Insight Scoop | The Ignatius Press Blog

Cardinal Kasper: It's time for Anglicanism to "clarify its identity"

From The Catholic Herald:

Speaking on the day that the Archbishop of Canterbury met Benedict XVI in Rome, Cardinal Walter Kasper, the president of the Pontifical Council of Christian Unity, said it was time for Anglicanism to "clarify its identity".

He told the Catholic Herald: "Ultimately, it is a question of the identity of the Anglican Church. Where does it belong?

"Does it belong more to the churches of the first millennium -Catholic and Orthodox - or does it belong more to the Protestant churches of the 16th century? At the moment it is somewhere in between, but it must clarify its identity now and that will not be possible without certain difficult decisions."

He said he hoped that the Lambeth conference, an event which brings the worldwide Anglican Communion together every 10 years, would be the deciding moment for Anglicanism.

Cardinal Kasper, who has been asked to speak at the Lambeth Conference by the Archbishop of Canterbury, said: "We hope that certain fundamental questions will be clarified at the conference so that dialogue will be possible.

"We shall work and pray that it is possible, but I think that it is not sustainable to keep pushing decision-making back because it only extends the crisis."

Read the entire piece.

Why some Evangelicals are attracted to "that strange thing called liturgy"

From Christianity Today, an article by Mark Galli, senior managing editor of that magazine, on why some Evangelicals are discovering the importance and need for liturgy:

Yet many evangelicals are attracted to liturgical worship, and as one of those evangelicals, I'd like to explain what the attraction is for me, and perhaps for many others. A closer look suggests that something more profound and paradoxical is going on in liturgy than the search for contemporary relevance. "The liturgy begins … as a real separation from the world," writes Orthodox theologian Alexander Schmemann. He continues by saying that in the attempt to "make Christianity understandable to this mythical 'modern' man on the street," we have forgotten this necessary separation.

It is precisely the point of the liturgy to take people out of their worlds and usher them into a strange, new world—to show them that, despite appearances, the last thing in the world they need is more of the world out of which they've come. The world the liturgy reveals does not seem relevant at first glance, but it turns out that the world it reveals is more real than the one we inhabit day by day.

<snip>

Before he became Pope, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger wrote, "The grandeur of the liturgy does not rest upon the fact that it offers an interesting entertainment, but in rendering tangible the Totally Other, whom we are not capable of summoning. He comes because He wills."

How exactly does God render himself tangible in the liturgy? Certainly in the Eucharist itself, in which he makes himself known in the breaking of the bread: "When he was at table with them, he took the bread and blessed and broke it and gave it to them. And their eyes were opened, and they recognized him" (Luke 24:30–31, ESV).

Then there is the reading and preaching of the Word, the revelation of God to his people. It is not just a dramatic reading of an ancient and beautiful text, followed by an inspirational talk. It is God speaking afresh to his people through the preached and spoken Word. As Jesus told the disciples before he sent them out to preach, and as he essentially tells every preacher: "The one who hears you, hears me."

Less obviously, God makes himself known through the words and drama of the liturgy. The words of the liturgy, as a quick glance shows, are Scripture-saturated, and thus carry the same revelatory power as the formal reading of the biblical lessons.

Read the entire piece.

Pastor John Hagee: "Thank you, Pope Benedict"

Perhaps you've already seen this column in The Washington Times, written by John Hagee, pastor of Cornerstone Church in San Antonio and author of several "end times" books based in premillennial dispensationalism. Hagee has been accused of being anti-Catholic, but he takes pains to counter those accusations:

During his recent visit to the United States, Pope Benedict XVI not only conducted mass and met with the Catholic faithful, but he made a series of public statements about the role that our Judeo-Christian faith can play during these challenging times. As an evangelical Protestant I happen to disagree with Pope Benedict on many issues of Christian doctrine and ritual. But when it comes to his moral vision for America and the world I have one thing to say in response to the Pope's visit: Amen. <snip>

My reaction to Pope Benedict"s visit may surprise some who have come to accept certain caricatures of my views of the Catholic Church. But as I have noted from the start, my critics have ignored the real point and strong emphasis of my words. I have indeed been quite zealous about condemning the past anti-Semitism of the Catholic Church. But I have been equally zealous in condemning Protestant anti-Semitism. Furthermore, as I noted in my 2006 book "Jerusalem Countdown," I have long viewed Pope John Paul II and now Pope Benedict XVI as partners in this "righteous work" of overcoming our shared legacy of Christian anti-Semitism.

