A Baptismal Liturgy for Converts from Islam

Greetings, 

Here is part IV of my series on sacraments and mission, which I started many years ago for St Francis Magazine. This one contains an introduction summarizing why I think that liturgy is valuable for those engaged in mission to and among Muslims, and then contains a liturgy for baptism (of an adult) based on the Book of Common Prayer of the Episcopal Church (USA), which yes is very liberal, but the liturgy in the Prayer Book  is very good.

So check it out, try it out if you are doing any work among Muslims, and let me know what you think.

'Mission and Sacrament, Part IV: A Liturgy for the Baptism of Muslims, to be Conducted on the Feast of Pentecost' in St Francis Magazine Vol 10:2, June 2014.

The first three articles can be found (in order) here, here, and here.

Peace,

Abu Daoud

A Hebrew Benediction?

Interesting benediction here, what are your opinions?

Now may our God and Father, who has anointed for us a King and Priest and Prophet in Jesus of Nazareth, anoint us also with his Spirit that we might proclaim boldly and clearly that the Kingdom of God is near.

A Theology of the "Altar Call"

...the meagerness of our [evangelical] ritual language and our purgation of sacrificial imagery from the central sacrificial context of the Eucharist, instituted by our Lord himself, has led on the one hand to a sort of semi-Gnostic pilgrimage to the latest Christian fad, but also, because the ritual sacrifice is in our very marrow, to the invention of our own ritual—the altar call. So it is that in churches which have no altars and do not call the Eucharist a sacrifice of any kind that people walk up to the altar (aka, stage) and offer themselves up to God, or ask for his grace to overcome some temptation or sickness of struggle, or ask for the grace of salvation, or what have you.

From HERE.

Communion: like a text message?

What do you think about this statement?

Another challenge to anti-sacramental Christianity is the question, then what happens? If we do not somehow participate in God’s grace, in his love and salvation by means of physical, material things which he has chosen (again, that is the very principle underlying the incarnation—that the Son has already done this), then how do we participate in God’s grace and salvation for us? I am not talking about charging up our grace as if it were a bank account or something like that—that is a most crude and absurd understanding of sacramentality. But the question remains, if there is nothing that happens in the Kingdom when we do these things, then nothing happens. It means that taking communion is just a reminder, a memorial. It does nothing at all that a text message or card in the mail could not.

From HERE.

Cragg on liturgy and the Gospel for Muslims

Call of the Minaret, Kenneth Cragg, 2001, p. 299:

Perhaps we have not been careful enough to let the Muslims see the Church in its sacramental communion with the living Christ. Though reverent words can explain the objective meaning of the service, only the reality of communion can show its fullness.

Sacramental Validity, and there is no king in Israel

Alan Knox over at The Assembling of the Church (he's a Baptist, btw) has an interesting post on the Lord's Supper. He suggests that any Christian meal can be The Lord's Supper, and asks the following questions:

What makes a meal between believers the Lord's Supper?

What makes a meal between believers NOT the Lord's Supper?

I answered: correct form, intention, and matter. That is what makes something the Lord's Supper (or not). He answered that my answer was a systematization (it is), and there is no need for that, since every systematization is contextual:

Every systemization, every creed, every confession - even Nicaea, and Calvin, etc. - is given within a context. It is important for us to recognize that these systemization are not "gospel truth", and for us to struggle with these issues again within our own context.

I asked him if the JW's were not then a legitimate systematization/contextualization for 20th C. America. His answer, no, bc they are unbiblical, whereas any Christian meal being the Lord's Supper is not. To this I replied, and this is where I am curious as to your input:

Hi Alan,

"In those days there was no king in Israel and every man did what was right in his own eyes."

Not to be a jerk or anything, but isn't that what you have? You read Scripture and it says what you see there, and indeed, perhaps what you want it to see. There is no authority above you, except Scripture, right? But Scripture is determined by your own personal, individual reading.

This JW's are not an OK contextualization, and burgers at McD's being (or maybe being) the Lord's Supper is an OK contextualization. Because you say so. Or rather, because you say that is what Scripture says. Or perhaps, Scriptures says so because you say so.

