Shed for you and for… who?

I’ve been reading (and enjoying, and benefiting from) Timothy Radcliffe’s book What is the Point of Being a Christian? over the past few weeks. Fr Radcliffe is a former head of the Dominican order, and in one of the later chapters of his book he turns his attention to the divisions that have emerged between Roman Catholics since the Second Vatican Council.

He rejects labels such as “traditionalist” and “liberal” as examples of the church allowing itself to be defined by the world’s terminology. Instead he talks about “Kingdom Catholics” (those who emphasise the church as the people of God on pilgrimage towards the Kingdom) and “Communion Catholics” (those who emphasise membership in the institutional church as a communion of believers).

Fr Radcliffe uses Jesus’ words of institution at the Last Supper to illustrate his argument that the church needs both these tendencies in order to be “a home in which everyone, regardless of his or her sympathies and allegiance, may be at ease”. In particular he points to the “slight difference” between Jesus’ words over the bread and over the cup, as reported in Mark 14:22-25:

The bread is given just to the disciples. The cup is also given to them, but is poured out for the many. … The bread is given to that small community of the upper room. His disciples share it together. The cup looks forward to the larger community of the many … It points to the Kingdom, into which all are called.

This tension – between the body given “for you” and the blood shed “for you and for many” (or “all”) – is, Fr Radcliffe suggests, “an intrinsic part of the Last Supper and of every Eucharist”.

He goes on to suggest that Communion Catholics tend to “privilege” the first of these, the blessing of the bread, Jesus as the one who “gathers us together round the altar into intimate communion”. Kingdom Catholics, by contrast, emphasise the blessing of the cup, “which reaches out to the fullness of the Kingdom in which all humanity is called into unity”:

It suggests the Christ who overthrows every boundary, who touches the lepers and reaches out to the Samaritans, who breaks the law and transgresses the boundaries. It suggests a Church which is turned outwards, towards all that is human, which seeks for signs of the Spirit working in the world.

We might well conclude from this (though Fr Radcliffe is too polite to say so explicitly) that a church which lacked this emphasis on “the many” – focusing entirely on the “for you” – would be marked by a damaging insularity, a turning away from the world and a shrinking into its boundaries.

With that thought in mind, let’s turn our attention to the words of institution as contained within the Lutheran Service Book (and in much the same form in previous books):

Our Lord Jesus Christ, on the night when He was betrayed, took bread, and when He had given thanks, He broke it and gave it to the disciples and said: “Take, eat; this is My body, which is given for you. This do in remembrance of Me.”

In the same way also He took the cup after supper, and when He had given thanks, He gave it to them, saying: “Drink of it, all of you; this cup is the new testament in My blood, which is shed for you for the forgiveness of sins. This do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.”

Oops. “Which is shed for you for the forgiveness of sins”. No mention of “the many”.

Now, I’m sure there are good reasons for this (and perhaps someone can suggest some in the comments). After all, Jesus’ words are reported slightly differently in each of the four places where they are given in the New Testament, so there is room for liturgists to prefer one version over another.

Perhaps the rationale is that the words of institution as spoken during the Lord’s Supper are spoken by Christ (through the minister) directly to those there. The emphasis is thus on the “for you” – i.e. you people in the pews right now, hearing the promise of Christ. (Though when Jesus was saying those words to his disciples in the upper room right then, he still referred to “the many”.)

However, one of the most common criticisms of the Lutheran Church – one expressed with particular force and eloquence in this post by Michael Spencer – is of its insularity: its tendency to turn in on itself and ignore the wider church and the wider world.

In the light of Fr Radcliffe’s argument, we can perhaps see this tendency reflected – and subconsciously reinforced, week after week – at the very heart of our worship.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Theology and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

30 Responses to Shed for you and for… who?

  1. Sorry John, don’t have time for an extended reply, but I think your author is thinking along the right lines, although without reading his book I wouldn’t want to comment on his particular application of the text to the RCC. The ‘many’ in Mark has to do with covenant language – Jesus is inaugurating a new covenant and it is more inclusive than the old one. You can go back to Isaiah or forward to Romans to expand the theme. Again, how this applies to the Lutheran situation needs to be thought through carefully, but you may have a point!

