Compare your spiritual discernment habits against the description below.  How well do you fare? In the present climate of being accepting and inclusive, any spiritual discernment has taken on, for many, a narrow-minded, negative, and parochial meaning. A. W. Tozer’s insights point us again toward our Christian duties as defenders of the faith.

“Many tender-minded Christians fear to sin against love by daring to inquire into anything that comes wearing the cloak of Christianity and breathing the name of Jesus. They dare not examine the credentials of the latest prophet to hit their town lest they be guilty of rejecting something which may be of God. They timidly remember how the Pharisees refused to accept Christ when He came, and they do not want to be caught in the same snare, so they either reserve judgment or shut their eyes and accept everything without question. This is supposed to indicate a high degree of spirituality. But in sober fact it indicates no such thing. It may indeed be evidence of the absence of the Holy Spirit. Gullibility is not synonymous with spirituality. Faith is not a mental habit leading its possessor to open his mouth and swallow everything that has about it the color of the supernatural. Faith keeps its heart open to whatever is of God, and rejects everything that is not of God, however wonderful it may be. Try the spirits is a command of the Holy Spirit to the Church. We may sin as certainly by approving the spurious as by rejecting the genuine. And the current habit of refusing to take sides is not the way to avoid the question. To appraise things with a heart of love and then to act on the results is an obligation resting upon every Christian in the world. And the more as we see the day approaching.” — A.W. Tozer

via Tag Surfer ‹ Fr. Orthohippo — WordPress.

Here is information every clergyman should have at his fingertips. You can get a great deal on a Wal-Mart casket. Yes, Father Orthoduck (kudos for his discovery) found this shopping experience and would not mislead us. Go toWal-Mart on line, where you can buy your very own casket. If interested, please go to walmart.com/search and look for caskets.  There is a large line to choose from.

The Classic Bronze

Actually, Father Orthohippo agrees with Fr. Orthoduck that this is a good idea. There is nothing about a casket that requires that it be made by an approved manufacturer who wears dark suits and speaks to you in suitably lowered tones.

The Pure White

In face, Father Orthoduck is aware of several monasteries that will manufacture and sell a casket to a person desiring a more natural approach to burial.

So, are you looking to save some money? Do you think the burial industry is too comercial? So does Father Orthohippo. So, follow the link above and go to Wal-Mart, the friendly place, and buy yourself a casket.

The only problem I can think of is keeping the mice out while you are storing it.

Filed under uncategorized · Tagged with humor

I don’t usually post such blogs. I was skimming blogs and ran across this one under spirituality.  The picture caught my eye, and then I was captured by her beginning.  Very persuasive writing here. Since my last post mentioned the current surge in New Age theologies, I was still thinking about them.  I found this example of how someone can capture the interest, and then the loyalty of ordinary people who are dissatisfied  with their lives.

It sounds really good if you want to be special.  (Of course, you have to buy her book to completely understand indigo children.)  She even gives you a quiz to find out if you are an Indigo Child. I love the quiz questions which excuse most bad behavior. Anyone you know been caught by a similar theology? It helps Christians to understand how our enemy works. If you have any questions on how Indigo Children differs from Christianity, print this out and consult your local pastor/church. They will be overjoyed to tell you. In fact, Indigo Children may make a great discussion topic.

The Indigo children are a group of highly developed beings who represent the next stage of our human evolution. They are hyper-sensitive, extremely intelligent, and highly intuitive beings whose sole purpose is to break down the old and corrupt systems and ways of today’s society so that the new energy can be ushered in. The crystal children, who started coming in the year 2000, represent the new energy that we will eventually evolve to. These indigo children first started coming in great numbers in the 1980’s. Many of these original indigo children, myself included, are just now becoming indigo adults and will eventually become our new leaders in all areas.I am one of these children, now an adult.  I decided that I was going to share my story for three reasons; first for my own spiritual growth and self realization, second for any lost and struggling indigo children out there to know that they are not alone, and third to bring awareness to rest of society about these children and the struggles we go through.  My book takes you through a journey of exactly what its like as an indigo living in todays society. From psychic experiences, to eating disorders, drug addiction, and self destruction, I will walk you through my journey to discovering my true nature as an indigo. It was only then, once I was awakened, that I was able to turn my life around and harness my true indigoPower.

The Indigo Quiz:

Are highly intelligent though may not express it in “normal” ways, like school.

Were born after 1978.

Have large penetrating eyes that seem to stare right into the depths of your soul.

Creative and enjoy making things

Need to understand – always asking why, especially when being asked to do something

May have difficulties in school with control, repetitious learning, etc.