At least the answer I'm presenting has stood the test of around 16 centuries, been used and tried in every continent, in thousands of languages, and commands respect in the three major traditions: Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant.

You have your opinion of what Scripture teaches. I have the opinion of the church across the world and through the centuries as to what Scripture teaches.

Abu Daoud on exporting the American model of church and liturgy

An e-mail I just wrote to a friend, I thought it was interesting enough to share with you all. Happy New Year to everyone! --AD

Hi Brother,

You raise a great question: in many ways the American church is not replicable outside the States, no? I would agree with you in several aspects. American culture is very much focused around entertainment, and that really comes across at church. I mean, how many people have you met who do or don't go to a certain church bc of the music or the preaching? It is a difficult balance, I mean, you should be edified by the sermons, but there is such a thing as substituting an entertaining sermon for a boring one that is edifying. The same can be said for the way our churches handle their physical assets. I am, however, not one of these guys who says that we need to go back to home churches (though here that is needed sometimes, but more as a security matter than some ideological debate, like it is in the US).

All of this is related to my conviction that liturgy, in some sense of the word, is an important part of Christian worship. It serves to focus attention away from the entertainment factor (ie, the preacher or worship leader) and towards the work of the people--which is what the actual Greek word liturgy means, the work of the people, or a public work. So yes, the standing and sitting and kneeling can certainly become meaningless ritual, but I have found that is not the case nearly as often as non-liturgical Christians allege. I have ample experience with both forms of Christianity (liturgical and non-liturgical) in a number of different cultural settings and languages.

Also, it is entirely possible to combine the best aspects of evangelical ethos and liturgical worship, I have seen this at some Anglican and Lutheran churches, for example. The desire to shed every last bit of structure (liturgy) is very American, isn't it? I think that's another aspect of how American Christianity does not work so well in other cultures. The non-structured every-guy-doing-his-own-thing kind of worship we sometimes see in the US is more or less incomprehensible to many folks here in the Arab world, both Christian and Muslim.

Anyway, that is much more than you expected, I'm sure! Peace be with you during these twelve days of Christmas, and happy new year!

Baptism for Muslims: Syncretism or heterodox practice?

Thanks to a reader for posting this. I have been enjoying reading Religious Syncretism by Eric Maroney over the past few days. If you can pick it up I recommend it, though some of the material on the BVM will make you squirm (especially all of you devout Catholics out there).

But here is an interesting and recent article about Muslims, in fulfilling their vows, taking their children to be "baptized" in fulfilling a specific vow. I will say that I had known about this outside of MENA, but to hear of it happening in Egypt is quite curious, though not entirely surprising given the Holy Family's sojourn there. I will say that sacramentally it is probably not a genuine baptism though. That the priests have built a different room for Muslim baptisms indicate that theologically what is happening is not a regular baptism. It is probably more of an act of dedication and thanksgiving that the priests are willing to help with. Clearly they do not believe that this Muslim baby is truly being grafted into the Church, the body of Christ, through this act. In any case, it would be interesting to explore more this interesting phenomenon.

Baptism brings together Muslims and Christians in Drenka celebrations

ASSIUT: Last month, 49-year-old Om Khaled was on her way to the Virgin Mary Monastery in Drenka, Assiut to baptize her three-month-old son. The Muslim woman, following an age-old tradition in her hometown, was fulfilling a vow to God (nadr) to baptize her son according to Christian rituals if she were to ever get pregnant.

During the monastery celebrations, held every year from Aug. 7 to 21, Muslims making similar vows flock to the monastery, where the Holy Family is believed to have taken refuge during their visit to Egypt. According to Father Yacoub Suleiman, spokesman of the Virgin Mary Monastery, about 40 Muslims seeking to baptize their newborns arrive every day. The number reaches 100 during the last three days of celebrations.

This has led the monastery to build another room dedicated solely to baptizing Muslims, next to the one dedicated to Copts.

