be appropriate because it could cause confusion, that is, a Protestant making the sign of the cross might be mistaken for a Roman Catholic.

In this blog posting I will be discussing: (1) the origins of this practice, (2) why many Protestants do not cross themselves, (3) what this gesture means for Orthodox Christians, and (4) the significance of the recent interest among Protestants in this ancient Christian practice.

Fourth century icon of St. Paul

In the Early Church

The origin of the sign of the cross is unknown. It was probably first made on the forehead of those being baptized. It appears that people began to cross themselves during the early liturgies then carried the practice over into everyday life. In time this practice became emblematic of being a Christian. Based on early descriptions we can infer that the gesture was first made with one finger tracing a T or an X on the forehead. Possibly, the early Christians took their cue from Genesis 4:15, Ezekiel 9:4, and Revelation 14:1 and 22:4. Then the gesture took on more elaborate forms with two fingers used to indicate the two natures of Christ or three fingers to indicate faith in the Trinity.

While the origin of the sign of the cross is obscure, it is evident that the early Christians saw it as an integral part of an ancient tradition. The second century apologist, Tertullian (c. 160/170-215/220), defended Holy Tradition by pointing to the sign of the cross as an example of an ancient custom all Christians shared in. Tertullian wrote:

And how long shall we draw the saw to and fro through this line, when we have an ancient practice, which by anticipation has made for us the state, i.e., of the question? If no passage of Scripture has prescribed it, assuredly custom, which without doubt flowed from tradition, has confirmed it. For how can anything come into use, if it has not first been handed down? . . . . At every forward step and movement, at every going in and out, when we put on our clothes and shoes, when we bathe, when we sit at table, when we light the lamps, on couch, on seat, in all the ordinary actions of daily life, we trace upon the forehead the sign. (De Corona Chapter 3)

If the sign of the cross was considered an ancient practice in Tertullian’s time circa 200, we can infer that it was in use in the first half of the second century and possibly as early as the start of the second century soon after the Apostles died.

Similarly, Basil the Great (c. 329-379) pointed to the sign of the cross as a prime example of unwritten tradition. In his On the Holy Spirit Basil wrote:

Of the beliefs and practices whether generally accepted or publicly enjoined which are preserved in the Church some we possess derived from written teaching; others we have received delivered to us “in a mystery” by the tradition of the apostles; and both of these in relation to true religion have the same force. And these no one will gainsay—no one, at all events, who is even moderately versed in the institutions of the Church. For were we to attempt to reject such customs as have no written authority, on the ground that the importance they possess is small, we should unintentionally injure the Gospel in its very vitals; or, rather, should make our public definition a mere phrase and nothing more. For instance, to take the first and most general example, who is thence who has taught us in writing to sign with the sign of the cross those who have trusted in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ? (On the Holy Spirit Chapter 27, §66)

Basil asserted that to omit an established custom on the grounds that it lacks biblical backing or it is trivial would “injure the Gospel in its very vitals.”

In their defense of the sign of the cross Tertullian and Basil the Great anticipated and refuted the regulative principle, i.e., what the Bible does not teach is not to be allowed. The regulative principle being foundational to Reformed hermeneutics points to a fundamental incompatibility between the Reformed tradition and early Christianity. While theologically astute Protestants might point out that the classic form of sola scriptura allows for extra-biblical traditions, a Protestant would not be able to agree with Basil’s assertion that unwritten tradition “have the same force” as Scripture which is how Orthodoxy views the relation between Scripture and Tradition.

Readers who are skeptical of Holy Tradition should keep in mind that Tradition like Scripture did not fall out of the sky but is rooted in the ministry of the original Apostles. In an earlier blog: “The Biblical Basis for Holy Tradition” I examined what the New Testament had to say about the process of handing down oral and written apostolic tradition. In my critique of Keith Mathison’s Shape of Sola Scriptura I argued that the early church fathers did not hold to sola scriptura but to both Scripture and Tradition.

In Everyday Christian Life

The significance of the sign of the cross can be seen in its widespread usage among the early Christians. Tertullian described how early Christians carried this practice into their ordinary day-to-day activities in an attempt to consecrate all aspects of their new life in Christ.

At every forward step and movement, at every going in and out, when we put on our clothes and shoes, when we bathe, when we sit at table, when we light the lamps, on couch, on seat, in all the ordinary actions of daily life, we trace upon the forehead the sign. (De Corona Chapter 3)

Two centuries later, Cyril (c. 310-386), Patriarch of Jerusalem, exhorted the catechumens to incorporate the sign of the cross into the fabric of everyday life. In Lecture 4 of his Catechetical Lectures Cyril exhorted his listeners not to be ashamed concealing their faith in Christ but to be bold witnesses for Christ by signing themselves with the cross openly and publicly.

Let us, therefore, not be ashamed of the Cross of Christ; but though another hide it, do thou openly seal it upon thy forehead, that the devils may behold the royal sign and flee trembling far away. Make then this sign at eating and drinking, at sitting, at lying down, at rising up, at speaking, at walking: in a word, at every act. For He who was here crucified is in heaven above. If after being crucified and buried He had remained in the tomb, we should have had cause to be ashamed; but, in fact, He who was crucified on Golgotha here, has ascended into heaven from the Mount of Olives on the East. (NPNF Vol. 7 p. 22)

The phrase “royal sign” points to the sign of the cross as a flag signaling the presence of the kingdom of God. Christ’s reign requires a visible sign. In World War II, when the Allies retook a town they would take down the Nazi flag and raise the flag of the original state. In Lecture 13 Cyril reiterated how the sign of the cross was to be woven into the everyday fabric of life.

Let us not then be ashamed to confess the Crucified. Be the Cross our seal made with boldness by our fingers on our brow, and on everything; over the bread we eat, and the cups we drink; in our comings in, and goings out; before our sleep, when we lie down and when we rise up; when we are in the way, and when we are still. Great is that preservative; it is without price, for the sake of the poor; without toil, for the sick; since also its grace is from God. It is the Sign of the faithful, and the dread of devils: for He triumphed over them in it, having made a shew of them openly; for when they see the Cross they are reminded of the Crucified; they are afraid of Him, who bruised the heads of the dragon. Despise not the Seal, because of the freeness of the gift; out for this the rather honour thy Benefactor. (NPNF Vol. 7 p. 92)

The phrase “on everything” points to the priesthood of all believers (cf. I Peter 2:9). Just as the Christian clergy consecrated the Eucharistic elements so likewise the Christian laity consecrated their ordinary meals and turned their mundane secular activities into sacred moments that became an extension of the kingdom of God. This fulfills Paul’s cosmic vision in Ephesians of all creation being united under Christ’s rule (Ephesians 1:19-23).

Faith In Motion

The sign of the cross is more than a ritual gesture made with the fingers, it is faith in action. John Chrysostom noted that genuine faith is needed for this gesture to be efficacious:

Since not merely by the fingers ought one to engrave it, but before this by the purpose of the heart with much faith. (Gospel of St. Matthew, Homily 54, NPNF Vol. 10 p. 336)

In making the sign of the cross we affirm visibly and bodily our faith in the Trinity, and we confess the Good News of Christ’s death and his third day resurrection. St. John also exhorts his listeners to sanctify their minds and their souls through the sign of the cross.

This therefore do thou engrave upon your mind, and embrace the salvation of our souls. For this cross saved and converted the world, drove away error, brought back truth, made earth Heaven, fashioned men into angels. Because of this, the devils are no longer terrible, but contemptible; neither is death, death, but a sleep; because of this, all that wars against us is cast to the ground, and trodden under foot. (Gospel of St. Matthew, Homily 54, NPNF Vol. 10 p. 336)

The sign of the cross also promotes our spiritual wellbeing. For example, being insulted can become a stumbling block but making the sign of the cross can help us maintain our spiritual balance.

Hath any one insulted thee? Place the sign upon thy breast, call to mind all the things that were then done; and all is quenched. Consider not the insults only, but if also any good hath been ever done unto thee, by him that hath insulted thee, and straightway thou wilt become meek, or rather consider before all things the fear of God, and soon thou wilt be mild and gentle. (Gospel of St. Matthew, Homily 87, NPNF Vol. 10 p. 518)

Oftentimes when Orthodox Christians encounter a trial or a temptation they will cross themselves and pray: Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me a sinner!

Making the sign of the cross provides the sincere Christian an added boost to his/her prayer. Our bodily actions affect our souls. All too often one feels like one is thinking to one’s self than talking to God but a bodily gesture like kneeling or crossing one’s self changes all that. I suspect that the Puritan attempt to reduce prayer to its bare minimum might have roots in the sola fide. “Faith alone” can be turned into an abstract intellectual faith without good works, and a faith without outward gestures like the sign of the cross or bowing one’s head in worship.

Christus Victor

In the early Church the dominant motif of salvation was Christus Victor – Christ as the one who defeated death and the Devil on our behalf. For the early Christians the sign of the cross was an act of spiritual force. Athanasius the Great (c. 296-373) in his De Incarnatione Verbi Dei discussed how Christians use the sign of the cross as a way of repudiating death.

