Stinking to High Heaven

Last night I was asked about a serious of prints hanging in our school library that portray a civilization developing out of nature, flourishing into a golden age, and then decaying into ruins. Someone remarked that we should probably take down the decaying into ruins part.

Here's an argument for keeping that front and center. Every civilization, except the very young ones alive today, have all over ripened, stunk to high heaven, and died. Every civilization except the one based on the church instituted by Christ.

Jesus never promised that the gates of hell wouldn't prevail against Constantine, medieval Christianity, the Great American Awakenings, or the Energizer Bunny. "The Bunny, the Bunny, Oh! I love the Bunny." Ok, I stop it now.

He promises that the gates of hell will not prevail against the church because he is the chief cornerstone. That means the source of Christian civilization will keep it "going and going and going." The church has outlasted every philosophical fad that predicted its demise from Voltaire, to Nietzsche, to Sartre.

So the question remains, what are we building on? What are we investing our time, talent, and treasure in? Is it a kingdom of the world, or are we trying to reform those kingdoms with the everlasting truth of Christ crucified, risen, reigning, and returning.

What's Wrong with Only Doing Evangelism and not Politics?

In his Politics According to the Bible: A Comprehensive Resource for Understanding Modern Political Issues in Light of Scripture, Wayne Grudem has a nice summary of Alvin Schmidt's work on Christian influence on the state. He also does a nice job critiquing the "do evangelism not politics" view represented by John MacArthur:

Historian Alvin Schmidt points out how the spread of Christianity and Christian influence on government was primarily responsible for outlawing infanticide, child abandonment, and abortion in the Roman Empire (in AD 374); outlawing the brutal battles-to-the-death in which thousands of gladiators had died (in 404); outlawing the cruel punishment of branding the faces of criminals (in 315); instituting prison reforms such as the segregating of male and female prisoners (by 361); stopping the practice of human sacrifice among the Irish, the Prussians, and the Lithuanians as well as among other nations; outlawing pedophilia; granting of property rights and other protection to women; banning polygamy (which is still practiced in some Muslim nations today); prohibiting the burning alive of widows in India (in 1829); outlawing the painful and crippling practice of binding young women's feet in China (in 1912); persuading government officials to begin a system of public [Christian] schools in Germany (in the sixteenth century); and advancing the idea of compulsory education of all children in a number of European countries.

During the history of the church, Christians have had a decisive influence in opposing and often abolishing slavery in the Roman Empire, in Ireland, and in most of Europe (though Schmidt frankly notes that a minority of "erring" Christian teachers have supported slavery in various centuries). In England, William Wilberforce, a devout Christian, led the successful effort to abolish the slave trade and then slavery itself throughout the British Empire by 1840.

In the United States, though there were vocal defenders of slavery among Christians in the South, they were vastly outnumbered by the many Christians who were ardent abolitionists, speaking, writing, and agitating constantly for the abolition of slavery in the United States. Schmidt notes note that two-thirds of the American abolitionists in the mid-1830s were Christian clergymen, and he gives numerous examples of the strong Christian commitment of several of the most influential of the antislavery crusaders .... The American civil rights movement that resulted in the outlawing of the racial segregation and discrimination was led by Martin Luther King Jr., a Christian pastor, and supported by many Christian churches and groups.

There was also strong influence from Christian ideas and influential Christians in the formulation of the Magna Carta in England (1215) and the Declaration of Independence (1776) and the Constitution (1787) in the United States. These are three of the most significant documents in the history of governments on the earth, and all three show the marks of significant Christian influence in the foundational ideas of how governments should function. These foundations for British and American government did not come about as a result of the "do evangelism, not politics" view.

Schmidt also argues that several specific components of modern views of government also had strong Christian influence in their origin and influence, such as individual human rights, individual freedom the equality of individuals before the law, freedom of religion, and separation of church and state....

Therefore I cannot agree with John MacArthur when he says, "God does not call the church to influence the culture by promoting legislation and court rulings that advance a scriptural point of view." When I look over that list of changes in governments and laws that Christians incited, I think God did call the church and thousands of Christians within the church to work to bring about these momentous improvements in human society throughout the world. Or should we say that Christians who brought about these changes were not doing so out of obedience to God? That these changes made no difference to God? This cannot be true.