Often rebellious and resist authority, though they might not dare to express it

Have trouble with systems they consider broken or ineffective i.e. political, educational, medical, and legal.

They feel a burning desire to do something to change and improve the world.

May be stymied what to do. May have trouble identifying their path.

Frustration with or rejection of the traditional American dream – 9-5 career, marriage, 2.5 children, house with white picket fence, etc.

Alienation from or anger with politics – feeling your voice won’t count and that the outcome really doesn’t matter.

May have felt existential depression, despair, and helplessness – may suffer with the question “Why am I here”.

Prefer cooperative efforts, leadership positions, or working alone.

Deep empathy for others but are often intolerant of stupidity.

Difficulties with mundane, menial jobs, especially in hierarchical authority structure

May be extremely emotionally sensitive including crying at the drop of a hat (no shielding). Or may be the opposite and show no expression of emotion (full shielding).

May have trouble with RAGE.

Have psychic or spiritual interest fairly young.

Have a strong intuition.

Random behavior pattern or mind style – (symptoms of Attention Deficit Disorder), may have trouble focusing on assigned tasks, may jump around in conversations.

May have had psychic experiences, such as premonitions, seeing angels or ghosts, out of body experiences, hearing voices.

May be electrically disruptive to electrical equipment such as watches not working, electrical equipment malfunctioning and lights blowing out. May be disturbed by electrical radiations. And/or, may be addicted to electrical vibrations (computer, TV, cell phone)

Sexually are very expressive and inventive OR may reject sexuality in boredom or with intention of achieving higher spiritual connection. May explore alternate types of sexuality.

Seek meaning to their life and understanding about the world. May seek this through religion or spirituality, spiritual groups and books, self-help groups and books.

___________ : Your total answered “yes”

(23 – 25 yes, you are an Indigo soul)

A survey finally confirmed what many of us have believed for some time. New England now claims the title of the least Christian/spiritual area of the U.S. New England is home to the classic picture of the country church, usually framed by autumn color. This is still a common American stereotype of church life.

The Pacific Northwest had held the title.  We who are not geographically close to them were willing to believe they were, but always wondered about New England. Now we are vindicated.

Evangelism in New England is not restricted to to only the groups identified in the AP article.  Anglicans and Catholics also have long history there.

There are any number of scholarly theories as to why, historically, Christianity waxes and wanes.  This phenomenon occurs with every religion and faith. It is important to keep in mind that those who fled Europe for religious freedom, a miniscule percent of Europe’s population, became a very small minority of the population of the colonies.

Christians were denied religious freedom in many of the colonies. Which Christians were denied, ranging from Catholics to strict Calvinists, varied from colony to colony depending on one’s denomination.

The establishment of the United States of America allowed freedom of religion for everyone, and prohibited the establishment of a state church.  Only about 5% – 8% of the new Americans were denominational Christians.  Far more of the framers of the Constitution were deists, and no religion was very popular.

Deism is a form of theological rationalism that believes in God on the basis of reason without reference to revelation. Deists believe in a first cause creation. God most often goes on to other affairs and pays no attention to our individual lives. Thomas Jefferson is an example of such an independent spirit who had as his Bible a Bible with all miracles removed.

Today, Deism in various flavors is still popular, and vies with New Age theologies which acknowledges spiritual realities defined in various forms, none of which agree with historic Christianity. In the midst of all this, there is a surging revival of historic Christian beliefs.  As the Chinese proverb says:  May you live in interesting times.

WATERTOWN, Mass. – It’s hard to tell in the quiet of a color-splashed autumn morning, but Redeemer Fellowship Church is trying to set roots in a rough neighborhood. For churches, anyway.

Until this new church opened last month, its 19th-centuryCongregational church building in suburban Watertown was empty for nearly two years. Just across the street, a closed Baptist church is filled with condos. So is a former Catholic church a half mile away.

Dead churches are a familiar story in New England, which recent surveys indicate is now the least religious region in the country. But some see opportunity in a place where America’s Christian faith laid its roots.

“You look at this area and it’s a great area of potential, it’s a great area of need,” said Redeemer Fellowship pastor Chris Bass, a Houston native.

Several Christian denominations see New England as a “mission field” — a term often associated with unchurched, foreign lands. As they evangelize and work to plant new churches, they speak of possibility, but also frustration. The area’s highly educated population is skeptical and often indifferent to their faith.

“About once every hour, I give up. It’s tough, man,” said a half-joking Joe Souza, a Southern Baptist missionary working north of Boston. “It’s like, you found a cure for cancer and you want to give it away and nobody wants it.”