A very strong proof of this destruction of death and its conquest by the cross is supplied by a present fact, namely this. All the disciples of Christ despise death; they take the offensive against it and, instead of fearing it, by the sign of the cross and by faith in Christ trample on it as on something dead. (De Incarnatione § 27)

The early Christians believed the sign of the cross was a spiritual force that defeated the influence of paganism and idolatry. As an act of faith this sacramental gesture announces that the kingdom of God has come and presents the call to repentance, i.e., to return God the true Creator of humanity and creation. The kingdom of God which has been obscured by the Fall is now made manifest. Or to use the words of the late Protestant missiologist Ralph Winter: “the kingdom strikes back.”

By the sign of the cross, on the contrary, all magic is stayed, all sorcery confounded, all the idols are abandoned and deserted, and all senseless pleasure ceases, as the eye of faith looks up from earth to heaven. (De Incarnatione § 31)

Athanasius linked the sign of the cross with the missionizing of Roman society. Paganism was being overthrown not just by verbal proclamation of the Gospel but also by the manifestation of Christ’s kingdom through the sign of the cross.

Since the Savior came to dwell among us, not only does idolatry no longer increase, but it is getting less and gradually ceasing to be. Similarly, not only does the wisdom of the Greeks no longer make any progress, but that which used to be is disappearing. And demons, so far from continuing to impose on people by their deceits and oracle-givings and sorceries, are routed by the sign of the cross if they so much as try. (De Incarnatione § 55)

Thus, what may look like a quaint church ritual is actually an ancient spiritual practice of considerable potency. With this simple gesture we proclaim the coming of the kingdom of God, the defeat of death, and the renewal of creation.

Summary: While the origin of the sign of the cross is obscure, early Christians regarded it as an integral part of the Christian Holy Tradition. They regarded it as more than a ceremonial gesture used in church but as a vital act of faith in Christ. They saw it as a sign of Christ’s victory over sin, demons, and death, and as a means of consecrating a fallen creation thereby restoring its sacramental character prior to the Fall.

East Vs. West

While the sign of the cross was universal in the early Church, it was by no means uniform. The way Roman Catholics make the sign of the cross is different from the way Orthodox Christians make the sign of the cross. The Roman Catholic fashion is simpler. One simply touches the forehead with the right hand, move down to the chest, then touch the left shoulder and conclude by touching the right shoulder. While making this gesture, one says: “In the Name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Amen.”

Orthodox Sign of the Cross

The Eastern Orthodox style is more complex. One brings the thumb, index finger, and right hand together (symbolizing the Trinity). Then one presses the fourth and fifth fingers against the palm (symbolizing the two natures of Christ). One starts by touching the forehead, move down to the chest, then touch the right shoulder, and conclude by touching the left shoulder. While making this gesture, one says: “In the Name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Amen.”

Behind the differences in the way Roman Catholics and Orthodox make the sign of the cross today is a complex history of divergent practices, misunderstanding, even excommunication!

The Early Reformers’ Tolerance of the Sign of the Cross

Stained Glass of Martin Luther

Martin Luther’s attitude towards the sign of the cross was one of acceptance. In Luther’s Smaller Catechism we find in the section on Daily Prayers that the Christian is to make the sign of the cross before commencing the Morning and Evening Prayers.

Morning Prayer

In the morning when you get up, make the sign of the holy cross and say:

In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Amen. Then, kneeling or standing, repeat the Creed and the Lord’s Prayer. If you choose, you may also say this little prayer:

I thank You, my heavenly Father, through Jesus Christ, Your dear Son, that You have kept me this night from all harm and danger; and I pray that You would keep me this day also from sin and every evil, that all my doings and life may please You. For into Your hands I commend myself, my body and soul, and all things. Let Your holy angel be with me, that the evil foe may have no power over me. Amen.

Then go joyfully to your work, singing a hymn, like that of the Ten Commandments, or whatever your devotion may suggest.

The Lutheran tradition today is quite diverse, but there is a high church strand that retains and favors traditional elements like the sign of the cross, liturgical worship, and icon like stained glass windows.

John Calvin’s attitude seems to have been one of indifference or tolerance. In his Institutes the sign of the cross is mentioned in a quote by Augustine of Hippo pertaining to the sacraments of baptism and the Eucharist. In comparison with Luther, Calvin seems to hold a disdainful attitude as evidenced by his characterizing the sign of the cross as “a superstitious rite.”

Elsewhere, explaining how believers now possess Christ, he says, “You have him by the sign of the cross, by the sacrament of baptism, by the meat and drink of the altar” (Tract. in Joann. 50). How rightly he enumerates a superstitious rite, among the symbols of Christ’s presence, I dispute not; but in comparing the presence of the flesh to the sign of the cross, he sufficiently shows that he has no idea of a twofold body of Christ, one lurking concealed under the bread, and another sitting visible in heaven. If there is any need of explanation, it is immediately added, “In respect of the presence of his majesty, we have Christ always: in respect of the presence of his flesh, it is rightly said, Me ye have not always.'” (Institutes 4.17.28)

While Calvin did not openly oppose the sign of the cross, his disdainful attitude would in time develop into outright opposition by his followers.

The Reformed Opposition to the Sign of the Cross

Where Luther and his followers had an accepting attitude towards the sign of the cross and other liturgical rites, the Reformed movement had a more hostile attitude. This hostility can be found in the Scots Confession (1560) Chapter 20 in a oblique comment made about the need to change ceremonies that “foster superstition.” In the Second Helvetic Confession (1566) Chapter 27 we find a more explicit disapproval.

Therefore, we would seem to be bringing in and restoring Judaism if we were to increase ceremonies and rites in Christ’s Church according to the custom in the ancient church.

Reading between the lines we can see a rejection of rites like the sign of the cross. What is striking about the sentence above is the early Calvinists’ willingness to distance themselves from the early Church. In light of the fact that these two confessional statements were drafted just before Calvin’s passing or soon after indicates that this is not a later development but likely an expression of Calvin’s own views.

King James and Puritans at the Hampton Court Conference 1604

King James and Puritans at Hampton Court (1604)

The views of the Continental Reformers began to extend to England where the Anglican Via Media was in place. The Millenary Petition of 1603, signed by a thousand Puritan ministers and addressed to King James, called for a number of reforms in the Church of England. It called for the cessation of the sign of the cross being made at baptism and people bowing their heads at Jesus’ name during church services. This rejection is consistent with their adherence to the regulative principle in interpreting the Bible – what the Bible does not teach is prohibited, and with their desire to purify or rid the Church of England all “poperies” – anything reminiscent of Roman Catholicism. It is a little curious that the Westminster Confession and the Larger and Shorter Catechisms do not criticize ceremonies or rites, but the fact is the Scots Confession (1560) and the Second Helvetic Confession (1566) are considered major confessional statements for Reformed churches.

Knowing this history helps us to understand the contours of American Protestantism. Much of American Protestantism trace their roots to English Puritanism, e.g., New England Puritanism, Congregationalism, Presbyterianism, Baptist etc., and because of this the mainstream of American Protestantism do not make the sign of the cross. The Lutheran and Anglican traditions which favor or are tolerant of the sign of the cross tend to be on the sidelines of American Protestantism; the Anglicans because they were on the losing side of the Revolutionary War, and the Lutherans because their German ethnic and linguistic heritage differed from the Anglo mainstream. Many of the Protestant denominations that emerged in the 1800s, because they had very little or no knowledge of historic Christianity, tended to reflect the general Protestant attitude of not making the sign of the cross.

The Sign of the Cross in the Orthodox Tradition

Orthodox Crossing Themselves

A visitor to the Orthodox Liturgy will notice that Orthodox Christians make the sign of the cross quite frequently. They may wonder: When are Orthodox Christians expected to the make the sign of the cross? The answer can vary. The basic expectation is that one makes the sign of the cross whenever the Trinity: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are mentioned. Some Orthodox Christians will cross themselves when the Virgin Mary is mentioned. The sign of the cross can also function as a heartfelt “Amen!” to a particular prayer being offered up.

There is no hard and fast rule as to when and how often one should cross one’s self. The main thing is that the gesture be heartfelt and directed to God. I often tell visitors not to feel obligated to make the sign of the cross if they are not Orthodox. They can do it if they wish but they are not expected to do so. One could say that making the sign of the cross is a family practice. It’s something we expect of family members, not guests.

Knowing the differences between the way Orthodox, Roman Catholics, and Protestants view the sign of the cross can be helpful. I usually sit in the back of the church on Sunday mornings because that is where many visitors like to sit. When I see a visitor or a new family I usually watch to see if whether or not they cross themselves, and if they do whether it is in the Roman Catholic fashion or the Orthodox. If the sign of the Cross ends up on the right shoulder usually it’s an indicator that the person is Roman Catholic. Usually, someone not crossing themselves in the Liturgy is a tip off that they are Protestant or that they are not Christian. If they appear to be lost I offer to help them follow the Liturgy.

Should Protestants Make the Sign of the Cross?

Pastor Doug Wilson overstated his answer when he pronounced making the sign of the cross “not appropriate at all” for Protestants. While he may have the authority to speak for his congregation and his denominational group (CREC, Communion of Reformed Evangelical Churches), he has no basis to speak for all Protestants. He could claim that making the sign of the cross is inappropriate for Reformed Christians in light of the Reformed creeds.