MacArthur says, "Using temporal methods to promote legislative and judicial change ... is not our calling--and has no eternal value." I disagree. I believe those changes listed above were important to the God who declares, "Let justice roll down like waters, and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream" (amos 5:24). God cares how people treat one another here on earth, and these changes in government listed above do have eternal value in God's sight.

If the Christian church had adopted the "do evangelism, not politics" view throughout its history, it would never have brought about these immeasurably valuable changes among the nations of the world. But these changes did happen, because Christians realized that if they could influence laws and governments for good, they would be obeying the command of their Lord, "Let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them" (Eph. 2:10) (Politics - According to the Bible: A Comprehensive Resource for Understanding Modern Political Issues in Light of Scripture, Zondervan, 2010, 39-51).

Leithart's Defending Constantine points out that Constantine was the first Greco-Roman ruler to recognize the church as its own distinct polis, as Augustine would later distinguish the city of God and the city of Man. This distinction was completely lost on pagans who had worshipped their emperor as a god and assumed that Rome was sacked in 410 because the gods were angry that they weren't getting their sacrifices.

Prior to the Christianization of the empire, there was no distinction much less separation of state and religion. Leithart shows that the pagan Roman Empire was drenched in sacrifice to the Roman gods from top to bottom. Today, modern pagans want to use this Christian distinction between church and state to silence the church in the world at large. Shouldn't this get us talking politics again?

Chesterton on Beckett

Priceless Chesterton:

WHEN four knights scattered the blood and brains of St. Thomas of Canterbury it was not only a sign of anger but a sort of black admiration. They wished for his blood, but they wished even more for his brains. Such a blow will remain for ever unintelligible unless we realize what the brains of St. Thomas were thinking about just before they were distributed over the floor. They were thinking about the great medieval conception that the Church is the judge of the world. Becket objected to a priest being tried even by the Lord Chief Justice. And his reason was simple: because the Lord Chief Justice was being tried by the priest. The judiciary was itself 'sub judice'. The kings were themselves in the dock. The idea was to create an invisible kingdom without armies or prisons, but with complete freedom to condemn publicly all the kingdoms of the earth. ~GKC: What's Wrong with the World.

Stark Reality

The Rise of Christianity:  How the Obscure, Marginal, Jesus Movement Became the Dominant Religious Force .... by Rodney Stark
My rating: 4 of 5 stars

Stark brings the eye of a sociologist to the secondary literature on early Christianity. His chapter on life in ancient Antioch is eye opening in terms of realism and Christian transformation of the Greco-Roman world.

Stark was confessedly a cultural Christian at the time, and is now calling himself an independent Christian. As such, he gets some things wrong but is on the right track. The work is invaluable, if for no other reason than it infuriates secularists, who think that human rights came from evolution and are sustainable apart from their real basis.


View all my reviews

Lust for Power Becomes a Powerful Lust

When the self and the state supplant Christ as moral authority, the law becomes "do whatever you like as long as you don't put your neighbor in physical danger." As Anothony Esolen says, this means we will be ruled by our appetites (Politically Incorrect Guide to Western Civ.).

Why the Modern State is Jealous of the Ancient Church

Charles Matthews, on the latest Mars Hill Audio Journal, points out that the modern nation state has made the church an offer. It offers the church "freedom" if it would understand itself as a denomination within the overarching category of the nation state. Christians needs to politely say, "No deal!" And consequences be damned. This is because the Bible calls the church "a holy nation" and anything less is bowing to Nebuchadnezzar and no true freedom (2 Peter 2:9).

The state makes this offer because it feels threatened by the absolute loyalty Christians are called to give to Christ. It is also jealous of the church's God-given role in the world. In other words, the state wants absolute loyalty and to do everything Christ has called the church to do, like mercy ministry, which it calls welfare. The modern nation state wants us to believe that there's a political remedy to our every ill and has gotten the church to abdicate its vocation to heal these diseases.

Douglas Wilson has pointed out that, in a sense, every state is a theocracy. The state either points the way to the true God, false gods, or puts itself forward as god. I would argue that the modern nation state of America has done the latter. The neutral secular state is a myth. Cavanaugh in his Migrations of the Holy has pointed out that the we have assembled the largest military in the history of the world in order to propagate our homemade religion here and abroad.

