Why I'm Sticking with the Revised Common Lectionary, Part 2

Unbeknownst to me at the time, on the same day that I posted my first article about the Revised Common Lectionary (http://benedictinelutheran.blogspot.com/2016/05/why-im-sticking-with-revised-common.html), a group called "Clergy Stuff" posted a video on Facebook about the Narrative Lectionary.  The video features Professor Rolf Jacobson of Luther Seminary, who has been one of the primary developers and proponents of the Narrative Lectionary. The video can be seen here (http://clergystuff.com/news/2016/5/2/what-is-the-narrative-lectionary-anyway), and it features two comments on why the Narrative Lectionary is allegedly superior to the Revised Common Lectionary which I want to address.  I've really enjoyed some of Professor Jacobson's work in the past, particularly "Crazy Book: A Not-So-Stuffy Dictionary of Biblical Terms", as well as his other books published by Augsburg Fortress.  However, I have a profound disagreement with his assessment of the RCL, and his belief that his Narrative Lectionary rectifies the alleged problems with it.

The first comment made by Professor Jacobson is as follows:

"We actually think that we do a better job of aligning the Biblical story with the major festivals of the Church year. In the Revised Common Lectionary, you get the adult John the Baptist in Advent saying 'Jesus is coming', but that's not the Christmas story - its not the adult John the Baptist saying the adult Jesus is coming. So, what we have is the prophetic texts - the prophets longing with hope for the fulfillment of God's kingdom and the coming of the Holy One, and then the Holy One is born at Christmas, and we tell, then, the Biblical story in order...."

Is Advent merely a season where we prepare for the birth of the baby Jesus at Christmas?  If so, his claim might have merit.  However, Advent is not just about recalling the story of the baby Jesus coming into the world.  If it were, I'm not sure why we would even have a separate Advent season - we would just have one six week Christmas season. Instead, Advent is also a season where we prepare for the return of Christ at the eschaton (a word which essentially means, to borrow a phrase from the rock group REM: 'the end of the world as we know it').  Therefore, contrary to Professor Jacobson's opinion, the readings where "the adult John Baptist is saying the adult Jesus is coming" make sense given the historical purpose and meaning behind the season of Advent:

"The eschataological orientation that is found in some of these early sources continues to be a significant element in the proclamation of the season of Advent. Indeed, the very name Adventus, 'coming,' 'approach,' suggests not only the coming of God into the world in Jesus but the approaching return of the risen Lord in all his heavenly splendor.  Indeed, the Advent season and its hope should not be regarded purely or even primarily in terms of Christmas.  It should not even be seen as an introduction to the Incarnation but rather as the completion of the work of redemption.

****

The season gives voice to the impatience God's people feel at least from time to time but which they may be hesitant to express to God.  The purpose of Advent is to rouse once again in the people of the Church the anticipation of the End and of the great Day of the Lord, and to bid them to be prepared for it.

****

[T]he Church gives voice not only to the expectant joy of a bride or of a mother at the impending birth of her child. Mother Church expresses her deep longing for the coming of Christ in glory at the end of the ages. It is not a fearful dread that the Church wishes to instill in her members when through the psalms and hymns and readings and prayers she calls on us to think about the Parousia, the final coming, but rather she points us to the goal of our efforts to keep awake and to watch: unending union with Jesus Christ. All our work and study and prayer and living has one purpose and meaning: to bring us and all humanity into the kingdom of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.  So the central prayer of Advent is the one word, the concluding prayer of the Bible, Maranatha, Come, Lord Jesus."

(From pp. 27-29 of "Journey Into the Heart of God: Living the Liturgical Year" by Philip Pfatteicher, a noted Lutheran liturgical theologian - these are just brief snippets of a extensive discussion about the Advent season found in the book, including a discussion about the RCL readings).

Therefore, instead of enhancing the Church's understanding of the liturgical year, the Narrative Lectionary diminishes it.

The second comment from the video that I want to address is this remark from Professor Jacobson: "The problem with the Revised Common Lectionary is that somebody in 1973 or 1972 decided what Scriptures you need in your church in 2016, 2018, 2020..."

