# The Hidden Transubstantiation of Contemporary Worship



## Seeking_Thy_Kingdom (Mar 5, 2020)

Interesting article on the contemporary worship wars:

https://mereorthodoxy.com/hidden-transubstantiation-contemporary-worship/

_While no Evangelical would readily admit to espousing the Roman Eucharistic position, practically the same principles are at work in their worship services as transubstantiation finds a new home not in the Lord’s Supper, but in their novel sacrament of “worship time.” In the Lord’s Supper, Rome says that the outward form of bread and wine remain the same while the inner substance change into the body and blood of Christ based on Aristotle’s philosophical categories of form (accidents) and content (substance)._
_
Contemporary worship proposes a similar separation between the outer form or style of worship and its inner content or substance. Worship leaders are the new priesthood who preside over not the Lord’s Table, but the Spirit’s Moving. The requisite praise band performs a mixture of songs leading the congregation through an emotional progression assumed to be the work of the Holy Spirit. The induced emotions are interpreted as evidence of the Spirit with the subjective inner feelings of the worshiper being the substance of worship that matters, while the outer style of music, words said, and rituals enacted are the incidental forms._

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Aco (Mar 5, 2020)

That seems to be an arbitrary strech to me, since traditional Romanism has a superstitious emphasis on the form and way of doing the Liturgy, which you don't have in the hyper-individualistic non-sense of modern Evangelicalism

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## jwright82 (Mar 5, 2020)

Aco said:


> That seems to be an arbitrary strech to me, since traditional Romanism has a superstitious emphasis on the form and way of doing the Liturgy, which you don't have in the hyper-individualistic non-sense of modern Evangelicalism


Nicely put, I completely agree. Nice to meet you BTW. But perhaps the article is going for rhetorical affect? In which case I can see the point. Is it a stretch, yes, is it making a rhetorical point yes as well.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Aco (Mar 5, 2020)

jwright82 said:


> Nicely put, I completely agree. Nice to meet you BTW. But perhaps the article is going for rhetorical affect? In which case I can see the point. Is it a stretch, yes, is it making a rhetorical point yes as well.



Nice to meet you as well. I certainly am aware of the rhetoric of this article, my eagerness for accuracy might have come into the way, or maybe I am more fond of a consistent liturgy (even put into philosophical categories, while rejecting superstition) than to what you find in the radical dialectic of heart and mind (instead of working together) in so-called Evangelicalism.


----------



## Jack K (Mar 5, 2020)

To say "practically the same principles are at work" seems a tad strong, but the critique that in some churches there are dangerous similarities is probably accurate enough, and good to heed.

Also, my experience would suggest it is unfair to lump all evangelicals who have "contemporary worship" together, as if they were all guilty of this. There is actually a fairly big divide in the evangelical world between churches that treat induced emotions as the substance of worship and churches that are aware of this danger and try to guard against it.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## hammondjones (Mar 5, 2020)

I thought in the past that guitar solos in worship, where the audience/congregation is passive, it always seems to be to be a lot like the RC priesthood.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## J.EdwardNewhill (Mar 5, 2020)

I grew up in a Pentecostal congregation. I often recall the "commands" given during the worship service: "raise your hands" "close your eyes" "sit and meditate". Worshipers were often instructed to "let themselves go and let the Spirit take over" and the like. In the youth group the "worship leaders" would often head bang, go off on guitar solos, or erratically dance. I remember feeling very intense emotions during these services, at times being brought to tears. Despite all this, my faith was shallow and my life was trending toward ruin. 

There is a real danger when the point of our worship is the feeling it evokes in us and not the God of our worship. Emotional expressions are not a good indicator of the genuineness or falsity of our worship.

Reactions: Like 3 | Amen 1


----------



## KMK (Mar 6, 2020)

Modern evangelical worship is low hanging fruit. The writer reaches too far.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Chad Hutson (Mar 6, 2020)

While I think the equivalency with transubstantiation is a bit too far, I can see some similarities with the idea that an activity of man is required to "usher in the Spirit." Anytime that a congregation thinks that the Spirit is mechanically summoned by its "worship" (which too frequently is defined by music, singing, and emotional outbursts), they are giving themselves over to the superstitious spirit which is present in Roman Catholicism and/or pagan religions (do I repeat myself?).
How did the Spirit ever accomplish anything before the invention of electric guitars, sound amplifiers, mixing boards, keyboards, etc.? Better yet, how does He work in places with small budgets, limited musical talent, or in underground churches?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## W.C. Dean (Mar 6, 2020)

I thought this was going to be about modern evangelical accidental support of actual transubstantiation, as in tending toward a carnal (originally mystic, fixed) feasting upon the actual body of Christ. Such as those influenced by Francis Chan's quasi-Romanism.


