Uri Brito

On September 10, 2022 By Uri Brito In Church 2

The Case for Weekly Communion

Evangelicals like myself rooted in the Reformation came very late to the beauty of weekly communion. I was a sophomore in college before I realized that the vast stream of the Protestant tradition celebrated communion weekly. For most of my life, I assumed the table was reserved for special occasions like Easter or Christmas. In fact, I attended a Brethren congregation that did communion once a year. But as I broadened my theological interests, I understood the Supper’s function in the liturgy and in the theology of the church and it became unbearable to contemplate the absence of it during a worship service.

Historically, our Reformed forefathers—including Luther and Calvin—desired communion to be weekly. In fact, the early centuries of the Church and the majority of Protestant Churches in the 16th century practiced weekly communion. It was only in the 19th century, and in particular, during the Prohibitionist movement, that weekly communion became mostly obsolete. Therefore, the infrequent practice of communion is rather new in the church. This does not mean it’s wrong, but it should raise questions and it should challenge our assumptions about what the Bible actually says concerning the frequency of such practices.

The Didache, one of the earliest records of the church after the Bible says the following:

“On the Lord’s own day gather together and break bread and give thanks, having first confessed your sins so that your sacrifice may be pure.”

The Church believed that in celebrating the sacraments weekly, we become a purer people. This is not because there is something magical in the bread and wine but because God uses these means to communicate his presence and strength to us.

Additionally, the Early Church believed that the Lord’s Supper made us a more thankful people. We don’t often associate communion with thankfulness, but the very term “Eucharist” is not some invention of men. It is the word Paul uses to refer to the Lord’s Supper. The word means “thanksgiving.” The Lord’s Supper is a Thanksgiving meal; a Eucharistic meal.

The Bible makes a clear case that every time the people of God gathered for worship, the Lord’s Supper was a regular part of that gathering. Acts 2:42 says:

“And they devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers.”

There is a definite article before bread, making the text read “the breaking of the bread” (τοῦ ἄρτου). This is not a generic reference to a household meal, but it is about a particular kind of bread, the eucharistic bread used at the Lord’s Table.

Acts 20:7 says: “And they devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and the fellowship, to the breaking of the bread and the prayers.”

Again, when the Early Church met, they always had the Lord’s Supper. In a time when persecution was rampant, the people needed to be comforted and give thanks to God as they ate together with God’s people in worship.

I had mentioned earlier that the Early Church, up to the first thousand years and later the Reformation, firmly believed in weekly communion. But there came a time when the Church abandoned this practice. In fact, as Keith Mathison observes in his book “Given For You,” Infrequent communion practice became the practice of the Roman Catholic Church in the 13th century and continued until the Reformation period. In those days, members could only partake of the sacraments once a year. It was against this background that “such men as John Calvin and Martin Bucer called for a return to the Apostolic Christian practice of weekly communion.”

We might say that part of the motive of the Reformation was to undo the Church’s practice of infrequent communion and return to the Early Church practice of weekly communion. Calvin writes in response to the common practices of the day:

“The Lord’s Table should have been spread at least once a week for the assembly of Christians, and the promises declared in it should feed us spiritually.”

Note Calvin’s use of the phrase “at least,” implying that there were other special occasions when the Supper was crucial in the formation of Church life besides the ordinariness of its practice on Sundays.

As Professor Michael Horton once observed, “Your view of the nature of the Lord’s Supper will determine the importance of it in the worship service.” It should come as no surprise then that those who view the Lord’s Supper primarily as a matter of subjective mental recollection would see no need to celebrate it frequently. But when we begin to view the Lord’s Supper as a meal of joy and a means of grace to sustain and nourish us, then we quickly begin to expect each Lord’s Day to conclude with a meal just as our day ends with Supper.

The Lord’s Supper is not a religious add-on to the regular worship service; it is an integral meal prepared for those who are called to minister to the world. The meal is a preparation for our tasks during the week.

