I eat oatmeal for breakfast every day.

If I’m being honest, I really don’t like the taste of oatmeal. I mean, I put some local honey in it, somewhat to sweeten it and somewhat for allergy purposes. By the way, local honey is a good way to combat allergies if you didn’t know.
I eat oatmeal every day not because it’s tasty or sexy. I eat oatmeal every day because it is a good way to get needed carbohydrates without bread or pastries or junk. And doctors say it’s good for your heart and cholesterol.
I don’t know if that’s true or not but it seems to have worked for a long time for a lot of people. But it ain’t sexy or new. I’m not really into new things so much. Don’t get me wrong; having a new car is nice (which I don’t have). Every now and again, I buy something new but I don’t get too carried away with it.

New isn’t always better.

I’m sure you’ve all heard this before but we live in a culture that is obsessed with the new and the “relevant.” It’s all over advertising, the news (think “this is breaking news,” in other words new) etc. My kids have been infected with this disease. If it’s new, they want it. It’s not their fault. It is what the culture is right now.
But it’s not like it hasn’t always been this way. We have always been a race (the human race) who feels like we need to constantly re-vamp everything; update. Heck, our phones automatically do this: “An update is available.”

We have done this in the Church also. We’ve gotten sucked into the cultural idea that new is better. We are, especially in the Protestant world, obsessed with this stuff. Even my “Reformed” brethren are worried about being “relevant” and new. We’re in a time where even church planters are worried about “branding.” When I was a Protestant church planter, I can’t tell you how many times someone told me I needed to be concerned with “branding” and how we were going to advertise.

Side note: This is not a post on bashing Protestants.

A few years ago (about 4 now), I began a journey. I began a journey into the historic Church. I was reading the Scriptures and wondering what some passages meant. So I decided to do something that has brought some “trouble” for me. I decided to see what the early Christians thought about Jesus. I wanted to know how they lived out their faith in the Christ. I wanted to know how they interpreted Holy Scripture.
I have found something surprising and wonderful. I have found and stepped into a very deep well of Christian experience unlike anything I had experienced as a Protestant. Now, just to be clear, the early Church wasn’t perfect; they had their problems as well. My point is not to proclaim that we need to “go back” to the way it was. I mean, I’m cool with wearing robes and such…

My point is this. Christians have been living out their faith in certain ways, worshipping in certain ways for a very long time. It ain’t sexy or new or culturally cool. It’s kinda like oatmeal in that way. Seems bland on the surface and we’re tempted to add sugar or milk or something to make it taste better. But the benefits of eating oatmeal are not found in the moment. Rather, the benefits are realized over time.

I feel like walking the ancient road of Christianity is like that also. Some of the benefits are found in the moment. But, over time, what we come to realize is that we are walking together in that great communion of the saints, day by day, Sunday by Sunday, Eucharist by Eucharist.
​
Our souls will thank us in the long run.

It’s not secret to anyone who has kept up with my blog that I have been on a faith journey for the last several years. Over the last two to three years, that journey has taken a noticeably catholic turn. There are two main reasons for this.
First, the Bible.

I take very seriously the Word of God. Everyone who knows me knows that, not only do I take God’s Word seriously, I love God’s Word. Reading, learning and studying God’s Word has been one of the great joys of my life to date. When I came to faith in Jesus, one of the first prayers I prayed was, “Lord, help me to love Your Word. Help me to hunger and thirst for Your Word. Give me a desire to know You in Your Word.”
Our gracious Father has granted that request. He has given me an ache in my soul that only His Word can fill. He has made me hunger and thirst after His Word. Man cannot live on bread alone but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God. I live and breathe for God’s Word. I read it and study it and dissect it. 
I love and read and study God’s Word because it is His revelation of Himself to us. Of course we have general revelation in God’s creation. And we have others ways by which we may see God. But God has given us His Word written down so that we may know Him and serve Him rightly.

The second main reason for this is my reading and studying of the Church Fathers. Now, before anyone gets all upset, I am not saying that the Fathers are inerrant. I am not saying that they are on par with revealed truth in God’s Word. However, what I am saying is that they speak to us who, in our modern context, think we’ve got this thing figured out and they say to us, usually with one voice, that there are things about the Christian faith that make most Protestants really nervous.
The Fathers tell us what the Church has always believed and how the Church has always practiced her faith. This is enormously helpful for us today. There is a deep desire among many younger Christians today to connect with the historic Church…and I am profoundly grateful for this desire. I applaud it and encourage it for all!

I encourage it even it makes you uncomfortable and perhaps even leads you to conclusions that sound…well, Catholic.

Let me give you an example from my own life and faith journey. As I said, it’s no secret that my journey has led me out of Protestantism and into a distinctly catholic position. But I struggle and question many of the dogmas of the Roman Catholic Church. But I want to be intellectually and emotionally honest with myself and with you and maybe you need to ask yourself this same question.

Are my problems with the Catholic Church real problems with biblical reality or do I just not want them to be true?

Here’s my example. I have been wrestling with some things. One of them is all this dogma about Mary. For my Protestant friends...it’s okay for you to call her The Blessed Virgin. Scripture calls her blessed so it is quite alright for you too as well.   But there are some things about the dogma of the Church that I’ve had a hard time wrapping my head around.

Like the perpetual virginity of Mary.