Trinity College’s American Religious Identification Survey released this year showed New England overtaking the Pacific Northwest as the least religious region in the country. Twenty-two percent of respondents here said they have no religious faith of any kind, highest in the country.

In a Gallup poll this year, all six New England states were in the Top 10 least religious in the country, with Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine and Massachusetts claiming the top four spots.

New England’s religious apathy has developed over decades, but it’s striking where the Pilgrims landed seeking religious freedom and the great 18th-century preacher Jonathan Edwards helped spark the First Great Awakening. Stately churches near town centers all over the region are reminders of the central importance religion once held.

Massachusetts, Rhode Island and Connecticut do host the nation’s heaviest concentration of Catholics, but those numbers have dropped substantially. In 1990, 50 percent of New England residents identified themselves as Catholic; by 2008, it dropped to 36 percent following the clergy sex abuse scandal in Boston, according to American Religious Identification Survey 2008.

Several groups trying to re-ignite New England’s faith are theologically conservative, such as the Southern Baptists, Presbyterian Church in America and the Conservative Baptists’ Mission Northeast. They say a reason for the region’s hollowed-out faith is a pervasive theology that departs from traditional Biblical interpretation on issues such as the divinity of Jesus, the exclusivity of Christianity as a path to salvation and homosexuality.

The Rev. Wes Pastor, head of the NETS Institute for Church Planting in Williston, Vt., said New England’s liberal mainline denominations, such as the United Church of Christ and the Episcopal Church, have been practicing a “different religion.”

“I’m not saying it to be snooty, but they have a different belief system and that belief system … is a profound departure from historic Christianity,” said Pastor, whose group trained Bass and supports his Baptist church.

The Rev. Paul Nickerson, a church planting specialist at the UCC’s Massachusetts Conference, said local churches declined because of a creeping insularity, not because “we’re theologically inept.” Progressive churches that refocus on the needs of the unchurched are growing, he said.

“The depiction that all the mainliners have lost the Bible, and are too progressive, and so conservatives have to come in and reclaim the territory, I don’t buy that kind of stereotype,” Nickerson said.

Theological differences aside, there’s broad agreement that New England churches need to better serve people outside their walls and build the relationships that attract people to faith.

It’s not easy among busy New Englanders who protect their time. Many lack even a basic knowledge of church life that’s culturally ingrained elsewhere, said the Rev. Doug Warren of Christ the Redeemer Presbyterian Church in Portland, Maine, which he helped plant in 2001.

“They didn’t grow up going to church, their parents didn’t grow up going to church and, in many cases, their grandparents didn’t grow up going to church,” Warren said.

That means outreach must be deliberate and personal. Souza and his associate pastor, Celio Freitas, both native Brazilians, helped start a public youth soccer league in Boston to meet people. Their witness, they hope, leads to curiosity about the faith that guides their lives, and perhaps a visit to Celebration Church, which began meeting in a Saugus office building in January.

The work is slow and its fruits can be scarce. Souza said people are generally polite, even interested in talking about spiritual matters. But they don’t hesitate to reject invitations. He recalled a man with whom he recently shared his faith at the mall courteously declining to even take a card.

Warren said the Presbyterian Church in America plants 50 churches a year, but has started just 10 since the mid-1990s in northern New England. Bass said he knows “most church plants anywhere fail, certainly here in this area.”

Some church plants begin with a core of families who transfer from an existing church. But Bass and his wife, Brandi, came alone to Massachusetts last year. A core of about six families formed as they repaired their building and met people in their daily lives. The church ran radio ads and placed door hangers around town. Success will ultimately depend on how well church members follow Biblical mandates to serve and love their neighbors, he said.

“It’s nothing new,” he said. “It’s not like … what kind of gimmicks can we come up with?”

On a recent fall Sunday, a younger group of about 50 people gathered to hear Bass’s message of salvation. The hymn “How Great Thou Art” was sung to a contemporary tune and echoed through an airy sanctuary that could fit seven times more worshippers. During fellowship afterward, Watertown resident Ralph Filicchia said he was drawn by curiosity. He said local churches have been killed by the “poison” of liberal theology, and he was eager to support a conservative church.

But the 74-year-old said he’s lived in New England long enough to avoid rosy predictions. Churches that preach traditional dogma, such as Redeemer Fellowship, can be branded intolerant.

“Up here, it’s tough, it’s tough,” Filicchia said. “It always has been.”

