While looking through the blogs today I came across a couple worthy of highlight.
In keeping with the theme of the realities of contemporary Roman Catholicism, Samuel Gregg’s piece on Vatican II and modernity might be of interest (especially to CTCer’s who whitewash dilemmas from church history). He seconds a point I often make that Rome’s decision to open itself to the modern world came at one of the worst points in modern history. Do you really want to open yourself to feminism, deconstruction, the Beatles, and suburbia? Here’s an excerpt:
Vatican II is often portrayed, with some accuracy, as the Church opening itself to “the world.” This expression embraces several meanings in Scripture. God loves “the world” (Jn 3:16). Yet “the world” can also mean that which opposes God (Jn 14:17). At Vatican II, however, the world took on yet another connotation: that of the “modern world.”
Curiously, you won’t find a definition of the modern world in any Vatican II text. But modernity is usually a way of describing the various Enlightenments that emerged in the West from the late seventeenth-century onwards. Among other things, these movements emphasized applying instrumental and scientific rationality to all spheres of life in the hope of emancipating humanity from ignorance, suffering, and oppression.
Given the often-vicious treatment inflicted upon the Church by many self-identified moderns—including Jacobins and Bolsheviks—Catholics were often wary of anything asserting to be modern. It’s untrue, however, that the pre-1962 Church was somehow closed to modernity’s genuine achievements. This quickly becomes evident from cursory reading of encyclicals written by popes ranging from Leo XIII to Pius XII.
Nonetheless, many Catholics during the 1950s and 60s were tremendously optimistic about possible rapprochements between the Church and modernity. And that includes the present pope. In a 1998 autobiographical essay, Joseph Ratzinger recalled his hopes at the time for overcoming the gaps between Catholicism and the modern mind. A similar confidence pervades Gaudium et Spes, the Vatican II document that specifically attempted to approach modernity in a non-antagonistic manner. Yet even in 1965, many bishops and theologians (including some associated with efforts for renewal) were warning that Gaudium et Spes’ view of modernity was excessively hopeful, even a little naive.
Of course the modern world has witnessed tremendous achievements since 1965. Its technological successes are the most obvious. Even diehard traditionalists find it awkward to be uncompromisingly anti-modern when needing dental-care. Likewise the spread of the economic modernity associated with Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations has lifted millions out of poverty at a historically unprecedented speed.
The warnings, however, about undue optimism concerning modernity turned out to be quite justified. The cultural and intellectual chaos that erupted in the late-1960s should have been proof enough. Since then, we’ve witnessed what might be considered an ongoing crack-up on modernity’s part.
Then on a different subject, prayer, Paul Helm registers reservations about the amount of detail that we put into our petitions. I have wondered about this for a long time, especially in those small group gatherings where you almost faint from the descriptions of medical conditions and procedures. Helm is addressing public worship but his point about prayer works just as well for the prayer closet (does any reader actually have such space?). Here he goes:
I don’t know how it is with you, but I cannot cope with times in services of worship when the minister or leader invites the congregation to ‘spend a few moments of quiet praying for someone in special need’. My mind starts to think about anything or nothing except a person I know of who’s in need. It’s rather like someone who says ‘Don’t think of a white horse’, an invitation that it’s impossible to accept.
We could spend a few moments reflecting on the view of public worship that it is implied by the ‘periods of silence’ invitation, of whether it is appropriate to think of public worship as involving the sum of the private devotions of the people who are present. Ought we not rather to think of public worship (as a general rule) as common worship, as in ‘The Book of Common Prayer’, as expressing in public the common, communal needs and aspirations of Christian people? But instead of thinking out loud along these lines I would rather spend these few minutes thinking out loud with you about what I shall call The Affliction of a Failure of Concentration.
Here’s my suggestion – not a novel one, but still, I think, worth airing and emphasizing – that praying, and particularly that branch of praying that is called petitioning or asking, including of course interceding for others, is not primarily, or even, a matter of acquiring and processing information, and then presenting it in bite-sized pieces to Almighty God. It is not a condition of responsible and genuine Christian prayer that it is ‘intelligent’ i.e. well-informed.
