-
Why Israel had no choice—Unherd
One person is responsible for Israel’s attack on Iran: Rafael Mariano Grossi, the Argentine director general of the International Atomic Energy …
Why Israel had no choice -
Revival Then, Revival Now: The Second Great Awakening and Megachurches
Critics argue that megachurches use fog machines, loud music, and colored lights to create an experience that will make people feel emotionally and spiritually moved. Many argue that these emotional atmospheres are intended to make people feel emotionally connected with God and emphasize feelings of spirituality over issues of doctrine. Others accuse megachurches of attempting to create an emotional atmosphere where people feel guilty about their sin and feel pressured into salvation.
If these are indeed the intended aims of megachurch atmospheres, there are striking resemblances to the camp revival meetings of the Second Great Awakening (SGA).
A few years ago (many, actually) I read Charles Finney’s Revivals of Religion. After reading that I wondered why anyone bothered with writing another book on the subject. It is the playbook for revivalistic Christianity.
I think the motivation to write other books is an attempt by our ministers to look original when in fact originality isn’t their strong suit. (My use of the phrase “our ministers” is in itself a loan from Finney.)
The one weak point in Finney’s playbook is the lack of a really clear method of personal evangelism. That has been solved with methods such as are presented in Evangelism Explosion. Those methods have been criticised also (some thing don’t change) but the problem with them now is that they presuppose pre-evangelism and pre-discipleship by a culture that no longer does either. This is why we’re seeing a shift to methods that emphasise relationship building and pre-discipleship. Big-meeting and megachurch revivalists may minimise the impact of these methods, but when we get into a culture where large-scale evangelism becomes difficult, they’re our only option.
-
In What Sense the Eucharist is a Sacrifice [Commentary on Browne: Article XXXI]–North American Anglican, With Necessary Commentary
As is their custom, Anglicans tend to use a complicated explanation for a Eucharistic doctrine when a simple one will do. I laid out the simpler explanation in my post Why I Don’t Agree With the Concept of the “Sacrifice of the Mass” :
Tying the real presence of Our Lord in the Eucharist and the perpetuity of all things in God, the question remains: is the Mass a sacrifice in and of itself, or it is the re-enactment and/or extension of the original sacrifice? The scripture makes that answer clear:
But, this priest, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins, which should serve for all time, ‘took his seat at the right hand of God,’ and has since then been waiting ‘for his enemies to be put as a stool for his feet.’ By a single offering he has made perfect for all time those who are being purified. (Hebrews 10:12-14, TCNT)
Given that there is only one sacrifice, and that the nature of this sacrifice is unique, the Mass must be an integral extension of the original sacrifice.
Roman Catholicism’s presentation of the concept of the “Sacrifice of the Mass,” however, is at best confusing and at worst misleading.
Part of the problem is unwittingly pointed out by Kim herself:
…Our Saviour did sacrifice Himself once on the cross, but also on the night of the last supper, made a new covenant which is Himself, in the sacrifice of His Sacred body and blood…
Are we talking about one sacrifice or two? Our Lord’s institution of the Eucharist must be seen in totality and in unity with his sacrifice on the Cross. The whole core of the salvific history, starting at the Upper Room and going through the Passion and death to the Resurrection, must be seen from a theological standpoint as one event. The making of the New Covenant not only refers to the Last Supper but to the Cross itself. Pushed to its limit, calling the Mass a sacrifice per se implies that Jesus Christ is sacrificed on the Cross again each time, and this is unacceptable. Putting the emphasis on the relationship (which certainly exists) of the Mass and the Last Supper doesn’t solve the dilemma.
And this, I might point out, is an answer to a Roman Catholic, not an Anglican. Some further illumination on this topic can be found at John Chrysostom on the Sacrifice of the Mass.