Both rooms feature a stone container filled with water, in which babies are immersed three consecutive times. The only difference is the use of the holy oil, referred to as ‘Miron’ in baptizing Christians. The full baptism ritual, including the holy oil, is the first step in the Christian faith. Boys are baptized after 40 days of birth and girls after 80. In the case of converting to Christianity, baptism is not limited to a certain age.

But this difference between the two rooms had led to some objections. Hossam Salman, a 40-year-old Muslim, insisted on baptizing his newborn in the Christian room, with all the rituals intact.

The priests who tried to persuade Salman that there’s no difference between the two rooms, had to find an alternative.

“The priests had to find an alternative because using the Miron oil [during the ritual] would mean that the child is a Christian,” one of the priests told Daily News Egypt. [...]

My response to Fr Greg

Dear Fr Greg,

Thank you for the response and the comments on the Latin liturgy for the ordination of a priest. May I ask what are the readings assigned for the liturgy?

A few comments though: the bishop’s sermon (or more precisely, the Cardinal Archbishop’s sermon) was not based on the homily which you commented on. Second, this was in context of a religious order, specifically the Dominicans. Is it possible they have their own liturgy for this occasion?

And finally, this sentence I find confusing: “By consecration [the ordinand] will be made a true priest of the New Testament, to PREACH THE GOSPEL, sustain God’s people, and celebrate the liturgy, above all, the Lord’s sacrifice.”

The words ‘above all’ entail that celebrating the Lord’s sacrifice (in the Mass) is a discrete act which can be separated from preaching the Gospel. I absolutely object to any such line of theological thought. The celebration of the holy Eucharist IS in its very essence and its most powerful form nothing else THAN the preaching of the Gospel. To divide the two has resulted in much unfortunate decline for the Roman Catholic church. The decision of Vatican II that all public masses must include a homily was a step in the right direction to redress this facile and foolish separation of the Word against the Word.

To separate the Word in the sacrament and the Word in Scripture is to divide a house against itself. The true natures of the two complement and complete each other. One is not higher than the other any more than one side of a coin is of greater value than the other.

Salam.

Abu Daoud

Early church in the cemetery

As has been pointed out by many writers--notably Sir William Ramsay--the early Christians earned their recognition as a legally constituted body in the eyes of the state by enrolling themselves as members of a Burial Club : their cemeteries were recognized as the lawful property of the community, and they themselves were allowed to assemble at the spot where their dead lay buried ; and so for North Africa at least the cemeteries -- areae -- became the first churches, and the tombs of martyrs the first altars: though it must be remembered that there was neither church nor altar proper, till a much later date. We find therefore that the first cry of the populace in time of persecution was "away with the cemeteries !"

The Church in North Africa AD 200, p. 15, 16
Stuart Donaldson, 1902
Cambridge U Press

So next time you talk to someone who wants to go back to the pure, early church you can take them to the graveyard.

Epiclesis: guess which church

Read this epiclesis and guess what church or what kind of church it is from.

And we thine unworthy servants beseech thee, Most merciful Father, to hear us, and to send thy Holy Spirit upon us and upon these thy gifts and creatures of bread and wine, that, being blessed and hallowed by his life-giving power, they may become the Body and Blood of thy most dearly beloved Son, to the end that all who shall receive the same may be sanctified both in body and soul, and preserved unto everlasting life.

And we earnestly desire thy fatherly goodness, mercifully to accept this our sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving, most humbly beseeching thee to grant, that by the merits and death of thy Son Jesus Christ, and through faith in his blood, we and all thy whole Church may obtain remission of our sins, and all other benefits of his passion.

Tertullian on the Eucharist

Note two things especially: in the late 2nd C. the Christians already call the table an "altar", and they take special care of the elements. This is from HERE.

Tertullian [ca. 200/206 AD] in his treaties on Prayer [6,2], quotes John 6 in connection with a spiritual understanding of the Lord's prayer "give us this day our daily bread." In a spiritual sense Christ is our daily Bread, presumably because of the practice of the daily reception of the Eucharist.