Don’t get me wrong, I am not against the provision of information. I have spent much of my adult life as a teacher and writer, engrossed in the world of ideas and arguments. I expect the students I teach to be able to absorb, understand, weigh and produce information. The more the merrier. But the point is that not all speech is primarily informative, and most certainly Christian petitionary and intercessory prayer is not primarily informative. Fellow-prayers in the prayer meeting may learn all sorts of things about Mr Smith when he prays publicly. But the living God is in a rather different position from our fellow worshippers in the pew. Does he need educating? Is he ignorant of any detail? Has he overlooked any of the needs of his people?
Selah.
146 Comments
D.G.
For a similar reason why homoousious wasn’t articulated until 325, and “one Person, two natures” wasn’t articulated until 451, and dyothelitism wasn’t articulated until 681. Through theological controversy and the challenge of heresy, the Holy Spirit deepens the Church’s understanding of the deposit, allowing her to articulate and define more precisely the faith she has received from the Lord through the Apostles.
The same explanation they provided for their opposition.
I neither avoid entering materials “that could be interpreted variously,” nor fear “real questions;” rather, I seek the answers to “real questions.”
In the peace of Christ,
- Bryan
DGH:, why do you think the doctrine of papal infallibility was not articulated until 1870?
Bryan: For a similar reason why homoousious wasn’t articulated until 325, and “one Person, two natures” wasn’t articulated until 451,
Those reasons are not very similar at all. Since Newman first articulated his “theory” of development, Roman Catholics have confused two different forms of development in precisely the same Bryan has done so here.
As has been noted elsewhere:
J.B. Mozley argues that Newman commits a logical fallacy of amphiboly by not distinguishing between two different kinds of development. Newman is correct that there is genuine development in the early church….the “development” of incarnational and Trinitarian doctrine that takes place at Nicea, Chalcedon, etc., is really simply the necessary logical unfolding of what is already clearly present in the New Testament.
This is called “Development 1.” Development 1 adds nothing to the original content of faith, but rather brings out its necessary implications. Mozley says that Aquinas is doing precisely this kind of development in his discussion of the incarnation in the Summa Theologiae.
There is another kind of development, however, which I will call “Development 2.” Development 2 is genuinely new development that is not simply the necessary articulation of what is said explicitly in the Scriptures.
As persnickety as he is about words and concepts, I’m sure Bryan was going to be forthright enough get around to explaining all this.
Geoff, bingo. Which is why some see a parallel between the Roman Mass and (one form or another of) the revivalist altar call–a powerful, personal, experiential encounter with the risen Christ.
And as Scott Clark once wrote:
If “evangelical” is defined solely by “a personal encounter with the risen Christ” then why not become Roman? The Roman communion has always embraced this idea. Roman Christians routinely invite Jesus into their heart. Many Roman Christians also want to take back America for Christ. They want to transform the culture. They read their bibles privately and pray. Indeed, they invented the “still, small voice” and the quiet time (they call it “spiritual discipline”). Most evangelicals are pragmatists when it comes to church polity. Well, Rome is, as they say, “already there.” Rome invented the hierarchical/episcopal organizational structure that many evangelicals think of as efficient and effective. The real question may not be, “Oh my, why did Francis Beckwith become Roman Catholic?” but rather, “Why don’t more evangelicals become Roman Catholic?” For what good reasons do they resist? Half-way houses are meant to be places of temporary refuge…
…One other note concerning the rhetoric in the discussion that will surely ensue. Please, let us speak of Roman Catholics. The confessional Reformed Churches do not cede the term “catholic” to Rome. We have always insisted that the great sin of the Council of Trent was that it wasn’t truly catholic (universal) at all. Indeed, many of the decisions taken at Trent were sectarian. Chief among those sectarian decisions was their condemnation of the gospel of justification sola gratia, sola fide.
In the past I’ve said, “I’m not an evangelical.” Students have rightly challenged me about this. How can I contend for the adjective “catholic” and give up the adjective “evangelical”? Fair enough. Okay. Confessional Reformed folk are both catholic and evangelical properly understood. Henceforth I won’t concede the adjective “catholic” to Rome or the adjective “evangelical” to Cane Ridge/Northampton. Reformed folk are, properly understood, catholic and evangelical. We’re not Roman and we’re not “evangelicals” in the modern (from 1700) sense, but we are catholic and evangelical.