  2. Mack says:

    You’re making me salivate over this book, John. Very unfair considering that I just bought about 5 other books and none of them were this one. How will I justify buying this one to my wife? 😉

    To add a bit to the substance of the post though: there’s also the interesting aspect of how pro multis somehow got translated “for all” in the American version of the RCC liturgy (not sure if they use the same on your side of the Pond). I think there has been some rumor that this is getting changed soon. Signa temporum, the Communion Catholics are in the ascendant, for better or for worse.

    That calls to mind another weird thing, which is that lately (and by that I mean in the past year or so) I’ve noticed a lot of RCC priests (in the Chicago archdiocese anyway) saying “When you do this, remember me” rather than “Do this in memory of me,” which I suppose means the same thing but always makes me start up since I heard “Do this in memory of me” six times a week as a kid (there was a time when I could say the whole Mass from heart, lol).

    Anyway, that Kingdom/Communion dichotomy is a great way of thinking about things, I really like it. I look forward to hearing more about this book!

  3. “When you do this, remember me”… I was under the impression that Roman priests couldn’t arbitrarily make such liturgical changes…am I wrong, Mack? (Or is it the priests who are wrong?)
    Perhaps I’m hyper-sensitive here -being Lutheran ;0) -, but I would suggest such wording alters the balance of the sacrament in the direction of a mere memorial meal. Is the spirit of Zwingli alive and well in the Chicago RC archdiocese?

  4. J. Random Hermeneut says:

    Well the LSB formula as a redaction follows the text of Luke here I suppose. But against both Matthew and Mark. (1 Cor. 11 does not include either clause).

    I confess I’m shocked that I’ve not noticed this before. The common assumption is that Lutherans retained the formula of institution from the Latin mass discarding the (so it is assumed) chaff of the canon. But of course that’s not true here. The LSB Verba (and it’s Truly Lutheran (TM) predecessors) appears to be a de novo somewhat minimalist redaction of the Biblical texts. Consecration of the chalice in the Latin mass is fleshed out and enriched, but more importantly, it’s conflation of the texts is expansionist: For this is the chalice of my blood, of the new and everlasting covenant, a mystery of faith…. qui pro vobis et pro multis effundetur (it will shed for you and for the many) in remissionem peccatorum (for the remission of sins). Looking up a few pages (in this here book I’ve just pulled of the shelf) there is some fairly universal testimony for doing things that way, e.g. the Alexandrian Liturgy of St. Mark, the Coptic and Byzantine Liturgies of St. Basil the Liturgy of Chrysostom, the Gallican and Mozarabic rites, etc. etc…..; also the “for many” is retained in the text of Cyril’s Mystagogical Catechesis. O.K. that settles it for me. There is simply no excuse. What can I say except….

    Yet again, it sucks to be this (LSB) brand of Lutheran. This minimalising redaction of the tradition of the Verba appears not to be “Lutheran” per se — at the very least the following (which are the only ones I have at hand at the moment) are expanding conflations: Petri’s Swedish Mass, Bucer’s Strassburg 1539 liturgy and the Cranmer’s Prayer Book of 1549 (which follows the Brandenburg-Nurenberg order) don’t miss this trick.

  5. J. Random Hermeneut says:

    Or to put it another way: so there is room for liturgists to prefer one version over another. And equally there’s room for me to pronounce a heartfelt pox on all of them.

  6. J. Random Hermeneut says:

    And, one of the most common criticisms of the [LCMS family of] Lutheran Church – is of its insularity: Lex orandi lex credendi. QED

  7. J. Random Hermeneut says:

    Further, FYI:

    TLH (Synodical Conference i.e. LCMS and friends, 1941): …which is shed for you,…

    The Service Book and Hymnal (ALC/LCA etc.): …which is shed for you, and for many,…

    LBW, prepared by the churches participating in the Inter-Lutheran Commission on Worship, to wit, the LCA, ALC, ELCC, LC-MS (the latter jumping ship at the last moment to produce it’s truly Lutheran (TM) book): …shed for you, and for all people,…

    LW (LCMS “conservative” fix of LBW – deliberately backpeddles the work of the Commission on this): …which is shed for you…

    I stand rebuked. Clearly, since the traditum has been retained those “other” Lutherans it must be wrong. As you were…

  8. You link to the article by the Internet Monk. In the discussion that ensued there, I wrote the following:

    We do have a tendency to be insular on account of being right [some would say that with irony, others not]. That’s why I love projects like the White Horse Inn. One key problem is that confessional Lutheranism has the same kind of ecumenical asymmetry built into it as, say, Roman Catholicism: the doctrinal/ecumenical standard is such that other confessions (esp. Reformed/reformed) will always be left looking and feeling the more ecumenically open party. This is particularly true of the sacraments, but not exclusively. And that can’t be fixed without changing the doctrinal/ecumenical standard, which will then leave Lutheranism a little less Lutheran.

