Insulted at a nuptial Mass…or, ‘Aggressive Ecumenism’

What follows is a response I wrote to a Catholic priest who presided at a wedding mass I recently attended.  The names have been deleted to protect all parties.  While the mass was a traditional Latin Rite mass, that was not the issue.  The issue was the homily, in which he openly insulted Protestant Eucharistic practices and implied that all weddings outside the Catholic church were, in some sense, illegitimate.  I admit this is more for my own catharsis than anything – I had a great deal of rage initially, for which I have asked forgiveness – but I thought some of you might find it interesting.  My hope is that this embodies ecumenism at its best – dialogue that can bear fruit because it engages with another’s tradition out of deep respect and extensive study.   Enjoy:

Rev. _____,

        A short while ago, I attended the _______ nuptial Mass which you presided over.  I should tell you I am not close to either family; I came with my girlfriend who was a high school friend of the groom.  I am writing you because I must take issue with some things you said in your homily. I apologize for the delay, but I needed some time to get my thoughts in order and ensure I was writing with the correct intentions.  Your comments regarding the non-Catholic celebration of the Eucharist, as well as your more general comments about wedding rituals, both hurt and offended me.

            I doubt there were many people who caught your off-hand remarks about the Eucharist.  With the exception of my girlfriend, I do not believe any of the other Protestants in the audience understood what you were saying.  I, however, did, and found them profoundly inappropriate.  I recognize that Catholics and Protestants have different sacramental theologies (and of course, there is a great divergence within Protestant communities), but I think this is something to lament rather than make light of.  As I recall, you asserted, with a smirk, that Holy Eucharist was not just a “symbol” or a “metaphor,” and I believe you also used the phrase “real presence.”  I actually agree with all of that.  I have no problem with transubstantiation.  I have spent a great deal of time, in my young pastorate, trying to teach my congregation to have more reverence for the sacrament.  This is part of a wider movement within my denomination to work towards a more frequent celebration of Communion, a change for which I am greatly hopeful.

            But, to get back to my point, what purpose does it serve to mock other traditions?  Do you really believe there were Catholics there who thought the presence of Christ in the elements was only symbolic?  To put it succinctly, it struck me as a cheap shot.  I also took it personally, because I hold a great deal of respect for the Catholic tradition, particularly in worship and theology.  I grew up in a Southern Baptist-dominated area of North Carolina, where all kinds of horrific stereotypes about Catholic persist.  I am very grateful that I had teachers and friends that helped me to appreciate the beauty of the Catholic faith, and this is a lesson I try to instill in my parishioners.

            Furthermore, it seems disingenuous to mock Protestant practices when Catholic teaching has at least a modicum of respect for them.  Vatican II’s decree on Ecumenism states,

“Our separated brothers and sisters also carry out many liturgical actions of the Christian religion.  In ways that vary according to the condition of each church or community, these liturgical actions most certainly can truly engender a life of grace, and, one must say, are capable of giving access to that communion which is salvation.” (503, “Decree on Ecumenism,” in Vatican Council II: The Basic Sixteen Documents.  Northport: Costello Publishing Company 2007.)

I take this to mean that, despite our substantial differences, Roman Catholics believe the sacramental rites of other Christian communities can and may, through the Spirit, convey some measure of grace.  If this is the case, I believe it is not too much to hope that our practices be respected. 

            Thus, I did not anticipate the traditions of my own church to be publicly mocked at a Catholic mass.  It strikes me as particularly egregious to do this at an occasion where there are likely to be non-Catholics.  In a few months I will be marrying two dear friends of mine, one of whom is Catholic and the other of which is Baptist.  I do not believe it will be appropriate to the occasion or to the glory of God to make light of either tradition.  I expect the same courtesy from clergy colleagues, especially in public.

            I was also taken aback by your general comments about marriage.  I confess, I was nodding my head as you went on about people getting married “skydiving, scuba diving,” and the like.  I too believe that a marriage is a holy occasion which is a most appropriate for a church.  For anyone professing the Christian faith, if their marriage is indeed to be a means of grace, a union which is worthy to be compared to Christ and his Church, it should take place in a church proper.  Fine.  Excellent.  But why go on to say that everyone else – the skydivers, scuba divers, beachgoers, and dare I say Protestants?! – are only “pretending” to be married?       

