Learning from the “Sacramentalists”: Weaknesses of the Commemorative Ordinances View

I issue apologies for last time and issue them ahead of time in this post. Labels are tricky. Usually they are misnomers. It is a bit inaccurate to associate the Baptist view of the sacraments with Zwingli, who retained infant baptism (though the Anabaptist movement did begin among Zwingli's followers in Zürich who simply disagreed with the Reformer on the mode and subject of baptism but not on the spiritually "dry" nature of it, and, of course, one can argue that adult baptism is the logical development issuing from Zwingli's understanding of the nature of faith and his radical duality between spirit and matter.)

The "sacramentalist "label I utilize this time is liable to get me in trouble from the Reformed direction because it sounds too Catholic, but thankfully Scott Clark, Michael Horton, and the other radical Puritans do not read my blog even though I read theirs (though, duh, 1) who am I that they would read me, and 2) I read those guys primarily for comedic purposes anyway).

I must also note that it almost feels as if I take everything I offered as potential strengths of the commemorative ordinances view back in critiquing it, but I would offer that those things still are commendable even if emphasizing them too much can lead us into trouble. Such, however, is the nature of the entire theological enterprise, hence the things I'm always muttering about "balance." Now to my list. Please note there will be more personal prognostications and theologizing in this list than in the last one, as I am in apologetic mode for my position. Plus, some of my points require explanation:

1. That Baptist common sense, of which the commemorative ordinances view of baptism and the Lord's Supper is part, is often a good old-fashioned virtue. Sometimes, however, we are called on to repent of our virtues. That Baptist common sense is partially an un-biblical Cartesian brand of common sense that marks a wide gulf between spirit and matter. For instance, I bring forward the short version of the Southern (and I mean Southern) Baptist catechesis about baptism: "Water don't do nothin’ for you. If you ain't already saved, you go down a dry sinner and you come up a wet one." Absolutely, baptism is not effective for salvation if it is unaccompanied by present or future faith in Christ. What this fails to grab hold of, though, is the way signs and symbols, rites and rituals, and group belonging and identity can strengthen, form, and even create faith in individuals. Through baptism and the Lord's Supper, God can plant, water, and nourish seeds of faith and activate them for regeneration. Do we doubt that God's Incarnation as Jesus Christ, Christ's physical death and resurrection, God's Word spoken and read, and human messengers to bring the Gospel are indispensable to bringing us to saving faith and in causing that faith to grow and be nourished through sanctification? Matter matters and God has repeatedly used it throughout salvation history to reveal himself, accomplish his redeeming purposes, and communicate his salvation to his people.

2. The commemorative ordinances view of the sacraments presupposes an understanding of God's workings in the material and temporal spheres of existence that denies the angels' confession that "heaven and earth is filled with his glory." Modern evangelicals, even Calvinist ones, have conceived of God's work in the world and even in the visible church in ways that smack of Gnosticism, Platonism, and/or Deism. Basically, earthly, material existence is governed by the laws of nature and spiritual existence is governed supernaturally by God. This is not a biblical viewpoint. In spite of the Fall, God still actively governs the world. As Calvin has it, we should not think of ourselves as being nourished by food through the self-perpetuating, God-independent natural process of digestion but by the God who miraculously converts dead food into life and energy for our bodies. Of course, I am not denying biology or laws of nature, but nature could not function without the God who sustains all things by his power. The "death of God" theologians of the 60's were foolish to suppose that the universe would not dissolve into nothingness if God were to empty himself of his being.

3. Continuing in this line of thought, the commemorative ordinances view of the sacraments seems to be part and parcel of a truncated understanding of the scope of salvation and the means through which God communicates that salvation to us.

I will preface my explanation of that point by saying that Christians who hold the commemorative ordinances view of the sacraments are very good about getting the absolutely essential, first-order points of the Gospel right. Salvation is for the souls of individual people, and the salvation of the world begins with the spiritual salvation of individual people. Indeed, we are the firstfruits of cosmic salvation, because, as the spiritual condition of humanity goes, so goes the rest of Creation. Also, people are most assuredly added to the Kingdom by ones and by grace alone through faith alone.

However, where modern evangelicals and even classical, sacramental Protestants go wrong is in limiting salvation to human beings and in applying it almost exclusively to the spiritual capacities of human beings. God means to redeem every single inch of us and every single inch of the universe. In redeeming humanity to the uttermost, there is not a single aspect of human existence that is not grasped in some way by God's saving intentions. God means to redeem not just humans souls but human bodies as well and not just individuals but families, societies, and nations as well: "Go into all nations, baptizing them and teaching them everything I have commanded you." If God has targeted human society for redemption, then it follows that redemption is going to be expressed and communicated in and through human social structures, i.e., the family and the visible church. Likewise, if God has targeted the whole Creation for redemption, then it follows that redemption is going to be expressed and communicated in and through the earthly means of words, water, bread, and wine.

4. The commemorative ordinances view of the sacraments is connected to a misleading understanding of what faith is. The commemorative ordinances view seems to equate faith directly with beliefs, feelings, thoughts, and works of the will and works with anything that has a material or physical expression. Put in equation form, it looks this way: faith = spiritual > works = matter. That sounds a lot like the barren faith of James 2 that consists exclusively of propositions. This conceives of faith far too platonically. I think of faith as having an erotic quality. Like erotic love, faith is produced, revved up, and expressed through the senses. The sacraments work for faith like sex does for marriage. Sex produces, deepens, and expresses creaturely dependence on and trust in one's spouse (or so I‘m told) and the sacraments produce, deepen, and express the creaturely dependence on and trust in God that is faith.

An example: I have heard it suggested that the Roman Catholics might have come to a point of agreement with the Calvinists and Lutherans on the issue of justification by faith alone had they not confused or feared the confusion of the Platonist and anti-materialist understanding of faith espoused by the Zwinglians and the Anabaptists with the Calvinist and Lutheran understanding of faith. The Council of Trent condemned justification by faith alone because they feared that the Protestants meant in this doctrine that the sacraments had nothing at all to do with the application of salvation, as Zwingli and the Anabaptists taught. However, Lutherans and Reformed non-Zwinglians have absolutely no problem reconciling justification by faith alone with the sacraments' role in salvation. In fact, you won't find stronger stalwarts for the doctrine of justification by faith alone than the Reformed and Lutherans. Indeed, for us, the sacraments' role in creating and strengthening faith is a great support for justification by faith alone.

5. Holders of the commemorative ordinances view of the Lord's Supper, while not subject to the exclusive, myopic focus on the elements, have unduly narrowed the focus of this sacrament to a memorial of Jesus's death. What!? I'm not mad. Christ's death is the central focus, but he did rise again and he is coming again. The Lord's Supper is not a funeral; it is a celebration of the resurrection and the dawning of the New Creation. We remember Christ's death because of the resurrection. And, we are not just "remembering;" we are sharing in the body and blood Christ sacrificed for us once and for all at Calvary. Furthermore, we are not just communing in the body Christ offered for "me" but in the body he offered for the world and the body he has assembled and knit together out of people from every nation under heaven. We are not to simply look upward in worship to God but around us in love for our brothers and sisters. There is a lot to chew on in the Communion rite.

6. If the commemorative ordinances view does not kill the mystery in the sacraments by subjecting them to scholastic theology, it kills the mystery by denying that it exists! Mystery is not a bad word; it is our life. Luther believed that the memorial view was a "rational emptying" of the Lord's Supper. I agree. There is more than meets the eye going on in baptism and the Lord's Supper. We are worried about "magic," but I think we all too serious moderns could use a little more "magic" in our lives. Kids are far more innocent than we are and they like “magic.” They don't deny stuff because they can't explain it like we so often do. Faith is not so much the land of understanding as it is the land of simple belief and childlike awe and wonder. There’s nothing wrong with expecting God's work right where he promises it. This sacraments business may seem a little goofy and "mythological," but I'm fully prepared to be ridiculous. Screw Tillich and Bultmann! A "de-mythologized" Christianity is as good as dead.

Learning from the Zwinglians: Strengths of the Commemorative Ordinances View

A good exercise in intellectual honesty, Christian charity, and theological humility is to discern the points at which theological positions that one finds to miss the mark are helpful or valuable in considering the issue said positions seek to address. In addition to helping us put the best construction on our brothers and sisters and what they believe and so preserving love and unity in the body of Christ, this reminds us that we are not the only ones to come to the Scriptures and that what the Bible actually teaches is sometimes not quite so self-evident as it seems to us or to the theological traditions that guide and inform our thinking. Sometimes this opens the door to a new understanding of the issue at hand, or, sometimes, it reveals hidden points of agreement between positions that can serve as the basis for the resolution of the theological conflict.

The chief issue that has caused me to shift my theological and ecclesiological identity from Baptist to classical Protestantism of the Reformed and Presbyterian strain is the nature of baptism and the Lord's Supper. For me, I have become convinced that we should understand these rituals related to Christ's redeeming death and resurrection primarily in terms of God's work of using tangible signs and symbols to apply his promises of salvation to us. In other words, baptism and the Lord's Supper are sacraments. This is quite different from the Baptist and mainstream evangelical view that they are primarily memorials and human actions of obedience to attest faith in Christ, and thus that God is not at work in them in a particularly special way (at least not in any way that has to do with "things" or an objective Divine action for the church or for the members-God may very well be working subjectively in individuals' hearts or even in a way that engages the community but quite regardless of the "stuff" involved). For simplicity, I will describe this as the commemorative ordinances view.

Keep in mind, this distinction between sacraments and ordinances is a bit simplistic. They aren't polar opposites. We should understand this as more of a continuum than as an either/or proposition. That being said, we can most certainly sketch a theological divide between the view of baptism and the Lord's Supper as sacraments and the view of them as ordinances. I would submit that this issue is more broadly significant than the narrow question of what “happens” in these rites. The distinction reveals in the theologies of which each view is part important differences in hermeneutics and in understandings of the scope and nature of salvation, the ways in which God applies that salvation, the ways in which God is more broadly at work in the world, and somewhat different views of what constitutes faith.

