I've been keenly aware of the erosion of not only the historic churches but also, concurrently, the erosion of freedom of speech in Great Britain in recent years.
Our cousins in the UK have never had the same robust safeguards to freedom of thought and expression that we enjoy here in the US, and recent years really have seen an erosion in these rights.
Long before J.D. Vance recently upset the European establishment by pointing this out (for the UK and Germany and other places), I've been following with dismay as certain political and even religious speech - including silent prayer by Christians in certain locations - has been punished under the law, or else punished informally through police harassment.
Meanwhile, Muslim members of Parliament are overtly pushing to make "insulting Islam" a "hate crime" in the UK. I've been open in the past about my skepticism about criminalizing "hate speech" and my views have not changed on this point.
I'm praying for a revival of Christianity in general and of classical Anglicanism in particular in the UK which, I trust, will also bring about a renewed respect for individual liberties. Others may not have noticed this, but I believe it is no coincidence that the most religiously fervent country in Western Civilization (the US) is also the most robust defender personal freedoms and individual rights. These things go together.
I'm glad to see that, while the bishops of the Church of England tilt at windmills, at least American Roman Catholic Bishop Robert Barron is trying to evangelize the culture. Here are his remarks to a group including members of Parliament meeting at Westminster:
Many churches traditionally read the Annunciation of the Angel Gabriel to Mary, the Mother of our Lord, on the 4th Sunday of Advent.
Quotes from the Annunciation in Luke's Gospel and also from John chapter 1 ("the Word became Flesh") are interspersed with the Ave Maria ("Hail Mary") in a traditional Roman Catholic devotion called the Angelus. In addition to the "Hail Mary"s, these are the Biblical verses and the prayer that are recited in this Devotion in remembrance of Christ's Incarnation:
The angel declared unto Mary, (Lk. 1:28) And she conceived of the Holy Spirit.
"Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord Let it be to me according to your word." (Lk. 1:38)
The Word was made flesh And dwelt among us. (John 1:14)
The Angelus ends with a prayer that is also found in the Anglican Common Prayer book (at the end of the Mid-day Prayer liturgy):
Pour your grace into our hearts, O Lord, that we who have known the incarnation of your Son Jesus Christ, announced by an angel to the Virgin Mary, may by his Cross and passion be brought to the glory of his resurrection; who lives and reigns with you, in the unity of the Holy Spirit, one God, now and forever. Amen. (2019 Book of Common Prayer, p. 38)
Franz Biebl's musical setting of the Angelus is one of the most beautiful works of art that I know, and the amazing choral ensemble, Voces8, has (along with "The Ringmasters") put out a new recording of it just this month, which has already enriched my life.
Of course, it comes down to what we mean by "Purgatory". But I do recommend this discussion; rather than simply repeating slogans of the past, they really do explore important questions about our relationship with God and how Bible-believing Christians might approach them. I certainly do not accept the Medieval idea of Purgatory as Christian believers "doing time" and being punished for sins after death before we can enter into Heaven, but there is a sense in which we believe we will be further "purged" at the end of this life so that our hearts will be able to receive the Glory our Father has for us.
It seems to me that too many people assume a fundamentalist view of Scripture, that ignores genre, ignores allegorical readings, ignores the entire tradition of interpretation, and instead proposes that every bit of the Bible is intended as a History Text book, and must be accepted or rejected as such. There are Christians who try to maintain this position, though it is untenable; and there are non-believers (many of them former Christians) who use this as their reason for rejecting the faith.
This video examines some of Pope Benedict's writings and his engagement with difficult and dark passages in Scripture. Of course, he's not the only one to do this, or offer this approach. It is well-attested in the universal tradition. Just read, for example, C.S. Lewis' Reflections on the Psalms for some very similar thoughts from another brilliant Christian thinker who was well-grounded in the tradition (Lewis was, of course, an Anglican - nuanced approaches to Scripture are not only found among Roman Catholics).
If you struggle with the Bible, or what it means to accept it as "the Word of the Lord" - this video could be of great help to you.
There is a pretty good Anthony Quinn movie from years ago called "Shoes of the Fisherman" in which a reform-minded bishop - perhaps somewhat similar to Pope Francis, actually - gets elected pope. To help stop a famine in China that could lead to a major war, he calls upon the world's people to give generously to provide food for the Chinese, even pledging to sell off the art and architectural treasures of the Vatican if need be.
Maybe people have that movie in mind when they visit the Vatican today and make comments like, "Just look at all this gold-gilded opulence; just imagine how many poor people could have been helped with all that money." I admit that I felt some ambivalence visiting St. Peters, not because it was glorious, but because I knew that it was funded, in part, through the sale of indulgences - a corrupt practice that actually was the catalyst of the Protestant Reformation and the shattering of Western Christendom.
Here is another great video from Brian Holdsworth: he heard comments like that ("Why not sell the Vatican to feed the world?") when he visited Rome, and moves beyond the surface level moralism (even sanctimony) to think through the actual implications of what that means, showing just how short-sighted this sentiment actually is.