Due to historical circumstances the vast majority of Protestants do not make the sign of the cross. I see this as a fact to be accepted, not as an error to be corrected. Protestantism has decided to walk apart from the historic churches. I recognize that a few of the more traditional or high church Protestants make the sign of the cross but they are rare exceptions. When I see someone at an Orthodox liturgy not signing themselves my first guess is that they are likely Protestant. If this individual or family were to start crossing themselves later on, I would interpret this as a sign that they are moving towards Orthodoxy.

If a Calvinist were to ask my view on their doing the sign of the cross, I would encourage them to do so. First, I would point out that the sign of the cross is not confined to any one denomination but was universal among all Christians in the early Church. Second, some of the early Protestant Reformers and some high church Protestants today (Lutherans or Anglicans) maintain this practice. Third, but because it marks a break from the Reformed movement which eschews ceremonialism and outward signs I would caution Calvinists to consider that for them to cross themselves would mark a break from the Reformed tradition. They should do it with a good conscience. And fourth, making the sign of the cross can be a first step towards becoming Orthodox. One can observe an Orthodox Liturgy as a detached observer but to cross one’s self during the Liturgy is to take the first step to active participation in the Divine Liturgy. The sign of the cross enables one to rediscover the classic Christian worldview of creation as a sacrament and the Cross as the means by which the Devil is defeated, the Fall of humanity reversed, and the cosmos redeemed.

Conclusion

The Reformed rejection of the sign of the cross is a good example of throwing out the baby with the bathwater. In their zeal to distance Protestantism from Roman Catholicism, many Reformed Christians were willing to distance themselves from the early Church as evidenced by Chapter 27 of the Second Helvetic Confession and the general attitude. The result has been the severing of Protestantism from its historic roots.

Many Protestants and Evangelicals today have become aware of this disconnect and are seeking to reconnect with their ancient Christian heritage. Some, in reaction to the disembodied cerebral approach to worship, have embraced liturgical worship and the sign of the cross. This interest, even among Reformed Christians, is probably what prompted the question to Pastor Doug Wilson. Not too long ago raising the issue of Calvinists making the sign of the cross would have caused consternation and puzzlement: Why would a Calvinist or a staunch Evangelical want to make the sign of the cross? Why even ask the question? But the landscape of Protestantism has shifted significantly in recent years. Evangelicals and Reformed Christians are now engaging in deep conversation with Roman Catholics and Orthodox Christians. These conversations are stretching the theological paradigms of many Protestants and causing some to ask questions that go beyond the usual theological parameters.

A Question For Protestants

Protestants who wish to reclaim their ancient Christian heritage by crossing themselves will need to ask themselves sooner or later how tightly they want to hold on to their Protestantism. I raise this question because as Tertullian and Basil the Great pointed out the sign of the cross is not grounded in Scripture but in Tradition. This raises the question as to whether one makes the sign of the cross for cool trendy post-modern reasons or because it is part of the ancient Christian Holy Tradition. To embrace Holy Tradition means giving serious consideration to the Orthodox Church’s claim to be the bearer of Holy Tradition.

I close with a quote from Clark Carlton on the ancient-future movement:

There is also a great difference between claiming tradition for oneself and being claimed by tradition. I, along with Webber and the contributors to his book, was perfectly willing to claim the historic Church and the liturgy for my own understanding of Christianity. Yet, I was still in control! I, in true Protestant fashion, was judge and jury of what would and would not fit into my kind of Christianity. I was willing to claim the historic Church, but I had yet to recognize Her claim on me.

Carlton, a former Southern Baptist seminarian who converted to Orthodoxy, came to this startling insight:

Gradually I came to recognize the fact that Holy Tradition has the same claim upon my life as the Gospel itself, for Tradition is nothing other than the Gospel lived throughout history.

Robert Arakaki

Recommended Reading

The late Father Peter Gillquist, an Evangelical convert to Orthodoxy, devoted one chapter of his book Becoming Orthodox, Chapter 9 – “A Sign For All Christians” to the subject of the sign of the cross.

Defending Incense

January 25, 2013 / Robert Arakaki / 20 Comments

A Response to David W.T. Brattston’s “Incense in Ante-Nicene Christianity”

Defending Incense

Dear Folks,

Burckhardtfan brought to my attention David W.T. Brattston’s “Incense in Ante-Nicene Christianity” which appeared in Churchman (vol. 117 no. 3) in 2003.

The article is basically an argument against the use of incense in Christian worship. Brattston opens his article with the bold assertion:

The ante-Nicene Christian documents that have come down to us indicate that ancient Christians did not use incense in their worship at so early a period.

Brattston pursues two lines of argument: (1) there is no evidence that the early Christians used incense and (2) the use of incense was expressly prohibited.

This is of interest to the OrthodoxBridge because incense is an integral part of Orthodox worship. Also, in several blog postings I have argued that the use of incense in Orthodox liturgy is a mark of right worship. In this blog posting I will assess the evidence cited by Brattston and present a defense for the use of incense in Orthodox worship.

Churchman is published by Church Society, a conservative evangelical Anglican organization. People associated with this group include: J.C. Ryle, Geoffrey Bromiley, J.I. Packer, and the late John Stott.

Note: Certain words in quoted texts have been emphasized for the convenience of the reader. Scripture passages are taken from the New International Version.

My Assessment

The first thing I noticed in looking over the article was that Brattston treats the data as if they were all of equal value. He arranges the data into the following categories: (1) Passing Comments, (2) Express Condemnations, (3) Absence of Expected Evidence, (4) Incense in Ante-Nicene Exegesis, and (5) The Exception. However, just because something was written long ago does not mean that it carries great weight. For example, Brattston mentioned Arnobius of Sicca as an early Christian who wrote extensively against the use of incense (p. 226). However, according to the New International Dictionary of the Christian Church (ed. J.D. Douglas), as a new convert Arnobius occasionally lapsed into unorthodoxy. Another source mentioned by Brattston is Tertullian. Because Tertullian is not regarded as a church father his writings need to be used judiciously.

The Orthodox approach is to give the greater weight to the witness of a bishop or a church council over that of a new convert or a theologian whose orthodoxy is in question. The witness of a bishop is given greater weight because the bishops are part of the apostolic succession and because they are responsible for the guarding of the Apostolic Tradition. With people of dubious standing like Tertullian or Origen the Orthodox approach is to cite them cautiously.

Another matter to consider is the context in which a statement about incense is made. There are several contexts we need to consider: (1) polemic against the use of incense in pagan worship, (2) polemic against the use of incense in hypocritical Jewish worship, and (3) polemic against the use of incense in Christian worship. By indiscriminately invoking numerous citations without regard for their context Brattston’s article can bamboozle readers unfamiliar with the church fathers. Therefore, it is urged that the reader take the time to read for themselves not just the passages cited, but also the overall context and background for that passage.

Justin Martyr (c. 100-165)

1. Passing Comments

The first source mentioned is Justin Martyr, a highly regarded second century Apologist who defended the Christian faith against the pagans. Justin opens his First Apology addressing the Roman emperor Titus with the fullest respect. He seeks to refute the accusation that the Christians were “atheists” due to their refusal to participate in the pagan rituals.

In Chapter 13 of his First Apology Justin writes:

What sober-minded man, then, will not acknowledge that we are not atheists, worshipping as we do the Maker of this universe, and declaring, as we have been taught, that He has no need of streams of blood and libations and incense; whom we praise to the utmost of our power by the exercise of prayer and thanksgiving for all things wherewith we are supplied, as we have been taught that the only honour that is worthy of Him is not to consume by fire what He has brought into being for our sustenance, but to use it for ourselves and those who need, and with gratitude to Him to offer thanks by invocations and hymns. (First Apology 13)

The phrase “we are not atheists” tells us that Justin is refuting the offering up of incense to the pagan gods. This tells us that Brattston is taking Justin Martyr out of context. An appropriate context would be if Justin was criticizing incense in Christian worship, but there is no evidence of that.

The second source cited is Athenagoras. Like Justin Martyr, Athenagoras was a highly regarded second century Apologist who defended the Christian faith against the pagans. He opens his Legatio (Plea) by respectfully addressing the Roman emperor Marcus Aurelius by his full name and title. Athenagoras’ opening remark for Chapter 13 makes clear the context:

But, as most of those who charge us with atheism, and that because they have not even the dreamiest conception of what God is, and are doltish and utterly unacquainted with natural and divine things….

Then he explains why Christians abstain from offering up animal sacrifices and incense with the pagans.

And first, as to our not sacrificing: the Framer and Father of this universe does not need blood, nor the odour of burnt-offerings, nor the fragrance of flowers and incense, forasmuch as He is Himself perfect fragrance, needing nothing either within or without…. (A Plea For The Christians 13)

Here again Brattston takes a passage out of context. A polemic against the use of incense in pagan worship does not carry over to the use of incense in Christian worship.

A third source is the Epistle of Barnabas, another highly regarded source. Unlike Justin and Athenagoras’ apologies which were directed to a pagan audience, this anonymous epistle was written for a Christian audience. Attentive reading of Chapter 2 shows that the author is arguing for the superiority of Christian worship over Old Testament worship.