___

On the Net:

Redeemer Fellowship Church in Watertown: http://www.redeemerfellowshipchurch.org/

American Religious Identification Survey: http://www.americanreligionsurvey-aris.org/

Celebration Church in Saugus:

http://www.celebrationchurchonline.com/cgi-bin/kingdomtools/ktpublic.rb

I’ve been to Israel numerous times, and often meditated there, so this news release caught my attention.  Fr. Ernesto’s explanations are spot on. So, if you want to get a different view into Arab-Israeli relations this will do it. If you have traveled to Israel and stood before the Wailing Wall, or on the Temple Mount, this will give you a very different picture to remember. The citizens of Jerusalem, especially in the Old City, must deal with this reality frequently. An ever present reality.

Today the news came across about fighting at the Masjid ul Aqsa compound. Most of us in the USAknow is as the Dome of the Rock. It is the third holiest site in Islam and the holiest site for Jews. Within its general area are both the mosque and the Wailing Wall. Of course, for Christians who believe in a dispensationalist interpretation of the Bible, this is the area where the new temple will be built. The whole site is known as the Temple Mount to the Jews and the al-Haram al-Sharif (the Noble Sanctuary) to Muslims. It is like drawing a bulls-eye in the middle of Jerusalem to say, “aim here.” So, it is not surprising that fighting has broken out yet again.

I often try to get past local news reporting in order to try to get a broader interpretation of the news. Today I felt a bit puckish, and so I went to both Fox News and the Al Jazeera websites. To mysurprise, they actually agreed on the basic recounting of events. Both agree that an ultra-conservative Jewish group called for a demonstration in front of the Wailing Wall, and part of the mount. That, of course, was guaranteed to draw Arab students out. And, it was also guaranteed to draw the police and army out, since previous experience says that one ends up with dead people if one does not separate those two groups. Fox News tends to say that the students threw the stones first and the police then threw tear gas and stun grenades. Al Jazeera says it the reverse way. But, and this is significant, after the difference in how it started, they both agree in how it played out.

And that is because both sides actually have a dance that has been worked out since 1967. The Israeli police advance until they reach the mosque area, but will not go inside. The Palestinian youths retreat until they enter the mosque and then, generally, they stop throwing rocks, etc. Both sides then issue the mandatory condemnations, sort of like a pas de deux. By and large, with some exceptions, weapons of massive retaliation are not used by either side. But, this choreographed dance serves to show the “other” side that you are still there and you will steadfastly support your point of view. You ask, what is a pas de deux?

In ballet, a pas de deux (French, step/dance for two) is a duet in which ballet steps are performed together. It usually consists of an entrée, adagio, two variations (one for each dancer), and a coda.

And, so, in honor of the latest choreographed pas de deux, let me post one of the classic renditions from Swan Lake. As you watch it, think of the Israelies and the dwellers in East Jerusalem.

Saturday morning at breakfast with two friends we got to talking about hard economic times and what can happen. Protest marches on Washington have a long history. In the 1894 depression year, Coxie’s Army was one such. Then I got on the topic of the Bonus March.

General MacArthur, Army Chief of Staff, and then Majors Dwight Eisenhower and George Patton who commanded calvary and 6 tanks were charged by President Hoover with the task to breaking up the Bonus March by WW I military veterans in the mall area of Washington.  To my great surprise, neither were familiar with this 1932 event. One was public schooled in the 1970s and never had heard of it, and the other schooled in the 1980s vaguely thought it might have been in a text book .

Here is an account from historians about the self-called Bonus Expeditionary Force, popularly called the Bonus Army.

In 1924, a grateful Congress voted to give a bonus to World War I veterans – $1.25 for each day served overseas, $1.00 for each day served in the States. The catch was that payment would not be made until 1945.

Members of the Bonus Army encamp within sight of the Capitol, 1932

However, by 1932 the nation had slipped into the dark days of the Depression and the unemployed veterans wanted their money immediately.

In May of that year, some 15,000 veterans, many unemployed and destitute, descended on Washington, D.C. to demand immediate payment of their bonus. They proclaimed themselves the Bonus Expeditionary Force but the public dubbed them the “Bonus Army.” Raising ramshackle camps at various places around the city, they waited.

The veterans made their largest camp at Anacostia Flats across the river from the Capitol. Approximately 10,000 veterans, women and children lived in the shelters built from materials dragged out of a junk pile nearby – old lumber, packing boxes and scrap tin covered with roofs of thatched straw.

Discipline in the camp was good, despite the fears of many city residents who spread unfounded “Red Scare” rumors. Streets were laid out, latrines dug, and formations held daily. Newcomers were required to register and prove they were bonafide veterans who had been honorably discharged. Their leader, Walter Waters, stated, “We’re here for the duration and we’re not going to starve. We’re going to keep ourselves a simon-pure veteran’s organization. If the Bonus is paid it will relieve to a large extent the deplorable economic condition.”