On September 5, 2022 By Uri Brito In Church 2

Our Labor is not in Vain

Labor Day has been a federal holiday in this country since 1894, but long ago, Solomon already opined on the importance of work: “A sluggard’s appetite is never filled, but the desires of the diligent are fully satisfied (Prov. 13:4).”

The Christian looks at Labor Day through the lens of the Apostle Paul’s view of work when he concluded his great tome on the resurrection in I Corinthians 15:

Therefore, my beloved brothers, be steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, knowing that in the Lord your labor is not in vain.

Paul believed that the fruit of the resurrection bears fruit in our labors. We labor in resurrection style, not as those without hope. We labor because our work has continued worth long after we are done.

Lester Dekoster defines work as “which gives meaning to life because it is the form in which we make ourselves useful to others.” In our labors, we bring extended satisfaction to others and ourselves. If we did not work, we could never give back what rightly belongs to God in tithes and offerings. If we did not work, we could never support the vast missionary enterprise throughout the world. If we did not labor, we could never enjoy the fruits of our labors in hospitality and charity.

Our work is a form of eternal stewardship. We labor on earth because it shows how we will labor for all eternity. We labor on earth because we are stewards of the earth, and we will labor in heaven because all creation will be ours. We will never stop working! On this Labor Day, consider the meaning of your work. What you do is not in vain in this world or in the world to come.

On August 30, 2022 By Uri Brito In Church 1

Food as Dependence

Food means we are dependent creatures. It symbolizes our need to be satiated by something outside ourselves. The food we eat is dead, and only God can cause it to become alive to/in us. We depend on a God who takes dead things and brings them back to life. God can take dead animals and vegetation and use our bodies to consume these things and bring us a burst of energy and health from them.

Yahweh took animals in the Old Covenant, called priests to kill them, lay them on the altar, and make them into ascension offerings so that God would smell them and be pleased. And then, later, God would kill his own Son, offer him up as an ascension offering, and call it “very good.” Jesus’ sacrifice was pleasing to the Father. The Son’s body was a delicious offering of praise to the Father and the world.

Even throughout our Lord’s ministry, he was fully dependent on his Father. During the Last Supper, he takes up the bread and gives thanks. We, too, are eucharistic creatures called to a life of dependence, feasting on good things and celebrating the giver of all good gifts.

When we eat, our appetites are directed towards our utter dependence on God’s supernatural ability to make dead things alive. Our tastes are not independent of the giver. We eat because we treasure the giver of all good things. As Paul says, “God has given us everything richly to enjoy.”

When we eat, we tell the world that we cannot function outside our need of God. The unbeliever eats as if food is a human right, like it’s owed to him. On the other hand, the believer eats with thanksgiving, knowing that all gifts come from God–the salad and the steak, salmon, and sweet potatoes. Food means we are dependent creatures looking to the One from whom all blessings and tastes flow.

On August 27, 2022 By Uri Brito In Church 2

God’s Preferences in Worship

The Church of our Lord Jesus is not a gathering of individual habits and rituals. In fact, the best way to never be a part of the culture of a church is to be stubbornly bound by your individual habits in church.

While everyone should have their own habits and rituals outside of worship, corporate worship ought to have a sense of unified ritualism in the best Protestant sense. Once we begin to add our external peculiarities to worship, we end up endangering the very unity Christ desires.

Corporate worship must be a call for consistent liturgical acts. For this reason, every externalized ritual must meet the standard of corporateness, and it should not appeal to individual tastes in corporate worship. The Lord’s Day worship reshapes our individual tastes and brings us into the tastes of ancient biblical texts. We talk so much about preferences in worship that we forget that God has distinct preferences that overturn our preferences.

When the people of God raise their hands for the Gloria Patri (or whatever portion of worship is common in the service), everyone raises their hands—young and old. When we kneel to confess our sins, everyone kneels to confess our sins (unless they are not able physically). When we sing a hymn or a psalm, we don’t stand there imagining we were singing something else; we sing what the body sings, whether that is on your greatest hits or not.