For He hath made manifest to us by all the prophets that He wanteth neither sacrifices nor whole burnt offerings nor oblations, saying at one time; What to Me is the multitude of your sacrifices, saith the Lord I am full of whole burnt-offerings, and the fat of lambs and the blood of bulls and of goats desire not, not though ye should come to be seen of Me. or who required these things at your hands? Ye shall continue no more to tread My court. If ye bring fine flour, it is in vain; incense is an abomination to Me; you new moons and your Sabbaths I cannot away with. These things therefore He annulled, that the new law of our Lord Jesus Christ, being free from the yoke of constraint, might have its oblation not made by human hands. (Epistle of Barnabas Chapter 2)

The Old Testament prophets’ denunciation of animal sacrifices and incense are not to be taken as a total rejection of Old Testament worship, but rather as a denunciation of hypocritical worship. While good, the Old Testament worship was limited and for that reason was superseded by worship under the New Covenant founded by Christ. The closing line for the excerpt above notes that the old was annulled so that new might come. Thus, the Epistle of Barnabas, while it mentions incense, does not criticize the use of incense in connection with Christian worship but in connection with the hypocrisy that plagued Old Testament worship.

Brattston cites his sources chronologically. Moving from early sources to the year 300 he cites Lactantius, a Christian historian and apologist who wrote Divine Institutes for the purpose of demonstrating Christianity’s superiority over paganism. The Catholic Encyclopedia gave a mixed review of this work noting: “The strengths and the weakness of Lactantius are nowhere better shown than in his work. The beauty of the style, the choice and aptness of the terminology, cannot hide the author’s lack of grasp on Christian principles and his almost utter ignorance of Scripture.”

Lactantius wrote in Divine Institutes 6.25:

Also in that perfect discourse, when he heard Asclepius inquiring from his son whether it pleased him that incense and other odours for divine sacrifices were offered to his father, exclaimed: “Speak words of good omen, O Asclepius. For it is the greatest impiety to entertain any such thought concerning that being of pre-eminent goodness. For these things, and things resembling these, are not adapted to Him. For He is full of all things, as many as exist, and He has need of nothing at all. But let us give Him thanks, and adore Him.”

What is interesting about this passage is Lactantius invoking a pagan source to criticize the use of incense in pagan worship. Here Brattston again takes a passage out of context.

Rounding out Brattston’s fourth century sources is Eusebius of Caesarea’s Demonstratio Evangelica. Eusebius is famous for his Church History which is the earliest surviving history of Christianity. His Demonstratio Evangelica is a defense of the Christian Gospel against pagan worship. The word “incense” appears eleven times in Book 1 Chapters 6, 7, and 10, and four times in Book 3 Chapters 1, 3, and 6.

Brattston notes that in Demonstratio Evangelica Book 1 Chapter 6 incense is understood to symbolize Christian prayer.

Malachi as well contends against those of the circumcision, and speaks on behalf of the Gentiles, when he says:

“10. I have no pleasure (in you), saith the Lord Almighty, and I will not accept a sacrifice at your hands. 11. For from the rising of the sun even to the setting my name has been glorified among the Gentiles; and in every place incense is offered to my name, and a pure offering.”

By “the incense and offering to be offered to God in every place,” what else can he mean, but that no longer in Jerusalem nor exclusively in that (sacred) place, but in every land and among all nations they will offer to the Supreme God the, incense of prayer and the sacrifice called “pure,” because it is not a sacrifice of blood but of good works? (Demonstratio Evangelica Book 1 Chapter 6)

That incense is a symbol of our prayers to God is something an Orthodox Christian would readily agree with. However, this does not rule out the use of incense in Christian worship.

In Demonstratio Evangelica Book 3 Chapter 3 incense is referred to in connection with pagan worship. Eusebius argues that without pure motives and elevated thoughts worship was just empty rituals.

But let me now examine the third point—-whether this is the reason why they call Him a deceiver, viz. that He has not ordained that God should be honoured with sacrifices of bulls or the slaughter of unreasoning beasts, or by blood, or fire, or by incense made of earthly things. That He thought these things low and earthly and quite unworthy of the immortal nature, and judged the most acceptable and sweetest sacrifice to God to be the keeping of His own commandments. That He taught that men purified by them in body and soul, and adorned with a pure mind and holy doctrines would best reproduce the likeness of God, saying expressly: “Be ye perfect, as your Father is perfect.” (Demonstratio Evangelica 3.3)

In Demonstratio Evangelica Book 3 Chapter 6 incense was mentioned in connection with pagan magic rituals, not with Christian worship.

And the disciples, who were with Him from the beginning, with those who inherited their mode of life afterwards, are to such an incalculable extent removed from base and evil suspicion (of sorcery), that they will not allow their sick even to do what is exceedingly common with non-Christians, to make use of charms written on leaves or amulets, or to pay attention to those promising to soothe them with songs of enchantment, or to procure ease for their pains by burning incense made of roots and herbs, or anything else of the kind. (Demonstratio Evangelica Book 3 Chapter 6)

In such wise I will conclude this part of the subject. But I must again attack my opposer, and inquire if he has ever seen or heard of sorcerers and enchanters doing their sorcery without libations, incense, and the invocation and presence of daemons. (Demonstratio Evangelica Book 3 Chapter 6)

What is surprising is the fact that Eusebius’ commentary on Malachi in Demonstratio Evangelica Book 1 Chapter 10 supports the Orthodox understanding of worship.

And so all these predictions of immemorial prophecy are being fulfilled at this present time through the teaching of our Saviour among all nations. Truth bears witness with the prophetic voice with which God, rejecting the Mosaic sacrifices, foretells that the future lies with us:

“Wherefore from the rising of the sun unto the setting my name shall be glorified among the nations. And in every place incense shall be offered to my name, and a pure offering.”

We sacrifice, therefore, to Almighty God a sacrifice of praise. We sacrifice the divine and holy and sacred offering. We sacrifice anew according to the new covenant the pure sacrifice. But the sacrifice to God is called “a contrite heart.” “A humble and a contrite heart thou wilt not despise. “Yes, and we offer the incense of the prophet, in every place bringing to Him the sweet-smelling fruit of the sincere Word of God, offering it in our prayers to Him. This yet another prophet teaches, who says: “Let my prayer be as incense in thy sight.”

So, then, we sacrifice and offer incense: On the one hand when we celebrate the Memorial of His great Sacrifice according to the Mysteries He delivered to us, and bring to God the Eucharist for our salvation with holy hymns and prayers; while on the other we consecrate ourselves to Him alone and to the Word His High Priest, devoted to Him in body and soul. Therefore we are careful to keep our bodies pure and undefiled from all evil, and we bring our hearts purified from every passion and stain of sin, and worship Him with sincere thoughts, real intention, and true beliefs. For these are more acceptable to Him, so we are taught, than a multitude of sacrifices offered with blood and smoke and fat.

Eusebius’ concluding line: “So, then, we sacrifice and offer incense….” contradicts Brattston’s argument. In fact, it articulates the Orthodox understanding that true worship must originate from the fear of God and love of one’s neighbors. The Eucharistic sacrifice is an expression of our love for God without which the liturgy would be empty rituals deserving divine condemnation.

Summary: A review of the evidence for the first section fails to support Brattston’s argument against the use of incense in Christian worship. Justin Martyr, Athenagoras, Lactantius, and Eusebius wrote against the use of incense in pagan worship. The Epistle of Barnabas criticized incense being used in hypocritical Old Testament worship. And surprisingly, one of Brattston’s sources, Eusebius of Caesarea, wrote favorably about the use of incense in worship.

2. Express Condemnation

Justin Martyr’s Second Apology was addressed to the Roman Senate for the purpose of refuting the false accusations against the Christians, e.g., cannibalism and immorality. In chapter 5 he describes how the demons led the human race into idolatrous worship and through the offering of libations and incense to the idols. Thus, the expressed condemnation here is in connection with pagan worship, not Christian worship.

The next source Brattston cites is Tertullian, a contentious second century apologist. However, his reputation for theological brilliance must be considered against his later deviations. The question here is: Did Tertullian condemn the use of incense in Christian worship? Brattston’s first citation is Tertullian’s Apology 42 in which he criticizes the burial custom of using frankincense to cover up the smell of the dead body. In Apology 30 Tertullian informs the Roman rulers that the Christian offer prayers on their behalf in the manner of the Christians, not the pagans.

Without ceasing, for all our emperors we offer prayer. We pray for life prolonged; for security to the empire; for protection to the imperial house; for brave armies, a faithful senate, a virtuous people, the world at rest, whatever, as man or Cæsar, an emperor would wish. These things I cannot ask from any but the God from whom I know I shall obtain them, both because He alone bestows them and because I have claims upon Him for their gift, as being a servant of His, rendering homage to Him alone, persecuted for His doctrine, offering to Him, at His own requirement, that costly and noble sacrifices of prayer dispatched from the chaste body, an unstained soul, a sanctified spirit, not the few grains of incense a farthing buys — tears of an Arabian tree—not a few drops of wine,— not the blood of some worthless ox to which death is a relief, and, in addition to other offensive things, a polluted conscience, so that one wonders, when your victims are examined by these vile priests, why the examination is not rather of the sacrificers than the sacrifices. (Apology 30)

Tertullian is arguing that the Christians do indeed pray for the Roman emperor. But unlike the pagans who rely on the perfunctory gesture of a few grains of incense or a few drops of wine, the Christians offer up sincere prayers from their hearts.

