Sainthood

Catholics may do whatever they choose to do with their own Popes as they pursue their own religion. Certainly, on a physical level, it would seem like the conferring of sainthood upon John Paul hurts no-one. We could hardly put it on the same level as the Taliban suppression of women or suicide bombing of innocent people in the name of Allah. Of more moment in a discussion of sainthood, however, is whether such a tradition squares with truth, and whether we have a God-given mandate to reprove evil.

We must first dispense with the idea that truth becomes irrelevant to discussions of faith. Some of us rebel at the thought of blind faith. Perhaps we recognize where that may lead. We know the blind lead the blind and they all fall into the ditch. No. Blind faith will never do. You must convince us of the validity and reliability of what you teach us. Does it stand up under the stress of old and new evidence? Is it internally consistent in major and minor details? Has it been believed upon by unprejudiced minds, brilliant minds, and ordinary seekers of truth over a long period of time? To what do we attribute the longevity of the espoused truth? Is there another system or world view obviously superior to the one we hold.

A college building at OSU has this message: "Some prize the doubt others live without." It would seem that prizing doubt mentally places one in a locked room with no windows, exactly the condition doubters accuse people of having who believe in absolute truths. To use another analogy, how can a person build a building if he or she never trusts the integrity of the stones necessary to raise the foundation? Isn't this what the Bible says about the Jews who rejected Christ? They distrusted the stone that was to become "the head of the corner." In discarding Jesus as the Messiah, they could not build anything to please their Father in Heaven. They had a wrongheaded mindset; their doubt programmed them for failure.

For the above reasons, we have to start our discussion of the last Pope's sainthood with the idea that we can know what we know and can even give concrete reasons for the knowing.

The Christian Bible recognizes ecclesiastical roles such as teacher, deacon, or pastor, but avoids special tags for qualities of spirituality. Those who pride themselves on spiritual titles receive short shrift with Jesus. Only One is "Father." He forbade bestowing that exhalted spiritual title on anyone but Jehovah (God can't receive it by conferral, anyhow. He is Who He is).

Jesus reminded those who liked to be called rabbi or master that they needed a more excellent qualifier appended to their name--that of "servant." Who can forget the King of Kings and Lord of Lords removing His garments and washing his disciples feet and wiping them dry? Make that a requirement for selecting a president, governor, or senator and we might have leaders with a great deal more capacity for serving well.

According to the scriptures we may call all those washed in the blood of Jesus Christ "saints." It is actually a special name for everyone born into the kingdom of God. We may use it as freely for the hour-old convert as for the elderly minister or missionary toiling away in the heart of India or Africa. God insists it be like that. He is no respecter of persons. Our works are our "reasonable" or expected service; not a merit system which earns super spiritual status and exhalted titles. One simply can't miss this point in the Bible. It is one of those obvious points that even our spiritually myopic, on the milk Christians should never miss. Saints and Christians are interchangeable names. Old and New Testament writers from Deuteronomy to Revelation use the word to describe followers of God just short of one-hundred times. It denotes born again citizens of God's universal church in the New Testament, and people devoted to God's leading in the Old Testament.

According to Strong's Concordance, "saint," or "saints" only occurs as a noun, not as an adjective. "Saintly" isn't listed. Obviously, saying a saint excercised saintly behavior would be redundant, much like saying a soldier is soldierly or a president is presidential. Adjectivilization of "saint" never seems to occur in the sixty-six books of the Bible. Perhaps it does in apocryphal books, but that is like looking through a pile of counterfeit currency for enough money to buy a new hat. It would seem that Saint Paul or Saint Jude or Saint Peter is not authorized usage--at least not authorized by anything other than man's penchant for comparing people, even in degrees of holiness. The positive, comparative, and superlative forms of holy would be holy, more holy, and most holy. Saintly, more saintly, and most saintly would be the parallel under discussion in this article.

I wonder where each of us would sit if someone labeled the chairs or pews in our church "THE HOLY, THE MORE HOLY, and THE MOST HOLY next Sunday! (Please leave a place for yours truly on the floor even though the positive form is authorized.) How about THE SAINTLY, THE MORE SAINTLY, and THE MOST SAINTLY?

Although some of us sometimes say "saint" in front of fellow Christian names, we notice it doesn't feel quite right. Our scripture knowledge-base kicks in. We can't cite anywhere in the Bible the Lord uses such words, nor do any of His writers. The Holy Spirit gives us an elbow when we violate obvious Biblical principles. At the same time, we don't cringe at talking about the "assembly of the saints" or visiting the home of a certain "saint." Those concerned about walking and talking in God's will, carefully weigh how they refer to their brothers and sisters in Christ.

The man-made tradition of declaring sainthood based upon numbers of miracles performed, doing charity work, or mission work focuses on works, but worse than this, it weighs people against other people. Such weighing flies in the face of repeated teaching about humility and service. It offends the very spirit of God's grace. It ought not to be!

Along with the special creation of saints comes the veneration of relics associated with these saints, forbidden graven images of these people, praying to dead "saints," and a replacement kind of religion in which Jesus disappears under a pile of cultic traditions. Where people directly oppose plain truths of God we can expect to see utter confusion and ruin, superstition, hopelessness that infects families through generations. The antidote is Truth corroborated by the Holy Spirit.

How should Christians respond to the sainthood question? They should never minimize the fruit of disobedience. Eve eating from the forbidden tree doesn't seem like much until we see the consequences for her rebellion. If we approve of such departures from God's will for others, we become accessories.

Still, some will recommend we cool our ardor for meddling in the business of another faith. Their welfare becomes someone else's business. We wash our hands of their bad decisions. They don't go to our church, so let their ecclesiastical body deal with them. How do we call that love?

The practice of conferring sainthood is not Biblical, not authorized, and is fraught with attendant evils. It is in the news big-time at present. How will we respond when others talk about it? Our answers will define our faith in God's Word and our willingness to be salt and light in a mixed-up world. Love requires upholding the truth even when we ellicit anger and censure. Silence is acquiescence.

Cults abound. Silence helps them proliferate. Does a good shepherd remain silent when the wolf steals his sheep? Neither should ministers of God's Word.