Calling Time

In an article on the advisability of teaching the Bible in the public schools (the author thinks this should be done, but “very, very carefully”), the April 2 issue of Time notes, “Only half of U.S. adults know the title of even one Gospel. Most can't name the Bible's first book. The trend extends even to Evangelicals, only 44% of whose teens could identify a particular quote as coming from the Sermon on the Mount.” I tend to doubt, however—and note my wording here--that the latter figure may be relied upon to signify a real decline of biblical knowledge among the class of people to whom the poll data evidently refers.

I say this for several reasons. First, it appears to me that the group to whom the term “Evangelical” generally applies has undergone inflation in the past generation or so, due to a small but significant movement in cultural plate tectonics. Whereas before sometime in the mid- to late 1970s an Evangelical was a post-fundamentalist biblicist with a fairly consistent understanding of himself as a countercultural phenomenon, the regularization of Evangelicalism in mainstream American culture and the success of the movement in secularizing itself (for evangelical purposes, of course), along with the omnium-gatherum known as the megachurch, has, I suspect, brought a lowering of certain averages among those who profess to Evangelical conviction. 

I doubt, for example, whether the shocking divorce statistics among Evangelicals (the rate is slightly higher than that of the population at large) are unconnected to the movement’s spiritual inflation and loss of rigor--a weakening that does not necessarily accompany a change in core beliefs--and am quite prepared to see a general decrease in biblical knowledge as another symptom of the same. The more one moves in the Evangelical world, however, toward the churches that retain the more culturally detached “fundamentalist” attitude characteristic of an older Evangelicalism--the kind that have Awana programs for their children--the higher the level of biblical knowledge one will find among the people. Before one inquires whether this knowledge has decreased among Evangelicals, it would be well to know whether the knowledgeable and less knowledgeable Evangelicals, while doubtless of the same genus, are the same species.

Second, the choice of the question that required identification of a certain quotation as coming from the Sermon on the Mount shows an ignorance on the part of the pollsters of how conservative Evangelicals—the ones who would be expected to have the deepest biblical knowledge--study the Bible. Recollecting my own early life in such an Evangelical church, I recall that if you asked me at, say, ten or twelve years old, to complete any verse or passage from the Sermon on the Mount, I could have done it for you, explained what it meant, and preached you a brief sermon thereupon. I had the Beatitudes memorized, but didn’t know, or didn’t care, that they came from the Sermon on the Mount. They came from the fifth chapter of Matthew. I would have heard of the Sermon on the Mount, of course, not least because the marginal headings in my Bible in that area said “The Sermon on the Mount.” 

But the preachers I had listened to didn’t care much where the Sermon was given, nor would they have mentioned that detail except in passing. What they were interested in, and preached minutely, was its contents. They did not “preach through” the Sermon on the Mount, but the Gospel of Matthew. In fact, I heard no one emphasizing these chapters as such until I was outside the Evangelical world, where the Sermon on the Mount as the Sermon on the Mount seemed to interest the preachers more than it did within. I suspect this was because their text-critical training brought them to regard its teachings as more centrally explicative of the doctrine of Jesus than certain other parts of the gospels. Interesting connections were made between the Beatitudes and the war in Vietnam, judging others and sexual misconduct, the lex talionis and capital punishment. But that is not how my pastors saw things.

The long and short of it was that if you had asked me as an “Evangelical Youth” in a day when the typical Evangelical Youth might have known the Bible better than he does today, if a certain quotation came from the Sermon on the Mount, I could only have guessed, and might have guessed wrong—even though I knew “who said that,” had read the passage many times, and if prompted, could have quoted every verse in it from memory.   

Comments

[Beth]

Hmmm. My husband has read through the Bible with our youngest son (and he did the same with the older children before they left home) I don't know how many times -- they read straight through the Bible, several chapters from each testament every morning, plus Proverbs every month, and begin again as soon as they reach the end. My son assuredly knows the Sermon on the Mount. But I have no idea if he knows it *as* the Sermon on the Mount. I've never even thought about whether he would or not.

This is a constant problem with polls. They are often skewed by either the poll-maker's deliberate manipulation of language, or by his ignorance of how his audience will respond to his particular language. I never take the results of a poll seriously unless I know a fair amount about its structure and the way it was implemented.

I shall have to go home, quote a verse from Matthew 5 to my son, and ask him if it is in the Sermon on the Mount. That will tell me the extent of his Biblical knowledge, for sure! :)

[john]

how old is he? at what age did they start?

[Bill R]

Dr. Hutchens, your comment is spot-on. This is exactly how it is in contemporary evangelicalism.

[Beth]

John, our youngest is 16. My husband began this practice when our first was able to sit at the breakfast table! (30 years ago -- wow!) Of course, he started with shorter readings, but as they could sit longer and pay attention, the readings became longer. The youngest started with the longer readings, though -- he is almost 10 years younger than the closest sibling. The oldest would sit in the yard and read the Word and "preach" to the neighbors when he was 5. Some of them were in our church so he was encouraged in this more than most kids would have been. :)

They all know the Word thoroughly (of course they did their own reading, too, and memorizing, both at home and through AWANA). Given the level of rebellion we sometimes encountered, I've thought it remarkable how they all pretty much never seriously questioned the truth of the Word, and they continue to honor it -- and I think it has a great deal to do with that continual immersion. Even when they saw ways we didn't always live the life well (what a nice way to gloss over our hypocrisies!), they seemed to realize that it was a problem with *us* and not with the Word we taught them.

[smh]

There is much traditional descriptive terminology (e.g., the "Olivet Discourse," the "Pericope Adulterae," the "Passion Narratives," etc.) that, while known among conservative Evangelicals, is not part of their customary referential vocabulary. More to be expected is reference to content ("David and Goliath," "The Rich Young Ruler"), or, for precision, book, chapter, and verse.

[Nick]

I tend to agree. I recognized the "Sermon on the Mount" later in life as such. I wasn't aware that it had a name until I was in my tweens. Other terms came much later. What's worse I was one of those poor souls who is aweful with numbers. I can't remember them to save my life. So, if pressed and under pressure I'd probably forget "chapter 5" until even later in life. They would, however, register as words that Jesus spoke.

[Matthias]

Maybe the point is that "Sermon on the Mount" was part of common culture for hundreds of years, part of what an educated person would be assumed to be familiar with from, say, 1650 to 1950. And consequently that references to same in books from that period would be commonplace. So a person who does not recognize the term is cut off from a part of our cultural heritage.

I'm not sure how true that is, but the point is being knowledgeable about the Bible isn't the same thing as being knowledgeable about how the Bible was used and understood in the Christian West over the last few hundred years. The latter is the more likely concern of Time Magazine.

[Juli]

So a person who does not recognize the term is cut off from a part of our cultural heritage.

Exactly. I was raised as a PK in an evangelical church, and I certainly knew what "the Sermon on the Mount" as a child, just as I would have recognized "the Ten Commandments."

I remember suddenly being worried, when my daughter was 7 or 8, that maybe growing up Episcopalian and Orthodox she had never become familiar with John 3:16. She was over at my parents at the time, so I called my dad and asked him to make sure she was familiar with the verse - he reported back that yes, she was.

[dilys]

Looking 'waaay back on my Evangelical -- yea, literally fundamentalist -- youth, what survived to be brought with me into life was this immersion in the Bible, with characteristic catch-phrases used in description. "Synoptic" would have been at the edge of my perception, but nothing with the term "narrative" in it. The rhythmic images in the KJV -- not the evangelical worldview -- saw me through a number of empty decades, until Orthodoxy has brought the content to life for me, under very different rubrics.

It's difficult to understand. What do Evangelical church-going children do, if not hear Bible stories (perhaps the flannel board has been retired), memorize verses, and compete in Bible drills? Seriously, I hope someone will tell me what fills those Sunday School hours. My imagination is, I suppose, too antique to go there.

[RMC]

Well, the last time I assisted in an evangelical children's group, we still had the kids memorizing verses and the flannel board did make the occasional appearance at "story time." But that was about 5 years ago. Not a very long time, but sometimes things change when we least expect them.

Slightly off topic, but I've noticed quite a few references to leaving "evangelicalism" for Orthodoxy. My husband and I have been feeling terribly out of place in evangelical circles (where we grew up) lately, and recently attended our first service at an Orthodox church. We liked it, but it was a bit of a culture shock, albeit an expected one. I'm wondering what led others to the Orthodox church, and (I'm not sure how to explain what I want to know) why?

RMC

[Matthias]

RMC - you might have a look at http://www.antiochian.org/missions/investigating_orthodoxy.htm

Highly regarded books on converting to Orthodoxy from evangelicalism include
Matthew Gallatin, "Thirsting For God in a Land of Shallow Wells"
Peter Gillquist, "Becoming Orthodox, A Journey to the Ancient Christian Faith"

[GL]

Some observations:

First, that "[o]nly half of U.S. adults know the title of even one Gospel [and m]ost can't name the Bible's first book" is, of course, a travesty and an indictment of those of us who are suppose to be evangelizing our own little corner of the world per Acts 1:8.