The differences are not irreconcilable and I'm quite confident that most holders of both the sacraments' view and ordinances’ view are solidly orthodox Christians, but the differences of understanding in the bigger issues at play in this question were significant enough to compel me to shift my identity from a Baptist to a protesting catholic of a confessionally Reformed stripe. Furthermore, the issues involved in this question have been significant enough to constitute the biggest fissure dividing Protestants historically. It is this issue and not the sovereignty-free will debate that is the most fundamental divide between Christians this side of the Tiber (though it is quite likely they are connected somehow).

The following are the points at which I believe Christians who think otherwise can learn and benefit from the commemorative ordinances view of the sacraments.

1. This view is part and parcel of that common sense that makes the Baptist form of Christianity that most quintessential American Christianity. The faith that God is not bothered or hindered by nonexistent ecclesiastical structures or Christian social structures in non-Christian lands and on the American frontier—the faith that God can and does save even if there isn't anybody around to baptize you—was a huge factor in the evangelization of the North American continent and the Modern Missionary Movement.

2. This viewpoint is not susceptible to the obsessive, myopic focus on the bread and wine that has characterized Eucharistic theology for 2000 years. Obviously, what's going on with the symbols of Christ's body and blood is vastly important, but there are other considerations in play at the Lord's Table than how exactly Jesus is present in or with the elements.

3. In connection with the above point, the commemorative ordinances view of the sacraments is not susceptible to the blasphemous and objectifying instinct humans have to try to know and explain in precise, scientific detail the mysterious workings of God. If holders of the commemorative ordinances view shortchange themselves by failing to see God's special action through water and bread and wine, they do not shortchange themselves by killing the thing with scientific, metaphysical terminology and scholastic theology! No bothering about with "accidents," "pneumatic presence," "transubstantiation," "sacramental union," or thinking about "grace" as some kind of gas, substance, or goo to be accumulated.

4. Again, in connection with the previous points, if the sacraments are about communing with Jesus and seeing him face to face (in your fellow Christians' faces), trying to figure out how it's all working or thinking in terms of getting ready to receive something, i.e. "grace," rather than Someone seems to get in the way of experiencing Jesus. Holders of the commemorative ordinances view are not thinking about receiving a gift abstracted from the person of Jesus but rather about God's great gift of the Giver Himself, Jesus Christ. There's nothing to distract from Jesus when there's nothing but Jesus, even if it is just "Jesus in the air."

Next time, I will address the big points where the commemorative ordinances view fails to capture adequately the full and glorious biblical teaching about baptism and the Lord's Supper.

Seminary Shenanigans 3

The following is my research paper on the biblical permissibility of capital punishment for my Christian Ethics course. I oppose the current practice of capital punishment because I believe the temptation to statism is too great a danger when a secular state takes it upon itself to put criminals to death. It seems that the only situation in which capital punishment is ultimately sensible is in the context of a thoroughly Christian society. At the same time, though, it seems that perhaps such a society would instinctively recoil from imposing the ultimate punishment on murderers out of a Christian sense of mercy. However, a Christian society would likewise impose weighty punishments on murderers out of a Christian sense of justice. Love, in order for it to be truly Christian love, must take account both of mercy and justice.

The Permissibility and Wisdom of Capital Punishment in Biblical Ethical Considerations

Perhaps no contemporary hot-button issue is as divisive between Americans of Christian faith as the issue of capital punishment. Christian people of both liberal and conservative politics are found on retentionist and abolitionist sides of this debate, as well as those hailing from traditions as diverse as Roman Catholicism, mainline Protestantism, and Protestant evangelicalism and thus coming at the issue from an array of perspectives regarding Scriptural interpretation ranging from most liberal uses of Holy Writ to more moderate ones as well as to those that are conservative and even biblicist in orientation. Religiously conservative Christians who support the use of the death penalty often see at the root of the arguments of Christians whose convictions run the other direction humanistic or theologically liberal premises that are unfaithful to genuine biblical concerns.[1] Whether that is the case or not, a 2001 poll conducted by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life showed that among the 23% of respondents for whom religion was the most important determining factor in their view of the death penalty, 42% of these opposed capital punishment while only 15% supported it.[2] The truth is that Christians arguing for either retentionist or abolitionist positions have precedents well-established in the Scriptures and in faithful authorities from throughout the record of Christian tradition from which to draw in support of their views.

As one would expect in regard to a question like capital punishment, Christians on either side of this issue are gripped by the sense that matters of justice and human dignity reaching to the very core of their faith are in play. Proponents of the death penalty see in the imposition of this penalty for murderers a fundamental protection of the sanctity of human life and a just exercise of retribution against individuals who have committed heinous acts against God, their victims and victims' families, and society-at-large. Opponents, on the other hand, view capital punishment as an unnecessarily harsh act of violence that runs counter to Christ’s example of forgiveness and mercy and, rather than protect the violated sanctity of the lives of victims, further trivializes life and destabilizes society by perpetuating the cycle of violence. Who is correct? Is capital punishment or some lesser penalty such as life imprisonment a more just sentence for those convicted of premeditated murder? As an evangelical Protestant, for me the question can only begin with whether or not capital punishment is biblically permissible. If the answer is affirmative, the discussion must not end there but encompass the further question of whether God's wisdom would lead us to utilize the penalty of capital punishment in all situations where it is applicable.

Before we can appropriately seek a biblical answer to the question of what Christians should believe and do in regard to public reckoning with convicted murderers of fellow members of society, we must establish an ethical framework from within which to carry forth said examination. I am assuming as an ethical framework for this discussion a teleological ethic that has as its end the glory of God as reflected in "the way of life that conforms to the will of God as revealed in Christ and the holy Scriptures and illuminated by the Holy Spirit."[3] As opposed to a purely utilitarian ethic that has in view only the consequences of actions and thus judges them only according to their results, the ethic I am utilizing incorporates deontological standards of intrinsic right and wrong built into the end of God's glory.[4] God's will, which reflects his glory, is intrinsically worthy of following and is therefore an absolute standard by which human beings are bound. This absolute standard, of course, is reflected in God's revealed will in Christ and the Scriptures. As a result, our first task regarding the ethics of capital punishment is to determine if it is a practice that is consistent with the perfect will of God as revealed in his Word. We will later deal with a few additional ethical and contextual concerns that will be instructive in the Holy Spirit's process of helping us to discern whether utilizing capital punishment in all situations where it is applicable is wise, but the witness of God's Word will be our first concern.

Before turning to the biblical witness regarding capital punishment, I must define the limits of my inquiry for this paper. The concept of retribution as fundamental to systems of government and justice has been under fire since the Enlightenment, but I am prevented by lack of space from wading into that controversy at present. Furthermore, deterrence, protection of society, and rehabilitation, either taken together or individually, are highly problematic as the primary bases for punishment.[5] Retribution, with its penalties based on proportionality to criminal conduct, its respect for the individuality and moral culpability of criminals, its protection of guilty parties against the revenge of victims, and its publicly mediated processes of investigation, trial, and punishment, remains the surest, most equitable, and most effective basis for law and order, reflecting also the holiness and righteousness of God.[6] Retribution being such, we would do well to heed Gilbert Meilaender's caution that "the greatest danger in discussions of the death penalty is that we may end up adopting viewpoints which turn out to undercut the very rationale for government, punishment, or justice."[7] We may indeed be compelled to leave the death penalty behind as a defective expression of retribution, but we dare not leave retribution behind as foundational to our systems of law and order.

Genesis 9:6
The first overt mention of capital punishment in the biblical witness is in Genesis 9 immediately prior to God establishing his covenant with Noah, his descendents, and the remnant of animal life following the Deluge. God opens his address to Noah and his sons by re-commissioning humanity to "increase in number and fill the earth" (v. 1). God also authorizes human beings for the first time to make use of the Earth's animal life for food, provided they do not consume the blood. To this one note of restriction on the eating of animal flesh, God adds that the flesh and blood of his people are even more precious to him than that of the beasts of the field:

And for your lifeblood I will surely demand an accounting. I will demand an accounting from every animal. And from each man, too, I will demand an accounting for the life of his fellow man.

"Whoever sheds the blood of man,
by man shall his blood be shed;
for in the image of God
has God made man." (vv. 5-6 NIV)

God then proceeds to give his covenant to humanity and to the remnant of animal life that he will never again destroy the Earth with a flood, signifying his promise with the rainbow.

The chief controversy in interpreting this passage is in regard to the function of verse 6. Bible scholar Claus Westermann admits that there is no scholarly consensus on whether Genesis 9:6 is a legal penalty, a prophetic admonition, or a proverb.[8] Christian death penalty retentionists like H. Wayne House and the late Dutch Bible scholar, J. Douma, stake their claim to Genesis 9:6 being a universal legal penalty for murder. [9] This interpretation is based largely on the way they read Genesis 9:1-7 as part of the Noachian Covenant and not just as a prologue to the covenant that is properly contained only in verses 8-17. The Noachian Covenant is thus taken not just as God's promise not to destroy the Earth again but as his holistic and gracious provision of a new civil order for humanity to replace the one that had been destroyed in the Flood. Of course, one of the most important aspects of this new civil order is God's provision for the punishment of murder—a provision by which God shows the high value he continues to place on those who bear his image and by which he provides for the retributive punishment that grounds all civil order.[10] Holders of this view regard Genesis 9:6 as having universal applicability because of its context after the Flood but also because the covenant was made with Noah—"the representative head of the new order of mankind, not just Jews, but of mankind in general."[11]

Christian death penalty abolitionists like the late Mennonite scholar, John Howard Yoder, and Baptist professors, Michael Westmoreland-White and Glen Stassen, however, regard Genesis 9:6 as pure proverbial wisdom,[12] particularly in light of the cautionary way in which Jesus quotes the passage in Matthew 26:52. Militating also for a proverbial reading of the passage is the fact that the language is less indicative of legislation than of a poetic recital of wisdom about "how things are in fact, in primitive and ancient societies."[13] Abolitionists also point beyond linguistic factors to contextual evidence to show that Genesis 9:6 is not a legal penalty but a proverb. For instance, many view Genesis 9:1-7 merely as a prologue to the covenant in verses 8-17. The prologue contains blessings from God, and the covenant, of course, contains the divine promise and the sign of the rainbow but no human requirements. Additionally, verse 6 does not specify who will shed the blood of the killer. The "mandate" to carry out retribution would not create an organized civil order, as the human community in the passage consists only of one extended family and family-based vengeance would have been assumed.[14]

The retentionist and abolitionist interpretations of Genesis 9:6 I have examined above both appear flawed. The retentionist view mischaracterizes Genesis 9:1-17 as being covenantal from beginning to end. Verses 1-7 constitute a prologue to the covenant consisting entirely of blessings from God; it contains no conditions for divine blessing or curses for covenant failures. The covenant is properly contained only in verses 8-17, and it is not contractual in nature. God's promise to never again flood the Earth is unconditional; the only human response is to graciously accept God's promise.[15] As a result, there is no penalty in Genesis 9 for choosing to punish a murderer by nonlethal means. Capital punishment is here a gracious gift by God for social order and for the safeguarding of the sanctity of human life. Though the principle of blood for blood is universally valid here by virtue of it being given through Noah, the penalty of capital punishment need not be applied in an absolute, one-size-fits-all manner. Capital punishment is certainly sanctioned in this passage as a means of punishing murder, but, as the Old Testament examples of Cain, Moses, and David indicate, showing mercy to murderers is clearly permissible as well.