June 17 was described by a local newspaper as “the tensest day in the capital since the war.” The Senate was voting on the bill already passed by the House to immediately give the vets their bonus money. By dusk, 10,000 marchers crowded the Capitol grounds expectantly awaiting the outcome. Walter Waters, leader of the Bonus Expeditionary Force, appeared with bad news. The Senate had defeated the bill by a vote of 62 to 18. The crowd reacted with stunned silence. “Sing America and go back to your billets” he commanded, and they did. A silent “Death March” began in front of the Capitol and lasted until July 17, when Congress adjourned.

A month later, on July 28, Attorney General Mitchell ordered the evacuation of the veterans from all government property, Entrusted with the job, the Washington police met with resistance, shots were fired and two marchers killed. Learning of the shooting at lunch, President Hoover ordered the army to clear out the veterans. Infantry

Troops prepare to evacuate the Bonus Army July 28, 1932

and cavalry supported by six tanks were dispatched with Chief of Staff General Douglas MacArthur in command. Major Dwight D. Eisenhower served as his liaison with Washington police and Major George Patton led the cavalry.

By 4:45 P.M. the troops were massed on Pennsylvania Ave. below the Capitol. Thousands of Civil Service employees spilled out of work and lined the streets to watch. The veterans, assuming the military display was in their honor, cheered. Suddenly Patton’s troopers turned and charged. “Shame, Shame” the spectators cried. Soldiers with fixed bayonets followed, hurling tear gas into the crowd.

By nightfall the BEF had retreated across the Anacostia River where Hoover ordered MacArthur to stop. Ignoring the command, the general led his infantry to the main camp. By early morning the 10,000 inhabitants were routed and the camp in flames. Two babies died and nearby hospitals overwhelmed with casualties. Eisenhower later wrote, “the whole scene was pitiful. The veterans were ragged, ill-fed, and felt themselves badly abused. To suddenly see the whole encampment going up in flames just added to the pity.”

References:
Bartlett, John Henry, The Bonus March and the New Deal (1937); Daniels, Roger, The Bonus March; an Episode of the Great Depression (1971).

iMonk has a series on various aspects of Evangelical life. This is just the beginning of iMonk’s post on congregational worship. This is probably the best analysis of this subject I have read.  Of course, Evangelicals have differences among themselves on this subject, but this will expand your understanding of Evangelicals, even if you differ with some of iMonk’s definitions. Liturgical church members will have a different set of priorities. Contrast and compare your understandings of worship with his. You can access these writings in his CHURCH category at his blog listed in the blogroll. One of the fun things on his blog site are the comments (mostly from Evangelicals of different backgrounds). There are also the comments from Anglican, Catholic, Orthodox, etc.

I’ve been thinking about this post quite a bit, and for the life of me I really can’t think of much to say than some of the obvious.

The evangelical worship service is the worship of the people of God. God acts, speaks invites and offers. God’s people respond in worship, service, ministry and mission. This is the character and content of worship as a gathered event and as a continuing influence. To make the evangelical worship service anything else is to misrepresent worship.

The congregation represents the human and cultural spectrum in which the church exists. To create a congregation that distorts the natural human and cultural context may provide an effective matrix for growth or other activities, but will have serious consequences for many aspects of church life where multi-generational and natural contexts are important. (A congregation of twenty-something skateboarders only is certainly possible, but will have issues regarding leadership and mission beyond that age and culture.)

The congregation is not an audience. They are not consumers. They are not a market. A congregation is a gathering of God’s people, and their participation is defined by that identity and not any other. If a gathering is treated as anything other than a congregation of God’s people, it is difficult to call what happens a worship service. It may be a legitimate gathering for outreach, entertainment or communication, but it is not a gathering of the church. (I am completely comfortable with gatherings that are not intended to be the worship of the gathered church, but we should be honest about the congregation’s role.)

Every opportunity for participation by the congregation should be utilized. Singing. Praying. Responsive reading. Active listening. Adding the Amen. Ministering to one another. Serving and partaking of the Lord’s Supper. Reading/listening the proclamation of the Word.

The design of worship should be with the congregation’s worshiping response to God as the foremost human goal. The congregation should not be rendered passive or irrelevant.

Much that is done in evangelical worship treats the congregation with less than the respect due the people of God. Leaders are not celebrities to be adored. Responses that are human responses to human actions are of little interest in worship, but congregational responses to God are of great value.

