UPDATE: Ryan Cordle hits a home run in his response to this piece.
The discussion about the atheist’s report of attending a Planetshaker’s worship experience could be repeated a thousand times a week here at IM, and has been in various forms down through the 8 year history of this site.
Our Irish Catholic friend Martha, not being familiar with American evangelicals, had an epiphany in the middle of the discussion that’s worth reprinting:
Now see, here is the part that makes my head spin.
And I don’t want to sound like a proselytizing Catholic who’s criticizing the non-Catholics, because that’s not my intent, and we’re just as bad in the other direction.
But I did have a real moment of cognitive dissonance (fancy term, heh?) when I tumbled to it that by “worship leaderâ€, people meant the person in charge of the music.
I was going “But…but.. the pastor? minister? whatever you call the guy on the altar? okay, you don’t call it an altar, probably, but… but…â€
And that’s the head-spinning bit for me. Prayer isn’t worship, listening to the Scriptures isn’t worship, the service of the Lord’s Supper/Communion isn’t worship.
Worship means singing along (or more like, reading some of these posts, sitting and listening) to sub-rock songs. Worship means having a band (an actual band, with drums and guitars) playing and a soloist warbling.
That’s worship? Or a rock concert for the formerly hip and the non-hip (amongst whom I’d include myself, so not sneering)?
Seriously, as an interested, fascinated, and rather frightened outsider, when did “worship = watered-down secular music†become the equation?
I informed Martha she had just come to the point of understanding the evangelical lamentation that goes on around here better than 90% of evangelicals. (I tried this out on my Facebook page and the response was quite different than the IM audience.)
Evangelicals have an issue with sacraments. Mention the word to them and they start fidgeting in their seats and thumbing their Bibles.
It’s an interesting historical story. A sacrament is something in the physical world that mediates or communicates the presence, power, promises and/or grace of God. Various Christian theologies approach the exact language and reality differently, but the essence of sacramentalism is that if X is present or Y is done, then God is somehow present and at work, no matter what else may be happening.
When Luther called for reformation in Rome (and when Rome later excommunicated him for his criticisms), Luther deserted almost none of his core Catholic sacramentalism, even though he rejected strongly the abuses associated with many of the church’s seven sacraments. His views on Baptism and the Lord’s Supper were quite similar (not identical) to what Catholics believed. Luther reduced the sacraments to three. Anglicans and Presbyterians to two. All these reformation churches kept some version of pre-reformation sacramental thinking because it was Biblical.
For example, the reading/preaching of the Word is described in clearly sacramental ways in reformation theology. The announcement of forgiveness (absolution) is a sacrament for Lutherans. The arrangement of the church facility itself reflected sacramental thinking and an order connected to the presence of God.
Because of this kind of sacramentalism, reformation churches tended to want to simplify worship and to hold on to the prominence of the sacraments in worship without the distractions they believed had accumulated in Roman Catholicism. Sacramentally related aspects of worship itself were also prominent. This led to a distinctive way of thinking about who was the church, what was happening in gathered worship, when and how was God at work in the world and so forth. The font, the table/altar, the scriptures and the pulpit were the anchors of worship in reformation Christianity.
The evangelical movement (yes Lutherans, I know, but it’s too late) had a different view of sacraments. One can see it in movements as disparate as the radical reformers, the Puritans and the Methodists. By the time the evangelical movement is fully birthed in the Wesleyan revival and eventually in the frontier and Pentecostal awakenings in America, the new focus has become the present action of the Holy Spirit, but not tied to the sacraments. It is the emphasis on the present work of the Holy Spirit in ways that are powerful and effective, but much less predictable and consistent. The Spirit now was coming in relation to other factors: what was preached, how men prayed, the genuineness of desire for revival, the seriousness of repentance, etc.
Evangelicals now tend to view the reformation churches as “assuming” all kinds of things that may not be true. Listen to a modern evangelical describe what’s wrong with mainline churches: they are “dead.” The people are unconverted. God isn’t present. It’s all empty ritual. They need revival and a true visitation of the Spirit. This is evangelicalism evaluating its parent and finding her seriously wanting. Like all adolescents, we can hope for improvement with maturity.
Now I am an evangelical, and I believe that the present power of the Spirit is crucial. I believe religion can be dead, and it concerns me whenever there is not evidence of Jesus shaped fruit coming from people who claim to belong to Christ by baptism, etc. I believe much of the glory of the new covenant is exactly at the point of the Spirit doing, through the Gospel of Jesus, a transformative work so that Gospel-love for God and mercy for people is evident in lively ways. It concerns me deeply that the reformation churches often seem conflicted over what it means to be a “Great Commission” people beyond baptizing their own children. These are genuine evangelical concerns that I affirm.
But evangelicals are in sacramental chaos, and the results are quite obvious. Evangelicals are “re-sacramentalizing” in an uncritical and unbiblical way. The Planetshakers article was good evidence, but you can see and hear it everywhere.
What are our evangelical sacraments? Where will evangelicals defend the idea that “God is dependably at work?”
-We have sacramentalized technology.
-We have sacramentalized the pastor and other leaders.
-We have sacramentalized music. (i.e. the songs themselves and the experience of singing.)
-We have sacramentalized leaders of musical worship.
-We have sacramentalized events. (God is here!)
-We have sacramentalized the various forms of the altar call.
-We have sacramentalized the creation of an emotional reaction.
We’ve done all of this, amazingly, while de-emphasizing and theologically gutting baptism. (I’m not buying everyone’s baptismal theology here. I’m simply saying the standard approach now is nothing more than could be accomplished by having someone jump through a hoop.)
We’ve done this while reducing the Lord’s Supper to a relatively meaningless, optional recollection. (And being deeply suspicious of anyone making it more than a glorified sermon illustration.)
We’ve done this while removing any aspects of sacramentalism from our worship and even our architecture. (Public reading of scripture, hymns, tables/altars, baptisteries, pulpits.)
And we’ve given over to whomever wants to speak up the power to say what God is saying, what God is doing, what God is using, what God thinks of whatever we’re doing, what the Spirit is up to and so on.
For example, in the next three months, you can bet your remaining life savings that someone will tell us that God is NOW using church X or method Y or person Z because the official discernment squad said so. (And ditto for saying what God is not doing, who God is not using, etc. from the discernment squad on the other side of the street.)
What’s the answer?
We need to re-sacramentalize our worldview in its entirety. Go read some Anglicans or Catholics about that. We’re ridiculously secularist and modernist in so much of our thinking, and so selective and inconsistent in our idea of how God relates to physical things.
We need to reclaim sacramental thinking in the church and not be such knee jerk opponents of the idea that God dependably uses the physical, sensual rituals Jesus endorsed. We can still argue about the exact way these sacraments operate, but we need to approach preaching, the scriptures, baptism and the Lord’s Supper with a sense that God has committed himself to these things. Yes, faith is the response and No, I am not arguing in favor of everyone’s idea of efficacious sacraments. But many of us have evangelical roots that were far more friendly to the sacraments than we are. We should reclaim those roots and study them closely.
We should adopt a post-evangelical approach to seeing the resources of the broader, deeper, more ancient faith as connected to our own traditions. Again, read some Lutherans, Anglicans and Catholics. Understand that the history of Christianity didn’t start in 1969. See what’s been stored away in our past that we’ve overlooked. Especially read the older evangelical writings on the LS, Baptism and the actual theology and practice of gathered worship.
Find some way to slow down our commitment to pragmatism. Every discussion like this features several people who are leading worship in churches they believe have gone off the rails, and they don’t know how to stop the insane, rampant, “Big Picture/Big Noise” mentality. You just have to say, “we’re going to slow down and think. We’re going to have some theology of worship that evaluates rather than justifies what we’re doing.”
Go visit some reformation churches. Consider how the sacramentalism they’ve held on to could influence your own understanding of worship and the church and enhance your mission of creating/teaching disciples.
Don’t just imitate the latest thing, the latest technology or the latest worship guru. Boldly be a Biblically committed servant and leader. Simplify. Be God centered and God aware. Resacramentalize your own thinking and leadership.
Your mission, IM readers, is to “resacramentalize evangelicalism.”
The Internet Monk Archives 
I might caution you, though. Once I visited an LCMS church, I knew I could never go back to my Baptist roots. 😉
LikeLike
Or any LCMS or WELS Lutheran Church.
(Don’t expect to participate in the Sacrament of the Altar, though. They have close(d) communion.)
LikeLike
How about a web version of Luther’s Small Catechism?
http://www.bookofconcord.org/smallcatechism.php
I would suggest you skip the introduction until you’ve read through the rest of the catechism at least once. It’s mostly discussion of the historical context in which Luther found the need to set down sound, biblical doctrine in a short and easy form – “As the head of the family should teach them in a simple way to his household.”
In most Confessional Lutheran churches today, children are still required to memorize the small catechism before confirmation.
LikeLike
We do read Scripture aloud in my Church also.
It was meant to be heard.
Then taken into the heart.
Then lived.
LikeLike
Sacraments AND Word. Catholics need real preaching. Protestants need real attention to sacraments. Plain an simple. Both confessions need what they need urgently.
LikeLike
Right. Your experience is wanting. Go to any Anglican Rite service.
LikeLike
Hello Everyone,
I realize I am coming in on the middle of this conversation but I must say I agree with everything and also disagree with everything.
The one thing I know is that no church or religion is perfect in anyway if humans are in charge. No matter how spirit filled, evangelical or sacramental any one is, if they are human and considered to be mankind we will never get it right.. We are flawed everyone of us.
But if you read the word of God he uses words like friend, relationship. The didciples gave themsleve to meet in the courts everyday, breaking bread together, communing with one anothe and studied the teaching and doctrines of the Apostles.
My understanding from Isaih is that obedience is better than sacrifice and it is a matter of a broken heart and a contrite spirit that God comes to any one. Personal relationship with Jesus is the only thing they ask and to be worshiped and glorified however it may fit.
We all have gifts and talents put in us be the creator his self and he is expecting each one of us to use them for his glory and to lift up the son. Religion really has no place in what kind of relationship you have with God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit.
The Spirit was the gift Jesus sent to us to guide us in all truth and to know the will of God and how he would have us worship him. We all have different personalities and I think God realizes that since he created us.
I am evangelical but I have a strong reverence awe and honor for God and his house of worship. He has called us to mingle and meet with fellow christians regardless of the temporal things here on earth. Some day I want to dance like David danced before God. One day I want to sing praise of worship to God just as the Psalmist did.
I am only voicing my opinion and concern for what the Bible says we should do and how we should act and raise the banner of God as the standard we all stand on.
If you love God have faith and believe that Jesus is his son then trust him to lead you to the places HE has consecrated and made the sacrament viable. It is not the man made things we shuld be worrying about but it’s the spiritual everlasting and eternal things we should be focusing on. And yes if you read your bible it will tell you the do’s and don’ts; and that within itself is a sacrement consecrated by God through his Holy Spirit, Son and his Holy Word.
Personal relationship, Do you know Jesus? Have you been saved through grace and the santification of the Holy Spirit. You can’t begin to understand until you have made the leap into faith through grace. No ritual sacrement or whatever will ever make sense to anyone unless they first love God and have been saved through grace by faith. Then they have the leading of the Holy Spirit that will guide them into alllll truth concerning the things of God.
Thank for your time.