            Again, this serves no purpose.  It comes across as cynical mockery, whatever truth there may be to the statement.  I was particularly grieved for some other young people who were there, several of whom were born into Christian families (two of them were baptized Catholics who had fallen away) but no longer identified themselves as such.  This was the statement that most perked their ears and turned them off in a service where they already felt alienated.  Christianity has, as I’m sure you know, in almost all quarters gained a reputation for being judgmental, narrow-minded, and arrogant.  Such comments only reinforce these unfortunate biases.  What Vatican II said about ecumenical dialogue should ring true for both clergy and laity on all occasions when we gather for worship:

“…catholic theologians, standing fast by the teaching of the church yet searching together with separated brothers and sisters into the divine mysteries, should do so with love for the truth, with charity, and with humility.” (511, “Decree On Ecumenism”)

            The above quote applies equally to the aforementioned comments about Eucharist.  Rev. _____, what deeply hurts me about all of this is that I went to that service excited and interested to experience a Latin Rite mass.  My last year in seminary, I gained a profound appreciation for and interest in the Catholic Church when I took a course on the theology of Joseph Ratzinger/Pope Benedict XVI.  The professor, Dr. Geoffrey Wainwright, is a Methodist pastor and theologian who has been involved in many of the dialogues between our churches (such as the discussions leading up to the joint Catholic/Lutheran/Methodist declaration on the Doctrine of Justification).  He became acquainted with the Holy Father when then-Cardinal Ratzinger was prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.  Dr. Wainwright has a deep respect for His Holiness, both as a theologian and as a successor to Peter, a respect that he ingrained in all of us who took the course.

            While searching for your address on the internet, I stumbled across a piece you wrote on the Latin Rite.  Near the end, you recommended reading one of the Holy Father’s earlier works, The Spirit of the Liturgy.  This was one of the monographs we were assigned for the course. Chapter four contains this beautiful reflection on the Eucharist:

“The Lord has definitively drawn this piece of matter to himself.  It does not contain just a matter-of-fact kind of gift.  No, the Lord himself is present, the Indivisible One, the risen Lord, with Flesh and Blood, with Body and Soul, with Divinity and Humanity.  The whole Christ is there.” (88, The Spirit of the Liturgy, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger.  San Francisco: Ignatius Press 2000)

Rev. _____, I do not presume to lecture you on Catholic faith or practice.  Whatever knowledge I have of your tradition is limited at best.  I do, however, feel confident to share that I believe that in a mass, where the Lord is truly and wholly present, the comments I have mentioned above were inappropriate.  That being said, I’m sure that I have made more offensive comments while presiding at a service.  And, from what I saw, you seem like a skilled leader of worship, celebrant, and preacher.  I only make the above points because your comments were incongruous with what I took to be Catholic positions regarding “separated brothers” such as myself, and because I took exception to them as a pastor.

            Please forgive me if my comments here lack humility or charity; I have asked the Lord for forgiveness already, for my pride, inattention, and malicious thoughts both during the mass and after.  I am not proud of my initial reaction to your comments.  I hope that the issues I am bringing to your attention only amount to a slip of the tongue or momentary forgetfulness.  I further hope that this letter will be received in the spirit that is intended: “As iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another.” (Proverbs 27:17)  As a Christian and a fellow shepherd in the Lord’s fields, I felt duty-bound to make my feelings known to you.  I thank you for your service in the Church, for your faithful following of Christ’s call, and for the time and attention given to my grievances.  May God bless you and your ministry at St. _______.

Grace and Peace,

Rev. Mack
Pastor
West ____ United Methodist Church

Blessed Are the Peacemakers? [Advent 2]

The second Sunday of Advent is traditionally a time where we reflect on the coming Christ as the Prince of Peace, as the founder of a kingdom in which the lion will lay down with the lamb (and not eat him).  This was reflected in this week’s (alternative) Gospel lection, in which the Benedictus promises us that the One to come will “guide our feet into the way of peace.” (Lk. 1:79).  But what does that mean?  What does a life bent towards the peace of Christ look like as the world waits for the kingdom to be fulfilled?

Christians have traditionally argued over this.  Some, like Tertullian and later the Anabaptists and their descendants, advocated a nonviolent witness as the only option for Christians everywhere and at every time.  More recently, inspired by Ghandi and later King, Christians have taken up the nonviolent banner as a means of achieving peace.  (Same means, but different ends.  The former are concerned primarily with fidelity and witness, while the latter practice nonviolence for larger purposes, usually the overturning of a particular injustice).

