Once More, With Feeling

 Bishop Budde:

 "There isn't much to be gained by our prayers if we act in ways that further deepen the divisions among us. Our scriptures are quite clear about this, that God is never impressed with prayers when actions are not informed by them. Nor does God spare us from the consequences of our Deeds which always, in the end, matter more than the words we pray."

That’s the part that pissed off The Rev. Jeffress.

His theology is based on words. Martin Luther famously proclaimed “sola scriptura,” but for the likes of Jeffress it’s “sola verbum,” And he means nouns, not verbs.

Protestants, at the extreme, still associate faith with works as “Papist,” largely because Luther kicked off the Reformation denouncing the then-common practice of “indulgences” (which did need to be reformed). Thus, despite James 2:14-26 (“Faith without works is dead”), much of Protestant theology emphasized the words of faith over acts of faith. Granted, auto da fe gained a nasty reputation in the Spanish Inquisition, but that’s not the action of faith we’re talking about. At the other extreme there is Calvinism’s doctrine of pre-destination, where even good people are going to Hell because God has pre-ordained it. Calvinism is alive and well, especially in a lot of conservative Protestant churches.

Indulgences were seen as “buying grace” via an act of faith (the purchase was the act, the faith was in what you were buying), so Puritanism (spiritual ancestors to the Southern Baptists) denounced “works” as poor measures of faith (unless you were a single woman in Salem), and emphasized “belief.” And how is belief exemplified? Well, if not by works, then by words.

There is scriptural refutation (IMHO) for this very line of reasoning:

The heart is deceitful above any other thing, 

desperately sick; who can fathom it? 

I, the Lord, search the mind 

and test the heart, requiting each one for his conduct 

and as his deeds deserve--Jeremiah 17:9-10

If even God must test the heart, how do we know who is faithful and who is not? Who are we, in other words, to judge? But the emphasis on words over deeds lets us off the horns of that dilemma. We can simply declare our words sufficient, and especially our prayers sufficient, and go on our merry way.

Two things are happening here. One, “faith” becomes a thing, an idol even, rather than an action. Nouns v verbs. “Faith” in translated scripture, is originally the word for “trust.” Not “trust” as a legal concept, but trust as in reliance. The negative side of trust is exemplified by Othello trusting Iago, who early on tells us “I am not what I am.” The very definition of the Betrayer (a lot of Shakespeare’s plays turn on this theme of trust and reliability; some tragically, some comically). The assurance of scripture is that God is trustworthy. Human beings? Not so much. See, e.g., Jeremiah, above.

“Faith” as a thing is adherence to a set of rote phrases repeated formulaically. I’ve mentioned before the Southern Baptists in high school with me whose spiritual concern for me was that I was “saved.” Their sole real work of faith was to “witness” to another person, so the formulaic question was: “Are you saved?” To which I formulaically responded: “I certainly hope so.” Wrong response. I was assured that if I was, I’d know it. Good Calvinist that I was (at the time), I demurred that I couldn’t claim to know the mind of God, so I fell back on hope (much later I abandoned that soteriology altogether). I was again assured that if I was saved, I’d know it. And so would my interlocutor, if I would just say the right words.

You see where I’m going with this.

Say the right words, what need have you of further acts? Except maybe to pray the right prayers. Bishop Budde did mention prayers, didn’t she? Pastor Jeffress makes his living offering prayers. I’m sure he still follows the practice set by Zwingli (another Reformer otherwise largely lost to history), of long, extemporaneous, pastoral prayers in worship. The sermon, the focal point of Protestant worship (v. the sacrament of the Eucharist, focal point of the Mass), may be prepared (but should be presented as spontaneous; this was not always the way; but times change, and I digress), but the pastoral prayer should be the work of the Spirit, and address the moment if the worshippers (the sermon addresses God’s word to them). The pastoral prayer addresses their words to God. In some traditions, that can be a corporate prayer, like a responsive prayer (of the kind I’ve quoted from the E&R Hymnal); but that seldom replaces the pastoral prayer addresses. To some Protestants even the responsive prayer is too liturgical (and so Papist) because it is not spontaneous. For them the pastoral prayer is de rigeur; and there the sermon and the pastoral prayer form a palimpsest. Two sides, if you will, of the same coin. The preacher repeating what the people want to hear.

Prayer, in other words, becomes another thing; a noun, not a verb. And prayer that is a thing is easily managed, is easily drained of significance. Ironically, the very complaint of Protestants against Catholic liturgy: that what is rote is soon without meaning, without…faith.

Which is the sting Jeffress felt in the Bishop’s comments. If his reaction made it seem like he took it personally…it’s because he did. 

Or might as well have.