One YouTuber I've recently run across and really profited from/enjoyed is Jonah Saller at the Mere Catholicity channel. I believe that Mr. Saller is an Anglican layman and has lots of really thoughtful videos advocating for a "reformed catholicity". Here he discusses the view held by many (but not all) Anglicans called "Branch theory" - the idea that the original undivided and catholic church founded by Christ has divided into (at least) three branches that can all claim to be legitimately "catholic" continuations of that original "trunk" with the same validity of ordinations and sacraments: the Eastern Orthodox, the Roman Catholic, and the Anglican branches. While some Anglicans use "Branch Theory" to "de-church" other Protestant churches, Mr. Saller - in this an other videos - takes a more generous (and, I would argue, a more realistic) approach: other Protestant churches are clearly real parts of Christ's church that really experience the saving grace of Jesus Christ; but there are gifts of catholicity (such as Apostolic bishops) that God intends for them to have, which they currently lack.
I may have posted about this book years ago when I was in seminary, but it was a great help to me on Sacramental theology (even if I didn't accept all of the apologetic for the Church of Rome).
Here is a great lecture from Roman Catholic Bishop Robert Barron on the philosophers whose ideas are now expressing themselves - sometimes even violently - on the streets of many American cities. This is a great video and well-worth watching it all. I wish I had access to this back when I was taking courses on Political Philosophy at LSU.
Why the Liturgy is not a matter of personal preference
One "YouTube intellectual" that I've been watching for the last couple of years is a Roman Catholic layman named Brian Holdsworth.
He seeks to explain and defend basic Christian beliefs and practices, and is particularly geared toward "the internet generation."
Much of his content has to do with specifically Roman Catholic questions, but many of his points and arguments could just as easily be echoed by orthodox and Methodists, Anglicans, Lutherans, and other Protestants as well.
This excellent video covers some of the same ground as a blog post I wrote years ago called "The Liturgy questions us: What is 'relevant' anyways?"
The Liturgy means "the work of the people" or "the public service" and is used to describe what Christians classically have done when we gather together for worship.
The liturgy typically includes things like reading Scripture and celebrating Holy Communion with the Great Thanksgiving Prayer. It typically includes things like the Creeds, the Doxology, the Lord's Prayer, and the closing blessing or Benediction.
Yet in recent years there has been a tendency in many historic denominations to downplay the importance of, or jettison altogether, some of these historic liturgical practices in order to produce a worship experience that is more "seeker-sensitive" and which feels more "relevant."
What this often results in is a truncated liturgy that consists of singing a few songs modeled on contemporary pop music, and then a very practical, sometimes "self-help" oriented" message, based upon a few sentences of Scripture, rather than a sustained reading of one or more longer passages.
Yet there are theological problems with reconstructing the liturgy based upon the cultural fads of the moment (which is usually what is meant by "relevant"). One of the problems with building the service around our own preferences, (as Holdsworth points out) is that, to the extent that what we do expresses only personal or local preferences (or the preferences of the current cultural moment), then our worship ceases to be something that we hold in common with other Christians; it ceases to be "catholic" in the sense of being something that we share in common with a world-wide community of believers.
I've thought about this in terms of music when doing nursing home services. Christians in nursing homes, coming from all manner of different denominations, all nevertheless treasure many of the same old hymns. These hymns represent a worship experience that was held in common across denominational lines.
Since many of our churches now follow a "top 40" style of music, where the songs we sing this year will be displaced by newer songs next year, and those in turn will be displaced by still others the year after that, I do wonder whether my generation will share many "songs of faith" in common when it comes time for us to be in the nursing homes.
All that is not to say that I oppose new music; I actually love new music, and every "old hymn" you can think of was once a brand new song that nobody knew; but I think new music and other worship practices should be integrated into a larger worship tradition that is held in common, and remains constantly recognizable across the generations, even as new elements are added in.
Those are a few thoughts and ideas to introduce this video:
Does Protestantism contribute to Western Civilization?
St Paul's (Anglican) Cathedral, London
I follow a few Roman Catholic bloggers, thinkers, and video bloggers. As fellow Christians we have a great many shared interests morally, spiritually, politically, and culturally: we proclaim the same Risen Christ, read the same New Testament, recite the same Creeds, worship on the same Holy Days (and even sing some of the same hymns), advocate for the same moral values. Despite the fact that we have some different understandings of the church, spiritual authority, and how our relationship to God 'works', we nevertheless share a great deal of common interest and concern.
In fact, I would say that Roman Catholics more than either Evangelical or Historic Protestants are really on the forefront of thinking through how to revitalize and preserve Western Civilization.
This is a good thing because (despite the naysayers in some quarters of our culture), while every civilization has its evils (including the West), nevertheless Western Civilization has done more to promote goodness, freedom, truth, reason and mercy than any other human movement in History, and I'm very proud to be a product and heir of it.
Western Civilization is inescapably bound up with Christianity, so much so that Winston Churchill quite happily called it "Christian Civilization". Inspired by the Christian message, the artistic and spiritual achievements of Western Civilization are simply staggering.