    [The tone in which one presents one’s point of view] is a question of pastoral care, and there are plenty of people out there who are very bad at it. I have also seen this from Baptists. The point remains: the ecumenical threshold is higher from the Lutheran perspective than the R/reformed one. This goes right back to Marburg 1529 and the debate between Luther and Zwingli. They didn’t agree, which was a shame from Zwingli’s point of view, but went to the heart of the Gospel from Luther’s.

    This is no excuse for isolationism… However, when we do come together, spades must carry the name of spade, however gently they are wielded.

    I would probably re-word things a little if I had the time, but I do stand behind the point I made then. From outside Lutheranism, Lutherans do always look isolationist, however ecumenically minded they are. Witness the treatment given to Hermann Sasse in Barmen in 1934. Heck, this guy had been the secretary of the Faith and Order conference. Not your run-of-the-mill ‘There’s no salvation outside Northern Iowa’ LC-MS caricature. And yet he was “isolationist”, because he was being confessional.

    Now that’s not to say that Lutherans (or Baptists, or Reformed) aren’t bad at being ecumenical in a good way. But to make that charge — with all due respect to Prof. Hermeneut — one has to shoot like a sniper, not a B52 pilot.

    As for the verba in its many redactions: the 1694 Swedish/Finnish Mass also has the expansive version. However, I don’t think that in that case — or in many others — that was for the love of ecumenism or as an expression of an open ecclesiology, or anything of that sort. By contrast, the verba in the current Finnish Mass — and trust me, this lot are very open to the rest of Christendom, and beyond — are identical to the LSB. There’s more going on there than meets the eye.

    Lex orandi lex credendi indeed, but not necessarily in this case.

  9. J. Random Hermeneut says:

    Lex orandi lex credendi indeed, but not necessarily in this case.

    Yes. Exactly in this case. I want to know the story behind this change in the traditum. The frustration is primarily self-directed — as I said I’m shocked I’ve not noticed or thought about it before.

    For starters,
    Deutsche Messe:
    http://jrandomhermeneut.tumblr.com/post/436628564/luthers-deutsche-messe-the-text-of-the-office-and

    I’m just asking to be given what I’ve signed onto, which is confessional Lutheran theology and liturgical tradition that stays on the horse.

    Or let’s put it this way — I’m curious as to why the confessional Lutheran liturgical heritage of the ELCE with respect to the tradition Verba of historic Lutheran liturgy themselves underwent change, from the formula used at the inception of this church body : “…which is shed for you and for many…” (Lutheran Hymnal of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of England AKA the Evangelical Lutheran Hymn-Book, which reproduces the Verba of the Common Service) — to the present state of affairs. Is it a matter of no consequence because no-one has thought to ask the question before? Well I’m asking, in all sincerity.

    [I don’t mean practically-speaking why this change occurred. Obviously, it happened with the adoption of TLH.]

    Anyhow, your advice to shoot like a sniper is well-received. Had a nice chat about this with the ‘bish’ over tea. A resolution to synod may be the result.

  10. John H says:

    Mack: yes, I’ve heard that the new English translation of the Mass reverts to “for many” rather than “for all”. I deliberately sidestepped that in my post!

    What with “all –> many” and “when you do this, remember me”, there does seem to be a Calvinist/Zwinglian tendency at work here ;-). I think I’ve come across Lutheran polemics suggesting that the RCC and the Reformed churches are basically peas in a pod (unlike the One True Church of the Unaltered Augsburg Confession, in which all purity and truth resides infallibly), but I can’t quite summon up the energy to track them down. 😉

    Tapani: I take your point about the differing “ecumenical thresholds”, particularly over the Supper. But this isn’t really about ecumenism per se: after all, the RCC’s ecumenical threshold is, if anything, higher than confessional Lutheranism’s. It’s more a question of how much one seeks to engage with those on the other side of the threshold, as it were, or whether one turns in on oneself.