LikeLike
Great Post, It is why I read and feel continually edified by your site. Just wondering if anyone here can relate these thoughts to 1Kings 18:21 “How long halt ye between two opinions”. As an Evangelical Christian in a Pentecostal Fellowship Church who grew up RC, I’ve seen many on both sides who treat the other as the so-called Baal worshippers. RC ” improper headship”, Evangelicals “No discipleship”. My heart has grieved for both sides and honestly I felt a real twinge in my soul when you stated so clearly what I’ve felt so personally for years: “Evangelicals now tend to view the reformation churches as “assuming†all kinds of things that may not be true. Listen to a modern evangelical describe what’s wrong with mainline churches: they are “dead.†The people are unconverted. God isn’t present. It’s all empty ritual. They need revival and a true visitation of the Spirit. This is evangelicalism evaluating its parent and finding her seriously wanting. Like all adolescents, we can hope for improvement with maturity.”
But beyond that, one problem I personally see with the Evangelicals I know is they don’t see the RC as our parents in christ, even if long lost, but do we truly think this to be true? Are they not our long lost brother’s in Christ? I couldn’t possibly articulate these thoughts as well as most on this site, but I’m trying my best to grow and learn in Christ, excuse my lack of clarity but I comment only so that I can learn to present the Gospel in these confusing times more plainly (neither beautiful or ugly), a differant subject altogether. God Bless and Thank You.
LikeLike
Forgot to add…I think communion is much more emphasized in the Mass than in Protestant services, mainly becuase Catholics believe they are consuming the actual body and blood of Christ.
PS – This opinion is just based on my personal experience.
LikeLike
I said I haven’t been to any, not that there weren’t any.
LikeLike
Yes! I tell my students that after years of living in Kentucky I’ve developed a bit of a love for bluegrass music, and nothing sounds better than “I’ll Fly Away” with a banjo and mandolin. But as for theology, the song is entirely Gnostic! No, I won’t “fly away”…my body will be raised to life! (And short people will rule the world!)
LikeLike
Todd,
The Mass is the worship service of Catholics (I apologize if I am starting on a too low level for you). There are two main sections, Bible reading and Communion, with the Offertory making a nice clear distinction. There is actually more Scripture read than in the average Protestant service, and it is read in a complete section rather than being disected phrase by phrase with explanations. You get a sermon generally on one or two of the readings. Another thing that is probably close to what you are used to is the prayer time, which frequently includes specifics for parish members.
Things that you would find strange include the colorful vestments of the priest, the processing in of the priest, the altar servers and the readers. Probably the church would have more permanent things to look at, like statues, The Stations of the Cross, ornate stained glass windows. The order of service, but many parishes have booklets to help you follow along, which includes the readings, the responses that we get to say. Another strange thing is that before Mass, as people come in, they genuflect as they take their seat in the pew, toward the tabernacle (which is where previously consecrated bread is kept). They then kneel and pray before sitting down in the pew.
How would you enter in? If you can meet God in silence then it is easy. At least it is for me. But, you know yourself better and what helps you pray and worship.
I hope that this helps.
LikeLike
You did it again. A very thoughtful and important meditation on something that deserves wider discussion. Great job!
LikeLike
One of the things I LOVE about the Anglican/Episcopalian service is they READ scripture ALOUD–its beautiful.
My church does take communion and its lovely. Jesus tells us to take communion, and it gives you time in worship to rededicate your life to Christ and to THANK him for his Grace.
Don’t get me started on the Music—I endure it because supposedly the Kids love it. Why can’t we get any good Christian Rock? I think folks my age despise it because it ALL sounds like Soft Rock!
🙂
LikeLike
I’ve heard the distinction described as sacraments required for salvation and sanctifying sacraments. Would that be an accurate description?
LikeLike
I just wanted to say that I liked this comment that you made:
“Sacraments do not and never have moved with the culture. They stand alone, inviting the culture to move with them as touchstones; foundational pillars by which we gain the grace and strength within whatever culture we find ourselves (Rome, Canterbury, Nashvegas)”
Growing up evangelical, but attending an Anglican church in Jerusalem for a year, I realized that one thing I appreciated about the liturgy of the service was that no matter who was leading, I knew that we as the Body of Christ would continue to affirm these time-immemorial truths.
Despite what they may think, every church has a liturgy (order of service), but in evangelical churches those “liturgies” change with whoever is leading, so it’s as if the pastor himself and perhaps his leadership team determines in some way what is important to the rest of us.
But with that Anglican liturgy, I realized that rather than submitting to the ordered priorities of the leader, we were submitting to the true authority of God, reaffirming what the Body has received through Scripture, and realigning our hearts and minds to God’s priorities. The Communion service wasn’t just a fancy or emotion-oriented thing, but rather a remembering and recommitting ourselves to Jesus. Like you said about certain sacraments, the Truth doesn’t move with our constantly shifting culture or leadership, but rather remains true now and forever.
LikeLike
As Ryan has rightly pointed out, Gnosticism has such firm roots in the Evangelical imagination…
That explains why Evangelicals seem so prone to Conspiracy Theories. Because Conspiracy Theory is itself the essence of Gnosticism, the Secret Knowledge I and I Alone Posess, the Smugness of being The One Who Knows What’s REALLY Going On.
Ask a sacramentalist the same question and she’ll likely say: “Go to Church, listen to the Word, partake in the LS every change you get, inhale the incense, ask for prayers (with oil for healing), go on a nature walk, enjoy a glass of wine with friends, read the Bible, keep silent, make love to your spouse, gaze upon an icon, hold hands with someone who is dying, play with a child, walk a labyrinth, and on and on. In short, use your body! Because sensuality is a key to spirituality.
i.e. Things that are Physical. Things that have an anchor in physical reality. Things that can provide a reality check. There’s a reason the Christian afterlife was Resurrection of a Physical Body instead of floating around as a Soul in Fluffy Cloud Heaven. And a reason we have a God who Incarnated (to the point of getting snuffed as a political prisoner).
LikeLike
iMonk, you know how strongly I agree with you on this one. From another perspective (you have touched on this in posts like the one on sacramental traditions and church planting), I also think it is crucial that we “re-missionalize” sacramental traditions so that the best of evangelicalism–the passion to reach the world with the Gospel–will become more characteristic of those parts of the Church.
In the Lutheran church I attend, we constantly say that we come to worship to receive God’s gifts in order that we might share them with the world, but frankly, the second part of that sentence does not get carried out with as much passion as the first part, especially in sharing the Good News and calling people to faith.
LikeLike
I’m no expert, but you might want to look at some titles from Robert Webber. I believe these issues were his life’s work, and he is very broadly and deeply appreciated.
LikeLike
I think the most useful part of this post is the argument that evangelicals (as all traditions) are sacramental–that they do believe God is uniquely active in certain activities, and then the discussion as to which activities we view as sacramental.
Michael is right to simlply point to our standard practices and priorities in answering that question. The question as to what activities are sacramental for evangelicals is no different, in my mind, than asking the following: “What do we think God is doing?” and “How is he doing it? (or, “How do we cooperate?”)
This post and the comments, more than making me long for more interaction with the traditional sacraments which I do value and appreciate, made me want to take a more sacramental view of all of life.
LikeLike
I think it’s a Herculean task, if not an impossible one, to “sacramentalize” most of Evangelicalism. As Ryan has rightly pointed out, Gnosticism has such firm roots in the Evangelical imagination that to inject sacramental theology at this point would bring about severe theological implications. “If A and B… then (gasp!) C!”
Evangelicalism has much to offer, no question about it. The Evangelical Revival was based in Holy Writ, after all. But the evolution of popular American Evangelicalism, with its over emphasis on individualism, inevitably led to a concept of a relationship with God apart from the Church and the means of grace. Furthermore, this new concept also brought about a “superior spirituality” of those who “know” God apart from the natural world. Thus, for many Evangelical, the sign of a developing spirituality lies in the practice of advancing the spiritual life by distancing one’s self from creation.
So, ask an Evangelical how one grows in grace and it’s simple: “Don’t do X, Y, or Z, and pray and read the Bible.” (Although, not always in that order). Ask a sacramentalist the same question and she’ll likely say: “Go to Church, listen to the Word, partake in the LS every change you get, inhale the incense, ask for prayers (with oil for healing), go on a nature walk, enjoy a glass of wine with friends, read the Bible, keep silent, make love to your spouse, gaze upon an icon, hold hands with someone who is dying, play with a child, walk a labyrinth, and on and on. In short, use your body! Because sensuality is a key to spirituality.
Yes, there are latent sacramental aspects in Evangelicalism (e.g. carry-in suppers!) just like there are heretical and hedonistic ones in Sacramental Christianity. Still, Gnosticism is a particularly infesting heresy because it subverts creation and thus establishes a form of idolatry that rivals the creator God, thus leading many astray in the most elementary facet of the faith (Genesis 1!) while creating a sense of superiority through so-called knowledge.
LikeLike
Joe A:
Uh…..Lutherans. Anglicans. Many Presbyterians and other reformed when they are having the LS in the service.
LikeLike
For Catholics, communion is a basic reason they hold Mass. It’s the centerpiece of the service. I don’t think I’ve ever been to any Protestant service where communion is the centerpiece.
LikeLike
iMonk
I’m coming in late on the discussion and as a first-timer. Your call to re-sacramentalize evangelicalism is a huge step in a right direction. Much of understanding any newer church tradition such as evangelicalism (I’m speaking of the contemporary North American variety) is knowing that opening a door of innovation usually involves closing a door on something older. Altar calls do replace and tend to close the door on the Christian instinct to “Eucharize.â€
The same progression of open doors—closed doors is seen in the history of what became evangelicalism. As examples, the conversion experience was the goal of a devout life for Puritans; yet, from Jonathan Edwards and “duty faith†came the idea of conversion as the beginning of Christian life. The mature John Wesley saw Perfect Love, or holiness as the goal; whereas, Fletcher saw it to be entered by faith at the beginning of Christian life. The crisis experience of Wesleyan holiness was entered by adherence to the process of growth, prayer, fasting, the Eucharist and works of service to the poor; however, the Nineteenth century holiness movement saw this very same crisis experience of Christian Perfection to be received by faith alone (regardless of feeling) as soon as possible at the beginning of Christian life. Pentecostalism saw a similar shift as the Baptism in the Holy Spirit (also the Wesleyan term for the holiness experience) went from something to be received after much prayer and surrender (tarrying) to today’s take it right now by faith alone. No matter how one argues the merits of any one of these positions, the fact remains: when a newer position is taken, an older position is relegated to the ash heap of forgotten history…along with its theological, biblical, and experiential insights.
Much of this thread’s discussion centers on open and closed doors giving a critique of one another: dead ritual vs. sacramental worship. Both need to understand their history. It is noteworthy that long before Luther, Catholics both lay and clergy faithfully exhorted the faithful to knowledgeable and heart-felt participation in worship, but never advocated dispensing with the sacraments. (No, I am not RC.) And as was correctly reported earlier in the thread, Luther did not change his view on the sacraments, only on the application of righteousness to the Christian. [And, by the way, discussion of transubstantiation is beside the point, since it is on an attempt to understand how Christ is present. Never did anyone question that Christ was present.]
Worldviews do have to change. Evangelicals, their antecedent Fundamentalists, and even the most liberal Protestants are all in the same modernistic framework: Enlightenment rationalism. We need to recognize this and understand that our constituency will not change its worldview overnight. Therefore, we do not emphasize a worldview shift as much as line-by-line, here-a-little, there-a-little shifts in appreciation of earlier readings of Biblical texts and also the sharing of sacramental experiences.
Some books offered for reflection:
Leonard J. Vander Zee, Christ, Baptism and the Lord’s Supper: Recovering the Sacraments for Evangelical Worship (InterVarsity, 2004). An evangelical (CRC) pastor’s assessment and assistance with the problem.
Lorna Lock-Nah Khoo, Wesleyan Eucharistic Spirituality (ATF Press, 2005). American Methodism quickly left behind some of Wesley’s emphases. Here is his very sacramental understanding of the Eucharist…one held simultaneously with aggressive evangelism and disciple-making.