But what I've noticed is that you'll sometimes hear Roman Catholic thinkers say something along the lines of "When I say Western or Christian civilization, I am essentially talking about Roman Catholic Civilization, because the two are the same thing..." Indeed, a few would even point to the iconoclastic tendencies of some forms of Protestantism (i.e. Puritanism), to argue that Protestantism as a whole has been a corrosive influence on Western Civilization, rather than really a contributor to it.
But clearly it is a mistake to equate Western Civilization with the Roman Catholic Church or its members' contributions. For one thing, a major contributor to Western Civilization is without doubt the pre-Christian Grecco-Roman heritage. The art, architecture, literature, philosophy, and legal traditions of Athens and Rome are absolutely essential to Western Civilization, and yet none of these were originally created by Roman Catholics. Yet what would Western Civilization be without Homer or Plato or Aristotle or Virgil or Cicero?
Even if we narrow the discussion to Christendom and explicitly Christian achievements, we still find that there are major contributions to Western Civilization coming from non-Roman Catholic sources. For example, if Greece is part of Western Civilization (and it obviously is), then that means that the cultural achievements born out of Eastern Orthodox Churches need to be considered right along side those of the Roman Catholic Church. And it is certain that the contributions to Christian Civilization coming from Eastern Orthodox creators such as Rachmaninoff or Dostoevsky are substantial.
There can be absolutely no doubt that Protestants also have also made major positive contributions to Western, Christian Civilization as a whole. A few examples:
Music:
I once heard the (Roman Catholic) Philosopher Peter Kreeft say that one reason he believed in the existence of God was simply the music of Johann Sebastian Bach. I agree.
And Bach was a Protestant; he composed major spiritual works such as the St. Matthew Passion.
Beethoven was Roman Catholic, to be sure...but Handel was Protestant. Palestrina was Catholic, but Mendelssohn was Protestant. So were Paul Manz, and Hubert Parry and John Rutter and Henry Purcell.
Sacred Architecture:
Catholics are quite right to celebrate the great medieval and Renaissance churches...but what of the very iconic and significant contributions to sacred architecture made by men such as Sir Christopher Wren or Richard Upjohn? The Gothic revival itself was born in Protestant England.
Visual Arts:
I'll freely admit that most of the greatest visual artists, especially those working with Biblical and Spiritual themes were Roman Catholics, such as Michelangelo and Raphael. But surely the contributions of a Protestant like Rembrandt are nothing to sneer at either?
Literature:
Catholics are quite right to rejoice in the majesty of Dante's Divine Comedy. But what of Milton's Paradise Lost? What of Bunyan? For that matter, what of Shakespeare, whose work is shot through with spiritual themes? All Protestant.
Many younger Roman Catholics that I know are glad to count Tolkien and Chesterton among their number. And well they should be, for these are simply outstanding authors. But let us not forget that C.S. Lewis, George MacDonald, Dorothy Sayers, T.S. Elliot, and Charles Williams were all Protestants.
Of course, for English-speakers the King James Version of the Bible is itself an extremely important contribution to our literary tradition.
Ideas and Learning:
In terms of the "big ideas" that shaped Western Civilization, the Protestant affirmation of 'the priesthood of all believers' meant that each believer was equal in the community of faith, which led to the birth of modern notions of equality and the belief that every citizen should have a say in government (i.e. 'one-man-one-vote' style democracy). This is why the Pilgrims on the Mayflower all got together and voted on a written constitution for how their colony would be run, which has had a tremendous impact on the emergence of our American Republic. The Protestant insistence that everyone should read the Bible for himself led to the development of universal education and widespread literacy.
Institutions of higher learning such as Harvard, Princeton, and Yale and many others besides, which have come to have tremendous cultural influence, were originally created for the stated purpose of spreading Protestant Christianity. This is barely even to begin to scratch the surface of the influence of Protestantism on Western thought and ideas over the course of these last 500 years.
Certainly, I do not aim to downplay the absolutely essential and glorious contributions of Roman Catholics to our Civilization; they are profound. Nor am I suggesting that we should be content to enjoy or celebrate the contributions of only our own particular branch of Christianity. The truth I want to highlight is that members of all three major branches of Christianity - Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and Protestant - have made significant contributions to our Christian Civilization, and we should celebrate and share together all of them as gifts to us all from the Lord whom we all profess.
For the reasons noted in my previous post, I have come to believe that it is Secularism (not Protestantism) which is incapable of making significant contributions to our civilization, because it has no great Beauty with a capitol 'B' or Truth with a capitol 'T' that has the power to captivate men's minds and inspire their creativity for centuries on end, as the Lord of the Bible has indeed done for Western Civilization.
I spent years as a child attending mass at my Roman Catholic School. Each week we entered a church, fragrant with with candles and hints of incense. Before us were statues of Jesus, Mary, and Joseph, and a statue of Christ crucified, as well as a priest wearing colorful robes. Surrounding us were dazzling stained glass windows depicting numerous Biblical stories and saints and Christian symbols, much of which I did not understand...but it clearly meant something.
Later in my youth I joined a fervently evangelical Baptist Church. Many evangelical churches - especially those with roots in the Puritan and Anabaptist traditions - have mostly eschewed iconography and art...though it does have a way of sneaking in from time to time anyway.