    As JRH points out, the interesting question is why the change has been made, especially since it involved a positive change from other English Lutheran liturgies (especially in the move from the LBW to LW). But whatever the answer to that question, there is still the matter of the unintended consequences of the change. Why we chose to remove “for many” (our conscious, intentional reasons) is one question; why it even occurred to us that such a change was in the range of possibilities is another; why it didn’t trigger concerns about whether this sounded a bit too exclusive/insular is yet another.

    To that extent the point about lex orendi, lex credendi remains valid: after all it’s “the law of prayer is the law of belief”, not “how we consciously interpret the law of prayer is the law of belief” – however that would be expressed in Latin…

    JRH: Will be interesting to see what emerges from your discussions with the Archbishop of Cambridge. (I haven’t canvassed the views of the Archbishop-elect of Petts Wood!)

  11. J. Random Hermeneut says:

    the interesting question is why the change has been made Indeed. That is the question that interests me. My working hypothesis is that someone, somewhere along the line someone came up with the bright idea of swapping in the text of the catechisms in place of the liturgical Verba. But…

    The trouble with this is that Luther’s concern here is entirely pedagogical not liturgical. The formula in the small catechism is not the liturgical verba of Luther’s day; rather it is Luther’s way of citing for purposes of catechesis an answer to the question [Q2] “Where is this written?” and as such is a reductionist conflation of 1 Cor. 11.23-25; Matt 26.26-28; Mark 14.22-24; and Luke 22.19f. which itself is a question which follows the first: What is the Sacrament of the Altar? A: Body and blood …under bread and wine … instituted by Christ … for us to eat and to drink. These themselves are catechetical issues responding to the chief points of confession which are being maintained the midst of the Reformational polemics (i.e., denial of Real Presence, Aristotelian transubstantiation, dominical institution, communion under both kinds, the abuse of extra-liturgical [i.e. outside the context of the Mass] adoration).

    In fine, Luther’s redaction is brilliant catechesis — he draws from the cited biblical texts to craft a mnemonic that addresses all these controverted issues. But it is not the full liturgical Verba of the Lutheran church orders of the time. This swapping in of the catechism, if indeed that is what motivated the change (and it is the most innocuous of the hypotheses I’ve been considering this morning), is a bad idea. (To express why I think this will take many, many more words. I’ll maybe post something anon.)

  12. John, Hermeneut,

    You are both right. However, the point about the ecumenical threshold is that it’s a reality that affects the terms of engagement (and I would argue that the RCC’s ecumenical threshold is in many ways much, much lower than that of confessional Lutheranism), and which therefore also affects the opportunities for being outward-looking outside one’s library. Now, I have no doubt whatsoever that there are plenty of Lutheran folks who are quite satisfied with the Bible, the Confessions, Luther’s Works, Pieper and a handful of like-minded fellows in town, and have no desire to look beyond that. And then there are folks who would be outward-looking, but don’t necessarily get the opportunity to be seen to be so for the reasons of the ecumenical asymmetry. I have some experience of this.

    As for the lex orandi/credendi point I made, I have argued often and forcefully, even in print, that whatever we do communicates something and therefore everything matters — just as John said. However, to go from that fact to insinuating that this particular change was made as an expression of Lutheran insularity is unwarranted in the absence of evidence. It may serve that point, it may not. It may or may not be a good idea. But what are the facts of the matter? On what grounds was the change made? After all, all sorts of other liturgical changes have been made often for no ‘other reason than perceived liturgical ‘purity’, with far-reaching (unintended) consequences. In such cases, we are entitled to call the changes (and those who made it) stupid or whatever, but not necessarily to charge the change-makers with ecclesiological scheming.

    Which is why I pointed out the fact that the Evangelical-Lutheran Church of Finland made the same change around the same time as TLH (in this case the 1930s). At this time, they were also getting into eucharistic sharing with the Church of England, and a few decades later with the Church of Scotland, and subsequently with all sorts of groups with a collective pulse. When the liturgy was re-written in the 1990s, the change was retained. Could it be that there was some sort of perceived good reason for making the change, which then got encoded in the collective memory? And in the case of LW/LBW, associated with a perceived and mis-informed aura of orthodoxy?

    I don’t know any of the answers either. But if this really matters (and it may), I would call for a bit of finding out before getting too upset.

    Charitably,
    TS

  13. John H says:

    JRH: The idea that it’s adopting the Catechism language makes sense. (Not that I’m saying it’s a good idea. Just that it makes sense as an explanation for the decision to use that text.)