For decades I have taught that we Christians need to recognize that our roots are Jewish. As Christians we can only understand ourselves if we understand the Judaism from which we sprang. Pope Benedict made this very important point when he visited the Park East Synagogue in New York and shared that: "I find it moving to recall that Jesus, as a young boy, heard the words of Scripture and prayed in a place such as this." With visits and words such as these, Pope Benedict is continuing the important work of recognizing our enormous Christian debt of gratitude to the Jewish people.

Fair enough. I have no interest in questioning Hagee's sincerity, and his ecumenical attitude here is a pleasant surprise; after all, it's not something you'll likely find in the writings of, say, Tim LaHaye or Hal Lindsey. But a couple of things should be kept in mind:

• Hagee's beliefs, which flow from what might be called a "traditional" form of premillennial dispensationalism (as opposed to "progressive dispensationalism"), lead to the conclusion that the Jewish people have no need of the New Covenant because they already have a sufficient and equally valid covenant. Which means, strangely enough, that Hagee has more in common with Abraham Foxman than he does with many or most Evangelicals when it comes to the issue of evangelization and Jews. But Hagee's position is rooted in a rather logical take on John Nelson Darby's teachings, which were based on a heavenly-earthly dualism that insisted on a radical distinction between Christians (the heavenly people, according to Darby) and the Jews (who he called the earthly people of God). (See this June 2003 ZENIT interview for more.)

• Hagee has stated that Jesus was not the Messiah. This is apparently one of the key positions he defends in his recent book, In Defense of Israel. I've not read that book, but I suspect that his argument is simply a continuation of the first point: namely, (according to Hagee) since Christians and Jews have radically different covenants with God, it is wrong to say that Jesus is the Messiah of the Jews—that is, until they accept Him as such after the Rapture, the Tribulation, and the Second Coming. Other dispensationalists have adopted similar views. For example, Charles Ryrie, author of the very influential work, Dispensationalism Today (first ed., 1965), wrote this in his 1986 book, Basic Theology:

“Gabriel announced to Mary that her Baby would have the throne of David and reign over the house of Jacob (Luke 1:32-33). Throughout his earthly ministry Jesus’ Davidic kingship was offered to Israel (Matt. 2:2; 27:11; John 12:13), but He was rejected. . . . Because the King was rejected, the messianic, Davidic kingdom was (from a human viewpoint) postponed. Though He never ceases to be King and, of course, is King today as always, Christ is never designated as King of the Church . . . Though Christ is a King today, He does not rule as King. This awaits His second coming. Then the Davidic kingdom will be realized (Matt. 25:31; Rev 19:15; 20)” [Basic Theology, 259].

Ryrie's position is both confusing and untenable, but it is made necessary by the presuppositions of the dispensationalist system, at least in its older forms.

• Finally, the dispensationalist system is not only contrary to many key Catholic doctrines, it has often understood the Catholic Church as either being a system of antiChrist, or at least being the sort of global institution/religion that will facilitate the rule of antiChrist and a false, "one world religion." This perspective is not understood by those who hold it—as I once did—as being "anti-Catholic," but as simply being realistic about "Bible prophecy" and the world we live in. For Hagee and like-minded folks, salvation is about having a "personal relationship with Christ," which they believe has little or nothing to do with being a visible member of this or that church.

There is another, closely related radical dichotomy at work here, which is that between the spiritual and the material realms—itself based on the heavenly-earthly distinction noted above (I examine this at length and in detail in my book, Will Catholics Be "Left Behind"?). For the typical dispensationalist (and most fundamentalists), the "Church" consists of all those who are spiritually united in saving faith in Jesus Christ (here's a good example of what I'm referring to). The church you attend is a secondary issue. And so there exists the notion that one can be perfectly saved and yet belong to an imperfect, local church. Thus, from this perspective, a Catholic can be "saved," (by the skin of his teeth!) even if the Catholic Church is not just flawed, but even apostate and blasphemous.