Since Ambrose and Augustine, the mainstream position has been some variant of the ‘just war’ position.  This holds that war may be right/necessary/just/justifiable under certain conditions.  This was the position held by such luminaries as Aquinas, Luther, Calvin, Wesley, and Barth.  But the consensus, particularly among evangelical Christians, seems to be shifting.

A generation of young people raised by parents who lived through Vietnam, themselves disillusioned with campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan and without the historical acumen to place these in any kind of perspective, are being drawn to the pacifist position with alarming regularity.  This has a lot to do with authors such as Stanley Hauerwas and John Howard Yoder, who have given the Christian pacifist stance renewed legitimacy and intellectual firepower over the last decades.

Obviously these issues are too big to handle here, but I’d like to point out a problem that no pacifist has offered a legitimate solution to: the police function of the state.  In my experience, even the most strident pacifists will say that the state still has a legitimate police function, that criminals must be brought to justice and restrained from doing further harm.  Presumably, this means Christians can participate in these functions without fear of apostasy.

“Blessed are the peacemakers,” indeed.  But if the police function is viable, how is it nonviolent?  Violence is essentially force, and police can and must force wrongdoers, restraining their evil and sometimes stopping them fatally.  As good as things like stun guns and pepper spray are (and they are not non-violent, just non-bloody), it is likely like cops will be carrying guns and nightsticks for the foreseeable future.  How, then, can one support the police function and still claim nonviolence?

Furthermore, if these peacemakers are legitimate and blessed, then why not soldiers?  The difference is one of scale and direction of force.  Bad guys externally need to be restrained as much as bad guys internally.

This is why, last Sunday, in prayer time I remembered the soldiers of our congregation and around the world, and asked God’s blessing on them as peacemakers.  Peace is not a simple achievement, not something we gain by acting peacefully: as Donald Kagan points out in his On the Origins of War and Preservation of Peace, peace must be fought for and actively maintained.   That is why the service of peacemakers is blessed.  Their work is hard, bloody, and until Christ comes in final victory, it will be violent.  It will be a wonderful day when their service is not needed, but that day is not today.  Come, Lord Jesus – but until that day, raise up men and women of courage and justice who will work for the gift of peace – fleeting and incomplete as it will be – here and abroad.

P.S. Theological brownie points for anyone who can tell me why I posted the picture above.

What’s wrong with marriage (weddings) today

The worst part is the preacher’s de-facto blessing….

P.S. This could also be subtitled “Why it sucks being Protestant,” because we know that no Catholic or Orthodox priest would tolerate this kind of activity at a holy ceremony.  Ugh.  If marriage is now undervalued and abused, which I believe it is, surely this is related to the fact that the marriage ceremony is itself undervalued and abused.  Give me a  funeral any day of the week.

Come, Thou Long Expected Jesus [Advent 1]

The great hymn writer Charles Wesley penned these beautiful words over 200 years ago:

---

Come, thou long-expected Jesus,
born to set thy people free;
from our fears and sins release us,
let us find our rest in thee.

Israel’s strength and consolation,
hope of all the earth thou art:
dear desire of every nation,
joy of every longing heart.

Born thy people to deliver,
born a child, and yet a king,
born to reign in us for ever,
now thy gracious kingdom bring.

By thine own eternal Spirit
rule in all our hearts alone;
by thine all-sufficient merit
raise us to thy glorious throne.

It is hard to imagine a more appropriate hymn to reflect on Advent.  As we begin the Church’s year with the season of Advent, looking back to the promises that culminated in the Incarnate One, and looking ahead to his return in glory, let us remember to “find our rest in thee.”  This is a season of hustle and bustle, bargains, madness, and, for many, loneliness, bitterness, and hurt.  Don’t let the world take the season’s joy away.  Remember Israel’s consolation, the joy of every longing heart – Jesus Christ – who was, who is, and who is to come.  May God draw us nearer to Himself, into His story, into His purposes, this Advent season.

Oprah Retiring – Who Cares?

I don’t have much of a problem with Oprah, other than unwarranted admiration that the public has for her.  From what little I have seen of her shows, she is more a reflection of our culture than a shaper of it.  Her guests include anyone in the news, celebrities, or people with interesting, inspiring, or tragic stories.  She has spawned spin-off shows like Dr. Phil, Dr. Oz, and Rachel Ray.  I respect her for being open about her challenges with weight loss.  I’m not sure why it should matter that she endorsed Barack Obama this past election cycle (other than showing what Hilary should have known: minority women would chose a minority man over a white woman).  I don’t like that people would pick up any book just because Oprah told them to; I dislike even more that Oprah could rediscover classics we all should have read in high school anyway.