    Tapani: I don’t for one moment think that the change was made intentionally as an expression of insularity. My point was that it may (unconsciously) reflect a certain insularity – just as a decision to adopt Matthew’s text and omit “for you” would potentially reflect a falling off the other side of the horse – and that it (equally unconsciously) reinforces it.

    As for the height of the “ecumenical threshold”, I suspect the RCC can in practice be more “open” because it is more confident in its distinct identity. No-one’s going to mistake the RCC for “generic Protestantism” just because they turn up to Churches Together meetings. Lutherans have to make more of an effort to preserve their identity as distinct from “other” “Protestants” – both in the eyes of those others and, indeed, our own. (And not without good historical reason, as I understand it.)

  14. Hermeneut,

    My latest comment was written prior to reading your latest offering so was not intended as a reply to that. What you suggest is indeed a possibility, and perhaps likely. It would chime nicely with the kind of Luther-ism that is not uncommon in our circles.

  15. John H says:

    A very loose analogy: my wife and I have been to numerous weddings from which the children of guests are excluded. (So children today grow up without ever attending weddings, in contrast to our own childhoods.) Now, this is not because the couples dislike children or regard them as less important or anything, oh no, perish the thought. But weddings are expensive, numbers are limited, regrettable but necessary decisions have to be made, etc., etc.

    However, why is it that friends’ children (as opposed, say, to their spouses or partners) are seen as optional – the first thing to go when push comes to shove (as it inevitably does)? That’s what’s revealing: not what is intended, but what is unconsciously revealed as an “objective” consequence of the decision.

  16. John,

    I’m proposing as a hypothesis that there was some kind of scholarly fad in the 1920s and 30s, influenced by the Luther renaissance, to be more Lutherish in all things and get away from the accretions of Lutheranism. As a result, some liturgical ‘scholars’ thought it a good idea to reflect Luther’s rendition of the verba in the form they were known to most people in the Catechism. This idea didn’t catch on, except in some isolated pockets: St. Louis and Helsinki. One of them insular, the other very much not.

    Just as plausible, I would have thought. You see, my charitable self (which is making its twice-yearly visit this afternoon) just can’t see any of these hyper-Pieperian crazies meddling with the verba without good conscious reasons. Just like the biblicist (!) semi-Liberals crazies of the Far North wouldn’t have done. In one case, it conveniently looks like an insular move, in the other inconsistent. I propose: both are just a bit odd. Until better evidence emerges.

    Not being obtuse I hope. I’ll happily LC—MS bash another time in another bar. Not ready to do so here on the current evidence.

  17. J. Random Hermeneut says:

    But if this really matters (and it may), and of course it may not, upon reflection, but I think it may.

    I would call for a bit of finding out before getting too upset. Absolutely. I have no doubt that the change would have been made with perceived good reasons and best intentions.

    My frustration is primarily with myself for not having given this due consideration before. Time perhaps to turn this frustration into an opportunity for study and reflection of the Word.

  18. John, we are cross-commenting like crazy. This will be my final offering this afternoon.

    Your analogy only works if there is a push that needs to become a shove, i.e. a need to ‘do something’. I just can’t see what that would be in this case, unless the people in charge felt the need to have shorter services. We are talking about centuries of tradition being altered. I want to know the reason, and the reason why it was implemented in the LC-MS and the ELCF but not the ELS or the Church of Sweden. I just don’t think the discrepancy is best explained by the suggested hidden motive.

    (OFFTOPIC: I feel equally strongly about children in funerals, another possible analogy, and even more misguided in my view.)

  19. John H says:

    Tapani: the only areas in which my analogy was remotely relevant were (a) the disjunction between people’s stated intentions and the unintended message that is sent out by their decision, and (b) what it reveals about “thinkable” and “unthinkable” possibilities.

    For most couples it is “unthinkable” that they would exclude their friends’ spouses or even unmarried partners. Thirty years ago it would (I suspect) have been “unthinkable” to exclude children. Now it is not only thinkable, but the norm.

    In the same way, I wonder why excluding “for many” should even have been a “thinkable” possibility. And as I said in my post, I am very open to being told what the reason was – though I still think it would be healthier to revert to tradition on this one!

  20. Rick Ritchie says:

    LBW did something better? Nice!