Hagree is absolutely right to denounce anti-Semitism. But there are some serious problems with his theological ideas, especially how he understands the relationship between the Old and the New Covenants, the person of Jesus Christ, and the nature of the Church. For me, frankly, the key issue is not if John Hagee is anti-Catholic. Rather, it's whether or not some of his core beliefs are actually Christian, even in the most general, "mere Christianity" sense of the word.

• Eschatological Fact and Fiction: Catholicism and Dispensationalism Compared | Carl E. Olson
• The Jews and the Second Coming | Roy H. Schoeman
• The End Times: The Secret Hidden From the Universe | Fr. James V. Schall, S.J.

"...the unity of the Church flows from the perfect oneness of the Trinitarian God."

From Benedict's address to an ecumenical gathering today in New York City:

Too often those who are not Christians, as they observe the splintering of Christian communities, are understandably confused about the Gospel message itself. Fundamental Christian beliefs and practices are sometimes changed within communities by so-called "prophetic actions" that are based on a hermeneutic not always consonant with the datum of Scripture and Tradition. Communities consequently give up the attempt to act as a unified body, choosing instead to function according to the idea of "local options". Somewhere in this process the need for diachronic koinonia - communion with the Church in every age - is lost, just at the time when the world is losing its bearings and needs a persuasive common witness to the saving power of the Gospel (cf. Rom 1:18-23).

Faced with these difficulties, we must first recall that the unity of the Church flows from the perfect oneness of the Trinitarian God. In John's Gospel, we are told that Jesus prayed to his Father that his disciples might be one, "just as you are in me and I am in you" (Jn 17:21). This passage reflects the unwavering conviction of the early Christian community that its unity was both caused by, and is reflective of, the unity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. This, in turn, suggests that the internal cohesion of believers was based on the sound integrity of their doctrinal confession (cf. 1 Tim 1:3-11). Throughout the New Testament, we find that the Apostles were repeatedly called to give an account for their faith to both Gentiles (cf. Acts 17:16-34) and Jews (cf. Acts 4:5-22; 5:27-42). The core of their argument was always the historical fact of Jesus's bodily resurrection from the tomb (Acts 2:24, 32; 3:15; 4:10; 5:30; 10:40; 13:30). The ultimate effectiveness of their preaching did not depend on "lofty words" or "human wisdom" (1 Cor 2:13), but rather on the work of the Spirit (Eph 3:5) who confirmed the authoritative witness of the Apostles (cf. 1 Cor 15:1-11). The nucleus of Paul's preaching and that of the early Church was none other than Jesus Christ, and "him crucified" (1 Cor 2:2). But this proclamation had to be guaranteed by the purity of normative doctrine expressed in creedal formulae - symbola - which articulated the essence of the Christian faith and constituted the foundation for the unity of the baptized (cf. 1 Cor 15:3-5; Gal 1:6-9; Unitatis Redintegratio, 2).

My dear friends, the power of the kerygma has lost none of its internal dynamism. Yet we must ask ourselves whether its full force has not been attenuated by a relativistic approach to Christian doctrine similar to that found in secular ideologies, which, in alleging that science alone is "objective", relegate religion entirely to the subjective sphere of individual feeling. Scientific discoveries, and their application through human ingenuity, undoubtedly offer new possibilities for the betterment of humankind. This does not mean, however, that the "knowable" is limited to the empirically verifiable, nor religion restricted to the shifting realm of "personal experience".

For Christians to accept this faulty line of reasoning would lead to the notion that there is little need to emphasize objective truth in the presentation of the Christian faith, for one need but follow his or her own conscience and choose a community that best suits his or her individual tastes. The result is seen in the continual proliferation of communities which often eschew institutional structures and minimize the importance of doctrinal content for Christian living.

Read the entire text.

• "Ratzinger on ecumenism: a reading list" (Nov. 30, 2006)
• Church, Ecumenism and Politics: New Endeavors in Ecclesiology, by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger. Available from Ignatius Press in May 2008.

In praise of the "out of step" Pope

From columnist Kathleen Parker, a non-Catholic (she is Evangelical, if I'm not mistaken):

That we might choose a path other than the pope’s is the prerogative of a free people — and no one recognizes that freedom with greater consistency than this pope. No one has to be Catholic.

