Patterson, Mohler, and Calvin

But not Hobbes. An interesting article from the Southern Baptist world: Patterson, Mohler: Calvinism shouldn’t divide Southern Baptists, published by the Baptist Press. The theological debates among Southern Baptists is not a matter of which I know very much, and I found this article quite informative.

Comments

[Frank Marron]

It is interesting that the discussion between Mohler and Patterson assume there are only two major divisions outside Roman Catholoicism: Arminianism and Calvinism. What about Lutheranism?

[Peter Gardner]

I once heard some Southern Baptists say that Lutherans are nigh on to Catholics, and that there's little real difference.

"Nonetheless," they said, "some of them actually are saved."

[Peter Gardner]

I just realized that it kinda sounds like I'm trying to say there's animosity between Baptists and Lutherans or something -- my point was first to say that Lutherans are pretty much off the Southern Baptist radar, and second that liturgical groups all tend to get lumped together in the wrong pile anyway.

--ex-Southern-Baptist, possible future ex-Baptist

[Steve Nicoloso]

Animosity between Southern Baptists and Lutherans sounds about as plausible as animosity between Chiapas Indians and Laponian reindeer herders.

[Scott Walker]

"What about Lutheranism?" Shoot, what about Orthodoxy? Peculiar, the blind spot that many Western Christians have about the second largest Christian communion in the world; there are many, many more Orthodox than, say, Lutherans in the world. But Baptists, by and large, just ignore us. Sad. If they only knew about us, they would find us to be just as desperately wrong as they find Roman Catholics to be.

[Scott Walker]

One more point before bed. If the quotations in the article attributed to R. C. Sproul are correctly attributed, Sproul believes in a god who is not only unworthy of worship, but is actively and dangerously psychotic, and must be quarantined for the safety of the universe. To argue that God "needs" anything, much less nasty people upon whom He can vent, reveals a most limited and carnal idea of He Who Is.

[James A. Altena]

Dear Scott,

While I wouldn't phrase it the same way, I agree with you about the appalling nature of R. C. Sproul's remarks. (I have a good friend of the Reformed persuasion who is an R. C. Sproul admirer, and that has made for significant difficulties in theological discussion with him, as mentioned in my posting under Dr. Hutchens' "Those Perfidious Baptists" blog.)

As for Baptists and Western Christians, you needn't worry -- some Baptists are plenty aware of the Orthodox, and indeed find them just as desperately wrong as you suppose. (A couple of years ago comments circulated around on Orthodox web sites about a thesis -- awarded a degree -- from a Baptist seminary regarding Orthodox errors and the need to evangelize them and "convert" them to "Christianity.")

Of course, we could also discuss parallel attitudes that many Orthodox have toward Western Christians. (E.g., at one Orthodox Liturgy I attended, the moment one woman found out I wasn't Orthodox she went into a screaming rant in my face that I wasn't a Christian because of the filioque clause, which meant that I worshipped a different and non-Christian god, etc.)

Fortunately I've had other, more welcoming experiences in other Orthodox parishes, so I don't need to characterize all Orthodox in that (or any other) way. And I don't think we need to characterize all Baptists or other Western Christians with negative stereotypes either, or make sweeping generalizations about an alleged "blind spot" that supposedly leads them to "ignore" Orthodoxy. If we all cultivate the virtues of humility and charity, then I think we will not be concerned much with recognition from others, even other Christians.

[Juli]

at one Orthodox Liturgy I attended, the moment one woman found out I wasn't Orthodox she went into a screaming rant in my face that I wasn't a Christian because of the filioque clause ...

All together now: "And they'll kno-ow we are Christians by our love ..."

[Scott Walker]

James, note qualifiers "many' and "by and large". I'm dismayed to hear of your unpleasant experience with an Orthodox zealot; Father Seraphim Rose told the story of an old Russian lady who, when confronted with a similar case remarked, "Well, he's certainly Orthodox, but is he Christian?" My own opinion, FWIW, is that when it comes to sorting sheep from goats, the Filioque will not loom large in the selection process.

[David Gray]

>Peculiar, the blind spot that many Western Christians have about the second largest Christian communion in the world; there are many, many more Orthodox than, say, Lutherans in the world.

