‘The Lord hath his way in the whirlwind and in the storm…’ - Nahum 1:3
The American Family Association is selling “The Original Christmas Cross” (what is original about it anyway?):
And we think the Catholics are bad with trinkets. Come on, people! Wake up! This is the sort of thoughtless garbage that gives Christians a bad name. I wonder if you order from Mississippi or Louisiana you get white hoods along with it. :) Man!
[HT: Civitate Dei]
I really don’t have a big comment policy here other than common sense, but if you’re going to leave a comment I’d ask that you include a valid email address along with it or it may never see the light of day. I’m not concerned with disagreement (in fact, I encourage it) or even hate mail, but I’d at least appreciate the opportunity to contact you to follow up if necessary.
So, that said, that’s my one comment rule. Valid email address or no comment. If you want to be anonymous, use an anonymous email address. :)
Just make sure you respond when/if I follow up. Otherwise, as Helen Hunt said on SNL, “Buh Bye”.
I had originally thought about making two posts about this subject, but since the topics are so closely related I’m going to try to kill two birds with one stone. I just don’t understand why certain ministers want to be portrayed this way in the following video:
Pastor Douglas Wilson is a huge sardonic critic of all that is evangelical and popular in today’s churches and yet he has no problem riding the circuit with a well-known atheist, writing self-aggrandizing books, publishing in Christianity Today, and doing all the stuff necessary to be the next Brian McLaren. We’re ready to give him a pass because he thinks he’s Reformed and not just like every other semi-famous evangelical touting his wares?
Why can’t ministers just tend to their flocks without all the hoopla? Why pretend it’s the grand adventure, “Clash of the Titans”, or the missing and final Jason Bourne sequel?
I listened to the debate today between Wilson and Christopher Hitchens and was summarily disappointed.
First of all, whatever other talents Wilson may have in writing his performance at this debate was a matter of being outclassed ten to one. In terms of style, Wilson uses more verbal pauses in his speech than Barack Obama without a teleprompter. This is nothing new of course but it makes me wonder why Hitchens would join the stage with this particular minister except that it gives him a decided advantage in the debate. In contrast, Hitchens was lively, engaging, and lighthearted.
There’s nothing like using the age old trick of debating an opponent that’s just not on your level. Makes your arguments look almost entirely cogent and reasonable. Throw in a bit of humor and voila you’ve won the debate. Here’s the mp3’s by the way–don’t take my word for it–judge for yourself:
Wilson/Hitchens Debate, Introduction
Wilson/Hitchens Debate - Presentations
Wilson/Hitchens Debate - Q & A
More important than Wilson’s stuttering style is that Bahnsen/Van Til presuppositionalists have to wake up to the fact that philosophy and theology is just not done the same way as it was some hundred years ago. Kant and his close friends are not so close to us anymore. It’s not the huge victory it used to be to demonstrate that a position is inconsistent. Many people today are completely unconcerned with a consistent worldview even in Christian circles and failing to account for this fact in our apologetics means that we will lose people to atheism and other religious maladies if even for a moment we think we’ve won a debate because we’ve demonstrated the logical inconsistency of a position. People like Hitchens maintain their viewpoint and consider it completely rational whether it is or not. Wilson constantly tried to make Hitchens’ viewpoint appear logically inconsistent and Hitchens was already wise to the idea and had him at every corner turn of the debate. Even if Wilson succeeded in demonstrating that Hitchens was being inconsistent–it was a shrug of the shoulders and a move on to something else for the Oxford-educated atheist. So what? Who did Wilson convince besides those on his own side?
We also can’t afford in these types of debates to caricature a position by pretending that the atheist makes the same logical conclusions about his viewpoint that we might like to think he does. You can’t go around asserting that someone believes XYZ when they clearly don’t. Trying to make this square peg of postmodern atheism fit into the round hole of presuppositional apologetics is just not going to cut it without a great deal of work rounding off the hard corners of the unbeliever’s point of view. Wilson’s just not cut out for that sort of apologetic work because it requires detailed and thorough examination and attention–something Wilson just doesn’t do in anything he writes, says, or does. Propaganda artists masquerading as pastors shouldn’t be the people we put publicly in front of us to slay the popular giants of atheism. No, that’s what real apologists are for–people like James White who in January of 2009 is going to be debating Bart Ehrman on the reliability of the Scriptures.