We cannot complain about liturgical incoherence in the evangelical world–where praise bands and people are doing two separate things or where the spontaneity of service subtracts from liturgical continuity–while offering our own version of incoherence regarding our own liturgy.

We are not individualists. We don’t atomize our participation. When we eat and drink, we are participating in Christ, joining our voices to Christ and to one another.

So, let us prepare ourselves to join one another in our separate bodies leaving our preferences behind and joining the preferences of God as expressed in our local churches. The best worship is the imitative part. Worship is not the place to bring your eccentricities; it is the place to imitate one another in adoration and acts of renewal.

On August 25, 2022 By Uri Brito In Family and Children 1

The Necessity of Messy Homes

For years, we have had children and adults in our house. We feed people, and people feed us when they bring some of their delicacies. The entire exchange is glorious and delicious. We have folks weekly for psalms and dessert, and then we have our share of friends and guests staying with us overnight or having meals with us.

Eggs, chips and dip, toast, butter, coffee, whiskey, beer, soups, and none of those things in that exact order. The whole thing is a glorious mess of humans and food, the kind of mess that makes the kingdom of God glorious. We love the entire process, and the process creates a sense of normalcy that is utterly uncomfortable in our culture.

The discomfort stems from a sense of unrealistic neatness that also prohibits the world of hospitality that many evangelicals wish they had more of but do not believe is sustainable if they have a steady number of guests in their homes.

Our general policy is that we clean when guests come over, which means we clean often, and with our eager tribe of children, cleaning is much more effective, especially with Sargent Wifey. But the expectation–one I am constantly adjusting to as a Latin man who grew up with impeccable clean homes–that things must always be a certain way and that the home must maintain the correct Asian procedural methods of a certain short lady (how racist of me!) is utterly unrealistic and squashes the culture of hospitality.

The reality is that a home without guests doth not spark joy in the kingdom. Of course, I am not suggesting we forsake those habits of cleanliness, but I do suggest we loosen our commitment to certain habits as prerequisites for hospitality.

Think of how many opportunities have been missed because we assumed that such and such a person would look down on us if they saw our house a certain way, the clothes on the couch, the boys’ room in utter chaos, etc.? How many opportunities have been ruined for sweet and intimate communion because we are not “spontaneous” kind of people?

(more…)

On August 24, 2022 By Uri Brito In Church 2

A Review of Austin Brown’s “A Boisterously Reformed Polemic Against Limited Atonement”

Austin Brown’s A Boisterously Reformed Polemic Against Limited Atonement is a befitting title for such a bold endeavor. Brown challenges the status quo of TULIP orthodoxy right where it hurts most, in the middle. Limited atonement has long been the subject of many pugilistic enterprises in Reformational history, and Austin puts his typewriter to work forcefully in such endeavor.

Introduction

The book argues for a universal satisfaction view of the atonement (1) with the added qualifier that “Christ did not die with an equal intent for all men (5).” Brown seeks to exalt the Lombardian formula to a place of consistency (7), derailing the attempts of limitarians to absorb Lombard as their own. Calvinists of all stripes (cranky Dutch exempted) would affirm that “Christ’s death is sufficient for all, but efficient for the elect (7).” Strict particularists, according to the author, wish to qualify to death the sufficiency of the atonement. They want to treat sufficiency as a potentiality divorcing it from universal expiation (14). But if such sufficiency remains in the realm of potentiality, then there are vast implications for strict particularists, namely that the universal offer of the Gospel is not a legitimate one (16). If Christ did not die for the non-elect, “there is no gospel for them” (20). The free offer, even spoused by strict particularists, fails to be genuine since it is not ultimately sufficient to atone for the sins of the non-elect.

