John H Armstrong

The Case Against Barack Obama

David Freddoso, a political reporter for the National Review Online, has written what seems to me to be the best book against the election of Barack Obama. The Case Against Barack Obama: The Unlikely Rise and Unexamined Agenda of the Media's Favorite Candidate came out in July and became an immediate best-seller. I have mentioned several times before that I have followed Obama's political rise in Illinois for some years. But even I didn't know a number of the things that Freddoso includes in this well-written critique. What separates Freddoso's book from other similarly critical works about Senator Obama is that he does not use the silly charges that have been thrown against Obama by far right critics. Freddoso dismisses, for example, the idea that Obama is really a Muslim, that he was sworn into office on the Koran, that he hates the American flag and the national anthem. He avoids character assassination and thereby sticks to the central claim of the Obama campaign: Barack Obama is a great reformer who will introduce an era of non-partisan political government that will help the nation rise above the red state/blue state divide and the present impasse in Washington.

Freddoso shows, beyond reasonable doubt to my mind, that Barack Obama has major ties to the Chicago political machine and thus the Daley family. For those who live in my region and who read the daily papers and listen to the news day-in and day-out, this is no sudden flash of insight for us. The one thing about Barack Obama that you should be disabused of if you know politics at all is this---he is most definitely not a post-partisan candidate who has avoided the taint of corruption and machine-based decision making. His allies are a major problem if you simply follow the trails.

Second, Obama clearly has the most liberal voting record of any candidate for the office of president – ever. I am not sure how anyone can argue against this obvious fact. Every non-partisan watchdog group has concluded the same. Even the liberal groups that assign ratings to legislators regarding their own positions on issues all agree with this statement as well. This is not an unfair attack on this man's character. What is amazing to me is that so few of us seem to know how he has actually voted, when he did vote, on major issues. And Senator Biden so misrepresented Obama's voting record in the VP debate that it was almost beyond belief. (But then who counts the errors that both sides make in these debates?) Biden made a number of these strong charges (on Obama's voting record) himself when he was running against the much more liberal Obama!

Third, Freddoso demonstrates that Obama not only supports full abortion rights, but his position is to the left of every major pro-choice group in America. When you hear people say that Obama supported infanticide, this is not far from the truth at all. It would be more accurate, to keep this completely truthful, to say that he openly endorsed and voted for infanticide. Not even Senator Barbara Boxer, the most liberal member of the senate on this issue, gets close to Senator Obama's record.

Fourth, Obama's association with former terrorists, several racist ministers and other similar sorts of individuals are all simple facts. The far right has over-dramatized these connections, to some extent, but the smoke is there for a real reason, there is fire to be found behind the smoke. If you like Obama, or if you don't, I strongly urge you to read David Freddoso's well-researched and fair-minded book. It would appear that David is a serious Christian. He has done his homework and has given us a solid critique. And he refuses to engage in the wild charges and silly myths that have often plagued Christian responses to very liberal political figures. 

ACT 3 Luncheon Forums : How I Changed My Mind About Women in Leadership with Alan Johnson

The Willingness to Suspend Belief

I think Thomas Sowell said it but there is, in this present political campaign, "a willingness to suspend belief." I sure agree with him. Both candidates, and the people in general, are seemingly willing to suspend belief and go with their emotions and feelings. In this scenario Obama wins the election easily. McCain has actually made the case for himself much worse since the Wall Street meltdown. I could not have imagined this a few weeks ago. I am not sure anyone could. But McCain's response is so bad that it is almost beyond belief. Obama's response is more measured at the end of the day.

First, McCain has launched an unfocused attack on greed and corruption. Well, yes, there is greed and corruption all around, but McCain offers no real solutions. Neither does Obama for that matter. But then I have come to believe the winner of this election may be the biggest loser in the end. America is broken and neither party can or will do the serious work needed to fix it. If you believe they can, then you are not yet dispossessed enough of your messianic dreams and seriously defective political grasp of reality. I am, by nature, an optimist. I am not optimistic, short term, about this election or about what follows it.

