20. And Marries Another: Divorce and Remarriage in the Teaching of the New Testament by Craig Keener

This book is terrible. Keener writes like a soft conservative/liberal and a soft man. I could barely get through it. Terrible arguments. At the end of the day, anyone can get divorced and remarried for any reason. And pastors just need to cry about it and treat people like they’re made of paper mâché. I had a debate on divorce and remarriage with Dr. Stephen Boyce that you can find here. I reread a bunch of books in preparation. So, they will be reviewed here.

Keener states his position: “Divorce is to be avoided, but there are certain circumstances under which divorce and remarriage are acceptable.” He goes on to identify this view as the evangelical consensus, citing Gordon Wenham. The evangelical consensus is that divorce and remarriage is okay in limited circumstances, but the reality is that anyone can get divorced and remarried for any reason and nothing will happen. Keener and the feckless cowards who hold his position are liars. They are teaching people to lie.

Keener regularly talks about mean parts of the church. He uses words like prejudiced parts of the church. He talks about divorcees as if they were colored people in the Jim Crow south. Where are these bigoted churches? I don’t think they exist on any significant scale. And if they do, let me know who they are. I’d love to meet some of these bigoted Christians. We need more bigoted Christians in the world. Keener purposely goes out of his way *not* to name denominations, and says stuff like, “you all know who I’m talking about.” No, we don’t. Who are you talking about?

Keener is a loser throwing a book into an echo chamber of other soft, effeminate, zeitgeist worshiping men.

Another tactic Keener uses is death by citation and words. He just talks extensively of background and historical data. He gives us plenty of academic citations. This seems to lend credibility to his arguments, even though his arguments are terrible. So, if you want to be viewed as theological powerhouse just make lots of citations and thoroughly give background considerations to the issues, and this will magically make your arguments not total garbage.

Keener makes similar arguments to Erasmus by basically saying we assume exceptions to all kinds of other dominical standards, and so we should make exceptions on divorce, too. The arguments are so convoluted and ridiculous that I really had a hard time forcing myself through this book. But his arguments are standard evangelical arguments aimed at justifying divorce and remarriage in all cases.

19. Divorce and Remarriage in the Bible: The Social and Literary Context by David Instone-Brewer

Another terrible book. But the research is well done and thorough. So, in that regard it’s helpful. I learned a lot in regards to the social and literary context. But then Instone-Brewer basically lets the social context provide the widest exceptions to divorce and remarriage. He gets a lot of juice out of debated, obscure, Levitical laws. He lets the Old Testament control his New Testament hermeneutic when it should be the other way around. To his credit, he admits that his view departs from the near unanimous consensus of the early fathers, which he labels as the traditional view. People who are looking to justify their ongoing unlawful remarriages will love this book.

18. Divorce and Remarriage by William Luck

This is probably the best treatment of divorce and remarriage from a permissive viewpoint. If the created order is only an ideal, and not an inflexible standard, then Luck is the most consistent and able expositor of a permissive interpretation. He has a lengthy appendix defending the lawfulness of polygamy, which is the natural and consistent conclusion if we are going to permit divorce and remarriage. If you’re looking to justify your adulterous remarriage this is book is for you.

17. The Conduct of the Service by Arthur Piepkorn and Charles McClean

A tedious and detailed book advocating for traditional worship. I’m glad books like this exist. I’m glad traditions like this exist, as long as we maintain a right sense of these things being adiaphora. This is a Lutheran book, and so I appreciate their ability to retain ancient and medieval forms of worship, which I find rich and beautiful, and then discard Roman excess.

I think young trad Lutherans are obnoxious. And they wind up being as rigid and erroneous as Roman Catholics. They essentially don’t actually believe forms of worship are adiaphora. Which is wrong.

On Incense:

“The use of incense has become very rare in our churches since the Reformation. This is strange in view of the fact that incense is so frequently mentioned in the sacred scriptures.” (The Conduct of the Services, p. 93)

On the Altar:

“The altar is the one absolutely essential piece of furniture in the church building. If there is to be a meal, there must necessarily be a table on which to prepare it. The altar should indicate by its size and dignity and position its role as the table for the eucharistic meal and the symbol of the presence of the exalted Christ among His people.” (p. 59)

“In Christian tradition the altar is also the symbol of Christ in the church and, therefore, of the presence of God with His people. The altar is by definition a place of sacrifice and therefore stands in the church as the symbol of the one perfect sacrifice of Christ on the cross, of which the Eucharist is the memorial.” (p. 58)

On Versus Populum:

Liturgy junkies get real snobbish about the way in which the minister is facing. High liturgy snobs will always prefer ad orientem, which means they are facing East, or facing toward God with the people. This is popularly described as the minister with his back to the people. But the point is that he is facing with the people toward God. And he faces toward God when he is doing sacrificial actions like prayer, and facing toward the people when he is doing sacramental actions liking administering the body and blood of Christ. So, there is a logic and a certain beauty and richness to it. But radtrads err by saying this is the only way one can do it, and that it’s sinful to face the people. Facing the people is called versus populum. And it’s fine if a church decides its minister should worship this way. I’ve done both and both are fine. Here’s McClean on versus populum.