----------



## Charles Johnson (Mar 6, 2020)

W.C. Dean said:


> I thought this was going to be about modern evangelical accidental support of actual transubstantiation, as in tending toward a mystic feasting upon the actual body of Christ. Such as those influenced by Francis Chan's quasi-Romanism.


The reformed teach "a mystical feasting upon the actual body of Christ." Just not feasting upon his physical body in a carnal manner.


----------



## W.C. Dean (Mar 6, 2020)

Charles Johnson said:


> The reformed teach "a mystical feasting upon the actual body of Christ." Just not feasting upon his physical body in a carnal manner.



You're right I apologize for the wording. I was referring like I said specifically to Francis Chan's pushing of the Roman doctrine. I wouldn't be surprised if his view is influential on American evangelicals.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Mar 6, 2020)

As a Reformed/Presbyterian, I think the article comes up short in certain ways; however, I agree with what I consider is the central concern of the author.

The article is written by a Lutheran, and one of the Lutheran _distinctives _is that they are keen to maintain to a significant degree--I would say, moreso than the Reformed of any stripe to the left of the Anglicans--their claim to continuity with the historic Western church-tradition.

A major plank of Lutheran devotion is their "sacrament of the altar," that is Communion or Eucharist in the Protestant sense. So tied are they to the church's tradition, that in their confession they defend their practice using the same terminology of "mass" (see here even a terminological defense http://bookofconcord.org/defense_23_mass.php#para78). For our part, we reject even the language of "mass."

Those like ourselves, of the Reformed tradition (broadly conceived) within Protestantism, are accustomed to considerably less space given in our Confession to the distinction between our Lord's Supper and the papistical ritual. The Lutherans (which, at the beginning virtually all the Protestants considered themselves some form of) put forth a major effort to prove that they were in conformity with the historic church's best teaching, their views having explicit (or plausible defense) out of the church fathers, and that Rome's doctrines including transubstantiation were actually the newer and further removed from the ancient opinions.

The bulk of the Lutheran view we also maintain against Rome; but as our views are also simpler than the Lutheran, we get by with a simpler rejection of Rome. Rome's adoption and development of transubstantiation as a philosophical buttress of their idea of the mass, and as the mass was central to their conception of the (Medieval) church's activity, forced the Lutherans (with Luther) to spend considerable effort disentangling the sacrament from Romish accretions; while simultaneously highlighting the sacrament's centrality.

These paragraphs of mine are a long way of saying that the Book of Concord spends more than a little time identifying and attacking transubstantiation as a "root problem" in Roman theology and practice. Therefore, it should come as no surprise that the Lutherans are quick to pick up what they perceive as resumption of the same error in various forms. By way of comparison, think of the ways the Reformed (and cousins) spot incipient Arminianism or Pelagianism in this or that theology or practice. We're primed for it.

Transubstantiation posits an _essential difference _between that which is perceived (and perceptible under any examination) in the Supper, and what is _actually accessible _in physical form to the participant. The "breadness" of the sacramental wafer is severed from all the presentation of bread to the senses and the mind; and is replaced with the "Christness" of the Sacrificial Person, while all that bread-presentation continues unaltered. The transubstantiation idea is connected to all other elements of Rome's theology and practice, since the sacramental system is key to the machine. Rome's concept of "sacred space" goes beyond sentimentality and spirituality, to being an effect of God actually "owning" a piece of real estate by a physical occupation.

Think about it: if this is the _kind_ of spiritual-experience of the presence of God someone craves, even if it is inarticulate; is it any wonder if it is offered up and _found _under alternative expressions? I think the author of the article has a genuine point there for grasping. Rome offers the presence of God in a way that we as Protestants find false and unacceptable; for as we see, it caters to the natural man, and not the spiritual man. And our author is positing that a typical Evangelical worship experience offers the presence of God in a way that is both 1) different from Rome's manner of presentation, and 2) little different from Rome in the nature of the offering.