Second, McCain seems to be shooting guns in every direction each day. He has lost all focus and has no good answers right now. He seems to have no central core. Obama is running a far more disciplined campaign and McCain has nothing that offers real change. His zeal is real but his plans are unremarkable in their lameness. His suggestion in the last debate to "buy up mortgages and create new ones at the present value of a house" sounds like the kind of ploy Democrats would have happily used in the past. Obama rightly attacks this plan as dangerous. I fear it reveals what critics have said: "McCain doesn't understand economics and is now grasping at straws." Meanwhile Obama keeps darting and weaving and avoiding various issues. One friend of Obama's wrote in the Chicago Tribune that his debate strategy is much like Muhammad Ali's "rope-a-dope" technique when he won the heavyweight championship from a young George Foreman. He simply moves about taking and deflecting punches and lets McCain punch himself out! It is very well done and seems to work. I am not being cynical about this comment. I think Obama is clever and very smart to campaign in this way and actually shows great discipline. Whereas McCain represents "righteous zeal" out of control and ill-conceived, Obama represents what a friend of mine calls "cynical pragmatism." It is an odd combination in an election where Obama's party is led by the likes of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid.

Is this all about power in the end? I am no cynic but it sure seems that way. Time will tell. I hope whoever wins puts America first and seeks real solutions. I think neither man shows the courage to do what is really needed. I hope I am profoundly wrong.

Here is what I am sure about. The present economic and political situation is bad, very bad. It will more than likely get much worse. Churches and ministries are being forced to trim back but will they then figure out what really matters and get involved in mission at a time when history may present us with more ministry opportunity than we have ever imagined? Dark clouds are now real but they could bring showers of real mercy if we sought the Lord of heaven and earth. Present events are providing us with a great moment to reflect and pray. They provide us, as Christians, an opportunity to be "salt and light" like never before in our lifetime.

Financial Freedom

Pope Benedict XVI, in one of his World Youth Day messages, said: "It is incumbent upon religious people to demonstrate that it is possible to find joy in living simply and modestly, generously sharing one's surplus with others."

This comment strikes me as both balanced and extremely important, especially given our present financial crisis in the U. S.  Money is a tool given to us by God to accomplish responsibilities that he has entrusted to us. When money is viewed as an end in itself unhealthy desires will grow. The Catholic Catechism (No. 2536) says: "Our thirst for another's goods is immense, infinite, never quenched. Thus it is written: 'He who loves money never has money enough.'"

There are many philosophies among Christians about making, managing and giving money. There are a clearly a number of legitimate, and illegitimate, ways to make money. I think the pope's counsel is wise to keep before us regardless of the way we seek to make wealth.

We have clearly overextended ourselves as a society, or should we say many of us have personally overextended ourselves, which now impacts the whole of our country. The government is also involved in this matter since it manages the money supply. When it creates huge debt this obviously presents major problems.

We are all stewards of divine providence. In no area is this more apparent than in gaining and spending money. Maybe this is why the Lord has so much to say about it. We ignore the wisdom of ancient Scripture to our peril.

The Cubs Drought Reaches 100 Years

I have noted several times this year that the Chicago Cubs might make the post-season in 2008 but that they would likely fail in their mission to finally win their first world series since 1908. I could not imagine that I would be proven right so quickly and with such ease. The Dodgers, as baseball fans know, swept the Cubs in three games late last week. This means that the Cubs have lost nine consecutive post-season games dating back over their last three appearances.

Former player Dan Plesac put this well in our local paper. He said the players were tight, error-prone and playing not to lose. I am of the opinion that the fans bring this about as much as any single source. Loyal fans even began to boo their beloved Cubbies when they self-destructed this year. There can be no doubt that the atmosphere around the Cubs was very tense. Dan Plesac said before game three, that "this team is too good to go three-and-out." He was obviously wrong. This team had the best record in the league but failed miserably when it counted.

The Cubs spent loads of money, ramped up their fan's expectations beyond belief, and failed. What next? I do not believe in "curses" but this franchise is able to surprise even their most loyal fans with their century long incompetence.

The Death of Common Sense

The following piece on "common sense" was sent to me by a reader of this site. I found it both humorous and all too real for comfort. I checked the dictionary and to find that common sense was "ordinary good sense or sound practical judgment." Here is the witty but all too true article.


My parents told me about Mr. Common Sense early in my life, and told me I would do well to call on him when making decisions. It seems he was always around in my early years, but less and less as time passed by, until today I read his obituary. Please join me in a moment of silence in remembrance. For Common Sense had served us all so well for so many generations.