It is the congregation that is the great worshiping instrument in the evangelical liturgy. Leaders are worship prompters by reminding the congregation of God and the Gospel. God the Spirit is present in the Gospel and the sacraments. The response of the congregation to God- and nothing else- defines the purpose of a gathering of the people of God for worship.

There are, therefore, occasions where boundaries to “congregation” may be necessary. Various Christian traditions will approach these boundaries differently. If membership in a congregation exceeds union with Christ or participation in the Kingdom, there may be excessive emphasis on boundaries. But without boundaries, the idea of the people of God will sometimes be nonsensical.

More on this topic at iMonk

Anglicans, Lutherans,Catholics, and Orthodox folk, including priests, have a very scattered and often stereotypically incorrect view of how Evangelicals understand the Lord’s Supper. The differences various liturgical church members have with one another can often be expressed as “They don’t really have communion.  It’s meaningless.  Look at the Methodist Church congregation The Reader’s Digest mentioned where it was performed with lemonade and lady fingers.“

This article will be a surprise for many liturgical Christians.  It is good in itself for Christians to better understand our brethren.  Here is one way for that to happen.

UPDATE: Dr. George has an article at Christianity Today this week: What Baptists Can Learn From Calvin. (august 28, 2009  IMonk)

As a student at Southern Seminary in the early 80’s, I was blessed beyond measure to have a young, brilliant and engaging church history professor named Dr. Timothy George. I’ve long admired Dr. George and his teaching on the Reformation ranks as some of the most formative teaching I ever received. His books and talks bear all the marks of a true Christian statesman, scholar and ecumenist. He ranks among the foremost Baptist historians in the world.

Today Dr. George continues to serve as the founding dean of Beeson Divinity School at Samford University in Birmingham and a senior editor of Christianity Today. He is a participant in the project known as Evangelicals and Catholics Together and also serves on the International Baptist-Catholic Dialogue team.

I recently wrote Dr. George and asked for his comments on this question: “How can Baptists respond to Catholic and Orthodox Christians who challenge our view of the Lord’s Supper as having no deeper historical/Biblical roots than Zwingli?”

Dr. George was kind enough to send along this reply. I’m deeply appreciative of his generosity.

Among many Baptist Christians there is a growing awareness that the Supper of the Lord should have a more prominent (and frequent) place in the life of worship, as it certainly did in the early church. There is also the realization that a more robust doctrine of (what Calvin called) the real spiritual presence of Christ in the Supper is called for by the participationist language of the New Testament itself and is in keeping with the best traditions of Baptist life. No less a figure than Charles Haddon Spurgeon portrayed the Lord’s Supper as nothing less than an encounter with the living Christ himself: “At all times when you come to the communion table, count it to have been no ordinance of grace to you unless you have gone right through the veil into Christ’s own arms, or at least have touched his garment, feeling that the first object, the life and soul of the means of grace, is to touch Jesus Christ himself.”

For most of our history, Baptists have been more concerned with the externals of the Table—grape juice or real wine, who may preside, who may partake—rather than with the question of what actually goes on at this sacred meal. It is well known that Luther and Zwingli differed strongly, and actually broke fellowship with one another, over the meaning of the words of institution, “This is my body.” Historically, Baptists have belonged more to the Reformed (whether Zwinglian or Calvinist) side of that debate, but it is important to realize that all of the mainline reformers reacted against the displacement of the Lord’s Supper as the central focus of Christian worship in medieval Catholicism. They criticized the fact that the Eucharist had become clericalized (the service in Latin and only bread for the laity), commercialized (votive masses used as a fundraising scheme in much of the church), and scholasticized (the dogma of transubstantiation and the view of the mass as a sacrifice).

The reformers harked back to the teaching of the New Testament, the practice of the early church, and especially to the theology of St. Augustine. Augustine argued that in the sacrament the sign must be identified as a sign by a word spoken about it, thus making the sacrament itself a “visible word.” In commenting on John 6:50, Augustine wrote: “ ‘He who eats of this bread will not die.’ But that means the one who eats what belongs to the power of the sacrament, not simply to the visible sacrament; the one who eats inwardly, not merely outwardly; the one who eats the sacrament in the heart not just the one who crushes it with his teeth” (In Ev. Joh. Tract. 26.12). While Luther could speak of the manducatio impiorum, “the eating of the ungodly,” the Reformed tradition picked up Augustine’s distinction and emphasized the cruciality of faith for the proper reception of the beneficium of grace in the Supper. This same theology they found echoed in other pre-reformation figures including Ratramnus, Wycliffe, and Hus. What they rejected, in keeping with Luther, was an understanding of the sacrifice of the mass as an expression of works-righteousness, a theology which seemed to them to undermine the all-sufficiency of Jesus’s once-and-for-all death on the cross—where, as Cranmer’s Book of Common Prayer put it, he offered “a full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice, oblation, and satisfaction, for the sins of the whole world.”