Later in that same treatise [19,1] he writes;

Likewise, regard to days of fast, many do not think they should be present at the sacrificial prayers, because their fast would be broken if they were to receive the Body of the Lord. Does the Eucharist, then, obviate a work devoted to God, or does it bind it more to god? Will not your fast be more solemn if, in addition, you have stood at God's altar? The body of the Lord having been received and reserved, each point is secured: both the participation in the sacrifice and the discharge of duty.

Regarding worship on the Lord's Day Tertullian also writes; [The Crown [3,4] AD 211]:

We take anxious care lest something of our Cup of Bread should fall upon the ground.

John Wesley on the Sacraments

From HERE:

John Wesley was an Anglican Priest, and hence his understanding of the Sacraments reflected, closely, what we today call "anglo-catholicism." For Wesley, a Sacrament was the outward sign of God's gift of inward Grace, to which Humans have the responsibility of outward response. Without our response, the Sacrament is not completed. This is, fundamentally, very similar (though not identical) to the Catholic understanding of the Sacraments. To this idea Wesley added the requirement that Jesus have clearly established the Sacrament in Scripture. Since this can only be said with certainty of Baptism and Holy Communion, Wesley -- following his Anglican tradition -- only recognized these two as formal "Sacraments," or as they are often referenced: "Sacraments properly-so-called."

Just What is Transubstantiation?

Well, I made the mistake of reading Just What is Transubstantiation? over at Perennis which led me to DL this article, Eucharistic Change, which starts off very nicely with the following words. He sums up perfectly the caricature that most people have of Transubstantiation (which to this day I don't understand well enough to evaluate intelligently). He also makes the point that TS is not "the official" doctrine of Rome:

Let us begin with some misconceptions
about what the Catholic tradition says
happens when bread and wine are consecrated.
The Council of Trent did not decree that
Catholics should believe in transubstantiation:
it just calls it a most appropriate (aptissime)
way of talking about the Eucharist,
presumably leaving open whether there might
not be other, perhaps even more appropriate
ways of talking. You could say that the
Council sanctioned and recommended this
theology whereas, for example, the Anglican
Thirty-Nine Articles are rather less liberal:
they forbid it its ‘repugnant to the plain words
of scripture’. It is likely, however, that the
authors of that document did not quite
understand the meaning of that doctrine and
fairly certain that a whole lot of Catholics do
not either.

Perhaps we could start with a caricature of
the doctrine which I think would be taken for
the real thing by a great many Christians,
whether they accept or reject it. The caricature
goes like this: at the consecration, the bread
and wine change into a different kind of
substance, flesh and blood, in fact the flesh and
blood of Christ; but this is disguised from us
by the fact that to all appearances the bread
and wine are unchanged.

--Herbert McCabe, OP

Mission, Sacrament, and Islam

For those of you interested in such things, St Francis Magazine which specializes in mission in the Arab world (isn't that awesome?) has just released online their June issue, which you can read HERE.

And especially let me recommend, of all the great articles on there, my own on mission and sacrament in relation to the church's mission to Islam. Download it by clicking HERE.

Also, my previous article on Apostates of Islam is still available, as is my Parable of the Prince and Letter.

Erik Twist: more than empty ritual

From HERE:

Ritual, we must say, is written into the fabric of human nature. All civilizations exhibit it. It is only in our recent western modernity that we have tried to deny both its necessity and our own inability to shake off its bonds. The anti-liturgical movement with its so-called emphasis on relevance and authenticity (forsaking anything that hints of traditionalism) claims to offer worship "experiences" that lend the worshiper a freedom and space to approach God in a manner that is both comfortable and honest.

What is telling is that for your average "seeker-friendly" service this always follows a strict pattern: sub-culturally relevant music (this differs according to the demographic trying to be reached), a laid-back attitude manifested in catchy introductions, extemporaneous prayers that usually follow the same pattern, and a long, passionately delivered talk. The best of these offerings is done in large auditoriums where no natural light is allowed in so that the "mood" of the space can be changed to fit the events of the service. Everything is thought through. Everything is geared toward evoking a desired feeling. Most of it is repeated week after week. [...]