Second, as Steve points out, the observation that "only 44% of [Evangelical] teens could identify a particular quote as coming from the Sermon on the Mount" is undoubtedly a very misleading statistic. Nonetheless, it likely does reflect a quarter century of continuing to give breast milk to those who should have long ago been weaned and learning to digest meat. That is the fault of Evangelical leaders who have forgotten that their is more to rearing Christians than getting them to cross the threshhold into the auditorium which they call a worship center and spooning out the Gerbers Sunday after Sunday, year after year. As a father of three, I know that their is some difficulty in transitioning from nursing to eating a Porterhouse steak, but I also recognize that a good father that it is my duty to see that the transition is made. When the megachurch which I had been attending split last year, I found a church for my children where meat is served every Sunday morning. They also get meat at home every day. Hopefully, in 10 years when they are in their teens, they will be part of the 56% who can identify verses from the Sermon on the Mount.

Finally, while I believe that all children should learn the Bible, I am somewhat leary of their learning it in public school. I would want to know a lot more about what they were going to be taught about the Bible and by whom before I would endorse that proposal.

[Judy Warner]

One thing you can be sure of, GL, God would be gender-neutral in a public school.

[RMC]

>>I would want to know a lot more about what they were going to be taught about the Bible and by whom before I would endorse that proposal.<<

It depends on the school and the situation, but in my experience the Bible is not always entirely absent from public schools. I had the experience in high school of being taken aside by several different english teachers and instructed to speak up loudly and often about the faith. Literature-the stuff actually worthy of the name- is so full of references to the Bible, that teaching it in many cases provided a perfect opportunity for a Bible lesson. It's a flawed system, true, but at the very least we started some good discussions tha way, and hopefully some of my classmates learned, or will still learn, the truly important lessons.

[Bill R]

"That is the fault of Evangelical leaders who have forgotten that their is more to rearing Christians than getting them to cross the threshhold into the auditorium which they call a worship center and spooning out the Gerbers Sunday after Sunday, year after year."

Too true, GL. Similar complaints in our church lead the pastors to start a Tuesday evening class
that leads everyone through the Scriptures in a two to three year cycle. But Sunday sermons still tend to be, as you put it, Gerbers (I've gotta remember that phrase!)

[luthien]

Dilys, in my PCUSA 3rd grade Sunday School class, which I would imagine is fairly similar to an Evangelical one, we memorized Bible verses, sang about the Bible (The BIBLE, yes that's the book for me...), went around in a circle taking turns reading Bible stories aloud, drew pictures of Bible stories and looked at the felt board. At least, I think that's what was going on; I was rather shy and anti-social, got bored quickly with the interminably slow pace of group reading and the fact that we always did the same few stories every single year, and usually too lost in reading the Bible on my own to pay much attention most of the time. (net result: I had the best attendance record and worst memory-verse record in my class. Not something I'm exactly happy to recall now!) Now I'm doing my penance by teaching 4th grade Sunday School:)

[Bob Smietana]

Brad Wright, a sociologist at UCONN looked at divorce rates and church attendance recently, using information from the General Social Survey (GSS, 2000-2004). His analysis is posted on his blog, http://brewright.blogspot.com/2006/12/christian-divorce-rates.html) and clarified the reportedly high divorce rate among Evangelicals.

It turns out that Evangelicals who go to church frequently (as well as Mainline and Catholic Christians who go to church frequently) have significantly lower divorce rates than the general population.

[Barry]

I'm active in an Evangelical church, and we have a weekly program where the children begin learning scripture in pre-school all the way through jr. high.

But would they recognize something from the "Sermon on the Mount?" I really wonder what is more important. Knowing the scripture, or knowing that it comes from a man made phrase for a historical event?

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>This is why there are, um... Lectionaries. <<<

Precisely. The ancient Church understood the need to integrate the study of Scripture into the totality of worship. The lectionary broke the Scriptures into digestible chunks and rearranged them to illuminate the Tradition of the Church. The traditional lectionaries covered the totality of Scripture in systematic manner, one, moreover that is repeated year after year, so that the readings become familiar and are assimilated "organically" by the people. The readings are also linked to the homily, wherein the meaning is elaborated within the framework of Tradition.

In addition to its didactic and mystagogical purpose, the readings and homily also perform an escahtological function through the proclamation of the Kingdom and a manifestation of the unity of the Church as the People of God, for traditionally, the readings from the Old Testament and Epistles are done by the lector, while the Gospel is read by the deacon, and the homily delivered by the presbyter; thus are all three orders of the Church united in the proclamation of the Word.

The lectionaries extend beyond the Eucharistic Liturgy into the Liturgy of the Hours. Consisting mainly of psalmody, the Hours are the services in which the people themselves sing praises to God in a very personal and literal manner. Traditionally, the Psalms are sung or chanted, as were all the ancient liturgies (not just those of the East). Singing or chanting the Scriptures is an excellent mnemonic aid to learning them, especially for those who actally bother to attend the liturgies (both the Eucharist and the hours).

Most Evangelicals believe that their churches are scripturally based, while the "liturgical" or "sacramental" ones are more into form than substance. But I would challenge anyone who thinks this to attend the liturgies of Great Week and Pascha, because they would be amazed at the breadth and depth of scripture that is read, chanted, and sung in these services. Nor is Pascha unusual in this regard, because even daily Vespers and Matins will get you through the entire book of Psalms in a month, the entire Old Testament in year. It really is rather amazing to see children under ten singing large tracts of Scripture from memory. They may not know all the fancy names for the periscopes, or be able to give a chapter and verse citation (biblical notation was not known to the Fathers in any case), but they know their Bible. This is a very "Old World" way of approaching the Bible, but the Russian musicologist Ivan Gardner saw it firsthand in the Carpatho-Rusyn churches he visited in the 1930s:

"During my stay in the Subcarpathian Rus' I was amazed at the theological information of the simple peasants. It was genuine dogma, quoted from the heart from any place in the sung verse".

I believe that this old, traditional approach to the learning of Scripture through liturgy has much to offer to young people today, because it puts Scripture into the fuller context of Christian worship.

[Ethan Cordray]

As much as I admire the lectionaries, I have always wondered if breaking up and rearranging the chunks of scripture does some violence to understanding it by erasing the larger literary structures. The books of at least the New Testament were all written to be read in one sitting each. Sure, there are points at which we may fairly extract "lessons," but isn't greater Bible literacy cultivated by reading the texts as wholes?

Of course, in the choice between lectionary knowledge and not knowing a word of scripture, there isn't any contest.

And just so I'm not just bashing on the traditional approach, I think the Awana-style verse memorization may be even worse. Chopping the text up into (sometimes highly arbitrary) bite-sized chunks may be good for children, but adults need the full cuts of meat, with all the gristly bits still attached!

[David Gray]

>Most Evangelicals believe that their churches are scripturally based, while the "liturgical" or "sacramental" ones are more into form than substance.

Stuart I doubt most evangelicals are thinking that about the Orthodox because most aren't thinking of the Orthodox at all (and they're not unique in that sense).

[Bill R]

"I believe that this old, traditional approach to the learning of Scripture through liturgy has much to offer to young people today, because it puts Scripture into the fuller context of Christian worship."

Quite possibly, Stuart, but I doubt that's the case with most Roman Catholic churches today. I've attended a lot of masses over the years (my wife's family is largely Catholic), and even with the lectionary to follow, the homilies are thin, thin, thin--pretty much Gerbers all. This problem infects almost all of the Western church.

[Bill R]

"This is why there are, um... Lectionaries. This "new" systematic Bible reading trend is amusing...The Church has been following a "Bible reading Program" for something like 2000 years."

As my above comment notes, Dominic, lectionaries are only part of the answer. Without a commitment to teach, and to teach well, you may still have a great deal of ignorance about what the Scriptures mean.

"I left Evangelicalism (code word for happy sappy Protestant Fundamentalism)"

Careful, Dominic, or we'll have to break out our Henry VIII jokes... ;-)

[Mike Hardhat]

My wife was invited to attend a Baptist Women's retreat recently and she asked her friend if they have an "open table" at Communion. Her friend displayed the blank-face syndrome,remarked she couldn't recall them having communion, ever; "I don't think we do that". Okay.

[Judy Warner]

Bill, I'm Anglican Catholic like Dominic and I've never heard a Gerber homily. It's all meat. It's one of the many things I was blown away by after having attended a Lutheran (ELCA) church.

[GL]

Like Ethan, I believe lectionaries are wonderful and I would say even helpful to keep pastors "honest." However, I do not believe that they are essential. I attend a highly liturgical Presbyterian church where we do not use a lectionary, but in which we receive meat every Sunday. Like Bill R., I have attended worship in liturgical churches which use a lectionary in which the homily is all Gerbers and I have attended worship in non-liturgical churches in which the sermons are all meat. A pastor who is committed to serving meat from the word of God on a consistent basis can do so without a lectionary and a pastor who is committed to keeping his congregation on the breast can do so even with one.