It isn't that peculiar as there aren't that many in the english speaking world. I remember a pamphlet put out by a Catholic bishop in Santa Fe that excoriated Protestants for introducing division in Christianity because Christianity was entirely unified until the Reformation.

[GL]

Perhaps I shouldn't air our dirty laundry, but my SBC church just split. There were many areas of dispute, but one problem for the traditional SBC'ers in the congregation was that our pastor was a Calvinist. I have wondered about whether he was clear to the search committee and the church as a whole about his theology and, in turn, whether the members of the committee and the church were clear with him about the church's positions before he was approved. (We joined after he had been there for a couple of years.) Dr. Patterson is absolutely correct about the need for all parties to be up front with each other during a pastor search. I am sad to say that failure to be so can have tragic consequences.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>at one Orthodox Liturgy I attended, the moment one woman found out I wasn't Orthodox she went into a screaming rant in my face that I wasn't a Christian because of the filioque clause ...<<<

Not personally a problem (if not reciting the Filioque makes one Orthodox, then that's what I am--knew it all along). But it does put me in mind of a story that Orthodox tell about each other:

A man gets onto a train and takes a seat in the compartment across from another man. After a few minutes, the second man asks the first, "I see you are wearing a three-bar cross. Does that mean you are Orthodox?"

And the first man says, "Why, yes, I am".

"So am I", says the second man. "And are you Greek Orthodox or Russian Orthodox?"

"I am Russian Orthodox", says the first man.

"So am I" says the second. "And are you Old Ritual or New Ritual Russian Orthodox?"

"I am New Ritual Russian Orthodox".

"So am I! Are you Old Calendar or New Calendar New Ritual Russian Orthodox?"

"I am Old Calendar New Ritual Russian Orthodox" says the first man.

"Really? So am I", says the second man. "So tell me, are you Old Man Trinity or Non-Old Man Trinity, Old Calendar, New Ritual Russian Orthodox?"

"I am Old Man Trinity, Old Calendar, New Ritual Russian Orthodox" says the first man.

And the second man jumps out of his seat, shouting "Got you, you lousy heretic! I hope you rot in hell!"

[Scott Walker]

Rueful laughter there, Stuart. I move in circles that are overwhelmingly converts, so I've never had personal experience with the more-Orthodox-than-the-Patriarch folks, but I know they're out there. Garrison Keillor's "BSification and pissery" (lovely phrase, that!) is most emphatically not limited to the Sanctified Brethren. There are a couple of "bishops" in Colorado who consider themselves and their miniscule flock as the only authentic Church left in the world. Too bad for the rest of us.

[James A. Altena]

A slightly different version of the Orthodox joke posted above (about two Baptists, as it happens!) was in the joke web site link posted to "Mere Comments" about a week back!

The incident I mentioned occurred at a ROCOR parish (the pastor of which is a very delightful man, in contrast to his wayward parishioner). I don't know if those Orthodox posting comments here (Scott, Stuart, any others?) would consider that an extreme sliver group or not. (An OCA priest once told me that a visiting bishop from the Russian Orthodox Church called ROCOR "a pimple on the ass of World Orthodoxy"! Not much love lost there in the frosty relations between those two churches.)

To even things up, we all know of the Episcopalians condemned to Hell for mxixing up the salad and dessert forks. . . .

I shared this blog with my Reformed friend. He wrote back that, having personally heard Sproul affirm the part of the Westminster Confession stating that God cannot be the author of any evil, he cannot believe that Sproul actually said what Patterson attributes to him, and would also find it appalling. Let us hope so (can anyone help me do the research needed here to confirm or refute this from a specific primary source? I'm out of town for the next three days and will check this on Tuesday.) and give Sproul the benefit of the doubt until hard evidence is in (the Internet being such a great rumor-mongering medium). But if Sproul didn't say it, one wonders both why Mohler didn't object on the spot, and what Patterson's actual source is instead. . . .

