Tuesday, April 2, 2013

"High Church" Christology: A Working Hypothesis

As I'm preparing to advocate and analyze a "high church" attitude and approach to the Liturgy at the ACELC conference in Austin, Texas, later this month, I'm presently working with the following hypothesis:

"High Church" Liturgy goes hand-in-hand with a high Christology, which believes, teaches, and confesses that the Man Christ Jesus is the one true God; that St. Mary is the Mother of God, because the Son that she conceived in her womb and bore in her body is the Second Person of the Holy Trinity; and that it was, indeed, the Lord our God who was crucified, dead, and buried, under Pontius Pilate on Good Friday.

This high Christology recognizes, likewise, that Christ Jesus, the Son of the Living God, who is also true Man, crucified and risen from the dead, is actively present and at work in the Liturgy; that He is, in fact, the true and divine Liturgist, who speaks, does, and gives Himself and all good things to us by His preaching of the Gospel and His administration of the Sacraments in the Divine Service.  He is acknowledged and adored in the earthly and external means by which He serves His Church, because we affirm and confess the unity of His two natures in His one Person, even as He deals with us through humble instruments under the Cross.

A high view of Christ also affords a high regard for His Bride, the Church, who is adorned with His righteousness and holiness, His innocence and blessedness, His beauty and His grace.

It seems to me, at any rate, that a "high church" attitude and approach to the Liturgy has far more to do with Christology, first and foremost, before it has anything to do with ceremony.  Although it is meet, right, and salutary that appropriate bodily ceremonies should accompany and adorn the verbal confession of Christ, in practice, those ceremonies will differ in various ways from place to place, and from time to time; whereas Christ our Lord remains constant at all times and in all places, and so should our Christology.

In brief, I would describe a "high church" Christology as typically Alexandrian, following in the footsteps of Athanasius, Cyril, Aquinas, Luther, and Chemnitz.

In contrast to this "high church" attitude and approach, I would offer that a typical "middle-of-the-road" approach, in practice, adopts a more Antiochene Christology with respect to the life of the Church in the Divine Service.  By that I mean that there is a comparatively greater emphasis on the history of Christ's life, on the explanation of what He has done and taught in the past, and on the "humanity" of the minister and the means of grace, than on the active presence of the incarnate Son of God in the Office of the Holy Ministry, in the preaching and administration of the Gospel, and in the consecrated elements of the Sacrament.

29 comments:

  1. So, would you have something about the use of smart boards in worship vs. using the liturgy??

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Being "high church," Roger, I'm not sure what a smart board is.

      Delete
  2. Will your presentation be available post conference for those unable to attend?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I believe that is the intention, Rocky, and I'm aiming to have my presentation in such a form that it can be shared helpfully after the fact.

      Delete
  3. The un-middle of the road, "low church" attitude typical of the Mount Carmel school of paganism is to go through all sorts of crazy gyrations to capture the attention of a god who is sleeping or tripping ... the god who is absent or "up-there," in other words ... whether by means of provocative dancing, shouting, caffeine-induced changes of consciousness, smart boards, or cutting one's throat.

    Your (unworthy) servant,
    Herr Doktor

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Indeed, Dr. Anderson. I would suggest that there is a different sort of danger involved in those who would reject such "low church" craziness, but who would intellectualize and "legalize" the Church's faith and life and worship of Christ. It seems to me that both ways of falling off the beam derive from a failure to recognize that Christ Himself is the Liturgist of the Divine Service, that is to say, the Speaker, Doer, and Giver of the Liturgy. He is the One who is actively present and at work, with His Word and Spirit, in His Body and Soul, His deity acting in, with, and through His humanity in the unity of His one Person. We, as pastors and people of Christ, are the ministers and recipients of His Word and works, and whatever we do in that connection and context ought to confess who He is and what He is doing, rather than supposing that we control things.