But to ask Benedict to change the church’s rules to suit modern appetites and lifestyles is to ask that he forsake the sanctity of human life for the benefit of earthly delights. Those are not his concerns.

Even for non-Catholics like me, there’s something comforting about a stubborn pope in a world of moral relativity. Like a strong father, he ignores his children’s pleas for leniency knowing that his rules, though tough, serve a higher purpose.

If Benedict were to relent and compromise the value of human life, what would be left to debate? Perhaps only one’s own time to die. And then ...

Who decides?

If only John Kerry and Co. would understand (and respect) Church teaching so well.

Catholic News Service reports on Benedict's meeting today with Jewish leaders:

Rabbi Schneier said he personally extended his congregation's invitation when he was last at the Vatican and met with the secretary of state, Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, in March.

He noted that he first met Pope John Paul II before he was elected pope and was archbishop of Krakow, Poland. The rabbi also was close friend to the late Cardinal Agostino Casaroli, secretary of state from 1979 until his retirement in 1990.

"And I stood with Pope John Paul II in Assisi," the rabbi said, referring to the Interreligious Prayer Meeting for Peace in Assisi, Italy, first convened by Pope John Paul in 1986.

"Despite the centuries that separated us, we will travel together in our respective communities for the benefit of all mankind," the rabbi said.

"It's important to show this solidarity when religion is being criticized as causing conflict," he said. "This is clearly not the case. Violence is perpetrated by those who abuse and misuse religion. ... We have to bear the responsibility to change this."

Ah, if only Abraham Foxman would be so understanding.

Finally, Southern Baptist pastor and theologian R. Albert Mohler, Jr., remarks upon how impressed he is by Benedict's convictions, if not his beliefs:

Pope Benedict has continued his incisive work on the challenge of modern secularism. His speech at Regensburg, Germany in 2006 and his baptism of a prominent Muslim convert this past Easter were clear signs that this is not a Pope primarily concerned with ecumenical relations. Even so, his statements about the address and the baptism – and the general question of Islam – were perfectly in keeping with Catholic doctrine since Vatican II. Evangelicals can admire his boldness without appreciating his inclusivism. <snip>

The Roman Catholic Church believes that evangelicals are in spiritual danger for obstinately and disobediently excluding ourselves from submission to its universal claims and its papacy. Evangelicals are concerned that Catholics are in spiritual danger for their submission to these very claims. We both understand what is at stake.

The divide between evangelical Christians and the Roman Catholic Church remains – as this Pope well understands. And, in so many ways, this is a Pope we can understand. In this strange world, that is no small achievement.

If only Jack Chick would listen...

Just in: The Pope believes in Jesus Christ!

This is a nice birthday present: learning that Pope Benedict XVI is a devout believer in Jesus Christ. The news is provided by The Baltimore Sun, which seems somewhat put out by the revelation:

In his three years as spiritual leader of the world's 1.1 billion Roman Catholics, Pope Benedict XVI has alienated other Christians with his repeated assertion that his is the one true church. A 2006 address in which he quoted a 14th-century Byzantine emperor who linked Islam and violence set off riots in Muslim countries. And Jews continue to protest his endorsement of a prayer for their conversion.

To some Catholics, those are the forthright moves of a stalwart defender of the faith. But critics, inside the church and out, say his words and actions may be complicating already delicate relations with other religions.

"He has a very, very high Christology, which is to say there is only one way to God, and that is through Jesus Christ. And the only path to Jesus Christ is the Roman Catholic Church, " said Catholic scholar Rosann Catalano, associate director of the Institute for Christian and Jewish Studies in Baltimore. "If that's your starting point, it seems to me, there is not an openness to the possibility that the other - the one who is not you - can be a blessing."

Terry Mattingly of GetReligion takes the article to task and asks:

It’s amazing, to me, that there are journalists and other public critics who are convinced that Benedict needs to slash away at the doctrines of his faith, yet they would freak out if he made the same demands of the leaders of other world religions.

Yes, but that's only because other religious leaders write endlessly about what and why they believe what they do (as well as travel and gives talks about the same), while Benedict XVI is an authoritarian, rigid, dogmatic, judgmental man who hides in a cave and issues hate-filled rants aimed at those who don't submit to his beliefs. Oops, sorry, I may be confusing him with someone else.