[Scott Walker]

James, in discussing ROCOR we enter the maze of Russian diaspora intrigue, and a fair treatment would require a short book instead of an internet post. Reader's Digest version: ROCOR (Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia) formed in response to Metropolitan Sergius caving in to Stalinist pressure in the late 20's, and selling out the Church to the Soviets. Most of the Orthodox churches in the wider world, however, still recognized the legitimacy of the Patriarch of Moscow. ROCOR, accordingly, was considered by many to be non-canonical, and hence out of communion. As usually happens when a group is isolated, certain tendencies toward zealotry and extremism were magnified within ROCOR. At the same time, however, ROCOR was steadfastly holding the Holy Tradition and producing a steady stream of sturdy believers, including St. John Maximovich of Shanghai and San Francisco and Father Seraphim Rose, among many, many others. Fast forward to earlier this year. The USSR is gone. The Partriarchate of Moscow and the bishops of ROCOR agree to bury the hatchet and come back into communion. ROCOR still exists, but acknowledges the authority of the Patriarch and is no longer considered to be non-canonical. Yes, they represent what one may call the conservative wing of canonical Orthodoxy, but I think it's way out of line to call them a pimple on the a-- of anything. Much of the rancor directed back and forth between ROCOR and the OCA is the sad result of generations of the previously mentioned diaspora intrigues. Hope this helps.

[Scott Walker]

Ooops. For those who don't know, OCA stands for Orthodox Church in America, the historical descendant of those churches in the United States and Canada that continued to acknowledge the authority of the Patriarch of Moscow throughout the Soviet era.

[joe]

"Sproul believes in a god who is not only unworthy of worship, but is actively and dangerously psychotic, and must be quarantined for the safety of the universe."

Sounds a good deal like what non-believers say about any description of a Christian God.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>I don't know if those Orthodox posting comments here (Scott, Stuart, any others?) would consider that an extreme sliver group or not. <<<

I am a Greek Catholic, not Orthodox, but I have to say that I have been treated very well indeed by the ROCOR people in the Washington area--I've been to the Vigil several times at their cathedral here. Contrary to what you mght think, a large part of the congregation was composed of young families with children, so they aren't as tangled up in the problems of the past.

Since the fall of the USSR, the rationale for ROCOR has largely vanished, and the death of the last ROCOR metropolitan, who was viscerally opposed to any rapprochement with the Patriarchate has taken a lot of steam out of ROCOR separationism. There have been a number of initiatives by both sides to reach out to the other in recent years, so I am hopeful that some sort of healing will come about shortly.

As you might expect, the sticking point is property--who owns it, who gets it, and what happens to the people who have it now. Once that is resolved, the two will invariably merge into a single Church.

>>>Ooops. For those who don't know, OCA stands for Orthodox Church in America, the historical descendant of those churches in the United States and Canada that continued to acknowledge the authority of the Patriarch of Moscow throughout the Soviet era.<<<

The OCA was the outgrowth of the Russian Orthodox North American Mission, which prior to the Russian Revolution, had jurisdiction over all Orthodox in the U.S.--Greek, Antiochene, Bulgarian, etc. With the Revolution and the delegitimization of the Patriarchate, other Orthodox Churches set up parallel jurisdictions, leading to the confusion we have today. The Patriarchate granted autocephaly to the Mission in the 1970s, establishing the OCA, which was not recognized by many other Orthodox Churches at the time (but is so now).

Just to make life more confusing still, in addition to the OCA and ROCOR, the Moscow Patriarchate maintains a number of parishes in the U.S. under its direct jurisdiction.

[Stuart Koehl]

One other thing I forgot to mention: the last few years have also seen both ROCOR and the Moscow Patriarchate reaching out to the Old Ritualists (Raskolniki, Old Believers), who separated themselves from the rest of Orthodoxy during the Nikonian reforms of the 1650s.

Perhaps realizing that the Old Ritualists were mostly correct, and very badly treated to boot (see Mussorgsky's great opera Khovanschina for a colorful rendering), both now want to bring them back into the fold. A number of Old Ritualist communities have already returned in Russia, with guarantees that they can continue to practice according to the age-old customs.

Some of those Old Ritualist groups that have not had priests for more than three centuries (the Bezpapotsi) have taken advantage of the thaw to have canonical bishops ordain new priests for them. I imagine the future will see the elevation of an Old Ritualist bishop or two.