      Delete
    2. Well stated, Fr. Stuckwisch. An appreciation of the Presence, the Pax Domini, the "Liturgist of the Divine Service" is bound to influence our actions, our behavior, our thoughts, and our emotions in ways which differ markedly from those lacking such awareness.

      Your hypothesis brilliantly dissects to the very heart ... and mind and soul ... of the controversy. "By their fruit, ye shall know them." Lutherans are presumably comfortable with the notion of fruit following after faith; it necessarily follows that our worshiping actions, how we conduct ourselves, speaks to our true and closely held beliefs. I maintain it applies to the behaviors found outside the events demarcated by Invocation and Benediction, as well. Casual discourse in the nave about Aunt Lucy's darling new pumps, or the backslaps or guffaws from the escorting "ushers," suggests that the Occupant of God's House is very much indisposed, or possibly en route from the airport.

      Your (unworthy) servant,
      Herr Doktor

      Delete
    3. Thanks for your comments and observations, Dr. Anderson. I agree with these additional points that you have made. Finding our Center, as it were, and taking our cues from Christ, will guide and govern, not only our conduct and decorum in the Divine Service, but in the living of our lives to and from the Altar of "our Most Holy Consecrator," as Pr. Loehe was inclined to say it.

      A blessed Eastertide to you and yours.

      Delete
  4. FYI, Aquinas followed an Antiochene Christology and as a result veered Nestorian in his approach.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree that the western church, in general, has tended toward Nestorianism. And I'll own that I'm not an expert on Aquinas. However, it has been my understanding that Aquinas was a key factor in the western "rediscovery" of Cyrilian/Alexandrian Christology. I have even been told that it was especially via Aquinas that the Lutherans of the sixteenth century became acquainted with the Christology of St. Cyril of Alexandria; although I must admit a certain skepticism in that regard.

      In any case, if Aquinas tends more toward Antiochene Christology, then he would not be a good example of what I am describing. The point is to underscore a genuine Alexandrian Christology, which is indisputably followed by the (early) Lutheran fathers.

      Thanks for tipping me off to the apparent discrepancy in respect to Thomas Aquinas. As my time permits, I'll take a closer look at his Christology in the future.

      Delete
  5. This sounds like a very worthy endeavor Rick. I like your comparison to Alexandrian v. Antiochene Christology, as it applies to the liturgy. You generally find that guys who have a more "high church" attitude and approach to liturgy also tend to be more favorable to a sacramental, typological view of Scripture, whereas the opposite tends to be true of a middle-low ceremony approach to liturgy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks, Paul. One of the things that prompted me to think along these lines was remembering the different approaches that actually were taken in describing and explaining the Liturgy, comparing, for example, Theodore of Mopsuestia to Cyril of Alexandria. I've noted those things in the past, but hadn't thought to make a specific connection to the differences obtaining among us in the present day.

      Interestingly, the Antiochene tend more toward allegory and analogy, at least in the cases that I can think of. The Liturgy becomes almost a kind of "passion play," if you will, in which the life of Christ is dramatically "acted out" through various symbolic actions, etc. These are the kinds of things that people suppose typology and ceremony are, but there's actually a rather great difference. There are dramatic and symbolic aspects to the Liturgy, but, by and large, the Liturgy isn't representing or symbolizing something else, certainly not something in the past and now absent. It is, rather, the way and means by which the Lord is actually doing something here and now for the life and salvation of His people. Allegory and analogy come into play when one wants to teach about something that's elsewhere and otherwise. But the Liturgy is the activity of the One who is present as the Mystery of God: in the flesh, hidden under the Cross, but nonetheless living and Life-giving.