But we do have strange sages these days.  That so many women find direction from Oprah is indicative of how deep and how desperate our search for wisdom, truth, and goodness (all of which come only from God) really is.  Our culture is in trouble precisely insofar as news of Oprah’s retirement is met with legitimate mourning.  Daytime TV is abysmal.  It is junk food geared towards a very specific demographic.

But perhaps I am being too hard.  I suspect Oprah is for a generation of women what Jon Stewart is for my own: the best source of wisdom, humor, and guidance they can find.

Oprah is not a bad person, but there is no reason she should be worth two billion dollars.  Why are we up in arms over corporate CEO’s making this kind of money, and not offended at Oprah’s wealth?  A double standard indeed.
Side note: Oprah’s name comes from a Biblical name, Orpah.  I wish her guidance were as biblical as her name suggests.  As it is, she is a real, live, American Idol.  Watch, these last two years, for worship.  It will not be unlike when Princess Di passed away: the sadness with which it is met will indicate just how much we are hurting for real meaning, wisdom, truth, and beauty.  These, however, are not to be found in our cultural icons.

This Sunday is Christ the King Sunday.  A more stark contrast to the Queen of daytime TV I could not imagine.

“The Beast in Me”: Johnny Cash on Sin and Human Frailty

The beast in me,
Is caged by frail and fragile bars.
Restless by day and by night,
Rants and rages at the stars.
God help the beast in me.

The beast in me,
Has had to learn to live with pain.
And how to shelter from the rain.
And in the twinkling of an eye,
Might have to be restrained.
God help the beast in me.

Sometimes it tries to kid me,
That it’s just a teddy bear.
And even somehow manage to vanish in the air.
And that is when I must beware,
Of the beast in me.

-Johnny Cash

 

No, I’m not suggesting that Christians are werewolves.  There is something to this concept, though; earlier spiritual writers spoke of “the shadow side” (like St. John of the Cross).  We have the capacity to be angels or beasts.  Judging by everything around us in contemporary North America, most of us are choosing the beast over what Lincoln called “the better angels of our nature.”

This sense – a Christian sense – that something in us must be restrained, caged, is profoundly unpopular these days.  We have mistaken license for liberty, and we’ve traded the freedom to be children of God for slavery to our basest whims.  Modern culture, psychology in particular, would deny that this “beast” is real.  They say don’t “repress,” don’t “hold back,” “be real.”  Surely we are spiralling downward so rapidly that we can’t help but soon realize that the world’s definition of “real” is a facade, a complete fraud.

To be who God has called us to be, there is some necessary trimming, some things that must be left behind, rejected, forsaken.  Christians call this freedom.  But, contra many of the evangelicals in our midst, the turn to Christ is not accomplished in one glorious moment.  It’s a daily affair.  Daily we die to self, we live into our baptism and must be born a new.  The beast is caged, but he still roars.  May God help the beast in all of us.

…With One Stone: The Blessed Virgin Mary and Homosexuality

My brain made an interesting and (since I am a Protestant) non-heretical connection while reading ECT’s new joint declaration on Mary: I see an unwarranted emphasis in many corners (albeit different corners!) of the Church on the Virgin Mary and on the issue of homosexuality.

Bear with me here (if you know what Theotokos means, that’s a wordplay).  First off, I greatly appreciate the work of Evangelicals and Catholics Together.  To be sure, part of this is because it is an ecumenical group that shares my convictions on matters theological and political, especially abortion.  But in particular I enjoyed this new statement on Mary.  Marian devotion is something I learned little about in seminary, and probably the biggest dogmatic issue I have with the Roman Catholic Church.  I felt that the Evangelicals did much to right the Protestant ship, which has steered away from the Catholic position on Mary (which was shared by Luther and Calvin) since the 16th century.  As well done as this was, they also held firm on Protestant convictions: Mary as eternal virgin, as sinless, as a dispenser of grace, are all concepts we do not find warranted from Scripture.  Through perhaps not harmful beliefs, it seems strange to require them of the faithful.

In other words, Scripture’s witness does not support the emphasis on Mary that Catholic piety and theology have sometimes shown.  It was noteworthy that in this joint declaration, the Catholic signatories acknowledge that “the determination to draw a clear line against Protestantism sometimes led to exaggerations and distortions in Marian devotion.”  Of course they would not agree that doctrines such as the Immaculate Conception represent such exaggerations, but the acknowledgment of a downside is helpful.  (And to be sure, the Protestant authors were right to lament the almost total loss of Mary from the Protestant sphere – although I confess I don’t know what recovery looks like for myself and my church.)