J. Ernest Rattenbury, The Eucharistic Hymns of John and Charles Wesley (OSL Publications, 2006). Someone needs to recover these and set them to music. RC Benedict Goetschel once said that there is nothing in these hymns that could not be sung by a Roman Catholic!
Timothy Ware (Bishop Kallistos), The Orthodox Church, New Ed. (Penguin Books, 1997). iMonk, you said you were unfamiliar with Orthodoxy. Here is a widely published and very readable introduction, in my mind the best available. It is not Roman Catholicism without a Pope.
I know this has been long and rambling, but it touches my passionate desires for the church at large. Given with love.
Jim Williams
LikeLike
Michael, here is an example of the Orthodox way of praying, which, as a Catholic, I can appreciate:
“From the Eastern Christian tradition, comes this teaching:
“Our Lord cries to us in the depths of our hearts,
“Awake 0 sleeper, rise up from among the dead, and Christ will illumine you”.
“And you shall be as I fashioned you, a child of light capable of great compassion and love. And then I will awaken within you my Holy Spirit. You will know the profound love without limits I have for you.
And your flow of tears will witness to the melting of frozen places within you. The softening of your tear stained face will be an invitation for me to take up my abode in your heart. I will remove from you all harsh judgement”
LikeLike
Hi Michael,
I am a Catholic who loves the Orthodox saints.
If you want to read some of them to get a ‘flavor’ of the Orthodox, try
St. Tikhon of Voronezh and also St. Seraphim.
The Orthodox are more in the ‘eastern tradition’ of Christianity and are not as
influenced by classical western thought as much. There is a mysticism in Orthodox
Prayers that is beautifully evocative of the Mystery of Christ.
LikeLike
iMonk,
this is an area I have been confused about for a while now, and while your post above helps, I think I need something more detailed. Can you recommend a book that you feel treats this topic fairly and can help clear this up in detail for me? I can’t afford a lot of books, so one really good book would be preferred over several recommendations (not always possible, I know).
LikeLike
Would you rather hear Penderecki and Messiaen, Martha? 😉 I admit I’m hardly a Rutter fan but he has done stuff (I grudgingly admit) that is all right. When he’s arranging older tunes and carols I don’t mind him so much. Btw, in case I need to clarify, I’m Protestant but a lot of my favorite composers wrote sacred choral music in the Catholic and Orthodox traditions.
I think people who don’t want to go “old” don’t realize that in earlier epochs the divide between the “high” and “low” was sometimes more blurry than it is in our time. Sacramentalizing technology has had two different effects, in a way–1) the popular/populist musical style tends to dominate but 2) the level of professionalism considered ideal can skyrocket so that a rock concert vibe can pervade or a completely sing-a-long-in-kindergarten vibe pervades or some combination thereof.
LikeLike
evangelical roots that were far more friendly to the sacraments than we are.
I’ve gathered that, reading something like Vos’s commentary.
LikeLike
I am completely unfamiliar with the orthodox.
LikeLike
“Again, read some Lutherans, Anglicans and Catholics.” What about the Orthodox?
LikeLike
A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away (Chicago, IL, actually), I memorised the Baltimore Catechism. The only thing I remember from that ancient time is this: A sacrament is an outward sign, instituted by God, that gives Grace (more or less verbatim). I grew-up with seven sacraments, none of which are listed in your article above. I wrote about this in an essay on my blog (http://www.aoibhinngrainne.com/2009/06/eukharisteo-giving-thanks.html) as it relates to Communion.
Using what I learnt in school lo! those many years ago seems to me a pretty good rule of thumb: does the sermon grant us Grace? the singing? the sound system? the altar call?
Perhaps some of these things do. But were they instituted by God? Were they part of the Church from time immemorial? Were they believed/taught always, everywhere, by all?
Maybe. Mmmm…Doubtful.
Sacraments do not and never have moved with the culture. They stand alone, inviting the culture to move with them as touchstones; foundational pillars by which we gain the grace and strength within whatever culture we find ourselves (Rome, Canterbury, Nashvegas):
baptism…reconciliation…communion…confirmation…marriage…holy orders…prayers for the sick…
The hallmarks of life, marked by the love of God, the mercy of God, the Grace of God, each step of the way.
Why do we forget? Why do we squander these opportunities?
I feel another essay coming on. Thanks, iMonk.
LikeLike
As a longtime reader who has converted to a very conservative branch of Old Catholicism since I started reading, I say “Thank you!”
Your journey/thoughts/commentary are always insightful and appreciated. I grew up Evangelical, and I feel your frustration on so many issues.
Thank you for stepping up to the plate and being willing to share your thoughts and your heart. The openness and generosity and grace with which you speak about us crazy Catholics is a breath of fresh air.
You’re always in my prayers. Thank you again for the inspiring and honest work you’re doing. It does not go unnoticed.
LikeLike
It’s funny; just today, I stumbled across a church website touting the congregation’s “dynamic worship,” or something along those lines. In large letters, this web page said (paraphrasing the KJV’s translation of Psalm 22:3): “God inhabits the praise of His people!” And it occurred to me that they meant it quite literally; they had entirely sacramentalized “worship” (by which they meant singing). And the implication seemed to be that the more powerful and dynamic the worship, the more fully God was present.
LikeLike
imonk,
great article, only adjustment is the number of sacraments in Anglicanism. Officially there are two dominical sacraments leaving room for our anglo-catholic brethren to hold the other 5.
LikeLike
I was reflecting on the strange exchange I had with one of the liturgical gangstas in the thread of the Projector post, and the near impossibility of engaging in methodological critique, or a philosophical examination of a belief system, without being interpreted as an attack on someone’s belief system. Hence, the examiner can be dismissed as self-pious, elitist, or whatever. I simply refuse to enter into a discussion of church music anymore because people tend to identify so closely with the belief system that supports their musical preferences.
Which leads me to the subject at hand after reading this thread. Same problem here. I am mightily encouraged by those few who’ve written here about their “resacramental” successes. In spite of these exceptions (for that is what I think they are) I wish to briefly state why I remain pessimistic. The answer is contained in the prescription iMonk advocates:
I think the answer is correct, bu I simply do not think this “worldview” alteration is any longer possible. Jumping back to the projector question for a moment, the evaluation and discussion gets hung up on questions of specific technological devices. But this isn’t the technological question. Nor can it be brushed aside as a secondary matter (e.g., as my discussion partner attempted by reordering it as a question of anthropology). There simply is no patience to examine and evaluate; the only task allowed for discursive thought is to justify. The reason for this is because the belief system is ultimately oriented toward action and not truth. And this places all such thought within the belief system in the service of ideology (in a non-pejorative sense). If there is a conflict, if problems are identified, then the solutions are administered as a balm, a salve. The theological solution is too often like a medical solution. But this rarely coincides with understanding the conflicts, problems and various solutions.
Alright, sorry, back to topic. The reason that most evangelicals will not undergo the radicalization of their belief system that is required “reclaim… the idea that God dependably uses the physical, sensual rituals Jesus endorsed,” is because it involves tossing out the script and rewriting it, razing the familiar but collapsing edifice and rebuilding it on what the Church has always believed (more or less, here or there): all of reality is sacramental. John 1. The inside is bigger than the outside. This universe is the stable in Last Battle. Here we are in the stable, with water, bread and wine, and we won’t go in, because we just know that they’re just _____, and not _____. The belief system occludes the kinds of solutions that might lead to new, reordered, reconceived action.
LikeLike
Can somebody tell me what the point of Mass is? What is it’s objective? If I was to come to one, as a lifelong Protestant, how alien would I find it? How would I enter into it, or interact with God through it?
LikeLike
Austin,
How do I get to your blog?
Peace,
Junior
LikeLike
“Sacramental worship calls for a re-adjustment to our perceptions of the material world and ourselves within it.”
Well put.
LikeLike
Great post.
I once had a Catholic girlfriend, and so I went to my baptist church and her catholic church. I remember distinctly thinking to myself: “Well look at that, they both have a time at the end when they both go down to the altar. Except for the Catholics, everybody goes to receive communion, and for the Baptists only the new Christians go, but in a sense, we all go with them, remembering that we went down there once too.” That just kind of stuck with more for a while.
Then I learned in church history in Seminary that Jonathan Edwards grandfather, Solomon Stoddard had a radically open table. He would preach an evangelistic sermon (to the half-covenant adults), and encourage them come and receive the LS in hopes that they would be fully converted. Some historians think this is the origin of the altar call.
Well, I love taking communion every week. And yet, I also went to a church that did an altar call every week, but not just for new believers, but for empowerment and encouragement of the rest of us (it was a charismaticish kind of church). I remember wondering “why we couldn’t do both?” Why can’t we make the LS into something that is encouraging and empowering, surrounding it with extra laying on of hands and prayer for people who need it?
Either way, excellent point about how we evangelicals have sacramentalized everything but the sacraments.
Also, we’ve been talking a lot about how this might affect the LS, but I think it would and should make a major impact on baptism. We evangelicals should take our baptism way more seriously, and the entire process more seriously. I think part of the problem is that we baptize people way too early in their Christian life. The early church would train people how to live a Christian life, and then baptize them (and they made a big deal about it), and then teach them the doctrines and the mysteries of the faith. As crazy and counter productive as that sounds to us, this was also the time when the church was growing the fastest.
LikeLike
Martha:
Don’t throw your rosary beads, I would not want you to go without them! Back when I was a devout RC, I was also a Folk Group Leader. I like the title “worship leader” so much better. Sometimes the Folk Group would do three masses in one weekend. I wanted to set up a tent in the sanctuary and sleep over. How could they overwork us like that? (chuckle)
I really enjoy that you use an argument from authority from Scripture regarding praying the “Lord’s Prayer.” Of course, corporate prayer is great, I just question whether or not corporate prayer needs to be done in unison. Is there transformative power in unison prayer? This is the current question I am wrestling with.
LikeLike
I’ve always had trouble with our evangelical communion services; didn’t Jesus say “Do this in memory of Me.”? Nobody hardly ever talks about Jesus in communion services. They just stick it on the end of the service after preaching about tithing, sanctification, homosexual marriages or something else unrelated to the Lord’s table.
The whole emphasis falls on Calvary … which is suitable alright “we show the Lord’s death until He comes.” but I’ll just bet in the first decade at least after Calvary they just talked with each other about the things they remembered from their time with Him.
Remember the old song:” Let’s talk about Jesus” ??? Woudn’t it be great to hear our brothers and sisters talk about those stories in the gospels which hit them like a ton of bricks, which turned their world upside down, and which made them love Jesus intensely. !!!! I just bet grace would be communicated to the hearts of all in attendance; tears would fill our eyes and love would fill our hearts.
Don’t criticise RC’s for their mass while we make such a mess of communion. I do like their term CELEBRATE in relation to communion. Most of them do not realise how much we have to celebrate … and sometimes I wonder if we realise it either.
LikeLike
I’ve always had trouble with our evangelical communion services; didn’t Jesus say “Do this in memory of Me.”? Nobody hardly ever talks about Jesus in communion services. They just stick it on the end of the service after preaching about tithing, sanctification, homosexual marriages or something else unrelated to the Lord’s table.
The whole emphasis falls on Calvary … which is suitable alright “we show the Lord’s death until He comes.” but I’ll just bet in the first decade at least after Calvary they just talked with each other about the tings they remembered from their time with Him.
Remember the old song:” Let’s talk about Jesus” ??? Woudn’t it be great to hear our brothers and sisters talk about those stories in the gospels which hit them like a ton of bricks, which turned their world upside down, and which made them love Jesus intensely. !!!! I just bet grace would be communicated to the hearts of all in attendance; tears would fill our eyes and love would fill our hearts.