“Celebrating the Eucharist facing the people reflects an approach to the liturgy, common to the pre-medieval period, which emphasizes the involvement of the whole church in the eucharistic action. In the pre-medieval period the bishop, seated behind the altar and facing the people, preached and offered the great eucharistic prayer…” (p. 58)

On Adoration:

“While Lutheran pastors will be careful to instruct their people not to adore the bread and wine as such, they will also be careful to instruct their communicants that ‘no one, unless he be an Arian heretic, can and will deny that Christ himself, true God and man, who is truly and essentially present in the holy communion in the right celebration thereof should be adored in spirit and truth’ (Formula of Concord, Solid Declaration, VII, 126).” (Ibid. p. 17)

This seems to be very reasonable. A solid walking of the tight rope.

On Ceremony:

“In addition to the rites and rubrics of our authorized service books, three principles have shaped the following directions: historic precedent, ecumenical consensus, and contemporary need.

In an age that seems to have little sense of historic continuity, the appeal to historic precedent may seem pointless. Besides, some of the ceremonial described in the following pages may not be immediately intelligible to every worshiper. Yet while the historic ceremonial is not always immediately intelligible, it can be made meaningful. But why, some will ask, should we burden ourselves with ceremonial that requires explanation, ceremonial from the dim past? The answer to that question can partially be suggested by referring to the words of St. Paul: ‘What! Did the Word of God originate with you, or are you the only ones it has reached?’ (1 Corinthians 14:36). The ceremonial of the liturgy, no less than the rite, reminds us of our continuity with that host of believers who have gathered to ‘do this’ in rememberance of the Lord ever since the night when He was betrayed. Unthinking bondage to historic precedent is, of course, deadening. Besides, a reading of the numerous rites of Christendom would quickly show that one could find precedent for almost anything he would want to do. This, then, implies that in appealing to historic precedent, one must also consider historic consensus – insofar as that exists – and the intrinsic meaningfulness of a usage. Lutherans will in most cases give greatest weight to Lutheran precedent, in this way visibly asserting Lutheran confessional identity.

The appeal to ecumenical consensus springs from the conviction that we are, in spite of our divisions, one with all who have been baptized into our Lord’s death and resurrection.” (Ibid, p. 3)

On Sacrifice in the Eucharist

“Historically the Offertory is one of the climaxes of the service. In the primitive church the faithful brought offerings of bread and wine, as well as other kinds of food, for the relief of the poor, for the support of the clergy and as symbols of their life of total worship, their self-dedication to the God of the creation, their redemption and their re-creation. From these offerings the loaves and wine needed for the celebration of the Sacrament of the Altar were taken. Later on, the offerings in kind were commuted into offerings of money for the convenience of both the worshipers and the administrators of the Church’s financial affairs. The Offeratory is still a reminder that, in Bl. Martin Luther’s words, ‘we are the sacrifice in the Holy Eucharist.'” (The Conduct of the Service, pp. 21-22)

On Reverence:

“There is really only one basic rule of good form: ‘Be courteous!” And similarly there is really only one basic rule of altar decorum: “Be reverent!” Every other rule is simply a practical amplification of this basic charge.

To be reverent we must first of all be humble. We are ministers – ministers of Christ, serving Christ in the room and in the name of fellow-sinners. We minister not because of any virtue in ourselves. Our sufficiency is of God. We minister as temples of the Holy Ghost, as being bound in sacramental union to the Lord of the Church, as kings and priests living in mystic communion with the Most Holy Trinity, as those whom Christ has chosen that we might be with Him that He might send us forth to preach (St. Mark 3, 13). We minister under the aspect of eternity and in the Presence of the Divine Majesty. Wherever we stand, we are on holy ground. In such a ministry there is no room for pride, only for all-pervading humility.

To be reverent we must be prepared. We must know what we are doing, and why we are doing it. The physical preparations, as far as may be, should be taken care of well in advance. There should be no last-minute running to and fro, no hasty final preparation, no distressed paging about. A meditation, brief if need be, but as long as the time permits, ought never to be overlooked; spiritual preparation is more essential to reverence than the proper ordering of the physical adjuncts.

To be reverent we must be calm. The unforeseen, the accidental, the disturbing must not be permitted to distract us. We are God’s ambassadors and God’s servants. We are speaking for and to God. Our entire lives ought to be, and our public ministry must be en Christo – in Christ! So must the calm peace of the changeless Christ in our souls be reflected in our outward demeanor.

The discussion of practical details which follows is intended to be neither ‘liturgical’ nor ‘unliturgical.’ If certain individual suggestions seem to reflect a ‘liturgical’ bias, it is becasue we are not persuaded that every parish and every parson must scale its or his ceremonial down to the lowest level in use among us. Those less ‘liturgically’ inclined may depart from the norm suggested as widely as their vagrant fancy and their Christian liberty dictate, and they will unquestionably do so. These things are not matters of faith, and their doing or omissionis neither mortal nor venial sin.

In general, services should be conducted, rites performed, and the Holy Sacraments administered in the place set aside for that purpose, the church. We need not ascribe intrinsic sanctity to a place or a building or an object to realize that devotion and reverence inevitably reflect surroundings and associations.