We must love our nation enough to want it to be just.

Big-leaguers, the Ball, and the Cross

My son gave me an article to read out of his Sports Illustrated called "Loving Baseball: What Keeps the Grand Game Great? Everything Old Is New Again." It's thesis is that baseball is timeless, at least compared to other modern sports. This is because it's about history as much as the current happenings. What other sport gives you as much opportunity to relish the present in light of the past?

Baseball is a game out of time.... Think about this for a moment: What else but baseball connects us to America of, say, 1891? What else has burned so long in our consciousness? The American population in 1891 was less than about one quarter of what it is now. That was before movies, before television, before radio before Hershey bars, before Wrigley gum, before even Brett Favre. America the Beautiful had not been written. Dracula did not exist [yes he means the novel by Bram Stoker], no Roosevelt had yet been president.... The Olympics, more than 1,500 years since their last staging, would not resume for another five years.

The author, Joe Posnanski, points out that baseball is also played without a clock, and for this it is ridiculed by its critics:

The people who do not love baseball feel its timelessness too. They lampoon a game that feels ... so ... yesterday. They mock baseball ... for its interminable pauses, for sparking so little violence and motion for struggling to adapt (No replay? Really?), for being measured by numbers well to the right of decimal points. "You made me love baseball," Lisa told Bart on  The Simpsons. "Not as a collection of numbers, but as an unpredictable, passionate game beaten in excitement only by every other sport."

Baseball falls on hard times in a culture where happiness is equated with excitement instead of patient obedience. You must wait for the drama. It will reward, you just don't know when. But to be there in the moment it happens is bliss. Those interminable pauses are really opportunities for historical repartee. Remember when Bruce Sutter lept into Daryl Porter's arms? Remember, "Go crazy folks! Go crazy!" Remember Adam Wainwright striking out Brandon Inge to win the 2006 World Series? Remember Brummer stealing home? That's Whitey Ball! Would you rather have Willie McGee or Jim Edmonds on your dream team? (I'm obviously a Cardinals fan). Thus the present is always drenched in the past. This makes baseball fans more than history buffs. The liturgies of baseball turns us into a historical community.

But football is different. Football is about looking ahead, betting on the future. Football is about recruiting and the draft and three-team parlays on Sunday. Sure football celebrates its history, but only as history, like a married couple that every now and then looks at the wedding album. In baseball, history is a living and breathing character. When Mark McGwire hit 70 home runs and then Barry Bonds hit 73 and 762 and both, one publicly, the other tacitly, later acknowledged having used steroids--well, that wasn't just an unhappy incident for many baseball fans. It was a crack in baseball's timeline. It broke up baseball's one hallowed connection to Hank Aaron and Roger Maris and Babe Ruth and the past. If football's history was wiped blank tomorrow the game would go on, as popular as ever. Not so baseball.

Baseball, in this way, illustrates something true about the church:

Therefore, since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses, let us also lay aside every weight, and sin which clings so closely, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us, looking to Jesus, the founder and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is seated at the right hand of the throne of God (Heb. 12:1-2).

Each time we celebrate the Lord's Supper or hear the preacher proclaim the gospel or sing an ancient hymn "everything old is new again." Covenants are ancient but they are always being renewed. Christ is present in the Supper and "we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses." "Therefore ... let us also lay aside every weight ... and let us run with endurance the race." History is alive in the here and now, defining the true from the false, the orthodox from the heretical, and the living from the dead. We don't have to be slaves of the culture, bound to its fads by the shackles of cool. Just like baseball can keep Pete Rose out of the Hall, instant replay out of the calls, and put real grass back into stadiums, the church has its own culture that defines it in every age and keep it in fellowship with every Christian down through the ages.

Baseball's biggest problems, like those of us with thinning hair, seem to happen whenever it tries to act young. The All-Star Game in Phoenix feels to me like a three-day comb-over. Look, the All-Star Game will never be what it was.... Progress leaves behind casualties. The efforts to keep the All-Star game vibrant and cool--such as the interminable Home Run Derby, the baffling player-selection process and giving home field advanage in the World Series to the winning league--make baseball look as if it's wearing black socks with sandals and saying "dude" a lot. Many of the game's most popular players, including Jeter himself, were not at the game this year. And fewer people watch it on television than ever before.