Obituary
Common Sense

Today we mourn the passing of a beloved old friend, Common Sense, who has been with us for many years. No one knows for sure how old he was since his birth records were long ago lost in bureaucratic red tape.

He will be remembered as having cultivated such valuable lessons as knowing when to come in out of the rain, why the early bird gets the worm, life isn't always fair, and maybe it was my fault.

Common Sense lived by simple, sound financial policies (don't spend more than you earn) and reliable parenting strategies (adults, not children are in charge).

His health began to deteriorate rapidly when well intentions but overbearing regulations were set in place. Reports of a six-year-old boy charged with sexual harassment for kissing a class mate; teens suspended from school for using mouthwash after lunch; and a teacher fired for reprimanding an unruly student, only worsened his condition.

Common Sense lost ground when parents attacked teachers for doing the job they themselves failed to do in disciplining their unruly children. It declined even further when schools were required to get parental consent to administer Aspirin, sun lotion or a sticky plaster to a student; but could not inform the parents when a student became pregnant and wanted to have an abortion.

Common Sense lost the will to live as the Ten Commandments became contraband; churches became businesses; and criminals received better treatment than their victims.   Common Sense took a beating when you couldn't defend yourself from a burglar in your own home and the burglar can sue you for assault.

Common Sense finally gave up the will to live, after a woman failed to realize that a steaming cup of coffee was hot. She spilled a little in her lap, and was promptly awarded a huge settlement.

Common Sense was preceded in death by his parents, Truth and Trust; his wife, Discretion; his daughter, Responsibility; and his son, Reason.

He is survived by three stepbrothers; I Know My Rights, Someone Else is to Blame, and I'm a Victim.

Anonymous

Two Senators Debate the Issues

The second of three presidential debates was held last night in Nashville, Tennessee. The final debate will be held next Wednesday, October 15. We are now less than four weeks from the presidential election. I am not a political pundit but I have no serious doubt that Barack Obama will win this election. I have watched both debates carefully, as well as the vice-presidential debate, and I have seen nothing to dissuade me from this view. Baring a last minute "shift" that is rooted in events that we cannot foresee, Barack Obama is the solid leader in all the polls and should win, perhaps in a landslide.

What happened last night could best be described as two senators having a debate (a discussion seems the better word to my mind) about how to solve major problems that our nation faces. McCain needed to stop Obama's momentum and he simply failed. Why? I have no idea. I think both of these candidates debated like two men in the U. S. Senate, a great deliberative and dialogical body. Their differences were only somewhat obvious. Their approach lacked spark and clarity, especially McCain's. Obama is a well-trained speaker and the idea that he can only speak in speeches has been plainly disproven. He is an accomplished attorney who knows how to speak as if he were presenting evidence to a jury. He makes his case well and he has no real negatives in terms of perception, which is huge in American general elections.

The only new item placed on the table was McCain's proposal to buy up mortgages, and this left me scratching my head. Otherwise, the two men sparred more like two old friends than as the representatives of two radically different approaches to governing the nation. Give Obama credit, he has successfully adopted a theme and stuck to it well.

Barack Obama is a polished, clever, very smart man. He has run a very good campaign, from a political perspective. He knows the economy is in trouble and the party in power has very high negatives. Though many felt that he might gain the nomination but then not win in a general election, this appears now to be untrue. Americans want a new direction and they perceive that he will give it to them. I have expressed my considerable doubt about this since I do not see him as a post-partisan reformer at all.

Since I have observed Obama fairly closely in Illinois, and thus tried to follow his career for some years now, I hope he will move more to the center when he governs us. But he will have a Congress that will generally support him strongly, or so it seems. Thus I do not think he will (move to the center) since there is nothing in his record to support this idea. But I could be wrong and I sincerely hope that I am. When all is said and done I am where I have been for all my life---confessing and standing on the only One who has dominion over all.