Let me take this opportunity to address an idea floating around that, when Jesus is referred to as the “Host” of the Eucharist, he is the host in the same way that someone hosts a dinner party. I’m sure that the language has come full circle on this, but properly the “Host” refers to this, from the Catholic Encyclopedia:
The bread destined to receive Eucharistic Consecration is commonly called the host, and though this term may likewise be applied to the bread and wine of the Sacrifice, it is more especially reserved to the bread.
According to Ovid the word comes from hostis, enemy: “Hostibus a domitis hostia nomen habet”, because the ancients offered their vanquished enemies as victims to the gods. However, it is possible that hostia is derived from hostire, to strike, as found in Pacuvius. In the West the term became general chiefly because of the use made of it in the Vulgate and the Liturgy (Romans 12:1; Philippians 4:18; Ephesians 5:2; Hebrews 10:12; Mabillon, “Liturg. Gall. vetus”, pp. 235, 237, 257; “Missale Mozarab.”, ed. Leslie, p. 39; “Missale Gothicum”, p. 253). It was applied to Christ, the Immolated Victim, and, by way of anticipation, to the still unconsecrated bread destined to become Christ’s Body. In the Middle Ages it was also known as “hoiste”, “oiste”, “oite”.
It is embodied in this well-known hymn, whose initial author is Aquinas:
1 O saving Victim, op’ning wide
The gate of heav’n to us below,
Our foes press on from every side;
Thine aid supply, thy strength bestow.
2 All praise and thanks to thee ascend
Forevermore, blest One in Three;
O grant us life that shall not end
In our true native land with thee.LATIN –
1 O salutaris hostia,
Quae caeli pandis ostium;
Bella premunt hostilia,
Da robur, fer auxilium.
2 Uni trinoque Domino
Sit sempiterna gloria:
Qui vitam sine termino
Nobis donet in patria. -
Liturgical Calendar UnPentecostal? Say It Isn’t So!
This morning I was regaled with a post from ourCOG (whose posts I have reviewed before) entitled “Strange Catholic Days in Pentecostalism.” As is their habit, they’ve evidently cut and paste from other places, it’s two pieces posted in one. To keep things simple I’ll respond to the second. The post itself focuses on Ash Wednesday (little late to the party, ourCOG) but broader issues are discussed there and will be discussed here. They start the second part with this disclaimer:
Here are 10 reasons why some Pentecostals might choose not to observe or honor Ash Wednesday, based on theological, historical, and practical perspectives commonly associated with Pentecostal beliefs and practices. Note that Pentecostalism is diverse, and not all Pentecostals may agree with these reasons, but they reflect viewpoints rooted in the movement’s emphasis on Scripture, the Holy Spirit, and a distinctive approach to worship.
So we’ll take it point by point:
Lack of Biblical Mandate: Pentecostals often emphasize that Ash Wednesday is not explicitly commanded or mentioned in the Bible. Their focus is on adhering strictly to practices with clear scriptural backing, such as baptism or communion, rather than traditions developed later by the church.
That never stopped anyone from coming up with things like Bill Clinton’s Eucharistic Theology: It Depends on What ‘Is’ Is, which Pentecostals inherited from the Baptists. That includes changing the words of institution from the Scriptures to what they think it should mean.
Emphasis on the Holy Spirit Over Ritual: Pentecostals prioritize a direct, spontaneous relationship with God through the Holy Spirit. Ash Wednesday, with its structured liturgy and imposition of ashes, may feel like a ritual that detracts from the freedom and immediacy of Spirit-led worship.
Fun fact: until the 1979 Book of Common Prayer the Anglican/Episcopal world didn’t have a structured liturgy in the prayer book for Ash Wednesday, which is one reason why I prefer the 1928 Book of Common Prayer over that dreadful book. (They did have the Penitential Rite, but the imposition of ashes wasn’t included in that, and it could be used in other places, as is the case with the Litany, where we “beat Satan down under our feet,” a Pentecostal thing to do if there ever was one.) That brings up another important point: if Pentecostals decide to use a prayer book, they need to avoid one which has a ceremony for every life event conceivable or not, which is a fault of the 1979 book. (They also need one with a straightforward lectionary to follow, something that a recent piece in the North American Anglican pointed out.)