But, seriously, a big part of the problem is a skewed, lacking understanding of authentic tolerance and respect. Benedict believes that vibrant Christian faith informs tolerance, while an attitude of indifference, based in relativism, eventually leads to forms of intolerance €”precisely because it rejects the possibility of knowing what is true, good, and right. Why is this so hard for some people to understand? Because if you don't think anything is objectively true, good, and right, you must base your tolerance upon subjective, shifting elements, which are usually motivated by immediate political and ideological concerns.

Schmemann and Vonier discuss the Eucharist...

... courtesy of Fr Alvin Kimel, who considers the different approaches to the Blessed Sacrament found in Alexander Schmemann's The Eucharist and Dom Anscar Vonier's A Key to the Doctrine of the Eucharist:

But my concern here is whether Schmemann has done justice to the traditional sacramental teaching of the Western Church. Unlike Schmemann, Abbott Vonier, for example, does not speak of sacraments as revelations of creation. He does not address the iconicity of the world. His focus is different. For Vonier, as for Thomas Aquinas and most theologians in the Latin Catholic tradition, sacraments are first and foremost symbolic enactments of redemption. They are rooted in the sacred history of God’s work of salvation, beginning with Israel and culminating in the consummation of the kingdom. Just as the nation of Israel celebrated its faith in ritual and sacrament, so the people of the New Israel celebrate their faith in ritual and sacrament—but with a critical difference: the sacraments of the Old Law prefigured the coming of Christ and attested to the faith of Israel, but were not in themselves causes of grace; the sacraments of the New Law not only attest to the faith of the Church, but they make present the passion of Christ and effectively apply to believers its benefits. Every sacrament is a symbolic re-presentation of the mystery of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Good stuff (ht: The Examined Life). Read it all here.

• Abbot Vonier and the Christian Sacrifice | Introduction to Abbot Vonier's A Key to the Doctrine of the Eucharist | Aidan Nichols, O.P.                     

Fr. Stanley Jaki on The Catholic Intellectual

The Catholic Intellectual | Fr. Stanley L. Jaki | Ignatius Insight

The expression, "Catholic Intellectual," may seem to involve a twofold superfluity, suggestive of some contradiction. Is it not superfluous to write the word "catholic" as "Catholic" if "catholic" truly stands for an appreciation of the whole range of reality and values? And can such an appreciation be truly at work if it is not also the work of the intellect?

The apparent conflict between "catholic" and "Catholic" will especially bother intellectuals who take ideas and not facts for their starting point. Consideration of facts certainly must come first as long as one wants to come up with something tangible about the predicaments, duties, and prospects of Catholic intellectuals. A most relevant fact in this respect can be noticed by the Catholic intellectual if he considers the beginning of the wide usage of the word "catholic," a Greek word by origin.

Surprising as it may seem, the word "catholic" occurs only here and there in the writings of ancient Greek philosophers. While Aristotle, for instance, often uses the adverb kath'olou (on the whole or in general), he never uses its adjectival form catholikos or its feminine and neutral variants. The reason for this may lie in the Greeks' contempt for all others, whom they gladly lumped under the term barbaroi. Greek philosophers did not even draw in full the logic of the idea, widely entertained by them, that the individual mind was but a bit from the universal mind into which the former was reabsorbed following the bodily death. For if such was the case, the mind of each individual must have had a truly catholic or universal character, even if in its bodily framework the mind was not Greek but barbarian.

The failure of the Greeks to see this was, of course, rooted in their inability to look beyond the mind to the personhood of each individual. That personhood revealed its infinite value only within Christianity. In the measure in which Christians surrendered to the incomparable fact of Jesus Christ, as the Incarnate Son of God, they were able to perceive in full what it meant for man to have been "made in the image of God."

Read the entire article...

Further thoughts on Ratzinger and Luther, by Mark Brumley

From the comment box on my recent post on Ratzinger and Luther, these thoughts from Mark Brumley:

Whatever Luther's original intent, he wound up a "heretic". His positions have often been misunderstood by Catholics. A better understanding of Luther can help reduce or eliminate unnecessary problems in the Catholc-Protestant dialogue. Indeed, because some Catholics have gone so far off the deep end, Luther can actually help them move closer to Catholicism, if they bother to understand the real Luther.