"Somebody in 1973 or 1972"?  The Revised Common Lectionary is not based on the fruits of one person's work in the early 1970s.  As noted in my earlier article, the roots of the RCL are based on the three year lectionary developed in the Roman Catholic Church during the years following Vatican II.  Following the conclusion of Vatican II, Biblical scholars came together to work on the three year lectionary, which resulted in the publication of Ordo Lectionum Missae in 1969. After over a decade of work by scholars from numerous Christian traditions, the Common Lectionary was published in 1983.  Finally, after a trial period of the Common Lectionary, and revisions made by even more scholars, the Revised Common Lectionary was published in 1992.  (For more information, go to this website: http://www.commontexts.org/).

So, the RCL is the fruit of the labor of multiple scholars from multiple Christian traditions over the course of several decades.  It is not a perfect lectionary.  But, it is a truly "catholic" (universal, not just Roman) lectionary.  This was a sentiment expressed by ELCA Bishop Guy Erwin, who shared my earlier post on his Facebook page, and offered these words:

"This is lovely. Reading and reflecting on the RCL texts each week is for me a powerful witness to our unity as Christians. Not only the mainline churches but also the global Roman Catholic Church uses essentially the same Sunday texts, which means most of the world's Christians are focusing their hearts on the same scriptural truths each week.

No lectionary can ever be a substitute for the broader study of scripture--there simply aren't enough Sundays for that. What we hear ...on Sunday is an invitation to go deeper--to use more scripture to learn more--not an end point.

And though I believe every part of scripture is useful, I think the lectionary helps draw us away from the sense that the Bible was somehow put together and delivered to us in canonical order (and in English) by God, in order to tell us a smooth, consistent and complete story of everything God wants us to know. It is instead a wild and varied witness, and each part deserves to be considered on its own without being forced into a frame. Even the dissonances in the RCL help us be modest in the face of this sometimes mystifying collection of holy writings, and point us always back to Christ as the only unifier."

 

Why I'm Sticking With the Revised Common Lectionary

Now and again, I reconnect with colleagues and look at the latest trends in the church via the sometimes controversial ELCA Clergy group on Facebook.  One subject that comes up periodically within that group is the lectionary - specifically, the Revised Common Lectionary (RCL), which is the series of readings used by churches during Sunday worship services.  The RCL has been an ecumenical success, as it is used widely by Lutherans, Episcopalians, Methodists, Presbyterians, and churches from other denominations.  Even more importantly, from my perspective, it is largely in sync with the Catholic lectionary - therefore, even though we are not yet at the point where the Eucharist is shared, we at least share in the same readings from Sacred Scripture most weeks.

As I noted in my last post (back in March, sorry- I'll try to do better!), I am now 1/2 time at an Episcopal congregation, in addition to my 1/2 time call at a Lutheran church.  Since the Episcopal Church values a common liturgy (hence, the Book of Common Prayer), it is a given that congregations use the RCL. 

Based on what I read on the ELCA Clergy Facebook page, however, it appears that in the ELCA we are far from unity in our Scripture readings at worship.  Some pastors feel free to change the readings at will, or develop their own sermon series, based on their own choice of readings.   As a Lutheran with Benedictine tendencies, you can probably guess that I'm not a big fan of that practice.  

Furthermore, a whole new lectionary has been developed by Luther Seminary, the Narrative Lectionary, and a sizable contingent of congregations appear to be using it based on what I am reading on the Facebook page.  Why was a new lectionary developed when we already have one that has been widely used in the ELCA and in our ecumenical partner churches? This is the reason given:

"Though the Revised Common Lectionary has united the church in its reading of scripture and has given much-needed structure, it doesn’t present scripture -- especially the Old Testament -- in a way that helps people to become fluent in the first language of faith. The Narrative Lectionary is an attempt to take nine months to do just that."  

www.workingpreacher.org/narrative_faqs.aspx

When I read this statement, it made me wonder  - what is the primary purpose of Scripture reading during worship?  Are Scripture readings and sermons supposed to be like Bible studies?

No.  The purpose of Scripture reading during worship is to proclaim the mystery of the faith and the presence of Christ in our midst.  

