In Jesus' name...

Ok,is it me or has the phrase "In Jesus' name" been tacked on to prayer as if it is some form of formula, some mantra we feel guilt-ridden to not say? Why does it seem like it is used like a magic formula, like abracadabra or hocus-pocus?

In reading the early Church Fathers I find no precedence for this. It seems to me that this is a recent innovation. Ok, so we find "in the name of Jesus" and the like in the New Testament. I agree that the focus was on Jesus. But "in the name of Jesus" is today used much in the sense of the Oneness Pentecostals that it is Jesus as God that is our focus. How Jesus relates to the Trinity is blurred, at best. The focus of the ancient Church was the Trinity. It seems today that Jesus has replaced the Trinity, though obviously the Trinity underscores all major denominations.

I was reminded of this while listening to some worship songs. Many, many Christian songs seem to have bad, or at least ambivalent, theology. Here's an example:

"[We’re] coming back to the heart of worship, and it’s all about you. It’s all about you, Jesus."

Is it really all about Jesus? Isn't it all about God? Isn't God, according to Christian belief, a Trinity? Are we saying that Jesus is God? If so, what of the Trinity? Somehow the Trinity gets lost in this and we seem to be falling into a form of Modalism, where Jesus is God, the Trinity merely three "aspects" of God's Being, Jesus being that Being.

I can't say these lyrics are unbiblical or even un-Christian. I just wonder what our focus is. Is it supposed to be Christ, and through him, God (or the Godhead)? Or is he the end of our focus, the final repose of our worship?

I know this sounds suspect, that I am somehow minimizing Christ in all of this. But that isn't my point. In comparison to the writings of the early Church and the battles fought in the first several hundred years, culminating in the Council of Nicaea and, ultimately, the Council of Chalcedon, today's theolgy seems frequently to border on those very things that the Church fought against.

Perhaps that is why there is such a backlash against the Catholic Church and its Traditions. There seems to be a view that the Traditions of the Church equal "invented" and thus go against Scripture, not realizing the gist of Luther's argument and claims of "sola scriptura." Sola scriptura does not mean the same thing as the view commonly held today that the Bible is innerant.

However, when we stop for a moment and consider that the New Testament writings, as a whole, did not reach wide circulation until sometime in the middle of the second century, it is a certainty that, by and large, for almost 100 years, give or take, the Church functioned without a New Testament. The had the Hebrew scriptures as their "bible" and the Traditions passed on by the Apostles and early Church leaders as their foundation.

Some churches may have had copies of the letters of Paul or a copy of Mark or Matthew or Luke but there was no one composite New Testament, especially considering that the Gospel of John is believed to have been written sometime between 80-95 CE. So there was not debate about the Scriptures being "innerant." The early church theology was not contingent upon Scripture.

In fact, it wasn't until Scripture reached wide distribution and until Marcion, circa 130 CE, began to devise his only version of Scripture, that the debate began to rage. This was the impetus that would ultimately lead to establishment of doctrine based on Scriptural proof-texting.

Yet we are still 100 years out from the death of Jesus. So toss out the Traditions wholesale and what do we have? To not pay attention to what the earliest writings outside of the New Testament have to say is a grave loss.

It seems that theology has become uprooted from its historical anchors and is rooted no deeper than modern "prophets" who use the Bible, generally in English translation, to claim what is truly the faith of the early Church. By doing so, ironically, perhaps, we actually cut ourselves off from the Source.

Take a look at some Oneness pamphlets as to the true Apostolic doctrine (I have some as I attended one of their churches for about four years). It is filled with quotes from the Bible. Yet all of the modern theologies and denominations are (or claim to be) rooted in the Bible so any denominations' theology is presented with quotes from the Bible. If it was so clear, why so many denominations? Obviously, there must be something deeper.

Not sure exactly where I'm going with this but you would be hard pressed to find any of them drawing on the writings of the Church Fathers for support.