Covenant Objectivity

I recently wandered into the local Catholic church for prayer; it was about mid-day and I was driving by.  I had the desire to go inside the beautiful church (Protestants are aesthetically challenged with our multi-purpose buildings, and coffee shops to boot; indeed, nothing about our houses of faith even resemble a church . . . I digress).  So I did.  I crossed myself out of respect, a rite even Luther employed, and sat down and prayed.  It was quiet in the massive ediface.  The statuary was immaculate–pardon the pun.  Yes, I know, someone will easily dismiss them as idols, but I don’t want to grace that ahistorical argument.  Anyhoo, while there, I took a gander through the prayerbook and there was an interesting affirmation of non-Catholic Christians as brothers and sisters in Christ, but separated because of impure worship.  Rome believes (and every one of us carry our theological snobbery into these discussions with our claims to exclusivity) that the Protestants because of a lack of apostolic succession do not possess the true Eucharist.  They acknowledge a common objective baptism, but not true Communion. 

I don’t hold that aaginst the Holy Father, Benedict XVI and His flock, we presbyterians would quickly awash his entire herd into the lowest part of hell claiming along with the Arminians that they cannot be saved precisely becuase they do not frame sola fide the same was the Synod of Dort.  The fact is as Rome’s subtle trajectory about Baptism is evident, they are justified because sola fide is true; we are not justified for having a right cerebral understanding of sola fide.  In essence, there will be plenty of presbyterians in hell, just like there will be plenty of the Roman stock in hell as well (only after a brief stint in purgatory obviously . . .).

 

Why a “Higher” Orthodoxy?

What do I mean by “Higher Orthodoxy”?  Well, the thought is at this point that in my spiritual formation, journey, context, whatever . . . that is, in my diving in the sea of reformation “think,” like many people, I became one of those rabid, Arminian-hating types,  joking about Calvin being the fourth member of the Quadrinity.  I’ve calmed down in my old age, though I still have issues of course, but the title of the Blog suggests this very maturation–particularly with regard to worship.  Like many that go down the trail to Geneva, they go the scholastic route and Ockam’s razor whittles down the idolatry of “will-worship” so that there is nothing at all aesthetically rich nor “non-proscribed” by Holy Scripture in our worship, lest we be guilty of breaking the 2nd commandment.  You know, like how we should take up the offering . . . (Ha!)

I went to that suburb of Geneva for a while, but alas, I was rescued by a text by RJ Gore called “Covenantal Worship,” which demontrated that the Puritan principle of worship is not warranted by Scripture itself.  So, I don’t mean that there is no value in the Puritans at all–nope, that’s not it.  However, the road to Plymouth only leads to the reaction of many “isms,” precisely because of the hunger in the human soul for the “Holy,” that is, the sacramental mystery of Christian, Trinitarian worship that has characterized Christian worship since the days of the Fathers.  So I have come to value a degree of historic Christian and Patristic insights into our worship liturgy.  To some in Reformedville, Christian theology goes no further than Scotland.  I guess I desire to reclaim and pursue the rich nuances of historic Christian liturgics; this is why I guess, I like the adage “presbanglican” — a presbyterian with a healthy respect for and love though not chained to for Christian tradition.  Gloria patri et filius et spiritui sancto, amen.