Through the magic of Google, I found an article called "Explaining the lectionary for readers", which contains a beautiful explanation of how and why the Catholic (and therefore, RCL) lectionary readings are put together.  Although it is from a Catholic website, this language strikes me as being very much Lutheran as well, with its primary focus being on the proclamation of Christ: 

 "[W]e can think of the readings at the Eucharist as a series of concentric circles:

• at the centre is the gospel which is a recollection and celebration of the mystery of Jesus, the Anointed One;
• this recollection is given added dimensions by readings from the Old Testament: the Law (such as Genesis or Exodus), the prophets (such as Amos or Joel), the Psalms, and the Writings (such as the Book of Wisdom or the Books of the Maccabees);
• then there are the readings of the great early Christian teachers’ letters to churches, such as those of Paul.

The purpose of the readings is that, in the words of the General Instruction on the Lectionary, in accordance with ancient practice there should be a ‘re-establishing [of] the use of Scripture in every celebration of the liturgy’ and that this should be seen as ‘the unfolding mystery of Christ’ being ‘recalled during the course of the liturgical year’ 

*****

If the readings at the Eucharist are there to help unfold the mystery of Jesus Christ, then several important consequences flow from this:

• We are not reading the Scriptures simply to get a knowledge of the Bible.
• We are not reading these passages because many Christians consider reading the Bible a valuable activity in itself.
• This action is not part of a Bible Study, nor should it resemble the classroom atmosphere of a study group.
•The focus of all our reading is not an abstract understanding of the scriptural text – such as would be carried out by a biblical exegete in a theology course – but to see what each portion of text (whether from the gospel, the Old Testament, the psalm, or the epistle) reveals to us about the Paschal Mystery.
• Our reading is not book-focused; it is not text-focused; it is focused on Jesus as the Christ.
• The gospel is the primary focus on the mystery of the Christ in each celebration; the Old Testament and Psalm relate to it as background, example, context, or elaboration; the epistle is a separate attempt to focus on the mystery of the Christ through the help of early Christian teachers.
• The readings are to help us encounter the person of Jesus Christ in whose presence and name we have gathered.

‘The word of God unceasingly calls to mind and extends the plan of salvation, which achieves its fullest expression in the liturgy. The liturgical celebration becomes therefore the continuing, complete, and effective presentation of God’s word’." 

http://www.catholicireland.net/explaining-the-lectionary-for-readers/

During worship, Christ is truly present in our midst.  Therefore, don't we want our readings to be aimed at proclaiming that mystery in union with the Body of Christ around the world? 

Bruno Barnhart, RIP

One of the gems of the Benedictine family are the Camaldolese monks - they live together in community, but retain a solitary lifestyle more reminiscent of the Desert Fathers and Mothers than a typical Benedictine monastery.   Along the beautiful California coastline near Big Sur is New Camaldoli Hermitage, home to a small number of resident Camaldolese monks and a thriving Oblate program (non-resident lay monastics).

This past weekend, one of the resident monks of New Camaldoli, Father Bruno Barnhart, entered into eternal rest.  While his is not a household name, Barnhart has written some interesting books on the revival of the ancient wisdom tradition within Christianity.

  
Barnhart's death coincided with the First Sunday of Advent, and the following passage from one of his books is appropriate for the season:

"Our temple, and all the temples, are gone forever from the world.  Now from within, from the center, the world itself is illumined as temple.... The music of the King sounds, beyond the ears' hearing, throughout this temple that is Christ.  The one Child, the Son, has come into his fullness at the center of the world, and the world that exists in him is now illumined and glorified in him." (From p, 208 of "Second Simplicity: The Inner Shape of Christianity").

Religious Life and the Revival of the Church

I came across an excellent blog post today from an Episcopal priest (Fr. Robert Hendrickson) which says what I have been trying to say from the inception of this blog, albeit from a Lutheran perspective. Here are some of the key statements, relating to the renewal of the Church via a reinvigorated diaconate and neo-monastic movement:

First, he explains the issue and the goal: "[T]here are many, many people looking to have their faith be not something apart from the rest of their life or a distraction amidst a panoply of distractions. They are seeking a way for their faith to form their life and for their life to matter in the deepest ways possible.....  It seems to me that we might be entering a cultural moment in which we should consider the Religious life (monastic vocations) and the diaconate as the ideal means to form leaders equipped to engage the realities of contemporary society..... I firmly believe that intentional Religious Communities and a robust Diaconate are key to the rejuvenation of a vibrant Christian presence all across the country. The need is for missionary communities of prayer, service, and sacrificial giving."