It amazed me that Wilson started out his opening statements talking about what is true, good, or beautiful but it was Christopher Hitchens that demonstrated that beauty by describing the wonder and glory of the natural universe quite without the need for a God to explain it all. Wilson completely missed the opportunity to challenge Hitchens on this point in a winsome way that added to the normal presuppositional approach. Had he done so it would have made all the difference in the world. Instead, he allowed Hitchens to tan his hide about miracles both true and false and made Wilson appear like a fideist because the good pastor just couldn’t adequately explain his reasons for believing miracles to be true.
All in all, you’ve got to hand this debate to Hitchens plain and simple. Not that I agree with him in the slightest, but we have to make the defense of our faith intelligible, amiable, and attractive as much as possible to those who disagree with us and I don’t believe Wilson was able to do that in this debate.
1635, Salomon de Bray
Judges 4 tells the story of Jael and Sisera. An interesting read especially after doing a post on Romans 13.
But, I was looking around for more art and came across this little masterpiece (click on the image to see it full-size). That look she gives us holding the hammer and tent peg. You know, the one that made it straight into Sisera’s temple. Not a good day for those opposed to the people of God.
Most people are not well read in American history and it has been practically forgotten that it was the theology of the Reformation that gave its weight to the American Revolution and provided the necessary support from churches and the common people for it to succeed. While it is true that Enlightenment thinkers like Thomas Jefferson provided a sort of aristocratic leadership in forming the rebellion against the English Crown, the heart and soul of it all found huge support among the largely Calvinist people of the time because the call for revolution resonated with the reformational underpinnings of a biblical theology that men took seriously back then. Pulpits and pamphlets made the American Revolution a reality long before Jefferson penned the Declaration of Independence or a shot was fired. Here’s just a short section from the Institutes–the link below provides even more interesting reading:
But in that obedience which we hold to be due to the commands of rulers, we must always make the exception, nay, must be particularly careful that it is not incompatible with obedience to Him to whose will the wishes of all kings should be subject, to whose decrees their commands must yield, to whose majesty their sceptres must bow. And, indeed, how preposterous were it, in pleasing men, to incur the offence of Him for whose sake you obey men! The Lord, therefore, is King of kings. When he opens his sacred mouth, he alone is to be heard, instead of all and above all. We are subject to the men who rule over us, but subject only in the Lord. If they command any thing against Him, let us not pay the least regard to it, nor be moved by all the dignity which they possess as magistrates - a dignity to which, no injury is done when it is subordinated to the special and truly supreme power of God. On this ground Daniel denies that he had sinned in any respect against the king when he refused to obey his impious decree, (Dan. 6:22) because the king had exceeded his limits, and not only been injurious to men, but, by raising his horn against God, had virtually abrogated his own power. On the other hand, the Israelites are condemned for having too readily obeyed the impious edict of the king. For, when Jeroboam made the golden calf, they forsook the temple of God, and, in submissiveness to him, revolted to new superstitions, (1 Kings 12:28) With the same facility posterity had bowed before the decrees of their kings. For this they are severely upbraided by the Prophet, (Hosea 5:11) So far is the praise of modesty from being due to that pretence by which flattering courtiers cloak themselves, and deceive the simple, when they deny the lawfulness of declining any thing imposed by their kings, as if the Lord had resigned his own rights to mortals by appointing them to rule over their fellows or as if earthly power were diminished when it is subjected to its author, before whom even the principalities of heaven tremble as suppliants. I know the imminent peril to which subjects expose themselves by this firmness, kings being most indignant when they are condemned. As Solomon says, “The wrath of a king is as messengers of death,” (Prov. 16:14) But since Peter, one of heaven’s heralds, has published the edict, “We ought to obey God rather than men,” (Acts 5:29) let us console ourselves with the thought, that we are rendering the obedience which the Lord requires when we endure anything rather than turn aside from piety. And that our courage may not fail, Paul stimulates us by the additional considerations (1 Cor. 7:23) that we were redeemed by Christ at the great price which our redemption cost him, in order that we might not yield a slavish obedience to the depraved wishes of men, far less do homage to their impiety.