      It occurs to me that much of the well-meaning "theatrics" that take place in the Church in our day, sometimes on the part of men who would describe themselves as being very liturgical, flows from this Antiochene emphasis on the history of the human Jesus. Whereas, a "high church" attitude and approach to the Liturgy will be more or less formal and elaborate in its ceremony, depending on the context and circumstances, but will be exercising discretion and discernment with a view toward what Christ is actually doing and giving in the Liturgy itself. I have to fine-tune and clarify the way I make and describe these distinctions, but the point of contrast is solidifying in my mind:

      The Lord's Supper, which is the heart and center of the Liturgy and of the Church's Life, is not a dramatic re-enactment of what went down on that one night in history when our Lord was handed over to His innocent suffering and death. It is, rather, the continuation of that handing over, by which the Lord now gives His Body and pours out His Blood to His disciples in the present tense. We all understand and agree, I trust, that the bread and wine do not simply represent, symbolize, or remind us of the Body and Blood of our Lord, but actually are the Body and Blood of our Lord. The point of divergence is in respect to the way this fact determines and defines the rest of what is happening: I bow and genuflect, for example, not to represent or symbolize something, but to worship, honor, and adore the Lord Jesus in His Body and His Blood. My body thereby does the same thing outwardly that my heart and mind are doing inwardly.

      Delete
  6. This is excellent, Fr. Stuckwisch. I think this really does boil down to one's Christology. I would add another difference between "high" and "middle," which is also related to Christology, namely whether the emphasis is on the "Word alone" or on the "Word Incarnate among us." Actually, now that I think about it, I don't think I'm adding another difference, but probably just fleshing out what you're saying, since the "Word alone" emphasis would be one that focuses upon bringing the salvation of Christ in the past to the present, while the emphasis on the "Word Incarnate among us" recognizes that Christ Himself is actively present to bring His salvation to sinners.

    Also, in practice, I think the "middle" emphasis on the "Word alone" sees the high point of the Divine Service as the sermon, while the "high" emphasis on the "Word Incarnate among us" would see the high point as the Holy Sacrament, the goal of the sermon being to lead the saints to the altar.

    Indeed, as I have discussed these things with brothers who are more in the "middle" camp, I think a fair assessment of the difference between us would be that, even in the Holy Sacrament, the main thing for them would be the Word of Christ, whereas, for me, it is the Presence of Christ. And, this bears itself out in the ceremonial employed surrounding the Holy Sacrament. I don't think it's a matter of confessing two different things (they would confess, with me, that the Sacrament is the very Body and Blood of Jesus), but, rather, a matter of where to place the emphasis.

    But, where the rubber meets the road for me on this is what the faithful are taught by our ceremonies. Ceremonies are added so that the faithful may learn what they must know about Christ. I think the ceremonies of the "middle," with its emphasis on the "Word alone," which often provide no explicit indication that our Lord Jesus Christ IS Incarnate and Tabernacling among us right now upon the holy altar, have had, however unintentional, a negative impact on the Sacramental piety of the faithful among us. I say that based on the many conversations I have had with many lifelong Lutherans, whose explanations about the Holy Sacrament have been more in line with a Calvinist view than with our Lutheran confession.

    Ceremonies teach, and when our ceremonies give no impression that our Holy Lord is Incarnate in His Flesh and Blood on the altar, what will the people believe? How will that affect their Christology?

    Anyway, just thinking out loud. Thanks for the post, and for doing the fine work of looking into these sacred matters, brother!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks, Fr. Messer. This is very helpful, and much appreciated. What you are saying and expressing is exactly along the lines that I have been following in my thought process.

      Among other things, I also affirm your point that, with most of our brethren, this is not a matter of a sharp division, but of a significant difference in emphasis.

      Delete
  7. I appreciate the article. I wonder, do our High Church Liberals, especially rampant in the 50s - early 70s, equate with a high Christology? How do they fit into the picture? What about High Church Anglicanism and the ELCA High Church crowd, both groups with women priestesses? Some of the old bronzie pastors initially looked at me with a great suspicion of liberalism for being High Church.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for your comment and questions, Ryan.

      It is somewhat problematic that this terminology, "high church," really covers a lot of ground, and it doesn't mean or indicate the same thing across all those contexts. Since I've been asked to represent, defend, and advocate a "high church" attitude and approach, I'm trying to "unpack" that description in an appropriate, fitting, and consistent manner. But I certainly don't claim to speak for everyone and everything who has ever been called "high church" over the years; nor would I want to do that, even if I could.

