Is Your Church Losing Blood?
— Monday, March 29th, 2010 —
American Christianity is far less bloody than it used to be.
Songs like “Power in the Blood” or “There Is a Fountain Filled with Blood” or “Are You Washed in the Blood?” are still sung in some places, but fewer and fewer, and there aren’t many newer songs or praise choruses so focused on blood. The Cross, yes; redemption, yes; but blood, rarely. We’re eager to speak of life, but hesitant to speak of blood.
And this is not only a Protestant phenomenon. Roman Catholics—centered as they are on the Eucharist—often seem to go out of their way to speak of the “real presence” of Jesus in the elements, without going so far as to mention that this presence is believed to be that of his body and blood, as well as soul and divinity. Even Catholic communion hymns, I’m told, prefer terms like “the Cup” to “the Blood.”
The eclipse of blood in American Christianity has quite a bit to do, I suspect, with American prosperity.
The “blood medleys” once so popular in Evangelical hymnals evoke something of the blue-collar, socially marginalized origins of conservative American Protestantism. To sing “Are You Washed in the Blood of the Lamb” often seems too much of a reminder to upwardly mobile suburban professionals that their religion has “redneck” roots. (A Catholic writer suggests that this is also true of the reaction to traditional Catholic piety in the suburban churches filled with the successful descendants of immigrants.)
At the same time, these churches want to relate the gospel to a non-Christian culture. Often, we do so by being as antiseptic as possible: with gleaming restrooms and shiny foyers, with churches designed to look like malls, complete with information booths and coffee kiosks. We assume that making Christianity clean and bright will remove the sting of offense from the gospel.
More “sophisticated” churches avoid the subject of blood, although less sophisticated ones retain enough of the old ways to talk about blood but also to trivialize it. T-shirts ape beer commercials (”This Blood’s For You”) or the tattoo culture (“My Life Was Saved by Body Piercing”).
Some of this is the result of the lingering sting of liberal Christian hostility toward a “slaughterhouse religion.” Some of it is the result of an age that fears blood, but doesn’t know why. Some of it is the result of our ignorance, as we think that “blood” is just another metaphor, one we can easily replace.
And yet, bloodless Christianity leaves a void. Could it be that the lack of emphasis on blood in Evangelical Protestant churches at least partially explains why Baptists and Methodists and Pentecostals who otherwise would have little to do with Roman Catholic imagery found themselves openly weeping in movie theaters as they viewed The Passion of the Christ? Did they need to remember that “with his stripes we are healed” (Is. 53:5)?
Our embarrassment over the bloodiness of Christianity often results in blood atonement being presented in our catechism and discipleship of believers in an attenuated, abstract sort of way. Less and less often do ordinary believers hum to themselves songs about the blood of Jesus. Less and less often do small children memorize Scripture passages about the blood of Christ.
We assume that we first convince unbelievers to follow Jesus—and then we explicate the meaning of his blood, when we think they’re ready for this specialized theological knowledge. But how do we address consciences indicted by the ancient Accuser of Eden—some of them tortured by the knowledge that they have shed innocent blood themselves—without pointing them to the only means of conquering him, “the blood of the Lamb” (Rev. 12:10–11)?
We assume that we teach young Christians how to live, to abstain from sexual immorality and greed and pugilism, before we move to something as seemingly arcane as blood sacrifice. And yet, Scripture assumes that personal morality is built on the knowledge that we were bought “with the precious blood of Christ, like that of a lamb without blemish or spot” (1 Peter 1:19).
We assume that we build “community” in our churches before we address something as raw and potentially alienating as the shedding of blood. And yet, the community we share—bearing with all of one another’s faults and transcending our petty ethnic and cultural prejudices—comes only through the recognition that we share a common condemnation as sinners, but, as we will still confess to our Christ in the heavenly places, “you were slain, and with your blood you ransomed people for God from every tribe and language and people and nation” (Rev. 5:9). Shared life is based on shared blood.
Even the vampires in our popular fiction know that. That’s what makes our bloodless Christianity all the more ironic. We believe we’re more in tune with unbelievers around us, but they’re talking constantly about blood, from pharmaceutical advertisements to horror films, from vampire romance novels to AIDS and DNA testing.
The nineteenth- and twentieth-century revivalist tradition gave the Church a valued psalter of “blood medleys.” Some of them could be done better musically and lyrically, and some even theologically. But let us never be embarrassed by our emphasis—in song, in public prayer, in evangelism, in discipleship, and in preaching—on the blood of Jesus.
There is power—wonder-working power—in the blood. Our culture already sees that. They’re simply looking in the wrong veins.
THANK YOU for thinking that through so well and posting this.
I’ve suspected that there is something wrong how some of us seem loathe to proclaim the blood anymore. It’s pretty nitty gritty to talk about and inevitably is going make some of us uncomfortable, but maybe it’s supposed to do that. I remember Jesus’ statement in John 6:56: “He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him.”
And then, after Jesus made that statement, his disciples struggled with it big time (John 6:60), and then many stopped following him (John 6:66).