The abolitionist view that would reduce Genesis 9:6 to a mere proverb or admonition cannot account for the strength of the explicit words of the text, the force of which begin building in verse 5: "For your lifeblood, I will surely demand an account. . . ." Genesis 9:6 may not be backed up with curses, but God still demands accountability for the shedding of the blood of his people. Capital punishment is given here to humanity as a gift to be used with sober discretion. Even when mercy is granted, however, the wisdom of Genesis 9:6 teaches that murder is a crime that deserves death.[16] Additionally, though retentionists may try to prove too much when it comes to the establishment of civil government in this passage, abolitionists neglect the fact that the principle of retribution underlying Genesis 9:6 assumed great importance in the civil order that came to be established under the Mosaic Law.[17] Furthermore, this principle in some sense is embodied in the criminal codes of all nations today.[18]

The Law of Moses
According to the list compiled by Michael Westmoreland-White and Glen Stassen, the Torah contains at least twenty-five offenses that merit the death penalty, including various sexual crimes, murder, worship of pagan gods, sorcery, false prophecy, and cursing one's parents, among others.[19]

In spite of the significant number of crimes in the Torah that carry a death sentence, death penalty abolitionists see capital punishment as inconsistent with the Sixth Commandment.[20] Indeed, the Commandment is rendered too narrowly when translated as it is in the New International Version, "You shall not murder" (Exodus 20:13; Deut. 5:17).[21] However, though other kinds of killings than murder are prohibited by the Sixth Commandment,[22] if we are to maintain biblical integrity, we must insist that what has been sanctioned in Scripture—the death penalty at least twenty-five times in the Torah—is not prohibited by contemporaneous revelation.

The question for Christians, however, is whether capital punishment is consistent with God's complete and final revelation in Jesus Christ and the New Testament that bears witness to him. It is clear that capital punishment is sanctioned, even commanded, in the Old Testament, but what for those of us who are not under Law but grace? Most death penalty retensionists support capital punishment for murder on the basis of Genesis 9:6 but do not use the provisions of the Mosaic Law for capital punishment to support their position. This is on the basis that the civil commands of the Mosaic Law were only valid for the nation of Israel. The Mosaic civil commands were given to Israel alone of all nations because of God's redemptive work for the entire world through her. They were never issued for all the nations of the world as, for instance, was Genesis 9:6. This is why, with the exception of theonomists, Christian death penalty advocates generally do not support the application of capital punishment to crimes other than premeditated murder, as the Mosaic Law does.[23] This reasoning appears biblically sound. Abolitionists .reject the validity of Mosaic provisions for capital punishment on the basis that these laws were issued primarily for the purposes of expiation.[24] Indeed, the purpose for the penalty of death described in passages such as Leviticus 20:1-5 and Deuteronomy 17:8-13 and 19:19-21 is for ritual cleansing, "purging the evil," and the like.[25] As Westmoreland-White and Stassen note, "For Christians, for whom expiation has been accomplished once for all in Jesus Christ, it would be blasphemous to argue that capital punishment is needed to atone for or expiate sin."[26] That is quite true, but it is really beside the point, since Christian retentionists do not view the death penalty as performing an expiatory function. At any rate, it is quite clear that both the civil and expiatory provisions of the Mosaic Law are no longer in effect for Christians and thus should have no direct bearing on our current considerations of capital punishment.

Though the civil commands of the Mosaic Law themselves no longer have direct bearing on Christian considerations of capital punishment, we must add a discussion of the famous "eye for eye, tooth for tooth" passages—the lex talionis—because they contain a principle that remains relevant to our discussion. Three such passages exist. The first instance is Exodus 21:22-25, in which two men are fighting and a pregnant woman is injured. In the case of a miscarriage, a monetary fine is prescribed, but in the case of the woman's death, the one who injured her must pay "life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth." The second instance is Leviticus 24:18-22, in the context of God's instructions to the people on how to deal with a man who has cursed the Holy Name. They are to take the blasphemer outside of camp and execute him by stoning. The lex talionis is offered as the rationale. Apparently, cursing God is equivalent to killing a man, as the formula is expressed in "eye for eye" and not "curse for curse" terms. The third instance is Deuteronomy 19:16-21, in which a false witness is being punished for his crime. As punishment, the false witness is to receive the penalty the accused would have received if found guilty. The formula is again offered in "eye for eye" terms. As opposed to the common understanding of these passages, what is being advocated here is not private vengeance or a perverse symmetrical justice that would have us "lie to a liar, rape a rapist, or steal from a thief."[27] Rather, the lex talionis expresses an important aspect of all controlled, publicly-mediated retribution—the sense that punishments be appropriate and proportional to crimes.[28] Right or wrong, capital punishment for murder is certainly an attempt to apply the principle of punishment that is relevant to and proportional to the crime committed.

The Teaching and Example of Jesus Christ
As we come to the aspects of the teaching and example of Jesus Christ that bear most heavily on the issue of capital punishment, we recognize the special weight the incarnate Word of God carries in Christian revelation. Indeed, as Westmoreland-White and Stassen state it, Christ's life, teaching, death, and resurrection constitute the "hermeneutical Rosetta Stone of biblical interpretation."[29] An important aspect of Jesus' ministry that must be noted in the current discussion is the apparent tension in his mission between fulfilling the Law of Moses to its every "jot and tittle" (Matthew 5:17-19) and to abrogating certain aspects of the same in the lives of his followers (Mark 7:19, for instance). Closer inspection reveals that this tension is only apparent. Jesus fulfills the Law and dies a sacrificial death to free his elect from its demands. Abrogation of the sacrificial and ceremonial aspects of the Mosaic Law for believers thus comes through God's mercy and not a rearrangement of his standards. Furthermore, where the Law remains in effect, as embodied in the Sermon on the Mount, Christ's teaching represents the clarification of the essence of the Law, which had become obscured by the accumulation of centuries of Jewish traditionalism. In this light, Christ's moral teaching actually raised the standard for his followers in comparison to the Law as it was understood in first-century Israel (Matthew 5:20-48).

Considering that the civil and ceremonial aspects of the Law have been abrogated in Christ and that the ethic he establishes for his followers in the Sermon on the Mount is radically oriented toward mercy, may we assume that the Lord does not countenance capital punishment? An examination of three of the six antitheses of Matthew 5 is required before we can judge whether this is indeed the case. In the first antithesis, Jesus answers the perception that the Sixth Commandment consists entirely of avoiding the physical act of murder by teaching that to be angry with one's brother is to invite judgment and to call him a fool is to invite damnation (vv. 21-22). Retensionists view as significant for their position that fact that Jesus here affirms that murder is a crime meriting judgment. [30] Also significant, they claim, is the fact that Jesus does not rebuke the Roman or Jewish authorities for their use of capital punishment in this instance or any other.[31] These interpretations are inconclusive. The fact that Jesus does not speak directly to capital punishment need not imply his approval of the practice[32] and his acknowledgement that murder is a crime deserving of death does not prove his support for the death penalty. What abolitionists emphasize about this passage, on the other hand, is Jesus' admonition to seek reconciliation with one's offended brother or sister and thereby break the cycles of hatred and retribution that are inconsistent with the life of worship and peace in the community of believers (vv. 23-26).[33] The focus on reconciliation in this passage, however, cannot be interpreted so as to obviate punishment in general for criminal offenses. This seems a particularly pertinent place to note Gilbert Meilaender's aforementioned concern that we avoid adopting positions on the death penalty that undermine the rationale for government and justice altogether.

The fifth antithesis of the Sermon on the Mount is also valid to the question of capital punishment. To those who would use "eye for eye, and tooth for tooth" (v. 38) to justify the seeking of vengeance against their neighbors, Jesus gives a startling and often mistranslated command in Matthew 5:39. Rather than "Do not resist an evil person," as it is usually rendered, the work of Clarence Jordan and Walter Wink reveals verse 39 to more properly read, "Do not retaliate or resist violently or revengefully, by evil means."[34] Rather than being an impracticable command to practice nonresistance to evil, this teaching is thus a transformative injunction to overcome evil with good and to "go the extra mile" to bring about reconciliation, even with the hated Roman oppressor (vv. 39-42).[35] In interpreting this passage, retentionists point to the distinction between retaliation, or private vengeance, and publicly-mediated retribution. According to House, the Sermon on the Mount refocuses the Law to deal entirely with believers' personal interactions; therefore, its principles do not apply to governmental actions.[36] Abolitionists rightly reply that Jesus does not limit his teachings or his lordship to individual relationships.[37] In attempting to answer the question of the extent to which Christ's teachings should shape the administration of civil government, we must keep in mind the eschatological horizon of the Christian faith. [38] Prior to Christ's second coming, the administrations of civil government and of the community of believers necessarily operate according to somewhat different principles. However, in light of the coming day when the kingdoms of this earth will become the Kingdom of Jesus Christ, Gospel principles cannot be ruled out of bounds by Christians in their considerations of government policies even at this point in history.

