Skip to main content

Is Christianity Superstitious?

Miracles.

God incarnate.

Angels and demons.

Visions and prophecies.

Creation ex nihilo.

The Holy Spirit indwelling the people of God.

The Bible is full of stories and ideas that are offensive to modern, naturalistic sensibilities.  This should come as no surprise, of course, as the Bible is the story of God's creation and redemption of mankind.  It is a supernatural book.  Acceptance of the Bible, and of the religion it sets forth, requires a belief in the supernatural.

For most people this is a given.  It should be a given.  Why, then, does modern Christianity try so hard to avoid sounding superstitious?  Why do we attempt to make our religion, and our Scriptures, palatable to the world by toning down the supernatural nature of our beliefs?  Why do we de-emphasize the miraculous nature of our faith and downplay the spiritual realities that transcend our five senses?

Modern Christians often look back with scorn upon the sacramentalism of past generations, scoffing at the idea that physical signs could confer spiritual graces.  We think that the Early Church and Medieval Church were so superstitious.  The irony, of course, is that the faith of our spiritual ancestors was far more physical than our own.  Their worship defined their lives and engaged their entire beings--mind, soul, and body--while ours is often wholly rational or mere lip service.  In a culture, and a Church, that has so deeply imbibed a secular/religious dualism, our religion often loses this holistic character.  In our modern attempt to escape the superstition of the sacraments, we have lost the connection between the physical and spiritual, the natural and the supernatural, the immanent and the transcendent. 

Maybe we need a little superstition.  Maybe we need a little mystery.  Maybe we need to stop worrying about how we are viewed by a world that refuses to believe in anything beyond this present life.  We claim to have the answers to the origin of the Universe, right?  We claim to know the meaning of life, right?  We claim to have the secret to eternal life, right?  Then why are we so afraid that people will view us as silly, backwards, or superstitious?   

There is more than this life, but there is not less than this life.  You cannot truly live this life, or the next, without embracing both the natural and the supernatural.  There is a part of every man that longs for more--more than this body, this world, this life.  Christianity, true Christianity, has always maintained the balance between the body and the soul.  The Church is where these distinct-yet-united aspects of humanity intersect.  The modern Church would do well to seek this balance once again, embracing the supernatural without fear of being labelled superstitious.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

4 Reasons I Affirm Paedocommunion

If you have interacted with me on social media, you know that I have always been outspoken on the issue of Paedocommunion .  It is a theological position and a liturgical practice about which I am passionate.  Having been raised, and having raised my children, at the Table, I cannot imagine attending a church that didn't allow PC.  I hope that when I am old and gray, I will still be an advocate for bringing little children to the Sacrament. Throughout the 12 years that I have had this blog, I have written scattered thoughts on the topic, but it appears that I have never written a concise summary of my reasons for affirming PC.  I was thoroughly convinced that I had, but I can't seem to locate it, so I guess I never did.  So, to rectify the omission, here are four reasons I hold to PC. 1) Paedocommunion is Biblical.   Any discussion of the topic should start here, and I would hope that both sides of the debate would make this assertion.  However, l...
Post a Comment
Read more

1 Corinthians, the Covenant Hermeneutic, & Paedocommunion

As an adherent to Paedocommunion  (hereafter PC), I have always found it painfully ironic that Credocommunionists use 1 Corinthians 11 to withhold children (among others) from the Table.  One can imagine St. Paul shaking his head as he watches theologians using his discussion of unity at the Table to divide the body at the Table.  You're missing the point! he would say in exasperation.  Not only does 1 Corinthians 11 not forbid PC; I would go so far as to say that there is no better defense of PC in the New Testament than the epistle of 1 Corinthians. Credocommunionist logic is pretty straightforward.  1 Corinthians 11:28 says, "Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup."  If, they argue, one is unable to fulfill the exhortation to examine himself, then he may not eat of the bread and drink of the cup.  This is a pretty logical deduction, right? Credobaptists would adamantly agree.  Acts 2:38 says, "Repe...
Post a Comment
Read more

The Real Presence & Paedocommunion: A Deeper Rift Between Reformed Churches

You're going back to Rome! Theological disagreements within the Reformed world, especially those of the last half century, often devolve into these sorts of accusations.  As controversialists like Doug Wilson and Peter Leithart began to break away from the larger conservative Presbyterian and Reformed denominations, it became clear that the rift was deeper than semantics and systematic minutiae.  Much like the Reformation four centuries before, the Table was a primary point of conflict.   What does it mean?  Who may partake?  What do we call it?    These questions, along with a few more, divided Reformed brethren as the physical elements of our religion reflected deeper conflicts.  Good men began to understand that the problem wasn't just in our logos, but in our pathos and ethos, as well. Paedocommunion (hereafter PC) has been one of the hottest points of contention.  PC has always been normal to me as I grew up with it.  I underst...
Post a Comment
Read more