John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, Volume IV, Chapter 20, Paragraph 32.
We get in trouble if we lend unqualified support to the idea that Romans 13 means total and absolute obedience to our rulers especially given the fact that our government here in America is widely different than the government Paul found himself resigned to support. The establishment of American government is by consent of the governed and as a result when that consent is revoked there no longer remains a basis for the government to exist. This sort of thing was always present in ancient society though the United States of America was perhaps the first to really implement this constitutionally. Because we are governed by the citizenry, our government has more obligations to the people than the people have to those who govern.
That said, the admonition of Romans 13 regarding our obedience to those who govern is not without force but these same admonitions are also not put down absolutely without the knowledge and comment of other Bible passages and our overall understanding of God’s authority when we come to the sweeping statements made by the Apostle Paul.
These things are important for us to remember because tyranny is not dead in our day and there are always those who press illegitimate authority over us both in the government and in our churches. Often forgotten by these authoritarian hacks is that any authority they do have comes from God and it exists explicitly to do the people good (the part of Romans 13 that is often under emphasized in authoritarian environments to the hurt of the people governed). In truth, much more responsibility is present in that authority than the privilege to lord authority over others. However, the privilege to legitimately reign over others only comes with the grace and pleasure of God.
Paul’s message in Romans 13 is that we should obey rulers and do so voluntarily in the freedom we have in Christ. But, there are also times to disobey because there is a higher law and a higher Lawgiver that ultimately demands and receives the obedience of us all–including those who govern. We cannot ever forget that.
UPDATE: Here’s a good series of other posts and opinions to read on Romans 13.
In regard to the execution of the pact of salvation in time, however, we must be careful to distinguish between the covenant of grace in a broader and a more restricted sense. The universal idea of the revelation of salvation does not get its due when, in the discussion of the covenant of grace in time, we immediately proceed to Israel and the church of the New Testament. Scripture, after all, does not move all at once from Adam to Abraham either; it does not abandon humanity as a whole but in broad strokes describes its development up to the time of Abraham. Then, when out of the whole human race, Abraham and Israel are chosen, the bond with that mass of humanity is not severed. Israel does not float, like a drop of oil, on the sea of peoples but remains connected by numerous ties to those peoples and to the end keeps expectation alive also for them. In the fullness of time, Jew and Gentile were reconciled in the one Man: humanity as a whole gathers around the cross; and the church, chosen from that humanity, is closely united with it. Nature and grace, creation and re-creation, must be related to each other in the way Scripture relates them. And when we do, we note that the first promises of grace that are addressed by God to Adam and Eve after the fall are totally universal and concern the whole human race. Earlier we pointed out that all punishment pronounced on sin in Genesis 3 can be simultaneouly recognized as a revelation of God’s grace. And that grace is there extended without any restriction to the whole of humanity. Common grace and special grace still flow in a single channel. In the punishment that God pronounced after the transgression on the serpent, the woman, and the man, we hear the voice of God’s mercy more than that of his wrath. It is both punishment and promise; it is a “gracious and joy-filled punishment” (Luther). In it, accordingly, lies the origin and guarantee of continued existence, the expansion and development, the struggle and victory of humankind as a whole. Religion and morality, cult and culture have their beginnings there. In the long period from Adam to Noah, all of them develop under the influence of God’s common and special grace. The original powers, instilled by God at the creation in the various creatures, though broken, continue to be effective even after the fall for a long time.
Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, Volume 3, p. 216.
Not too long ago, I wrote a post about problems in Reformed churches and why some might want to avoid going to a Reformed church. I suppose it would be easy to conclude that I think all Reformed churches are a waste of time and filled with problems and that no one should ever attend one but nothing could be further from the truth. There are good Reformed churches out there and if you find one in a legitimate search for a church to be a part of then by all means you ought to spend the time to really get in touch with the people there and see if God is leading you there.