Among the other things the Old Ritualists will bring to Russian Orthodoxy is a deep piety borne of long persecution, and a form of worship that has its roots in the pre-Westernized liturgy of the 17th century (before the importation of arranged choral music, non-participation by the people, Italianate churches, degenerate iconography, etc.). The Russian Orthodox Church is looking to the Old Ritualist to help them restore some of the things that were lost, like congregatinal plainchant, ascetic disicpline, observance of the Hours, etc.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>It isn't that peculiar as there aren't that many in the english speaking world.<<<

But the ones that there are tend to be the more interesting people. Certainly, they write the best liturgical music going.

[David Gray]

>But the ones that there are tend to be the more interesting people.

By what standard?

>Certainly, they write the best liturgical music going.

Best music = Lutherans. No competition. And I'm not nor have I ever been Lutheran.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Best music = Lutherans. No competition. And I'm not nor have I ever been Lutheran.<<<

Ever hear of John Taverner? Or Avo Paart?

[Scott Walker]

Yeah, it's the Lutherans for the best music. Our parish uses the Russian tones which are easily singable for Western-tuned ears; many parishes use Byzantine tones (which often remind this listener of Led Zepplin's "Kashmir") and can be hauntingly beautiful...but Johann Sebastian Bach beats 'em all. (And Martin himself hit a home run with "A Mighty Fortress Is Our God.) Anybody interested in Orthodox liturgical music can check out various works by Capella Romana. Good stuff.

[David Gray]

>Ever hear of John Taverner? Or Avo Paart?

Sure. Ever heard of Bach?

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Anybody interested in Orthodox liturgical music can check out various works by Capella Romana. Good stuff.<<<

They're not bad. My favorites for authentic Russian liturgical are the Patriarchical Choir under Sergei Gredorenko (on the Opus 111 label). Their range spans everything from 14th century kriuk and znamenny chant to 16th century polyphonic chant, to the composed works of the 18th and 19th centuries. I also love Theater of Voices under Paul Hillier, who has also done recordings with the Estonian Philharmonic Chamber Choir.

Closer to home, the Boston Byzantine Choir specializes in Greek chants translated into English--an extremely successful endeavor. Check out their albums "First Fruits" and "Mystical Supper".

With regard to Sebastian Bach, I think we have a problem of definitions here. I do not consider Bach's cantatas or Masses to be "liturgical" music, because it cannot be sung congregationally. By the same token, one cannot include most composed Orthodox choral music as liturgical. Authentic liturgical music is meant to be sung by the people during the leitourgos, or work of the people. Thus, the authentic liturgical music of the West is Roman, Ambrosian, Mozerabic, Gallic, Sarum and above all Gregorian chant. In the East there are a plethora of plainchant traditions, including the Russian little and great znamenny and kriuk chants, Kyivan plainchant, Greek plainchant, Bulgaria and Serbian plainchant, Rusyn prostopinje plainchant, Melkite plainchant and so forth. All of these maintain the fundamental understanding of liturgy as a sung dialogue between the people and the celebrant, sung a capella because, in the understanding of the Fathers, only the living human voice is fit to offer praises to the living God. Bach, Mozart, Haydn, Handel, Brahms--all of these great composers wrote wonderful music on liturgical themes, but they did not write liturgical music.

[David Gray]

>I do not consider Bach's cantatas or Masses to be "liturgical" music, because it cannot be sung congregationally.

I take it you've never encountered a Bach chorale?

[Stuart Koehl]

>>> I take it you've never encountered a Bach chorale?<<<

Plenty. But, as I said, they are not "liturgical music" properly understood. Liturgy, as "work of the people" requires the full and active participation of all the people--clergy and laity acting together to offer the sacrifice of praise. Thus, from the beginning of the Church, liturgical music was (a) congregational; and (b) a capella. It was also largely monodic, too, for part of the purpose of liturgical music was to demoonstrate the essential unity of the Church. The introduction of mechanical instruments in the 11th century was highly controversial, with the organ regularly denounced as (literally) an instrument of Satan. It caught on in the West mainly because it had the support of magnates who were patrons of the Church. The East, for its part, remains a capella to this day.