Don’t criticise RC’s for their mass while we make such a mess of communion. I do like their term CELEBRATE in relation to communion. Most of them do not realise how much we have to celebrate … and sometimes I wonder if we realise it either.
LikeLike
I have been a “baptistic” Christian my whole life. The growing conviction I have in my own heart is that we need a more sacramental faith, whether that means modifying current emphasis or returning to older currents of tradition. It is little wonder that we have so many cruddy objects of sacramentalism.
LikeLike
I hadn’t realized Lutherans viewed absolution as a sacrament. I thought that the LCMS view, which is the same as the Anglican view, was Luther’s view.
What’s interesting to me about generic evangelicalism’s “sacraments” lack the standard spelled out in that LCMS link, the same standard spelled out in the Anglican church’s 39 Articles. These new “sacraments” aren’t labeled as such, but they’re clearly given that role, and the standard for identifying them is… squishy.
The biggest difference I see is in the objectivity of Anglican/Lutheran sacraments, and the subjectivity of modern evangelicalism’s “sacraments.” In baptism, we are joined with Christ. In the Supper, we receive Christ. Our mood, our understanding, and our subjective feelings are irrelevant to the reality of the sacrament.
The music, the altar call, and the powerpoint presentations are all aimed at our subjective feeling, our understanding, or our mood.
The sacrament is about God. The new “pseudo-sacraments” are about us.
I say all of this as a member of an Anglican church with a “music leader,” but not a “worship leader.” I suppose, technically, that we share the leading of worship. I lead the liturgy, the music leader leads us in song, and the pastor preaches, baptizes, and administers the Lord’s Supper. We have lay readers, and lay “prayers of the people prayers.” Together we receive from God, and respond to Him.
I have some hope, that some things remain in the corners of modern evangelicalism, and may be restored. Despite growing up in churches that despise the idea of written prayers, most people seem to somehow know the Lord’s Prayer. Many churches don’t deal with it properly, but still recognize baptism as something important. I’m loathe to dismiss all of modern evangelicalism, though i often want to, because I remember God’s word to Elijah, even in those barren wastelands, there may yet be 7,000 who have not bowed their knee to Baal.
LikeLike
I love lots of different kinds of worship music, everything from Gregorian chant to high-octane gospel, but pop-music is my least favorite form.
LikeLike
That gives a new and dradically different meaning to the phrase “evangelical sacraments”.
But yes, I share the Catholic writer’s bewiderment about the picture conjured up by “worship leader” in what passes for evangelicalism (and “emergence”) today. But perhaps that is because evangelicals have pastors, rather than priests and deacons. Priests and deacons are the worship leaders in the Orthodox Church. Pastors shepherd the flock. Occasionally they may coincide, but not necessarily so.
LikeLike
Troy some of us think the Eucharist is God himself.
LikeLike
Noooo! The dreaded words “worship leader”!!! I should be flinging my rosary beads at the screen and reaching for the Easter water about now 🙂
Thank you for your answer, Boethius. That does help me understand better.
As to the transformative power of the Lord’s Prayer, whether personally said or corporately, I can’t advise you. All I know is when the disciples asked how to pray, He said “Say this.”
Like everything else, if we rattle it off mindlessly, we might as well be humming an advertising jingle. If we think about what we’re saying, and meditate on the words, we might be changed.
Or not – the wheat and the tares will be mingled until the harvest, and we can never pat ourselves on the back as to which we are.
LikeLike
All Anglicans affirm Baptism and The Lord’s Supper as the two dominical sacraments that are generally necessary to salvation. These two are ordained by Christ himself and have gospel promises and realities attached to them. The other five are not specifically ordained by Christ and are not generally necessary to salvation. Some call the other five sacraments and some call them rites or ministries — but the vast majority of Anglicans affirm the basic distinction between the two categories. And the vast majority of Anglicans practice all seven in one way or another.
LikeLike
iMonk,
Can you recommend some Lutheran, Anglican, and Catholic writers which you think would be good reading as you suggested in your post?
Thanks,
miked
LikeLike
Wow… me too. I even scooted right past it until I saw your comment and went back. I need to write it down…
LikeLike
Wow! Some interesting comments to say the least. I think we might could spend all day bashing one another regarding how stupid it is or isn’t to be ritualistic or not. And, thus, how much more special one Christian denomination is over another. Personally, I think most of the comments are just plain sad. Sad because they are so ignorant to reduce every member of a Christian denomination and every church of that denomination into some commonly used formula and experience. As if one Baptist church is identical to another or one Catholic church is exactly the same as another.
I suggest everyone step back for a moment, take a deep breath, and maybe walk a little in the other persons shoes, if that is even possible, before making so many assumptions or blanket statements. As Christians, I think we would be better served if we begin by looking for what unites us not what divides us. I think Paul said it best when speaking of issues like the sacraments, communion, and any other thing one might elevate to a greater importance than it really is. He said, and I am paraphrasing, some people think this day is special and some people do not. But don’t get caught up in these type of petty disagreements. There are more important things in life than whether a person should take communion every day or not. While i have my thoughts on this issue, i find that if a person can take communion every day and, in their heart, it no become a going through the motions of I have to do this or I am not a Christian or I will not go to heaven then let them be. But, if whatever the tradition or ritual ever becomes the focus of one’s life over God Himself, then it will become a sin. This is the everyday challenge that all Christians face. We must put God first in our lives and by doing so, trust that He will make our paths straight. Your brother in Christ.
LikeLike
Jjoe,
I’m sure that the young man was corrected before graduation. He was, after all, a working student.. GRIN
LikeLike
The reason our small fellowship started was because after years of fighting for Jesus-shaped and Jesus-centered change in our old church, several of us independently left over a period of a year or two. Then we started worshiping together. That was a HARD decision, ‘cuz we all love our old church, it’s members, and its leaders. But we couldn’t take it anymore.
At any rate, we had a several-hour meeting yesterday where we looked for ways to make our worship service more intentional and sacramental (though no one used that wording). It was very exciting 🙂
LikeLike
Warning: Idea stolen from the Christian Monist.
Since the whole idea of sacraments is that God uses stuff to provide grace, shouldn’t we have to start with the ideas that 1) the material universe is either good or neutral, and 2) God can still use the material universe and the stuff in it as good for us individuals.
LikeLike
Thus illustrating how the sacraments of God and the sacraments of man (money) are polar opposites. One concentrates downward to those who need it, and the other concentrates upward to those who don’t.
LikeLike
Trickle down was an extremely cruel jjoke on the poor..
It worked. The rich got much richer.
And the poor,? Well . . . .
LikeLike
In the USA, it depends on which Anglican church you attend. The Episcopal church I attended, recognized and practiced all 7 sacraments. Other churches may only recognize 2 sacraments and 5 rites or rituals, others may entirely ditch reconciliation.
It does seem that some aspects of the liturgical traditions may alleviate some of the arguments that currently exist in Evangelicalism. For instance, the whole preaching text by text dispute could be alleviated by having a schedule of readings whereby one gets through the whole bible in a 2 or 3 year period, then have the preacher preach on either that text or another, but at least the assembled can hear their Scriptures.
Another issue is people being re-baptized or re-dedicating because they’ve fallen off what they perceive to be the Almighty’s wagon and are wanting to climb back aboard. If there was a way for them to confess their sins and hear someone say that they are forgiven, it might be a better way back for them. Then again, I’m not sure this might not just unleash a frightening torrent of scrupulosity into Evangelicalism, and I’m not sure that would be good either.
I have seen anointing of the sick at non-denom Evangelical services. They don’t call it a sacrament but other than that it wasn’t much different. Is that common in Evangelical churches?
LikeLike
My understanding was that the Anglican Church practiced seven, but only recognized two as sacraments of Christ. No confession? Bishops will clarify?
LikeLike
..i thought Reagan came up with that ….(trickle down theory)
LikeLike
How to re-sacramentalize Evangelicalism:
Hold your basic Evangelical service EXCEPT-
keep announcements till after the service;
weave the ancient hymns (Kyrie, Gloria, Sanctus, Agnus Dei),
the Creed & the Lord’s Prayer around your usual format;
have a perpetually filled baptismal (for immersionists) or a laver of water (for everone else),
a jar of oil, and bread & wine every Sunday service- and replace the altar call with an
invitation to be baptized, anointed &/or communed with the Body of Christ.
That’s it.
Oh yeah- and prepare for the church spilt!
LikeLike
…Wow…that explained something for me …thank you ..
LikeLike
Yes Marha, I have found rituals, practices or sacraments which transform me more than others. My participation in these tends to work when I participate individually as well as corporately though it appears to be more powerful when participated in corporately with like-minded believers. When I forego participating in these practices I notice a return to my debased self. The practices I find helpful are singing. I have been a worship leader in the past and I play guitar. My music style favors acoustic guitars but I am open to the full band or orchestra. Greeting one another in psalms, hymns and spiritual songs quickly transforms my mind from the cares of this world onto my Creator. I participate in communion sometimes alone and particpate in it corporately on a weekly basis. Studying the word with other believers is always stimulating to me and my spiritual growth. I love to talk about the Word. I find great fulfillment and joy in debating it with other believers. One thing I struggle with and I am working on is prayer, both individual and corporate. Is saying the “Lord’s Prayer” corporately a transformative ritual? Does prayer in unison transform me? Currently, the believers I worship with do not practice prayer in unison. I would like to suggest to the powers that be that we begin to practice it but I have not formulated any argument in favor of it or against it as yet.
Those are my top three. There are more evangelistic type things I participate in such as missions outreach to Guatemala, etc. which revitalize and transform me but these things are more outreach actions which provide encounters with God via going in His name rather than a deliberate searching Him out through practice, ritual and sacraments.
LikeLike
Very well-stated and written post, Chaplain Mike.
LikeLike
The Anglican Church recognises seven sacraments: Baptism, the Eucharist or Communion, Confirmation, Reconciliation, Anointing of the Sick (Holy Unction), Marriage, and Ordination.
It is surely much, much easier to inspire a sacramental church which has become self-satisfied or enclosed, to reach outside itself with the Gospel (learning to “see in the dark” as Sara Miles puts it), than to re-sacramentalise Evangelicals.
To re-sacramentalise, we must go back in our hearts, minds, and souls to times past when human persons were more than their rational or productive capacities, and the world we lived in, post-Edenic though it is, was alive with meaning, “aflame with God”. Karen Armstrong thinks that contemporary fundamentalism including Revivalism is the child of a split-off longing to encounter and to experience the Numinous which has come about through this very process of spiritual reduction. It’s gone too far; perhaps the recent trend to reclaim sacramentalism and to some extent liturgy, is part of restoring the balance?
Yet there’s still aow to describe that moment, when like the Disciples at the Last Supper, we take the Body of Christ from the hand of Jesus? Then, that hand was unbroken, unscarred and yet He gave them His Body. Now, in the moment of Communion, we step outside of time and with them, we receive and are fed.
Evangelicals aren’t big on ritual, though it tends to creep back in various ways. Yet ritual anchors us, through the years; it is not the prison that some make out. For example, in “The Lost Mariner” Dr Oliver Sacks described his patient Jimmie G who had lost all short term memory and with it, his “mooring in time”. Yet here is Jimmie, who can’t remember someone he’s just met, in the context of the Eucharist:
“I saw here an intensity and steadiness of attention and concentration that
I had never seen before in him…. I watched him kneel and take the
sacrament on his tongue, and could not doubt the fullness and totality of
communion, the perfect alignment of his spirit with the spirit of the mass.