Association With Catholicism: Ash Wednesday is strongly tied to Roman Catholic tradition, and many Pentecostals historically distanced themselves from Catholic practices, viewing them as extra-biblical or overly formalistic. This stems from the Protestant roots of Pentecostalism.
This may explain why more Pentecostals are leaning towards Reformed theology these days, they want to be more “Protestant.” I’ve discussed this in relation to Wesley (who had his own prayer book.) If the Reformation was the last word we wouldn’t need modern Pentecost. I’m more aware than most of the deficiencies in the whole Catholic concept of merit.
Focus on Joyful Celebration, Not Mourning: Pentecostals often emphasize victorious living, joy, and the power of the resurrected Christ. Ash Wednesday’s tone of repentance, ashes, and mortality might conflict with their focus on the triumphant, life-giving aspects of faith.
Repentance may not be the most joyful thing we do, but it’s necessary from time to time.
Rejection of Liturgical Calendars: Many Pentecostals do not follow the traditional church calendar (Lent, Advent, etc.), preferring a less structured approach to worship. They may see Ash Wednesday as part of a system that imposes human-made schedules over Spirit-directed spontaneity.
I discussed this issue in my Advent series at North Cleveland Church of God. The ideal of purely spontaneous, unstructured Spirit-directed worship may have been more realised in the past, but the reality we have today is something that is more structured than we would care to admit. Besides, how is it possible for the Spirit to interrupt our plan when we don’t have one?
Belief in Ongoing Repentance: Pentecostals typically teach that repentance is a daily, personal act guided by the Holy Spirit, not confined to a specific day like Ash Wednesday. They might argue that singling out one day for repentance undermines the continuous nature of a believer’s walk with God.
I don’t know of anybody who seriously restricts their repentance to Ash Wednesday or any other day of the year, unless they are deep into Cultural Christianity. In the 1928 Book of Common Prayer, there is a penitential rite in both Morning and Evening Prayer and in the Holy Communion, one of which should be celebrated every day. And that’s more than I can say for just about any worship service order I’ve seen in the Church of God.
Symbolic Ashes Seen as Unnecessary: The use of ashes as a sign of penitence or mortality may be viewed as an unnecessary outward symbol. Pentecostals often prioritize inner transformation and spiritual experiences (like speaking in tongues or healing) over physical symbols or sacraments.
Somebody needs to explain the need for prayer cloths. I would be the first to prioritise inner transformation, which is a key reason why I have doubts about many Eucharistic practices we see in Roman Catholicism.
Historical Roots in Revivalism: Pentecostalism emerged from the Holiness and revival movements, which emphasized personal conversion and sanctification over established ecclesiastical traditions. Ash Wednesday, tied to ancient church practices, may feel disconnected from this revivalist heritage.
The problem with revival movements–which goes back to the days of Charles Finney–is that they are a) event-driven without necessarily having a follow-up and b) preacher centred. Because of the latter (and the necessity of meetings) they require an open society to flourish, which isn’t the case in many parts of the world where we’re seeing some great moves of God. An example of this is Iran; you can’t have a revival in Iran in the same way that we have here, and besides there isn’t much to revive; Christianity has never had broad acceptance in Iran even in pre-Muslim times.
Potential for Legalism: Some Pentecostals might argue that observing Ash Wednesday risks turning faith into a set of obligatory acts, which they associate with legalism. Their theology often stresses grace, faith, and freedom from rigid rules or traditions.
Legalism has unfortunately been integral to a great deal of Pentecostal life; this is the pot calling the kettle black. It is one reason why, for all of maudlin sentimentality I hear amongst older Pentecostals about the “old time religion,” no one is in a hurry to go back to the full experience, along with the poverty. That’s a big reason why I’ve gravitated to my own old time religion.