    I think the reasons suggested by Simojoki are plausible. Here, however, I would be happy to be mistaken for a Biblicist, even if in other contexts I’ll dispute the charge or prove it false. When it comes to the Words of Institution, they are the tradition (Latin in 1 Corinthians 11:23 is “tradidi”). They are the primary source that was handed down. St. Paul’s discussion of the Lord’s Supper in 1 Corinthians is based upon those words. I think the thing to ponder is how 1 Corinthians 10:16-17 could be derived from the Words on Institution themselves. As another writer once said, the Words of Institution are not commentary about the Lord’s Supper which has existence apart from them. They (with the elements) constitute the Lord’s Supper.

  21. John H says:

    Rick: thanks for this.

    Incidentally, what is this term “Biblicist” that has been mentioned in this thread? I’m assuming it has a historical meaning in Lutheran theology, but at the moment I feel like the guy in Spinal Tap when accused of sexism: “Biblicist? What’s wrong with being biblical?”… 😉

  22. Pingback: Random thoughts on a Tuesday

  23. ‘Biblicism’. n. The theological school of thought, developed and exemplified particularly by J.T. Beck and his followers, that pits ‘sola scriptura’ against confessionalism, drawing on ‘Scripture alone’ over against and outside a credal framework. Natural progenitor of Fundamentalism (in the original Niagara sense). Sounds good but is in fact BAD.

  24. Rick Ritchie says:

    I’ve taken “Biblicism” to mean especially those who make a lawcode out of Scripture. They decide what we do only based on what is commanded or forbidden. (The Zurich reformation began with a discussion of the eating of sausages.) I’d rather locate the problem in a kind of reading of the Bible than in how the Bible relates to the Confessions. “Biblicism” is a true problem, but can also be a pejorative that gets used to shut down debate.

  25. Matt says:

    John: When I first read the post my reaction was that I never thought about the “for you” compared to “for many” in connection with the Lutheran potential for insularity. But wasn’t sure what to think beyond that.

    After your later comment reinforcing that you’re open to being told what the liturgists reasons were for excluding the “for many,” it occurred to me to ask: what suggests that using the “for you” actually has the effect you hypothesized in the original post (i.e. reflecting or subconsciously reinforcing potential insularity). I wonder both myself: what their reasons were and if we can be sure it’s having any effect at all. I would think that in connection to the Lord’s Supper a statement of closed communion would have far more effect on perceived insularity than neglecting “for many.”

    At least in my case, I’ve heard both in various occasions. Every time I hear “for many” I’ve thought of all those who believe Jesus shed his blood for their forgiveness. Every time I’ve heard “for you” I’ve thought of the fact that he’s here applying it to me, that it is a reality. Then again, I’ve never suffered in Lutheran congregations that failed to teach while slouching in insularity. Every pastor I’ve had has made a point to explicitly teach both of those.

    Anyway, I’ve been well aware of the insular tendency but not in connection to that. I get wondering if it is connected. However, what presses us from it could be to – it is?

  26. John H says:

    Matt: I realise the discussion above has taken us some way from the original thought of my post, which wasn’t so much a serious, evidence-based analysis of causation between the words of institution and Lutheran tendencies towards insularity as a case of saying: “Fr Radcliffe links the ‘for you’ with the more inward-looking ‘Communion’ tendency and the ‘for many’ with the more outward-looking ‘Kingdom’ tendency. Isn’t it intriguing/significant/amusing/depressing (delete as applicable) therefore that LCMS-type Lutheranism omits ‘the many’?”

    In other words it was more interested in the correlation rather than any potential causation. That said, I don’t think we should dismiss the “reinforcement” aspect out of hand. Jesus said “for many” for a reason; the symbolic significance of changing the translation of “pro multis” from “for all” to “for many” in the new Missal is lost on neither “Kingdom” nor “Communion” Catholics.

    Omitting “for many” may not be the most obvious or largest contributor to the perception and reality of Lutheran insularity: its significance (if it has any) is its location at the very heart of the Divine Service. And you’re quite right that Lutheran pastors don’t teach insularity – but what is said in the pulpit is only a small part (far less than preachers like to suppose) of what is taught and confessed by a church: lex orandi, lex credendi again.

  27. Bass says:

    John, thanks for bringing this book to my attention. I just ordered a copy and have enjoyed finding and reading more about and by Fr. Radcliffe on the ‘net.

  28. Matt says:

    Intriguing. I’ll go with intriguing.

  29. Pingback: Confessing Evangelical » God does not exist

  30. Pingback: Confessing Evangelical » Silence in the church

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s