Brattston cites Arnobius, a fourth century teacher of rhetoric who wrote Ad Nationes with the intent of exposing the fallacies of pagan worship. Brattston notes that Arnobius “wrote more about incense than all other ante-Nicene Christians combined” (p. 226). But sheer quantity is inadequate if it is not really relevant to the argument one is making. In the case of Arnobius Ad Nationes Book 7 Chapters 26 to 29 numerous references to the use of incense in connection with pagan worship.

We have now to say a few words about incense and wine, for these, too, are connected and mixed up with your ceremonies, and are used largely in your religious acts. (Against the Heathen Book 7.26)

It is clear from reading the passage and their context that Arnobius is attacking the use of incense in connection with pagan worship, not Christian worship.

Summary: A review of the evidence presented in the second section shows that what was condemned was the use of incense in pagan worship. None of the evidence presented here relates to Christian worship. Therefore, Brattston failed to make his argument in section two.

3. Absence of Expected Evidence

Brattston cites Pliny the Younger’s Letter 10.96, Justin Martyr’s First Apology 61, 65-67, and the Didache 8-10 all of which are excellent sources on early Christian worship. He expresses puzzlement over the silence on the use incense in early Christian worship. He takes the silence to mean that incense was not a part of early Christian worship. However, arguing from silence is very problematic, if that were the case.

Ante-Nicene Fathers Series

However, I did find some positive evidence for the use of incense in the Ante-Nicene sources. Volume 7 of the Ante-Nicene Fathers series contains some of the early liturgies: the Liturgy of St. James, the Liturgy of St. Mark, and the Liturgy of Saints Addai and Mari. Because incense pertains to liturgical practices these constitute the most direct and authoritative witness among the Ante-Nicene sources.

The Liturgy of St. James is the oldest Christian liturgy dating back to the first century church in Jerusalem. It is still in use in the Orthodox churches, being celebrated once a year on the feast day of St. James the Lord’s brother. This Liturgy contained 10 references to incense. It contained both rubrics for the priest and the prayers to be said out loud. For example,

Prayer of the incense at the beginning.

Sovereign Lord Jesus Christ, O Word of God, who didst freely offer Thyself a blameless sacrifice upon the cross to God even the Father, the coal of double nature, that didst touch the lips of the prophet with the tongs, and didst take away his sins, touch also the hearts of us sinners, and purify us from every stain, and present us holy beside Thy holy altar, that we may offer Thee a sacrifice of praise: and accept from us, Thy unprofitable servants, this incense as an odour of a sweet smell, and make fragrant the evil odour of our soul and body, and purify us with the sanctifying power of Thy all-holy Spirit: for Thou alone art holy, who sanctifiest, and art communicated to the faithful; and glory becomes Thee, with Thy eternal Father, and Thy all-holy, and good, and quickening Spirit, now and ever, and to all eternity. Amen.

The Liturgy of St. Mark is used in the Patriarchate of Alexandria and among the Coptic churches as well. In the Liturgy of St. Mark are 11 occurrences of “incense.” It contained short prayers like the following:

Accept at Thy holy, heavenly, and reasonable altar, O Lord, the incense we offer in presence of Thy sacred glory.

What is striking about the Liturgy of St. Mark is the way Malachi’s prophecy is blended into the prayer of the Anaphora (Eucharistic offertory prayer):

We offer this reasonable and bloodless sacrifice, which all nations, from the rising to the setting of the sun, from the north and the south, present to Thee, O Lord; for great is Thy name among all peoples, and in all places are incense, sacrifice, and oblation offered to Thy holy name.

Syrian Oriental Orthodox Church

The Liturgy of the Blessed Apostles (composed by St. Adaeus and St. Maris, aka Addai and Mari) contains 5 references to incense. This liturgy dates back to the third century Edessa and is in use among the Syrian Christians. What is notable is that incense is mentioned in the liturgical rubrics for the priest, e.g., instructions for the priest to cense the congregation or the Eucharistic elements.

In addition to the three ancient liturgies is a passage in Eusebius’ Demonstratio Evangelica (Book 1 Chapter 10) which was apparently overlooked by Brattston, and Canon 3 of the Apostolic Canons which will be discussed below. Taken together these form a massive and powerful witness to the use of incense in the Ante-Nicene Church.

Summary: Brattston’s failure to take into account the ancient liturgies of St. Mark, St. James, and Ss. Addai and Mari constitutes a fatal flaw to his argument that there is no evidence in support of incense in Ante-Nicene Christianity. This failure is all the more puzzling in light of the fact that the Ante-Nicene Fathers Series is easily accessible to the public.

4. Incense in Ante-Nicene Exegesis

One of the strongest arguments for the use of incense in Christian worship can be made from the Old Testament. Rather than give a balanced overview of the biblical evidence in support of incense in Old Testament worship and in opposition, Brattston focuses on Old Testament passages critical of the use of incense. It is important to keep in mind that Ante-Nicene Old Testament exegesis was influenced by the growing antagonism between Christianity and Judaism. So in reading the Ante-Nicene commentaries on Old Testament passages one must ask whether the writer’s motive was to critique the Jews’ worship practice or that of the Christians.

Altar of Incense in Old Testament Worship

A balanced approach would have started off noting that incense was an integral part of Old Testament worship and was even commanded by God himself. This can be seen in Exodus 30:1 where Yahweh instructs Moses:

Make an altar of acacia wood for burning incense.

Incense was not an occasional feature of Old Testament worship but offered at least twice a day:

Aaron must burn fragrant incense on the altar every morning when he tends the lamps. He must burn incense again when he lights the lamps at twilight so incense will burn regularly before the Lord for the generations to come. (Exodus 30:7-8)

Incense was part of the historic pattern of Old Testament worship. It began under Moses, was continued during the time of the prophet Samuel (1 Samuel 2:28), King David (1 Chronicles 28:18), then King Solomon (2 Chronicles 2:4). By the time of Isaiah the prophet, the moral situation in Israel had deteriorated to the point that Temple worship had become a farce. This explains Isaiah’s sharp denunciation: “Your incense is detestable to me.” (Isaiah 1:13) John the Baptist’s father, Zechariah, was offering incense in the Temple when the angel Gabriel appeared to him (Luke 1:8-11). In this passage there is no hint of criticism about the use of incense.

As far as the spiritual significance of incense, I would fully concur with that. But would that be an argument against incense?

As far as the Epistle of Barnabas 2:4-5 and Isaiah 1:13 are concerned the divine judgment is not directed against the offering of incense and animal sacrifices but the hypocritical use of them. It would be like a husband who is cheating on his wife bringing home an extra nice bouquet of roses as a sign of his ‘love’ for her. Because of his hypocrisy the sign of affection becomes highly offensive and repugnant.

Note: Brattston cites Malachi 1:33 but that chapter has only 14 verses. I find it disturbing that he makes a basic mistake like that and that the magazine editors did not catch the mistake.

Brattston discusses Irenaeus of Lyons’ interpretation of Malachi 1:11:

“My name will be great among the nations, from the rising to the setting of the sun. In every place incense and pure offerings will be brought to my name, because my name will be great among the nations,” says the Lord Almighty.

Irenaeus is regarded as one of the more important early church fathers. Brattston assumes that Irenaeus wanted to exclude incense from Christian worship, but he gives no evidence to support this assumption. An attentive reading of Against Heresies Book 4 Chapter 17 shows that Irenaeus wanted to prove the inadequacies of Jewish worship and the superiority of Christian worship. This can be seen first in the section heading: “Proof That God Did Not Appoint The Levitical Dispensation For His Own Sake, Or As Requiring Such Service; For He Does, In Fact, Need Nothing From Men.” Greater proof can be found by Irenaeus himself.

For from the rising of the sun, unto the going down [of the same], My name is glorified among the Gentiles, and in every place incense is offered to My name, and a pure sacrifice; for great is My name among the Gentiles, saith the Lord Omnipotent;”—indicating in the plainest manner, by these words, that the former people [the Jews] shall indeed cease to make offerings to God, but that in every place sacrifice shall be offered to Him, and that a pure one; and His name is glorified among the Gentiles.

The point Irenaeus is making here is for the superiority of Christian worship over Jewish worship. There is no evidence of the practice of offering up incense passing away with the old dispensation, rather Malachi foretells that incense would continue into the new dispensation.

In light of the absence of evidence that Irenaeus was trying to discourage Christians from using incense in Christian worship Brattston’s argument here falls flat.

Hippolytus of Rome, a highly regarded Christian theologian of the third century, is well known for his Apostolic Tradition. Brattston makes his argument from Hippolytus’ commentary on the highly allegorical Song of Songs and Blessing of Moses. Brattston argues: “From the extensive reference to literal incense in this Commentary [Song of Songs], we should expect at least one allusion to its use in Christian worship if it had a place there.” (p. 229) As noted earlier, arguing from silence is not a strong argument.

Another source Brattston relies on is Origen, the brilliant but erratic third century theologian. Because he held to questionable ideas like the pre-existence and transmigration of souls the Orthodox Church does not regard him as a Church Father. Apparently in his homilies on Leviticus, Origen seeks to provide a spiritual interpretation of the Old Testament in order to prove the superiority of Christianity over Judaism.