Focus on the New Covenant: Pentecostals frequently highlight the New Testament’s fulfillment of Old Testament practices. They might view Ash Wednesday’s penitential tone and imagery (like ashes, reminiscent of Old Testament sackcloth) as less relevant under the new covenant of Christ’s victory and the indwelling Holy Spirit.
“When the people heard this, they were conscience-smitten, and said to Peter and the rest of the Apostles: “Brothers, what can we do?” “Repent,” answered Peter, “and be baptized every one of you in the Faith of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and then you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and for your children, and also for all those now far away, who may be called by the Lord our God.” With many other words Peter enforced his teaching, while the burden of his exhortations was–“Save yourselves from the perverse spirit of this age.” So those who accepted his teaching were baptized, and about three thousand people joined the disciples on that day alone.” (Acts 2:37-41 TCNT)
-
Let’s Hope that Leo XIV, the first Augustinian Pope, Has Better Theology Than This “Jesus Music” Era Production
Now that we have an Augustinian as Pope, we can look back at another production of Augustinians (not Luther): The 10:15: Making Tracks, released in 1970.
I have to admit, from a theological standpoint it’s one of the dicier Catholic productions of the era. When posting albums such as this, I want to give a broad flavour to the era, I don’t necessarily endorse the theology.
It’s worth noting that Leo XIV, in addition to being the first American Pope, is the first Pope who is largely a product of a post-Vatican II Church. (He would have been in his early teens when this album was released.) Given that he’s something of a protege of Francis and with his heritage, we just might see the strumming guitars of the “Old Folk Mass” but that wouldn’t be the worst thing he could unleash on the Church. My worry can be seen on the album cover: the unsuspecting faithful waiting to get run over by the train of a church all too eager to please the god(s) of this world.
As for the album–and hopefully not the new papal reign–a commenter on The 10:15: Making Tracks put it succinctly:
“What Augustine would have thought of this album is an interesting topic” I’ll bet this music would have made his mother cry.
Let’s hope and pray the rest of us aren’t crying with her.
-
A Second Look at Lying and the Ethics of the New Christian Right–North American Anglican, with Commentary
The response to Ben Crenshaw’s bold statement strikes me as overcomplicated, I have a few thoughts on this issue.
It’s one thing to say lying is a sin, but to say that lying has no eternal consequences–the ultimate criterion–undercuts the sinfulness of lying. That’s built into a number of theologies floating around today. I’ve done my share of attacking these, most forthrightly in The Baptists, Their Doctrine and Their Nasty Politics:
Smith (Church of Christ debater) doesn’t miss a chance to take a pot shot at groups neither one of them likes (Roman Catholics, Methodists, etc.) But basically he’s spot on, especially with the “straight shot” part of the diagram. Although it’s part of the baptismal regeneration part of the debate, his characterization of salvation as “cannot be lost–unconditionally secure–idolatry and murder not make soul in danger” is basically either what the Baptists believe or the logical conclusion of that belief.
That concept is a game changer for the life of the church. The people I normally associated with being free from moral constraint were the Communists, who deny the existence of a non-material reality. But here we are. And Garner never responded to this. This basically turns the life of the church into a numbers game; once you’ve got them saved, that’s it.
Smith could have added lying to the list, but he didn’t have to. His point is made. Such a theology removes our actions from an ethical framework. And the Reformed “unconditional perseverance” depends upon a reliable discernment of election, so while it is consistent logically it has some unappetising consequences.
Since the Cardinals are meeting in Rome to choose a successor to their recently deceased Jesuit Occupant, we would be remiss if we didn’t bring up the hard work his order did to undermine Christian morality in the seventeenth century, a work Francis restarted with his ambiguous pronouncements. I discuss this in With Pope Francis, The Provincial Letters Ride Again. There was also some casuistry going on the Reformed side as well. I think that’s where Ben Crenshaw is ultimately going whether he wants to admit it or not.