Next, Fr. Hendrickson sets forth why a robust religious life is needed for the renewal of the Church: "This work begins with daily prayer and the Sacraments – but the churches that serve as the heart of this kind of disciplined approach to engaging the Holy would not be the final destination but the launching point for those trained and equipped to be the presence of Christ for those they meet and serve. I imagine local Churches serving as a sort of mother ship where people are fed and trained for missionary service...... These deacons would serve at the heart of local communities of those taking religious vows. Whether full-time, professed monastics or part of neo-monastic communities we should also be looking for those in our communities who are yearning for a deeper connection to other faithful people and are longing for their faith to ground their approach to work, relationship, and service. These kinds of communities could then become the heart of congregations longing for connection to the communities around them but fearful or unsure of taking the next step."

And then, he states his conclusion: "Ultimately, it will be these servant-leaders who are creatively making Christ known in the communities around us who will re-center the Church and draw others to come and see."

(The rest of the article can be read here -  http://thesubdeansstall.org/2014/07/16/the-diaconate-and-lay-religious-orders-the-shape-of-future-ministry/)

I agree 100% with Fr. Hendrickson's recommendations.  The perplexing thing for me, as a part of the ELCA, is that I am not quite sure how we can fit those recommendations into our existing paradigm for ministry.  As for the diaconate, our existing diaconal ministries are somewhat jumbled between three different lay orders (Diaconal Ministers, Associates in Ministry, and Deaconesses - I understand that there is a movement afoot to reform this, but I am not sure when this might take place, or what the result will be). But, at least we have an existing diaconal ministry which can be reformed and used to further the revival of the Church. 

As to the religious life, though, as I have long lamented, Lutherans have a long way to go.  Yes, there are some Lutheran religious communities around the world, which I have tried to promote (http://benedictinelutheran.blogspot.com/search/label/Lutheran%20Monastery%20Virtual%20Tour). There are also other movements which offer intriguing possibilities for the restoration of the religious life in American Lutheranism, such as the Order of Lutheran Franciscans (http://www.lutheranfranciscans.org/), but as of yet, these movements are not widely known among rank-and-file Lutherans. 

Those of us in Lutheranism who believe that a renewal of the religious life will be an important part of proclaiming the Gospel in a post-Christendom world are swimming against the tide of nearly 500 years of sentiment which is wary of (if not outright antagonistic to) the religious life.  Unlike Catholics, Orthodox, and Anglicans (at least since the 19th Century Oxford Movement), intentional communities of daily prayer are outside of the framework of reference of what institutional Lutheranism thinks "church" should look like. 

I am often reminded of how many Lutherans are unfamiliar with daily corporate prayer and the religious life when I am on Twitter, where I try to promote those things through my personal account (@PastorJayDenne) and through praying some of the daily offices via @Virtual_Abbey.  While some fellow Lutherans (both clergy and laity) follow and interact with those accounts, sometimes it seems as if I interact more with Catholics, Orthodox, and Anglicans than with Lutherans.  I saw a glaring example of this the other day, when I noticed that at the Virtual Abbey, Archbishop Kurtz (of the Archdiocese of Louisville, and the President of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops) "retweeted" my morning prayers, but I have yet to see any Lutheran bishops follow or respond. (A caveat - my own Synod Bishop has been highly supportive, but I don't see him much on Twitter).

Does this mean that I am tilting at proverbial windmills a la Don Quixote?  Only time (and the Holy Spirit, of course) will tell.  But, I will keep trying, as I firmly believe in what Fr. Hendrickson said:

"We need passionate and powerful advocates for Christ in the communities around us – we need deacons and lay religious equipped for holy living. They can be, in our communities, the kinds of Christians that people never knew existed whose concern is not institutional maintenance or Church membership but is a faith lived so eloquently and authentically that their very being is evangelical.....They could be an inspiration for the congregation’s deepening sense of their own vocation as evangelists and servants." 

A Mystical Renewal

One year ago this month, I started this blog, not knowing if anyone would read it.  While the number of people reading this blog isn't huge, I think there has been enough traffic to this site, and corresponding positive feedback, to verify something that I have suspected for awhile now: There is a desire among Lutherans, and members of similar traditions which arose at the time of the Reformation, to explore spiritual practices that have been minimized in our churches, even though they are a good and helpful part of our Catholic heritage.