Polyphony began slipping into liturgical music through Western monastic choirs in which monks with time on their hands could make elaborate musical arrangements on traditional monodic chants. In a sense, this was liturgical music adopting the idiom of contemporary secular music. And as whenever theology tries to express itself in a secular idiom it ends up expressing secularism in a theological idiom, so too attempts to use secular idioms in liturgical music end up expressing secularism in a liturgical mode.

Polyphony is generally too much for untrained musicians to do well. The introduction of elaborate (3- to 6-part) harmonization had the effect of reducing congregational participation in the liturgy. Which, however, coincided with the marginalization of the people in Western liturgy generally from the 12th century onward. With the introduction of "private Masses", then the bifurcation of the Eucharist into low and high forms, and ultimately, the subsumption of the role of the laity into that of the priest effectively ended real liturgical music in the West for some centuries.

Consider: the Council of Trent and the Tridentine Missal merely codified what had been the case for some centuries already; i.e., that only the words uttered by the priest had any efficacy in the liturgy. The people were reduced to spectators (hence the expressions, "the people heard Mass" and the "priest said Mass"), with music essentially as "chrome" on the body of the liturgy. That is, there was no direct correlation between what the choir (and now the orchestra or organist) were playing and singing, and what was happening at the altar. Thus, the five-part Mass suite popularized by the great composers are in fact "concert pieces" providing the people with background music while they watched what the priest was doing at the altar. But they are not "liturgical music".

With regard to the hymnography of the Reformation, including that of Martin Luther, John Wesley, etc.--these are "religious songs", not liturgical music, for all that they may be sung in the liturgy (to the extent that the different Protestant denominations have maintained a "liturgical" service. "Liturgical music" properly understood is the liturgy set to music. It is the structure of the liturgy, not merely decorative flourishes added on to it.

If you were to go to a liturgy in the tenth century--East or West--you would find a remarkable similarity of form, even if the style and the particulars were different. You would find a service sung or chanted in its entirety, with the active participation of the people (beginning to fade in the West as Latin became a purely clerical language--but note that the terse responses of the Latin liturgy allowed the people to learn the responses by repetition). Priest and people are engaged in a dialogue of prayer culminating in the Eucharist and the transformation of the Bread and the Wine. It is divine drama, but contrary to current perceptions, in which the congregation is the audience watching (or hearing) the priest and the choir perform. In fact, in true liturgy, both the congregation and the celebrants are the performers, and God is the audience.

[Peter Gardner]

I rather strongly disagree with the statement that untrained musicians can't do polyphony -- are you familiar with the Sacred Harp? It is a book of (mostly) religious music that came out of 19th century America, that is designed to be sung by untrained people, or at most, people with a few hours of training (as to which note is which and all). The parts are written so that even the nonmelodic lines are interesting, and the notes are written with shapes (fa is a triangle, so is a circle, la is a square, mi is a diamond), as an additional aid to reading. It was a very big thing, especially in the south, through the beginning of the 20th century. Now it survives in certain areas in the rural south, and in groups of interested people scattered around the country.

It's rather not liturgical, though.

[David Gray]

>Thus, from the beginning of the Church, liturgical music was (a) congregational; and (b) a capella. It was also largely monodic

If you want to define liturgical music as congregational, a capella, and monodic then I'll gladly let you have Eastern Orthodoxy as the center of that tiny universe. But your previous statement that Bach didn't write music that could be sung congregationally was a howler.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>I rather strongly disagree with the statement that untrained musicians can't do polyphony -- are you familiar with the Sacred Harp? It is a book of (mostly) religious music that came out of 19th century America, that is designed to be sung by untrained people, or at most, people with a few hours of training (as to which note is which and all).<<<

I have heard of the Sacred Harp, and I am also quite familiar with the work of William Billings. However, it is one thing to sing polyphonally as a small group in either a concert or home setting, and quite another for a congregation to sing a complex polyphonic composition. It simply cannot be done--as anyone who has been to one of those annoying "Messiah" sing-alongs knows.