Indeed, when the church I attended remodeled its sanctuary (about the time I moved away for college), I was pleased to see that they replaced their opaque purple windows with far more colorful and attractive stained glass windows, each with identical images of the Cross.
These two churches point toward the different approaches Christians have taken to sacred art. Some Christians (those in the Puritan traditions) have looked with suspicion on all sacred art as potential idols that break the Second Commandment, which says: "You shall not make for yourself a carved image [or 'idol']...you shall not bow down to them..." (Exodus 20:4-5).
Other Christians have pointed out that later in the Book of Exodus itself God instructs his people to build a beautiful tabernacle of Gold and fine cloth and carpentry in which to worship Him, complete with images of plants and angels and golden statues of angels as well. These Christians (including Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Anglicans, Lutherans, Methodists, and others) have to varying degrees embraced sacred art as an important reminder of the creativity and beauty of God.
I too have come to believe that works of artistic Beauty actually have profound theological significance. You may note that this is a theme running through my recent posts since the Notre Dame fire.
Not only do I believe works of Beauty have profound theological significance, but also that they will be an important pointer to the reality of God for some who may not be swayed by Reason or logical arguments for God's existence.
I've heard that Dostoyevsky, a Christian author who wrote the profound and theologically significant novel Brothers Karamazov (among others), once said "Beauty will save the world." I think there is truth in that.
In the beginning, the Bible tells us, God created the Heavens and the earth and all that is in them. "And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good" (Genesis 1:31). The word for "good" in the Greek version of the Old Testament that was used by many of the early Churches is 'kalos' which means "good, excellent, and beautiful."
But no one who has ever gazed upon the stars, or stood on the rim of a great canyon, or watched the setting sun needs a Greek or Hebrew word study to tell them that God's creation is beautiful and that He is a wondrous creator. And note: Man was formed in God's image, which accounts for our tendency to create beautiful things as well. J.R.R. Tolkien, a devout Christian whose magnificent work The Lord of the Rings contains a great many Christian themes, quite consciously saw his work in creating a fictional world as a reflection, however small and imperfect, of the world-creating work of the Living God whose image Tolkien was created to bear.
We have a good and beautiful God who creates a good and beautiful world (though it later became distorted by sin), and he populated it with people created to bear his own image who are themselves blessed with great creativity and love to make wondrous art to the glory of God. This is why Christians across the ages have written amazing works of literature, composed lovely music, crafted intricate statues and gorgeous stained-glass windows, painted icons, built inspiring sanctuaries and cathedrals.
Even among Churches of the more Puritan traditions you will almost invariably find quite handsome pulpits and very nice leather-bound Bibles with gold-gilt page edges, and will hear lovely hymns being sung, which are all types of sacred art. We humans cannot get away from this because we are embodied creatures who are creative by nature.
Fr. Patrick Smith, an Anglican priest who was a mentor to me in college (in explaining why his own Episcopal Church put such emphasis on beauty and artistic excellence, and was willing to commit resources to them) pointed out that God certainly does not disapprove of the material world or physical beauty - in fact he created it; and in the Incarnation of Jesus Christ he brought the very Life of God into the world of material stuff, transforming it forever.
This is the theological basis for embracing sacred art.
But such an embrace of beauty also strengthens the mission of the Church as well, which brings me back to the quote from Dostoyevsky: 'Beauty will save the world.'
There are many compelling logical arguments to believe in God. Yet Beauty has a persuasive power that transcends logic and reason; Beauty has the power to resonate with us on a very deep level; beauty stirs our longing for Him who is the fount of all the beautiful things, the source of all songs and wonder. We glory in all this beautiful sacred art not simply for its own sake, but also because it serves as a pointer to Him whose life is forever a Dance of supremely Beautiful, Sacred, and Divine Love.
It is into that Triune Dance that we are called by the same Christ who is also the true Way for us to get there.
I had an experience a few years ago that powerfully brought this all together for me (again). I went with a group from the church I was pastoring to Saint Joseph's Abbey in Covington, Louisiana for a quiet retreat. Our group was invited by the monks to join with them in chanting the Psalms at their prayer offices sprinkled throughout the day.
On our last night of the retreat, a storm rolled in after we had attended Vespers (Evening Prayer) and eaten dinner. At first there was no rain, only a howling wind, and distant flashes of lightening and sounds of rumbling thunder. I decided to walk to the glorious Abbey Church rather early before Compline (Late-Night Prayer), in order to beat the rain. I found the church very dark - lit by a single candle in the sanctuary - with flashes outside occasionally lighting up the whole place. When the rain started it came down hard and loud. I sat down to pray and, after a few minutes in the quiet, turned on my MP3 player, and this is what I heard (close your eyes and imagine you are sitting in the vast, dark Abbey, with the storm raging outside):
Actually, the exact recording I heard was this one (which is even better, but has an annoying commercial before it).
I tell you, this experience was like another conversion. In that moment I felt that even had I been a militant atheist I would have been converted to faith in Christ by the sheer transcendent beauty of the experience.