Bryan – What was the “theological controversy and the challenge of heresy” that led to the doctrine of papal infallibility being articulated in 1870? Isn’t this a long time to wait for “the Holy Spirit to deepen the Church’s undertanding” of such a key doctrine?
I do appreciate that you gave an answer.
Am I right to be suspicious of key theological developments arising 1800 years after Christ? Here is another one I am suspicious of:
“In the winter of 1816-17, Smith moved with his family from Vermont to the burned-over district of western New York, an area repeatedly swept by religious revivals during the Second Great Awakening. As was typical of their era, the Smiths believed in visions, prophecies, and folk magic, and Smith was hired as a scryer. According to Smith, beginning in the early 1820s he had visions, in one of which an angel directed him to a buried book of golden plates inscribed with a Christian history of ancient American civilizations. In 1830, he published what he said was an English translation of these plates as the Book of Mormon, and organized the Church of Christ as a restoration of the early Christian church. Church members were later called Latter Day Saints, Saints, or Mormons.” (Wikipedia)
Erik,
Are you suggesting that Rome may be a cult?
Geoff: “his desire for a powerful, personal, experiential “encounter” with Christ which he felt he did not experience as a Protestant. May I suggest that this hankering after religious experience (“encounter”) sounds very “evangelical” and pietistic to me. It also strikes me as evidencing a theology of glory rather than a theology of the cross.”
mcmark: amen to that, but as I have argued before, perhaps the thirst in our throats for the “nourishment” of high-church sacramentalism (minus ex operato, plus faith) of Nevin is but a sublimation of pietistic desires. If it takes a shaman to stand between us and the Mediator to give us a worship experience in which we feel Jesus sitting along side of us, so be it. And all the better if we don’t have to feel the presence to know He’s there in a special way in which He wouldn’t be without the mark of “ordination”.
I tend to agree with Luther and Calvin that faith is assurance. Reflex faith based on our church attendance gets a little more problematic. To say it simply, I think assurance is a good thing. But I also think it’s a good idea for people who should not have assurance to not have assurance.
This by no means that I advocate that we bring into the church the Arminian appeals of the false gospel which distort the message of John 3:1-18. Arminianism should never be brought into our churches. But it is not inherently “revivalism” to point out that those who are not yet justified are being addressed from a Bible which makes gospel promises only to as many as believe them.
With references to Nevin’s “Answer to Dorner” (Nichols, Mercersburg Theology, p186) , B. A. Gerrish writes: “Nevin had no qualms about describing the ‘altar feeling’ that pervaded the liturgy, in which the people present to God Christ’s passion and their own selves on the eucharistic altar.” (Thinking With The Church, p213).
Zwingli pointed mainly to the past, to the crucified flesh alone. Calvin pointed also to a participation in Christ, not only in “sacrament” and through believing but also (more, extra) by means of a non-rational mysterious influence from Christ’s resurrected and glorified body.
Nevin didn’t think Calvin’s sacramentology (“extraordinary power”) was consistent with Calvin’s ideas about God’s sovereign independence and predestination. I think Nevin was correct about the inconsistency. But I take sides with Hodge against the part of Calvin I want to leave behind. Always a partisan…naming, denominating the differences…
DGH,
“I actually believe many denominations is a plus and that organizational unity is not only overrated but dangerous. Lots of Americans don’t like the idea of the United Nations (one world government). Why should we turn around and love a one world church. The Tower or Babel episode would suggest God’s reservations about human efforts at unity.”
I see the benefits of what I believe you’ve called “pluriformity,” yet I couldn’t say that it was a good thing that while Paul stuck with the exclusive Psalm-singing that Barnabas went off to introduce hymns with liturgical dance. (Maybe there’s the evidence for early church hymn-singing!) Regional churches with regional confessions, especially with less organizational unity, sounds great, even while they are in large measure in conformity of beliefs with each other, but it’s still a shame that I can’t in good conscience worship at the PCA that’s next door and have to go to the RPC quite a few more miles out. No, I don’t want a centralized Church government entity to fix that problem. I’m just pointing it out that it is still a problem.
