Sunday, May 11, 2008

Sunday afternoon musings

Lots of celebration today: Pentecost, Mother's Day, and a purely local observance, the Feast of the Nativity of the Postulant (the traditional food for which, M's incomparable lasagna, will be served this evening).

***

Our Pentecost liturgy was absolutely splendid. They even brought out our red solemn set, which until today I had not seen outside the sacristy. Assorted languages were spoken with verve. The choir totally rocked "Every Time I Feel the Spirit." And honestly, how did people celebrate Pentecost before Ralph Vaughn Williams wrote Down Ampney?

***

I am in the middle of writing what may well be the most tedious paper of my career. The basic plot is that A and B say C says D, but actually C doesn't say D, and D is, moreover, a stupid thing to say, and saying D would completely mess up E, F, and G, which C does say. The very careful work of showing exactly why A and B are wrong to attribute D to C is tough -- how many different ways can I find to say "look how they're just making shit up"? -- and I have to find some way to write this all up so that it doesn't put people to sleep.

Still, I'm making good progress on the paper, which I hope to present at the end of the month. And since this is the first writing to speak of that I've done in several months, I feel fairly good about it, despite the tedium.

***

Over at Creedal Christian, we're asked this question:
Are there certain behaviors or sins which, if committed without repentance, can condemn a baptized Christian to hell? If so, what are those behaviors/sins?
I shouldn't spout off without thinking this through, but here's my initial reaction. The answer is either any sin, or no sin. In one mood, I'm inclined to go all "nothing can separate us from the love of God" and to talk darkly about how interesting it is that people get accused of Pelagianism if they say we can do something to gain salvation but it's apparently just fine to say we can do something to lose it. In another mood, I want to observe that there are no unrepentant sinners in heaven, and that (as blessed Anselm saith) we must "not suppose that any sin is small (though granted, some sins are greater than others). For no act of disobedience ought to be called small: disobedience alone expelled human beings from paradise."

This part, at any rate, struck me as odd:
When I was a Southern Baptist I was clear, as one who sat in the pew at least 4 times weekly up until my 18th birthday, that my condemnation to Hell was assured if I unrepentantly committed certain well-defined, scripturally prohibited sins.
All the Southern Baptists I know, including my younger self, believe(d) strongly in the security of the believer -- aka "once saved, always saved."

Labels: , , ,

7 Comments:

At 3:37 PM, Blogger Bryan+ said...

I appreciate your citation of the piece I wrote over at Creedal Christian that cites another piece written by a clergy colleague. I invite you to post your reflections over there.

In light of that piece, I think it's important to note that the question you focus on here is the third of three interrelated questions. I'm not sure we can gain clarity as Episcopalians about what actions might possibly put salvation in jeopardy (if there are any) if we are not first able to answer, "What is necessary for salvation?", and then, "What is the meaning of this sentence at the top of page 298 in the BCP: 'The bond which God establishes in Baptism is indissoluble'?"

 
At 3:54 PM, Blogger thomas bushnell, bsg said...

who is C and what is D?

 
At 3:59 PM, Blogger The Postulant said...

C is my favorite Archbishop of Canterbury. D is, roughly, the account Frankfurt gives in "Freedom of the Will and the Concept of a Person."

 
At 5:24 PM, Blogger thomas bushnell, bsg said...

Oh, sure, I can see how the (shoddy) argument from an A or B might go, though I haven't run into it. My favorite ABC had the advantage of not writing philosophy. :)

This seems to be a special case of a general principle. We may call it "Bennett's Principle" for lack of a better name.

"D is true, C is very smart, C thought about things similar to D, hence C believed D. And moreover, if you think C didn't believe D, then you are reading uncharitably, because, after all, D is true."

When Alan Nelson would explain this principle, he would emphasize that we mean "really true"--with a capital T, if you need one--by a little fist on the table routine. Very funny. :)

 
At 5:57 PM, Blogger bls said...

"And honestly, how did people celebrate Pentecost before Ralph Vaughn Williams wrote Down Ampney?"

With "Hail Thee, Festival Day," of course. Unless RVW wrote that after Down Ampney....

 
At 9:05 AM, Blogger Davis said...

Down Ampney is my hands down favorite, but sadly in 1940 they eliminated the lovely third verse about Holy Charity, and then in 1982 mucked up the last verse as well...

I don't get - it's POETRY, a work of art - leave it alone!!

Whitsun wouldn't be the same without it however.

rant over

 
At 2:08 PM, Blogger bls said...

I agree, Davis: I love the 3rd verse also and wish they'd included it. (I think it was that thing about "weeps with loathing" - rhymes with "clothing" - that got it the old heave-ho; actually I agree this is a bit over-the-top, and probably a translation error. Unfortunately, the cloak of Charity had to go with it.)

In fact, the tune and the words together have made me change my mind about Pentecost, which used to be my least-favorite feast. Now it's up there near the top, really because of what's said in this song. Amazing, isn't it?

 

Post a Comment

<< Home