In the sixth antithesis of the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus corrects the entirely un-biblical notion of "Love your neighbor and hate your enemy" with the command, "Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you" (Matthew 5:43-44). Jesus goes on to exhort his followers to pursue peace and reconciliation with all, following God's perfect example in refusing to distinguish between friends and enemies in the exercise of mercy (vv. 45-48).[39] Once again, the way of Jesus calls for the radical pursuit of peace and reconciliation. Though we do not yet live during the time when swords will be beaten into plowshares, one cannot help but be struck by Christ's insistence that his followers work diligently for the redemption of even the worst of the worst. Punishment in general for criminal offenses does not contradict this pursuit, but capital punishment ends all opportunities for reconciliation.

Another significant episode in the ministry of Jesus that bears heavily on our consideration of the death penalty is John 8:1-11—the account of the woman caught in adultery. Abolitionists seize quite readily on Jesus' response to the scribes and Pharisees, "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her" (8:7b), inferring that only the sinless are qualified to execute others.[40] This argument would be spurious if applied to punishment in general, as Yoder does,[41] but could be valid in relation to a punishment as ultimate as the death penalty. Retentionists, however, point to the overall context of this encounter to show that Jesus does not condemn the exercise of the death penalty but the treachery of the Pharisees in setting a trap for him (8:6).[42] Jesus' opponents are also culpable here in their failure to follow the stipulations of the Law they appear so zealous to keep. They have broken the Law in condemning the woman because they do not have the necessary number of witnesses present to try and convict her in the first place, and they do not have present the man she committed adultery with, whom the Law also stipulates should be executed (Lev. 20:10; Deut. 22:22-24).[43] Furthermore, the Jewish authorities had never carried out this law with any regularity, and, under Roman rule, they did not have the authority to carry out capital sentences.[44] As the retentionists suppose, Jesus is undoubtedly challenging his opponents' treachery and hypocrisy in his statement from verse 7, but, considering that "God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him" (John 3:18) and the fact that Jesus does not give the slightest mention in this passage to the scribes and Pharisees' failure to bring the witnesses or the man, it seems impossible that, had they actually followed the Law, Christ would have condemned her.[45] No; consistent with the rest of his ministry, the Lord of mercy pardons the woman as we expect, directing her to "Go and sin no more" (John 8:11 NKJV). Jesus clearly places a premium on mercy to sinners, but does he intend for this mercy to carry over into the civil order? We must look to apostolic teaching for further clarification.

Romans 13:1-7
The most in-depth passage of apostolic teaching that bears directly on the issue of capital punishment is Paul's discussion of the civil authorities in Romans 13:1-7. We can summarize the contents of the passage as follows:

· Human government is instituted by God. (v. 1)
· Human government should be obeyed (v. 1-2) because it is God's servant to do the righteous good (vv. 3-4); it is God's servant to punish wrongdoers (v. 4); and conscience tells us to obey. (v. 5)
· Government has the right of taxation. (vv. 6-7)
· Government has the right to use the sword. (v. 4)

Death penalty retentionists view this passage as the closest thing to an explicit New Testament warrant for the death penalty that exists. This passage, they argue, teaches that civil government is a legitimate authority put in place by God, and that one of its express purposes for existence is to punish wrongdoers, even with death. That the civil authority may use lethal force in executing its ordinance is implied in Paul's use of the term "sword," which represents an instrument of warfare and execution or the most significant item in the arsenal of the judicial power[46]—a power which in the Roman context regularly put criminal offenders to death. Death penalty abolitionists, however, in their interpretation of this passage, put more emphasis on government's need to be subject to God than on Christians' need to be subject to the authorities,[47] which causes them to arrive at different conclusions. Mennonite peace scholar, Millard Lind, for instance, views Romans 13:1-7 as Paul's call for his readers to resist evil and exert "gospel pressure" on the Roman authorities by being "subject" to their "anti-Christ" authority—a subjection characterized more by passive nonviolent resistance than obedience.[48] Rome's authority is illegitimate, not just because she is pagan and she persecutes Christians but because she puts real criminals to death. Paul's use of "sword" cannot be referring in any way to the execution of criminals[49] because governments that are truly subject to God do not put people to death. As Yoder argues:

"If it is as the apostles said, that Jesus Christ . . . rules at the right hand of God over the powers of the world, then the purpose, goals, and standards of that rule can be no other than this same Jesus revealed to us, when in the flesh he came not to destroy but to save. On the grounds of his rule, it can then not be the duty of governments to destroy life.[50]

One could not be more unambiguous on whether Gospel principles should spill over into civil administration.

In spite of the force of such arguments, they do not arise from the text of Romans 13:1-7 or its context. Though Paul envelopes this text with admonitions that sound like the Sermon on the Mount in their emphasis on peace and reconciliation, he does not do so to put to shame the retributive justice of the Roman authorities, as Lind argues, but to convince his hearers not to take vengeance in their own hands because God will punish wrongdoers through the instrumentality of the governing authorities.[51] The text also clearly teaches a higher view of government than many Anabaptist interpreters grant. Other than Jesus Christ himself, no one was more intimately acquainted with the wicked and anti-Christian conduct that characterized much of Roman rule than St. Paul, yet he still affirms that the Roman authorities should be rendered honor because of the God-ordained function of rewarding the good and punishing the wicked they carry out.[52] The governing authorities are not to be grudgingly "obeyed" just because of the threat of punishment or simply for the purposes of witness but also for conscience's sake. The Roman authorities may not always exercise their authority correctly, but Paul could not be clearer that their authority is nonetheless established by God and thus legitimate.

Conclusion
In spite of strong countervailing currents in the teachings and example of our most merciful Lord, the Scriptures present capital punishment as a still permissible means of punishing those guilty of premeditated murder. The plain reading of Genesis 9:6 and an interpretation of Romans 13:1-7 guided by exegetical rather then eisegetical principles reveals that lethal offenses justly invite lethal punishments, with God's explicit permission being given to use capital punishment. Contrary, however, to the tone of H. Wayne House's strong retentionist argument, Scripture does not teach that the exercise of capital punishment for murderers is absolutely obligatory in all cases. The validity of the death penalty as a means of punishing murderers rests on the clear teaching of Scripture, but, attending to the contexts of Genesis 9:6 and Romans 13:1-7, the passages in which God most explicitly provides warrant for capital punishment, God institutes the death penalty for the good of humanity . God did not create humans for the death penalty but the death penalty for the protection and dignity of human persons and societies. Retributive punishment is reflective of the just character of God, displays his holy wrath toward sin, and is the most solid foundation for the systems of law and order that protect human persons and societies, but capital punishment is not so fundamental to the overall principle of retributive justice that opting not to utilize the death penalty in the case of premeditated murder would overthrow that principle altogether. Scripture undeniably teaches that God demands an accounting for the shedding of human blood, but, as the biblical witness also clearly indicates, God reserves the right to show mercy to murderers and punish them with lesser though still proportional punishments. As J. Douma notes, "Destruction of the image of God in man is avenged with other punishments as well." This is especially the case in light of modern developments in jurisprudence and penology, such as imprisonment.[53]

In light of the realities that murder is a heinous crime that must be requited and that the Christian faith moves us to a mercy that does not diminish the significance of sin but nevertheless forgives, University of Texas professor of philosophy and government, J. Budziszewski's, argument that mercy can be shown to murderers "when the purposes of punishment can be satisfied better by bloodless means than bloody means" is prudent.[54] In outlining the current Roman Catholic position on capital punishment as expressed in Pope John Paul II's encyclical Evangelium vitae, Avery Cardinal Dulles lists several factors in contemporary American society that render capital punishment more problematic and thus less effective than, say, life imprisonment, in satisfying the retributive purposes of punishment. Included among these factors are the following:

· The inequitable application of the death sentence by courts and juries that are prejudiced against blacks and other minorities.
· The inability of poor and uneducated clients to obtain adequate legal counsel.
· The likelihood of miscarriages of justice due to the above considerations.
· The likelihood that innocent persons have been unjustly executed.
· The failure of modern democratic society to perceive the judgment of the state as legitimately embodying a transcendent order of justice.
· The urgency of manifesting respect for the value and dignity of human life at a time when assaults on innocent human life through abortion, euthanasia, and violent crime are widely prevalent.[55]

Though these factors do not in and of themselves merit the categorical abolition of the death penalty, the modern democratic state's failure to understand its authority as deriving from the ordinance of God, is serious enough to move Christians to call for a moratorium on capital punishment until states once again recognize their authority as arising not from the will of the people but from its institution by God within a transcendent order of justice. The former view causes the validity of the death penalty to rest upon utilitarian principles, which can be manipulated to the destruction of liberty and justice by the state that views its authority as arising from a less than transcendent source. Though my insistence that the death penalty exists for the good of society may smack of this very utilitarianism I decry, I would equally strongly assert that capital punishment utilized outside of the context of retribution anchored within a God-instituted order of justice is not good for society. Outside of this context, human authorities are succumbing to the temptation to statist idolatry when they exercise such ultimate judgment over individuals as they do in putting them to death. Meilaender expresses this judgment well:

Perhaps counterintuitively, and certainly contrary to what many religious folk might suggest, I think the death penalty would be least problematic in a genuinely religious society. Camus suggested—insightfully—that capital punishment could be justified only where there was a socially shared religious belief that the final verdict on any person’s life is given by God, not by us.[56]

I thus must conclude that capital punishment exercised outside of such a context is not consistent with biblical ethical standards. Within the context of a God-ordained order of justice, however, the ability to fulfill the retributive purposes of punishment through life imprisonment combined with the Gospel imperative for mercy would move us, I believe, to utilize the death penalty but rarely.