Theoretically, transubstantiation need not be confined to the elements of bread and wine. God could be presented in substance under the accidents of almost anything conceivable. "Sure, it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck; but really it's God." How many (carnally minded) men would be attracted to an encounter with the Divine, who (according to the priest) was presented to them under the guise of a nubile? The issue isn't whether any church or religion has ever made such offers; but whether in principle *any such* (transubstantiative) idea is the way Christ offers men the gift of God's presence.

The article author calls into question the act (bound to the form of worship) of offering to men the presence of God wrapped up in induced emotional catharsis. Identified in the quotations in the article is the assumption that in bygone days, the same feelings-oriented package was offered to worshipers under similarly culturally-derived delivery. Those no longer work today, so it is necessary to discover the latest form; which will eventually have to be replaced with new forms for the (ever-changing) emotional needs of tomorrow.

Is this, in fact, an example of catering to the natural man; rather than a more permanent and timeless binding of the formula for worship to the unchanged human spiritual composition? Our precise answer differs from the Lutheran, just as our principles of worship differ; however, we should agree that Rome's transubstantiation is an invalid offer (false manner) of God's presence, and so is psychological manipulation.

Mere attraction to older or more stable liturgical forms and pieties is not of itself a sign of health, or a solution to either spiritual want or addiction. Furthermore, there is nothing wrong with emotional affect in worship, or the sense of divine presence and spiritual transport. What makes for true worship is true theology that leads to true practice, and practice that reinforces theology. Faith in the word of promise yields acts of worship that conform to confident hope in God's presence according to a spiritual mode, suitable to the spiritual man.

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## Wretched Man (Mar 6, 2020)

Contra_Mundum said:


> As a Reformed/Presbyterian, I think the article comes up short in certain ways; however, I agree with what I consider is the central concern of the author.
> 
> The article is written by a Lutheran, and one of the Lutheran _distinctives _is that they are keen to maintain to a significant degree--I would say, moreso than the Reformed of any stripe to the left of the Anglicans--their claim to continuity with the historic Western church-tradition.
> 
> ...


I’d be interested in hearing from a Lutheran what the difference is between the Roman Catholic’s transubstantiation and their concept of communion is. I tried studying it once and they appeared to be pretty much the same thing...


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Mar 6, 2020)

Wretched Man said:


> I’d be interested in hearing from a Lutheran what the difference is between the Roman Catholic’s transubstantiation and their concept of communion is. I tried studying it once and they appeared to be pretty much the same thing...


We had a longstanding member who went in a Lutheran direction (after being a Baptist minister most of his life), but in general they don't make a fit for the PB. And we never chased him off, by the way; he may have just felt he couldn't compromise his current convictions, and honor his original promise not to contradict the set of Confessions that govern the PB.

So, you won't be likely to get the Lutheran response you'd like in this forum.

This place in Hodge will give you his rendition (I think it's fair) of the Lutheran position https://ccel.org/ccel/hodge/theology3/theology3.iii.vi.xviii.html, and by attending to the following section one will encounter the Roman position as judged by the Presbyterian, and see the contrast between Rome and all the Protestants.


----------



## Tom Glasscock (Mar 7, 2020)

Chad Hutson said:


> While I think the equivalency with transubstantiation is a bit too far, I can see some similarities with the idea that an activity of man is required to "usher in the Spirit." Anytime that a congregation thinks that the Spirit is mechanically summoned by its "worship" (which too frequently is defined by music, singing, and emotional outbursts), they are giving themselves over to the superstitious spirit which is present in Roman Catholicism and/or pagan religions (do I repeat myself?).
> How did the Spirit ever accomplish anything before the invention of electric guitars, sound amplifiers, mixing boards, keyboards, etc.? Better yet, how does He work in places with small budgets, limited musical talent, or in underground churches?



Would you make a distinction between things that were a manifestation of christian culture and those things that are supposed to summon The Spirit? I guess I might be thinking of things done outside of worship that are manifestations of culture (all day singings in the South for instance) which the spirit is clearly part of.