Counting the blood precious rather than offensive is perhaps the mark of the effectiveness of the gospel on the heart — the litmus test of biblical Christianity.
@Matthew Rodatus, very true! Good insight!
You peg a fascinating trend, in church worship and I suspect that if we were look further back historically we would see up, down, left, and right swings in the theological background of American worship music and something to rightly critique in each shift. It is interesting to consider though that most shifts are normally pushed forward by something that was considered lacking in the previous state of affairs.
Might there be a place to ask then if the drop in amount of blood imagery had less to do with repugnance with the blood itself, but a perceived misuse or misunderstanding of that imagery to cause more harm than good through a lack of communication skill in conveying the message of Jesus blood to our surrounding culture?
You made a brief comment, about churches trying to avoid conveying the sting of the gospel by having buildings that were bright and clean. Perhaps they are. At the Bible college I attended, we were not taught to be seeker friendly per say. However our instructor had noticed that all to often many church buildings & grounds are not even kept up to the same standards that we keep our own houses. How to maintain the balancing act?
@Daniel Berman, I think there’s a difference between clean and “antiseptic.” It’s the difference between a home and a hospital. Both are necessary, but the ambient atmosphere of the two is quite different. Good points.
A very thoughtful and helpful consideration. I have asked some of the same questions and find your thoughts helpful. I also think Daniel Berman’s comments provide some extremely insightful further thought for us all. Good work and good response both.
@John H. Armstrong, Thanks so much Dr. Armstrong. I appreciate your sending me a copy of your new book. I look forward to reading it!
There is power, indeed, in the blood — and the medleys that confess it. Though I was raised in a liberal Methodist church, with no Gospel preaching from the pulpit, the theology of the blood in our hymnals burrowed deep inside my young heart. The day when my soul was finally awakened by the Gospel of Christ, I knew exactly what could “wash away my sin” — “nothing but the blood of Jesus.”
I can’t speak for Catholics, but I can tell you that the blood of Christ is center in the Lutheran Church. It is center at the Lord’s Supper, the hymns, and the sermons.
God Bless.
Dr. Moore,
Thank you for an excellent article! And I have to concur with Mr. Walker’s comments about the central place of Christ’s shed blood in Lutheran theology, worship, hymnody, and devotional life. Here is a little devotion I wrote for our congregation’s newsletter several years ago. If this is not appropriate for this blog, please delete it. Again thank you for your excellent article.
Christianity has been criticized as being a “blood religion.” Something ancient and barbaric. Not worthy of modern people’s belief. These critics would make Christianity into a moral system with Jesus as its teacher rather than its savior and sacrifice. But Holy Scripture will have none of that attitude. Without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins! This is not something that the early church “read into” the events of Jesus’ life. It was there from the beginning of time. After Adam and Eve sinned, they attempted to fashion a garment for themselves out of plant material to cover their shame. But it was woefully insufficient. God provided garments for them from the skins of animals–the first shedding of blood to cover the sin of humanity.
That picture continued for thousands upon thousands of years as God’s people sacrificed animals in anticipation of that once for all sacrifice to come. That sacrifice was Jesus Christ, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the world. He offered up the perfect sacrifice of his body and blood upon Calvary’s Cross to pay for the sins of the whole world.
We rejoice in the fact that Christianity is a blood religion–and thank Almighty God that the blood of Jesus Christ cleanses us from all unrighteousness!
Thank you for a very interesting article. I think I will use this tonight for some interesting reading in the church.
The reason I find this a timely article is because a few of my fellow seminarians recently took a class on The Gospel of Mark and the professor spoke openly about how one should leave behind this “blood language” and move on to other ways of presenting the Gospel.
While I serve in the South, I often think that we leave the Resurrection out of our theology because of our enormous focus on the Cross. However, that does not mean we need to move from one to the other. Both of these great theological truths are needed and needed to be held within a dynamic tension and balance.
As a “liberal” Methodist, I’m leaning more and more toward a Christus Victor view of atonement but I think the Victory of Christ in this atonement is firmly held within an understanding of the blood sacrifice of Christ. When we hold to such a victorious atonement, we must realize that victory begins through the Blood of Christ and is made real through the power of Resurrection. There is, after all, a reason for Jesus keeping His scars upon His Resurrection body. We must never forget the blood, the sacrifice OR the fact that our Savior LIVES and makes resurrection possible for us all.
God’s Best Always and in All Ways,
Derek W.
The Geekpreacher
Dr. Moore,
As always, thank you for your insight.
But a strange question based on one word in your text.
pugilism
What is inherently wrong with that and do you define that as violence in Scripture, or something else? Just wondering.
Does that extend to UFC/MMA etc.? Training in martial arts?
Your thoughts.
Paul
@Paul, yes, I do think pugilism is wrong. The Scripture calls on God’s people not to be “quarrelsome” and presents violent men in a negative light. This doesn’t mean that fighting is always wrong (God is a warrior), but bloodlust and thuggery clearly is. Blessings in Christ, RDM