Similarly the church's biggest problems happen when it tries to be relevant. This is not because it is trying to be something it isn't. It's because the church is already more relevant than any of us can tell right now. Look how it has outlasted every ruler and philosopher that declared it dead from Nero to Mohammed, from Voltaire to Kant, from Nietzsche to Sartre, and it will certainly be here when Ditchkins is gone. C. S. Lewis once quipped, "All that is not eternal is eternally out of date" ("Charity," in The Four Loves). G. K. Chesterton wrote, ‎"The church always seems to be behind the times, when it is really beyond the times" (The Ball and the Cross). If we, the church, would stop trying to be cool, and just be our God-given selves, we might realize how eschatologically cool we are! I see more baseball and Bible in the future.

No Purpose for Plato's World

One of my students recently pointed out that the debate between Plato and Aristotle was over whether reality is essentially one or many. Plato argued that it is essentially one because all of the particulars of the created world come from the One and the Forms in His mind. Thus reality exists ante rem or before the things of the created realm. Aristotle argued that reality exists in re or in the things of the created realm. Thus ultimate reality isn't one thing but has many expressions in the things of the physical world. In other words, "treeness" doesn't exist before the oak, ash, and elm, as in Plato's understanding, but in them. In fact, according to Aristotle, the Form or ultimate reality is the cause of the particulars of this realm. It is what makes an oak a tree, an ash a tree, and an elm a tree.

Aristotle pointed out that there is no cause and effect relationship between Plato's concept of God, the One, and the created world (Metaphysics, 1.988.a-b; 1.991a-b). He overlooked Plato's Demiurge from the Timaeus who fashions the created particulars based on the Forms in the mind of the One. But Aristotle points out a problem with Plato's thought nonetheless.

The Demiurge is an independent contractor. Plato invented him for his "likely story" in order to keep the One from getting his hands dirty with physical matter. For Plato, the material realm is the lowest order of reality and unworthy of the pure spirit of the One.

The problem with this, from a Christian perspective, is that there is no purposeful link between this world and the One. People may correspond to the Form of the Human, but this is a far cry from being created by God, in his image, in order "to glorify him by enjoying him forever," to use John Piper's phrase.

Charles Murray in his Human Accomplishment: The Pursuit of Excellence in the Arts and Sciences, 800 B.C. to 1950,  points out that in the ancient world, only Christianity gave people a divine purpose for their lives. The image of God lends dignity and his will gives purpose. But the One in Plato's philosophy lends no purpose to mankind except to give him something to contemplate, and only the philosophers were capable of doing this in a purpose driven way. Murray argues that it was Christianity that inspired the Western world with a sense of purpose that led to experimentation with the God given creation and the development of science and critical thinking.

The Demise of Community, the Demise of Character

I recently listened again to a Mars Hill Audio interview with James Davison Hunter on his book The Death of Character: On the Moral Education of America's Children. He argues that the demise of character stems from the demise of moral communities like church and family. This has proceeded on the modern assumption that we are inherently good from childhood and Christianity is bad because it has taught us that we are sinners in need of redemption.

All we really need, it's dogmatically asserted, it a good self-esteem and an opportunity to define ourselves as children, teenagers, or adults. The rest will take care of itself. All parents and teachers need to do is facilitate this moral revelation by calling it out with psychological techniques like values clarification.  We think we can develop moral character in the young without wielding moral authority. We are reaping the whirlwind and shrugging our shoulders, "What can you do?"

On the adult level, radical individualism continues to sever ties between people and their God given authorities.

"Hey teacher! Leave us kids alone!" 

"Tell my mother, tell my father; I've done the best I can; to make them realize, this is my life; I'm not angry, I'm just saying; Sometimes goodbye is a second chance." 

It's true that some communities abuse their moral authority or exercise it hypocritically and ties must be cut. But this has become an excuse to define the self apart from Christ's moral order. Like Joshua, we must be "strong and courageous" again and again and again (Joshua 1). Children do not respect what they can kick around, even if we think we're being their friend. Parents are called to teach the word of God diligently to their children:

These words that I command you today shall be on your heart. You shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, and when you walk by the way, and when you lie down, and when you rise (Deuteronomy 6:6-7). 