I am also firmly convinced that the Church’s overwhelming preoccupation with homosexuality is a focus without biblical or theological warrant.  Certainly I believe that Holy Scripture has clear teaching to offer, but it’s also the case that one can count the number of references to homosexual behavior in the Bible on two hands (and perhaps one).  While Jesus has a great deal to say on poverty, love, healing, and other aspects of life, he never once mentions homosexuality.  Outside of that, reverences in the Mosaic covenant and Paul’s letters offer the clearest guidance.  But such meager Biblical emphasis has given way to what can only be described as political clash that has spilled over into the Church.

We have let the (unfortunately) so-called “culture wars” become normative for our own business.  While wars rage and poverty and disease plague people across the globe, we are splitting churches over gay ordination.  Episcopalians, now with an engraved invitation to Rome, are bleeding members over the issue of ordaining gay bishops.  The largest Lutheran body, the ELCA, recently voted to accept gay ordinands, with many parishes threatening to leave and/or divided amongst themselves.  The United Methodist Church has been embroiled over this for two decades, and if (when) that change does occur it will threaten the moniker ‘United’.  Why are we breaking under an issue that the Bible cares so little about?

Let Scripture guide us (not Scripture alone, but Scripture primarily).  Being faithful to the witness of Scripture, living under God’s Word, does not consist in a simplistic biblicism that seeks fidelity only through quotations and out-out-of-context references; we must make the Bible our world, make it’s stories our stories, and make its priorities our priorities.  If this is done, I find it highly unlikely that our priorities will include the Blessed Virgin Mary and the quagmire that is the human sexuality debate.

The Reformation: To Celebrate or Lament?

To be sure, The Protestant Reformation was a “decisive moment,” but is it really one worth singing about?  If yes, then my inclination is to sing a song of lament rather than celebration.  As a pastor serving my first congregation, I was drawn to All Saints’ Day remembrance but never considered a whole Sunday dedicated to the Reformation.  Perhaps this is easy because I am not Lutheran.  But it seems strange to celebrate the fact that Christ’s body is broken and battered.  Yes, there was a day when Catholics were suspect as “un-American,” and they in turn were not supposed to darken the door of a Protestant Church (as my RC friends tell me).  But times have changed.  As Peter Gomes of Harvard points out:

That, thank God, is mostly ancient history. Now Roman Catholics routinely sing “Amazing Grace” and “A Mighty Fortress Is Our God,” and for many Protestants the pope is one of the few bastions of orthodoxy left standing. Catholic bashing is not the “done thing” on Reformation Sunday, and a Protestant identity that continues to define itself by what it is not is in an increasing state of crisis.

Of course, this leads to a dilemma that Gomes names: What to do on Reformation Sunday?

I am in a church where Reformation Sunday is an option not normally taken.  But for the wider Church, I must ask: why celebrate this day? Why not an Ecumenical Day (instead of, not in addition to)?  Surely World Communion Sunday sends a better message.  As a corollary, I wonder of the Orthodox celebrate their break with Rome on a particular Sunday?

The gospel lection for this past Reformation Sunday was from John 8:31-36:

³¹Then Jesus said to the Jews who had believed in him, “If you continue in my word, you are truly my disciples; ³²and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free.” ³³They answered him, “We are descendants of Abraham and have never been slaves to anyone. What do you mean by saying, ‘You will be made free’?” ³⁴Jesus answered them, “Very truly, I tell you, everyone who commits sin is a slave to sin. ³⁵The slave does not have a permanent place in the household; the son has a place there forever. ³⁶So if the Son makes you free, you will be free indeed.

Of course it is ironic that we read from John to preach on Reformation Day; it is John’s Gospel, afterall, that records Jesus’ prayer for the disciples, “that they may be one.”  But this isn’t the stuff of sentimentality.  Christian unity is not a pie-in-the-sky dream, a wish based on the desire to finally “just get along.”  Rather, it is a hope (and a promise!) of Jesus himself, and an imperative for Christian mission.  What does it mean that people around the world have to choose between various factions (read: churches) and decide which one has the “right” Christianity?  It is more likely they will simply not choose for Christ at all.  The Word of God does not respond to market forces well; I’m not so sure that we are sharpened by the critiques of competing theologies and liturgies.