[1] H. Wayne House expresses this sentiment in "In Favor of the Death Penalty," H. Wayne House and John Howard Yoder, The Death Penalty Debate: Two Opposing Views of Capital Punishment (Dallas: Word, 1991), 11.
[2] "Faith-Based Funding Backed, But Church-State Doubts Abound," The Pew Research Center For the People and the Press, 10 April 2001, http://people-press.org/report/15/faith-based-funding-backed-but-church-state-doubts-abound (23 March 2010) quoted in Religion and the Death Penalty: A Call for Reckoning, ed. Erik C. Owens, John D. Carlson, and Eric P. Elshtain (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2004), 8.
[3] David Clyde Jones, Biblical Christian Ethics (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1994), 16.
[4] Ibid., 20-21.
[5] House treats each justification for punishment, describing a number of objections against each in "In Favor of the Death Penalty," The Death Penalty Debate, 17-20.
[6] Ibid., 21-24.
[7] Gilbert Meilaender, "The Death Penalty: A Protestant Perspective," in Religion and the Death Penalty: A Call for Reckoning, ed. Erik C. Owens, John D. Carlson, and Eric P. Elshtain (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2004), 49.
[8] Claus Westermann, Genesis 1-11 (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1984), 467 quoted in Michael L. Westmoreland-White and Glen H. Stassen, "Biblical Perspectives on the Death Penalty," in Religion and the Death Penalty: a Call for Reckoning, ed. Erik C. Owens, John D. Carlson, and Eric P. Elshtain (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2004), 127.
[9] House treats this passage in "In Favor," 36-40; J. Douma covers it as part of his treatment of the death penalty in his chapter on the Sixth Commandment in The Ten Commandments: Manual for the Christian Life, 1992, trans. Nelson D. Kloosterman (Phillipsburg, N.J.: Presbyterian & Reformed, 1996), 235.
[10] House, "In Favor," 36-40.
[11] Ibid., 39.
[12] Yoder treats this passage in "Against the Death Penalty," 119-24. Westmoreland-White and Stassen treat this passage in "Biblical Perspectives on the Death Penalty," 126-28.
[13] Yoder, "Against," 120.
[14] Westmoreland-White and Stassen, "Biblical Perspectives," 127-28.
[15] Ibid., 127.
[16] Ibid., 128.
[17] House, "In Favor," 54.
[18] Douma, The Ten Commandments, 238.
[19] Westmoreland-White and Stassen, "Biblical Perspectives," 124.
[20] Ibid., 123; Yoder, "Against," 174; Millard Lind, The Sound of Sheer Silence and the Killing State: The Death Penalty and the Bible (Telford, PA: Cascadia, 2004), 52-53.
[21] Douma renders the Commandment as prohibiting "unlawful killing;" The Ten Commandments, 214.
[22] Douma outlines the killings specifically prohibited by the Sixth Commandment in ibid., 214-16.
[23] House, "In Favor," 50-53, 55.
[24] Westmoreland-White and Stassen, "Biblical Perspectives," 125. Yoder sees Genesis 9:6 as expiatory in nature as well; "Against," 127.
[25] Westmoreland-White and Stassen, "Biblical Perspectives," 125.
[26] Ibid., 125-26.
[27] Lewis Smedes, Mere Morality (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1983), 122 quoted in Westmoreland-White and Stassen, "Biblical Perspectives," 129.
[28] Westmoreland-White and Stassen, "Biblical Perspectives," 129; Douma, The Ten Commandments, 238.
[29] Westmoreland-White and Stassen, "Biblical Perspectives," 123.
[30] House, "In Favor," 62-63.
[31] Idem.
[32] Yoder quite eloquently expresses this point in "Against," 140-41.
[33] Westmoreland-White and Stassen, "Biblical Perspectives," 132-33; Lind, The Sound of Sheer Silence, 124-25.
[34] Walter Wink, "Beyond Just War and Pacifism: Jesus’ Nonviolent Way," Review and Expositor 89:2 (Spring 1992): 199 quoted in Westmoreland-White and Stassen, "Biblical Perspectives," 134.
[35] Westmoreland-White and Stassen, "Biblical Perspectives," 135.
[36] House, "In Favor," 62.
[37] Westmoreland-White and Stassen, "Biblical Perspectives," 133.
[38] Meilaender, "A Protestant Perspective," 53.
[39] Westmoreland-White and Stassen, "Biblical Perspectives," 135.
[40] Idem.; Yoder, "Against," 140.
[41] Idem.
[42] House, "In Favor," 63. In directing us to look at the overall context of the passage, retentionists also point out that the crime here is adultery and not murder; therefore, since the civil portion of the Mosaic Law has been abrogated with its death sentence for adultery, the mercy Christ shows the woman here cannot be extrapolated to apply to the punishment for murder, which is provided for under Genesis 9:6; ibid., 64.
[43] House, "In Favor," 64.
[44] Yoder, "Against," 140.
[45] Westmoreland-White and Stassen, "Biblical Perspectives," 136.
[46] House, "In Favor," 68-69; Douma, The Ten Commandments, 235.
[47] Yoder, "Against," 144-45; Douma, The Ten Commandments, 202.
[48] Lind, The Sound of Sheer Silence, 126.
[49] Yoder argues that the sword refers to judicial authority but it is not a reference to the death penalty because Paul does not specify punishments in verse 4; "Against," 146. Westmoreland-White and Stassen assert the sword was "the kind worn by policemen who accompanied tax collectors;" "Biblical Perspectives," 137.
[50] Yoder, "Against," 145.
[51] House, "In Favor," 68; Douma, The Ten Commandments, 235-36.
[52] Ibid., 202.
[53] Ibid., 239.
[54] J. Budziszewski, "Categorical Pardon: On the Argument for Abolishing Capital Punishment," in Religion and the Death Penalty: A Call for Reckoning, ed. Erik C. Owens, John D. Carlson, and Eric P. Elshtain (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2004), 113.
[55] Avery Cardinal Dulles, "Catholic Teaching on the Death Penalty: Has It Changed?," in Religion and the Death Penalty: A Call for Reckoning, ed. Erik C. Owens, John D. Carlson, and Eric P. Elshtain (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2004), 29.
[56] Meilaender, "A Protestant Perspective," 55.

A Jason Kettinger-Style List of Random Thoughts for the Day

1. Dr. Mark Dalbney is pretty dang solid. This is a Reformed-to-the-hilt worship professor at a conservative denominational Presbyterian seminary who manages simultaneously to follow the Presbyterian Church in America party line while engaging heretics like Jeffrey Meyers in a friendly and sympathetic manner and speaking of elements of New Covenant worship in terms of sacrifice, making him far more conversant liturgically with the Church Fathers than probably any thinker in this segment of confessional Protestantism. He's faithful to his confessional commitments but he's also ecumenical, putting forth a robustly sacramental and classically-Reformed ecclesiology, eschatology, and theology of worship. I may only say this because he has affirmed so much of what I have already arrived at, but his Christian Worship class is mighty good.

2. The thought strikes me that leadership of a national or catholic Church by a single monarchial head or of a congregation by a single head pastor is much more compatible with a radically monotheistic conception of God than it is with a Trinitarian one.

3. Steven Curtis Chapman is really needed on today's CCM scene. I'm aghast at how singularly obsessed Christian radio has gotten with the narcissistic emotional struggles of individual Christians who seem unable to conceive of Jesus as anyone other than a being who exists solely to make me feel better about myself. I listened to an afternoon of K-LOVE the other day and found it sounded too much like my own selfish prayers. I went home and pulled up Steven Curtis from my Rhapsody archives and played some songs like "Heaven in the Real World" and "No Better Place on Earth Than the Road That Leads to Heaven." I was uplifted immediately to consider the glory of God and how big and awesome and the cosmic this thing God is doing in Christ really is. Christianity is so much bigger than my personal struggles to find worth and meaning in this life. I don't know enough about Steven Curtis to know whether or not he’s writing from the point of view of an unhealthy, over-realized eschatology that says, "Health and prosperity now for everyone!", but he sounds a needed note of anti-Gnostic enthusiasm about the mission of the Church—a mission more comprehensive and world-affirming than the escape plan of the dispensationalists and far more transcendent, otherworldly, Christ-centered, and effectively activist than what the emerging church and other progressives would offer us.

4. After last night's "Lost" finale I'm still a little lost but in a good way. It's only appropriate that a series that has made its living off of mystery should end yet shrouded in mystery. This show has really been TV at its best. I'm sad to see it end.

Seminary Shenanigans 2

The following could potentially be the longest blog post in world history. This is the grand project from my Christian Worship class, a transcript of a worship service of our own design, featuring every word to be spoken or sung in said service and including, in our notes, our rationale for using the words, songs, elements, etc. we used and for placing them where we placed them in the course of the service. We were to put into practice the principles we learned during the semester in putting together a worship service appropriate for the context in which we could see ourselves ministering. As my notes indicate, I paid most attention to Gospel re-presentation throughout the course of the service, maintaining the Gospel-flow of hearing-repentance-praise in each major section of the service, and integrating the theme of the service in every aspect of the service. I wish I had paid more attention to utilizing a greater diversity of styles and variously contextualized expressions of worship, but I was focused on meeting the needs of the envisioned congregation. However, since the church is a global movement made up of people from every language, tribe, nation, generation, and socioeconomic background, we should include in our worship services expressions that arise from Christians whose lives differ from our own.

Calvary Presbyterian Church
Podunk, Midwest
Easter Worship Service
Bold indicates congregational response
* indicates pastor is speaking or leading prayer
† indicates standing

A Note about Congregational Context: I can envision myself working in a confessional or conservative mainline Presbyterian or Reformed church on the traditional side of things in a small town in the Midwest. If I were to wind up serving in the Presbyterian Church (USA), I would imagine such a congregation would be largely graying and thus trending more toward a traditional style of worship. Such a congregation would probably be comfortable with a rather heavier and more ecumenical Eucharistic liturgy such as I have used here, though from my limited experience in this denomination, a service of this length would not meet the needs of many PC(USA) churches. The Presbyterian Church in America, from my experience, seems a bit younger, with more families, children, teens, and young adults. In that context, I imagine the needs of the congregation would require a utilization of more styles of worship. Historic catholics in the PCA would probably appreciate the heavy liturgy, but it may not meet the needs of more mainstream evangelical or "Truly Reformed" folks. That being said, a service lasting an hour-and-a-half with hymns, expository preaching, and moderate liturgy seems to meet the needs of many conservative Reformed churches.