[James A. Altena]

Dear Ethan,

"As much as I admire the lectionaries, I have always wondered if breaking up and rearranging the chunks of scripture does some violence to understanding it by erasing the larger literary structures."

There are two different basic types of lectionaries -- sequential and thematic. The first (exemplified by the 1559 Book of Common Prayer) takes one more or less through the entire Bible in order via the offices of Morning and Evening Prayer -- the OT once a year, the NT thrice a year, and the Psalter each month. The second (the 1928 BCP in the USA is an example), which is more familiar nowadays, selects passages from the OT and NT that share some common thematic point, and is linked to the liturgical calendar. If done properly, the theme does not change from day to day, but is sustained for a week or two.

And to GL as well --

While a lectionary may not be "necessary" in a strict sense, I believe it is generally superior to a non-lectionary system for two related reasons. First, it promotes the unity of the church when each congregration (through time as well as space) is meditating on and praying the same portion of Scripture on a given day. (For Sunday lections, the 1928 BCP largely retains the ancient lections of the Western church, many in use for over 1,000 years.) Second, it imposes discipline. The minister and the congregation do not get to avoid avoid passages they find obscure, difficult, or uncomfortable, or fall prey week by week to the subjective fallacy of "relevancy" (as if any and every passage of Scripture, properly exegeted, is not relevant at all times).

The one drawback to the lectionary system is that we see in liberal mainstream churches today, where professional "liturgists" have hijecked the lectionary (as well as the service texts, ritual, etc.) and imposed an agenda that systematically avoids parts of Scripture not pleasing to modern ears. I once ran a comparison of the 1928 and 1979 BCP lectionaries on 13 NT passages regarding false teaching. The 1928 BCP contained all 13; the 1979 BCP omitted 12 of them (and also any condemnation of homosexual conduct).

[David Gray]

>Barren and stark and ugly and meaningless.

Your comments are not entirely without merit but given where you are posting them you might want to refrain from slamming other bodies of Christians in such fashion and share with us the shortcomings of the body to which you belong and how you struggle with these shortcomings.

[Beth]

Update: Well, I asked my son what the sermon on the mount is. It took him a while, but finally he said, "Is that where the Beatitudes are?" After I confirmed, he added, "I didn't know I knew that . . ."

But he could tell you a great deal about the Beatitudes, believe me!

I've been in several non-denominational evangelical churches where the teaching was solid and challenging, and several where it's nothing but milk. Right now I've been stuck on a milk diet for 8 years and I rely on my colleagues for challenges and in-depth conversation about the Word. At least I have that, on a regular basis.

[RMC]

Dominic-

The Communion issue is one of the things that is driving our move, I think. I remember finding an article on the Orthodox practice of Communion and reading it to my husband. We wondered why our church had watered it down so much. After the service at our visit to an Orthodox church we got to talking with a very helpful gentleman who was willing to take on some of our questions. Our description of the practice of Communion at our church horrified him- "You mean, only once a month? Why?"

[holmegm]

Lectionaries actually lend themselves all too easily to the sort of "let's riff off of this bit of obscure (to us), out of context archaism to talk about contemporary themes" approach. I've heard them used in such a way that you could just as well read from the I Ching, a horoscope, or some book of notable quotables.

Though every approach has its pitfalls, I suppose.

[Bill R]

Boy, Dominic, you got up on the wrong side of the bed today, didn't you? Of course for many churches your criticism is apt. The problem is when you seek to universalize it ("all," "every"). David Gray's point bears reflection. But you might be interested in knowing that we retain a general confession of sin before our monthly communion. And Judy, I don't doubt your claim for a moment to fine homilies in your AC church. James's descriptions of Fr. Ousley's sermons lead me to believe that this is more often than not found in Anglican (i.e., non-TEC) churches. The same is true in many smaller churches (Reformed, Eastern Catholics, etc.) The larger the church, the larger the problem. (I say this sadly, as I'm a member of a larger church.) But I do entirely agree with GL that it is not inevitable (merely likely). I'd vote in a heartbeat to use and follow a lectionary, but I'm experienced enough to know that it's not a sure cure for what ails the Western church. I know that GL and I both follow private devotionals that allow us individually to read through and study the Scriptures. Fr. Reardon's devotional is superb for this purpose, as is that provided by Ligonier Ministries (Tabletalk).

[Scott Walker]

RMC, if you live in the NW, email me. Our journey to Orthodoxy started much like yours, in that we were devoted to the Eucharist. In our ELCA parish we had the Service of the Word every other week, but Holy Communion was served in a small chapel after the service for those who wanted it. My wife and I were amazed at how few people wanted it; the same dozen stalwarts would show up every week, but that was all. It got us thinking. Lutherans theoretically believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, but practically it didn't seem to matter much. It seemed to us that partaking of the Body and Blood of Christ was the most important thing that Christians do when we worship, and we wanted to be in a place where that was understood. Why not Roman Catholic? There were reasons, but I have no desire to refight the Great Schism all over again, especially in this venue; better to focus here on what is common to all. Re' your kindly gentleman explaining things, this is a very common phenomenon. Many Orthodox parishes are mostly converts, and we all remember the feeling of sticking as close to the back wall as possible, wondering (a) what these people are going to do next and (b) is this ever going to end ;-) A practical tip: sensible shoes.

[GL]

"Fr. Reardon's devotional is superb for this purpose, as is that provided by Ligonier Ministries (Tabletalk)."

As Bill R. knows, I have used them both and also highly recommend them. If you are interested, you may get more information and order them at the following:

The St. James Daily Devotional Guide for the Christian Year (Fr. Reardon, editor), which is supplemented by this Daily Reflections)

Tabletalk (Ligonier Ministries, Dr. R.C. Sproul, Sr., editor)

[David Gray]

>All those years of getting up on the Protestant side has left me with a lot of luggage to sort through and pitch.

Perhaps you ought not to do it in public.

[GL]

Dominic,

At the Presbyterian church which I attend, we celebrate communion every week, preceded by personal and corporate prayers of confession and by the words of institution. It is very respectful, worshipful. I would agree that many evangelical churches are rather loose in their treatment of the Lord's Table, but one need not convert to Orthodoxy or Catholicism to find churches that make communion a weekly part of their worship and observe it with the awesome dignity and repentance appropriate.

[David Gray]

>one need not convert to Orthodoxy or Catholicism to find churches that make communion a weekly part of their worship and observe it with the awesome dignity and repentance appropriate

Spot on.

[Neil Gussman]

I saw this post and asked my 16-year-old daughter (I'll ask her older sisters when they return home later) about the "Sermon on the Mount." She recognized it as the passage in which each verse starts "Blessed be the. . ." We are members of a PCA Presbyterian Church.

[Scott Walker]

Sigh. It is, no doubt, possible to "...find churches that make Communion a weekly part of their worship..." The difference is that to the Orthodox (and Catholics, I'll bet, although any of the regular RC posters around here are better qualified to speak to this than I am) the Eucharist is not a mere "weekly part of their worship". The Eucharist is the center of our worship. It's what we are there for. The Body and Blood of Christ is what it's all about. Otherwise, church devolves into what my E-Free nephew calls a lecture and a concert, maybe with Communion as a weekly part of worship, maybe not.

[David Gray]

>Otherwise, church devolves into what my E-Free nephew calls a lecture and a concert, maybe with Communion as a weekly part of worship, maybe not.

So Scott, tell us about what you struggle with in your Eastern Orthodox church.

[Scott Walker]

Gee, David, tell me first about what you struggle with. If you really want to know, what I struggle with is my own stubborn sinfulness and unworthiness to receive such a great gift. Any more questions?

[David Gray]

>Gee, David, tell me first about what you struggle with.

Why? You're the one who keeps giving the elbow to other bodies of Christians here when you're better positioned to talk about your own.

[Scott Walker]

By the way, it's not "my" Eastern Orthodox Church. It is the mystical Body of Christ. It is the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. Anything else I can help you with?

[coco]

Plenty of reference to 'communion' as an object, with pronoun 'it' thrown in for good measure.

Communion is with a Someone, not an object, to be dealt with with however much "awesome dignity". As christians, let's all allow ourselves once again to be accused of divine cannibalism: in the Eucharist, we are nourished on and partake in the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ.

Otherwise, we are indeed simulating a community experience with empty symbols.

[David Gray]

>Anything else I can help you with?

Cutting the sectarian approach?

[Scott Walker]

Touchy, aren't we, David? I'm not "giving the elbow" to anybody. There are real differences between us, and we might as well discuss them openly. I would suppose the reason you post your slighting posts about Orthodoxy here (refer to your first, 'way upthread: talk about giving the elbow!) is that you find your Protestant views to be closer to the truth. Okay. Don't expect not to be engaged, though, and for heaven's sake don't project.

[GL]

Scott,

The Eucharist (and yes, we call the Lord's feast by that name as well as communion and the Lord's Supper) is a central part of our worship as well. It is not a mere add-on. Part of what we come to do on Sunday morning is to partake of Christ our Passover, slain for us. We do not commune weekly just to being doing it. We view it as deeply meaningful and essential part of our worship. We also come to feed on His word, to sing His praises, and to pray together, just as Orthodox and Catholics do.