Simple harmonization, however, can be extemporized by a congregation, provided that they know the music intimately. This is very much the case in a lot of Ruthenian Byzantine Catholic parishes in this country. We sing the Prostopinje, or plainchant of the Sub-Carpathian Rusyn, either in English or in Slavonic. The Sub-Carpathian region being such a backwater, the Church there retained a number of practices that died out elsewhere. The musicologist Sr. Joan Roccasalvo wrote in her monograph, "The Plainchant Tradition of the Southwestern Rus'", quoting the eminent Russian musicologist Johann Gardener, who traveled through the region making recordings in the 1920s:

"In Subcarpathian Rus' in all the villages, both among the Uniates and also among the Orthodox, there was always practiced only congregational singing of the complete services, not excluding the changeable hymns [propers] of the varied chants. The sang according to the 'Great Sbornik' [collection of prayers and liturgical texts] containing every necessary text. The numerous chants (not excluding the podobny, not even found in the Synodal notated liturgical books), were known by everyone, eve the children of school age. The leader of song--the most experienced singer from the parishes--standing at the krilos sang the chant. As soon as he worshippers would hear the hymn they would join in the chant, and the entire church sang; they sang all the stichery, all the tropars, all the irmosy [these are all variable parts of the liturgy set by the liturgical calendar] according to the established canonical parts of the Liturgy. They sang in unison and whoever could, imitated or reinforced the bass. The impression proved overwhelmingly strong."

Garder also noted that "the people sang sometimes not in unison, but in three voices", but this was only possible because the music was fundamentally simple and known intimately by all the people of the congregation, it having been passed down from generation to generation through the cantors of each village.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>f you want to define liturgical music as congregational, a capella, and monodic then I'll gladly let you have Eastern Orthodoxy as the center of that tiny universe. But your previous statement that Bach didn't write music that could be sung congregationally was a howler.<<<

What hath Bach to do with liturgical music, as I have defined it, pray tell? Need we once more go back to Liturgy 101?

[David Gray]

>What hath Bach to do with liturgical music, as I have defined it, pray tell? Need we once more go back to Liturgy 101?

Stuart, I'm going to let this rest after this but you suggested above that Bach could not be sung congregationally. That is silly (ranks right up there with "I know all about Reformed worship because I went to my uncle's Dutch Reformed church a couple of times"). With your particular definition of what constitutes liturgical music Bach doesn't qualify and thanks be to God. But to assert he can't be sung congregationally requires a real lack of familiarity.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>With your particular definition of what constitutes liturgical music Bach doesn't qualify and thanks be to God.<<<

It's not MY definition. It merely is THE definition. There is an authentic liturgical tradition of the undivided Church of the first millennium, and it, rather than anything which has developed afterwards, remains the NORMATIVE form of Christian worship. Thus, in the West and the East alike, the Liturgy is intended to be SUNG or CHANTED, not recited. Every first century pontifical or euchalogion makes this quite clear. And as the forms of worship have an inextricable link to what is actually professed and believed, and how it is understood, departures from the norm represent departures from that which was understood by the Fathers.

[Wolf N. Paul]

I come somewhat late to this particular posting and the comments thereon, but I think that those of you who asked, "What about Lutherans", and "What about the Orthodox", and "Isn't it strange that all these are off the radar" are missing the point of the article.

It is not an article about the different theological traditions in Christendom, but an article about two distinctive theological traditions within the Baptist movement and thus also within the Southern Baptist Convention.

So it would be entirely inappropriate to draw any conclusions from it concerning how aware Baptists are of Lutherans, Orthodox, Catholics, Anglicans, etc, etc.

[Peter Gardner]

I have heard of a few congregations that do sing Sacred Harp music -- and there were many more back when it was more prominant.

[firinnteine]

Congregations can most decidely handle four-part harmony, and sing it beautifully, particularly where singing is a capella -- this is normal in many Church of Christ congregations. (A dear friend was raised in one such congregation, and his entire family retains the ability to sing parts, not infrequently by memory or extempore.)

The application of this hymn-singing practice to liturgy might be objectionable to some, but it is not unworkable, nor is it of necessity limited to a small choral group rather than the entire body of the people.