      Within the Missouri Synod, from the reading that I have done over years, I would say that "high church" men have likewise belonged to a spectrum of positions and perspectives. Some of them were mainly interested in the historical data, and in a kind of liturgical repristination, I suppose one might say. Others were enamored with the ornate music, vestments, ceremonial, and other such "smells and bells," chiefly because they were beautiful. I don't say this to disparage them, but to distinguish where they stood in relation to others who were also labeled "high church," but who strongly, sometimes sharply, disagreed with their attitude and approach. Pejorative descriptions along the lines of "dressmakers" and "chancel prancers" were thrown about, and not only from the "low church" crowd!

      There were others, with whom I sense a much closer kinship (in many ways, though not in every respect), such as Arthur Carl Piepkorn and Berthold Von Schenk. These men were sometimes/often thought to be "liberals," and I suppose they were, or might have been, in regards to some of their teaching and practices. I always find it odd to think of them as "liberals," however, because their convictions and commitments, so far as I have been able to tell, were deeply catholic and evangelical in the best senses of those terms. I don't pretend to be an expert on either one of them, but, on the basis of what I do know about them, they were "high church" more in the way that I would think of myself and my colleagues among the Gottesdienst Crowd in our day.

      Delete
  8. I have sometimes heard the recent (by recent, I mean, with in the last 15-20 years) renewal in liturgical things among some of us sem grads compared to the St. James Society. I disagree with this comparison. I really believe that ours is driven, for the most part, by a renewed confessional spirit. My appreciation for liturgical things flows out of a recognition of Christ's presence in the Divine Service through the word and Sacraments.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree with you, Paul, and this has been my own perspective and experience, as well. My liturgical practice has grown from and with my study and understanding of Christ and His Gospel, and of the ways and means by which He conveys and gives Himself to us.

      I will say, though, that, so far as I can tell, the men who were part of the St. James Society were not all of the same mind and spirit on the why's and wherefore's of liturgical practice and renewal. This is why the sometimes ended up going their separate ways. Some of them were historical antiquarians, and some of them were aesthetic dilettantes, but others of them were prompted by an appreciation of Christ and His gifts, and by the Christological catholicity of the Church and Ministry. I don't want to be guilty of labeling those men in the way that many of us have been labeled, historical observation and assessment notwithstanding.

      Delete
    2. Agreed. I believe it was Bishop Pittelko who made the comparison. At the time, I only knew of the S.S.J. to be made of more repristinators and "high church libs." But, I suppose there were some who were not like that.

      Delete
  9. Thank you for your response Rev. Stuckwhisch. I suppose, for our own little circle (that is the LCMS), the question of the previous era of Liturgical renewal - Piepkorn, Von Schenk (and I'm not accusing these men of this), but if some Gospel reductionism can exist with High Christology - if yes then we have our answer to High Church liberalism (slippery terms here notwithstanding).

    Rev. Beisel: A hearty 'Here, Here' and table thump to your post! My desire to genuflect has less to do with repristination and more to do with the awe-filled acknowledgement that my Lord is bodily present on the altar.

    In my experience 'medium' and 'low' church, though they confess the doctrine - just don't seem to get it. While you might say they are antiochene, perhaps its just american, or perhaps american influenced protestantism is antiochene?

    Also as you trace the Alexandrian emphasis you may want to look at more current professors and their influence in these directions - like Drs. Nagel, Kleinig, and Marquardt for starters.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you, Ryan. Your description of the motivation for genuflecting is exactly my own, as well.

      I'm certainly looking at the work and writing of good men like Drs. Nagel, Kleinig, and Marquart. I gladly count these teachers of the church among my own fathers in Christ, though my contact with each of them has been in different contexts and circumstances.