I understand that Orthodox and Catholics have a different understanding of the meaning of the Eucharist, but while we do not believe in transubstantiation, we do believe that in a mysterious sense that we cannot explain or even really understand what we receive is the Body and Blood of our Lord. I know that you and I disagree about what that means, but please do not assume that all evangelicals view communion as a merely symbolic act of remembrance of marginally importance. To many of us, it is central to our faith, just in a different sense than to Orthodox and Catholics.

If what you truly believe about the Eucharist and about other matters of Christian faith is what the Orthodox believe and teach, then by all means you should be Orthodox, but converting merely to receive weekly communion following appropriate self-examination, private and corporate confession, and the words of institution seems to me to be not only unnecessary, but an insufficient (dare I say even wrong) reason. I have examined Orthodoxy and Catholicism and cannot accept some of their tenets.

I believe that several months ago Father Reardon, an evangelical who converted to Orthodoxy, chastised those who engage in theological debates via blogging. I am not sure that such is a good use of Mere Comments. I am not questioning your sincerity in converting, please do not question mine in not and please do not belittle what I hold to be a sacred, central and essential part of worship of my Lord

[Scott Walker]

You, GL, are a gentleman and a scholar. What I know is what I lived though, and it's depressingly similar to Dominic. I do not intend to offend.

[David Gray]

>Touchy, aren't we, David?

No, just don't enjoy that sort of boorishness.

>I'm not "giving the elbow" to anybody.

Sure.

>There are real differences between us, and we might as well discuss them openly.

There are lots of sites where you can do that. Digging open the historic sores between Protestants, Roman Catholics, and Eastern Orthodox isn't really the Touchstone mission.

>I would suppose the reason you post your slighting posts about Orthodoxy here (refer to your first, 'way upthread: talk about giving the elbow!)

You really can't read worth a lick. If anything that is a knock on evangelicals for a lack of awareness, not the EO who simply aren't in North America in huge numbers. If evangelicals had a better understanding of church history what I said wouldn't be true. Most evangelicals have little contact with EO and if they do tend to think of them as RC's with an ethnic flavour. What I said was:

"Stuart I doubt most evangelicals are thinking that about the Orthodox because most aren't thinking of the Orthodox at all (and they're not unique in that sense)."

>is that you find your Protestant views to be closer to the truth.

Well if I found the EO to be most rightly ordered then I would be EO. So no kidding.

>Okay. Don't expect not to be engaged, though, and for heaven's sake don't project.

Scott, address the things where you have some knowledge. Such as the Eastern Orthodox church or the Aimee Semple McPherson sect or maybe what is left of the ELCA (if memory serves).

[David Gray]

>The point is that our views on the Eucharist align with the historic understanding, rather than a simple memorial.

Few if any confessional Protestants view the Lord's Supper as a simple memorial.

>Anglicanism has a rich and deep heritage of music, which I think even RC's would admit is inspiring

Think I have to give the edge to the Lutherans there. But you both have Presbyterians beat. But we're free to borrow. :)

[coco]

I have examined Orthodoxy and Catholicism and cannot accept some of their tenets.

I believe that several months ago Father Reardon, an evangelical who converted to Orthodoxy, chastised those who engage in theological debates via blogging.

GL, what is blogging about if not (at times) engaging in debate? When you refer to unacceptable tenets, I automatically want to know what they are and why. I want to understand your objections and share my perspective with you (if you will). A link to some other place is fine, of course.

I vaguely remember seeing Fr. Reardon's comments or a reference thereto somewhere: could he have been referring to harsh methods, grandstanding, etc. rather than debating per se?

[Scott Walker]

Coco, re' Fr. Reardon's comments awhile back, I believe you're correct, but then, I can't read worth a lick, boor that I am ;-)

[coco]

I'm not in a better boat as regards reading, Scott. Then again, the bark of Peter is the best boat to be in, IMHO. That's why I'm hoping debate of this kind is not abandoned. Kind debate, of course--I'm a poor practitioner of that :)

[Scott Walker]

Dominic, Martin Luther rejected transubstantiation, but affirmed the Real Presence of Christ "In, with and under" the elements of Communion. Labels aside, it's quite close to both the RC and Orthodox understanding of the Mystery. Alas, many Lutheran parishes have departed from traditional Lutheran teaching, in this as well as in many other matters.

[David Gray]

>GL, what is blogging about if not (at times) engaging in debate?

Discussion? Learning?

>I vaguely remember seeing Fr. Reardon's comments or a reference thereto somewhere: could he have been referring to harsh methods, grandstanding, etc. rather than debating per se?

Consider that all these issues have been hashed out many times, by people better able to defend their positions than anyone here that I've noticed. You want to know what a Presbyterian should believe? Read the Westminster Confession. A Lutheran? The Book of Concord. There is a reason I have a copy of the Roman Catholic Catechism, it is there when I want to know what they believe. I wanted to better understand the EO understanding of the Lord's Supper, I bought a book by Schmemman on the subject and an audio recording by Bishop Ware that Stuart recommended. What do we gain by rehashing it here? Nothing as a rule.

[David Gray]

>What precisely is your belief as regards Christ's presence in Communion?

I agree with the Westminster Confession.

"Worthy receivers, outwardly partaking of the visible elements, in this sacrament,do then also, inwardly by faith, really and indeed, yet not carnally and corporally but spiritually, receive and feed upon, Christ crucified, and all benefits of His death: the body and blood of Christ being then, not corporally or carnally, in, with, or under the bread and wine; yet, as really, but spiritually, present to the faith of believers in that ordinance, as the elements themselves are to their outward senses."

I think Calvin may have expressed it a bit better but it is fairly close. If you want an excellent discussion of it try "Given for You: Reclaiming Calvin's Doctrine of the Lord's Supper" by Keith Mathison. It is an excellent book. It also shows how some reformed churches have been inappropriately influenced by baptistic and revivalistic tendencies and moved away from the Reformed understanding of the Lord's Supper.

>Just interested, as I've read Loraine Boettner and he seems to take a militant anti RC pro-memorialist stance, this is what I drew my conclusions from. I know in the PAOC (Pentecostal Assemblies of Canada) it is merely a memorial, not a sacrament, but an "ordinance" something good to do, but not really crucial to salvation...same with Baptism - take it or leave it as you wish.

Which is pretty much the Baptistic position.

[coco]

David, that's too pessimistic a view.

As a rule, the discussions are fruitful if they involve disagreement as well as agreement. Discussion involving disagreement is debate, to my way of thinking. As such, it's a valuable means of learning.

For example, here's what bugging me at the moment. Where in scripture is there mention of 'the Lord's Table'? Has He not become the sacrifice in his own flesh, rather that just providing us with one more table to share at? It's not just a table, it's an altar, isn't it?

Isn't John 6 all about Jesus' insistence on a literal interpretation of his shocking words?

I never get tired of thinking and talking about these issues. They're vital (living and life-giving) questions.

[David Gray]

>As a rule, the discussions are fruitful if they involve disagreement as well as agreement. Discussion involving disagreement is debate, to my way of thinking. As such, it's a valuable means of learning.

If true I'm pretty sure it won't include statements like:

"Boy am I glad that I'm ___________ now, when I was _________ there was no spiritual life at all. They are dreary, uneducated, and relatively devoid of positive qualities. I'm sure glad I left _________ to become _________."

[coco]

For me, it's all about what's in the ___________ :) We need to work out the meaning of what's in the ___________, because the _________s are thrown around too often without examining their content.

Let's have more of this: By ____________ I mean __________, eh?

[Scott Walker]

Well, it's the bottom of the eighth and the Mariners are up 8 to 3 over the Rangers, and there is some hope, faint, maybe, that they won't blow yet another late-innings lead. Accordingly I'm outta here. Peace to all.

[GL]

Coco,

By "discussion and learning," do you mean comments such as the following?

Plenty of reference to 'communion' as an object, with pronoun 'it' thrown in for good measure.

Communion is with a Someone, not an object, to be dealt with with however much "awesome dignity".

I found that rather patronizing as well as an effort to avoid discussing the merits of what I said or to learn from one another. I have no objections to Orthodox and Catholics worshiping as they deem appropriate, but I resent the insinuation that all Protestants treat the sacred feast as common merely because we have a different understanding of it. There is a world of difference between the practice of my church and those which Scott and Dominic criticize. I don't disagree with their criticism; I do disagree that the only solution is to convert to Orthodoxy or Catholicism, particularly for those of us who have serious problems with Orthodoxy and Catholicism.

I believe it is this type of theological "debate" which Fr. Reardon was bemoaning. I will be happy to discuss our differences, even debate them, but I will try to refrain from backhanded insults and would appreciate the same consideration. (By the way, I am well aware that we commune with our Lord and with one another when we partake of the elements of the Eucharist. And I believe that "it" is indeed the proper pronoun to use as a substitute for the word "communion.")