Indeed the words of the repeating chorus are the traditional Ave Maria ("Hail Mary") - half of which is taken from Luke chapter 1. The other words of the more plain-chant sounding verses are also taken from the Birth narratives of Christ (such as Luke 1:38 and John 1:14). The song tells of the embodiment of the Good and Beautiful Creator God in the flesh, through the Virgin Mary, taking up residence in this material world. The song was not only about the incarnation of God in Christ in the world, but the beauty of the song, and of the Abbey where I sat, were indeed embodied, that is incarnate, witnesses to this same spiritual reality. It is hard to fully put into words how Beauty and Truth came rushing together upon my soul in those moments of meditating upon the beauty of the Incarnation of Jesus.
By comparison, the worldviews of atheism and secularism and the kind of "generic popular culture" that secularism produces is utterly incapable of producing anything like this kind of sublime experience of deep soul-stirring beauty. They can entertain, but they cannot inspire anyone with a genuine experience of transcendence; indeed, for these worldviews, there is no actual transcendent Reality beyond our own feelings. For this reason, they simply haven't the spiritual depth and mystical freight that is necessary to drive men to erect cathedrals or to inspire the writing of Mendelssohn's "Lift Thine Eyes," or to sustain our Civilization into the future.
The fact that such timeless works of art exist at all, points us to the truth that there is indeed a Transcendent reality - a Divine Logos - And that Word, that Logos, says the Christian faith, was became flesh, and dwelt among us, and his name is Jesus.
So let the people of Jesus - in word, deed, character, and work - be people of creative and life-giving beauty.
Two of the "internet intellectuals" whom I've been attending to of late are Jordan Peterson the (agnostic? secular Christian?) Canadian Psychologist and professor and also Bishop Robert Barron, who seems to me one of the most winsome, intellectually compelling, and interesting Christian (and specifically Roman Catholic) voices in the Public Square today.
So, thanks to YouTube algorithms, I ran across this video. Catholic podcaster Brandon Vogt is interviewing Bishop Barron and asking him to reflect upon the (much longer) conversation that Bishop Barron recently had with Jordan Peterson. This interview is fabulous and well worth your time.
I love Bishop Barron's observation, when reflecting upon Jungian archetypes and the "hero's journey" that plays so prominently in world literature, that in the Bible people are called on an adventure, a hero's journey with God - Abraham is called to leave his home and follow God; Jesus calls us to leave all and take up the cross and follow him. Yet in an even deeper sense, Bishop Barron points out, the Bible is the story about God making the hero's journey in order to find us. Also, I now need to go back and re-watch True Grit...
I think there was a collective groan heard round the world - and perhaps in France especially - when French President Macron announced that there would be an "international design competition" to build a new spire for Notre Dame Cathedral after the recent fire.
For one thing, why not get a Frenchman to design it? This isn't really a big deal to me, but it seems like it ought to be a big deal to the French people: Notre Dame is after all the national church of France. The old spire, and indeed the whole church were achievements of the French. Are they no longer capable of such feats?
But my bigger concern is that some kind of "cool", Post-modern steel and glass spire will be shoe-horned onto this gorgeous Medieval gothic cathedral. And it will look cool...at first...state-of-the art...for a while, until trends change.
My attitudes toward "improving" upon classic architectural idioms by "supplementing" them with modern forms were firmly set during my time at LSU. If you go to the main quad in the center of campus, all around the Quad are stucco-covered, Italian-esque buildings, with matching red tiled roofs, fountains, and rows of beautiful arches all around the quad. Except on one end. There is Middleton Library. An orange and green cube, that apparently fell from outer space and landed in the center of the quad.
At the time it was built, Middleton library was the latest and greatest, the cutting edge in architectural trends. But now, while the rest of the quad continues to look timeless, the Library just looks dated. And ugly.
The same phenomenon is clearly visible a short walk away. The old LSU Law School is a Classical building, very much resembling the US Supreme Court, modeled after Greek and Roman architecture. Attached to the back of it is the new Law School, a modern hulk of concrete and glass that makes no attempt whatever to blend with the old building. While many people still admire the beauty of the old Law School, again, the new school looks strikingly '60s or '70s. It looks dated.
Why? Why do the various classic idioms remain timeless while Modern architecture - while initially admired - ultimately looks dated, even ugly, within a few decades?
This video explains why quite well, and I hope and pray that if any new spire is added to Notre Dame, it will be in the gothic style, and fit seemlessly with the rest of the structure so that - in a few generations - rather than looking like a strange (and very "2020's looking") addition, it will instead be taken for something (like the 19th Century spire) that could have been a part of the original construction all along.
This video remains one of the most powerful and heart-rending things I've ever seen:
Luke 24:1-12
Church fires have been in the news lately. We’ve had the 3 historically Black Baptist churches deliberately burned, not far from here, in Opelousas. Monday morning I got a text message that the Cathedral of Notre Dame in Paris was on fire. Now, a few years back a prominent cathedral, St John the Divine in New York City, had a fire that didn’t amount to much; so I didn’t think much of it. Later in the day I got online and started watching the news. Then I watched in total shock as Notre Dame burned; the great spire – holding up the sign of the cross high over the city – fell down, breaking, collapsing into a roar of smoke and cinders. I saw videos of French Christians gathering to pray and sing in the streets as the fire roared through the night, and heard how the church bells all across the city of Paris began to ring and ring, as a call to prayer, or perhaps a sign of grief. As I watched, I thought, ‘We may lose the whole church. It has stood for nearly 900 years – survived the French Revolution and two World Wars – and this will be the generation that lost Notre Dame.’