However, no amount of better understanding will make Luther a Catholic.

The Reformation was not, as Jaroslav Pelikan once said (in his Protestant days) a tragic necessity. It was tragic in that it was not necessary. Which is not to say that genuine reform was not necessary; it was. But Protestantism involved more than simple reform; it involved a radical and novel understanding of key aspects of Christianity. Those aspects, as Bouyer points out, framed positively--the gratuitousness of salvation and the supreme authority of the Word of God--were integral to Catholicism. However, Protestantism went well beyond the mere affirmation of those points to maintain the doctrine of forensic justification, a defective understanding of sola fide, and a problematic view of sola scriptura--to mention only a few major problems.

To be sure, Catholics contributed their own share to the problem by living sinful lives, by poor understanding of their own tradition, and by any number of other objectively sinful actions in the dispute with Protestants. None of that, however, can alter the problematic understanding of Christianity espoused by the Protestant Reformers, nor should anyone naively expect that dialogue will magically make everyone able to agree about everything.

The 16th century was a long time ago. In some ways, Catholics and Protestants are closer than ever. In some instances, we are further apart than were our ancestors. (Imagine what Luther or Calvin would say about Bishop Spong or many oldline Protestants who purport to operate out of a theological tradition reflective of Luther or Calvin's views.)

It's great that B-16 is taking up Luther in the Schuelerkreis meeting. I am sure the result will be a good discussion, one that provides a fuller, more accurate picture of Luther than one finds in certain Catholic apologetical and polemical literature. We need to help Catholics avoid the mistake of caricaturing Luther (and the other Protestant Reformers) on the one hand, and canonizing him (and the Protestant leaders) on the other. There is more to be said for Luther than many Catholic apologists and polemicists are willing to admit. There is much less to be said for him than many liberal Catholics and ecumenists insist on saying. Reality is somewhere in the middle. Not exactly a fact that lends itself to fruitful discussion on many blogs. I hope Ignatius Insight will be different.

Not that bloggers are the only problem. Many in the MSM are simply misreporting this story. (Shock.) Can we all agree not to take what is "reported" there at face value and wait to get the facts?

• "Ratzinger on Luther" (March 6, 2008)
• "Why Catholicism Makes Protestantism Tick: Louis Bouyer on the Reformation" | Mark Brumley
• "Was The Joint Declaration Truly Justified?" | An Interview with Dr. Christopher Malloy

Lent: Some Catholics deface it while some Evangelicals embrace it

A frustrated reader sent along a note about the politically-correct, doctrinally-suspect goings on at Immaculate Conception [Catholic] Church in Durham, NC. 

I myself have been personally subject to the following ( and I swear I am not making this up or exaggerating at all):

 

- Hearing a priest make jokes that George Bush thinks he is God during the Homily

 

- Being told to go see Al Gore's movie An Inconvenient Truth for penance (which I did out of

  obedience and respect for the Sacrament, and I assure you, it was truly a penitential act! 

  And it wasn't like I confessed to driving a SUV or enlarging my carbon foot print or

  anything).

 

- On the feast of St. Francis, the school's children did a skit about St. Francis not being

  afraid of the wolf in the woods, with the take home that we need to be inclusive and not

  afraid of "the Other"

 

- As a new revert from Evangelical Protestantism a few years ago, I met with the parish's

  head of Adult Faith Formation to see how I could get involved,  She proceeded to share

  with me how she and her live-in lesbian lover feel so welcome and accepted at the parish. 

  (Now, she was a very nice woman, and I know we are to love our fellow Catholics who

  struggle with homosexuality, but how a parish has someone who openly rejects Church

  teaching as the head of Adult Faith Formation, is beyond me.)

As for Lenten practices at the parish, see this recent post (Feb. 23, 2008) on Fr. John Zuhlsdorf's blog, which includes a description of "The Ecological Stations of the Cross", apparently adapted from a "devotion" created by the Office of Peace, Justice and Integrity of Creation, of the Franciscan Province of St. Barbara. It is essentially a mish-mash of New Age blathering and eco-worship and includes lines such as, "Mother Earth, you are alive with Christ’s Spirit. You, like Christ, are the suffering servant." Jeff Miller (aka, the Curt Jester), in a comment on the post, points to a longer description of the "stations," which includes these details:

Holding candles, the group processed around the church from station to station, taking turns reading from a text accompanied by powerful images of global warming, clear-cut forests, environmental discrimination against the poor, and species extinction. The Ecological Stations of the Cross honor Jesus' Good Friday travail, but blend the traditional model with a 21st-century meditation focusing upon the crucifixion of Mother Earth.