[Bill R]

I'm happy to stand back and just hold GL's coat in this fight. You probably couldn't slide a sheet of paper between our positions. I would just add a note to what I thought Fr. Reardon was bemoaning. I believe it is the intent to be a partisan for a particular Christian tradition, acting so as to persuade your brother that he is wrong. There are certainly forums in which this approach is appropriate and even encouraged; it is certainly not sinful or even problematic to act so. It is just not the reason for which this forum exists. Now exactly how we may approach the issues that divide us in a "Touchstonian manner" is not easy to say. It's certainly acceptable to be self-critical of one's own branch of Christianity, but I think we can cautiously go beyond this. What makes the task so difficult, however, is that the ultimate test is whether one's motives are correct, and most of us (if we seek to be honest Christians) do not wish to judge other's motives. We know that we rarely can judge our own motives fairly.

[Bill R]

I'll try my own hand at this. I hate to admit it, but sometimes I'd sure like a "do-it-yourself" Christianity: sermons from the Reformed Presbyterians, music from the classical Anglicans or Lutherans, eucharistic solemnity from any of the liturgical traditions, enthusiasm from the Pentacostal tradition, and missionary drive from the evangelicals. Tough to find that all in one package, however. Sort of like courtship: we'd all like a mate who is beautiful, brainy, talented, faithful, devout, outgoing, maybe even rich! But we all settle for some compromises depending on what aspects are particularly important to us. Then, however, we often feel compelled to defend the whole package in which we've wrapped ourselves, but that only hardens Christian divisions. I love much about my evangelical and Reformed worlds, but frankly not all of it. I find much that is attractive and even true in other Christian worlds, but not so much as to compel me to trade in what I have. That's the burden, I suppose, of being both Christianly conservative, yet ecumenical.

[David Gray]

>It's certainly acceptable to be self-critical of one's own branch of Christianity, but I think we can cautiously go beyond this.

This reminds me of a comment Bill Buckley made about the position of ambassador to the United Nations. Basically anyone who wanted the position was going to be unfit to hold the position. Its duties could only be properly performed by someone who really didn't want to perform them.

[David Gray]

>So what form does the minister use? (As we know a true and valid Sacrament requires the proper minister, form, matter, object, and intention) Is it also similar to the traditional BCP rite?

Well the WCF isn't a prayer book so it doesn't perform the function that the BCP does. This is a bit off the cuff but if memory serves the two largest orthodox Presbyterian denominations would be the PCA and the OPC. The OPC provides more detailed guidance as to how the Lord's Supper is to be served than the PCA, including how to utilize the words of institution.

The lack of uniformity, particularly within the PCA, is one of the great frustrations about that body. Among its churches, in my experience, I've found churches that were faithful to the reformed practice and understanding (including in many instances weekly communion as Calvin said should be done), some which are sort of souped up Baptists with infant baptism tacked on (and they're not always clear on why) and a few starting to show the leprous signs of moving towards the ground previously held by the PCUSA in its long trip through liberalism and death. If uniform practice were to be achieved in the PCA's current state it probably wouldn't be what it ought to be so in that sense the lack of uniformity is a source of hope as it provides room for a return to reformed practice and worship.

>It was the complete lack of all 5 components in my old church that left me no choice but to leave. One can play games for awhile, but it gets really "old" and numbing really fast. One must walk in the light they are granted, to deliberately walk in gloom and darkness is disobedience for that person, I feel like I've stepped through the "wardrobe" into a new world of light and air and freedom and beauty, with room to run and...y'know? Life and my Faith make so much more SENSE; the pieces all fit now,the big picture is unfolding in panoramic style instead of a dark tunnel with a dot of light at one end. Truly exciting!

In many aspects that is similar to our experience in coming out of a baptistic evangelical background to a confessional reformed faith. And it is very exciting. But I try to caution myself that as heady as the experience can be I ought not despise those I've left behind, particularly those who are not advocates for the biggest problems which evangelicaldom faces. Evangelicals have produced immense results in missions, have sacrificed greatly, often at cost of their lives (and this within living memory) and there are many things to be admired as such. To forget this is to slide into easy pride whereas whatever faith I possess is not from myself, it is the gift of God – not by works, so that I cannot boast.

[Joe]

Sadly, it is not just not "views on the Eucharist" that separate Evangelicals and the Orthodox. The "Sermon on the Mount" also divides us.

Whilst, your average Evangelical's ear might perk up with the mention of the word "Sermon" (The main sacrament of evangelical Protestantism followed closely by Bible Study), I'm pretty sure that the average Evangelical's response to the Sermon on the Mount is less enthusiastic than their response to the glib expository preaching that they're used to at the home pulpit or on the airwaves.

Speaking as a former Evangelical, I think the typical response is like this: "What is Jesus trying to say by these words? He doesn't really explain them; and couldn't the unitiated believer be led astray into believing in 'salvation by works' by focusing on these particular words? Let's turn now to Paul's Epistles!"

In our worship we (Orthodox) get the Beatitudes every time during the Divine Liturgy.

We receive them with this understanding:

Beatitudes: The group of statements made by Christ during the Sermon on the Mount about the kinds of people who receive God's blessing.

"This is the proof in the Gospels of our love for God: 'If a man has any love for me, he will be true to my word; and then he will win my Father's love adn we will both come to him and make our continual abode with him; whereas the man ho has no lover for me, lets my sayings pass by' (John 14:23-24). Some of these divine commands look only to exterior actions, such as corporal works of mercy. Others are more interior, spiritual. These are more comprehensive, containing within themselves many exterior commands of God. Thus the fulfillment of the interior commands of God ensures the fulfillment also of all the exterior ones. Christ came to give us a new decalogue, the eight Beatitudes, which are the commands of God to all Christian."

- George A. Maloney in his Introdution to 'Nil Sorsky - The Complete Writings'.

"The Sermon on the Mount lists virtues that will bring salvation without any reference to faith. Faith without works is not true faith."

- A paraphrase of the Jeremias (Patriarch of Constantinople) to salvation by "faith alone" as presented to him by Lutheran envoys bearing the Confession of Augsburg in the 16th Century. Steve Runciman, 'The Great Church in Captivity'.

[Joe]

Please forgive the typos. Here again:

This is the proof in the Gospels of our love for God: 'If a man has any love for me, he will be true to my word; and then he will win my Father's love and we will both come to him and make our continual abode with him; whereas the man who has no lover for me, lets my sayings pass by' (John 14:23-24).

[Yaknyeti]

While I'm happy not to have all-out theological warfare on this blog, reading the old confessions is generally insufficient because they don't all use terminology in the same way. I need to understand why Luther's use of "sacrament" or "justification" in the Book of Concord is different from that of RCs, EOs or other Protestants... and to do that, it helps to get Stuart and David and Scott all yelling at each other (or at me).

[Scott Walker]

Goodness. Go to watch the end of a ball game and miss all the fun. (Mariners won 8-3) GL, thanks for making a point strongly without feeling the need to resort to personal insult. I shall endeavor to emulate this in the future. Again, please accept my apologies for any offense given. Joe, I get where you're coming from, but have to say that I've known any number of Evangelicals whose understanding of Sola Fidei also included the knowledge that "Faith without works is dead." My guess is that it's impossible for a Christian to hold for long to the strange belief that how one must live is dissociated from what one believes. I'm certain that most everybody who hangs out around here understands the Beatitudes to be more than a wistful ideal.

[Scott Walker]

Ah, but Yankyeti, I really, really hate the yelling part. Seriously, I do believe we're all on the same team, and it would behoove me to remember that once I get the bit in my teeth. And generally, for the record, we EO's use the Greek word "mysterion" rather than the Latin "sacramentum". There are those, believe me, among us (Orthodox, I mean) who would make that a point of contention, but life's just too short.

[smh]

One of the things we assume here at Touchstone is that, to whichever communion we belong, we belong to it for very strong reasons. We really aren't a fellowship for people who grip their Christianity lightly. We expect Touchstone Catholics, for example, to be strong Catholics, loyal to the Pope and traditional Catholic teaching, and mutatis mutandis, the same for the rest of us. That we could rise up and kill each other tomorrow in God's name we take for granted as a given of life, and truth to tell, we tend to understand why our forebears were often moved to do so, and hardly blame them. We are none of us modern men in the sense that we think we have advanced beyond our fathers. Perhaps we're just a bit wearier.

So, if you're going to carry on the fight for truth in the face of the ignorance or pride or bigotry of those blankety-blank (you name them), you have our approval, and can take your chances with God on that account. But you should do it elsewhere, for we live here under a flag of truce, and are, for a kairotic moment, managing to work together on the strength of our agreement in the face a common enemy, and a desperate need we all feel to accomplish this work, and leave it to our children, while it is yet day.

[Matthias]

sermons from the Reformed Presbyterians, music from the classical Anglicans or Lutherans, eucharistic solemnity from any of the liturgical traditions, enthusiasm from the Pentacostal tradition, and missionary drive from the evangelicals.