You will see criticism of the Reformed world on this blog - sometimes in spades. Part of this has to do with my own agreement with Reformed theology as a whole and my insistence that to whom much is given, much more is required. What that means practically is that the Reformed are even more obligated and responsible than others to be doing the right thing in their churches and making sure that they are properly proclaiming and living out the Gospel of Jesus Christ. We need higher standards in our churches and not lower ones. As a result, a Reformed church carries much more responsibility because in general their understanding of doctrine and the Christian life is closer than other communions in the Kingdom to the truth of the matter.
This responsibility on the part of Reformed churches is actually a privilege and gift of God. As a result, Reformed churches should be leading the charge of the Gospel in this world whether other churches or individuals follow or not. Some Reformed churches are doing that and they should be credited for their faithfulness. Other Reformed churches resemble more of what I’ve already criticized in my recent post to their shame.
The other main reason I feel impressed to lay down these criticisms is because I very much identify with the concerns and identity of Reformed people in general. In other words, I’m working on ‘taking the log out of our eye’ before looking at the splinter in someone else’s. That’s not to say constructive criticism of other groups, churches, communions, and teachings are out of order and you can read some of that as recently as two days ago that I’ve written (here taking Dave Hodges to task for his Roman Catholic misapprehension of Protestant and/or evangelical worship).
I wrote my original post about reasons to avoid Reformed churches within the context of people leaving evangelical churches for what they think are greener pastures (ie. Reformed churches). But, there are a great many people today who have come to the conclusion that church is just not necessary and something to be avoided. Even the White Horse Inn recently did a podcast on people who are quitting churches. People are publishing books about this sort of thing and so it’s more popular than some might think.
But if you aren’t actively involved in a church, you should be. The Bible tells us to ‘forsake not the assembling of yourselves together’ and there shouldn’t be a Sunday when you’re not in church somewhere. Please don’t take my admonitions about the problems in many Reformed churches to mean that you shouldn’t be going to church at all and certainly not to a Reformed church. I also wouldn’t want people to read this blog or anything else I’ve written and think I’m encouraging them to stay away from involvement in any church.
The lack of fidelity to the Gospel, corrupt leadership, or just plain bad experiences on behalf of some Reformed or other churches is no excuse to stay away from all churches whether they have “Reformed” in their name or not. You should be looking for a church that does in large part agree with what you believe to be the Gospel truth of your faith and until you find that church you should still be attending somewhere every week. For my Reformed brothers or sisters, that somewhere is not Rome or the East. You may be able to find the right evangelical or Baptist congregation depending on your circumstances, but ideally speaking you’ll probably fit much better in a healthy Reformed church. It’s just like dating–you should only date a person you’re willing to marry.
But, the only real way to find out if a Reformed church near you is being faithful though is to take the risk of attending and getting to know the people in the church. That’s not always easy but no one ever said the Christian life was a cakewalk. It’s the narrow road and not the broad way that we walk.
I know it can be difficult to walk into a church full of strangers you don’t know and try to find out if this is the place and the people God has for you. It will take time, patience, and an active effort on your part to bridge whatever may be the gap. But, whether we realize it or not, you’re not really walking into a church of strangers–they’re your brothers and sisters in Christ and even if they don’t welcome you the way you feel you should be welcomed–you ought to still feel welcome because you are an adopted son or daughter of the Lord Most High.
True to who you are, local churches need sensitive and careful people like you to stay on the right track. Without you the local body of Christ is not complete and your presence is just as much a ministry to others as the presence of a pastor in the pulpit. Never discount your own contribution to a church and remember that you’re always needed there even if other Christians around you don’t think of it that way.
I shouldn’t be surprised but for some reason I am.