Brown argues, following 17^th-century Anglican, John Davenant, that the free offer is only genuine if the “death of Christ is applicable to all men (24).” Davenant sought to find a middle ground between Arminianism and Supralapsarianism. But Davenant is not the only one to oppose limited atonement in its modern definition. Anglican writer and friend Steven Wedgeworth, considering the history of TULIP theology, argues that:

Amazingly, Dabney, Charles Hodge, and William Shedd all distance themselves from theologians like Francis Turretin on the relationship between the decree of God and the cross of Christ, and even go so far as to explicitly reject key exegesis that underlies the “limited atonement” argument found in John Owen’s The Death of Death.[1]

Wedgeworth goes on to make a distinction between high and moderate Calvinists. He argues that the high Calvinist,

“…place the limit in the content of the punishment born by Christ at the cross insisting on only the special will of God toward the elect, whereas the “moderate Calvinists” allow for a general will of God toward all men, as well as the special will toward the elect, and typically place the limitation on God’s effectual calling and application of the cross-work of Christ.”

It’s important to note that the Reformed tradition has built itself on various degrees of atonement language, and there have been exegetical disputes among certifiably Calvinistic figures. Therefore, to accuse Brown of any form of an Arminian spy within the Reformed camp is to miss the diversity inherent in such conversations. It is one reason that I rarely, if ever, associate Reformed theology with TULIP. Such associations minimize the depth of Reformed history by trivializing Calvin and Bucer’s rich sacramental theology and the profound political theories of the theonomic Puritans, not to mention the liturgical theology of the German theologian John Williamson Nevin, who sought to re-articulate a rich ecclesiastical vision from Calvin.[2] To limit Reformed theology to individual soteriology would be to mock the broad themes and emphases of the Reformation.

Brown makes helpful observations throughout, working carefully through key universal texts and showing that the exegetical gymnastics done by some do not comport with the nature or context of the passage. They cannot be limited when they are naturally meant to be universalized. Again, Brown is merely stating that there is a sense in which the atonement reaches the elect and another sense in which it reaches the non-elect; but in both cases, the offer is free and genuine to all.

(more…)

On August 23, 2022 By Uri Brito In Church 1

Ten Theses for an Ecclesiastical Conservativism

At a very practical level, the Evangelical Church has been injected with counterfeit spiritualities. We are a people looking for a city whose builder may only be in office for four years. Our temptation to veer to the side of the temporal is striking in our day, especially as the modern evangelical church founded largely by the disciples of the Billy Graham crusades willingly imbibes a distant ecclesiology from our Reformed forefathers.

For whatever reason, many have simply given up on the Church as a means of salvation or as a motherly figure (Gal. 4;26). The result has been a radical shift into politics and pundits as deliverers of human woes while forgetting the Table and Sacred Time.

But we should not be overly critical of only the evangelical enterprise in this country. We should be quick also to overturn the tables of those who opine sophisticated about the Church and her principles regulated by the New Testament alone and who view the endeavors of earthly politics to conflict with a spiritual kingdom.

These evangelicals, however well they dress their theological discourse, offer little to combat the profound changes in the ethical standards of our country. I am a Reformed, Evangelical Christian with the bona fides to prove it and the letters of recommendation from a fine seminary. I do not affirm the hierarchical structures of Rome or Constantinople, nor do I fall into the two alternatives listed above.

What we have before us is a time to go back to basics, especially if ecclesiastical anarchism becomes the norm in our age. Therefore, it seems good and wise to provide some basic theses on the prospect of a new American evangelicalism that does not despise the church, and which sees her role as fundamental in the re-shaping of the current political experience.

Therefore, I offer ten theses on this relationship:

Thesis I: Ecclesiastical Conservatism begins thinking about politics first as a churchman and then as a citizen of the body politic. His loyalty is first as a worshiper and then to his responsibilities to think about the politics of the day. The first must flow into the other and not the reverse. Our temptation to view government as the answer is a sign that we are eager to give up the role of the Church in society.

Conservatism observes the expansion of the state and the overreach of the government in areas where the Church should be independent. We, therefore, oppose such actions and accept that our fundamental duty is to obey God rather than man.