Watching the great church burn stirred up so many mixed feelings in me. One was just that sense of futility. Maybe you’ve seen something like this in your life, your health, your relationships or your work. You work so hard to build something up, to preserve it, maybe even pass it on from one generation to another, for a thousand years even…and then in a single afternoon it can literally go up in smoke. What once was full of light and life is now a pale, gray ruin. Frailty and decay seem to have the last word.
Notre Dame, like the Twin Towers, is far more than just a building or unique work of architecture. It is a symbol. Perhaps as much as any building anywhere in the world Notre Dame is the Symbol of our Western, CHRISTIAN, Civilization. It is a symbol of Christian faith, the faith-motivated cultural and technical achievements of our ancestors, and of the yearning of human hearts for a transcendent beauty and harmony that can ultimately be found in God alone.
I’ve heard stories of people with no particular faith in God who visit some of these great Cathedrals as tourists, only to leave the place haunted by the sense of beauty and glory they’ve encountered, asking questions they’ve never asked before that send them searching, until they finally come to find that their longings are satisfied in the embrace of Jesus Christ. A gothic cathedral is not just an auditorium where one goes to hear a teacher…the building itself is a teacher of the depths and riches of our faith. Everything about it, from the cross-shaped floor plan, to the Bible stories depicted in stain glass windows, even the number of windows, the mathematical proportions of the building, everything about it is designed to express the truth and beauty our Christian faith.
It also struck me as very…interesting…that Notre Dame burned during Holy Week, during Passion Week: This week when we remember Jesus’ betrayal…his arrest…we remember how Peter denied Christ…we remember his suffering…his pain…his crucifixion…and finally his death upon the cross to take away our sins.
And during THIS week, one of the World’s most significant symbols of Christian faith, Christian civilization suffers a devastating fire.
I couldn’t help but wonder what it means. Many countries with a strong Christian heritage – and France especially - have increasingly embraced an aggressive secularism that has no time for God, that denies Christ, and has no confidence in any unchangeable Truth. We don’t generally spend 200 years building gothic cathedrals anymore; we build shopping malls and sports arenas surrounded by acre upon acre of gray asphalt (temples to consumerism and entertainment).
I watched the glorious cathedral – built during the ‘Age of Faith’ – burn in the midst of a fiercely secular city, and I wondered, ‘Could it be a sign, even a warning?’ What good is it, asked our Lord, to gain the whole world and yet forfeit your SOUL? (Mt. 16:26; Lk. 9:25). I believe many people in our secular societies are desperately hungry for something that you cannot buy on Amazon or win in the playoffs, you cannot find it in a political cause or even in a romance; we are looking for truth, for justice, for beauty, for a Spiritual Harmony, for a Meaning and a Mission which we can without reservation or regret give ourselves to completely. We are hungering for God, the Living God (Ps. 42).
Could this somehow be a sign for our times of the spiritual desolation and emptiness that comes when faith is lost? Or could this event, in the midst of Passion Week, somehow spark a re-awakening?
In college I went with some friends to London and Paris one year for Spring Break. On EasterSunday, 2004 (15 years ago today) we went to worship in Notre Dame Cathedral. There we heard the old story again. You’ve heard the story: What once was full of light and life was a pale and gray ruin. The body of Jesus sealed in a cold tomb. He taught the way of holiness and love in a way that captivated the crowds; his words amazed humble fishermen and learned philosophers alike; he healed the broken, and touched the untouchable. His life was good and true and beautiful, and called for our total allegiance in a way that challenged everything in this sinful, broken world.
And so we killed him.
But today we hear the announcement of the angel. The women came to the tomb in grief, thinking at best to find a cold and dead body to anoint with burial spices. Instead they found an empty tomb. Instead they saw the glorious angels, and heard their words: “Why do you look for the living among the dead? He is not here, but has risen!” (v.5)
Our injustice, our foolishness, our short-sightedness has simply been overwhelmed by God’s power, God’s love, God’s Truth.
This is Easter; this is Resurrection Day – there is Hope springing up in the ruins; there is Life bursting forth from the grave, and His Name is Jesus, and He is Lord. This is the Last Word!
Then the Angels said to the women, “Remember!” Remember Jesus! Remember his words! Remember how he told you…that the Son of Man must be handed over to sinners, and be crucified, and on the third day rise again. (v.7).
‘Then,’ says verse 8, ‘they remembered his words!’ They remembered!
I pray that people all across this globe will remember Jesus, remember his words, will rediscover the faith that inspired our forefathers to build Notre Dame; will remember that there is a Solid Truth that has given hope to millions across the Centuries, even in the face of death and loss. There is a divine order to things, a solid rock you can build your life upon. There is a Heavenly Love, a glorious vision of God – this Lord who loves you enough to come and die to win your heart and save your soul – that vision has the power to transform and sustain your life, and even the life of a whole civilization. He Lives! And He offers his own Risen Life to you as a gift!