Further, from the article that I linked, at least 2/3rds of those “denominations” are no churches at all. It seems as though if we want to use the term denomination, we ought to be careful to determine if their confession actually represents Christianity in some degree.
Bryan, what did you have for breakfast?
Two quotations from Nevin’s The Mystical Presence.
“We deceive ourselves if we imagine that we have faith in his salvation, while we refuse to recognize the actual historical presence of it in his own institution. Without faith in the Church, there can be no proper faith in Christ.”, p66
“External imputation rests at last on an internal real unity of life.”, p34
Charles Hodge: “The life of the believer is not a corporate life, conditioned on union with any outward organization called the Church….” (ST:2:397)
Geoff,
I was asked what gospel I found in the Catholic Church, not why I became Catholic. I became Catholic because I realized that the main doctrines of the Reformation (Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide) were theological inventions of the 16th century that have now caused untold damage to millions of believers in causing divisions and often a false sense of assurance. I became Catholic because I realized that the Church that appears in the NT had a divine Creator (Jesus himself) and therefore mere men can never remake the Church as they think it ought to look. For something to truly be a Church it must truly be built (even at the organizational level) by Christ and the Apostles.
As for experience, yeah sure; Biblically, Christian worship is different than a lecture hall. Protestantism, as an expression of renaissance humanism, pushed back the alter and pushed forward the pulpit. The Christian attune to Scripture should see something problematic here. As a Catholic I go to Mass preparing my heart to receive Christ in the Eucharist. As a Reformed person I use to bring my note pad ready to hear an academic discourse. I understand the Reformed beleif of Christ present in the Lord’s Supper, but how is this presence different from the Holy Spirit being present in your car as you drive to Church? I’m not sure the Reformed have an answer here.
Peace in Christ, Jeremy
Jeremy – If I may ask, what do you do for a living? I am trying to figure out what your basic temperment is.
“have now caused untold damage to millions of believers”. Careful – the Priest Sex Abuse Scandal is still fresh.
This is just like the old cartoons with Ralph Wolf and Sam Sheepdog…
Erik,
The priest scandal was caused by sinful men not false doctrine. This is a critical difference. I am a teacher and a high school football coach, so this is usually the time of year I stop engaging in theological discourse because I’m just too busy. You’ve always seemed to a fair guy, I apologize if I came off gruff.
Peace in Christ, Jeremy
Jeremy,
The priest scandal was caused by sinful men not false doctrine.
Can you be sure that there is no connection between Rome’s doctrines (infallibility, succession, celibacy, one true church, etc.) and the subsequent sinful sexual misbehavior of too many priests (not to mention the financial and political scandals both past and recent)? And what value is Rome’s supposed true doctrine if from the Vatican down, through bishops and priests, discipline of doctrine is ignored? I think Rome’s elevation of herself as the visible proof and manifestation of Christ on the earth creates an impossible tension of dissonance for sinful men (even the good ones) to negotiate. It ends up that it is more important to protect the “witness” for the sake of Rome’s witness to the world… a sad dilemma.
This is the inevitable result of elevating the Church above the Gospel.
You didn’t come off gruff. What areas do you teach? Interesting that you coach football. If I didn’t do what I do I would love to be a high school English teacher and coach. I would also love to be a used bookstore owner but that would require taking a vow of poverty.
What do the guys at CTC who used to be ministers do for a living now that they are Catholics? Would it be an option for them to become Anglicans and remain in the ministry under the deal the Pope has offered to Anglican ministers (if I’m understanding that deal correctly)?
Jeremy,
You guys can’t keep crediting the magisterium for positive development of the deposit and inspiring pious behavior among the faithful, and then besmirch INDIVIDUALS as rogue and tares among the wheat when both erroneous doctrine, lets talk vatican II doctrinal developments, and criminal behavior amongst it’s pew-sitters and clergy come to light. It’s a lot more credible to let the one visible holy roman catholic church takes it’s bows and take it’s lumps. Of course, that means you look just like the other “30k” denominations claiming to represent Christ, at least we know better than to claim the sole or only infallible representation of the apostolic faith.