Since the sixteenth century, and especially in the liturgical renewal stemming from Vatican II, many of the changes called for by the reformers have been accepted in the practice of the Catholic Church. Yet important, church-dividing differences still remain and I think the Church of Rome is right to resist the kind of easy-going ecumenism that would ignore such differences in order to achieve a false unity. In our discussions with our Catholic brothers and sisters, we Baptists and evangelicals must learn to distinguish the unity we are called to affirm and the divisions we must still sustain. But this we should do in the spirit of Jesus’s high priestly prayer for his disciples in John 17—“that they may be one, Father, as you and I are one so that world may believe.”

Sources:
Timothy George, Theology of the Reformers
Steve Harmon, Towards Baptist Catholicity
Geoffrey Wainwright, Eucharist and Eschatology

The Archbishop of the Anglican Church in North America has responded to Rome’s announcement. This will raise some definite challenges within the ACNA as both sides explore its meaning.

Below is an exchange between Fr. Orthohippo (Anglican) and Fr. Ernesto (Orthodox) after reading the Archbishop’s response.

Fr. Orthohippo          ”Some ACNA groups will have more difficulties than just those problems to which ArchBishop Duncan alluded. Several sizable ACNA groups, as well as some African Anglican bishops, for instance, allow or encourage women’s ordination. Check to see if ArchBishop Duncan reverts to episcopal doublespeak at which so much of Anglicanism is adept.”

Reply

Fr. Ernesto Obregon says:

20 October 2009 at 20:48

The interesting point is that he states that they will bless those who choose to go to the Roman Catholic Church. Since, as you pointed out, those will be the ones against women’s ordination, I suspect that there is already episcopal doublespeak at work. By blessing them on their way–and don’t let the door hit you on the way out–they quietly and without dispute or dissension transfer out those who may cause increasing problems in the future.

If Fr. Ernesto’s analysis is accurate, would this then place the remaining ACNA among main line U.S.A. churches?  And what happens to Evangelical and main line Protestant churches in the face of Anglican-Rome-Orthodoxy fraternity?

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

October 20, 2009

We rejoice that the Holy See has opened this doorway, which represents another step in the growing cooperation and relationship between our Churches. This significant decision represents a recognition of the integrity of the Anglican tradition within the broader Christian church.

While we believe that this provision will not be utilized by the great majority of the Anglican Church in North America’s bishops, priests, dioceses and congregations, we will surely bless those who are drawn to participate in this momentous offer.

We concurrently thank God for the partnership that orthodox Anglicans have long enjoyed with the Roman Catholic Church, and are profoundly grateful for the many acts of kindness shown on local, diocesan and national levels, as they have stood with us in our time of trial.

While our historic differences over church governance, dogmas regarding the Blessed Virgin Mary and the nature of Holy Orders continue to be points of prayerful dialogue, we look forward to an ever deepening partnership with the Catholic Church throughout the world. We pledge our earnest prayers for all those touched by this initiative, as we look forward to the publication of the Apostolic Constitution detailing today’s announcement.

The Most Rev. Robert Wm. Duncan

Archbishop and Primate, Anglican Church in North America

.

This was a surprise announcement even to members of the commission discussing Anglican – Catholic relationships.

At least one Anglican bishop, on hearing the breaking news, in an  initial reaction, mused “The world is changing fast, Islam is forcing the issue. Orthodoxy and Rome will also likely make some statement of “brotherhood” and “schism healed” before the end of the year, this from no less a presence than the Russian Patriarch. What say we all get together and take a few days to discuss what the Spirit is up to? “

By NICOLE WINFIELD, Associated Press Writer – 1 hr 5 mins ago

VATICAN CITY -The Vatican announced surprise plans Tuesday to make it easier for Anglicans to convert, reaching out to those who are disaffected by the election of female and gay bishops to join theCatholic Church’s conservative ranks.

Pope Benedict XVI approved a new church provision that will allow Anglicans to join the Catholic Church while maintaining many of their distinctive spiritual and liturgical traditions, including married priests,Cardinal William Levada, the Vatican’s chief doctrinal official, told a news conference.

In the past, such exemptions had only been granted in a few cases in certain countries. The new church provision is designed to allow Anglicans around the world to access a new church entity if they want to convert.