Thesis II: Ecclesiastical Conservatism affirms that the Church is central to the purposes of God in the kingdom and that from her flows the wisdom of God to the world (Eph. 3:10). Wisdom comes from above through the lips of ministers and the gifts of bread and wine. The lessons or rituals from D.C. should never take precedence over the Church.

Thesis III: Ecclesiastical Conservatism does not embrace the civic calendar as her first order of business. It does not embrace the flag over the cross nor the pledge of allegiance over our pledge to the Christian Creeds. We do not substitute the worship of heaven for the worship of political victors. For this reason, candidates for local and national offices must have as one of their central priorities the freedom of the Church to be who God called her to be on earth (Mat. 28:18-20).

Thesis IV: Ecclesiastical Conservatism prays for her leaders every Sunday (I Tim. 2:1-3). If a Church’s political orientation does not acknowledge the Pauline necessity to pray for the good of the country through whatever leader sits in the White House, she is violating the primary focus of Ecclesiastical Conservatism, which is to be faithful to the commands of the Bible whether the Left or the Right is in power.

Thesis V: Ecclesiastical Conservatism cannot abide by the murder of the unborn, even if it becomes “the law of the land” or if it has the word “precedent” behind its laws. Further, there is no justification to vote for leaders who violate this fundamental assertion outright and whose trajectory contradicts this basic thesis. This thesis should be the starting point of any ethical understanding of politics. We rejoice with the overturn of Roe and Casey and diligently pursue to see that all 50 states abolish abortion laws within their constitutions.

Thesis VI: Ecclesiastical Conservatism understands the difficult decisions of parishioners in dealing with flawed candidates. Yet, we are not called to abdicate our role as citizens placed in a particular place in history (Acts 17:26). We believe Christians are called to make difficult decisions based on the body of information available and carefully contemplating the wisdom of their elders in the Church and people of good reputation in the community.

Thesis VII: Ecclesiastical Conservatism does not escape politics but embraces it as an expression of his faith in the world. We do not embrace a Gnostic view of history, nor do we embrace the ideology that says our disposition towards cultural and political things is divorced from our faith expressed amidst the congregation. Our faith as churchmen and churchwomen is carried out in the voting booth.

Thesis VIII: Ecclesiastical Conservatism does not put its trust in horses and chariots, but neither does it abdicate its trust that God rules over horses and chariots. God uses the power structure of Government to bring about his purpose of justice on earth (Rom. 13), and he acts by his divine providence according to the history of that body politic, whether they obey God or forsake his commandments.

Thesis IX: Ecclesiastical Conservatism is not a call to revolution through arms but revolution through the armor of God (Gal. 5). We put on the faith through song and sober living (I Thes. 5), which means that our primary tasks are more local among the body of people we call Church.

Thesis X: Ecclesiastical Conservatism views the first day of the week as the central day for the formation of his political thinking and doing. If his concerns display a greater interest in the things of the world over the things of the Church, he has committed idolatry and embraced a lie. He is, above all, a servant and worshiper of the Most High God to whom all praise and glory belong now and forever. Amen.

On August 18, 2022 By Uri Brito In Church, Music 1

The Liturgical Duty of Men and Women in Singing

We must restore the role of biblical femininity into the space of worship. The woman plays the role of sacred beautifier in history. The bride finishes what the groom begins. Adam was first, and Eve was second (I Cor. 11). The Ascension was first, and Pentecost was second. This chronology of creation is the starting point of any good anthropology. This is especially appropriate when it comes to worship.

When the woman sings, she glorifies what the man started. She enhances beauty. She cannot, therefore, be the initiator. This is why men must lead in worship as ministers or chief musicians and why women must follow as glorifiers and beautifiers of music.

This stated reality exemplifies why women are so easily enamored by harmonization and ornamental melodies. She adds the descant of the closing hymn, and she layers the music with happy complexities.