Part of the point in my last comment is that it’s pretty evident that CtCers want to build a firewall between Rome’s doctrines (infallibility / the one true Church / etc.) and its sins, deceptions, failures, scandals, and worldly alliances of both past and present. That doesn’t wash.
You shall know a tree by its fruit? That’s a tough question to handle if your Church is the infallible manifestation of Christ on earth.
Jack,
Yep.
Jack,
Yes it does. You already believe that Peter was a sinner and was still used by God to write infallible Scripture. Explain the difference to me.
Peace in Christ, Jeremy
Jeremy,
The Reformed answer to how Christ is present in the Eucharist differently than “the Holy Spirit is present in your car” is simple: the Eucharist is where Christ has promised to be present. It is the Word of God, and the promises contained therein, that proclaim the presence of the crucified and risen Lord in the Supper.
Of course, this is an ironic objection coming from a communion which practically excluded the laity from the Supper for hundreds of years of its history, save an annual or semi-annual celebration, as well as excluding them from the participation of the cup ever, directly in violation of Christ’s command to “Drink of it, all of you.” It is perhaps a result of Luther, Calvin, and the Reformation (and counter-Reformation) that you enjoy the Supper weekly. You’re welcome.
The loss of frequent celebration of the Lord’s Supper is lamentable, but is not a matter of false doctrine (either of Calvin or our churchly confessions). Likewise, treating worship like an academic lecture is lamentable, but is a matter of poor practice, not poor doctrine. If you haven’t already, perhaps you could read Hart / Muether’s “With Reverence and Awe.”
Jeremy,
Yes it does. You already believe that Peter was a sinner and was still used by God to write infallible Scripture. Explain the difference to me.
My point above concerns the lack of connection between “infallible” Rome’s doctrine and the lack of Rome’s discipline of that doctrine. That is where there’s a disconnect and the convenient firewall comes in.
Dr. Lee,
Christ promised to be present wherever two or more are gathered in his name (Matt 18:20). How is Christ’s presence in the Eucharist different from this?
BTW – I don’t deny in any way that the counter reformation benefited the Catholic Church, ended abuses, and led to a resurgance in catechesis.
Peace in Christ, Jeremy
Bryan wrote:
“For a similar reason why homoousious wasn’t articulated until 325, and “one Person, two natures” wasn’t articulated until 451, and dyothelitism wasn’t articulated until 681. Through theological controversy and the challenge of heresy, the Holy Spirit deepens the Church’s understanding of the deposit, allowing her to articulate and define more precisely the faith she has received from the Lord through the Apostles.”
YES! I have tried to use this line concerning the Protestant doctrine of justification and all I receive is naysay! I will have to quote you on this in future discussions, if you do not mind.
Did the church finally mature enough beyond Paul’s lament to willingly accept and keep in good standing the likes of Schillebeeckx? Inasmuch as one can confess papal infallibility and brag of real unity, without useful practice, the doctrine has little value. Schillebeeckx can have all the benefits of Christ’s death and resurrection while devaluing the historicity thereof, and I am more separated from Christ than he?
Jeremy…
And, I might add, the consideration of the possibility that it is some of Rome’s unique doctrines that may create an atmosphere and mindset that undermines Rome’s ownership of its inconsistencies, as well as its sins.
Jack,
Could it also be that Protestantism unintentionally unleashed a radical secularism into the world that has influenced some in the Catholic Church as well? My agnostic western civ Professor in college viewed the Reformation as a giant step towards belief in the autonomy of man…his ability to “do it on his own” if you will. What do you see as the cause of the secularism which now dominates the west? Do you totally disconnect it from the Reformation?
Peace in Christ, Jeremy
Jeremy,
So the sins or deficiencies of Rome are now the fault of the Reformation? Sounds too much like Obama’s administration blaming its failures on Bush’s. Why not at least consider the possibility that there may be something inherent in Rome’s approach to truth Church which contributes to some of its problems? It seems more logical.
correction: truth Church
should be truth and Church
Jack,
Must run back to practice in a minute. A constant complaint I’m hearing from bloggers at Old Life is that CtC doesn’t reflect real Catholicism and that all the normal person in the Catholic pew doesn’t listen to the Magisterium. It’s a natural question to ask where this secularism comes from. Many non-religious historians see the Reformation as a step towards individualism and secularism. Since they don’t really have a stake in the Catholic/Protestant question maybe they are on to something.