The decision immediately raised questions about how the new provision would be received within the 77-million-strong Anglican Communion, the global Anglican church, which has been on the verge of a schism over women bishops, an openly gay bishop and the blessing of same-sex unions.

The Anglican’s spiritual leader, Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, downplayed the significance of the new provision and said it wasn’t a Vatican commentary on Anglican problems. “It has no negative impact on the relations of the communion as a whole to the Roman Catholic church as a whole,” he said in London.

The new Catholic church entities, called personal ordinariates, will be units of faithful established within localCatholic Churches, headed by former Anglican prelates who will provide spiritual care for Anglicans who wish to be Catholic.

They are modeled on Catholic military ordinariates, special units of the church established in most countries to provide spiritual care for members of the armed forces and their dependents.

“Those Anglicans who have approached the Holy See have made clear their desire for full, visible unity in the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church,” Levada said. “At the same time, they have told us of the importance of their Anglican traditions of spirituality and worship for their faith journey.”

The new provision, he said, will “facilitate a kind of corporate reunion of Anglican groups” into the Catholic Church.

Anglicans split with Rome in 1534 when English King Henry VIII was refused a marriage annulment.

The new canonical structure is a response to the many requests that have come to the Vatican over the years from Anglicans who want to come back, increasingly disillusioned with the progressive bent of theAnglican Communion. Many have already left and consider themselves Catholic but have not found an official home in the 1.1-billion strong Catholic Church.

By welcoming them possibly at the expense of good relations with the Anglican Communion, Benedict has confirmed the increasingly conservative bent of his church. The decision follows his recent move to rehabilitate four excommunicated ultra-conservative bishops, including one who denied the full extent of the Holocaust, in a bid to bring their faithful back under the Vatican’s wing.

Levada declined to give figures on the number of requests that have come to the Vatican, or on the anticipated number of Anglicans who might take advantage of the new structure.

One group, known as the Traditional Anglican Communion, has made its bid to join the Catholic Church public. The fellowship, which split from the Archbishop of Canterbury in 1990, says it has spread to 41 countries and has 400,000 members, although only about half are regular churchgoers.

The new canonical provision allows married Anglican priests and even seminarians to become ordained Catholic priests — much the same way that Eastern rite priests who are in communion with Rome are allowed to be married. However, married Anglicans couldn’t become Catholic bishops.

The Vatican announcement immediately raised questions about how the Vatican’s long-standing dialogue with the Archbishop of Canterbury could continue. Noticeably, no one from the Vatican’s ecumenical office on relations with Anglicans attended the news conference; Levada said he had invited representatives to attend but they said they were all away from Rome.

Just last week, the Vatican’s top ecumenical official, Cardinal Walter Kasper, told reporters: “We are not fishing in the Anglican pond,” when asked about the Vatican’s negotiations with would-be converts.

In a bid to downplay suggestions of poaching, the Catholic archbishop of Westminster and Williams issued a joint statement saying the decision “brings an end to a period of uncertainty” for Anglicans wishing to join the Catholic Church. The statement said the decision in fact could not have happened had there not been such fruitful dialogue between the two.

However, Williams’ representative in Rome, the Very Rev. David Richardson, said the Vatican’s decision was “surprising,” given that the Catholic Church in the past had welcomed individual Anglicans in without creating what he called “parallel structures” for entire groups of converts.

“The two questions I would want to ask are ‘why this and why now,’” he told The Associated Press. “Why theCongregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has decided to embrace that particular method remains unclear to me.”

Also unclear, he said, was the Vatican’s target audience: those Anglicans who have already left the Anglican Communion, or current members. Levada said it covered both, and the documentation explaining the new structure speaks of both Anglicans and “former Anglicans.”

“If it’s for former Anglicans, then it’s not about our present difficulties, then it’s people who have already left,” Richardson said. If it’s current Anglicans, “There is in my mind an uncertainty for whom it is intended.”

The Anglican Communion has been roiled for years over disagreement on the role of women. But the long-standing divisions over how Anglicans should interpret the Bible erupted in 2003 when the Episcopal Churchconsecrated the first openly gay bishop, V. Gene Robinson of New Hampshire.

Williams has struggled ever since to keep the church from splitting, frustrated by moves by churches in the United States, Canada and elsewhere to bless gay relationships.

At least four conservative U.S. dioceses and dozens of individual Episcopal parishes have voted to leave the national denomination since 2003, with many affiliating themselves instead with like-minded Anglican leaders in Africa and elsewhere.

The Vatican announcement was kept under wraps until the last moment: The Vatican only announced Levada’s briefing Monday night, and Levada only flew back to Rome at midnight after briefing Catholic bishops and Williams about the decision in London.