----------



## Chad Hutson (Mar 7, 2020)

Tom Glasscock said:


> Would you make a distinction between things that were a manifestation of christian culture and those things that are supposed to summon The Spirit? I guess I might be thinking of things done outside of worship that are manifestations of culture (all day singings in the South for instance) which the spirit is clearly part of.


I am in no way referring to "manifestations of Christian culture." What I am distinctly referencing is the idea that the Spirit is summoned by mechanical means, i.e. contemporary methods of "worship." I have heard repeatedly how the Spirit can only come if the people praise enough, sing a certain way, or express themselves audibly or physically, or even by losing control of themselves. Its been called "loosing the Spirit," or being "free in the Spirit." It is cause and effect, as if the Holy Spirit can be conjured up like a jack-in-the-box. This mindset is prevalent not only in charismatic churches like the Assemblies of God, but also in many non-charismatic churches who follow the charismatic paradigm of worship. Those who believe this way replace the ritualism of Roman Catholicism with their chaotic, unrestrained emotionalism, but nevertheless the result is the same (in their minds, at least): the Holy Spirit is "brought in" by human means/activities.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## jwright82 (Mar 9, 2020)

Wretched Man said:


> I’d be interested in hearing from a Lutheran what the difference is between the Roman Catholic’s transubstantiation and their concept of communion is. I tried studying it once and they appeared to be pretty much the same thing...


I'm not Lutheran but here goes. Because of Luther's nominalist tendencies, a loaded philosophical term for sure, he objected to any idea that God couldn't freely come down here and act in some way, down here being the operative term. So when Zwingli taught his memoralism he was in fact denying that God could, or did, come down here and act (for our benefit to be sure). Calvin taught that it is through our mystical union that we are spiritually taken into heaven in the supper, for our benefit to be sure. 
Thats sort of why Christ's body and blood can come down here (under, with, and present) in the supper but not be or change the actual bread and wine. The bread and wine remain the same but through the supper, instituted by God (not incantations by the priest), Christ's body body and blood are present with, under, and present physically in the bread and wine.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Mar 9, 2020)

I've noticed the same problems mentioned in the article, though I didn't think of it in strictly sacramental terms, but in the logical outworking of their theology in worship. At what point is God's presence thought to be most profoundly manifested to the people in the worship service? For Roman Catholicism, it's in the Mass. For Pentecostalism, it's in the song set. For the Reformed/Presbyterian tradition, it's during the preaching of the Word. You can see this theology reflected in the traditional architecture of such churches too. For Catholics, the altar is front and center, the dominant feature where all eyes focus. For Pentecostalism, the stage. For Reformed/Presbyterian, the pulpit. Just my own observations...


----------



## iainduguid (Mar 9, 2020)

Puritan Sailor said:


> You can see this theology reflected in the traditional architecture of such churches too. For Catholics, the altar is front and center, the dominant feature where all eyes focus. For Pentecostalism, the stage. For Reformed/Presbyterian, the pulpit. Just my own observations...


You are right that church architecture often says a lot about a church's theology (unless you are a church planter meeting in a rented gym with a huge American flag painted on the wall behind you...). However, if you look more closely, at least in classic Scottish Presbyterian church architecture, the pulpit is not the sole focus for Reformed churches. It is central together with the communion table and font (along with a reader's lectern with open Bible), symbolizing worship as the gathering of God's covenant people around the Word and sacraments.

Reactions: Like 3 | Amen 1


----------



## alexandermsmith (Mar 11, 2020)

iainduguid said:


> You are right that church architecture often says a lot about a church's theology (unless you are a church planter meeting in a rented gym with a huge American flag painted on the wall behind you...). However, if you look more closely, at least in classic Scottish Presbyterian church architecture, the pulpit is not the sole focus for Reformed churches. It is central together with the communion table and font (along with a reader's lectern with open Bible), symbolizing worship as the gathering of God's covenant people around the Word and sacraments.



I would argue the pulpit _is_ often the focus in Scottish Churches which are rooted in the Reformed tradition. They are usually situated to be the dominant feature within the building: at the front, in the middle and raised up. Though this certainly isn't always the case and is probably more common in Highland and Island church buildings (where the Reformed tradition became entrenched and still lingers strongest in Scotland as well as amongst the outposts of Highland Christianity throughout the rest of the country). A lot of our "old" church buildings in Scotland were probably built in the Victorian era and I wouldn't be surprised if unReformed thinking influenced how they were laid out. Another feature, however, of Scottish pulpits is how large they can be so they are able to accommodate more than one minister at a time. This would be, I'm sure, because of the Communion Season tradition with visiting ministers.