Peace in Christ, Jeremy
Jeremy,
Setting slaves free does not ensure that those now free, and the children of those free will live as saints. Some may in fact become very murderous. That does not illegitimate the need for captives to be set free.
That the Reformation may have played a role in the geneology of modernity is not significant to whether it was important – people use just about anything as avatars for their personal sin.
Jeremy,
I’m saying that it’s too many of the normal bishops and priests (popes?) who don’t seem to listen to their own teachings as evidenced by a history of doing wrong and looking the other way or simply ignoring all that CtC emphasizes, except for certain nominal outward practices related to the Mass and the priesthood. And that failure just may be connected to an unbearable burden of being in an infallible RCC and a logical result of Rome’s many questionable doctrines.
Jeremy, the difference between Peter the sinner and the pope the sinner is that Peter was inspired by the Holy Spirit and his writings were included in the canon. Papal writings have yet to be included in a canon of papal infallibility. In fact, RCs still debate which teachings of the magisterium are infallible. For instance, whenever the church teaches about faith and morals, it’s authoritative. But when Trent anathematizes Protestants 39 (thanks McMark) times for doctrinal defections, we are told that those anathemas were not infallible.
It is this drive to preserve the infallibility and perfection of the church that makes it difficult for the church to deal with sin and error. Protestants also have trouble dealing with error when it comes to the Bible. But that’s as far as it goes. Rome has a whole lot more territory to protect. And yet CTCers make it seem as if it’s all covered, ‘s’all good.
Jeremy, I have heard this point alot about how logocentric Calvinists allegedly are. And yet I hear a lot from RC’s about the incarnation — the word made flesh. The way you talk about the Mass sounds almost like a version of flesh made flesh. If Christ is the eternal word, which he is, why wouldn’t preaching from the Word’s word be a form of meeting Christ in worship. Instead of mocking long sermons, maybe we should be grateful that the portions of Christ there are so much bigger than those in the Supper.
Once people start complaining about long sermons it’s not long until they’re headed someplace they probably shouldn’t go. We had an elder who started complaining about long sermons. Within a year he was at a church where they have officers who wear heels.
Darryl said: “Jeremy, I have heard this point alot about how logocentric Calvinists allegedly are. And yet I hear a lot from RC’s about the incarnation — the word made flesh. The way you talk about the Mass sounds almost like a version of flesh made flesh. If Christ is the eternal word, which he is, why wouldn’t preaching from the Word’s word be a form of meeting Christ in worship. Instead of mocking long sermons, maybe we should be grateful that the portions of Christ there are so much bigger than those in the Supper.”
John Y: It is not easy to find a church where the Pastor and the congregants really want to dig into the word of God and learn more about what the Gospel actually is and how it is the ongoing theme which gets progressively revealed with more clarity throughout the pages of the scriptures. I wish there was more logocentricism in churches. We need to hear the Gospel with increasing understanding and clarity throughout our lives. It feeds our faith and helps us work out the trials and tribulations that are bound to come our way in this life. May logocentricism abound and be revived and reformed in our churches throughout the states in America. Thank you Darryl for saying that.
To resurrect a quote from Luther:
“I simply taught, preached and wrote about God’s Word; otherwise I did nothing. And while I slept , or drank Wittenberg beer with my friends Philip and Amsdorf, the Word so greatly weakened the papacy (or mainstream evangelicalism and postmodern spirituality-to make it relevant to today) that no prince or emperor ever inflicted such loses upon it. I did nothing, the Word did everything.”