I have often wondered where exactly all this covenant renewal worship business came from and lo and behold Dr. James Jordan matter-of-factly admits that his thoughts on the matter came from the Anglo-Catholic magnum opus, Dom Gregory Dix’s The Shape of the Liturgy. He writes:
As I reflected on Dix’s observation, I began to alter, refine, and expand upon it in terms of the discussion going on in Tyler. Because of my covenantal-worldview interests, I saw that Dix’s four-fold action applied to all of life: “The central ritual of the Church is the four-fold action of Holy Communion. Jesus took bread, gave thanks, broke and distributed it, and they all ate it. This four-fold action (taking, thanking, sharing, enjoying) is the key to the Christian life in every area. An artist takes raw material, thanks God for it, creates his art and distributes it (playing a concert, exhibiting a painting), and enjoys it in fellowship with others. A businessman takes raw material, thanks God for it, works with it and shares it by means of the free market (exchanges it for a share of someone else’s goods), and then enjoys it in fellowship with others. This is the Christian life, and it finds its most concentrated expression in the liturgy of the sacrament.” (Jordan, “Should Churches Incorporate,” 1984; reprinted in The Sociology of the Church.)
Now, it is no wonder then that we are seeing folks who have embraced this point of view and the other associated ideas in the same camps (ie. Federal Vision, etc.) run hither and yon from their churches into Anglican and Roman Catholic environments. Is it not ironic that the apex of historical support and documentation for the legitimate descendants of the now gone Oxford Movement has seen a revival among Calvinist adherents of liturgy?
But, like everything else with the Oxford Movement, Dix’s monumental work has already been largely discredited and scholars today are realizing there is much more to the history of the matter and much less in Dix that is relevant to their concerns or a reflection of the truth of the matter. Anthony Burton wrote ten years ago:
This highly influential interpretation [by Dix] has been questioned by the Jesuit liturgical scholar Robert Taft who states, “Historical sources…show how totally wrong Dix is in almost every aspect of this interpretation.” The distinctions Dix asserted turn out not to exist; instead there are profound continuities. The monastic movement did not arise in response to Constantine’s conversion but pre-dated it. However, according to Taft, who marshals a great weight of evidence, the Daily Offices turn out to be not a monastic innovation but an earlier development of Christian prayer. The supposed contradiction of eschatological orientation and personal edification also falls apart on examination: they lived happily side by side. Indications are that the Daily Office, even on Sundays, was just as central to the Church’s life as was the Eucharist, if ‘centrality’ can be measured by frequency, which is itself doubtful.
It is historically true to form that conservative Presbyterians run a hundred years behind their Anglican betters and it has nearly always been this way.
What is going to happen when newly minted self-described Reformed churches and denominations figure out that the historical evidence for weekly Eucharistic worship in the early Church is undoubtedly much weaker than some would like to admit? Or, what will they do when they realize that the structure and nature of their covenantal renewal services are based on ideas more Catholic than Reformed?
Perhaps by then there will be a Reformed Use Society to handle the appropriate concerns in a way designed to keep the spirit and flame of Covenant Renewal Worship alive and kicking no matter what the facts have to say about it.
Some time ago, the good Rabbi Schlissel wrote a post about Mary, the so-called “Queen of Heaven”. In so doing, he rightly commented that devotion to Mary among Roman Catholics nears adding a fourth person to the Trinity. Of course, Catholics on the Internet roundly condemned such a position but sadly they never really dealt with the substance behind his claim. I don’t think Pastor Schlissel meant that Catholics literally are adding a fourth person to the Trinity but that many among them treat Mary as if she was divine.
Added to the criticisms provided by Catholics was also some severe criticism of Protestant worship in return and that’s really the focus of what I’d like to outline in this post.
Dave Hodges wrote the following about Protestant worship and I address it because it’s just so much of an oversimplification and inaccurate portrayal of worship by evangelical or Protestant Christians. In fact, it’s downright demeaning–his words echo a perspective that feels almost racist in its caricature of the truth of the matter. He writes:
Something here ought to be said about the Protestant’s understanding of worship. A Protestant accuses a Catholic of idolatry because we honour Mary in the same way that they honour God. Why is this? It is because for the Protestant, his highest form of worship involves sitting on his posterior for two hours whilst a man takes centre stage, and talks about his views of the Bible for seventy-five minutes, followed by a song or two and maybe the passing of a collection plate. And that is it. The Protestant will have no problem telling you that he has no altar, no sacrifice, no incense, no nothing. Just a long time of listening to a man in a business suit talk about his opinions. And that is their highest form of worship.