This is part of loving God and loving our children and our neighbor as ourselves. Rule apart from relationship will breed hatred. Relationship without any rules will breed disrespect. Rules revealed by God and applied in a loving relationship will bring order. Love covers a multitude of sins.

Bottum's Up or the Forgotten Reformation

Joseph Bottum has reviewed Pascal Bruckner's Perpetual Euphoria: On the Duty to Be Happy in the recent Books and Culture (March/April 2011). Here's Bruckner:

From existentialism to deconstructionsim, all of modern thought can be reduced to a mechanical denunciation of the West, emphasizing the latter's hypcrysy, violence, and abomination.... The whole world hates us and we deserve it. That is what most Europeans think.

Bottum comments:

Much of Europe--much of America, as well--has simply lost its nerve, unable to maintain the delicate balance of self-critique and self-confidence that was the gift of the Middle Ages, the Renaissance, and the Enlightenment. 

The Middle Ages was not perfect and it knew it. The medievals knew enough however to accept the claims of Christ that all things hold together in him. The Renaissance was diverse, but every humanist agreed on going ad fontes (to the sources). The Enlightenment agreed on one thing--the church was out. They chanted aude sapere (dare to know) to each other, but it was Eden all over again: "Hath God said ... ? ... He knows that in the day that you eat, you will be like him knowing both good and evil."

Dare to know the difference between good and evil for yourself. Protagorus returned with a vengeance. The familiar homo mensura (man the measure) was shouted from the rooftops. Man is the measure of all things "visible and invisible." Dare to be your own god. That's confidence, but terribly misplaced. Where's the self-critique? What about semper reformanda (always reforming)? Who came up with that? Oh ya! That pesky little movement called the Reformation. Self confidence? Who spoke truth to power? Wasn't it Luther who told Charles V and the papal nuncio:

Unless I am convinced by the testimony of the Scriptures or by clear reason (for I do not trust either in the pope or in councils alone, since it is well known that they have often erred and contradicted themselves), I am bound by the Scriptures I have quoted and my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and will not recant anything, since it is neither safe nor right to go against conscience. May God help me. Amen

Always reforming? Why not? The Word of God must have its say no matter how imperfectly we read it.  How could Bottum have forgotten that? The Enlightenment idols of Darwinism and rationalism die hard and slow, but they are dying.

Bruckner's Perpetual Euphoria takes a shot at our happiness entitlement program. He thinks it's about the  right to pursue happiness rather than demanding to have it. That's not bad, and we should even give two cheers for Mr. Bottum. But there's so much more offered by the one who came so that we might have life, and "have it more abundantly" (John 10:10). 

Hollywood Meets Holy Wood

There's a great article by Steven Boyer called "Narnia Invaded" over at Touchstone on the problem with the first two Narnia movies. Find it here.

Here are a few comments of my own. In Hollywood and the culture at large there can be no such thing as what Anthony Esolen calls "blessed hierarchies." When Hollywood tries to translate C. S. Lewis' Chronicles of Narnia it significantly warps the message and changes the characters. Instead a young man ready to lead, Peter is little better than Edmund at the beginning of the cinematic version of The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe. 

If you didn't know the book, I think the movie might lead you to believe that Edmund was first a victim of Peter and then the witch, instead of a kid who needed a new heart. The Peter of the movies is more conflicted than noble, and is a far cry from the chivalric knight of Lewis' imagination. 

Boyer points out that the movies have so far perverted Lewis' message to modernity into the message of modernity. Instead of the ennobling effects of duty to God-given authority, we have Edmund learning to not "do as he was told" and saving the day at the end of The Lion. Instead of his reign in Narnia teaching him to be a better leader in this world, Peter picks fights at the beginning of Prince Caspian and even with Prince Caspian, once he gets back to Narnia. The High King is anything but noble through most of the movies, because, as we post moderns know, kings by definition are self-centered tyrants. So Peter must learn to not be so kingly in the movies.

Aslan also becomes more like the god of Deism than the untame Lion who ruled at the top of the "blessed hierarchy." Mr. Beaver says, "Course he isn't safe. But he's good. He's the King, I tell you." When will we learn that we need royal priests and servant kings who know how to take orders from the King of Kings in the government, church, and families?

I'm still hoping against all odds for better from Friday's release of The Voyage of the Dawn Treader. When Hollywood meets Holy Wood the result usually leaves a lot to be desired. We shall see....