Dr. Lee,
I would still love to hear your response to this question;
Peace in Christ, Jeremy
Funny anecdote about complaints over long sermons. The very, very small PCA Chruch I’m in had a part-time stated supply from the OPC for a couple of years. Some of the congregants, including at least one elder, began complaining about the length of the sermons/not getting out of church “on time.” So the OPC pastor gets up in the pulpit one day and addresses the complaints head on. He said something like, So I’ve heard that some here would like my sermons to be shorter, but we have to remember that we are in the business of making Christians. Sermons produce Christians; sermonettes produce Christianettes. Now, the level of courage it took to do that is minimized to some degree because he was a part-time, stated supply with a wife who had a good job and he had another job as well. But still, for the rural South, where I live, that was uber-hardcore. I wanted to stand up and clap. He also had a good sense of humor about the OPC. He told me one time that the OPC was the best denomination in the world…if you can stand it.
Ash – Great story. I have a similar one.
A man in our URC congregation died 5-6 years ago. The funeral was in his hometown and was conducted by my pastor. He was a fairly new pastor (Westminster CA grad) and didn’t really know the man’s family that well. A handful of of us from church attended the funeral. The deceased had a pretty large family and roots in this small community and there were probably a couple of hundred people at the funeral. There was a time of eulogizing that went on for quite some time. After that our pastor gets up and says something to the effect of, “I know we’ve been here for some time giving everyone a chance to speak, but if you think that will cut down on the length of my sermon you are mistaken.” It was great and the deceased would have appreciated it.
The other thing I remember from that sermon is that they had an open mike during lunch and some dude got up and started doing some kind of Native American chant. Everyone kind of ignored him.
My wife does give me a hard time whenever I talk about the virtues of long sermons by reminding me that I am not the one in the nursery with the babies. She has a way of taking me off of my high horse!
Erik,
Everytime my wife ‘checks’ me I always retort with; ‘you got my sammich done yet? No, well maybe a little more time spent on what needs doing and a little less on what you think I don’t know’
Anyway, give that a go and make sure to link the video to oldlife.
Jeremy, I’m not coopting Brian, but Reformed Protestants believe that with the invocation we enter the holy of holies where Christ is really spiritually present. You don’t need to go to Rome to have a high view of worship. Reformed Protestants also save money by not having all the bells and whistles. But if you look with eyes of faith, you can see you are at Mt. Zion, with all the saints and angels.
But there is a lot to be said for the virtues of simplicity and succinctness. I’m not so sure long winded Protestant pastors are much different from Bryan Crossity. Is more always better or just American?
“Eyes of faith,” as our host said. That’s what makes the difference. And, after all, we walk not by sight but by faith. The same can not be said be for Rome.
This is not gnosticism or anything of the sort but simply the biblical faith once for all delivered to the saints. This is the beauty of our faith and of the implications for worship set forth in WCF 7.5-6:
5. This covenant was differently administered in the time of the law, and in the time of the gospel: under the law, it was administered by promises, prophecies, sacrifices, circumcision, the paschal lamb, and other types and ordinances delivered to the people of the Jews, all foresignifying Christ to come; which were, for that time, sufficient and efficacious, through the operation of the Spirit, to instruct and build up the elect in faith in the promised Messiah, by whom they had full remission of sins, and eternal salvation; and is called the old testament.
6. Under the gospel, when Christ, the substance, was exhibited, the ordinances in which this covenant is dispensed are the preaching of the Word, and the administration of the sacraments of baptism and the Lord’s Supper: which, though fewer in number, and administered with more simplicity, and less outward glory, yet, in them, it is held forth in more fullness, evidence and spiritual efficacy, to all nations, both Jews and Gentiles; and is called the new testament. There are not therefore two covenants of grace, differing in substance, but one and the same, under various dispensations.
I’m not really a long or short sermon advocate; I think the text that’s being preached to some degree dicatates and I’ve heard the good and not-so-good of both varieties. But I guess the reason I liked what that pastor said so much–and in full disclosure, there was probably some “see there, take that, you old crumudgeons” sinful taint to my reaction–was that the supreme value of those complaining seemed to be that church must end at noon on the dot because that’s the way it’s always been, and the way it shall be, world without end, Amen, and besides, how else will we beat the Baptists to lunch if not? (not much strict Sabbath observance going on obviously).
I guess the point of all this is that as we rely on God and His Word and Spirit to do the work of what He wants accomplished, we and all our efforts in the dark, get out of the way and can enjoy watching God do the work. That is a huge burden off our backs. Let us dig into the Word of God together and really “get” what the Gospel is.