      I should clarify that I'm not intending to trace any direct or specific line from ancient Alexandrian Christology to the present. I'm actually still trying to figure out how best to organize and approach my paper. It is simply my conviction, as it has been from the start, that what characterizes and distinguishes a "high church" attitude and approach, leastwise for me and my colleagues, is something deeper, more central and fundamental, than the outward forms and ceremonies that we do, admittedly, tend to prefer, advocate, and gravitate toward. What has occurred to me is that, of course, as all Christian theology is properly Christology, so, too, the orthodox Liturgy is also Christological at its heart and center. Outward forms and ceremonies flow from that, depending on the context and circumstances, as discerned and exercised with pastoral care.

      The question that has been driving much of my thinking is: What is it that differentiates that way that we "high church" guys consider and implement ceremonies, as compared to those who like the Liturgy and have no particular complaint about ceremonies per se, but who would not choose to introduce new ceremonies? All sorts of answers (and accusations) are offered in response to that question, which miss the mark as far as my own conscience and considerations are concerned. The correct answer, for myself, and, I believe, within my circle of colleagues, is that we are prompted by love for Christ, and by confidence in Him and in His Word, to honor and adore Him, to praise and give thanks to Him, and to confess Him in the Church, not only with heart and mind, and not only with our lips, but also with the conduct of our bodies, and with beauty and grace.

      I'm not suggesting that others love Christ less than "we" do! I'm offering that the way they think about Him, and the things they choose to emphasize in their understanding and teaching of Him, are moving in a different direction. I am inclined to believe that Fr. Messer has put his finger on it, in his comments above, that "we" are anxious and eager for the enfleshed Word, as He gives Himself to us in the Sacrament, whereas others are more inclined to emphasize the doctrine and teaching of the Word, with or without the Sacrament. I don't desire ever to pit these two things against each other, but there is a question of priority and superiority, and the way in which the preached Word and the sacramental Word relate to each other.

      Delete
    2. I believe our "eagerness" stems from the fact that we recognize that we live in a very un-sacramental society, and if there is anything we can do to make visible that which is not visible, we'll do it. I remember Dr. Weinrich saying something to the effect of, "Everything in the Church should remind us of the world we cannot see." I have really lived by that remark for many years, and have often used it to explain to the people why we would want to use a little more elaborate ceremony, while not condemning our brothers who do not. For instance, I cannot, nor will I condemn a brother who doesn't use as elaborate ceremony as I do (and I don't do a whole lot myself in this context!). I won't condemn my brothers for not holding their hands a certain way when they pray, or for wearing a "wrong" vestment. But I think it is okay to make suggestions about such things, which is why Gottesdienst Journal exists, I think.

      Delete
    3. Rev. Beisel is right on. Rev Stuckwisch - there is something to your comment making know his presence not only with lips but with body, beauty, and grace. I would agree and I can't put my finger on it why - maybe a high Christology leads away from our age's soft gnosticim and easy zwinglism of the material not providing a spiritual benefit.

      Delete
  10. I have long maintained that renewal of the faith, renewal of our confessional identity, always leads to "higher" practice. It flows from and is shaped by the desire to confess with practice consistent with the words. While it is NOT true that catholic liturgical practice either guarantees catholic confession or leads to renewal of a catholic confession, this is really of little consequence.

    For my part I do not wonder much about the Gospel reductionism or not of some of the greater liturgical leaders of our past. They were men and sinners as I am. I can learn from them without becoming a mirror image of them. At the same time, I can appreciate that their journey was decidedly more difficult than my own since the path of liturgical renewal has been well charted and well traveled before me and I am most grateful. Having grown up in the 1950s I can tell you that the liturgy was uniform but uniformly dry and dead, the ceremonial mostly wooden and uncomfortable. We have made great progress here indeed.

    Back to my original point. I do not believe it is possible to read our Lutheran Confessions, hear them correctly, and not have the desire to see liturgical practice consistent with these confessions. Renewed faith always will result in renewed liturgical practice sooner or later. What I will say is what we have learned over the past half century or so. It is very difficult to maintain catholic confession when our liturgical practice is either inconsistent with that confession or in conflict with it. Eventually one or the other will have to give...

