Yes, we need it all. . .

Protestantism certainly had enough to protest about.  Rome had long passed its shining moment and was well into the shadows by the time Luther came along.  It was not so much rejection as it was disappointment and disillusionment that troubled Brother Martin.  It was not simply what was but all that was squandered in the promise of the Word and the Sacraments.  The Lutherans, however, were not really Protestant.  At least in their soul, they were not.  Luther conserved the precious tradition he had received thought he cleansed it from some of its accretions that had muddled it all up.  This was surely not enough for the likes of a Zwingli or a Calvin.  Either they or their successors gave up smells and bells along with sacraments and sacrificed beauty as unnecessary and art as a distraction.  

It's all in your head.  Who needs statues or paraments or stained glass or candles or vestments or anything except the bare Word?  isn't that enough?  But that is exactly the point.  It is not and was never simply about what was enough but what God had given.  What you do not need is what you should not have.  And with that great but absurd leap, the world learned to put Jesus not in water or bread or wine but in feelings.  We transformed faith into a soft spot for God (and the other way around).  The first step toward losing your religion is to end up at the altar of the minimum necessary and to deem what might suffice for a desert or island emergency to be the goal and norm of all things.

So we saw Protestantism and with it a temptation among some Lutherans to be perfectly happy sans statues or stained glass, vestments or sacred vessels, altars or incense, and everything in between to promote the true spiritual worship of the head and heart.  Oddly enough, it also looked a lot like a few people coming together for singing and praying and preaching.  Even more strange is the way this minimalism which was supposed to be back to basics seemed to change the heart even less than the ritual worship of the past with its emphasis upon the God who comes in means.  Temptation is no more or less set aside by the great absence as it is by the great presence.  Sin is no more or less replaced by righteousness when God is hidden in the out there somewhere than when He is made known by the God who is in a particular place. Worship got blamed for human failing.  Ever since Protestantism has tried to preach the mind into holiness or train up the feelings for godliness.  

I was reminded of how deeply this had intruded into our lives than in a discussion of church buildings and property became a debate of whether these things were needed or not.  God does not need an efficacious Word or Sacramental means but we do -- at least He thought we did.  Who are we to argue?  Is there some badge of honor we claim by insisting we need not even that which God has decided to give?  Jacob had the dream of God but after a wake up call he did not leave it to the memory of a dream but built a place and an altar (Bethel).  The dream was nice enough but a place and stones lifted up were even nicer.  We really do need buildings.  We need candles. We need altars. We need organs.  We need bells.  We need incense.  We need beauty in all its various forms. We need the sign of the Cross and bowing and kneeling.  We need sacraments and signs. As soon as it becomes the argument of how much and no more than what is essential, we have lost it all.  Protestantism was bound to invent something to replace what God had given.  It is about time we simply admitted that we need it all. There is no shame in this.  Having it will not make us holy anymore than not having it has.  Admitting that God has created and used these is admitting that even if we do not know it or refuse to admit it, the obvious is true.  We need it all.  Thanks be to God!