Kind reader, I have opened the comments on this entry because I’d like your input on something that has long vexed me: What does the Christian do when invited to a funeral or wedding where the pastor is a woman or a known heretic? How about a non-Christian funeral or wedding?
I have traditionally attended heterodox religious events as long as the church nominally holds to Christian creeds. The Unitarian church is out. A Methodist service “pastored” by a woman with two last names or an Episcopal service led by John Spong are in. At the Catholic church I may join in with agreeable parts of the service and remain silent during the rest. If a woman or blatant heretic is officiating at a liberal Protestant church, I don’t participate other than sitting or standing with the congregation so as not to be an eyesore (in the case of the pastorette, no matter what her beliefs, non-participation is an unobtrusive way of not recognizing her authority).
In light of 1 Cor 10:20-22, though, is this too arbitrary or liberal?
20 No, I imply that what pagans sacrifice they offer to demons and not to God. I do not want you to be participants with demons. 21 You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons. You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons. 22 Shall we provoke the Lord to jealousy? Are we stronger than he?
The great Charles Hodge comments on v20:
It was of great importance for the Corinthians to know that it did not depend on their intention whether they came into communion with devils…but [instead] what they did… A man need not intend to burn himself when he puts his hand into the fire; or to pollute his soul when he frequents the haunts of vice. The effect is altogether independent of the intention… This principle applies with all its force to compliance with religious rites of the heathen at the present day. Those who in pagan countries join in the religious rites of the heathen, are just as much guilty of idolatry, and are just as certainly brought into fellowship with devils, as the nominal Christians of Corinth, who, althought hey knew that an idol was nothing… yet frequented the heathen feasts. The same principle also applies to the compliance of Protestants in the religious observances of Papists. Whatever their intention may be, they worship the host if they bow down to it with the crowd who intend to adore it. By the force of the act we become one with those in whose worship we join.
Of course, our intention when attending these events is to mourn with those who mourn and celebrate with those who celebrate. However, in doing so do we commit idolatry and fellowship with devils despite our intentions? Note: I will remove comments supporting feminism or other heresies.
I would have thought that the Idolatry that the Corinthians would have been participating in when they attended the “heathen feasts” was not the worship of the pagan gods, but the worship of the pagan social community.
After all, the desire to be with such people that practice such things is not an indicator of worship of their god, (which they knew to be “nothing”, and Paul affirmed or at the least seemed to affirm) but worship of that particular group as more important than Jesus.
I post this knowing that we have differences of opinion on other issues (if you were to read my blog for example), and I respect your conviction to what you believe in light of the information that you have.
In Christ..
Josh
Thx for the reply. Paul is going on about avoiding sexual immorality, which attended these heathen feasts, just as Christ scorned the church at Thyatira (Rev 2) for involving themselves in the sexual and idolatrous practices of the trade guilds there. Paul seems to be speaking of actual worship here and that in some sense the Corinthians were engaging in worship even if they didn’t mean to. He’s saying, look, these idols are nothing in themselves, but behind the carved wood and stone lurk demons. So those who worship any God other than the true god are worshipping demons. So don’t get involved in their religious practices. When I saw that someone as eminently sensible as the Princetonian Charles Hodge spoke so bluntly on the topic, I began questioning my old assumption that it was simply a matter of Christian liberty. (Of course I am not settled on the matter).
Greetings Jack,
I’ve read your posts at Baylys’ Blog and have perused some of your blogs here. I’ll be interested to see what you get by way of comments now that you’ve opened some of your blogs to them.
My guidelines for the situations you describe include these:
Concerning non-Christian (Hindu, Shinto, etc.) I *think* I would attend these religious gatherings (weddings, funerals) if I could secure assurances satisfactory to myself that my presence would not be construed as participation by adherents and that I would be permitted to abstain from any and all liturgical actions. Here even rising and sitting would be actions I would wish to avoid. Eating or drinking anything is unquestionably off the table. My request would be that I could stand apart and observe. Since I’ve never met this situation before, I have not tested this guideline as far as its implementation.