And are you going to complete the old joke? ... and hell is where the sermons are Catholic, the music is Evangelical, the eucharistic solemnity is Pentecostal, the enthusiasm is Presbyterian, and the missionary drive is Anglican?....

[Bill R]

"And are you going to complete the old joke? ..."

But it's a joke for a reason, Matthias: namely, that the converse (or perhaps the arrangement I suggested) is what we all seriously hope for in the church of Jesus Christ.

[Bill R]

"The Sermon on the Mount lists virtues that will bring salvation without any reference to faith. Faith without works is not true faith."

I understand the second sentence, Joe, but not the first. What's the context of Jeremias's statement? That a man may be saved entirely without any faith in God?

[Scott Walker]

"The music is Evangelical..."depends on whether you're talking white or African-American Evangelical. The tradition that gave us "Were You There When They Crucified My Lord" and Aretha Franklin has something to be said for it. And heck, there are lots of folks who like Bill Gaither. I run more toward Russian tones with a bit of Latin plainsong, but tastes differ. Just as long as the efficiency piece isn't Orthodox. We have many virtues, but expedition and organization aren't quite our thing.

[Scott Walker]

"The music is Evangelical..."depends on whether you're talking white or African-American Evangelical. The tradition that gave us "Were You There When They Crucified My Lord" and Aretha Franklin has something to be said for it. And heck, there are lots of folks who like Bill Gaither. I run more toward Russian tones with a bit of Latin plainsong, but tastes differ. Just as long as the efficiency piece isn't Orthodox. We have many virtues, but expedition and organization aren't quite our thing.

[Scott Walker]

Sorry about the double post!

[coco]

GL, I tried to post earlier but a broken internet connection swallowed my post. To recap:

I had no intention of patronizing or insulting back-handedly. In trying to redirect the focus from 'doing' communion to receiving the Eucharist, I didn't suppose for a minute that any Christians would be exposed to a new viewpoint.

I do have a problem with the world view that has people (to quote you, and again, no offense intended) "worshiping as they deem appropriate". Of all things, worship should be received from the tradition handed down to us by the apostles. We ought to discuss what this is.

[Joe]

Bill,

re: "I understand the second sentence, Joe, but not the first. What's the context of Jeremias's statement? That a man may be saved entirely without any faith in God?"

The context:

"In his fourth chapter [Patriarch Jeremias' response to the Augsburg Confession], on justification by faith alone, the Patriarch points out, quoting Basil [St. Basil the Great], that grace will not be given to those who do not live virtuous lives. He amplifies his views in his fifth and sixth chapters. In the Confession, the fifth article says that faith must be fed with the help of the Holy Scriptures and the Sacraments, and the sixth that faith must bear fruit in good works, though it repeats that good works alone will not bring salvation. Jeremias takes for granted the doctrine given in the fifth article, and uses the chapter to continue his previous argument. The Sermon on the Mount lists virtues that will bring salvation without any reference to faith. Faith without works is not true faith. In the sixth article he warns the Germans not to presume on grace nor despair of it."

====

All of which is a reiteration of James 2:24 (where the only instance of the phrase "faith alone" is found in the Holy Scriptures):

"You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone."
(NIV)

[Bill R]

"...the Patriarch points out, quoting Basil [St. Basil the Great], that grace will not be given to those who do not live virtuous lives."

One wonders, then, how Basil or Jeremias would understand Romans 4:5--

"And to the one who does not work but trusts him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness." (ESV)

I am baffled, for grace seems only to be given to those whose lives, as we see them, are lacking in virtue:

"And Jesus answered them, "Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick." (Luke 5:31--ESV)

If grace is given only to those who live virtuous lives, then we are all utterly lost and without hope. But in fact the manifold witness of Scripture is that we lead virtuous (truly, not just apparently) lives only AFTER grace is given to us:

"For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast." Ephesians 2:8-9 (ESV)

Grace is a gift, not an obligation of God because of anything that we have done, but something utterly gratuitous, in order that none of us may claim that what we have done obligates God to give us His grace.

[Mike Hardhat]

Have seminaries failed us? Or has society eroded making lay leader selection and formation so very difficult? Are denominational formation classes effective or too weak to assure longterm healthy mainstream units?

[David Gray]

>I do have a problem with the world view that has people (to quote you, and again, no offense intended) "worshiping as they deem appropriate". Of all things, worship should be received from the tradition handed down to us by the apostles. We ought to discuss what this is.

Well in fairness every Christian who is attempting to be faithful is "worshiping as they deem appropriate." Someone who attends mass is worshiping as they deem appropriate. They believe what is appropriate is what is given to them from the magisterium. And not everyone who values continuity with the historic church worships in a Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox church. Your statement that "worship should be received from the tradition handed down to us by the apostles" would be entirely compatible with the Puritan understanding of the regulative principle. They would merely have a more rigorous understanding of what was handed down from the apostles than you would. Consequently it is not a contrast between those who worship based on their personal tastes and those who submit to authority. Rather it is to which authority should you submit. (with the caveat that out there somewhere are people who do worship based on their personal tastes but I doubt they are represented here, if they are speak up!)

[James A. Altena]

Well, I'm glad I was out most of yesterday and missed the catfight! :-) Kudos to GL, as always.

"Few if any confessional Protestants view the Lord's Supper as a simple memorial."

Alas, would that this were true, David. Not only is it not true today even for most members of the historic confessional Protestant bodies, but now even many RCs view the Eucharist as simply a memorial. Perhaps only the EOs really hold the line here.

Dear Bill R.,

"'And are you going to complete the old joke? ...'

"But it's a joke for a reason, Matthias: namely, that the converse (or perhaps the arrangement I suggested) is what we all seriously hope for in the church of Jesus Christ."

Alas, Bill, the problem is that the joke is realized far more often than the hope! :-)

More seriously, it seems to me that you are, shall I say, "overinterpreting" the verses you cite, in part by simply equating "works" with "virtue" (though they are related). E.g., Rom. 4:5 does not say or simply that recipients of grace are lacking in virtue; it says that they do not place trust in their own works for salvation. One can have virtue and still do that. Likewise, one can be spiritually sick and still have virtue (which has degrees to it). And I don't see that anything Joe said denies that grace is a gift, or says that it is earned by works. (The big difference between the EOs and the Reformed here is the EOs concept of "synergy" in salvation. As a typical Anglican, I split the difference, believing that it is present, but that man's side of it is far less than most EOs seem to hold.)

I personally think that the alleged difference between St. Paul and St. James regarding the relation of faith and works is more apparent than real, and stems from different emphases because they were addressing different audiences (something we can too easily forget because we have their epistles conveniently abstracted from their original contexts into one volume for us) and that both sides of the debate distort it in emphasizing one over the other. (And the same holds true for e.g. the historical context and the audiences addresesed by the magisterial Reformers and their Tridentine RC foes.) Dr. Hutchens had a superb piece on this in Touchstone some years ago, in his critical review of R. C. Sproul's "Getting the Gospel Right".

At the same time, I also think that Joe's criticsms of Protestants regarding the Sermon on the Mount are rather unfair. This is of course the problem with stereotypes -- shoehorning all the members of different denomination or confession X into a single tidy category -- and why Fr. Reardon correctly said (in the comment to which GL originally refered) that web sites devoted to theological polemics against other denominations are spiritually poisonous.

[coco]

They would merely have a more rigorous understanding of what was handed down from the apostles than you would.

David, what does that mean?

Because they found all the rubric only in scripture?

Because 300+ years of practice before the canon was settled did not form the liturgical worship of East and West?

Where's the rigor they displayed? In discarding tradition?

[coco]

In the last post I mean the canon of scripture, not the canon of the Mass, which is arguably as old.

[Bill R]

"Rom. 4:5 does not say or simply that recipients of grace are lacking in virtue; it says that they do not place trust in their own works for salvation. One can have virtue and still do that. Likewise, one can be spiritually sick and still have virtue (which has degrees to it)."

Fair enough, James. I always appreciate your judicious comments. But we have still left hanging the quote from Basil that grace is the reward of virtue. Even if virtue is not the same as works, the original concept is still unsupported. And, to be fair, the context in which Jeremias raised it was in response to his Lutheran interlocutors, so it would seem that here Jeremias at least equated virtue with works (but it's quite possible that Basil meant something quite different).

I'm not seeking a debate. I really do want to understand whether such differences are real, or merely misunderstandings. I see the quotation from Jeremias as an example of how sides often talk past one another in such discussions.

Well, I'm off to church. Blessings, all!