In short, I will describe that desire as a hunger for mysticism.

Mysticism has become a dirty word in certain Protestant and Lutheran circles because there are uses of the word which are contrary to our beliefs, including some uses which are contrary to Christianity altogether. 

Mysticism can mean spiritual beliefs which blur the lines between the Creator and the created, and spiritual practices which lead to a belief that the best place to find God is by looking into yourself.  I'm not talking about that kind of mysticism.

Mysticism can also lead to a mindset which focuses on what we do for God, instead of what God has done for us.  I'm not talking about that kind of mysticism, either.

When I am talking about mysticism, I simply mean an awareness, through faith, of God's presence in our lives.  I believe that kind of mysticism is fully compatible with Christianity, as well as Lutheranism.  In fact, I would say that not only is that kind of mysticism compatible with our faith - it is necessary for our faith to be sustained.

The beliefs and practices I have written about on this blog have been related to that form of mysticism.  For example, the Jesus Prayer, lectio divina, and the daily rhythm of prayers and readings (found in the Rule of St. Benedict, and included in the lectionaries and daily prayer services in our Lutheran worship books as well as the Book of Common Prayer) help us to give thanks to God our Father, focus our attention on Christ and him crucified, and enhance our awareness of the presence of the Holy Spirit in and around us.

After all, Martin Luther himself had a profound mystical experience (commonly referred to as the "tower experience") after engaging in a period of meditation on Scripture, akin to lectio divina: 


“The words ‘righteous’ and ‘righteousness of God’ struck my conscience like lightning. When I heard them I was exceedingly terrified. If God is righteous [I thought], he must punish. But when by God’s grace I pondered, in the tower and heated room of this building, over the words, ‘He who through faith is righteous shall live’ [Rom. 1:17] and ‘the righteousness of God’ [Rom. 3:21], I soon came to the conclusion that if we, as righteous men, ought to live from faith and if the righteousness of God contribute to the salvation of all who believe, then salvation won’t be our merit but God’s mercy. My spirit was thereby cheered. For it’s by the righteousness of God that we’re justified and saved through Christ. These words [which had before terrified me] now became more pleasing to me. The Holy Spirit unveiled the Scriptures for me in this tower.”

(From Luther's Works Volume 54: Table Talk).

(The tower of the Augustinian monastery in Wittenberg where Luther was a monk).

So, thank you for accompanying me on my journey into blogging this past year.  With God's grace and help, I look forward to further exploration of the kind of Christian spiritual practices and beliefs which might help our awareness of God's presence in our lives. 

A Lutheran Among the Carmelites

In a secluded corner of Sioux City, Iowa, there is a little taste of heaven that most local residents don't know about.

I've lived here for almost 19 years, and until recently, I knew very little about the Carmelite monastery found on a dead-end street in the midst of the Loess Hills that Sioux City is built upon.  To learn a little bit more about Sioux City's only monastery, I decided to go there on a Sunday afternoon for Vespers a few weeks ago.

While driving to the monastery, it struck me how isolated it is.  Sioux City isn't exactly a big city according to the standards of the rest of the world, but with over 100,000 in the metropolitan area, it is relatively large compared to other cities of the Upper Midwest.  The Carmelites, though, found a place within the city where it feels like you are alone amongst the hills and trees.

Founded in 1962, the Carmelites recently celebrated the 50th anniversary of the beginning of their monastery in Sioux City.  As a contemplative order, their primary vocation is to pray for the community and for the world within the silence of their cloister.

Through the spiritual practices I have tried to adopt, I thought I was getting used to silence.  But, upon entering the chapel of the monastery, I still found the absolute silence of the cloister to be beyond anything I have experienced before.

 The silence was broken by the prayers of the nuns, who softly spoke the words of the rosary.  After completing that devotion, Vespers began.  With a little help from one of the other guests who came to pray with the nuns, I was able to follow along with the order of the service, since the Carmelites follow the traditional order of Vespers according to the Western Church, and the Lutheran order for Vespers largely follows that order.  Even the hymns sung that evening were familiar.