Prelude
*Welcome and Announcements
We welcome you to Calvary Presbyterian Church this beautiful Easter morning—the most joyous day of the year in the life of the Church. If you are visitor with us this morning, we are delighted to have you with us to worship the risen Lord. Please register your attendance with us in the friendship pad at the end of the pew so we can get to know you. [Announcements would follow.]

*Introduction of Service/Seasonal Theme[1]
Jesus Christ has risen from the grave and we gather on this and every Lord's Day to celebrate his resurrection and the victory he has gained over sin, death, and Hell–a victory we share in by faith. This day, however, is different from every other Lord's Day in that it represents the stamp on the calendar of an actual historical event that occurred in this very world we inhabit. It happened long ago and in a physical location far removed from our own, but its consequences are so great and world-altering that we experience the event right now as if we were encountering the newly risen Christ with the disciples all over again. You see, the resurrection is no myth nor is it a purely spiritual event in which the disciples only encountered a ghost. No; Jesus rose bodily from the tomb and changed the world in a concrete and irreversible way. As it was in the beginning, so it is now because of the resurrection and so shall it be in the end. Jesus Christ is Lord of the entire Creation and of all nations and of every heart; he is Lord of life and victor over death. The fallen world has not yet recognized him as Lord, but the resurrection shows us that he is and that he will win the battle. Indeed, he already has. Let us take a few moments to prepare our hearts to join in praising the risen King.
silent preparation

God Calls Us to Worship
*Please rise to join me in the call to worship.

†*Call to Worship: Psalm 150[2]
Alleluia! Christ is risen.
He is risen indeed. Alleluia!
Praise the LORD.
Praise God in his sanctuary; praise him in his mighty heavens.
Praise him for his acts of power;
praise him for his surpassing greatness.
Praise him with the sounding of the trumpet,
praise him with the harp and lyre,
praise him with tambourine and dancing,
praise him with the strings and flute,
praise him with the clash of cymbals,
praise him with resounding cymbals.
Let everything that has breath praise the LORD.
Praise the LORD.

*Please remain standing and turn in your hymnals to #205 and we will sing "Christ the Lord Is Risen Today."

†Hymn #205: "Christ the Lord Is Risen Today" Original Trinity Hymnal
Words: Charles Wesley, 1739
Music: Easter hymn, unknown composer, Lyra Davidica (London: 1708)

Christ the Lord is risen today, Alleluia!
Sons of men and angels say; Alleluia!
Raise your joys and triumphs high; Alleluia!
Sing ye heav'ns, and earth, reply: Alleluia!

Vain the stone, the watch, the seal; Alleluia!
Christ has burst the gates of hell: Alleluia!
Death in vain forbids his rise; Alleluia!
Christ hath opened Paradise. Alleluia!

Lives again our glorious King; Alleluia!
Where, O death, is now thy sting? Alleluia!
Once he died, our souls to save; Alleluia!
Where thy victory, O grave? Alleluia!

Soar we now where Christ has led, Alleluia!
Following our exalted Head; Alleluia!
Made like him, like him we rise: Alleluia!
Ours the cross, the grave, the skies. Alleluia!

Hail, the Lord of earth and heav'n! Alleluia!
Praise to thee by both be giv'n; Alleluia!
Thee we greet triumphant now; Alleluia!
Hail, the Resurrection Thou! Alleluia!

*You may be seated.[3]

God Cleanses Us from Our Sins
*We have seen the risen King in his glory. Seeing his glory should cause us to reflect on how far short of that glory we fall. We are sinners who have rebelled against God. In love for us, Christ died for our sins and now he has risen for our salvation. This calls for a response of gratitude and obedience on our part. St. Paul reminds us of this in his first letter to the Corinthians: "Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed. Therefore let us keep the Festival, not with the old yeast, the yeast of malice and wickedness, but with bread without yeast, the bread of sincerity and truth." This turning from sin and embracing a new, righteous life begins with our confession of sin to our forgiving and sanctifying God. Before we take this opportunity to confess our sins together, let us now go individually to the Lord in silent confession.[4]
silent confession

*Corporate Prayer of Confession[5]
Almighty God, you have raised Jesus from the grave and crowned him Lord of all. We confess that we have not bowed before him or acknowledged his rule in our lives. We have gone along with the way of the world and failed to give him glory. Forgive us and raise us from sin, that we may be your faithful people, obeying the commands of our Lord Jesus Christ, who rules the world and is head of the Church, his body. Amen.

*Please rise for the assurance of pardon.[6]

†*Declaration of Pardon
Brothers and sisters, I declare to you, "If anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come!" Believe the Gospel.
In Christ Jesus we are forgiven.
Thanks be to God.

*Please remain standing as we sing the Gloria Patri.

†Hymn: Gloria Patri (printed in the bulletin)
Words: author unknown
Music: Gloria Patri (Greatorex), Henry W. Greatorex, 1851

Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost;As it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be,World without end. Amen, Amen.

God Consecrates Us by His Word
Prayer for Illumination[7]
The Lord be with you.
And also with you.
Lift up your hearts!
We lift them up unto the Lord.
Let us hear God's Word.
We rejoice to hear and obey the Good News.

Old Testament Reading: Psalm 118[8]
This morning's Old Testament reading is Psalm 118. In the psalmist's praises to God for delivering him from the hand of his many enemies, we see God's deliverance of Christ from the grave foretold. Like the psalmist, who was surrounded and nearly overcome by many hostile nations, God's Anointed was put to death by a joint Jewish-Gentile conspiracy representing the whole of rebellious humanity. As in the case of the psalmist, however, Christ was delivered from defeat in a most surprising manner, being revealed as the very point to which God's deliverances of Israel from the nations had been pointing all along. Listen to the Word of God:

1 Give thanks to the LORD, for he is good; his love endures forever.
2 Let Israel say: "His love endures forever." 3 Let the house of Aaron say: "His love endures forever." 4 Let those who fear the LORD say: "His love endures forever."
5 In my anguish I cried to the LORD, and he answered by setting me free. 6 The LORD is with me; I will not be afraid. What can man do to me? 7 The LORD is with me; he is my helper. I will look in triumph on my enemies.
8 It is better to take refuge in the LORD than to trust in man. 9 It is better to take refuge in the LORD than to trust in princes.
10 All the nations surrounded me, but in the name of the LORD I cut them off. 11 They surrounded me on every side, but in the name of the LORD I cut them off. 12 They swarmed around me like bees, but they died out as quickly as burning thorns; in the name of the LORD I cut them off. 13 I was pushed back and about to fall, but the LORD helped me.
14 The LORD is my strength and my song; he has become my salvation. 15 Shouts of joy and victory resound in the tents of the righteous: "The LORD's right hand has done mighty things! 16 The LORD's right hand is lifted high; the LORD's right hand has done mighty things!"
17 I will not die but live, and will proclaim what the LORD has done. 18 The LORD has chastened me severely, but he has not given me over to death.
19 Open for me the gates of righteousness; I will enter and give thanks to the LORD. 20 This is the gate of the LORD through which the righteous may enter. 21 I will give you thanks, for you answered me; you have become my salvation. 22 The stone the builders rejected has become the capstone; 23 the LORD has done this, and it is marvelous in our eyes. 24 This is the day the LORD has made; let us rejoice and be glad in it.
25 O LORD, save us; O LORD, grant us success.
26 Blessed is he who comes in the name of the LORD. From the house of the LORD we bless you. 27 The LORD is God, and he has made his light shine upon us. With boughs in hand, join in the festal procession up to the horns of the altar.
28 You are my God, and I will give you thanks; you are my God, and I will exalt you. 29 Give thanks to the LORD, for he is good; his love endures forever.
This is the Word of the Lord.
Thanks be to God!

Gospel Reading: Luke 24:1-12[9]
Our Gospel reading this morning is Luke's account of the resurrection. Listen for the pointed question the angels waiting in the empty tomb have to ask of the women and of us, God's Easter people. Their words remind us that death has been thoroughly defeated in the resurrection of our Lord. The reading begins in the 24th chapter of Luke, verse one, and ends at verse 12. Listen to the Word of God:

1On the first day of the week, very early in the morning, the women took the spices they had prepared and went to the tomb. 2They found the stone rolled away from the tomb, 3but when they entered, they did not find the body of the Lord Jesus. 4While they were wondering about this, suddenly two men in clothes that gleamed like lightning stood beside them. 5In their fright the women bowed down with their faces to the ground, but the men said to them, "Why do you look for the living among the dead? 6He is not here; he has risen! Remember how he told you, while he was still with you in Galilee: 7'The Son of Man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, be crucified and on the third day be raised again.' " 8Then they remembered his words.
9When they came back from the tomb, they told all these things to the Eleven and to all the others. 10It was Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and the others with them who told this to the apostles. 11But they did not believe the women, because their words seemed to them like nonsense. 12Peter, however, got up and ran to the tomb. Bending over, he saw the strips of linen lying by themselves, and he went away, wondering to himself what had happened.
This is the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ!
Praise be to you, O Christ!

*This is a new song, so you might not have had the chance to hear it before. It’s based on the heavenly praise that is given to the conquering Lamb in the book of Revelation. It is thus titled "Revelation Song." You will find it printed in the bulletin. Let us continue our praise of the risen King in the words of this song.

Hymn: "Revelation Song" (printed in the bulletin)[10]
Words and Music: Jennie Lee Riddle, 2002
Copyright: Integrity Music, 2006

Worthy is the, Lamb who was slain
Holy, Holy, is He
Sing a new song, to him who sits on
Heaven's mercy seat
[2X]

(Chorus)
Holy, Holy, Holy
Is the Lord God Almighty
Who was, and is, and is to come
With all creation I sing
Praise to the King of Kings
You are my everything
And I will adore You

Clothed in rainbows, of living color
Flashes of lightning, rolls of thunder
Blessing and honor, strength and glory and power be
to You the only wise King

Chorus

Filled with wonder, awestruck wonder
At the mention of your name
Jesus your name is power
Breath, and living water
Such a marvelous mystery
Yeah...

