Genuflection: Genuine Affection?

Genuflecting is the practice of bending on knee before an altar, person of importance, and sacred symbols. Alexandre the Great is preported to have started the practice. Genuflecting is practiced in The Roman Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodox Church. The idea of bowing on one knee before Christ Crucified, Christ Enthroned, and the Saints is to show reverence. But is this practice Biblical? Well there is something the Apostle Paul said, "Love each other with genuine affection, and take delight in honoring each other. Never be lazy, but work hard and serve the Lord enthusiastically." (Romans 12:10-11). Is genuflection connected to genuine affection? Do we need to bow before Lord who is, "king of kings and lord of lords," (Revelation 19:16)?Well it is written: "'As surely as I live,' says the Lord, 'every knee will bow before me; every tongue will acknowledge God.'" (Romans 14:11). Is genuflection a fulfillment of this verse? That almost every nation and race has bowed in this way? Actually Romans is referring to the Last Judgement ().

Genuflection is puzzling to many Protestants. For those who call Chrsit, "friend" (John 15:15) it becomes a ponderious event when someone prostrates or genuflects before a crucifix, saints, and even an altar. It is a sort of taboo to Evangelicals and the prospective of genuflecting is that its a pagan practice implemented into the Church of Rome to make the Redeemer seem regal and like Zeus rather than like Jesus. This view has merit, but it eschewed by Evangelical sympathies. The practices in High Churches are more complex than they appear. A person who genuflects or bows before Crucified Christ may be doing it for pennace, and even genuflect with both knees and crawl to the bones of a saint. This seems mystic and mad to most Bible based believers, but it is a tradition of old. The arguments can be made with success that such practices violate Scripture, even the clergy of Middle Ages upon seeing illiterate laity venerating and transmuting or transferring holiness to themselves via kissing bone, rubbing dead bodies of saints, and collecting relics was considered odd and vulgar, until it was realized it could fill the coffers of Rome.

How is genuflecting any different than anointing with oil in Charismatic circles, how is walking the Way of St. James (Del Comino Santiago) to visit the bones of St. James any different than a Charismatic or Pentecostal person rushing to see a prophet that heals and speaks words over people? Lets not be hypocrites. There are strange practices in all denominaitons, and we should, "test all spirits to see if they are of the Spirit, for many false prophets have gone into the world." (). But there is always going to be activity and rites that seem strange. I would advocate standing on Scripture to test if something is sound, but one can interpret many things from passage, for instance Catholcis believe the Eucharist (Communion bread and wine) becomes the very body and blood of Jesus, this is call Transubstantiation, and the Catholic get this idea from Christ's own words, "For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink." (John 6:55). Now Protestants interpreted this as symbolism because they believe that Jesus was alluding to symbolic Last Supper, where Jesus breaks bread and passes a cup of wine (Passover elements) and says, "While they were eating, Jesus took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to his disciples, saying, "Take and eat; this is my body.Then he took a cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you. This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins." (Matthew 26:26-28). Protestants argue that the blood of New Covenant is not contained in the Eucharist, but was poured out at Calvary when Christ died on the cross, citing the verse, "This blood of the covenant which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins," which in timeline of Christ's Passion happens after the Communion. The lines are drawn, with middle group that believe the Eucharist has supernatural power for spiritual warfare and is more than symbolic, but does not believe the Last Supper becomes Transubstantiation (actual body and blood of Jesus).

What is to be done about these practices then? If an argument can be made for and against, how does one establish doctrine? Well it helps to cross reference, to define Scripture with Scripture, to balance a doctrine like say, "judge not lest ye be judged," (Matthew 7:1) with "Do you not know that we will judge angels? How much more the things of this life!" (1 Corinthians 6:3ju). We have to examine the Bible as whole, not strictly in a few passages if no sense or balance can be found quickly. It means Studying the Scriptures, leaning on the Holy Spirit, and using a Sound Mind (2 Timothy 1:7). Then there will be practices and doctrines that honestly make no difference in this life or next; they are preference. Does the Bible say its wrong to cross yourself and genuflect? No, so then it is a matter of taste or discretion of the disciple. Some people want to read Bible via Lectio Divina, to hear God speak a specific word, other study it and learn Greek? Is it not beneficial to do both? What about Gregorian chant versus hymns versus modern worship songs? Again, a matter of taste or preference. If any practice, rite, tradition, action, choice, or decision conflicts with Scripture, God's Spirit, and Sound Reason, then it needs to be scrutinized and searched. But if it cannot be tested by Scripture, Spirit, and Sound Mind; then it probably is preference issue that we can disagree on, like wither a person wears a  collar shirt with tie or vest with a tie.  The Apostle Paul advises us to avoid arguing about trifle matters, "Accept other believers who are weak in faith, and don't argue with them about what they think is right or wrong," (Romans 14:1, NLT) and "Accept one another, then, just as Christ accepted you, in order to bring praise to God." (Romans 15:7).