    ReplyDelete
  11. Why didn't Paul reveal the Divine Service to the Corinthian Church when he discussed orderly worship? After all, he was directly instructed by Christ. Perhaps he believed that the Holy Spirit would reveal it to your beloved catholic church in years to come. Perhaps he knew that Lutherans would some day reveal the Divine Worship that God had always intended. I'm sure the Corinthian liturgy would not meet your standards. Christ is present even in the low church service when the Word is read and preached. Perhaps he is more present in their minds than in those following your Divine Worship,
    because they are not struggling to find the right page or daydreaming through the creed or the gloria in excelsis. You really need to listen to Paul, "Did the Word of God originate with you?"

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Peace of Christ be with you, Dan, and the joy of His Resurrection.

      Christ is indeed present wherever His Word is proclaimed, whether the Service is formal in its ceremony or very simple and straightforward. Everything depends upon His Word. As I have indicated above: He is the Liturgist, who says and does and gives everything to us, by His grace, through the Gospel. Whatever rubrics we follow, whatever rites and ceremonies we use, they ought to honor Him as the Giver of the Feast, the Host, the Waiter, and the Meal. Such things are among the ways that we adorn His good gifts, in thanksgiving, though they are hidden in humility under the Cross. Our thanksgiving adds nothing to what is already given by our Lord, but, where everything is given to us as a gift, there is nothing for us to do but receive with thanks.

      As pastors, we are called to "do this" in the Name and remembrance of our Lord; not by any wisdom, reason, or strength of our own, but by the power and authority of His Word. We are servants of His, and stewards of His Mysteries, and it is incumbent upon us to be faithful in this administration of His good gifts.

      The Holy Scriptures do not specify the rubrics, rites, and ceremonies of the Divine Service, leastwise not beyond those that are integral to the Sacraments themselves. This is a blessed and glorious freedom, indeed, which accompanies the Gospel into all the world. It is a freedom that allows for pastoral discernment, discretion, and care, in the giving of the gifts and the serving of the people of God. I give thanks for that, too.

      As St. Paul points out in the helpful passage you have cited, no individual congregation (or pastor) should presume to go it alone, to go his own way apart from the rest of the Lord's Church. That doesn't mean that everything is done in lock-step uniformity in all times and places; which would neither be desirable nor possible, in any case! It does mean that faith and love, in the freedom of the Gospel, will consider and take seriously the traditions of the Church, that is, what has been handed over and received from those who have gone before us in Christ. That certainly is what Gottesdienst is about.

      As far as "struggling to find the right page or daydreaming through the creed or the gloria in excelsis," you ought not presume to read the hearts and minds of the faithful. Following a consistent order of service actually enables even very young children to take part in the Service, to follow along and to participate, as I see constantly within my own congregation. Ironically, adhering to the orders of the Service Book free people to set the book aside, and it is rarely necessary for regular members to be searching for the right page. By contrast, those practices that rely on newly-printed services, or on projection screens and power point presentations, demand a high degree of literacy, if those present are expected to participate or to do anything more than watch and listen.

      I'll not question or pass judgment on what may or may not be present in anyone else's mind. However, I will say that I am glad for the Lord who not only preaches Himself into my ears, into my heart and mind, but also gives Himself into my mouth and my body. And as He is the very Son of God, even in His human flesh and blood, I will worship and adore Him, not only with my mind and heart, but also with my voice and my body.

      God bless you and yours throughout this queen of seasons bright.