The voice of the Church’s music, however, must be dominantly male. The reason men are attracted to churches where male voices are dominant is that men were created to be starters, to offer the opening pitches, to make the first movements, and to utter the first poem (Gen. 2:23). Man leads the dance, and the woman follows.

The resounding voice is Christocentric, which means the prevailing sounds of a church singing are the sounds of a church leading into battle followed by a God/Man. In fact, the men lead with their voices as an act of protection for the women in the congregation. The men sing loudly to project to the enemies that we are doing warfare in the name of Yahweh God. The opponents of the holy Gospel should know that we are not interested in bargaining for a verse here or there, nor will we put the ones needing protection in front of the line.

Music is warfare, but if we change the order by giving the church a distinctly female voice, we reverse the chronology of creation. If we persist in putting the weak vessels (I Peter 3:7) meant for protection and honor in front, we are sending the message that the voice of Christ needs protection rather than the One who protects.

Therefore, it is even more crucial that men and women in the life of the Church pick up their hymnals and music sheets and proceed to train themselves to see music as their fundamental duty in initiating, beautifying, and glorifying the Church’s music.

On August 11, 2022 By Uri Brito In Culture 1

Pornography and Putting Our Kids at Risk

Our pornified age comes through obvious means. In fact, it’s the bread and wine of secularism being dispensed freely to all who would parade themselves in drag hour at the local pub or public library. But it’s one thing when it comes from the hands of vicious paganism, it’s another when it comes naively through the dispensing hands of parents.

And if there is one consistent regret I have heard from parents over the years, it’s the regret that they gave unfettered or barely monitored access to the internet to their children. Part of the problem in our day is that most parents have little or no clue how the cyber-world functions and, as a result, are completely clueless about the infinite amounts of worlds one link can open.

When a parent places an iPhone in the hands of his seven-year-old unsupervised, he subtly permits for that child to navigate and indwell a separate eco-system from reality. The most naive exploration may contain links that can easily take a child to a browser than can easily grant him the ability to type something in a search engine that easily leads him to pornographic images. Does my illustration assume too much? Does it jump too fast from one thing to the next? For the record, the process enumerated above takes between 8-13 seconds. And, as Net Nanny states, 1 in 10 children under the age of 10 will have seen porn. My scenario is more common than one might think.

But where is that child learning such techniques? Apart from the normal environments, you should know that children are more intuitive than you think. There was a time when a child felt trapped in a maze and would scream for help, but now for many, the maze is their home, and they remain happily trapped in it.

The language those of us born before 1980 grew up with was a fairly simple way of looking at the world. If we wanted to look something up, we had to get a lexicon or an encyclopedia. Today, the language of our children–and you can’t escape it–is already shaped to accept these dangers. Therefore, uninvolved parents, or parents who remain relatively naive about our world, will be suddenly shocked when their little children know much more about the sexual ritual at ten than they did at 17.

Among the many responsibilities of parents is the responsibility to deliver their children from evil. This means that they are to direct their children away from “intentionally tempting temptation,” like poking a dormant ferocious animal for the mere high it provides. “Deliver us from evil…”Lead us not into temptation.” Yes, the Lord’s Prayer presents us with a parental paradigm in many ways.

(more…)

On August 2, 2022 By Uri Brito In Culture, Theology Like

What is Preterism?

When Jesus comes into Jerusalem, he lays out a series of prophecies concerning the temple. He warns that not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down. He further states that these prophecies will come upon this generation (Matt. 24:34). He speaks of a time when the great testament to the Jewish system will pass away in an apocalyptic fashion. The passages–Matthew 24, Mark 13 & Luke 21–offer a host of time clues that determine the context of Jesus’ prophecy.

In this short video, I offer a big-picture definition of Preterism. Preterism means that the prophecies of Jesus, particularly in the Olivet Discourse, had a distinct audience in mind; not a future audience, but those standing there hearing our Lord in his earthly ministry.