Fully, intensely, quietly, in the quietude of absolute concentration and
attention, he entered and partook of the holy communion”.
(For further comment see article in Christian Century:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1058/is_3_117/ai_59210746/)
Sacramental worship calls for a re-adjustment to our perceptions of the material world and ourselves within it. If it’s true (and I believe it) that “Earth’s cramm’d with Heaven”; our job, every one of us, is to unpack Heaven in every place, while constantly begging God’s mercy for our blindness and our stumbling ignorance. In The Kingdom of God, poet Francis Thompson wrote:
Not where the wheeling systems darken,
And our benumbed conceiving soars!–
The drift of pinions, would we hearken,
Beats at our own clay-shuttered doors.
The angels keep their ancient places;–
Turn but a stone and start a wing!
‘Tis ye, ’tis your estrangèd faces,
That miss the many-splendoured thing.
I’m not saying that all Evangelicals are waving their arms at a distant Heaven, estranged from themselves and the “ancient places”, just because that’s how I was in those years. I know it’s not so. Nor that those of us finding shelter and peace in the liturgy, order and beauty of traditional churches are always able to look out, and see “the traffic of Jacob’s ladder Pitched betwixt Heaven and Charing Cross” as Thompson did (broken, homeless addict that he was at the time and possibly minus any form of approved “Sinner’s Prayer”).
But I do believe it’s time for all of us to stop our bickering; one day, very soon, this life of ours will pass like a dream “dies at the opening day”, and we will be gone no matter how much they party at our funeral. The harvest is abundant but those ready to trudge out there are still so very, very few. To quote Sara Miles again:
“My friends, draw near. Draw close, close together. Reach for the incarnate love settled, however imperfectly, in your neighbors. Breathe a little peace on one another. And open your eyes, that you may behold God, in all his reconciling work”.
LikeLike
As a former RC, I have heard this argument before that one must participate in order for the RC sacraments to work, i.e. produce fruit. I have always had difficulty with the explanation. By just showing up to participate reveals a willingness in the person to want to encounter the living Christ. Because the RC church claims to be the true church and because they claim to receive the Body and Blood of Christ, I expect more fruit from those believers than I do any others. My expectations of practicing RCs is higher than for any other believers. I am looking for the fruit as proof of the validity of the sacraments.
LikeLike
“Why would we want any form of corporate spirituality?”
I do think that corporate worship is enhanced by participating with other believers who benefit (ie. regenerative and transformative) from the same things you do. I am struggling personally with this very issue at the moment. The group of believers I have been worshipping with for years continues to grow in size. With that growth, forms of worship are changing. (We started out in the pastor’s living room and now occupy space in a redone historic mill. Just the size of the place requires louder music, more powerful microphone system, etc.) We have and continue to receive communion together weekly. We have become a denomination being accepted into the Vineyard network of churches. None of the changes are either good or bad in and of themselves. With the growth there are now people I do not know and I find it difficult to maintain relationships with such a large number of people. I miss the days of six families meeting in a living room when everyone was of one mind and in one accord. I always found that style of corporate worship regenerative and transformative to my own soul.
So again, the question remains as to what is the purpose of corporate worship? Do we meet corporately so that unbelievers can come and receive the gospel? Do we meet corporately to meet our own regenerative and transformative needs? I think corporate worship is a meeting of the minds, in one accord, to minister to the growth and discipleship of the believers.
Your new meetings with the revivalists, if I am understanding clearly, is in addition to your weekly Sabbath? If yes, I think that is great. Diversity is really good for all those extra connections we may have with believers as well as unbelievers during the week.
LikeLike
Not my point at all. Whatever musical preferences anyone may have, similar issues come up with all styles. Any music can be viewed as a kind of emotion-altering technology.
And the issue isn’t just music, it’s all the other stuff that goes on in church too–from what people are wearing, to the way the furniture is arranged, to the issue of who pays and who gets paid, who has power and who is expected to yield. It’s not like a group of friends or family, where there’s real give-and-take involved. Traditionalism, sacramentalism, whatever you want to call it, is not really more spiritual than their opposites, it just props up a different set of agendas.
The atheist said that line about the pastors, not about the band (though she did make fun of their lyrics). I bet similar jargon could be found in most evangelical sermons, even the ones you like (or deliver yourself). Pastors from the mainline churches wouldn’t use the same language, but they have their own little ticks that outsiders would find strange. (“Yea…”)
LikeLike
Todd,
Many of us are in similar places that you are. And being Catholic doesn’t change things at all. (I learned more about the why’s and wherefore’s of our practices on my own, than I did attending RCIA) Many cradle Catholics have not chosen to explore their faith.
I’ve driven 1.5 hours one way, just to get a good reverent Mass.
And you are correct in saying “In the end, if worship pushes me away from God and from other Christians, then something is wrong.” Been there, done that.
May God bless you on your journey
LikeLike
Actually, i have heard the older Lutherans making a similar lament, but concerning how some of us don’t wear our “Sunday best” to church, rather than blue jeans. So, to them I probably am not taking the “Real Presence” of Christ seriously, because in their opinion I’m not dressed for the occasion. Grace to the rescue again! 🙂
LikeLike
In all of the churches I’ve ever been in (Baptist, Bible, Nazarene), there has been this idea that we go to church to get fed.
We participate in communal worship, we get preached at and make emotional decisions, and then we pray for people and go home.
I have not been spiritually fed at church for over a decade, and I’ve been in a number of different churches.
I have, in fact, given up on being touched or reached by worship, or really feeling like the worship period was at all meaningful. Either we sing hymns like we’re already dead in one church, or we try to whip people into an emotional frenzy with contemporary worship, but either feels just as empty.
I get more worship driving home and looking at a sunset on one side of the highway, or reading Brennan Manning, or repeating the Lord’s prayer to myself.
I don’t know how much of this comes out of the pragmatic, logical sense of things ingrained heavily in me by my Baptist upbringing, but I feel like I’m extremely crippled in approaching church itself from anything but an analytical standpoint. It holds no comfort for me, it drains me of life, and I have to go off by myself afterward to actually find the energy to get through the week.
But it’s important to be a part of church to teach, to disciple, etc.
I find myself rather at a loss so much of the time because it’s hard to get objective answers from anybody about anything religious. Everybody seems to have a castle to defend, certain perspectives to stand behind and say “oh, well, real Christians do this”, and all of it is so devoid of historical context that it makes me ill.
I learn more and more about Catholic and Orthodox faith, but the people who are around me who are from those groups know very little about where their church and practice comes from, just that they do those things.
I learn more and more about the Protestant end of things, and see rationalizations that allow us to label things as right or wrong.
If holiness, at it’s core, is the love of Christ, then surely worship in all of it’s aspects should always point us at love, in all of it’s aspects. But instead, I see an exhausting litany of preferences and anti-communalism on all sides.
I’m sure that it’s different wherever other people are. It always seems to be that way. Everybody else has things working fine where they are, so…yes.
In the end, if worship pushes me away from God and from other Christians, then something is wrong.
LikeLike
I have to admit, the whole dullness with which Lutherans seem to approach the altar bugs me, especially considering how much they push “real presence” in confirmation. Jesus is REALLY present? Ho hum? It could be Lutherans don’t want to appear too Catholic. But more likely it is because it’s not dependent on how one feels or reacts. There are Sundays when even I am tired, burned out, distracted, or mentally just not there. I’m relieved that Jesus still meets me there. That’s grace. After years on the emotional merry-go-round in other churches, I find this refreshing.
LikeLike
Yes, and thankfully we get the “Lifeway” bulletin blanks or I would never know where we are at either. Not that I ever pay attention to those things anyway really.
LikeLike
Christiane,
I find the same to be true as I study Judaism and Jewish background material. The disciples weren’t innovators creating a new religion; they were trained by the Master to finally understand and explain what God had been doing all along. The New Testament is firmly rooted in the old and was written by a collection of thoroughly Jewish thinkers, so it makes sense that understanding their thinking would lead to understanding the New Testament better.
LikeLike
Ooooh, I agree about Rutter. Glorious stuff! Fun to sing too.
LikeLike
Maybe I am dense, or didn’t read all the secondary posts close enough, so I am not sure exactly what you meant by that 🙂 But I think it would be careless to ignore the mass of evidence throughout the Bible on this. I am not saying that the sacraments are bad. But our hearts are. Barren formalism is a real danger and anyone who thinks they are immune doesn’t know themselves very well, or the human tendency to make an idol out of everything. I am from a “reformed” tradition and I can say this with some experience. After all, if we size up the limited info on the Lord’s Supper in the New Testament we find a pretty large portion warning us against abusing it.
LikeLike
I think there’s something wrong with evangelicalism.
The atheist who went to Planetshakers made the observations being discussed. Remember her? The woman who said she wanted to scream “I have no idea what you are talking about.” The woman who suggested there’s a lot of technology creating emotion here.
But if you want to talk about why this is a “guitars are bad, organs are good” post, that’s your opinion. I’m just not going to sponsor the conversation.
LikeLike
Well, you obviously think there is something wrong with Earthshakers. It couldn’t be their lack of sacramentalism, because even mainline services, sacraments are for special occasions (like weddings). The main thing is hymn-singing and a sermon. Hymn-singing is the main thing missing from Earthshakers, which is why I focus on musical styles. I had the impression that you felt their musical choices are inappropriate for worship, or do not qualify as worship, or detract attention from worship. You also bring up their not having an altar, and focusing on a band instead–sorry for neglecting this point.
LikeLike
Maybe the key to the ability to ‘be blessed’ sacramentally has to do with humility.
The Orthodox have this example: by the force of gravity, water flows downward to the lowest areas which receive its benefits;
and so it is that the blessings of God flow downward into the humble hearts of those who need the Lord’s healing and are the most grateful in thanksgiving.
LikeLike
Sacramentum is suppose to refer to “Sacred Mystery” and in the Mass the Eucharist is called the Mystery of Faith. Of course that last being the poor translation of the NO Mass from the Latin.
LikeLike
One of the real turning points in my journey was when Robert Webber came to my church and held a worship seminar, during which he explained that churches in the revivalist tradition replaced the eucharist with the invitation as the conclusion of the service and the means of receiving God’s gifts. It thus became, a matter of seeking the power of the Holy Spirit through some kind of experience or decision, rather than receiving the Spirit’s blessing through the traditional means of grace in the context of regular worship. This was a major shift— from a communitarian understanding of worship and toward individualism, from a theology that sees God working through means to one which promotes a direct encounter with God, from one which stresses God’s objective gift humbly received, to one which stresses individual emotions and some kind of crisis experience as necessary for salvation and sanctification. Furthermore, the revivalist emphasis has repeatedly focused on bringing unbelievers to make an initial faith decision or trying to make believers dissatisfied with their current spiritual state so that they will come to a decision that will transform them. Thus, the entire revivalist enterprise becomes focused on me, my need to get right, my decision, my making a place for the Holy Spirit to work.
I can’t tell you how relieved I am to be out of that treadmill and into a congregation that comes forward at the end of each service with empty hands to receive the gifts of God’s grace won for us by our Savior.