I would ask what you mean by communion tables. In the church I grew up in (which was a moderate Church of Scotland congregation) the communion table was a large, ornamented wooden block which stood on the raised platform at the front. It was essentially an altar. I have noted this feature in quite a few church buildings I have visted over the years. That is what I think of when I hear "communion table" and I would argue that is not very Presbyterian (or Biblical). Another form of "communion table" is just the place where the participants sit to receive the Lord's Supper. Often this is a specially designed pew(s) at the front which can accommodate people sitting on either side, or at least function as a table for the purposes of the sacrament. In the past during outside services with large gatherings they would use an actual table. Within the churches I'm sure this was used at times as well (space permitting). But certainly within my own denomination there is no separate piece of furniture referred to as the "communion table".

To place an emphasis on an actual piece of furniture desginated as the communion table seems rather high church. It makes it an altar. The Lord's Table is not a physical, but a spiritual, table. I would argue that where the communicants sit should be a separate space during the service, requiring them to physically move to it thus creating a physical division within the congregation during the administration of the sacrament, but the furniture itself is not the focus of the sacrament. The table at which the first communion was held was just a regular table in a house. It was not a set apart piece of furniture.


----------



## iainduguid (Mar 11, 2020)

Hi Alexander,
This is what I have in mind: Little Dunkeld church in Perthshire.





The organ is probably a later addition, but the rest seems likely untouched. You are not wrong about un Reformed "restorations," however; the Cathedral in Dunkeld suffered from one of those in the early 20th century, which makes it a very difficult place to preach in - you are so far away from the people. See here:
https://graveyardsofscotland.files.wordpress.com/2017/06/dunkeld-cathedral-23.jpg


Certainly the pulpit is central, but Reformed theology is not asacramental: we ordain ministers as ministers of Word and Sacrament. A simple table and font, centrally located underneath the pulpit, at the heart of the gathered people of God is a very evocative expression of a Reformed understanding of worship. And I would remind you that the Westminster Directory of Public Worship does admonish churches to celebrate the Lord's Supper "frequently"


----------



## alexandermsmith (Mar 11, 2020)

iainduguid said:


> Hi Alexander,
> This is what I have in mind: Little Dunkeld church in Perthshire.
> 
> 
> ...



Certainly agreed we're not asacramental. But a specially designated piece of furniture in the church to serve as a communion table that stands in a prominent position doesn't sit well with me. If it were just a plain table at the front of the church that would be one thing, but these ornamented slabs of wood are more altar than table. We actually have one in our church but we use it as the precentor's box. We have pews at the front which are designed to be used for communion and the minister addresses the communicants from a lecturn brought in specially for the occasion.


----------



## Jonathco (Mar 11, 2020)

J.EdwardNewhill said:


> I remember feeling very intense emotions during these services, at times being brought to tears. Despite all this, my faith was shallow and my life was trending toward ruin.
> 
> There is a real danger when the point of our worship is the feeling it evokes in us and not the God of our worship. Emotional expressions are not a good indicator of the genuineness or falsity of our worship.


For a short time during my teens, I attended a Pentecostal/AOG church and remember very similar experiences. It was shallow, man-centered, an expectation to "experience God" rather than worship Him, and generally there was a "I am here to get something from God" mentality.

Truly sad that I still have many friends that are caught up in churches like that.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Mar 11, 2020)

Jonathco said:


> For a short time during my teens, I attended a Pentecostal/AOG church and remember very similar experiences. It was shallow, man-centered, an expectation to "experience God" rather than worship Him, and generally there was a "I am here to get something from God" mentality.
> 
> Truly sad that I still have many friends that are caught up in churches like that.


In college, I went from a fairly ordinary and tranditional P&R worship (in the USA) Sunday service, and was plunged into a very different experience partaking of the Evangelical-trend. It was actually mandatory, so I sought to attend additional services on Sunday where the service was far closer to what I was used to.