Since we might honour Mary with things slightly more glorious and substantially less boring than that, we are accused of idolatry. But the Mass, the highest form of Catholic worship, is reserved for God alone, and for nobody else. And it is a sacrifice on an altar to the Most High God – if anyone dared to do this for Mary, he would be rightly accused of idolatry. But has any Catholic ever done this? Ever? Not to my knowledge. Based on the anecdote provided, I see no idolatry, only devotion and love.
I would of course like to know what inspires Protestant “converts” to Roman Catholicism to talk so badly about the environments that they come from. Whatever happened to honoring your Father and Mother? Still, I want to be as gracious as possible with a man like Dave Hodges. If we are going to forego the idea that Dave here is somehow not providing us with a fraudulent misrepresentation of the facts, what are we to conclude but that his statements above represent either a flat ignorance of Protestant worship or a rhetorical attempt to caricature the truth of the matter to make his point about Marian worship being not all that bad? Is there another option?
Surely Mr. Hodges knows better than what he so plainly states above. The truth is of course that the Protestants “highest form of worship” is actually found to be quite diverse depending upon what each of the different communions practice as worship on Sunday morning. There very well may be Protestants who for seventy-five minutes listen to sermons on Sunday morning as the apex of their worship. But there are also Protestants that listen to a ten minute homily so that they can ready themselves for the communion service to follow. There are still more who may not even have a sermon. But, at root, Dave forgets that hardened uniformity in worship is a Roman Catholic trait and not something Protestants have historically felt as overly important. Protestants are unified by their worship of Christ, but they exercise diversity in recognizing that different sectors of the Church worship differently in accordance with how God has gifted them.
Additionally, Dave wants to talk to us about “an understanding of Protestant worship” but he never really lets his readers know exactly what that means beyond the idea that the sort of worship he outlines above is what Protestants do in worship. The clear difference between Roman Catholic and Protestant worship is blurred here because Dave only says so much.
Hodges does provide us with a useful definition of Roman Catholic worship, that it is “a sacrifice on an altar to the Most High God”. The real difference between this “sacrifice” that is Roman Catholic worship and Protestant worship is that we recognize that the sacrifice on the Cross has already been completed and remains completed. There is no ultimate need for sacrifice on an altar on behalf of our sins because the one sacrifice has already been made. Our sacrifice as Christians is to present ourselves as a living and holy sacrifice to God and this is defined as our spiritual service of worship (Romans 12:1).
And, so, worship for the Protestant consists in being present with song to glorify God and encourage one another. It also means we pray in thankfulness to Him. Sermons are given and we respond in repentance and obedience. We talk with God and He with us. We are His people and He is our God. There is communion not because we have an altar and a ceremony but because God has already provided the sacrifice through Jesus Christ our Lord in His death and subsequent resurrection. The relationship between God and His people is now restored and we can commune with Him because He has given us the peace that passes all understanding. Has given, not constantly giving because we make sure we take communion every Sunday. We ‘have been justified by faith’ and ‘we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ’. There is no more need for sacrifice when all the work has already been done on our behalf by God. The Protestant does not depend upon a priest to celebrate communion so that he might be saved. He is saved already and rejoices in the salvation God has granted to Him directly through Jesus Christ.