After the service, I had the opportunity to briefly speak with Mother Joseph, the prioress of the order.  Her words, and the calm inflection of her voice, reflected the peaceful environment of the place. She invited me to return, and I intend to return to this hidden gem to share in what the Carmelites have to offer - a chance to experience what the Psalmist wrote about in Psalm 46:10 - "Be still, and know that I am God".

The Benedictine St. Francis

Today is the day the Church celebrates St. Francis of Assisi.  I admit that sometimes when I think about St. Francis, the image that crosses my mind is one of a medieval Dr. Doolittle, wandering around the countryside and taking care of the animals.  Based on this icon, I can tell that I am not the only who thinks of that image of St. Francis:

Therefore, I was intrigued by this comment in a review of a new biography of St. Francis:

"Francis cared about the Eucharist, the Daily Office, and poverty much more than he had anything to do with animals or nature. Francis was, contrary to the popular picture of him, a very ecclesial person in both his commitments and in his preoccupations." http://livingchurch.org/francis-and-beyond

Based on that description, St. Francis sounds more like St. Benedict than Dr. Doolittle.

"Most high, omnipotent, good Lord, your servant Francis of Assisi sought to reflect the image of Christ through a life of poverty and humility: Grant your people grace to imitate his joyful love, renounce gladly the vanities of the world, and delight in your whole creation; through Jesus Christ our Lord, who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God, now and forever. Amen."

(From the "New Book of Festivals and Commemorations" by Philip Pfatteicher).

Mary and the Modern Church

In my denomination, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA), today is the day on the Church's calendar when we celebrate the life and witness of Mary, Mother of Our Lord.  In the Episcopal Church, today is known as the feast day of St. Mary the Virgin, Mother of Our Lord.  Catholic and Orthodox Christians celebrate Mary on several days each year, and today is known as the day they celebrate her assumption into heaven (Catholic) or dormition ("falling asleep" - Orthodox).

(Icon of the Dormition by Theophan the Greek, from the year 1392).

Late yesterday afternoon, on the eve of the day when the Church remembers Mary, our Churchwide Assembly elected a new Presiding Bishop, Elizabeth Eaton, who is the current Bishop of the Northeastern Ohio Synod.  I wasn't able to watch all of the election process online, but from what I did see, I suspect she gained a lot of support during the voting because of her candor in answering the questions posed to the nominees.  It was refreshing to hear someone acknowledge where we are as a denomination - wounded from battles that have raged about various matters since the merger that formed the ELCA 25 years ago, and the loss of almost 25% of its membership in those 25 years.

Also, judging from the various social media conversations about the election, once her candidacy gained some traction, a lot of the talk centered around the fact that her election would be historic - she would be the ELCA's first female Presiding Bishop.  Just a few years ago, the Episcopal Church elected its first female Presiding Bishop, Katherine Jefferts Schori.

I find it somewhat ironic that despite all of the talk about the leadership of women in the modern American denominations that descend from the Protestant Reformation, the leadership of Mary is still ignored by many. 

The typical Protestant reasoning for avoiding any discussion about Mary is the allegation that it takes the focus away from Jesus.  To the contrary, the life of Mary points to her Son.  For example, this reflection by a Benedictine monk (incorporating Eastern Orthodox theology) on the dormition shows how the role of Mary, properly understood, glorifies Christ:

"At Mary's death her Son appears like a heavenly midwife who has helped his mother give birth to herself into eternity.  Her newborn soul is represented as a child wrapped in swaddling clothes, a thought-provoking reversal of his own physical birth when she wrapped him in swaddling bands and laid him in the manger (Lk 2:7).  She gave birth to him into time: now he regenerates her into eternity.  It is Mary's personal pascha/transitus, her journey through death to life: but like that of all other believers it is accomplished not through her own strength but because of the paschal mystery of her Son."

(From p. 264 of "Meeting Christ in His Mysteries: A Benedictine Vision of the Spiritual Life" by Gregory Collins, OSB).

When she spoke to the assembly yesterday, Bishop Eaton talked about the importance of the theology of the cross. Who was at the foot of the cross, watching the crucifixion of her Son?  Mary.  John 19:26-27 tells us: "When Jesus saw his mother and the disciple whom he loved standing beside her, he said to his mother, 'Woman, here is your son.' Then he said to the disciple, 'Here is your mother.' And from that hour the disciple took her into his own home."