Concerning Cultic Christian services (JWs, Mormons) I would be inclined not to attend at all. On the other hand, I don’t find myself with any invitations from these quarters, so the issue is as academic as the one above.
Concerning Christian services: to identify these you’ve suggested that creedal orthodoxy is the litmus test, and I’d concur with that. So, I would count as Christian RCCs and the Orthodox, as well as the catholic Protestant communions (Lutherans, Anglicans, Episcopals, Presbyterians). The Zwinglian/Anabaptist strain is an interesting test here, as many of them forthrightly reject any form of creedalism, but I give them a pass as their uber-shepherds often endorse the content of the catholic creeds.
You mentioned funerals and weddings. In the communion above, these are rarely occasions for congregational “worship.†Beyond singing a hymn, there’s little or nothing for the congregation to do except to watch. If there were a Eucharist at a wedding or funeral, I would participate if the communion rail were not fenced (as it is in all the above except Anglican/Episcopal).
As to heterodox elements (women priests/pastors, poison/snakes, garage-sale theology, etc.), I would do as you do – simply watch, don’t participate.
I think the key issue in your question is what constitutes participation. If mere presence is to be construed as participation, then the implication is obvious – don’t even show up. Can one stand as an observer without participating? I think so, but I think so because of the theology of worship I embrace, teach, and defend, viz. that in corporate settings participation is constituted by the operative liturgy, which has as its purpose to enfold the individuals present into a body which worships as a unity. Mere presences is not liturgical participation, and so one could be present (spatially), but “absent†liturgically.
There is an exception even to this, however, which I have observed and which I warn my family and friends and encourage them to noise it abroad: I will not attend a wedding contracted contrary to the law of Christ. If a Christian and non-Christian marry, I will not attend, though I would attend the marriage of two unbelievers. Nor the “marriage†of a same-sex couple. If in any doubt on any of these points, I would not attend. I will not attend the wedding of a Christian who is divorced with a living spouse. In these cases, it is not the orthodoxy of the service itself that I judge, but the ends to which it is put – namely to bless what Christ has forbidden. In this case, my mere presence amounts to an endorsement in the sensibilities of the modern mind. Said another way, the most peaceable way for me to incarnate by objection to such proceedings is to stay away from them.
When I was still an Episcopalian, I served as an acolyte and lector. As such, I vested, processed with the rest of the altar party into the church, served at the altar in the prescribed tasks, and read the Scripture. We had a female deacon whose orders were compatible with Scripture and the practice of the Church.
But, when she applied for and received Holy Orders to the presbyterate, I notified the liturgy committee head that I would no longer serve as I had before. There was always the chance on some odd Sunday morning that the priest would be ill or otherwise absent, and that the priestess would officiate. Article XXVI of the Articles of Religion gave me cover in those situations as a member of the laity, but insofar as the communion rail is a line of demarcation, I could not stand on the side of it where I had formerly stood. To do so would have been to join in the priestess’ disobedience to the Scripture.
Fr. Bill, interesting comments. While weddings and funerals don’t qualify as worship, they are essentially religious ‘rites,’ and thus would they not fall under the same 1 Cor prohibitions? I am not sure that the idolatrous guilds in Rev 2 were actually worship services either, but certainly they were religious events of some stripe.
Your point about attending remarriages is provocative, something I’ve never thought of. While we might differ on details (I believe those divorced because of abandonment or adultery are free to remarry), I have attended remarriages where neither occurred. Many questions come to mind: What if both are unbelievers? Or if a man is penitent about his divorce, or perhaps has become a believer in the interim, but the spouse has remarried, then what? The Bible seems to say that after the deed is done, then the marriage counts, perhaps since the alternative (yet another divorce) is worse. But should we be present? I’m inclined to agree w/you that we should not. In our spheres we will certainly encounter this situation as much or more than with nominal Christian events, and here we have a professing brother. Whew, it’s painful to even think about. But sometimes that is when it is most necessary to do the right thing.