So, our response to God and the sacrifice He has poured out on our behalf is humility and thankfulness and this is primarily what we express in worship to Him on a Sunday morning by faith. That, of course, doesn’t mean that Protestants and evangelicals can’t engage in sacrifice in worship - it’s just a sacrifice of a different kind and intent. Daniel Waterland makes this point quite clear:
The service therefore of the Eucharist, on the foot of ancient Church language, is both a true and proper sacrifice, (as I shall shew presently,) and the noblest we are capable of offering, when considered as comprehending under it many true and evangelical sacrifices: 1. The sacrifice of alms to the poor, and oblations to the Church; which when religiously intended, and offered through Christ, is a Gospel sacrifice. Not that the material offering is a sacrifice to God, for it goes entirely to the use of man; but the service is what God accepts. 2. The sacrifice of prayer, from a pure heart, is evangelical incense. 3. The sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving to God the Father, through Christ Jesus our Lord, is another Gospel sacrifice. 4. The sacrifice of a penitent and contrite heart, even under the Law, (and now much more under the Gospel, when explicitly offered through Christ,) was a sacrifice of the new covenant: for the new covenant commenced from the time of the fall, and obtained under the Law, but couched under shadows and figures. 5. The sacrifice of ourselves, our souls and bodies, is another Gospel sacrifice. 6. The offering up the mystical body of Christ, that is, his Church, is another Gospel sacrifice: or rather, it is coincident with the former; excepting that there persons are considered in their single capacity, and here collectively in a body. I take the thought of St. Austin, who grounds it chiefly on 1 Corinthians 10:17, and the texts belonging to the former article. 7. The offering up of true converts, or sincere penitents, to God, by their pastors, who have laboured successfully in the blessed work, is another very acceptable Gospel sacrifice. 8. The sacrifice of faith and hope, and self-humiliation, in commemorating the grand sacrifice, and resting finally upon it, is another Gospel sacrifice, and eminently proper to the Eucharist.
These, I think, are all so many true sacrifices, and may all meet together in the one great complicated sacrifice of the Eucharist. Into some one or more of these may be resolved (as I conceive) all that the ancients have ever taught of Christian sacrifices, or of the Eucharist under the name or notion of a true or proper sacrifice. Let it be supposed however for the present, in order to give the reader the clearer idea beforehand of what I intend presently to prove. In the meanwhile, supposing this account to be just, from hence may easily be understood how far the Eucharist is a commemorative sacrifice, or otherwise. If that phrase means a spiritual service of ours, commemorating the sacrifice of the cross, then it is justly styled a sacrifice commemorative of a sacrifice, and in that sense a commemorative sacrifice: but if that phrase points to only the outward elements representing the sacrifice made by Christ, then it means a sacrifice commemorated, or a representation and commemoration of a sacrifice.
From hence likewise may we understand in what sense the officiating authorized ministers perform the office of proper evangelical priests in this service. They do it three ways: 1. As commemorating, in solemn form, the same sacrifice here below, which Christ our High Priest commemorates above. 2. As handing up (if I may so speak) those prayers and those services of Christians to Christ our Lord, who as High Priest recommends the same in heaven to God the Father. 3. As offering up to God all the faithful who are under their care and ministry, and who are sanctified by the Spirit. In these three ways the Christian officers are priests, or liturgs, to very excellent purposes, far above the legal ones, in a sense worth the contending for, and worth the pursuing with the utmost zeal and assiduity. (pp. 311-313, A Review of the Doctrine of the Eucharist)
So, I would prefer Dave Hodges and other Roman Catholics–when speaking about Protestant or evangelical worship and how empty and useless it supposedly is–to be more accurate in their description of these things and not less. None of this information is new by the way–Daniel Waterland died in 1740.
The reason we see idolatry in the worship of Mary is simply because such activity does not give the One and Only God His due. He deserves all praise in worship and not only some. Marian worship takes not only that pride of place away in worship but focuses the worship on something other than God in a Protestant conception of worship. That’s called idolatry in the Bible no matter how tightly and carefully you define the differences in Roman Catholicism. If Dave Hodges or other Roman Catholics are going to rebut criticism of their own position because we don’t adhere to their carefully worded distinctions according to their view, it would behoove them to get our own view right the first time. I understand he disagrees with what Protestant/evangelical worship is, but from our point of view the criticism of idolatry is most certainly consistent with our understanding of worship. To say otherwise is to deny us the right to our own position, a hypocritical tact if there ever was one. It’s inconsistent on the one hand for Roman Catholics to claim we must view their distinctions as valid in regards to this issue without granting the same for our position.