Do you remember? Was there ever a time when His Truth set your heart ablaze? When you gave your heart to Christ? And does that faith burn in you, or has it grown cold? Now is the time to remember, to consider, to ponder this old story, to believe and to find Life anew in Him!
Whether you’ve been a committed follower of Christ for decades, or are just here today as a seeker asking questions, we have Good News. Today we remember His promises of forgiveness and new life; we remember his Goodness and Love, and today remember his power to bring Hope even among the Ruins!
You can contribute to the rebuilding of Notre Dame HERE.
You can contribute to the rebuilding of the 3 Louisiana churches burned by arson HERE.
On one or two occasions when flipping past a (Roman) Catholic TV station or looking into a church, I've run across a prayer known as the "Act of Faith" or "Act of Faith Prayer." There is nothing at all in the content that a Reformational Christian who can affirm the Apostles' Creed would find objectionable.
In fact, I'm not too sure why this Act of Faith developed, since everything in it is basically already found in the Apostles' Creed and certainly in the more comprehensive Nicene Creed (though the Creeds affirm some other things not found here, as this Act of Faith is actually even shorter than the Apostles' Creed). But as a short confession of faith in the form of a prayer, it is impressive.
Maybe Methodists, Anglicans, Lutherans and other "Reformed catholic" Christians would profit from using this prayer devotionally.
O my God, I firmly believe that you are one God in three divine Persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. I believe that your divine Son became man and died for our sins, and that he will come to judge the living and the dead. I believe these and all the truths which the holy catholic church teaches, because you have revealed them, who can neither deceive nor be deceived. Amen.
Cardinal and Anglican bishop pray for martyred family
In what may be a more common occurrence in the future, more and more Christians are coming together across denominational lines to pray and speak out on behalf of our persecuted brothers and sisters. Recently a Muslim mob in Pakistan burned to death two young Christian parents and their unborn daughter as well (the mother being pregnant), for allegedly insulting Islam.
After these despicable acts, acts that do indeed cause many in the civilized world to look at contemporary Islamic culture with suspicion to say the least, a Roman Catholic cardinal and an Anglican Bishop joined together, not to hurl stones at Muslims, but to pray for the victimized family and speak out for the rights of religious minorities everywhere. I hope and pray that as we become more aware of atrocities against Christians around the world we will see more and more unity among the church in prayer, in compassion, and in advocacy for freedom of religion and freedom of conscience and speech around the world.
I hope that statesmen and political leaders will be invited to these events to be reminded of the great needs and injustices that exist in these days and their duty as leaders to address them.
This past Memorial Day I took a trip down to the old city of New Orleans to visit some friends. While I was in this heavily-Roman Catholic part of the state, the local NPR station played a great story interviewing young ladies (those much-discussed 'millenials') who have chosen to become nuns. Their descriptions of following God's vocation for their lives, even in counter-cultural ways, are applicable for Christians of all stripes, especially those who (despite potentially poor pay and increasing social isolation in a secular age) devote themselves to lives of full time service, prayer, preaching, or mission work.
Here is the Link.
Or listen using the player below:
I've said before that there are two ways to think of the word "Protestant." One is "Protest against" - as in we are in continual protest against Roman Catholicism; whatever they do, we Protestants must do something different and eventual unity is out of the question since Roman Catholicism as such is seen as corrupt-by-definition. On this view a Protestant is by definition a "non-Catholic" ("Catholic" is assumed by these folks always to mean "Roman Catholic" instead of the original meaning: "universal").
The other way to think of the word Protestant is "pro-testament" (pro= "for" in Latin) - as in giving a testimony for something, in this case the Good News of Christ Jesus. On this view one might even be Protestant and Catholic at the same time, since we are no longer talking about denominational affiliation (or lack thereof) but giving testimony for the Good News of Jesus Christ.
First Things recently ran a good piece called The End of Protestantism ("end" in the sense of "purpose" and also "end point") in which being Protestant (in the first sense mentioned above, "not-catholic") is contrasted with being a Reformational Catholic. A Reformational Catholic is truly "reformed" because he embraces the major teachings of the Reformers (salvation by grace alone through faith in Christ alone; a rejection of universal papal authority; the embrace of married priests & vernacular liturgy; rejection or prayers to saints, etc.) while also embracing the universal (or "catholic") Christian tradition, the ecumenical creeds, the liturgical and sacramental piety, and the whole communion of saints. A Reformational Catholic can also allow that Roman Catholicism is not corrupt "by definition" and that the Roman Church is capable of change, and has in fact changed a great deal since the Medieval Period and has brought on board many of the very reforms sought by the original Protestant Reformers (and may indeed accept more of those reforms - such as married clergy - in the future).