[coco]

I hope B16's upcoming Motu Proprio will refocus the attention of RCs on the importance of liturgical worship. Indeed, by getting a momentum of interest from a large body of believers, it could really enrich the practice of all Christians.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>I hope B16's upcoming Motu Proprio will refocus the attention of RCs on the importance of liturgical worship. <<<

Except, of course, that what was done under the old Missae Pius V was not really liturgy in the true meaning of the word as 'the work of the people". Over the centuries from the Middle Ages, the Latin concept of "liturgical worship" morphed into something very different from the eccleasial action of eschatological significance known to the Fathers. The subsumption of the role of the people by the priest reduced the congregation to spectators; the Mass was totally clericalized (don't believe me? Read the rubrics: only the words and actions of the priest have any efficacy, which is why a priest was (and is still) able to celebrate the Mass without the presence of another human being). Because the people were alienated from their rightful liturgical role, they refocused their piety on a range of paraliturgical devotions, including the Rosary and Novenas. The Liturgy of the Hours in particular ceased to be a communal offering of praise to God, and became a mere prayerbook for priests and religious. The Mass itself, supposedly the center of the life of the Church, was reduced to the vehicle by which the people received the Eucharist, which in itself ceased to be the Sacrament of Sacraments, the way in which the Church demonstrated its unity and its inner reality as the Kingdom of God on earth, one "channel of grace" among many. This was widely recognized within the Latin Church in the half century prior to Vatican II. The reforms identified by the Council in Sacrosanctum concilium were not change for the sake of change, but recognition of an inner disorder of the Church.

Many people, myself included, point to the defective implementation of the Counciliar decrees, including parts of the text of the revised Mass (in particular, I find the proliferation of Eucharistic prayers to be entirely outside the liturgical tradition of the Latin Church--and to the extent the use of these prayers is not regulated by the liturgical calendar, without precedent even in the Eastern Churches). Some of the vernacular translations are not only flat and lacking majesty, but faulty in that they convey a false meaning of the original text. The rubrics themselves are seldom implemented as written in the Latin typical edition, but accept a range of local abuses, some of which, like celebration of the Mass with the priest facing the people (versus populum) have become almost universal. Yet the rubrics show that the priest should be facing liturgical east, the same direction as the people, for most of the celebration (at various points, he is instructed to turn around to bless the congregation, which would not be necessary if he was ALREADY facing the people).

None of these abuses, however, detract from the essential correctness of the Council's liturgical prescriptions. The arose from not changing the liturgical consciousness of the people before changing the liturgical forms. Had people really understood the meaning and purpose of liturgy, the current abuses could not have arisen. Instead, one set of abuses was replaced by another.

For let us not make the mistake of thinking that a return to the Tridentine Mass will affect any significant change in the theology and liturgical consciousness of the Latin Church. The state of liturgy was pretty bad prior to Vatican II, and those who look upon it as the halcyon days of liturgy are either engaged in rosy-glassed nostalgia or weren't there in the first place. Liturgy is supposed to be the life of the Church, the most perfect expression of what the Church believes, the source and touchstone of its theology, and the principal means of catechesis of the faithful. It wasn't that under the Tridentine rite, it isn't that under the Novus Ordo as implemented and celebrated in most places. It will not suddenly bloom with a return to the Tridentine rite, as if the intervening forty years never happened.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>"Worthy receivers, outwardly partaking of the visible elements, in this sacrament,do then also, inwardly by faith, really and indeed, yet not carnally and corporally but spiritually, receive and feed upon, Christ crucified, and all benefits of His death: the body and blood of Christ being then, not corporally or carnally, in, with, or under the bread and wine; yet, as really, but spiritually, present to the faith of believers in that ordinance, as the elements themselves are to their outward senses."<<<

Wordy fellows. Every week, we say the same thing much more tersely:

O Lord, I also believe and profess that this which I am about to receive is truly your most precious Body and your lifegiving Blood, which, I pray, make me worthy to receive for the remission of all my sins and for life everlasting. Amen.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>(As we know a true and valid Sacrament requires the proper minister, form, matter, object, and intention) <<<

We do? This would be the kind of hylomorphic sacramentology made popular by the Schoolmen of the medieval West. But thinking about the sacraments in this manner is something quite alien to the Fathers of the Church. It's funny that both Protestants and Roman Catholics can accept this basic premise about the "validity" of the sacraments, when for Eastern Christians, it tends not to enter into the discussion of the sacraments at all.

[Michael Martin]

Amen, brother Stuart, on your comments regarding the, literally!, Roman-ticisation by many of the Tridentine Mass. As folks have said before, the good ol' days were never that good in the first place. But I will say this about the Tridentine Mass--it was/is beautiful. The Novus Ordo, in my opinion (having grown up in it) is not so beautiful. Nevertheless, the exhuberance of many Pius Xth types regarding a return to Tridentine-style Latin Catholicism gives me some cause for anxiety. Theirs is one narrow vision of Catholicism.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Have seminaries failed us?<<<

First consider that the very concept of a "seminary" as a school for the training of potential clergymen is only about 450 years old. Back in the good old days (of St. Augustine, St. Ambrose, St. Basil the Great, St. Gregory of Nyssa, St. Gregory Nanzianzen and St. John Chrysostom--yea, even unto the days of Maximos the Confessor, Gregory the Great, Benedict of Nursia, John of Damascus, Symeon the New Theologian and Gregory Palamas, there were no seminaries. Men destined for ordination learned their faith, the Scriptures, the doctrines of the Church and the liturgical responsibilities of the different orders by living them within the community from which they were called out. All things considered, the seminary may have outlived its time (if, indeed, it ever really had one), and we should return to the older, organic and holistic approach to forming future ministers.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>> But I will say this about the Tridentine Mass--it was/is beautiful. <<<

It can be beautiful. As celebrated in this country in the early to mid 1960s, it seldom was. The normal way in which it was celebrated was the silent Low Mass, with the priest murmering before the altar, the people silently reciting the Rosary, coming forward to receive Communion (frequently from presanctified Hosts removed from the Tabernacle), and everyone out of the church in half an hour--or less.

>>> The Novus Ordo, in my opinion (having grown up in it) is not so beautiful.<<<

As commonly celebrated, no, not so beautiful. But in some places, you can see that it retains much of the restrained grandeur of the Old Roman Rite. If you can find a church in which the Novus Ordo is celebrated properly, versus apsidem, with a decent schola chanting the responses, you will see what I mean. Even in the vernacular, the glory shines through; in Latin, it can be truly sublime, as it was when I attended Mass at Brompton Oratory in London. I was tickled when a couple of American tourists peeking in remarked that it was good the see the "Tridentine rite" was still celebrated in England.

>>>Nevertheless, the exhuberance of many Pius Xth types regarding a return to Tridentine-style Latin Catholicism gives me some cause for anxiety. Theirs is one narrow vision of Catholicism.<<<

Their liturgical preferences are in fact mainly a cover for deeper theological and ecclesiological differences with the Second Vatican Council. Just as post-conciliar liturgists use the Mass as a "privileged place" in which to argue their vision of the Church in the world, so the SSPX types use the Tridentine Mass to argue for their own (quasi-Jansenist) vision of the Church.

But either way, I think that many Roman Catholics are rather ambivalent about beauty in the Mass, at least in this country. Thomas Day dealt with this issue, which he attributed to the dominance of Irish Catholic hierarchs in the United States, in his two books, "Why Catholics Can't Sing" and "Where Have You Gooe, Michaelangelo?". Interestingly, looking at his rather disparaging (and superficial) remarks about the "Eastern rites", Day seems to see Roman Catholicism mainly in terms of a broad "European" cultural heritage.

[Gina]

Stuart, this is off topic but I have been wondering what your reaction is to the changes in the DL of the ByzCath churches in the Pittsburgh diocese recently? Adopting "inclusive language" in the Nicene Creed, etc.?

[Yaknyeti]

Stuart,

"Wordy fellows. Every week, we say the same thing much more tersely..."

This is the first time I've heard an Orthodox-tradition liturgy described as "terse." Not to bash the Orthodox (or Byzantine Rite, in your case); I admire the reverence of their services and prefer a group that takes its time in worshipping God. But "terse" is not the first word that comes to mind.

Dr. Hutchens,

I'm comfortable with the idea of Touchstone being a neutral place, and (all exaggerations aside) don't want to provoke interdenominational fights. At the same time, a group like Touchstone is going to attract not only denominational stalwarts but also people like myself, who are trying to determine how Tradition should inform their beliefs. Touchstone has brought me a number of hard questions in this area, and I'm grateful for that. I'm just hoping that Touchstone will help me resolve them as well, which involves treading the fine line of exploring our denominational differences without exploding over them.

[Michael Martin]

Gina, as you asked,
"I have been wondering what your reaction is to the changes in the DL of the ByzCath churches in the Pittsburgh diocese recently? Adopting "inclusive language" in the Nicene Creed, etc.?"
I'd like to know what you think.

For meself, it doesn't seem to be the ugly, gratuitous kind of "inclusiveness" I usually despise. From what I understand of the Greek, it seems to be more in the spirit of the original.

How 'bout you?

[David Gray]

>it must be the finest wheat bread and red wine

So if it is a bad year you'd abstain?

[David Gray]

>The red colour does seem to fit the intended purpose better than white? No?

Both better than Welch's...