The results of the Reformation are obvious today: we have perverted this notion of conscience and freedom so that a myriad of “churches” exist, with a wide variance in faith, proclamation, and practice.  This is not the truth of Christ that sets us free.  Truth is unitive; God is truth and God is one.  There can be unity in that diversity (as with the Holy Trinity), of course, but Christianity is not diverse. The Church, tragically, is broken and divided.

I do not doubt that the Reformation was necessary; I only question our need to celebrate it.

Tea with Bunyan: A Pilgrim’s Life

Over my hot tea this evening, I found myself flipping back through a  well-worn copy of The Pilgrim’s Progress.  This is simply one of the greats in the Christian (and otherwise!) literary canon.  Yes, the language is difficult, but it is entirely worth the effort.  As much as I enjoyed The Shack, Eugene Peterson’s endorsement was a bit too strong: it does not compare to Bunyan’s masterpiece.

Consider this jewel, with All Saint’s Day coming up:

Good Christian, come a little way with me, and I will teach thee about the way thou must go.  Look before thee; dost thou see this narrow way?  That is the way thou must go.  It was cast up by the patriarchs, prophets, Christ, and his apostles, and it is as straight as a rule can make it.  This is the way thou must go.

Magnificent.  These were the words with which Good Will (*not* Hunting) sent Christian on his journey to the Celestial City.  Ours is the age of “Yes we can!” and “Do not follow where the path may lead…” and “Follow your heart.”  Does anyone else hear Penn and (not so much) Teller yelling, “BULLSHIT”?  In this age of revenge against all norms, traditions, and paths, Bunyan reminds us that the path God calls us to is not one of our choosing.  We are called to a path we do not find on our own; we are defined by a story of which we are not the author.  We are not “the captains of our soul,” we are simply run down by the Hound of Heaven, captured by Amazing Grace.

And in an age where we perpetually confuse wants with needs, and have lost the practices necessary to sustain even a modicum of Christian self-discipline, Bunyan’s Christian reminds us,

I walk by the rule of my master, you walk by the rude working of your fancies.  You are counted theives already by the Lord of the way, therefore I doubt you will not be found true men at the end of the way.  You come in by yourselves without his direction, and shall go out by yourselves without his mercy.

A little harsh, perhaps.  But all-in-all, good medicine for mainline Christians who, in despising their evangelical brothers and sisters, have lost all concept of discipline and the consequences attendant to its failure.  If you’ve not read Bunyan, put down your John Shelby Spong or John Piper or Joel Osteen – please, for the love of God – pick up The Pilgrim’s Progress.  Bunyan’s allegory will, I can promise, guide your own pilgrimage toward the heart of God.

Christian Hedonists

I’ve realized recently that most Christians I know in their 20’s and 30’s have gotten away from a concern for personal holiness (of course, the term and the concept of holiness are both misunderstood and openly deprecated).  The exception to this rule, as far as I can tell, is the fundamentalist strain of conservative (often Baptist, in reality if not name) Christianity.

Christians in the mainline Churches have gotten away from this, as near as I can tell.  An interesting exception is someone like Lauren Winner, an Anglican convert who rediscovered the virtue of chastity late in life.  Near as I can tell, most Episcopalians are so embroiled over gay sex that they can’t think through the rest of the Christian life.  And of course, some strains of Christianity care little for the effort of the individual Christian (in community!) to grow in grace, to pray, hope, and work in their imitation of Christ out of a conviction that none of this matters a whit.  Against this, I have found comfort in Orthodox theology.  Check it:

“…the road that other Christians take [non-monastics] is longer and less certain, but it isn’t impossible for some of them too to reach the peak of holiness; or in any case even if they don’t go that far, any Christian is obligated to force himself to make spiritual progress.  And a certain amount of restraint is connected with this progress.”  (Staniloae, Orthodox Spirituality, 150)

We are not freed to go on living as if God was not worthy to be glorified, more and more every day, with all of our faculties.  Is holiness to preserved (albeit in a perverted form) only among the most dogmatic and narrow of the Church universal?  Even the Methodists, who were at one time known for their emphasis on personal and corporate “scriptural” holiness, have gotten away from this hard teaching of the Lord: “be holy.”

This God that we worship is to be adored, and this adoration is meant to transform us.  The famous Eastern dictum still holds: “God became man that man might become God.”  Deification – not Gentile hedonism – is our vocation.