Finally concerning Rahab, she did go out on faith because she saw the Israelites winning, something many of the Israelites didn’t. (Kinda like the women coming back from the Resurrection…) Out here in the real world, things are more complicated than they look.
Crenshaw’s biggest weakness, however, is his insistence that the survival of the country deserves the kinds of moral failures that he is advocating. And survival is what’s at stake here: if Crenshaw or the proponents of what we’ve endured during the last administration think that the country will endure that kind of agenda, both are delusional. Nevertheless there are two things that Crenshaw and many American Christians forget. The first is that Rome collapsed but Christianity survived; could American Christianity do the same? The second is that, if we adopt the neopagan ways of our political allies, what kind of country will we end up with? Will we just defeat our own purpose?
In the rondeau above, the Jesuits were told to “look for a New World,” and they did just that. Evidently their spirit is oozing north just as the border is being closed.
-
Lee University’s New Engineering Building
A preliminary rendering of the new engineering building at Lee University, for more information:
-
Another Conclave, Another Pope…
Next week the Cardinals will begin their closeted deliberations which should result in a new Occupant of the See of St. Peter. The speculation on the result–and the process–has filled social and traditional media. I’m not here to “make book” (literally for many people) on who will end up winning that contest, but a few observations are in order.
First, since Francis stacked the College of Cardinals so thoroughly, many believe that we will get yet another Pontiff in the mould of the recently passed Argentinian. In reality he wasn’t supposed to be elected in the first place, given that his predecessors John Paul II and Benedict XVI did a great deal of stacking of their own. But he was. When the white smoke emerged from the Sistine Chapel, I was in a Catholic hospital; I told them, “You better wake up, you’re getting a new boss.” Neither they nor I realised just how significant that statement was.
The truth is, however, that every conclave since Vatican II has been a nail biter in its own way. Since they “flung open the windows” of the Church there has always been a danger that someone would make a major pronouncement that would radically alter the idea and course of the Church, something I warned about back in 2005 in Just One Bull Away…. The greatest brake on that is the fact that the Church has taught that the Pope is infallible only since 1870; it taught the infallibility of the church long before that. Making such a change would undermine the confidence of the faithful in the institution once the reality of such a pronouncement sinks in. The progressives would be joyful, but the hard experience of Main Line Christianity in the U.S. indicates that they might stay but most others, over time, won’t.
Ultramontane Roman Catholicism is in a perpetual pickle because it insists on a) top-down governance and b) uniformity of life and practice, neither of which are a given in the history of the church, especially before Trent. That’s why Francis went after the Trads the way he did; he didn’t see an alternative spirituality (one well rooted in the history of the church) but a challenge to uniformity with the possibility that some day their idea would be the idea of the church. Like the Young Turks, who dispensed with the Ottoman millet system under the influence of European nationalism, he couldn’t see using the Trads as a way to advance the Church in places where it wasn’t making much progress (such as young people with children.) For the Young Turks the end result was the Armenian Massacre; for the Church, it was not so brutal but in ecclesiastical terms it was brutal enough.
For the rest of things, his ambiguous pronouncements produced more heat than light. The last time the Jesuits made those kinds of pronouncements, they got the Provincial Letters and eventual dissolution of the order (after another brutal suppression, this time of the Jansenists.) How this conclave comes out may determine whether such events come to pass. In the meanwhile Francis’ successor might consider undoing something that ultramontane Roman Catholicism was supposed to have dispensed with: la regale, or giving Yi Xinping and his subordinates the power to choose/approve Catholic bishops in China. Louis XVI and his ancestors, who wielded that kind of power, deserve an apology from their “infallible” church.
As for me, I took my leave because I had had enough, not of the rich intellectual and historical traditions, but because of the institutional machinations that plague Roman Catholicism. Until those change–and I’m not holding my breath no matter how this conclave comes out–the best way to be a part of those traditions is to be outside of the institutional Church.
Sailing the Last Voyage with Newton and Pascal
Positive Infinity 