A theology of the cross that does not place us at the foot of the cross alongside Mary is no theology of the cross at all. 

Thoughts from a Benedictine on the Sacramental Nature of Scripture

Today in the mail, I received a book called "Meeting Christ in His Mysteries: A Benedictine Vision of the Spiritual Life" by Gregory Collins, OSB. While I was skimming through parts of it this evening, I noticed a passage entitled "The Sacramental Mystery of Scripture." 

Since I wrote a blog post on that same subject a few months ago (http://benedictinelutheran.blogspot.com/2013/05/the-sacramental-quality-of-reading.html), I have been thinking about how viewing Scripture as a sacrament cuts through the tired debates about the Bible that seem to be largely driven by American Protestants.  Conservative American Protestants demand allegiance to a belief in the inerrancy and infallibility of Scripture.  Liberal American Protestants are all over the map on how to view Scripture, but are united in their opposition to believing that it is inerrant and infallible.

Here is a quote from the book which offers some support to what I think is a better way to think about Scripture - the way that Scripture has been traditionally viewed throughout the history of the Church before the recent American debates came along:

"Because Christianity is an historical religion based on the real incarnation of God in time and space, the Catholic and Orthodox churches do not accept a fundamentalist reading of the Bible.  Scripture mediates God's word in the most privileged way. It is the written record of God's living voice and a constant source for the church not only of life and consolation but also of challenge and rebuke. But the written text cannot simply be identified in a simplistic way with the Word as such, any more than the flesh of Christ may be simplistically described as 'God' in an absolute sense: by analogy with Christ's humanity, human words are joined to the Word and become transparent to the divine."  (p. 65)

Luther's view of Scripture as being like a cradle that holds Christ would seem to be consistent with this approach, which is beholden to neither fundamentalism nor modern skepticism.  Instead of aligning himself with modern American Protestants at either end of the spectrum, then, I think Luther would by sympathetic with this sentiment from the 20th century Benedictine theologian, Dom Odo Casel (quoted in the book at page 63):

"The fathers, with the light of faith to guide them, saw everywhere - in the law, the prophets, the acts of Old Testament kings and saints, here more clearly, there less - the figure of Jesus, glowing in the half-darkness, until it emerges in the gospel's brightness.  What the ancients gradually and wearily came to was as clear as the noonday when the world's own light shone: the keys to all mysteries were in Christ; when this unfailing instrument, the key of David, is put to the explaining of Scripture, the whole beauty, depth, and clarity of Christian allegory is seen for what it really is in the liturgy.  Its heart is the redeeming work of Christ and everything we read and pray in these texts points to that."

The Two Luthers

In my recent post entitled "The Spirituality of Silence", I included a quote from Luther which lampooned the monastic practice of silence.  I found that quote by looking through the index to Luther's Works for references to St. Benedict and monasticism, and I think I can safely say that the quote I included is a fairly typical remark from Luther on monasticism.   

For some time, I have been perplexed while reading Luther.  Since Lutherans like to refer to dichotomies (such as Law and Gospel), I use a dichotomy to help myself deal with Luther's writings.  It seems that Luther wrote from one of two viewpoints - the "Catholic Luther" or the "Scorned Luther".

The "Catholic Luther" is the Luther who wrote beautiful devotional pieces (e.g., the Commentary on the Magnificat) and catechisms that got right to the heart of the faith (e.g., the classic Small Catechism). These works by Luther expressed the faith of the Church, using the particularly Lutheran emphasis on what Christ has done for us, instead of on what we do for Christ.

Then, there is the "Scorned Luther" - when he was rejected, it seems as if he went beyond critique with the intent to reform, and degenerated into polemics and mockery.  This led him at times to throw the proverbial baby out with the bath water, in my opinion.  There are many examples - the Luther who was a monk became a fierce critic of monasticism.  The Luther who celebrated the mass began to call the Catholic mass an abomination. The Luther who reached out in a friendly way to the Jews became the Luther who wrote "On the Jews and Their Lies." 

As a Lutheran pastor, I am only bound to Luther's writings and beliefs to the extent that they are found in the Book of Concord.  Fortunately, Luther's writings that were included in the Book of Concord mostly fall into the "Catholic Luther" category (I use the word "mostly" becomes sometimes the Scorned Luther comes out - in the Smalcald Articles, for example).