Coercive Commercialism

I've just begun William T. Cavanaugh's book Being Consumed. He observes that Milton Friedman's definition of freedom as the absence of coercion has ironically led to coercive commercialism. It doesn't force anyone to buy, but it does surround and manipulate. "Consumers feel besieged by marketing and surveillance" (1).

The free market promises to make the individual his own god, determining good and evil for himself as a consumer. It promises to liberate man from definitions of right and wrong but it enslaves him to his appetites. It is guided by no definition of human nature and thus no position on what is good or bad for humans. Man is left without a telos or goal of human fulfillment to strive for. In this vacuum, man's will is at the mercy of the marketers. It is not even a battle. The will of the consumer helplessly acquiesces to the relentless onslaught of the marketers.

We need a positive definition of freedom. The classical and Christian view is that freedom is the ability to choose the Good. This means we need a definition of the Good to serve as a guide for human consumption. Where are we going to get that if not from Christianity? Don't we need Christianity to be honored again in the public square? To the extent that we still pay lip service to the common good aren't we living off of borrowed capital? The checks are starting to bounce and we are in trouble. We must return to font of living water as individuals, families, and a society. Lord help us!

Against Christianity?

Against Christianity by Peter J. Leithart

My rating: 5 of 5 stars

Christianity has become the label for the church marginalized by the modern secular state. So Leithart is against Christianity but not the church. Leithart calls the church to repent of its retreat and reassert its culture, language, and influence in the world at large, which includes the state. The church must return from its state imposed exile.

Haven't we tried this before you ask? What about the evils of medieval Christendom? Leithart convincingly argues that the evils of Christendom were inconsistencies, and not a problem intrinsic to that social order. The church and state may cooperate in ruling under God without coercing its people. The church was never meant to rule Christendom but Christendom was supposed to be ruled by a state with "Christian politics."

Leithart agrees that the church's message to the state is countercultural, but he also maintains that this is compatible with a Christian political realm outside the church. Leithart doesn't talk much about the direction of influence between the state and the church, but seems to assume that both are in need of constant reform and renewal by the dynamic of the gospel.

Leithart does appeal to Augustine's city of God. The church is political because it is a polis and ekklesia which commands loyalty greater than any state. The church is a threat to the usurping state. It is the true United Nations. If the state won't respect the spiritual, moral, and theological authority of the church then all the worse for the state. The church is not a part of the polis, it is its own polis, say Leithart (28).

This rings true. Modern liberalism has "cleansed" the public sphere of religion but this hasn't helped us agree or get along. We are more polarized than ever. What modern liberalism has done is take away the basis of persuasion. The Christian conscience has been erased from the public square. Without the ability to make religious arguments, we are at the mercy of our ruling appetites.

Patrick Henry proposed that a non-sectarian Christianity be declared the state religion of Virginia. Jefferson and Madison opposed Henry and this was never tried. What about Massachusetts Bay Colony? Well, I would point out that that was a coercive Christendom which failed because it was too strong where it needed to be permissive to dissenters.

There is a lot more here than a defense of Constantinianism. There is a robust view of the sacraments as an efficacious union of the symbol with the reality. This also works for Leithart as a spearhead against the secularist divorce of the natural and the supernatural. Leithart also highlights ethical transformation as part of the gospel. The gospel seeks to transform the community. "She withdraws from the world for the sake of the world" (135). He points to the work of Rodney Stark who documents the rise of christianity through social transformation in the cities. This led to Christendom and to use the title of one of Stark's books The Victory of Reason.

Leithart's sword cuts through so many layers of secularist armor that it's shocking and refreshing at the same time. Only God can make obligatory. Otherwise everything is permissible and the state wields brute force while the culture festers. The separation of church and state doesn't promote liberty but only slavery to appetite.

Leithart's prescription for change is worship and liturgy. He calls worship is an historical exercise that reenacts redemptive history through word and sacrament. These center us in redemptive history and teach us to "name the world through the Word" just like Adam (72-73).

The church's mission is not to accommodate her language to the existing language, to disguise herself so as to slip in unnoticed and blend in with the existing culture. Her mission is to confront the language of the existing culture with a language of her own (57).

He says that worship is a language course and liturgy is the teacher. Excuse me, I think its time for class.

View all my reviews