It is not a question of validity or efficacy. It is simply that it is usually easier to be reverent in church, and so the church should be the scene of our ministration except where inescapable exigencies direct that another be employed.

Our service allows a wide range of individual liberty and gives full scope to parochial peculiarities. But the very rubrics which provide this beautiful freedom become gins of irreverence and confusion for the feet of the unwary and the uninstructed. Each church might well have its Orders of Service, as used, mimeographed or printed and placed in the hands of the worshipers before The Service or rite begins.” (Conduct of the Service, p. iii)

The Lutheran approach maintains a healthy sense of Christian liberty, the priesthood of all believers, and an emphasis on the Word which makes its ceremonial more healthy that Rome.

16. Guide to The Mass: From the 1928 Book of Common Prayer For Anglican Youth and Newcomers by Jackie Jamison and Sean McDermott

A very brief and helpful guide for understanding an Anglo-Catholic Mass. It seems to me Lutherans are better at resisting some of the mistakes of Rome, but Anglo-Catholics also have valuable things to offer as well. There isn’t much I would disagree with here. If you ask the question, “how should we worship?”, I think this tradition of the Church has a lot to offer, and that the catholic tradition specifically has a lot to offer. This book provides brief explanations and defenses of ceremonial, liturgical, worship in the anglo-catholic tradition. I’m not anglo-catholic, but when it comes to understanding worship, I think they have treasures the rest of the Church can benefit from.

15. Merrily On High: An Anglo-Catholic Memoir by Colin Stephenson

An interesting and often humorous auto-biographical account of Stephenson’s life journey into and in the Anglo-Catholic tradition. I like reading Stephenson because he doesn’t take issue with poking fun of his own tradition. That speaks a lot to me, when you can rib your own tribe.

In the preface, Gordon Reid describes Colin Stephenson’s ministry. “In the end, his entire ministry, and the charm and value of this book, can be summed up in what he says in Chapter 6, ‘I very much enjoyed parish work because I am fortunate enough to like people’, and he liked them colourful like the Catholic Faith in all its glory. He did not despise ‘middle-stump Anglicanism’ or Evangelicals, but it was not for him. As he said, ‘I did once go into a low church and the clergyman who was standing at the door said, ‘Dull, isn’t it?’ I agreed heartily till I discovered he was talking about the weather!'” (p. 6)

As a young man Stephenson says, “I knew far more about ceremonial than was healthy.” (p.42)

He recounts another experience that I think really shows the absurdity of the catholic tradition and the superiority of the evangelical tradition.

“I once said to a strange priests who was obviously not used to hearing confessions: ‘You haven’t given me a penance, Father’, and he replied, ‘Make yourself a living sacrifice.’ I left the confessional so puzzled that I went to another priest to ask what I should do and he said: ‘Nonsense, say three Hail Marys.'” He goes on. “Yet in spite of all peculiarities I have always found that the use of the Sacrament of Penance is some sort of a test of my sincerity, and an outward expression of a desire to please God at some, if only a small, cost.” (p.45)

So, this is really an absurdity, and I think Stephenson knows it’s an absurdity. That of course we are to make our lives a living sacrifice. And to call it nonsense is basically heresy. But he found that penance was a way for him to manifest sincerity in repentance, which every tradition believes in some form.

Lastly, I appreciated this passage from the end of the book. It shows Stephenson recognizes that the Holy Spirit does do new things, and also that every era of the Church has something to offer. This, in my view, is true catholicity. This is mature Christian thinking.

He begins by recounting a visit to an Eastern Orthodox monastery called Athos. I watched a documentary on this particular monastery a while ago. You can find it here. There are other documentaries on it, too. 60 Minutes also did a segment on it. You can find them all on YouTube.

“Athos is a wonderful place and I should hate it to be thought that I have anything but veneration for its monks and gratitude for the kindness they showed me during my visits, but it did reveal to me very clearly the dangers of trying to shut the Church up in the past. So much of the Catholic Movement in the Church of England has been a turning backwards and a holding on to certain positions with a fanaticism bred from a sense of insecurity. I realised that while I should never find the Reformation attractive, yet the Reformers had a point, faced with the situation they found; and their valid insights into living of the Gospel have been enshrined in bodies which we have rather contemptuously called ‘dissenting’.

Every period in the history of the Church has much to teach us and there are many things, the crusades for one, of which we should be heartily ashamed; but our duty is to live in the Church today which involves situations which cannot be met by a slavish imitation of the past be it Puritan, Catholic or Primitive. This is particularly true of liturgy. Series 2 and Series 3 will soon be as much amongst the fossilised relics as 1662 and 1928. I am glad that I live in the Church now for, in spite of its absurdities, I am conscious of the Holy Spirit at work.” (p. 186)

I am reformed, evangelical, and continuationist, and I have attempted to sum those positions up in the term reformed catholic. But even the term reformed catholic means different things to different people. But I resonate strongly with the true catholicity expressed by Stephenson here. In some ways I would say this is a postmillennial view of the kingdom. That the Spirit does new things, and advances the kingdom from glory to glory.