Upon reading this description of 'Reformational catholicism' (at least some) Anglicans might be scratching their heads and exclaiming "That is what we've been saying for centuries!" and now it seems others are catching up to ideas that the Protestant Reformers themselves actually held. Indeed the Book of Discipline describes United Methodist theology as catholic and reformed and evangelical all at the same time, and I am proud to be what this essay calls a "Reformational Catholic." I have long since found the idea that we should not do something in church because "that is too Catholic" ridiculous since Roman Catholics also believe in prayer, reading the Bible, preaching the cross, and worshiping the Trinity. Taken to its logical extreme this "don't do anything catholic" approach would have us all convert to Islam or something very near to it. As a bit of a "high-church Methodist," I have at times run into this "don't do it if it's Catholic" attitude serving in Louisiana, though not as frequently as I might have expected.
It must also be pointed out that any 'Protestantism' that defines itself based on what some other group is doing ("We are the people who are not Catholic") has no positive substantial identity of its own but only a derivative identity that relies for its very existence upon Roman Catholicism. In other words, if "Protestant" simply means "not Catholic" then you can never know what a Protestant is until you find out what a Catholic is first. Yet surely no church that is dependent for its very existence upon some other (and supposedly false) church can truly claim to be the one holy church founded by Jesus Christ that is united to him in eternity; surely Jesus did not have to set up a false church first before he could establish the true one. This is why it makes no sense to define a church's whole ecclesial identity as a contrast to what some other church is doing (Protestant as "protest against" whatever Rome happens to be doing).
Instead there must have been a substantial identity for the early church long before the Medieval corruptions crept in that created a need for Reform. Church as bearer of the apostolic message (Protestant as giving testimony for the Gospel) is a substantial identity all its own. Since it is not by definition contrary to whatever Roman Catholics are doing, then there always remains the possibility of future reunion with the Roman Church in keeping with Jesus' own desire that his followers should all be one (John 17), if in fact such Protestants/Reformational Catholics were to find
that the Roman Catholics were also clearly bearers of the same apostolic message.
Much of the work I have done on this blog over the last 8 years is precisely as one of these young adults advocating for the re-discovery of the theological and liturgical traditions of the ancient church for our contemporary church and world. More and more I am discovering others who are on a similar journey: we seek a church that can unreservedly affirm the faith of the ancient Creeds and use them as our lens for determining the "basics" or "foundations" of Christian belief and for interpreting the Bible; we seek a sacramental and liturgical spirituality that engages not only our brains but our senses of sight, smell, taste, touch and our sense of wonder in a holistic way of worship that is rooted in the ancient Hebrew and Christian practices and shared with saints and believers through the centuries of Church history.
Many young people on this journey have migrated from various sorts of "free churches" into Methodist, Lutheran, Anglican or even Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches.
All of these churches have their issues and problems right now, none is perfect; but all of them share in the ancient liturgical and creedal heritage that has been handed down from the early church, and all of them also seek (though in differing ways and to differing degrees) to continue the ancient three-fold ministry of bishop, presbyter, and deacon that we find in Scripture and the early church. As a Methodist presbyter I can say that we are less consistent than some of these other churches in our reception of these treasures, but the ancient faith and liturgy are indeed the basis of official doctrinal statements and books of worship, even if some of our clergy ignore this.
Here is a post on the benefit of this ancient theological and liturgical heritage at The Flying Scroll blog by Chad Bird. Here are some excerpts:
Some like the way these practices are transhistorical, providing an unbroken ritual link with prior generations of the faithful. Others appreciate how traditions tend to concretize doctrine, embodying religious teachings in religious rites, so that the eyes and ears and other senses participate fully in what a faith teaches, rescuing it from becoming a bloodless religion of the mind. Still others embrace tradition as the communal expression of the faith, the participation of all in a shared rite, thereby bonding them, and avoiding the tyranny of individualism or clerical whim.
I am afraid that clerical whim - both in terms of our worship services and our theology has been a great problem at times, but not a new one. For us as Christians and especially us clergy, the challenge is always to be sure that we are putting what God wants and what God things before our own desires and values (and recognizing that the two may be quite distinct). Chad goes on to tell why he eventually came to love the rooted experience in the liturgical church.
Ultimately, however, I fell in love with traditions—and specifically, traditional worship—for a single, overarching reason: its components, to varying degrees, are all in the service of the Gospel. What you’ll encounter in a traditional worship service is a framework of readings, creeds, confessions, hymns, and prayers that pulsate with the language of Scripture, with Christ Jesus at the heart of it all. By the repetition of these, with new elements circulating every week, truths seep into the hearts and minds of worshipers, steeping them in vivifying words. Every element of worship flows toward, into, and from the altar, where Jesus sits as Lamb, Priest, King, and Man, all rolled into one, giving his blood and body into his people and thereby literally embodying them with God. Cognizant of the fact that Jesus came to save not only the soul, but also the body, the body participates fully in this worship. Knees bow before the regal Lord; hands trace the sign of the saving cross upon themselves; mouths dine at his feast; eyes soak in the portrayal of his Passion in crucifix, icons, stained-glass windows; and noses spell the aromatic incense wafting prayers up toward God’s throne.
There is some wonderful testimony there. He brings us back to the main point here, which is communion with the Living Lord; he also discusses the much-talked-of recent posts from Rachel Held Evans on the subject of young Baptists 'going high church,' but I will not rehash that ground, you can check it out over there. Check out the whole post here.