      Delete
  12. I appreciate your kind answer to my somewhat unkind complaint.
    As a former WELS member and present Anglican, I know the pitfalls
    of a set liturgy. I have often found my mind elsewhere when reciting different parts of the liturgy. Most often I am thinking about an earlier part of the service. I do most of my frantic page turning in the Anglican church.The saddest worship to me is when the congregation hurries through the liturgy with no emphasis and seemingly no visceral response. Certainly the barest Baptist service would be preferable to that. I was a member of a Baptist church for
    about a year. I had no problem following their liturgy because they didn't have much of one. I missed the confession of sins and the absolution. Also I never really cared for soloists singing pretty
    songs, and i found that long sermons are not necessarily better than short ones. Thankfully I found a Reformed Episcopal church within driving distance that I was doctrinally in agreement with. I also found the historic Anglican liturgy to be the most beautiful and meaningful I'm not as comfortable in my present church because it shows the influence of catholicism. I refuse to sing "Ye watcher and ye holy ones," and "let all mortal flesh keep silence" because they teach false doctrines. I complained to the pastor and both wardens about raising the communion cup and bread because it is forbidden in the 39 Articles. Unfortunately catholic doctrine prevailed.

    I understand Paul to say that Corinthian worship was disorderly and
    to correct their improper use of tongues in the worship service.
    Their liturgy itself was not condemned. There is no sense that Paul
    made an appeal to a common liturgy. I don't think it is necessary to
    "take seriously and consider the traditions of the Church," just the Bible. The most any denomination can say about their liturgy is that it is biblical, worshipful and edifying. To call your liturgy "Divine Worship" implies, at least to me, that it is inspired. I'm
    99% sure you don't imply that, but it is an awkward phrase.

    God bless your faithful ministry.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Dear Dan,

    I note that Fr Stuckwisch's gentle reply has softened your invective a bit. This is a good thing, since a frank and open discussion is always more likely to produce salutary results.

    Regarding your complaint about "Divine Worship," I would counter that it surely is inspired, since it is entirely God's Word. The matter of what its "set order" might be is not what is called divine, as Fr Stuckwisch has already explained, but its content. And here is a great pitfall of not having a set order: one is left to the whim of the pastor from week to week. The congregation must hope the pastor's "order" will be "divine" in content. Not so with the liturgy. So I'm not sure what is awkward about the phrase; I for one find it helpful.

    Secondly, and as an aside, I am curious about your remark that "Ye Watchers" and "Let All Mortal Flesh" contain false doctrine. I presume you are referring to stanza addressing the Blessed Virgin Mary in the former, and the fact that she is higher than the angels. But is this not so? Mankind is higher than the angels, and of all mankind the Mother of God would certainly be rightly called to lead their praises. But perhaps you are uncomfortable with "Mother of God" as well (and in this case I encourage you to consider the Council of Chalcedon, etc.). But regarding the latter, I am perplexed. Is the idea that he gives "his own self for heavenly food" what bothers you? It would seem so, since you also have issues with the elevation of cup and host. If this is your issue, then it is related to the matter which is being addressed in Fr Stuckwisch's post, it seems to me; and perhaps this is where our conversation needs to move.

    Cheers

    ReplyDelete
  14. Dear Pastor BFE

    I sang this song after communion in an
    Anglican church. I thought it taught doctrine contrary to The 39 Articles.
    I googled "let all mortal flesh heresy" and found your site. I don't believe we receive Christ's true body. Perhaps I read the Articles through reformed lenses.
    I know that raising the cup is forbidden. I found it humorous that this hymn is found in a Baptist hymnal, minus verse two of course. In my opinion, the other hymn declares that Mary Fully Graced is higher than the the seraphim that cry holy, holy, holy is the Lord Almighty, Isaiah new better. He knew his lips shouldn't repeat those words, because he was a sinner. Mary would
    not have that problem if she were born without sin. I'm not sure Mary leads our worship, because Jesus said "Blessed rather are those hear the word of God and obey it." Mary certainly didn't lead anyone on earth
    except Jesus' family who believed he was mentally ill.

    ReplyDelete

Comments are moderated. Neither spam, vulgarity, comments that are insulting, slanderous or otherwise unbefitting of Christian dignity nor anonymous posts will be published.