The first time I heard this I literally laughed out loud. I was like, “Right. You mean to tell me that Joseph was married to her and never had sex with her? Right.” Seems logical, right? So, here’s where it gets interesting for me. As I said, been studying and wrestling with all this a lot. So, how can it be possible that Mary was perpetually a virgin and surely no one actually believes this, right?

Well….
Actually lots of people in the early Church believed it and taught it. I will give just one example: St. John Chrysostom.
“And when he had taken her, “he knew her not, till she had brought forth her first-born Son.” He hath here used the word “till,” not that thou shouldest suspect that afterwards he did know her, but to inform thee that before the birth the Virgin was wholly untouched by man. But why then, it may be said, hath he used the word, “till”? Because it is usual in Scripture often to do this, and to use this expression without reference to limited times. For so with respect to the ark likewise, it is said, “The raven returned not till the earth was dried up.”6 And yet it did not return even after that time. And when discoursing also of God, the Scripture saith, “From age until age Thou art,” not as fixing limits in this case. And again when it is preaching the Gospel beforehand, and saying, “In his days shall righteousness flourish, and abundance of peace, till the moon be taken away,”8 it doth not set a limit to this fair part of creation. So then here likewise, it uses the word “till,” to make certain what was before the birth, but as to what follows, it leaves thee to make the inference. Thus, what it was necessary for thee to learn of Him, this He Himself hath said; that the Virgin was untouched by man until the birth; but that which both was seen to be a consequence of the former statement, and was acknowledged, this in its turn he leaves for thee to perceive; namely, that not even after this, she having so become a mother, and having been counted worthy of a new sort of travail, and a child-bearing so strange, could that righteous man ever have endured to know her. For if he had known her, and had kept her in the place of a wife, how is it that our Lord commits her, as unprotected, and having no one, to His disciple, and commands him to take her to his own home?[1]”

I read that and was like…wait…what?! Chrysostom goes on to talk about his “brethren” and I highly recommend you read it for yourself. By the way, Chrysostom was the man that many consider to be the father of the Orthodox Church and perhaps one of the greatest preachers that has ever lived.

But it wasn’t just the Fathers that believed and taught this. The hero of the Protestant Reformation, Martin Luther, also maintained the same teaching. Luther said, “Christ our Savior, was the real and natural fruit of Mary’s virginal womb…This was without the co-operation of a man, and she remained a virgin after that.” (Luther’s Works, Volume 22, 23.) By the way, Calvin and Zwingli also defended the perpetual virginity of Mary.
If you’re like me, you’re like, “Yeah but those dudes could be wrong.” Well, yes they could be. So let’s look at what the Bible has to say. Matthew 1 details Jesus’ birth for us and he says in verses 24 and 25,
“When Joseph woke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him: he took his wife, but knew her not until she had given birth to a son. And he called his name Jesus.”

So right away, if you’re like me, you’ll say…See?! “He knew her not until…” implying that he “knew her” after the birth of Jesus. Problem with that is almost every commentator I read on this (including Calvin) says that phrase was put in there to prove that Jesus’ birth was not as a result of sexual relations with Joseph. But you may say, like me, “Yeah but the Bible says Jesus had brothers and sisters.”
Does it? Here’s the problem with that. The Hebrew and Aramaic languages don’t have separate words for “brother,” “cousin,” or any other near relative. The term “brother” was used for all kinds of relationships (1 Corinthians 15:6, Matt. 23:8, Acts 7:23 to name a few).

Still not buying it?

Okay, another compelling piece…When Jesus is hanging on the cross, where are his siblings? If He had siblings, why weren’t they there? You may say, “Well, because they didn’t believe in Him.” Okay but neither did the High Priest and he was there, as were the Roman soldiers and many others. Don’t you think that if your brother was being executed, you’d show up, especially if you didn’t believe in Him? I mean, this is your opportunity to be able to say, “See, Mom?! I told you He wasn’t the Messiah.”
But aside from that, the interesting part is that Jesus hands over care of His mother to St. John. Now if you’ve done any sort of study on the culture of the day and the Jewish tradition, Jesus, as the oldest son, would have been responsible for the care of His mother (we assume that Joseph was dead by this time). And if He couldn’t fulfill those obligations, one of His siblings (if He had any) would be required to. But He didn’t pass that on to a sibling, He passed that responsibility along to one of the Apostles. Why?

Okay…so here’s what I’m not saying. I’m not saying that I buy all this as of yet. What I am saying is…

What if?
What if it’s true? What if the teaching of the Church for the last couple thousand years is true? Does that in any way diminish who Jesus is, what He accomplished? Does it change anything for you, for me?

Pray for me as I seek wisdom and clarity on these things I struggle with. You may say, “What difference does it make?” If you’re Protestant, you already know the answer to that. It matters because, if the Church is right about that…what else are they right about?
​
Pray for me. Pray for yourself and seek God’s wisdom in His Word, His Church and those who have gone before. We do this for the glory of Christ and of His Church!
 
Soli Deo Gloria!


[1] John Chrysostom. (1888). Homilies of St. John Chrysostom, Archbishop of Constantinople on the Gospel according to St. Matthew. In P. Schaff (Ed.), G. Prevost & M. B. Riddle (Trans.), Saint Chrysostom: Homilies on the Gospel of Saint Matthew (Vol. 10, p. 33). New York: Christian Literature Company.