Luther was brilliant but tormented, as well as faithful but flawed.   At times, it seems as if Lutherans cite his works as the definitive authority on a subject.  In the spirit of the "Catholic Luther", I would rather view his writings through the lens of the faith of the Church throughout the ages, instead of being the final word on what the Church has to say on any given subject.

Luther and the Catholic Church

In the comments responding to my post on "Evangelical Catholic" Lutheranism, there was some discussion pertaining to Luther's relationship to the Catholic Church. I started to write a response in the comments, but thought it might be better to have a separate post on the subject.

To begin, instead of debating whether Luther was "kicked out" of the Catholic Church or not, I think we should simply use the proper term for what happened - he was excommunicated when he did not recant within the sixty day time period set forth in the papal bull Exsurge Domine (1520). 

Whether or not he should have been excommunicated is a subject of sometimes interesting, sometimes banal, debates between religious historians and apologists for both sides.  What I personally find more helpful is the attitude of Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI, who in their public addresses regarding Luther have acknowledged his genuine zeal for the Gospel, the historical complexity of the Reformation, and the fact that the actions of both sides caused the rift. For example, see the address of Benedict XVI to a group of Lutherans at the Augustinian monastery in Erfurt where Luther was a monk, which can be read here:

 http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2011/september/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20110923_evangelical-church-erfurt_en.html

In doing so, John Paul II and Benedict XVI honored the way of St. Benedict by seeing Christ in another.

Sometimes when I am scanning through radio stations, I stop and listen to EWTN, and when I periodically hear the apologists there castigate Luther (contrary to the spirit of what John Paul II and Benedict XVI have said), I get a feeling of regret  - specifically, that they are missing an opportunity to enlist Luther as an ally.  Luther's adamant belief in the real presence of the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist, devotion to Mary and the saints, support of infant baptism, etc., are all examples of his defense of the Catholic faith against more radical reformers.

Of course, there were very real disputes which should not be ignored. But, since Vatican II, the Lutheran-Catholic ecumenical dialogues have meticulously analyzed the beliefs of our respective communions, and have found agreement in many areas where it was previously believed there was division. In the spirit of St. Benedict, I hope that we continue to pray together and see Christ in each other.

"Evangelical Catholic" Lutheranism?

As my blog title indicates, I prefer to think of myself as a "Benedictine Lutheran," but  I suppose that I arguably fit into the category of Lutheranism referred to as as "Evangelical Catholicism." I have seen that term used in a variety of ways over the years, and there have been entire threads on the American Lutheran Publicity Bureau forum devoted to the question of how to define an "Evangelical Catholic," but no consensus was reached as far as I could tell.

Generally speaking, I use the term to refer to Lutherans who maintain the emphasis on salvation by grace through faith (the "Evangelical" part), but in doing so, emphasize the importance of the liturgy, and do not view the Lutheran Confessions in a vacuum, but interpret them in light of the faith of the entire Church, particularly the Early Church Fathers (the "Catholic" part).  But, I admit that my somewhat vague definition is simply one among many.

Therefore, I have to admit I was somewhat jealous when I saw this concise explanation of what it means to be a "Catholic" from an Anglican perspective, as demonstrated in a slideshow devoted to the spirituality of the Book of Common Prayer:  

http://akensidepress.com/blog/2013/05/the-liturgical-spirituality-of-the-prayer-book-an-intro/

So, this slideshow made me wonder if such a concise slideshow could ever be made about what it means to be a "Catholic" from an Evangelical Lutheran perspective.  Or are we too fractured into varying groups who express their "Evangelical Catholicism" in disparate ways, such as a strict view of the Confessions, or taking an ultra "high church" view of the liturgy? 

Certainly, many Lutheran theologians (Arthur Carl Piepkorn, Bishop Bo Giertz, Carl Braaten, and Robert W. Jenson to name a few) have written a great deal on the intended catholicity of the Lutheran movement.  But, for me at least, the question of how to describe an "Evangelical Catholic" Lutheran remains unanswered.  One of the reasons I started this blog was that I viewed it as a forum to air my thoughts and invite discussion on this subject, so there will be more on this subject to come.