His dominion is an eternal dominion; his kingdom endures from generation to generation. All the people of the earth are regarded as nothing. He does as he pleases with the powers of heaven and the people of the earth. No one can hold back his hand or say to him: "What have you done?" (Daniel 4:35)

How the Modern Generation Lost Its Way Morally and Socially

Time and time again David Gelernter, a national fellow of the American Enterprise Institute and professor of computer science at Yale, speaks precisely to something that I have been thinking about for some time. It was David Gelernter who argued, in the pages of The Weekly Standard about three years ago, that America needed another great awakening on the college campus and that it just might actually happen. He spoke of the typical campus as “biblically illiterate” and thus a veritable “tinder-box” for a spiritual fire if the Bible were to become relevant again to students. I pray daily that he is right and I work to this end with all that is inside of me.

Well, David Gelernter did it again in a recent (October 6) article in The Weekly Standard. In an article titled: “Obama in Leftland,” Gelernter writes:

"Barack Obama is America’s first major party candidate to have come of age after the Cultural Revolution of the late 1960s and 70s. Americans who reached adulthood before or during the Cultural Revolution often differ over the big events of recent history. Americans who came of age afterward, on the other hand, don’t necessarily know any recent history. And what they do know is often wrong [emphasis mine]."

This is the very same point that I have attempted to make on this blog several times in recent weeks. I last made this point regarding the agenda of planned parenthood and the issue of abortion. I referred to how little clarity the younger generation possesses about the history of this ethical and moral issue.

Let me be clear about this. I am not saying that younger Christians do not have moral convictions. Nor am I saying that they do not care about life and death ethical issues. I think they care, and in some ways, they care far more than my generation cared, at least in terms of deeply held feelings about issues and causes. (Their numbers are considerably smaller, and this means that whatever their views are on such issues they will have less cultural and political impact in the end.)

What I am saying is this—this is the first generation entirely shaped by my generation, the one that lived through the Cultural Revolution (CR) of the late 1960s and 70s.

David Gelernter says that we knew what to expect in generation CR. If you grew up in families with strong moral values and a grasp of tradition, patriotism and reality, you held to moral and ethical absolutes. But if not then you tended to have very fuzzy views of history.  Thus these new adults:

"[Have an] unconditional belief in tolerance and diplomacy, and contempt for the military and war-making. Their patriotism (such as it is) tends to focus on the 'global community' or 'the planet' or some other large, meaningless object. (Beyond a certain point, patriotic devotion spread too thin simply evaporates—which is a good way to get rid of it if you are, say, an English intellectual trusting to the European Union to eradicate this primitive emotion.)"

Consider what makes Barack Obama so much like previous leaders in the CR generation that I came of age in when I was in college. Senator George McGovern, who had rock star status with the far-left in the CR, was an affable, moral, sincere and well-spoken gentleman. I can still recall attending one of his campaign stops in 1972 when he spoke at Edman Chapel at Wheaton College. The atmosphere was electric and many young evangelicals swooned, much as they do at Obama rallies today. Like Obama, Senator McGovern also opposed an unpopular war and saw how government could solve major generational issues.

And like George McGovern, Barack Obama is not at all sure where the military fits into our future. In July he listed several past crises that America had faced and referred to “the bomb (sic) that fell on Pearl Harbor.” He spoke also of our “constantly evolving danger” but never of our “enemies.” This, notes David Gelernter, is “a prime specimen of gen-CR thinking.” I think he nails it.

Obama’s announcement that he would met Mahmoud Ahmadinejab without preconditions shows exactly why a president must not merely know history, but have a decently nuanced view of the same. Was it right for Chamberlain to meet with Hitler? Or was it right for John F. Kennedy to meet with Khrushchev? No. I submit history shows that it was not right because the meetings were used to promote anything but peace. Was it right for Begin to meet with Sadat and for Churchill to make long and dangerous journeys to meet with Stalin? I submit that it was, given the nuance of the issues and the historical sensibilities of the moment.

Senator Joe Biden, speaking about Obama’s international notions, said during the primary season: “World leaders should not meet with other world leaders unless they know that the agenda is, so you don’t end up being used.” The point is clear—do not invest American prestige and energy in meeting with culture-leaders who misrepresent history and tell us things like the Holocaust never happened or that they wish to destroy Israel and the United States.

Members of the CR generation who bought into the ideology were trained well, since they had no deep roots to protect them. The majority of teachers from the 1970s onward proudly acknowledged their deep political bias against America and its ideals. They were to the left and they happily admitted it. This is a simple truth. But what makes today’s new left so different is that they do not even know how far left they have actually moved. Gelernter rightly concludes: “As far as they know their ideas are innocuous and mainstream—just like the New York Times!”