Repeat Chorus [3X]

*Epistle Reading: 1 Corinthians 5:20-27
20But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. 21For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. 22For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. 23But each in his own turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him. 24Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. 25For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. 26The last enemy to be destroyed is death. 27For he "has put everything under his feet."
This is the Word of the Lord.
Thanks be to God!

*Please join me in prayer.

*Pre-Sermon Prayer
O gracious Father, we pray that you would lovingly apply your Word to the hearts and lives of your servants for our growth in grace and effectiveness in ministry to your Church and world. Speak through me that your Word may be declared faithfully and effectively in my weak and fallible words. In Jesus' name we pray. Amen.

*Sermon: Jesus Christ Declared Lord at the Resurrection: 1 Corinthians 5:20-27[11]
Fallen Condition Focus- We want to segregate God to a small slice of life, but Christ is Lord of all.
Proposition- Christ is Lord.
· Lord of creation
· Lord of the nations
· Lord over death
Our Easter Response
1. Recognize God's glory in the creation; Christ is renewing it.
§ Commune with and glorify God in everything.
2. Recognize God's glory in the affairs of humanity; Christ is King.
§ Offer nation to Christ in faith that his Kingdom has come and will come.
3. Recognize Christ as Lord of life and death; Christ has defeated death.
§ The whole cosmos is passing from death to life; join in.
§ There is a great assembly, the Church militant and triumphant, praising the King and cheering us on.

In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.

*We have heard God's voice in the proclamation of his Word. In response, join us as we confess our faith together with the Church universal in the words of the Nicene Creed.

†*Nicene Creed[12]
We believe in one God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.
And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of his Father before all worlds:
God of God, Light of Light, Very God of Very God, begotten, not made; being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made: who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary, and was made man; and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate. He suffered and was buried; and the third day he rose again according to the Scriptures, and ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father.
And he shall come again with glory to judge both the quick and the dead; whose Kingdom shall have no end.
And we believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord, and Giver of Life, who proceedeth from the Father and the Son, who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified; who spoke by the prophets. And we believe one holy catholic and apostolic Church. We acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins. And we look for the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. Amen!

Choir Anthem: "Hallelujah Chorus" (words printed in the bulletin)[13]
Words and Music: Georg Friedrich Handel, Messiah, 1741

: Hallelujah! Hallelujah! Hallelujah! Hallelujah! Hallelujah! :

: For the Lord God Omnipotent reigneth. Hallelujah! Hallelujah! Hallelujah! Hallelujah! :

For the Lord God omnipotent reigneth. : Hallelujah! Hallelujah! Hallelujah! Hallelujah! Hallelujah! Hallelujah! Hallelujah! :

The kingdom of this world
Is become the Kingdom of our Lord,
And of His Christ, and of His Christ;
And He shall reign for ever and ever,
For ever and ever, forever and ever,

King of kings, and Lord of lords,: King of kings, and Lord of lords, :
And Lord of lords,
And He shall reign,
And He shall reign forever and ever
King of Kings, forever and ever,
And Lord of lords,
Hallelujah! Hallelujah!

And He shall reign forever and ever, : King of kings! and Lord of lords! :
And He shall reign forever and ever,
King of kings! and Lord of lords!
Hallelujah! Hallelujah! Hallelujah! Hallelujah! Hallelujah!

God Receives Our Sacrifices
*The mighty Christ who rules so magnificently intercedes on our behalf with the Father. Therefore, let us approach God’s throne with confidence in bringing him our praises and petitions. Do we have praises and concerns regarding ourselves or loved ones that we would like to share now? Any events in the life of the nation or the world or the church that we should pray about?

*Prayers of the People[14]
[It would be most appropriate if prayers of the people were brought before God in the form of an extemporaneous pastoral prayer. In addition to the particular praises and petitions brought before the congregation for this time of prayer, I would mention concerns that are currently weighing heavily on the congregation or praises in which all are rejoicing, such as those already printed in the bulletin. I would lift up concerns and praises in the life of the nation, the world, or the church that might not have been mentioned by the congregation or in the bulletin. I would also continue prayers in accordance with the general theme of the service or the season in the church calendar. I also think it is important in the course of such prayers to petition God for the growth of love and fellowship within the congregation and for the outreach of the congregation to the community. I would pray especially that our congregation would be welcoming to those who are somehow "different" from the majority of the people in the church community. The last would be a weekly soapbox petition on my part, both for myself and for the members of the congregation.]

*In view of God's generosity to us in Christ, let us present our tithes and offerings for God's service.

Offertory[15]

†Hymn: Doxology (printed in the bulletin)
Words: Thomas Ken, 1674
Music: Old hundredth, Ge­ne­van Psalt­er, 1551, at­trib­ut­ed to Lou­is Bour­geois

Praise God, from Whom all blessings flow;
Praise Him, all creatures here below;
Praise Him above, ye heavenly host;
Praise Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.

†Presentation of Tithes and Offerings and Diaconal Prayer[16]
Heavenly Father, we thank you for all that you have done for us in creating and redeeming us and in sustaining us in earthly and heavenly life. We pray that you would take these, our gifts to you from the bounty of what you have first given us and make them useful for the growth, maturation, and advance of your Kingdom to the ends of the earth. In Jesus's name we pray. Amen.

Christ Feeds Us at His Table
* Eucharistic Instruction and Invitation to the Table[17]
We come to this table because our Lord has died and risen again. We solemnly remember his death for our sins, but we also joyously celebrate his resurrection and eagerly anticipate his coming again. As in his resurrection, Christ demonstrates his lordship to us here. Just as Christ has brought us to eternal life from the midst of death by his resurrection, at this table the Holy Spirit brings the nourishment of Christ's body and blood to our souls through our eating of bread and wine, which, by its very nature, like all food, is dead. We thus taste and see his lordship over death. We taste and see Christ's lordship over Creation at this table because natural eating and the gifts of the field and the vineyard become for us the means of communion with God they were always intended to be. This is only because of the resurrection, through which the curse on nature is being reversed. We taste and see Christ's lordship over the nations at this table, because he assembles people from every language, tribe, and nation to become in him one new people of one body and one blood. This, of course, can only be because of the resurrection, through which he has made those who were not a people his very own people. Therefore, Christ invites to feast at this table all of those who trust in him alone for salvation, having been baptized in the Triune name and sharing in vital union with his body—the Church. Please join us now as we thank God for his great gifts to us in Christ.

*Prayer of Great Thanksgiving[18]
The Lord be with you.
And also with you.
Lift up your hearts!
We lift them up unto the Lord!
Let us give thanks to the Lord our God.
It is right to give thanks and praise.

It is indeed right, our duty and highest joy, that we should at all times and in all places give thanks to you, O holy Lord, Father almighty, everlasting God. You created the heavens and the earth and all that is in them. You made us in your own image; and in countless ways you show us your mercy. Above all we praise you for the glorious resurrection of your Son, Jesus Christ our Lord. He is the true Passover Lamb who takes away the sin of the world. By his death he destroyed death, and by his rising brought us eternal life. Therefore with angels and archangels and the whole company of heaven, we worship and adore your glorious name, praising you forevermore:

Holy, holy, holy Lord, God of power and might, heaven and earth are full of your glory. Hosanna in the highest. Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord. Hosanna in the highest.[19]

All glory and blessing are yours, O holy God, for in your great mercy you gave your only Son, Jesus Christ. He took our human nature, and suffered death on the cross for our redemption. There he made a perfect sacrifice for the sins of the whole world. We praise you that before he suffered and died, our Savior gave us this holy sacrament and commanded us to continue it as a lasting memorial of his death and sacrifice until he comes again.

Therefore, remembering his incarnation and holy life, his death and glorious resurrection, his ascension and continual intercession for us, and awaiting his coming again in power and great glory, we claim his eternal sacrifice and celebrate with these your holy gifts the memorial your Son commanded us to make. Great is the mystery of faith:

Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again.

Merciful God, by your Holy Spirit bless and make holy both us and these your gifts of bread and wine, that the bread we break may be a communion in the body of Christ, and the cup we bless may be a communion in the blood of Christ. Here we offer ourselves to be a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to you. In your mercy, accept this our sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving, as, in communion with all the faithful in heaven and on earth, we ask you to fulfill, in us and in all creation, the purpose of your redeeming love.

Help us, O God, to love as Christ loved. Knowing our own weakness, may we stand with all who stumble. Sharing in his suffering, may we remember all who suffer. Held in his love, may we embrace all whom the world denies. Rejoicing in his forgiveness, may we forgive all who sin against us. Give us strength to serve you faithfully until the promised day of resurrection, when with the redeemed of all the ages we will feast with you at your table in glory.[20]

Through Christ, with Christ, in Christ, in the unity of the Holy Spirit, all glory and honor are yours, almighty God, now and forever. Amen.[21]

*Lord's Prayer[22]
And now, as Jesus has taught us, we are bold to pray:
Our Father, who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name, thy Kingdom come, thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread; and forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors; and lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil. For thine is the Kingdom, and the power, and the glory, forever. Amen.

*Words of Institution and Distribution
The Lord Jesus, on the night of his arrest, took bread, and after giving thanks to God, he broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying: [breaks the loaf] “Take, eat. This is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way, after supper he took the cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them, saying, [lifts up the cup] "Drink this, all of you; for this is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you for the forgiveness of sins. Do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.” For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.

As we are distributing the bread and wine, turn in your hymnals to #207 and join us in singing Martin Luther's classic Easter hymn, "Christ Jesus Lay in Death's Strong Bands." We'll sing the first two stanzas as the bread is passed and then the final three stanzas as the wine is passed. When you receive the elements, please wait so we may eat them together.

Hymn #207: "Christ Jesus Lay in Death’s Strong Bands" Original Trinity Hymnal[23]
Words: Martin Luther, En­chridi­on (Er­furt, Ger­ma­ny: 1524); translated from German into English by Richard Massie, Martin Luther's Spiritual Songs, 1854
Music: Christ Lag in Tod­es­band­en, Geistliche Gesangbüchlein, 1524; arranged by Johann S. Bach, 1724

Christ Jesus lay in death's strong bands,
For our offenses given;
But now at God's right hand he stands
And brings us life from heaven;
Therefore let us joyful be
And sing to God right thankfully
Loud songs of hallelujah. Hallelujah!