Because of that exposure, I came to describe the difference as an "inversion," as one where the _audience _and the _performers _were "switched up." It seemed to me that I had grown up coming to worship where there was (as someone else has said in this vein) "an audience of One," namely God, with the people gathered to serve him; and what I was experiencing in the Evangelical church was a situation where we in the seats were the audience, and the podium was where the "service" was being delivered up.

Today I reject that understanding of "inversion." Now, I don't think my knee-jerk reaction from decades ago is adequate for understanding worship properly.

For one thing, _worship _from us is the proper _response _to receiving something from God. So, it's wrong to describe the time we spend in the formal church-gathering on the Lord's Day purely in terms of "audience" and "performers." In fact, I now see that Evangelicals generally come to their services very much with the intent to ACT, and to be the _principal actors; _and that there is actually very much a same-level perception of what is happening "down front." The people have come in order to be stirred--a stirring they attribute to the Spirit--and the swizzle stick is the band-speaker combo.

There is an opposite-pole to that sort of engagement. It's found in the churches having the most radically-liturgist bent. There, the people can come--mainly to observe but not demanded to engage further than their barest presence--but actually all the religious activity, all the worship-proper events are the things the clergy or the "religious" are doing. It's FOR the laity they are doing all that devotional stuff. And it really is a "show," and if there is _mysterious stuff _going on there, well the plumber under your sink is also doing "mystery," is he not, at least as far as you know what/how to do that stuff? Religion, in this case, is just the (possibly) fascinating, curious work that is _done for you _and your benefit.

Do you see what the real divide is? The Evangelicals are ALL coming to church to be Actors in their worship-drama: from the extras, to the bit parts, to the supporting actors, to the leads. The High-Liturgicals on the other hand are coming to church to sit as a patently passive audience for a worship-drama with actors, singers, and everything else as on a stage or screen.

What are we Reformational-types doing, or ought we, when we come to the worship service?

We are summoned, by our King. We submit, to receive from Him whatever He is pleased to give. We serve, giving Him whatever He is pleased to require.

Worship is a dialogical engagement, where God takes the initiative toward us and we respond appropriately, where God speaks and man answers. Where God presents to those who come to worship in Spirit and truth such gifts as can be had nowhere else, and without which those same people languish; and where those same people thankfully exult and pay their vows.

The Word is central to our worship, God's Voice is speaking; and as much as possible man replies echoing the divine word back to him from our hearts (not merely our lips). We don't come to be a passively disengaged audience, whether the setting is an Evangelical arena or a Liturgical theater. So, it can't be the case that the attendees come above all else to DO the WORK of worship. How strange that would be, in a tradition that magnifies the DOING of GOD in our salvation, and man's FAITH-RECEPTIVITY of the grace of God. What we DO, then, in worship is exactly that RESPONSE instinctively arising from the redeemed heart.

The minister, he who leads in worship, is a tool, an instrument, the mouthpiece (like an sound-box, but living) of the true Speaker. But not only that, also the servant-hands of the Master, in the breaking and passing of the bread, and also the cup; the pourer of the water. He also prays on behalf of the gathering, putting their common expressions in one verbal outpouring; and sings with them among the congregation, with one heart and mouth praising. Even in those latter things, he is serving the Lord (who does these same things in heaven for his church, see Heb.2:12; 7:25; 8:1-2).

Did we come this Sunday first to GIVE, that we might then be GIVEN unto? First to RENDER appropriate worship, in hope that (should it measure up well) we might then RECEIVE a suitable return, words of grace-rebuke-counsel? If so, then we came ourselves with a backwards impression, an inversion of our own, a reversal of the Grace-Gratitude dynamic. We ought to have come primarily in order that we should answer an authoritative call, and in order to plead for and then revel in the GRACE of God; and lastly that in the assurance of God's covenant and favor we OFFER UP our due and glad devotion.

No, we don't want to come to worship simply for the opportunity to have an "experience," one that in the end is actually about getting_ in touch_ with God to be _motivated _by God, like a windup toy. We do want to come because He is worthy to receive all honor and praise, and is in that sense an audience of One. But we cannot afford to forget--not for one Sunday--that we have _in fact _come to him by his express invitation that we might get something from him. It need not be *felt*, but it must be of *faith*.

Reactions: Like 2


----------