Think about the resignation of Harvard’s president Lawrence Summers in 2006. What was his crime? He said that the fact that there were a greater number of male scientists females might have something to do with gender differences. After numerous apologies his administration was finished, and he still resigned. (And Lawrence Summers is no conservative!) Gelernter notes that “In the gen-CR now approaching, such embarrassing accidents will no longer happen. Forbidden ideas simply won’t occur to the Harvard presidents of the future.” Bulls-eye!

Thus Barack Obama is the perfect role-model for this generation. He would make a great Harvard president. He looks back at the nation’s history and sees things very differently than I do. He is sincere, honest and shaped by a different worldview. What makes him even more appealing to young Christians is that he has faith and speaks of his relationship with Christ, a relationship I have never questioned (to the chagrin of my more conservative friends). He knows how to approach issues from several angles and how to see various shades of opinion. (There is much here to like in contrast to hard-nosed, opinionated wing-nuts on the right!)

Gelernter concludes: “America’s future has been intellectually housebroken.” Yes, it surely has. What is tragic is that intellectual and moral turpitude has become mainstream in the modern church. The results are nothing less than catastrophic when it comes to moral clarity and our collective future. I am much more concerned for the church than for America. (The church is to act as salt, and if we lose our saltiness we have no proper role remaining in the wider culture.) I think we have lost our nerve and the consequences call for a massive reformation of morals and doctrine inside the typical American church.

Younger Christians move me, to my depths, with their commitment to missional thinking and practice. But many of them miss the historical realities of how we got here and where we should be going, as a result of learning their lessons from teachers who were shaped by my CR generation.

We do need a “new kind of Christian” but the one we need looks a lot more like a mix between the missional present, which I celebrate, and the moral and social past, which saw truth as truth and historical facts as facts. 

Miracle at St. Anna

Spike Lee's new film, Miracle at St. Anna, involves four African-American soldiers behind enemy lines in Italy in World War II. It is a story that needed to be told given the way war stories have been written and filmed since the 1940s. Finally someone has paid tribute to the sacrifice of black Americans for their part in this great war.

The two hour and forty minute film opens with an old black man watching a John Wayne movie about the war and muttering to himself, "We fought that war too." The next day he goes to work at the post office and does something that startles you instantly. This opening scene adds time to the story but does not actually help the story that much. From this scene the movie then goes back to the 1940s and the war. The movie ends with another scene that does not play that well but includes a feeling of deep emotion. The closing music moved me to tears: "He's Got the Whole World In His Hands" sung very soulfully. What occurs between the beginning and the end is one of finest World War II movies I have ever seen.

First, be warned. The violence in the battle scenes is as gripping as it gets. Saving Private Ryan has nothing on Miracle at St. Anna for graphic and chilling war scenes. But even more disturbing is a scene of slaughter and carnage where Germans kill a village of Italian people in cold blood. The account of how and why this happened is debated but the fact that it happened is not. The event is called the Sant'Anna di Stassema atrocity. 560 civilians were killed as the Germans emptied their ammunition on the village people and then ran out of bullets. This scene is as chilling and memorable as any I have witnessed in a war movie. (Again this is not for children at all. The R rating for violence is well deserved.) Some Italians have protested elements of this particular story, especially the connection of one Italian Partisan that the movie says helped the Germans bring about this slaughter of innocent Italian people.

Second, this is a Spike Lee movie, for good and for bad. Lee is a brilliant man, thus his films always create a buzz of some sort. But in this movie he could have reduced it to two hours and accomplished just as much. Most of the professional critics are correct in their opinions about this problem of length.

Third, the most moving scene in the movie, by far, is the one that takes places in Louisiana where the black soldiers are training to fight and die for America and they meet with racial bigotry in a small town diner. Every time I see such scenes I get angry. I go back to my childhood in the 1950s and still feel a sense of indignation rise up within me. This scene really did it for me big-time. It was a powerful reminder of our past. (Lee is a deeply devoted supporter of Barack Obama and thus some will reject this movie for this reason, which in itself is ridiculous if not outright racist!)

Miracle of St. Anna opened September 26 and only did so-so at the box office. It has received some very mixed reviews. Some, like Roger Ebert, see it as a great war movie. I share this view.