Brattston discusses the Apostolic Canons, a collection of decisions and rubrics governing life and worship in the early church. Its significance can be seen in the fact that it was endorsed by the Council in Trullo in 692. There is an interesting reference to incense in Canon 3 which supports the use of incense in the early liturgies:

If any bishop or presbyter offer any other things at the altar, besides that which the Lord ordained for the sacrifice, as honey, or milk, or strong-made drink instead of wine, [the text here varies] or birds, or any living things, or vegetables, besides that which is ordained, let him be deposed. Excepting only new ears of corn, and grapes at the suitable season. Neither is it allowed to bring anything else to the altar at the time of the holy oblation, excepting oil for the lamps, and incense.

Brattston notes that Hippolytus’ Apostolic Constitution contradicts the Apostolic Canons stricture on the bringing of milk and honey to the Eucharistic table and from that inconsistency argues that the authority of these sources must be regarded of limited utility. While there may be some variation in early liturgical practices, the text before us appears to allow for incense in early Christian worship. If so, then this is another early witness to the use of incense in early Christian worship!

Summary: The prophetic denunciation of incense used in connection with hypocritical Old Testament worship does not constitute a prohibition against incense in Christian worship. Neither does the allegorical meaning of incense constitute a prohibition its use. Moreover, one of Brattston’s sources, Canon 3 of the Apostolic Canons, provides an early witness to the use of incense in early Christian worship!

5. The Exception

In the “Exception” Brattston draws on the Gnostic writing, the Second Book of Jeu/Jeux. Given the fact that it is a heretical document outside of the Christian mainstream, it has no place in the article. It would have been understandable if the author was doing a historical survey, but irresponsible or distracting if he is attempting to make a theological argument.

My Response

The first thing to note is that the Bible talks positively about the use of incense in the Old Testament Tabernacle (Exodus 30) and there is no indication of it being abolished in the new covenant. While the Old Testament prophets issued strong denunciations of hypocritical worship, in no way did they issue a blanket condemnation of incense.

https://blogs.ancientfaith.com/onbehalfofall/2012/06/23/st-paul-and-the-works-of-the-law/

Coptic priest censing the altar

The other is the prevalence of the practice among the historic churches. Incense is used occasionally at Roman Catholic Masses. It is a normal part of Orthodox worship. At a nearby Coptic Church I have seen the whole sanctuary become hazy with the smell of incense. The fact that these three ancient Christian traditions use incense in their liturgies provides a powerful witness to the antiquity and universality of incense in Christian worship. So when we juxtapose the current liturgical practices of these historic churches with the liturgical documents from the Ante-Nicene period we are confronted by antiquity and universality of incense in Christian worship. Applying the Vincentian Canon criteria of “everywhere, always, by all,” the case can be made that incense is part of the Great Tradition of the Church.

Incense at Catholic Mass

This leads to a theological method: lex orans, lex credens – the rule of prayer is the rule of belief. The way Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and the Oriental Orthodox Churches worship is a powerful support for the use of incense. Brattston’s method is to rely heavily on written texts. This is consistent with his training as a lawyer and with the Protestant theological method. But it is at odds with the way the early Church did theology. The early Church did not use the Protestant principle of sola scriptura. In the early centuries the biblical canon was still in flux. The early Church relied on the Tradition of the Apostles. Scripture was part of that Tradition, as well as an oral tradition concerning doctrines, worship practices, and holy living. All this came together in the weekly Eucharist where the Scriptures were read and exposited on.

Conclusion

Brattston made two arguments. First, he argued that there is no evidence that the early Christians used incense. But I found ample positive evidences that disprove this. Eusebius in Demonstratio Evangelica Book 1 Chapter 10 wrote: “So, then, we sacrifice and offer incense.” Furthermore, the liturgical rubrics found in Apostolic Canons Canon 3 allowed for incense to be brought to the altar. Even more significant is the fact that abundant references to the use of incense can be found in the ancient liturgies of St. James, St. Mark, and Ss. Addai and Mari. Second, Brattston argued that the use of incense was expressly prohibited by the early Christian writers. However, a review of the material shows that he took the writings out of context. The polemics against incense by early Christians were directed mostly at the use of incense in pagan worship. A few references were directed against the hypocrisy associated with Old Testament worship and written to show the superiority of Christian worship over Jewish worship. Brattston presented not a single shred of evidence of an early church father objecting to the use of incense in Christian worship.

Regretfully, this article is deeply flawed. Much of the sources were taken out of context or not relevant to the purpose of the article. In addition, Brattston argues from silence, a highly dubious form of argumentation. Even more distressing is the fact Brattston overlooked contrary evidence in the very sources he did cite.

The author’s note provided at the end of the article identifies David W.T. Brattston as an adjudicator (judge) of the Small Claims Court of Nova Scotia, Canada. His training is in the field of law, not church history or Christian theology. His mishandling of the patristic sources is painfully evident to anyone who reads the sources for themselves. His condensed style of writing makes the reader heavily reliant on Brattston’s characterization of the content and context. If there is one positive aspect of Brattston’s article it is his detailed references which made double checking his claims easy to do.

In closing, I believe that culpability for this article lies not so much with the author as with the editors of Churchman who should have vetted the article more diligently before irresponsibly publishing it. I call on the editors of Churchman to retract this poorly researched article which misleads and misinforms people about the early Church.

Orthodox Deacon Censing

Why Incense Matters

Incense matters because it is a marker of right worship. The prophet Malachi made three predictions about the Messianic Age: (1) Yahweh’s Name would be glorified universally among the Gentiles, (2) pure sacrifices would be offered in Yahweh’s Name, and (3) incense would be offered up everywhere (1:11). This prophecy was fulfilled when Christ sent his Apostles to all nations (Matthew 28:19-20) and the Apostles celebrated the Liturgy (Acts 13:1-2).

Thus, incense connects Old Testament worship with Christian worship. Just as incense was part of Old Testament worship so too it was part of Christian worship. It has been a part of the historic Christian worship. However, this pattern began to unravel with the Protestant Reformation. While more traditional or liturgical Protestant churches still use incense, under the influence of Puritanism and low church Protestantism incense began to be neglected or denigrated. In recent years Protestants have become aware of the loss of their historic heritage. However, attempts by the ancient-future movement and emergent churches to appropriate elements of ancient liturgical worship like incense and liturgies fall short because these are add ons rather than rooted in their church tradition. The key question for Protestants is whether they are ready to return to the ancient paths of Christianity. The prophet Jeremiah declared:

Stand at the crossroads and look;

Ask for the ancient paths,

Ask where the good way is, and walk in it,

And you will find rest for your souls.

(Jeremiah 6:16)

For Protestants who feel they have lost their way, incense can serve as a marker guiding them back to the ancient paths of Christianity.

Robert Arakaki

Crossing The Bosphorus

January 15, 2013 / Robert Arakaki / 138 Comments

The Bosphorus Strait

With its many denominations Protestantism is no stranger to people changing churches, but there is something deeply unsettling about a Protestant family deciding to move over to a nearby Orthodox parish. The phrase “swimming the Tiber” or “crossing the Bosphorus” alludes to the deep chasm separating Protestantism from the two ancient traditions of Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy. Constantinople, the site of Orthodoxy’s leading patriarchal see, is located next to the Bosphorus, a narrow strait that separates Europe from Asia. Thus, there is a certain aptness to the Bosphorus as a symbol of the divide between Orthodoxy and Protestantism.

In this blog posting I will discuss the significance of switching over from Protestantism to Orthodoxy. I will be using three issues to explore the Protestant versus Orthodox divide: the authority to interpret Scripture, the visible church as the true church, and the meaning of Communion. I will also discuss the reactions Protestants looking into Orthodoxy may encounter from their fellow Protestants and give advice to Protestants thinking about becoming Orthodox.

Relinquishing Sola Scriptura

Protestantism is based on the doctrine of sola scriptura (the Bible alone). A corollary to sola scriptura is “soul competency,” the notion that the individual Christian is competent to interpret Scripture for themselves because they have the Holy Spirit in them as a result of the born again experience. While historic Protestant churches have tempered this view by insisting on a learned clergy and confessional statements like the Westminster Confession, all these were jettisoned on the American frontier in the early 1800s. This gave rise to an extreme version that eschews learned clergy and creeds. This view is popular among Evangelicals and other conservative Protestants today. All across Protestantism, regardless of denomination, the authority to interpret Scripture is assumed to rest with the individual. You join a church because they have the same understanding of the Bible as you do, and because doing so is consistent with your conscience. For Protestants there is no universally binding doctrinal authority apart from Scripture.

One reason why converting to Orthodoxy is so unsettling lies in the fact one must reject the notion of soul competency which accompanies sola scriptura and submit to the Church’s teaching authority. Orthodoxy claims that because it has received and preserved the Apostolic Tradition it has the right interpretation of Scripture (II Thessalonians 2:15). This claim is supported by the lists of episcopal succession for the various patriarchates such as Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria, and Jerusalem. Furthermore, the Orthodox Church claims that Christ’s promise that the Holy Spirit would guide the Church into all truth (John 16:13) was fulfilled in the formation of the biblical canon and the Ecumenical Councils. It was at the Seven Ecumenical Councils that the Christian Faith was affirmed and heresy rejected. And it is thanks to the early Church that we have the Bible we have today.