LikeLike
Dale..Welcome……if i believed that when i take communion that im miraculously partaking of the LITERAL body and blood of the Christ.. thats going to do something to me..spiritually that is..that cannot be obtained by symbolic means….it gets “real”…i would actually be making live contact with God in a physical sense and only good can come from that…..imho..(im attending my first Orthodox service tommorrow)
LikeLike
your being sarcastic now
LikeLike
Hi, I just discovered this site and have been very interested in both the essay and comments. I am a member of a Baptist church and have been ever since my profession of faith and baptism more years ago then I am going to admit to. The teachings on the sacraments were simple: Is it scripturally sound? then, Will it aid the people at the service to know and honor God? As sacraments we have baptism for new believers on a frequent basis, and the Lord’s Supper- frequency depending upon the local congregation, (Where I currently attend it is weekly) There is a constant concern that these NOT degenerate into rituals that are participated in without thinking or without internalizing. Worship is the participation of the believer in honoring and adoring God. It can be done without rituals, with rituals, without music, or with a style of music agreed upon by the local congregation as being the best for them to honor God. With hands upraised, kneeling, or any other activity that does not distract others from participating in the group worship–all of these are incidental to the real function of honoring God. As to “feeling” the service. It may be several days later that I realize that a song, or prayer, or scripture, or part of the sermon, is just what God decided to use to prod me into living His precepts. As I have moved around the country most of my life I have had the blessing of attending several church families. Each has worshipped slightly differently. The music, prayers and sermons have been different. It has been my responsibility to focus my heart and worship with the congregations. Since God has promised to be where two or more are gathered in his name, I have never doubted that He was there waiting for our worship.
LikeLike
It seems like doing x and y, and God shows up is pragmatism, perhaps even divination. Yes, I think this is the common view in evangelicalism and pentecostalism, that God can be summoned like a genie from a bottle. It’s shear paganism. But I have heard similar rhetoric even in Lutheran services, that God is “pleased” by the sacrifice of praise, or God is present, because the singing was so sincere or enthusiastic. Again, this is paganism.
A sacrament is something God does. It isn’t what we do. it turns the perspective around 180 degrees. Yes, he pastor gives the words of institution. Yes, the individual agrees to be baptized or receives the bread and wine. But it is God who condescends to touch us through the sacrament.
It isn’t that God can’t touch us or isn’t present without a sacrament; rather, it is a specific way that he does. Sacraments don’t restrict God to particular church or denomination.
I chew on Calvin’s view sometimes, that Christ remains in heaven, and the sacraments transport us to heaven to be with him. At first glance, it doesn’t seem incarnational. But when I think about it in terms of Eastern Orthodox view of icons as windows into heaven (sorry, way over simplified…shoot me if you must), then Calvin’s view doesn’t seem so far off. God’s presence is not localized. God still initiates the communion.
I’ll go to my grave believing that we all are not that far off when it comes to communion…those who believe in its regular practice, which includes, Luther, Calvin, Wesley, and Spurgeon.
In terms of religious symbols, they are things which point us to God, not to ourselves, our wants, our fetishes.
LikeLike
…..you’ve just been nominated as the poster child for the topic………..
LikeLike
Wasn’t it required that the Israelite family (at the actual Passover event) actually eat the sacrificed lamb…or else! Just having the lamb on the table wouldn’t have been enough to save them. That, plus John 6, plus Jesus’ actions at the ‘Last Supper’, plus Calvary = the Mass (to explain it very simplistically).
LikeLike
….man …i appreciate your post…..your saying so much more than your saying….
LikeLike
I hope that we can appreciate the symbols without obsessing over them. After all, the point of the flashing neon sign is make us love and adore Christ, not the sign. It is wrong to get rid of the sign, or to fall in love with it rather than the one it points to.
Thanks for the thought provoking words. I think we should always remember that there is a ditch on both sides of the road….a tossed “to” as well as “fro.”
LikeLike
Oh, I’ll keep the trap shut then and just play the Mediaeval Baebes version of “There Is No Rose” 🙂
I think I’m probably still reacting to thirty or so years ago, when for our class Mass, we sang the theme tune to “Grizzly Adams” 😉
Yeah, I can’t explain it either. Somehow or other, during Christian Doctrine class when I was in Third Year (secondary school, age about 15) we – the girls in the all-girl convent school – ended up singing this as an example of something or other. I genuinely can’t remember what chain of thought led us onto that – we must, I suppose, have been discussing something about the place of man in creation and dominion over the animals? And our normally level-headed teacher, Sr. Goretti, was enthused by this and got us to sing it for the class Mass.
So, you know – I’ve come by my opinions through honest suffering 🙂
LikeLike
Jjoe, don’t be too shocked. I was raised Baptist (went to church, kids programs, memorized Bible verses, etc.), and in one year of middle school, I went to a private (Lutheran-affiliated) school. I distinctly remember how, during the first chapel of the year when everyone else recited the Lord’s Prayer together, I just sat there quietly because I had never heard of it before.
LikeLike
Not around here. I own at least 20 Rutter recordings. I’m his biggest fan 🙂
LikeLike
I have little to add, but I’ll chime in.
First, Junior, your journey is interesting to me, please go to my blog and email me if you can I would like to talk.
Second,
I’m a rural baptist pastor in a church that is about as far from sacrementalism as you can get. i have made a concerted effort to try to regain some grown in this area. For instance, the last time we had the Lord’s Supper I determined to not mention they typical “this is not” line most baptist use. Instead I preached about he mystery of the meal, how it did actually give grace. I never said saving grace, but I preached about strengthening grace, living grace, and the like.
No one complained, but it may be b/c they were not paying attention:)
Third,
I think the church year is wonderful. I’ve been following it as best I could with my churhc. We don’t have the outward trappings yet i.e. the different colors or candles, but I have followed the Lectionary for about 5 years now.
LikeLike
Wait till Christmas and hear me moan about John Rutter and his carols 😉
LikeLike
Ah, to be fair to Neville, I was having a slight pop at musical styles. Modern church music does lean more towards the ‘easily sing-a-longable’ reminiscent of pop/rock music.
But yes – swaying discreetly in the pews to organ and choir feel-good music may *feel* more “churchy” than the drum-and-guitar-and-amplified vocals type, because it’s old-style, but it’s not much more doctrinally or theologically sound.
If we’re singing “Oh how wondrous is our gathering/Here within these walls of thine” and meaning “We’re so awesome, dudes!” then the language doesn’t matter, it really *is* the thought that counts 🙂
LikeLike
Out of curiosity, Boethius – do I take it that you have experienced something now that has changed you?
What was it, and how do you measure the change? You live more Christianly now, or what?
I don’t want to get into a row over this, and I’m not jeering – I genuinely would like to know what you mean by “changed” or how you measure grace now available to you in a way it wasn’t before.
I know myself the lack of grace I experience through not participating in the sacraments, but I honestly couldn’t gauge it for you on a scale of “from 1-10, how grace-filled do you feel yourself to be after receiving Communion? attending Mass but not receiving? praying daily prayers?”
LikeLike
….Thanks imonk for this juicy bone….this topic and general discussion is in my opinion THE most relevant blog posting on the net right now….i believe soo many of us are being challanged to undertake a radical reconstruction of long-held beliefs and practices that we simply adopted because they “made sense” at the time we heard them and we were mesmerized as students ….i’ve suspected for some time now that i may have been too quick and maybe gullable to believe some of the teachings and OPINIONS of my early teachers concerning the Sacraments..the Church..Tradition and even the nature of God in general….im finding myself being pointed time and time again back to the Ancient Traditions and practices of the FIRST christians..many of which are in use today in Catholicism and the Orthodox church….questioning my long held beliefs and then deconstructing where necessary is not an easy assignment..but it is of paramount importance if i am to be true and authentic TO MYSELF….
LikeLike
In Eucharistic Prayer I, part of the prayer after the consecration and the memorial acclaimation is :
“Look with favor on these offerings and accept them as once you accepted the gifts of your servant Abel, the sacrifice of Abraham, our father in faith, and the bread and wine offered by your priest Melchizedek.”
So these are considered types or foreshadowing of the Eucharistic sacrifice, which is the sacrifice of Abel – both the sacrifice he offered which was acceptable to God, and his slaying by his brother Cain, which is seen as a type of the slaying of Jesus; the sacrifice of Abraham – when he went to sacrifice Isaac in obedience, again seen as a type of the sacrifice of Christ upon the cross (this is very clearly brought out in the Mystery Plays, when at the end after the ram has been sacrificed in Isaac’s stead, God the Father says “But mine own son I shall not spare”); the bread and wine offered by Melchisedech to Abraham as foreshadowing the bread and wine of the Eucharist, and Melchisedech as the type of the priest-king and forerunner of Jesus as High Priest (“where Jesus has entered as a forerunner for us, having become a high priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek. “)
LikeLike
The people writing comments about musical style are going to be deleted. The post isn’t about musical style and my citation of Martha- which appears to be where you’re stopping your reading- has nothing to do with musical style.
LikeLike
I recently returned to a more sacramental church that I had left for more modern charasmatic pastures a year before. I had once thought my traditional Reform church had lost touch with society. But now, upon returning I see its richness is because it values sacrament and , yes, sees worship even in the colored silk that drapes the altar.
LikeLike
Ok. I was thinking you meant something like restorationists.
I’ll be praying your meetings go well.
LikeLike
I mean they are evangelicals who are focused on God sending revival.
LikeLike
I don’t think you are understanding the comment you are criticizing. She is arguing that worship is MORE than music. It has nothing to do style. You should reread the original comment.
LikeLike
I’m interested in these meetings you are having. What do you mean “dedicated revivalists?”
LikeLike
I don’t think the passover lamb was kept in the house for that specific purpose. However, in many homes there were two levels (not two floors) one raised a bit higher than the other. The family “lived” on the raised level while animals lived on the lower level. This is also why it is likely that Jesus was still at the place he was born when the magi visited him. But I digress. Yes the children would have likely known the lamb well. An interesting perspective indeed.
LikeLike
A number of people have asked my why I, a life-long Southern Baptist, moved to a Lutheran Church. From now on when I get this question, I’ll send them a link to this post. Many thanks, IM.
LikeLike
I appreciate this post very much, Michael. As a former SBC pastor (23 years) turned Anglican, one of the main influences that challenged my previous theology (Reformed Baptist) was the sacramental worldview. Allowing myself the freedom to think outside the evanglical/Reformed box enabled me to understand that matter matters. Though its been almost ten years I’m still working through the implications of this.
I think the influence of rationalism, pietism, scientism, gnosticism and secularism have gone a long way in robbing modern evangelicals of the richness that a more sacramental worldview provides. I often think that one of the reasons that the popularity of Lord of the Rings, The Chronicles of Narnia, and even Harry Potter (sorry if this offends) is because they present an enchanted world to a modern audience that has been made to believe that the world is essentially sterile.
And by the way, I also believe that this may be one of the things that Richard Twiss was referring to in the video clip you posted recently. I assume that his Native American culture is very sacramental in its view of the world, and thus the criticism his people get for being guilty of “syncretism.”
Thanks again for a great post.
Blessings.
LikeLike
I don’t think the sacraments are or should be optional. God might be right there, you just don’t know it.
I was shocked when a girl (I guess “tween” would be the correct term), who went with my daughter to church camp turned out to have never had communion or recited the Lord’s Prayer in unison. Yet she faithfully attends the local Bible mega-evangelistic church and has Bible verses all over her locker at school.
LikeLike
John Calvin was a mystic?? OMG. There are Calvinists who will fry people for suggesting that prayer be anything but talking to God. Silence is NOT allowed.
LikeLike
Well, unfortunately, the transformation that partly comes through the Sacraments is not automatic. There is an internal participation, along with the external, that is necessary before a Sacrament like the Eucharist will actually “do you any good.” It can BE the Eucharist, Jesus, Sacramentally present, but if we do not receive it mixed with faith, it’s effectiveness is short-circuited. Much like the Word not being received with faith, not producing any fruit – the same with anything Sacramental. The Sacraments can be as “valid” as the day is long, but if we don’t participate in them interiorly, they will not produce the change they are intended to produce.