[GL]

Am I the only one who bothered to comment on the substance of this post?  I guess it goes to show that relatively few Baptists actually read Mere Comments.  ;-)

[James A. Altena]

Dear Stuart,

Sorry, but with respect to church music David Gray is right. It is indeed only YOUR definition of "liturgy" (made with thoroughly parochial reference to your own liturgical tradition) and not THE definition. As my rector once wisely noted in an article on the (acutally, modern revisionst) notion that liturgy a) requires doing only that which more or less everyone in the congregation has the ability to do, and b) must therefore have everyone overtly doing something discernable to everyone else, "this rests upon a very shallow notion of participation." In the deeper (and correct) view, even if I am "only" listening to a Bach cantata rather than singing it (or playing an instrument with it), I can be by virute of contemplation (which is active and not just passive receptive) be as fully participating in the liturgy as the "performers."

As for who has the best music, I won't concede that to the Lutherans across the board, as much as I adore their chorales, not to mention the towering twin geniuses of J. S. Bach and Heinrich Schuetz. (I've often said to people, "I have a three-word proof for the existence of God. His name is Johann Sebastian Bach.") But figures such as Obrecht, Ockeghem, Des Prez, Palestrina, Victoria, and Tallis are their equals. And then there is the stupefyingly great "All-Night Vigil" of Rachmaninov, with lesser but able lights such as Kastalsky, Archangelsky, Lvov, Titov, Nikolsky, Gretchaninov, etc. contributing to the glories of the Orthodox liturgy. And I would heartily recommend that everyone acquire the Chandos recordings of the "Stabat Mater" and "Missa Sabrinensis" of Herbert Howells.

My five "desert island" sacred vocal works:

Tallis: "Spem in alium" (several fine performances; go with Hill on Hyperion for a huge wall of sound, and The 16, the Tallis Scholars, or van Nevel for more intimacy and transparency.)

Schuetz; "Fili mi, Absalom" (the old Nonesuch LP under Rilling is unequalled; on CD the best is the Sony recital disc with Harry van der Kamp.)

Bach: St. Matthew Passion (Solti for modern instruments, Harnoncourt III for original instruments; I have a soft spot for the old Nonesuch LPs under Swarowsky, with Equiluz and Rintzler as an unequalled Evangelist-Jesus combo.)

Beethoven: Missa solemnis (the live 1949 performance with my musical hero Bruno Walter is mind-bogglingly great! Worthy rivals are the live performance under Schuricht and, for studio recordings, Bernstein on Sony or Colin Davis on BMG.)

Rachmaninov: All-Night Vigil (the classic Shveshnikov recording, or Polyansky's live performance from the Smolensk Cathedral.)

Now, to stir up a real hornet's nest -- the music of Taverner and Part is tedious neo-New Age minimalist twaddle elevator music of a piece with Steven Reich, Philip Glass, John Adams, etc. If my soul were to go to Hell rather than Heaven, I'm sure there'd be a "Far Side" cartoon of me locked in a sound booth being forced to listen to such stuff for all eternity.

[James A. Altena]

To get back to the original topic of the preceding blog comments, at least the first R. C. Sproul quote is genuine. "God wills all things that come to pass. God desired for man to fall into sin....God created sin." comes from p. 54 of Sproul's "Almighty Over All" (Baker Books, 1999). So Sproul stands convicted; somehow, quarantine doesn't seem to be enough. . . .

From the blogs I scanned (including some Reformed web sites), Sproul and other Calvinist apologists defend these remarks by making a technical distinction here (based in turn on the distinction between God's perfect will and permissive will) between what God "wills" or "desires" (permissively, by intent) and that of which he is the author (perfectly, by positive action), and on that basis deny the charge that they make God the author of evil. (In this search, I also ran across a sermon by Charles Spurgeon in the same vein titled "Christ Made Sin," so apparently this position has some longstanding history among staunch Calvinists.)

Such definitional legerdemain only goes to prove that doctrinaire Calvinists are scholastics to a degree that would make the medieval predecessors they so virulently calumied blush. (That's not a knock against the scholastics per se, who were brilliant at their best, but agaisnt the abuse of their methods that has made "scholasticism" a term of derision in popular parlance.)

[wm]

I'm not sure about this, having not seen this sermon by Spurgeon, but I would bet that "Christ Made Sin" refers to His being made sin for us.

2 Cor 5:21 For he hath made him (Christ) to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.