Many Protestants troubled by Protestantism’s doctrinal anarchy have reached the conclusion that sola scriptura as a theological method is unworkable. This has led them to seek doctrinal stability in the older Christian traditions. This quest for doctrinal stability has led many to the Orthodox Church. Questions about sola scriptura were what precipitated the theological crisis that led this author to Orthodoxy.

Accepting the Visible Church

The Orthodox Church’s claim to be the true Church is a second reason why Protestants crossing over to Orthodoxy is unsettling. This is contrary to the widespread belief among Protestants that the true church is the invisible church comprised of all born again Christians. Basically, it means that the true Church is everywhere and nowhere. In contrast, Orthodoxy asserts that the true Church can be found in the visible entity called the Orthodox Church.

Orthodoxy believes that there has always been one Church. The Church has never been divided into two or many branches. Such a notion contradicts Christ’s promise that he would build the Church upon the rock (Peter’s proclamation that Jesus is the Christ) and that the gates of hell would not prevail against the Church (Matthew 16:18). For this reason the belief by some Protestants that the early visible church fell into apostasy and corruption leaving only an invisible faithful remnant is heresy. Similarly, Orthodoxy rejects the branch theory that the true Church can be found among either Orthodox, or Roman Catholic, or Anglican churches.

The troubling implication here is that Protestant churches are not really churches and that to be a Protestant is to be outside the true Church. In Protestantism if one’s belief changes then one change churches through a letter of transfer of church membership. This is a common practice done all the time. But in the case of a Protestant becoming Orthodox, a letter of transfer is null and void. To become Orthodox one must go through the sacraments of conversion: baptism, chrismation, and Communion.

Recently many Evangelicals have reacted to the extremes of the invisible church view and embraced the high view of the church espoused by Calvin and other Reformers and the ecumenical movement’s vision of restoring visible church unity. Among them are some who claim to be more “catholic” than the Catholic Church! They view doctrinal differences between Protestantism and Orthodoxy as arbitrary lines drawn in the sand, unnecessarily divisive and obstructive to “true” church unity. They believe that we can enter into ecumenical dialogue, negotiate our differences, and make compromises and adjustments that will result in church unity. An Orthodox Christian can only be skeptical of such a claim. To take this route is to define the Church according to what we want rather than following Apostolic Tradition. Because Orthodoxy will never compromise Holy Tradition this kind of ecumenical venture is unfeasible.

The Meaning of Holy Communion

There are two things Protestants find disturbing about the Orthodox approach to Holy Communion. One is that Orthodoxy believes that in the Eucharist we feed on Christ’s body and blood. This is something all the early Christians believed, but sadly many Protestants today believe that Holy Communion is just a symbolic reminder of Christ’s death. More traditional or high church Protestants might protest that they too like the Orthodox Church believe in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. But this claim is highly suspect in light of the fact that they lack bishops and have no apostolic succession. Without apostolic succession there is no covenantal authority to perform the Eucharistic sacrifice.

When I was a high church Calvinist (Mercersburg Theology), I strongly believed in the real presence of Christ in the Lord’s Supper. But one day I realized: “They’re right. It’s just a symbol. It’s a symbol because it’s not the real thing. It’s not the real thing because there’s no valid priestly authority to consecrate the elements.” I was at an InterVarsity Christian Fellowship student retreat when I had this realization. InterVarsity is a parachurch organization, but as I began to think about the more established Protestant churches I realized with a sinking feeling in my stomach they were in the same boat as InterVarsity – lacking proper covenantal authority that comes from apostolic succession.

Furthermore, the claim to a valid Eucharist is suspect in light of the fact that much of Protestantism is at odds with the Seven Ecumenical Councils. For example, to use the Filioque version of the Nicene Creed is in violation of Canon VII of the Third Ecumenical Council (Ephesus 431) which prohibits alteration to the Creed. To refuse to honor Mary as the Theotokos (Mother of God) is to reject the Third Ecumenical Council (Ephesus 431). To refuse to venerate icons is to reject the Seventh Ecumenical Council (Nicea II 787). In light of these numerous deviations from the Ecumenical Councils it is highly doubtful that Protestantism can claim doctrinal agreement with the early Church. There can be no valid Eucharist where heresy is embraced and promulgated. And even if a person or a congregation did agree with all of the above points, they would need to be in communion with the five ancient patriarchates: Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem, endorsed by the Ecumenical Councils (see Canon VI and VII of Nicea I (325), Canon III of I Constantinople (381), and Canon XXVIII of Chalcedon (451)). (Note: It is tragic that the Schism of 1054 has resulted in Rome’s departure from the ancient Pentarchy. While Orthodoxy disagrees with the Roman Catholic Church, it recognizes its episcopal lineage as one going back to Saints Peter and Paul.) Thus, unless one is in communion with one of the ancient patriarchates one’s link to the early Church is imagined and not real.

Another unsettling fact is that Orthodoxy practices closed communion, that is, Communion is reserved only for those who belong to the Orthodox Church. Lutherans or Anglicans who hold a high Christology and affirm the real presence in the Eucharist become upset when they learn that they are barred from receiving Communion in an Orthodox Church. They view this as a judgment on their faith in Christ but this is not the case. In Orthodoxy receiving Communion means that one accepts the Tradition of the Church and that one submits to the magisterium (teaching authority) of the Orthodox Church in the person of the local bishop. For me to receive Communion at Saints Constantine and Helen Greek Orthodox Church in Honolulu puts me under the authority of Metropolitan Gerasimos of San Francisco and in communion with Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople. Therefore, communion in Orthodoxy is not just a matter of being in doctrinal agreement with the bishop but submitting to his authority as well.

Becoming Orthodox

The general pattern in the Greek Orthodox Church is for Protestants to be received into the Orthodox Church through the sacrament of chrismation and the receiving of Holy Communion. Prior to that the priest will ask for evidence or documentation that one has been baptized in the name of the Trinity, that is, baptized in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Most Protestant denominations follow this practice, but some baptize in Jesus’ name (e.g., Oneness Pentecostalism); for Orthodoxy this is not a valid baptism. Similarly, a baptism done in a liberal church using inclusive language like: Parent, Child, and Holy Spirit, will be rejected. Some Orthodox jurisdictions, like the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, are especially strict and will insist that all Protestants and even Roman Catholics be baptized for reception into the Orthodox Church.

As much as one might desire to become Orthodox, the decision is made by the priest with the approval of the bishop. Some Orthodox priests will insist that one attend the Liturgy for at least a year to show one’s seriousness about becoming Orthodox and in order to learn what Orthodoxy is all about. Other priests will want you to attend a 24 week class along with regular Sunday attendance. The priest is concerned not just with how much doctrine you understand, but also with your commitment to the worship life of the Church, your willingness to accept the spiritual disciplines like fasting, and your willingness to submit to the authority of the Church.

The Orthodox attitude towards people wanting to become Orthodox is that of welcome and caution. We want people to become Orthodox, but we also want them to realize the seriousness of the commitment. We often counsel patience in the case of people who are married and have children. We prefer the whole family become Orthodox in due time rather than the father becoming Orthodox right away with the wife and the children remaining Protestant. Orthodoxy believes that God intended the family to be a spiritual unity. Conversely, a spiritually divided household falls short of the ideal. Oftentimes patient waiting can result in a greater blessing for more people. That is why sitting down with the priest is so critically important. Letting the priest guide you in transitioning to Orthodoxy is a key step in learning to humbly submit to pastoral authority (Hebrews 13:17).

Due Diligence

Warren Buffet – Investment Guru

The famous investment guru, Warren Buffet, before making a major purchase in a company does due diligence. He researches the company’s history, its performance record, as well as its assets and liabilities. To not do this is irresponsible. Similarly, with respect to having the right faith and ensuring the spiritual well being of one’s family, it is important that due diligence be done before converting to Orthodoxy.

Pancake Breakast

I recently had pleasant breakfast conversation with ‘Jim’ who was raised in an ethnic Orthodox parish. Because there was very little emphasis on explaining the Orthodox faith in that parish, he drifted over to Calvary Chapel. Recently, he started looking into Orthodoxy and was pleasantly surprised to find the spiritual and biblical depths of Orthodoxy. While strongly drawn to Orthodoxy and thinking about returning to Orthodoxy, ‘Jim’ is at the present time still a Protestant. Some of his Calvary Chapel friends became quite concerned and warned him that he might lose his salvation. In our conversation over pancakes and coffee we talked about the Bible and the Orthodox faith. He is, as he puts it, doing “due diligence” by studying Orthodoxy and looking carefully at the Scriptural and historical evidence. I admired the wisdom of his approach and recommend this for others.

Folks considering becoming Orthodox should at a minimum do the following:

- Read basic works like Timothy Ware’s The Orthodox Church,
- Attend the Divine Liturgy several times,
- Meet one on one with an Orthodox priest, and
- Complete a catechism class if offered.