LikeLike
Southern Baptists have a complete denominational church year planned around denominational emphases and mission offerings. These incorporate Christmas and Easter, but they are SBC exclusive and have no reference to other Christians at all.
LikeLike
donuts and coffee Michael. Not imonk.
LikeLike
Neville: Uh…….nothing in Martha’s post anywhere is about musical style. You’ve not even interacted with the main observation: that music replaced the altar.
And where did you get the idea that anyone is defending classical music and criticizing rock music?
??
ms
LikeLike
It’s really a great call. Would that I thought it had a change. It would take a worlview sea change that I don’t see happening.
I have loved worshiping in an evangelical Anglican church, however.
LikeLike
Scott,
I can’t speak for evangelicals, but I suspect that “mystery” would be just as horrifying as the word “sacrament”.
When I was just starting to enlarge my views about God, etc. I asked at a local evangelical bookstore, which acted as a seminary bookstore about Protestant mystics. The response that I got was “John Calvin” When I asked about Madeline L’Engle (author of A Wrinkle in Time), “I don’t consider her a Christian. I don’t allow my children to read her books. ”
The clerk was a seminary student.
LikeLike
I haven’t gotten through all of the comments yet, but I did read the essay. All I can say is amen! Thank you Michael.
LikeLike
A mainline Protestant church service will consist mainly, time-wise, of hymn-singing and a sermon. Not sacraments. (Communion and baptism are held on special occasions.) The main formal difference between this and the Earthshaker concert is style of music, and perhaps, quality of sermon. Some churches sit, stand, and kneel on cue. Others raise their hands and say Amen. Is one set of responses shallower or more ritualistic than the other?
Let’s reword Martha’s post, making the appropriate substitutions (in CAPS):
“Worship means singing along…to HYMNS. Worship means having a CHOIR SINGING and an ORGAN PLAYING.
“That’s worship? Or a CLASSICAL MUSICAL concert…? Seriously, as an interested, fascinated, and rather frightened outsider, when did “worship = watered-down CLASSICAL music†become the equation?”
LikeLike
Dear Michael,
I have heard this: that in Bible times, the Passover lamb was kept in the house with the children of the family so that they could bond with it. Then, when they witnessed its sacrifice, they understood that something precious to them had been offered: somthing innocent. Knowing the story of Passover, they knew the significance of the blood of the lamb protecting them from the Angel of Death.
The more I study Judaism, the more I understand of Christianity: a strange paradox ?
Or is it meant to be that way?
LikeLike
There is more going on here than sacraments. It is a whole mindset (dare I say Incarnation versus a bit of Gnosticism?).
For example, take the full Church Year, used almost exclusively by Sacramental churches.
The Church Year conceivably runs on its own time apart from the secular calendar (though not apart from natural seasons). It is to be used to present all the main doctrines of the faith and the birth, life, death, and resurrection of Christ over a year – and yet it is also to form us, our lives, and our concept of time. It is truly intended to “redeem the time”. Its power is reflected in churches that don’t have a traditional church year by the continuing presence of Christmas, Easter, and sometimes Pentecost, celebrations.
Many in Evangelicalism (I was in the charismatic branch for a while) ditched the church year and yet in the end they made up their own – two tracks actually. Track 1 is the complete replacement model – we don’t celebrate saint’s days or seasons of the church year but there is the Fall Celebration “Meet Me at the Pole”, and the Spring celebration “National Day of Prayer”, and numerous other denominational yearly dates. Track 2 is “lets celebrate the Jewish holidays because thats Biblical”
As I see it, the Sacramental or Incarnational approach looks at God operating from the outside in, through ordinary and physical means, like his Word on me. This ties God’s actions objectively to means.
The Evangelical approach can look like the inside working out – what I feel, what God is doing in me, in my life. This can tie God’s actions subjectively to oneself and “experience” of God.
Luther thought real faith came in when the “subjective” experience said God hates me while yet clinging to the objective Word (and Sacraments) God loves – the Bible tells me so.
LikeLike
I believe the Passover connection is the most ecumenical view of the LS possible: Christ, our Passover Lamb, has been slain. Come let us celebrate the feast. We can all say that.
Excellent, and amen to that
Greg R
LikeLike
So if the point of evangelicalism is “whatever works for you?” then why aren’t we simply all Quakers?
I’m quite serious. Why would we want ANY form of corporate spirituality?
Next week I’ll start meeting 2x a week with several men who are dedicated revivalists. Our approaches to prayer are worlds and worlds apart. Should we simply meet and say “Find your own path. No more meetings.”
I’m sure Jesus knew that some people would experience God in bread and wine and others would need a 2 million dollar sound system. Do we fight it out? Give up? Call off the church?
LikeLike
As a former devout RC, (i.e. participated fully by receiving all the sacraments available to me as well as participated in communion more than once a week), I can honestly say the sacraments did nothing to foster any transformation in my life. I was not changed.
So, what is the point of worship, however one practices it? If it does not assist in transforming the believer to be more like Christ then abandon it and find the form of worship which does help you enter into that regenerative, transformational relationship with your Maker.
LikeLike
Please specify which Michael. Thanks.
And I agree. I should have deleted that comment. Apologies.
LikeLike
I always find this interesting.
As a Baptist, I see the Lord’s Supper as a Passover meal given new meaning. This ties the entire theology of Passover and the Gospel together without any reference to transubstantiation at all.
I find it interesting that Catholics also make frequent reference to the LS/Passover connection, even though Passover involved no change at all. I realize the answer is that the lamb for each family was on the table, but I still find it fascinating.
I believe the Passover connection is the most ecumenical view of the LS possible: Christ, our Passover Lamb, has been slain. Come let us celebrate the feast. We can all say that.
LikeLike
Michael – Harsh. Was there a point other to bash?
I’m new here to the blog – and what attracted me was the ability to explore the commonality of our faith, Christ Jesus and Him Crucified, Resurrected. While Orthodox churches may be receiving many transplants to their tradition from burned out Evangelicals, at last check there hasn’t been a growth explosion in 1950 years. Similarly Evanglicals churches are collapsing in the midst of a increasingly Muslim world. Numbers not being the point, but in my opinion we better figure out what the hell happened here together, as one church, that universal and quit worrying about slapping each other when we get the chance.
Not claiming I’m not guilty of the same – but I’ll share what I know God is speaking to me about.
LikeLike
MYSTERION: .MAKING THE PAST PRESENT . . .
There is a special way of looking at Eucharist that resonates with our Judaic roots:
The Jewish ritual celebration of Passover commands every Jew to ‘make the past present’, that is, to ‘relive’ the original experience of Passover as though he were present at the first Passover of his people. So one reads:
” It is not the story of our ancestors long ago; it is our story”
Is there a comparison between ‘Shewbread’ and ‘Eucharist’?
Is there an experiencing of ‘being there’ in Eucharistic celebration? At the eternal events of the Incarnation, the Last Supper, the Cross, the Resurrection?
Like the Jews, for some Christians, it is possible to say
“It is not the story of our ancestors long ago, it is our story.’
My best friend is a Hebrew School Principal at a local synagogue.
The old rabbi whom I have spoken with on occasion understands this connection of meaning.
A Baptist evangelical pastor might not see the connection at all, nor certainly accept it as meaningful if he did.
LikeLike
I thought evangelicals replaced the bread and wine with donuts and coffee.
LikeLike
God knows, there is horrible, disgraceful stuff coming out that is a shame and a denunciation of Irish society, civil and religious.
We are certainly not in a place to be self-righteous or complacent, and that’s not the impression I wanted to give.
I was just comparing my own experience with what others on here were saying, and how I was surprised by the difference in what I would have considered worship and what others would call by the same name.
LikeLike
I’m generally a skeptic about must change in established congregations. But that’s my bias. There are many with a different experience. I am a very strong advocate of starting new congregations as the way to renew evangelicalism.
But this isn’t an individual matter. You need to build bridges with other churches/ministers in various traditions and simply adopt the posture of a student. We need to humbly learn, not just make superficial changes.
LikeLike
Oh, my *is torn between laughing and blushing*
If I’d know I was going to be directly quoted, I’d have expended some actual thought on better phrasing. Thank you, Michael, for considering that what I burbled about was useful! 🙂
I think the part about “emotional reaction” is spot-on. Let mesee if I can explain what I mean: I’m just back (about an hour or so) from the Saturday evening vigil Mass and I feel better. I always feel better when I go to Mass. Not in a huge, overcome, ‘the Spirit descended upon me’ way, but just – better.
I like a workmanlike service. Not rushed or slapdash, but a kind of plain, ordinary ‘going to do the job now’ way, like a plumber or carpenter at work (my father always said, and I agree, it’s a pleasure to watch a good tradesman doing a job).
Now, if the priest or whomever tried to evoke an emotional, moving experience, I would react very badly to that – unless it was a Mission, when the purpose *is* to make you think and feel and be moved and repent and be enthused (but that’s because I live in my head and am suspicious of feelings). And ironically, this was one rebuke in former times to Roman Catholicism: that by means of incense, music, lights, vestments, it was enacting a kind of sacred theatre and using sensual means to emotionally capture people.
I can see why, in the Evangelical experience, an ordinary Mass might seem like dead ritual where there is no visible sign that the congregation have been moved or touched or experienced the Spirit. And I do think that there was an emphasis, early in the Reformation, that by contrast with the liturgies of the past, people would be moved and convicted by freshly, for the first time, hearing and understanding the word of God read from Scripture and preached from the pulpit. I think that subconscious expectation of a ‘conversion experience’ lingered and influenced the reformed traditions.
And of course, music is an easy and effective means of evoking an emotional reaction. And of course it is easy to confuse feeling stirred and uplifted and excited with being touched by the Word. And of course that leads to “We have sacramentalized music. (i.e. the songs themselves and the experience of singing.)”
This is not an accusation or being smug about the superiority of Catholic worship (because we could use a little more being affected by the Mystery).
It’s just a suggestion that maybe you don’t always need to *feel* like “Yeah, I really got something out of that today” in order to have gotten something out of that today.
LikeLike
mollycar: Helpful context: my wife is a Catholic convert from evangelicalism.
LikeLike
sure/honored
LikeLike
Hi Imonk, I’m sorry I offended you, it wasn’t my intention, I guess all I can say is the Irish Catholic church is reeling, I’m not happy about that. My experience was not unusual . It is equivalent to what happens when any idea/ organisation has hegemonic control its never good for it. Read the Ryan report, I’m also a survivor of what happened there.
God bless you and yours
LikeLike
I really appreciate this article. Would you mind if I reposted this on my blog (giving you credit and a hyperlink of course).
LikeLike
Ouch. A strong but true analysis. So do you think it is possible to move our entrenched congregations toward a Biblical and sacramental community life? More personally, I am in seminary right now and I believe I will likely end up in a pastoral role someday. Should those of us who agree with you do our best to enter into established congregations with a plan for transformation in our minds or should we seek to establish new communities based on these ideas?
LikeLike
Agreed. All of those proselytizing people suck and they don’t become.. nevermind. 🙂
LikeLike
Mollycar: I appreciate your testimony, but I don’t allow that kind of generalization about other Christians. You were called out on the “milk and water” Jesus line.
If you can tell your story without denouncing Irish Catholicism, you’re welcome here.
LikeLike
Joseph,
Your last paragraph has really got me thinking….thanks for sharing.
LikeLike
Michael,
There’s a perpetual ebb and flow going on here.
I grew up in the liturgical Lutheran church, so I have an appreciation for sacramentalism.
But I also saw how people in those churches turned those sacraments into something dull and “just what we do.” That, in part, drove me out of Lutheranism and into Evangelicalism.