A Deeper Relevance: why are some evangelicals attracted to liturgy?

[Traditional liturgy] doesn't sound relevant.

Yet many evangelicals are attracted to liturgical worship, and as one of those evangelicals, I'd like to explain what the attraction is for me, and perhaps for many others. A closer look suggests that something more profound and paradoxical is going on in liturgy than the search for contemporary relevance. "The liturgy begins … as a real separation from the world," writes Orthodox theologian Alexander Schmemann. He continues by saying that in the attempt to "make Christianity understandable to this mythical 'modern' man on the street," we have forgotten this necessary separation.

It is precisely the point of the liturgy to take people out of their worlds and usher them into a strange, new world—to show them that, despite appearances, the last thing in the world they need is more of the world out of which they've come. The world the liturgy reveals does not seem relevant at first glance, but it turns out that the world it reveals is more real than the one we inhabit day by day.[...]

From HERE. I loved this because as someone from a Bible Church background the Anglican liturgy came to me as a wonderful treasure. Here is one more paragraph I found quite touching:

This is one reason I thank God for the liturgy. The liturgy does not target any age or cultural subgroup. It does not even target this century. (It does not imagine, as we moderns and postmoderns are tempted to do, that this is the best of all possible ages, the most significant era of history.) Instead, the liturgy draws us into worship that transcends our time and place. Its earliest forms took shape in ancient Israel, and its subsequent development occurred in a variety of cultures and subcultures—Greco-Roman, North African, German, Frankish, Anglo-Saxon, and so on. It has been prayed meaningfully by bakers, housewives, tailors, teachers, philosophers, priests, monks, kings, and slaves. As such, it has not been shaped to meet a particular group's needs. It seeks only to enable people—people in general—to see God.

Paddy on liturgy, church, and time

From HERE:

[...] In one way, this recognition has heightened my appreciation for Church practices all the more. Through the daily office, Morning and Evening Prayer, I find myself more attuned to the rhythm of living in dependent relation to God from day to day (Mt. 6:34). Through following the liturgical calendar, my life is set more to the seasonal rhythm of the life of Christ. Through honoring the Sabbath, I come to recognize the importance of rest--not for the sake of "efficiency"--but for a whole host of theological reasons, from recognizing my own limitations and dependence on God, to acknowledging my relation to the divine, and being a "co-creator", to a foretaste of the true rest offered in Christ.

Without these or other, similar disciplines (and no mistake, they require attention and effort!), I fear the Church runs the risk not only of becoming chronologically indistinguishable from the world, but also of becoming wholly incapable of understanding--and living into--the vast riches of the variance of the biblical seasons...a time for every matter under heaven (Ecc. 3:1)...and therefore the ability to follow our Lord's injunction to "interpret the times" (Mt. 16:3/Lk. 12:56). [...]

Liturgy, the Church, a Muslim convert

Another testimony. This man was a sheikh (elder) in Egpyt and he had decided to engage in debate with Christians to show them the fault of their ways, as the Qur'an recommends. This ended up taking him to an Anglican church which is where we start:

Mansour was amazed at the peace and dedication and attention of the congregation. He was impressed by the depth and the spirituality of the prayers, hymns and the reading and study of the Bible. Mansour, like most Muslims thought that Christians were spending their time praying to and idolizing icons and statues of Jesus and the Apostles which he believed is paganism.

After the service, a date and time for a meeting was agreed upon. They met and the discussion proceeded to subjects like the oneness of God and the Trinity.

He spent the time in futile arguments with no end in sight. After the discussion he felt the superiority of Islam over Christianity. The Christian priest told him that we all seek God and suggested that in his prayer [he] seek the truth. Sheikh Mansour felt offended and answered: "Do you think I doubt my faith? I pray five times a day to Allah because I seek him and believe in him and his Islam".