It was a strange and dreadful strife
When life and death contended;
The victory remained with life,
The reign of death was ended;
Holy Scripture plainly saith
That death is swallowed up by death,
His sting is lost for ever. Hallelujah!

[Hymn pauses at end of distribution of bread. If second verse concludes prior to end of distribution, instruct musicians to continue playing tune until congregation has been served.]

*Because there is one loaf, we, who are many, are one body; for we all partake of one loaf. Is not the bread we break a participation in the body of Christ?[24] [All eat.]

[Hymn continues as distribution of wine begins.]

Here the true Paschal Lamb we see,
Whom God so freely gave us;
He died on the accursed tree—
So strong his love!—to save us.
See, his blood doth mark our door;
Faith points to it, death passes o'er,
And Satan cannot harm us. Hallelujah!

So let us keep the festival
Whereto the Lord invites us;
Christ is himself the Joy of all,
The Sun that warms and lights us.
By his grace he doth impart
Eternal sunshine to the heart;
The night of sin is ended. Hallelujah!

Then let us feast this joyful day
On Christ, the Bread of heaven;
The Word of grace hath purged away
The old and evil leaven.
Christ alone our souls will feed,
He is our meat and drink indeed;
Faith lives upon no other. Hallelujah!

[Hymn concludes. If hymn ends prior to end of distribution of wine, instruct congregation to sing verse 1 again.]

*Likewise, is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? [All drink.]

God Commissions Us for His Service
*Matthew and Mark tell us that after supper Jesus and his disciples sang a hymn before they departed the Upper Room. Before we leave this place, let us do likewise. This hymn will serve as our prayer of dedication for the week. It is the last song printed in the bulletin. Rise as we pray in the words of the fourth stanza and refrain of "In Breath and Flesh and Power."

†Hymn for Mission: "In Breath and Flesh and Power" stanza and refrain 4 (printed in the bulletin)[25]
Original Composition
Words: Jamie Stober, 2010
Music: cleansing fountain, 19th-century American camp meeting tune, arranged by Jamie Stober 2010

Lord we have been with You this Easter Day in the new Jerusalem.
You have fed us with the bread of life and filled our hearts with hymns.
Strengthened by Your death and victory, conform our lives to You,
And send us as Your co-laborers in making all things new.

In making all things new, in making all things new.
And send us as Your co-laborers in making all things new.

†Benediction and Dismissal: Numbers 6:24-26
Now may the LORD bless you and keep you; may the LORD make his face to shine upon you and be gracious to you; may the LORD turn his face toward you and give you peace.

†Three-fold Amen
†Postlude

Notes
[1] In this rather lengthy opening, I have provided a discussion of the guiding themes of the service to all present and an explanation to both Christians and seekers of the unique significance of Easter. The Gospel-progression of the service starts rolling as we begin to see the glorious nature and works of God and his Christ in these remarks.
[2] Psalm 150 is a most appropriate call to worship for an Easter service, with its call for exuberant praise in response to God's mighty works and awesome nature. The praise of God with the creational gift of music and the expressed desire that "everything that has breath praise the Lord" sounds a sub-theme—Christ's lordship over the Creation—of the service's dominant theme of Christ's lordship declared in the resurrection.
[3] The practical need to be seated corresponds with the need to shift to a more appropriate posture for the upcoming confession of sin. Kneeling later for the confession would have been desirable, but I thought that would begin to be too much up and down movement.
[4] A rubric in which I attempt to build a logical connection between praise and confession of sin. The overall Gospel-progression of the service moves from recognition of God's character to confession of our sin. In my rubric, I place confession of sin within the context of repentance in response to God's forgiving love, preparing us for the next step in the overall Gospel-progression of the service, that of receiving instruction from God for living a life of grateful obedience.
[5] Used by Permission from The Worship Sourcebook (Grand Rapids, Mich: Calvin Institute of Christian Worship, 2004), 638.
[6] God raises us up from our humiliation by declaring us forgiven sons and daughters, therefore, we rise to hear the declaration of his pardon and remain standing afterwards in the dignity he has given us through Christ's blood, thanking him by singing the Gloria Patri. The call to worship and confession portion of the service together represent the first of multiple cyclical Gospel-progressions of hearing-repentance-praise within the service. Note the distinction and continuity between the multiple Gospel-progressions within the service and the overall Gospel-progression of the entire service.
[7] Time-honored tradition or vain repetition? I could think of more appropriate, less done-to-death prayers for illumination, but inserting the sursum corda here in the Liturgy of the Word helps to cement the relationship between Word and Sacrament, since the sursum corda also appears in the Liturgy of the Upper Room.
[8] Psalm 118 is an appropriate choice in light of the Easter theme of Christ's lordship I have chosen to emphasize. This Psalm shows that the Father has given Christ a great victory over the nations and over death in the resurrection—victories that are important sub-themes in this service.
[9] I suppose some explanation is in order for breaking from the traditional liturgical order and preaching from the epistle instead of the Gospel reading. I'm not a very good theologian, so I don't know how to preach this passage without accessing apostolic reflection on the resurrection, hence my use of the epistle reading for my sermon text.
[10] I have certainly drawn on the richness of past expression in this service, but I felt it imperative to include the freshness of current expression. Since everything else in this service is traditional, including this one new song feels a bit like throwing the proverbial dog a bone. Because its content is so thematically appropriate, however, including "Revelation Song" in this heavily traditional service is not as arbitrary as some choices of contemporary music in traditional contexts seem to be.
[11] The sermon is the point in the overall Gospel-progression of the service where we receive God's instructions for our new obedience. In this instance, I believe I have done a good job of integrating the sermon theme throughout the rest of the service and that the Gospel storyline flows effectively through the arrangement of Word, song, prayer, and Sacrament. Because there is such continuity between the sermon and the non-preaching elements, I would opt for a shorter sermon on the order of 20-25 minutes. Also part of my rationale for this decision is that the long recounting of salvation history in the Eucharistic Great Thanksgiving carries some of the weight of proclamation and Gospel re-presentation the sermon is typically called on to carry.
[12] I chose the Nicene Creed rather than the Apostles’ Creed because of the former's strong Christological focus and because the former is used more universally (in the Eastern Church but without the filioque, of course) than the latter. Christology and catholicity are appropriate emphases for Easter. As I noted in the preceding rubric, I include the Creed after the sermon because it represents a doxological confession of faith in response to God's works on our behalf and desires for our lives, as proclaimed in the sermon. Not to mention, the historic Creeds create a sense of belonging to a huge, centuries-spanning, globe-embracing mystery. This represents the rising toward culmination of a cyclical Gospel-progression of hearing-repentance-praise in the consecration by the Word portion of the service and also the beginning of movement in the overall Gospel-progression of the service from hearing God's instruction to being commissioned for his service.
[13] I absolutely love this piece of music! I chose this to serve as the climax of the cyclical Gospel-progression within the consecration by the Word portion of the service. I am concerned with the flow of the service here because this crescendo of praise might raise the whole service to its peak, whereas my desire is to have the Lord's Supper as the climax of the service as a whole. However, placing the "Hallelujah Chorus" prior to the Eucharist could also be strategic in preparing us to "lift up our hearts" into the heavenlies to feast with Jesus.
[14] I chose to place prayers of the people here as an appropriate response to the re-presentation of the Gospel in the consecration by the Word portion of the service. The preceding rubric serves to transition us seamlessly from praise to petition and to call us to covenant faithfulness in offering ourselves to God through prayer.
[15] The people's offering of themselves in response to God's grace continues with their offering of financial gifts. The preceding rubric serves as both transition from prayers to the offering and as a call to covenant faithfulness in returning to God a portion of his gifts to us.
[16] I have not yet addressed congregational participation in the service. Of course, the songs and the prayers have been participatory, the choir has had the opportunity to offer beautiful music, laypersons have led the prayer for illumination and offered Scripture readings, and a deacon is here providing the prayer for the offering. Multiple prayers and a reading in the service are dialogical and responsive. I have strived to strike an appropriate balance between proclamation and participation in this service.
[17] I have placed a brief Eucharistic reflection here to thematically tie the Lord's Supper, the sermon, and the whole of the service together. It thus also serves as a good transition from one part of the service to the next.
[18] Used by Permission from The Book of Common Worship (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1993). I chose to include a Prayer of Great Thanksgiving in the Lord's Supper because, in regard to the overall Gospel-progression of the service, it covers the same ground as the sermon in re-presenting the Gospel, prepares us to receive tokens of that Gospel, and is a both a call for covenant faithfulness and a response of covenant faithfulness. The prayer is parts praise, proclamation, dialogue, petition, and instruction, balancing passive receiving and active participation.
[19] The responsive sections of the Prayer of Great Thanksgiving emphasize God's glory, inspire a sense of transcendence and awe, and join our hearts to the faithful of all times and places, considering that these praises have been uttered constantly on earth and in heaven since the Church began.
[20] In the prayer's petitions for the Church, the world, and for loving faithfulness in ministry to the world, vertical concern for God's glory is balanced with horizontal concern for our neighbor's good.
[21] The Prayer of Great Thanksgiving is heavy on propositional content but presents it in such a way that it inspires transcendence and mystery, effectively balancing cognitive and emotional characteristics of Gospel presentation.
[22] I chose to include the Lord's Prayer in the Communion liturgy, rather than earlier, to ratchet up the sense of catholicity and the communal orientation of the Sacrament.
[23] If it's Easter, and you need a Communion hymn, so help me God, you can do no other than sing Luther's great hymn. A couple things about this might be tricky, though: 1) holding hymnals while passing communion plates, and 2) the logistics of coordinating the timing between distribution of the elements and the verses of the song. I give three of the five verses for the distribution of the wine because it takes a bit longer than the bread.
[24] The prompts for eating and drinking focus on the communal and cultic aspects of the Sacrament.
[25] I chose to place this song here to serve as a prayer for Christ to empower us to carry out the work he has commissioned us to do in response to his grace. I decided to be creative in expressing the dedication prayer through song. I probably would not actually use this rather amateurish song of my own creation in a service, but it works quite well in the context of an Easter service.