Evangelicalism tries hard not to fall into that place of dull familiarity and “just what we do,” but it tends to do so by substitution, which only leads to an Evangelical form of the same dullness and “just what we do” thinking Evangelicals decry in sacramentalists.
Where does this tend to lead?
Well, in people who are concerned about their spiritual lives, it either leads them to despair or a place where sacramentalism can be practiced within an Evangelical context. It’s that latter option that holds the most hope for us going forward, but it tends to make enemies on both sides of this battle.
But that’s the cost that has to be paid if we are to view the sacraments in a healthy way that does not diminish their power. We have to be prepared to go in a direction that will only earn us brickbats from our fellow believers.
We can either serve God or we can serve men. Time to pick God, no matter what it costs us.
LikeLike
We lost it two ways:
1) We stopped doing church out of the deep convictions of what the Bible taught
2) We started imitating whatever we think is working somewhere else.
Really about that simple. Pastors/elders/deacons in evangelicalism are to blame for a disaster.
LikeLike
Well put Imonk. I hope I am able to convince my church to hold LS a little more often. We’ve done it twice in the year I’ve been here. After the first time we had people up and leave about it. They apparently witnessed a person whom they judged was not repentant partaking of the LS, and so it became the Pastor’s fault that he let her “eat and drink unto damnation.” Dear Jesus, have mercy.
I may make this article required reading for the entire worship ministry I direct. Christ centered, gospel driven. Not fun centered, trend driven. How did we loose that?
LikeLike
The first commenter, Garver, has a great point. The reason that the churches of the reformation cling to the “sacraments” is because they have the promise of Christ and His saving presence attached to them. Both Calvin and Luther stated that if you abandon the sacraments instituted by Christ you would invent other ones that didn’t have a clear promise of God attached to them. Imonk’s list is a great example.
In order for the sacraments to be preserved or recovered in Evangelicalism there has to be room in the theology for Christ to be present in them in a way that He is not present at other times and places(ie. His general omnipresence) for the giving and strengthening faith. Given the diversity of evangelical theology this needed latitude could be present to a greater or lesser degree depending on where you find yourself.
LikeLike
Well..I’m not short on opinions…that is true.
I specifically used “non-belief”, as opposed to “unbelief”. The difference is that many times Evangelicals define themselves by the things they don’t believe…they don’t believe in transubstantiation, they don’t believe that baptism does anything spiritual, they don’t believe in the attachment of spiritual significance to material things.
That is not the same as “unbelief” in what I am trying to get at. “Unbelief” is an attitude of doubt about all spiritual things. Perhaps I should have been more wordy when describing what I meant.
I can say that belief system A might have certain flaws without saying that those who hold belief system A are somehow misguided and not God-honoring.
Your anger at my comments seems to come from thinking I am speaking about Evangelicals, not Evangelicalism. Yes….many wonderful, God-seeking people are Evangelicals…and many are Christians of other stripes and flavors.
I assumed we could share opinions without those opinions being used to condemn individual people…as opposed to discussing general tendencies. Maybe I assumed too much.
LikeLike
“Evangelicalism, as a whole, promotes non-belief.”
Not an accusation? Orthodoxy, as a whole promotes non-belief. I think that statement is as offensive to Evangelicals as “I used to be Catholic and then I became a Christian when I went to ____________ Church”.
While I will not defend the circus that often disguises itself as Church, to miss the genuine God-seeking people and intentions to serve Him tells me you have either had some bad experiences or are just too opinionated to try to understand that the baby did not go out with the bathwater.
LikeLike
I had the same revelation a little over a year ago. For us Catholics, it might even be worse because we tend to be more inculturated in devotional practice than American Orthodox are. So when we have a Rosary prayer group, we often have a guy with a guitar so we can sing cheesy songs about how awesome Mary is, and how that reflects how totally awesome God is, man. This is why when cradle Catholics are told that Protestants think Caathadox (I like that one) are worshipping Mary, they just give blank confused stares. “All we do is say some prayers and sing some songs, how could that possibly be construed as worship?”
LikeLike
Joseph,
It’s not an accusation, merely an opinion based on my own observations. I’m not trying to be arrogant, I’m speaking from own experiences in trying to tease out why evangelicals do and say the things they do…myself included.
LikeLike
I guess I need to say that if you are tempted to say “Yeah, evangelicals suck and if they don’t become ____________, they’re wasting their time,” I’m not going to post your comment.
LikeLike
Terri,
“The roots of de-sacramentalization(is that a word?) can be found in the fact that Evangelicalism, as a whole, promotes non-belief.”….
Wow. I have Faith, that God will show you that that was an incredibly sweeping and borderline arrogant statement. When you have this all figured out, as you have noted, “but I have no answers”… Please post this type of statement again. I’ll read it and believe it. Through Faith.
LikeLike
Imonk,
Right on with the new Sacraments of modern-day Evangelicals.
As a Post-Evangelical in the process of moving toward the Presbyterian tradition where the Sacraments moved from an “occasional sentimentality” to a incredible act of worship and beauty I so appreciate your post. I’m surprised however that as Scott points out – the word itself, particularly in relationship to the Lord’s Supper has no consistent definition across Orthodox or Reformed, or Evangelicals today. For me, and other non-denominational Evangelicals – It’s this very prominent definition problem that allows modern Evangelicals to so easily walk away from any of the power contained in the act itself.
To the Evangelical today and to the outsider – seriously – there is an entire universe between transubstantiation and “lets remember the Lord today through taking communion”.
LikeLike
The roots of de-sacramentalization(is that a word?) can be found in the fact that Evangelicalism, as a whole, promotes non-belief.
For all of its talk about faith, there is very little in which Evangelicalism has faith. Baptism and communion are reduced to symbols which have no power in and of themselves. I can’t tell you how many baptisms I have witnessed in which the preacher pretty much says,”Well..we know that we’re saved by faith, so we don’t put any trust in this baptism. It’s just for show.”
That same attitude pervades many churches attitudes towards Communion.
The two are seen as being nice symbols which don’t actually do, or possess, anything intrinsically holy or spiritual about them.
This is merely observation on my part, as I would be hard-pressed to give a definitive answer about what sacraments actually do.
In more sacramental denominations there is a belief that when certain prayers are said, or certain rituals are performed, that something has actually happened. God has somehow “done” something that couldn’t be accomplished without that particular ritual/prayer occurring. The belief that certain “things” can be holy…that certain places can be holy….that certain people can be holy….in a unique way from other things, places, and people is a belief that is largely absent from Evangelicalism, except perhaps in its more charismatic quarters. In those cases what is deemed “holy” is usually tied to an emotionally driven argument and can be quite arbitrary.
Evangelicalism unwittingly undermines a belief that God uses the material world to dispense his Spirit. Instead it promotes a faith which is entirely thought/emotion-led. God is experienced in what we think, what we feel, and in how we interpret the circumstances of our lives.
I’m not sure what a solution would be to this conundrum. I, myself, struggle with both points of view and can see the problems with veering to either side too strongly…..but I have no answers.
LikeLike
I’m someone who has long had an interest in the history and formation of words and language. Language, of course, influences the way we think and the way we perceive reality. A lot of the time people don’t realize how much of the way they view the world is tied into their language. I say that to point out that “sacrament” is an intriguing word.
The Greek word used in the New Testament is, of course, mysterion. When Jerome translated the NT into Latin, he selected sacramentum to translate mysterion. Now, it’s pretty clear that he had in mind sacramentum’s meaning of “secret” when he chose it. However, the Sacramentum was also the oath that legionnaires took when joining the Roman legions. So the understanding of the “Sacramentum” in Latin Christian practice came have a great deal of that flavor (something done almost to invoke God) rather than the sense that in this act or through this physical medium we engage, experience, and commune with the mystery of God directly and mystically whether or not we feel anything, sense anything, or even recognize what we are doing.
English, of course, derives its words from multiple sources. And as such, we have different English words for mysterion and sacramentum. Do you respond the same way to the word “mystery” as you do to the word “sacrament”? I wouldn’t say that I do and I even know and have studied something of the history and usage of the words. Yes, evangelicalism has almost completely divorced itself from any direct mystical communion with God by relegating the media through which we engage the mystery of God almost completely out of the evangelical experience.
But I’m not sure how possible it is to re-engage evangelicals through the language of “sacrament”. While I don’t fully understand it, there seems to be much negative connotation focused on that word and it seems to perceived more in line with its origin as ‘oath’ than as ‘secret’. In English, it seems to me that “mystery” much better conveys the meaning of the Holy Scriptures. And it does so without the negative energy of “sacrament”.
Using different language won’t resolve the issues by itself, of course. But perhaps it can begin to provide a way forward. Just a thought.
LikeLike
I’m learning for the first time how God works through the sacraments.
Gerald Sittser approaches this from a supportive history-of-spirituality framework in “Water from a Deep Well.” And N.T. Wright teaches me how each (communion and baptism and the Word) “becomes one of the points at which heaven and earth coincide” in “Simply Christian.”
And for me, who’s spirituality was shaped by “A Wrinkle in Time” and “Lord of the Rings,” it helps a lot. It’s refreshing to have non-naturalistic explanations for church.
LikeLike
Except I’m not sure that Evangelicalism can be re-sacramentalized – or, if it can be, that it would be Evangelicalism anymore. While Lutherans used “Evangelical” to describe themselves (as did other Reformers during the Reformation), I’m just not sure that the people running around with the word today are all that related to that movement.
Evangelicalismâ„¢ is an individualist religion that claims to obey a holy book written in/to/from a world-view that was almost wholly kin-group oriented. The logical disconnect of that is now starting to cause the edges to fray.
LikeLike
I’m going to link for my Catholic and Evangelical friends, Michael.
The only problem I have with your blog is that most folks, I think, who don’t agree with you won’t be coming here. And we all need someone to challenge us; to make us think. It’s really easy to say to the pastor (at the end of the sermon), “You nailed it, Pastor!”, but rarely does anyone disagree with what he says. And when we do, we either catch (ahem) hell for it or we quietly leave the congregation…
And I’ve said quite a bit about the latter part lately in my comments 🙂
LikeLike
I hadn’t been Orthodox a year when all of a sudden it hit me why Evangelicals, my former self included, believed that Catholics and Orthodox **worshiped saints**, statues, icons and Mary.
We treat them the way Evangelicals treat God. That is to say, we do religious acts in their presence, directed to them. No wonder. Since there is no [official] sacrifice in Evangelical worship, there is just “dylia” offered to God, religious acts done in His presence, directed to Him.
Any Cathodox would be aghast, and rightly so, at offering the Eucharist to anyone except the most Holy Trinity.
It says above “Speak Your Mind”, so I will. [Mod edit] Without the Eucharist properly understood… You have kind of a Jesusism, an ideology extracted from a text, subject to all of the vicissitudes and mutations of any ideology.
LikeLike
Fortunately, my congregation (SBC) has already accepted our moving this way. I freely use the word “sacrament” in our Communion service, and no one’s complained. In this case, I’m glad for congregational autonomy; no one from “above” can tell us to stop it. Still, I understand that the Baptist Faith & Message clearly uses the term “ordinance” to refer to Baptism and the “Lord’s Supper;” my Baptist ancestors are probably spinning in their graves every time I say “sacrament.”
LikeLike
Good stuff. I’ve always appreciated Luther’s emphasis on seeking Christ in the places where he’s promised to be found: particularly the proclamation of the word of the gospel (public reading, preaching, absolution) and the gospel sacraments (baptism and the Lord’s Supper). Part of Luther’s critique of the Catholicism of his day was that they’d invented all sorts of new places to find Christ that had no warrant in the gospel and then bound people to seek him there. How much do we evangelicals end up doing the same thing?
LikeLike