Meanwhile, the Washington Post has an article, posted today, about Evangelicals who are taking up Lenten practices (ht: Rey):

Some evangelical churches offer confession and weekly communion. They distribute ashes on Ash Wednesday and light Advent calendars at Christmastime. Others have formed monastic communities, such as Casa Chirilagua in Alexandria, modeled on the monasteries that arose in Christianity's early years.

This represents a "major sea change in evangelical life," according to D.H. Williams, professor of patristics and historical theology at Baylor University. "Evangelicalism is coming to point where the early church has become the newest staple of its diet."

Experts say most who have taken on such practices have grown disillusioned with the contemporary, shopping-center feel of the megachurches embraced by baby boomers, with their casually dressed ministers and rock-band praise music.

Instead, evangelicals -- many of them young -- are adopting a trend that has come to be known as "worship renewal" or "ancient-future worship."

Those familiar with the trend say it is practiced mostly by small, avant-garde evangelical churches, though not always. Last summer, the national convention of the 2.5 million-member Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, an evangelical wing of the Lutheran denomination, voted to revive private confession.

"I definitely sense a hunger for acknowledgment of life's mysteries and of the mystery and beauty of God," said John Witvliet, director of the Calvin Institute of Christian Worship in Grand Rapids, Mich., which recently hosted a "worship renewal" conference for 1,500 people. "There's a hunger for deeper engagement -- 'Don't just sell me a product at church, but really put me in touch with the mystery and beauty of God.' "

The articles goes on to note that some Evangelical groups are practicing forms of confession:

Confession -- a staple of Catholicism -- is appearing in different formats.Thousands of people, for example, have posted anonymous online confessions on church-run Web sites like mysecret.tv, and ivescrewedup.com. Those posting have confided feelings of guilt over abortions or their homosexuality, while others have confessed to extramarital affairs, stealing, eating disorders, addictions -- even murder.

"We do believe there is value in confessing our sins to each other," said Bobby Gruenewald, pastor at Lifechurch.tv, an Oklahoma-based megachurch that runs mysecret.tv, which has received 7,500 confessions since it started in 2006. Ministers and volunteers pray over the confessions as they come in. "This process may be a more modern way of people discovering the value of that tradition."

In fact, various Evangelical and even Fundamentalist groups have practiced variations on this theme for many decades. Growing up in a small Fundamentalist "Bible chapel" in the 1970s, I remember the elders of the group anointing sick members with oil and praying over them. And while we didn't speak of "Confession," there was plenty of talk of confessing sins to one another, based on James 5:14-16, which states in part: "Therefore confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another, that you may be healed..." In practice, this basically meant having some sort of "accountability partner", preferably an older Christian. It's easy enough, of course, for Catholics to look at such things and point out that such confessions aren't true sacraments and that there seems to be a complete disregard for how confession in the ancient Church was rooted in Church authority and a sacramental vision.

But the positive, in the words of Dr. Chris Armstrong, associate professor of church history at Bethel Seminary (St. Paul, MN), is that for such Evangelicals, "their experience is one of churches that look too much like the rest of the world -- a little bit too much like malls or rock concerts"—and they are looking for something more. Unfortunately, some Catholic parishes, such as Immaculate Conception in N.C., don't seem to understand that by perverting orthodox traditions and devotions with politically-correct, even heterodox, mumbo-jumbo, they are stealing a less than desirable page from the Book of Trendy Accommodation that some Evangelicals, thankfully, are starting to toss out the window. Then again, Catholics do seem to always be ten to twenty years behind the times when it comes to being hip and with it, meaning that even when embracing falsehood they somehow manage to look dull and dated.

By the way, an excellent book that touches on some of these issues is The Politics of Prayer: Feminist Language and the Worship of God (Ignatius, 1992), edited by Helen Hull Hitchcock (which happens to be the very first Ignatius Press book I ever bought, back in 1992).