Joining the Orthodox Church is a lifetime commitment. It is more than agreeing with a theological system; it also entails a commitment to a way of life and submission to the teaching authority of the Church. Unlike cults, clerical authority in the Orthodox Church is circumscribed by Holy Tradition. There is no secret hidden Tradition. Neither will there be a new doctrine or a new marriage ceremony coming down from the denominational headquarters. Everyone in the Orthodox Church, from the newest convert to the bishop, is constrained by Holy Tradition. And just as important everyone, both laity and clergy, is responsible for guarding Holy Tradition.

Protestants who read a lot or have gone to seminary may find it harder to become Orthodox. They have a lot more to unlearn. It took me several years to review my Protestant beliefs and come to the point where I could sincerely and intelligently renounce my Protestant beliefs. (I could not in good conscience do a theological lobotomy.) Having gone to a leading Reformed seminary and majored in church history I knew that the core of Protestant theology rested on the five solas: sola scriptura, sola fide, sola gratia, solus Christus, and soli Deo gloria. It was the questions about sola scriptura that started my theological crisis, but it was sola fide that was the straw that broke the camel’s back. When I reached the conclusion sola fide was based on a misreading of Scripture and was never taught by the early church fathers, I realized that my days as a Protestant were over.

How much does one need to know before one becomes Orthodox? If becoming Orthodox is like getting married, then the catechumenate is like courtship. During the dating phase you check out the other person, you find out what they’re like, their likes and dislikes, you spend time with them, and then you ask yourself: Do I want to spend the rest of my life with so-and-so? Becoming Orthodox is really about making a commitment to Jesus Christ the head of the Church. Everything in Orthodoxy is for the purpose of uniting us with Christ. The Liturgy is not just a beautiful ceremony; we receive the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist. Whenever we behold the Virgin Mary, we see the one who said: “Do whatever He (Jesus) tells you” and whom the Church honors as the Mother of God. So the basic question is: Is this the Church founded by Jesus Christ?

Many inquirers come to Orthodoxy with theological concerns. However, it is important to keep in mind that Orthodoxy is more than a theological system. It leads us into the mystery of God. Orthodoxy teaches that beyond our conceptual understanding of God is the mystical encounter that is beyond words. We come to a true knowledge of God through worship. That is why the Divine Liturgy lies at the heart of Orthodoxy. There is an ancient saying: “If you are a theologian, you will pray truly; if you pray truly, you are a theologian.” This emphasis on mystical knowledge in Orthodoxy stands in contrast to the Western Christian tradition which emphasizes scientific study of the biblical text and reliance on logic for doing theology.

Transitioning to Orthodoxy

A Quiet Border Crossing (closing scene – Sound of Music)

My transition from Protestantism to Orthodoxy was gradual and low key. My former home church had several Sunday morning services. I would often attend the 7:30 service then head over to the Greek Orthodox Church for the 9:30 Liturgy. When the priest offered an Orthodoxy 101 class on Thursday night I would go without raising any eyebrows. This is the Nicodemus stage of quiet inquiry (John 3:1-2). The main value of the Thursday night class was that I could find out whether I had a good grasp of what Orthodoxy was about.

For me the biggest obstacle to becoming Orthodox were issues like sola scriptura, icons, and sola fide. I handled the problem like any good graduate student, I wrote research papers. To my great surprise Orthodoxy was indeed biblical in its teachings. I remember the moment when sola scriptura fell apart and I said to myself: “My God! I’m going to have to become Orthodox!” When sola fide fell by the wayside, I met quietly with the leaders of the church and shared with them my decision to become Orthodox. I also gave them the opportunity to talk me out of it. Part of me desperately wanted them to talk me out of it because I knew becoming Orthodox would change our relationship in very fundamental ways. Unfortunately the Evangelical response was not a vigorous one. I remember the dean of a local Evangelical seminary responding to my paper on sola scriptura by asking: “Have you read Packer’s Fundamentalism and the Word of God?” My response was a mildly exasperated: “Yes, I’ve read Packer, so what about my critique of sola scriptura?” I didn’t hear anything more from him. My pastor wasn’t able to rebut my critique of sola fide. I remember thinking in my head in dumbfounded amazement: “That’s it!?!? You mean I’m going to have to become Orthodox?!?!” Even now I find myself baffled and disappointed by the unwillingness of many Protestant pastors and theologians to defend the basic tenets of Protestantism.

Going Through Customs

Going Through Customs

A common experience when travelling abroad is going through customs. One purpose of customs to prevent contraband items from entering the country. When I was received into the Orthodox Church the priest asked me: “Do you renounce all heresies, ancient and modern?” This was a big question because it meant not just the ancient heresies of Arianism and Nestorianism but also Protestant doctrines like sola scriptura and sola fide, dispensationalism, double predestination, congregationalism etc. I was ready for that question because I had read up on Orthodoxy, attended the Liturgy, attended the catechism class, and spoke with the priest. For me there was no surprise, I knew that there would be big changes but I was prepared. Becoming Orthodox did not mean I rejected my Evangelical past. I took with me many good things from Evangelicalism: a love for studying Scripture, the discipline of daily prayer, and a passion for world evangelism.

Once I met with a former Protestant who had converted to Roman Catholicism. For some strange reason he didn’t know about the Pope’s infallibility when he joined the Catholic Church. Later when he was reading the official catechism he learned that anyone who did not accept the Pope’s infallibility was a heretic. ‘Hank’ told me he sat there stunned with the realization that in the eyes of the Catholic Church he was a heretic, but he stayed on because of his godson. It was a short breakfast meeting, but as I drove to the airport I reflected on his perplexing story. Two thoughts came to me: (1) he was probably catechized by folks who glossed over some of the more difficult aspects of Roman Catholicism, and (2) “‘Hank’ you were snookered!” The lesson to be learned is that leaving Protestantism is going to be a costly decision and one needs to have done the necessary due diligence prior to making that change.

Border Crossings

We live in interesting times. There once was a time when hardly anyone knew about the Orthodox Church. But that is changing as growing numbers of people become interested in Orthodoxy and even go so far as to become Orthodox. But why the change? I suspect that it is due to massive changes in the Protestant landscape following World War II. Up till then, denominational lines remained stable but that began to change dramatically. Now we have Fundamentalists discovering Calvin, and Calvinists rediscovering the church fathers; we have Pentecostals becoming Anglicans, and we have Evangelicals becoming post-Evangelicals or Emergent Christians. In addition to all this confusion is the growing apostasy among the mainline Protestant denominations.

The situation today is much like the early days of the Cold War before the Iron Curtain came down. In the early days the borders were relatively open. Many families quietly packed their belongings and crossed the border in the dark of the night. But as growing numbers of people began to leave, the authorities became alarmed and finally began erecting the infamous Berlin Wall to keep their people in.

A Family Moving

Similarly, many Protestant families today quietly say goodbye to their friends and start worshiping at a nearby Orthodox parish. There are reports of a growing uneasiness in certain leadership circles. Interest in Orthodoxy or in icons and the saints is discouraged or viewed as drifting away from the true faith. People expressing an interest in Orthodoxy are warned that they could be in danger of losing their salvation. In such a situation a chill is in the air and a feeling of distrust comes between once close friends. In some churches they come under closer pastoral surveillance, pressured not to stray from the true faith, and even excluded from certain functions in the church for fear that they might infect others with their interest in Orthodoxy.

I am glad in that my former home church provided me with a warm Christ centered fellowship where I could study Scripture, and read up on theology and church history. I found it quite frustrating that many of my Evangelical friends were not able to understand the questions I had about the basis for Protestant theology. So when I became Orthodox, many were surprised and a little confused, but we remain friends. My experience has been more like a friendly border crossing. I picked up my belongings and one Sunday morning I crossed the border into the Orthodox Church.

Refugees Fleeing

I feel sad for those whose transition has been marked by suspicion and judgment. It is my hope that open relations between Protestants and Orthodoxy will not be replaced by a Cold War atmosphere marked by barbed wires and aloof guards with grim stares. Barbed wires and restricted exit are signs of defensiveness and tyranny. An open and healthy society is marked by hospitality to strangers and mutual respect among its members. More preferable is a Glasnost in which Protestants can read up on the early church fathers and the Ecumenical Councils, and investigate the issues of icons, the Virgin Mary, and liturgical worship. In this period of openness curious Protestants should feel they have the freedom to visit the Orthodox worship services and come back with questions about what they saw. The best defense is not: “Those people are wrong!” but “Come and see!”

The Pearl of Great Price

Someone reading this blog posting might be thinking to themselves: “Why would someone give up all the benefits of Protestantism to become Orthodox?”

The Glorious Pearl – Domenico Fetti

My answer is Matthew 13:44-45:

The kingdom of heaven is like treasure hidden in a field. When a man found it, he hid it again, and then in his joy went and sold all he had and bought that field.

Again, the kingdom of heaven is like a merchant looking for fine pearls. When he found one of great value, he went away and sold everything he had and bought it. (NIV; emphasis added)

If the Orthodox Church has kept the teachings of the Apostles intact for two thousand years, if there is only one true Church, and if the Eucharist is truly the body and blood of Christ given for you, wouldn’t that be enough reason to come home to the Church of the Apostles?

Robert Arakaki

Author: Robert Arakaki (Page 58 of 89)

Should Protestants Make the Sign of the Cross? A Response to Pastor Doug Wilson

Defending Incense

Crossing The Bosphorus

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Categories

Archives