When he went home the Holy Spirit moved him and he decided to give the advice of the priest a try. He spent a great deal of anguish and turmoil trying to explore the truth and was never sure if he lost his faith or is getting closer to the truth. He had to justify it to himself that all the religions are equal and it is up to man to choose since they all lead to the truth. He started frequenting the Anglican Church more often and was listening one day to a preacher, who came from Alexandria to Sohag. He was very moved by the Bible verses:

God is faithful, by whom ye were called unto the fellowship of his Son Jesus Christ our Lord. 1 Corinthians 1:9

Whoso offers praise glorifies me: and to him that orders his conversation aright will I show the salvation of God. Psalms 50:23

He spent the nights reading the Bible and alternating between doubt and belief. He would lock himself in his room day and night. He looked pale and disoriented. His family and friends were worried and thought that he may have a mental disease. I was the only one who was allowed to see him and he begged me not to disclose what I see.

One day he came out from his room. He was his true self, happy, confident and you can see the peace on his face. He found the truth the way and the life. He discovered the sinful nature of man and the salvation through Christ the Lord. He found out that Jesus is the Way, the Truth and the Life.

He started to frequent the Christians more often and his library became filled with Christian books.

His Muslim friends did not know how to approach him in this regard since a man with such knowledge of Islam and respect of the community can not possibly have Christian tendencies. They tried to persuade him to stay away from his Christian friends. He succeeded in eluding them. He only went visiting his Christian friends at night and hiding his face. This did not help since they finally accused him of being a Kafir (non believer).

Finally, he thought that he had to face his accusers. He went to the Anglican Church and asked to be baptized. The Anglican Church was afraid of the reaction of the Islamic community in Sohag and procrastinated. He decided to approach the Catholic priest asking for Baptism. The priest replied that he is willing to baptize him and got in touch with the Catholic authorities in Cairo in that respect. The reply came from Cairo asking him to travel there. We saw him suddenly leaving the Muslim school with one of his partners and left all his belongings to go to Cairo.

He joined the Catholic Church in Cairo close to the end of 1894 and was baptized. He chose the name Michael.

May I note that the role of the church as a community was central ot his conversion? He was not challenged by intellectual debate or apologetics, but by one priest who said that we should ask for the truth when we pray, and when he say Christian men and women, no doubt much like me and you, worshiping God in the liturgy. (It obviously wasn't 'dead ritual,' it must have bee living ritual...)

God didn't make evangelism to be the work of an individual. He made it to be the work of the people. Hmm, that's an interesting phrase--work of the people. Now that I think of it, there is Greek word we use that means exactly that: work of the people.

Liturgy. Work of the People.

Eastern Orthodoxy (Part II)

by Frederica Mathewes-Green

2.) I have found that many Evangelicals are surprised to hear that the Holy Spirit is so central to the experience within the Orthodox Church. I think this is because they equate a "spirit-filled" church with a charismatic, Pentecostal context. Can you describe the Orthodox understanding of what the moving of the Holy Spirit amongst the community looks like?

It's funny, but I've noticed that people who come into Orthodoxy from a Pentecostal or charismatic background can be the ones who have the easiest transition. Orthodoxy is, after all, a premodern church--so it includes a natural expectation that there are miracles, healings, angels, and so forth. When you start expecting those things, they start to happen. A few years ago we had a family visiting that included a 3 yr old girl. During coffee hour she saw my husband (the pastor) and told her mom, "There's the man who was singing with the angels!"

We also have an ancient liturgy that gathers the community to pray over the oil that will be used to anoint for healing during the coming year. My husband told me one year that he knew of three people who had arisen from deathbeds after being anointed with this oil.

The worship, of course, is not "free" like it might be in a charismatic church. The thing that struck me abt the liturgy when I started attending was how *intimate* it is. There is a real theme of humility, tenderness, and intimacy that you don't get in Western formal worship. In fact, it is not "formal" in that sense. There's much less fussiness than we had in our Episcopal "high church" worship. The worship is gorgeously beautiful, but not stuffy; the kind of beautiful, joyous combination you aim at for Christmas dinner or a wedding reception. And a service like the one for the anointing oil puts in the priest's mouth prayers that are almost embarrassing, as he stresses to the congregation that he is a sinner, that his thoughts are sinful and unworthy, that the power does not come from him but from God alone.