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>Stuart, this is off topic but I have been wondering what your reaction is to the changes in the DL of the ByzCath churches in the Pittsburgh diocese recently? Adopting "inclusive language" in the Nicene Creed, etc.?<<<

It sucks. My wife (professional translator who speaks Slavonic, Russian, Slovak, Ukrainian, Bulgarian and half a dozen other Slavic languages) and I are preparing an article on the subject for Eastern Churches Journal. In the interim, you can perhaps get a copy of Fr. Serge Kelleher's scathing review "Studies on the Byzantine Liturgy-The Draft Translation: A response to the proposed recasting of the Byzantine-Ruthenian Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom". This can be ordered from:

Stauropegion Press
PO Box 14096
Pittsburgh, PA 15237-9998

The price is $20.00 + $4.00 per book shipping and handling ($24.00 total per book).

You would not believe how truly awful this "translation" is--my wife says it is semi-literate at best. Many of the changes are needless and invariably result in an inferior English rendition. Examples:

"May our lips be filled with your praise, O Lord" becomes "May our mouth be filled with your praise, O Lord" (the Slavonic word can me either, but generally is used metaphorically, while a separate word is used for mouth as an organ of the body, as in Psalm 50: O Lord, you will open my lips, and my mouth will declare your praise").

"As smoke vanishes, so let them vanish, as wax melts before a fire" becomes, "As smoke disappears, so let them disappear, as wax melts before a fire". Obviously, the people who wrote this drivel have a tin ear.

"Holy Gifts for the Holy" now becomes "Holy gifts for holy people"--as if we could not figure that out. A much better translation, going back to the Greek through the Slavonic, would be "Holies for the holy", which has a nice, mystically ambiguous ring to it.

But it is when we get to the "horizontally inclusive" language that the dissonances really become impossible to ignore. For instance, one of the oldest and most revered titles for Christ in Eastern spirituality is "Philanthropos", the "Lover of Mankind" (the Slavonic equivalent is "Cheloviklubjets"). This has been rendered to "Lover of us all", while the ekphonesis (ending of a prayer string) "For He is gracious and loves mankind" has been changed to "He is gracious and loves us all".

Not only is this hard on the ears, it is theologically suspect at best, and downright heretical at worst. "He is gracious and loves us all"? Who are the "all"? The people at the Liturgy? The members of the Ruthenian Church? Everyone on earth, the doggies and kitties and dolphins and chimps, and even the liturgists?

Ostensibly, this is being done to "eliminate vestiges of sexism" in the language of the Church, but in fact this is a solution in search of a problem, since nobody--and I mean nobody--has ever muttered a complaint about this in the past. This is not an issue for us (indeed, the use of the inclusive language is found offensive by a number of women in the parish, including my wife, who wonder if our "God-loving bishops" have such a low opinion of women that they believe the poor things don't know that they are included in the word "mankind").

So why do it?

Because they can. Because there has always been a streak of self-loathing within the clergy of the Ruthenian Church going back to the arrival of the Church in the New World, a desire to be accepted as "real Catholics" by the Roman Catholic clergy, right down to mindless aping of the intellectual and theological fads of their Latin confreres. This, combined with a real lack of respect for the intelligence of the laity (in the Old Country, the priest was usually the only literate man in the village, but this is America, dammit!) has produced a liturgy which is condescending and bowdlerized, a Byzantine attempt to make all the same mistakes as were made by ICEL after Vatican II. Perhaps it is also the last hurrah for a group of long-haired (in the worst way) hippie priests to whom the sixties just weren't good enough.

Those of us with deep conspiratorial minds call this "Elkoism with a human face", after Archbishop Nicholas Elko, who was Metropolitan of Pittsburgh in the early 1960s. He tried to accelerate and complete the latinization of the Ruthenian Church by gutting the liturgy, removing the iconostases and icons from the churches, and purging the ranks of the clergy of anyone who objected (it was said his desire was to squeeze the grease out of the Greeks, and remove the stink from the onion dome). This prompted a revolt of the clergy that saw him kicked upstairs to the Oriental Congregation in Rome, and ultimately to a post of true disgrace--auxiliary Latin bishop of Cinncinati. He ended his days a bitter man, convinced he had been done in by communists.

But Elko left a lot of followers in parishes across the Church, and many of these have now risen to positions of power and influence. They are wiser than their master, for they do not attempt to make a clean break with the Byzantine Tradition, but rather to use "aggiorniamento" to make it comply with the spirituality of the postconciliar Roman Church. Rather than a latinization of ritual, they seek a latinization of the soul and the intellect. For instance, the new people's books lack any Slavonic text for the Liturgy or the hymns. It's as if they want to forget the ethnic heritage of their forefathers. I'm not a Ruthenian at all, and am I convinced vernacularist, but I find great delight in the Slavonic text of Liturgy. As someone who as evangelized by the Ruthenian Church as an adult, who was baptized directly into the Church, I am in fact the kind of person they need to attract if the Church is to survive. Apparently, though, my opinions are not worth a stale piroghi.

(From a purely practical standpoint, the new book is also impossible to use, being some 400 pages long with a table of contents that has only fifteen entries. It's exceedingly hard to find something like the common tones for Sundays, let alone for festal days. For instance, to find the Troparion and Kontakion for Palm Sunday, you have to know that Palm Sunday is the last Sunday of the Lenten Triodion, though some might think it's the first Sunday in the Paschalion or Pentecostarion. Confused? Join the club. There are, however, four brightly colored ribbons which can be used to mark your place (if you can find it), though on major feasts you may have to pray that the bulletin has the requisite number of loose pages to supplement the ribbons. We altar boys joke that we will soon have a new duty--at the appropriate place in the liturgy, we will raise a placard of the appropriate color above the iconostasis so that the people will know which ribbon to pull. Speaking of pulling ribbons, how long do you think those bright red, green, blue and yellow ribboons will survive contact with curious four-year-olds?

What really makes this stick in the craw is the injunction that this translation supersedes all others, and that after 29 June NO OTHER TRANSLATION CAN BE USED IN THE METROPOLIA.

I have several problems with this. The first is that there is no such thing as a "typical edition" in the Byzantine Tradition. Within the rite, there are literally dozens of individual usages, within Churches, withiin eparchies and dioceses, and even within parishes. As the Liturgy is the property of the people, who hold it in trust for God, it is a living, dynamic organism that reflects the true genius of the people who celebrate it. Moreover, it has to be understood that the Byzantine Liturgy follows a monastic ordo (it would require twenty five separate books and about three hours to celebrate a Sunday Divine Liturgy in its fullness). This normative monastic form is redacted for cathedral and parochial usage according to local custom. Put bluntly, Tradition sets the MINIMUM that MUST be done on a given day, but the new translation, by OMITTING most of the optional material and then MANDATING the use of ONLY THAT TRANSLATION, have effectively defined the MAXIMUM that may be done in any parish. Want to sing all the antiphon verses? Sorry. Include all the little litanies? Out of luck! Include the "Grant it" petitions after Communion? No way! Thus, the new translation dumbs down the Liturgy and causes a spiritual atrophy among the faithful, who will never be able to learn about these wonderful parts of our worship.

And, to add insult to injury, this liturgical commission, which was originally tasked only to make a full and accurate translation of the Ruthenian Recension published in Rome in the 1940s (widely regarded as one of the best examples of liturgical scholarship of its time, and widely used even by Orthodox scholars and Churches) have turned away from the Slavonic text and are using the Greek text for their source material. When one understands that the Ruthenian recension is a pre-Nikonian usage much older than the current Greek texts, one wonders what they were thinking. Some people who reviewed the earlier drafts of the translation, as well as the current version, believe that the translators just didn't have the facility in Slavonic to do the job, so turned to Greek, where there are far more published glossaries and other study aids.

Thus, in one stroke, our God-loving bishops have managed to repeat both the errors of Vatican II and the errors of the Nikonian Reform. I take it as proof positive that Darwin had to be wrong.

If our God-loving bishops and their cohorts succeed, the new liturgy will make it impossible for the Ruthanian Church to cooperate with any Orthodox Church, not even (perhaps I should say, especially) the Carpatho-Rusyn Orthodox Church, and even with other Greek Catholic Churches--the Ukrainians, Romanians and Melkites. The Ruthenians thus would be neither fish nor fowl, but would remain something apart, the "tertium quid", and the small (and ever shrinking) circle of Ruthenian priests will be free to be big fish in a very small pond, third rate academics playing around with something that is rightly the patrimony of the entire People of God.

I was going to write to Tony Esolen privately about this, since he is well atuned to the problems endemic in the Latin Church, but since this is out in the open, I wonder if he might not consider a separate thread for it. Perhaps we could call it, "When Bad Liturgy Happens to Good Churches"?

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>For meself, it doesn't seem to be the ugly, gratuitous kind of "inclusiveness" I usually despise. From what I understand of the Greek, it seems to be more in the spirit of the original.

How 'bout you?<<<

1. We're not Greeks, we're Slavs. We have a beautiful, pre-Nikonian Slavonic recension that calls out for a beautiful English translation.

2. We don't speak Greek, we speak English, and English does not have inclusive pronouns, nor does it have a neuter word for the collective of humanity.

3. If you can say "He is gracious and loves us all" without gagging, you have a stronger stomach than I do.