The film was scripted by James McBride, the same novelist who wrote the book, Miracle at St. Anna. I tend to think this is the reason for the length of the film version of the story. A novelist should almost never write the script for a movie. When this happens the writer is too committed to keeping the movie exactly like the book, which is almost always deadly to the movie. In this case it was not deadly but it does blunt the impact of the story with far too much meaningless detail.

As some readers know, Spike Lee created quite a spat about this movie because he reacted so negatively to Clint Eastwood's twin World War II epic films: Flags of Our Fathers and Letters from Iwo Jima. (The Eastwood films are real classics and the Letters from Iwo Jima is the finest war film told from the opponent's perspective I have seen on World War II.) Lee has a valid point about previous war films. The absence of African-Americans from such films is a huge oversight. This prompted him to direct Miracle of St. Anna, which is a revealing look at racism in the time period. Sadly, Lee did not need to react in the way he did to Eastwood since this didn't really help him promote what has become a powerful and gripping movie. The problem here is that Lee's scope and ambition are just a bit too large.

Whereas Saving Private Ryan, and other war classics, focuses only on soldiers this movie also looks closely at the Italian people. It humanizes war by showing the viewer how awful and dreadful war really is to people who are non-combatants. People who get thrilled by war need these reminders regularly. 

This movie has a very deep spirituality about it. This is what made it even more compelling to me. The film is really about the four leading characters, four black American soldiers. Ranking staff officer Aubrey Stamps (Derek Luke) is a steady, commanding office of reason. The role is superbly played. Then there is a devout Catholic who is Puerto Rican Cpl. Hector Negron. He embodies conscience and Catholic spirituality very well. A Sgt. named Bishop Cummings represents untamed carnality and a deep skepticism about faith. He questions Aubrey's idealism and pursues a local woman for her beauty. Then there is the PFC Sam Train. One Catholic reviewer calls him the "holy fool" in this cast of lead actors. He retains very superstitious notions about God and faith mixed with a deep belief in Christ and an admirable, though simple, belief.

Lee also includes a scene where the Germans, Italians and Americans are all praying just before they begin their killing. This collage will confuse some with its simplistic views about how people invoke God's help before battle but I actually found it a powerful testimony to the sad fact that many people fight as if God is truly on their side. We would always do much better to answer this question the way Abraham Lincoln did when he said it is much more important that we be on God's side than we claim him to be on our side in a battle.

The great overriding theme in all of this is race. Like a powerful thread this theme runs from the start to the very last scene. Long over-due attention is finally given to the role African-Americans played in the Second World War through this film. The film also treats Christian and Roman Catholic themes with respect and accuracy. Perhaps Lee's greatest film work occurs when he shows black soldiers bloodied bodies in a river, and a helmet floats by a man's face. As one reviewer put it this scene says, "Remember me too."

Spike Lee should be commended for this fine film. His angry public persona should not keep you away if you are drawn to powerfully themed war films. The critics might have given it two or two-and-a-half stars but I give would it three-and-a-half or four. The only hesitation about giving it the highest rating is the way the story rambles and meanders at times. A better editor would have perfected it and made it totally superb. 

One Long Epiclesis

The late Roman Catholic theologian Yves Congar was one of the most important theological writers on the person and work of the Holy Spirit in the 20th century. I was introduced to Congar's work about twenty years ago. I prize his three volumes as some of my finest material on the Spirit. Father Richard McBrien says Congar's theology has six principal elements in it. I would like to underscore only one of them: epiclesis.

Epiclesis refers to a special section in the offering of the prayer at the Mass. Since the Reformers rejected the idea of sacrifice in the Eucharist they also rejected this term. The idea behind epiclesis is to offer thanksgiving to God for his past mercies and to offer petition for his continued benevolence in the present. In ancient liturgy it was rooted in the Didache which said, "Remember, Lord, thy church . . . " The prayer focused upon asking God to deliver the church from evil, to perfect it in love and to gather it into the kingdom. The image behind this word is that the eucharistic bread is made of many grains and the wine of many grapes, but the food is one as Christ is one and the people must receive it with thanksgiving as the Spirit comes down upon the meal. 

The prayer of epiclesis developed into the request for the Holy Spirit to make the elements of the body and blood of Christ become a blessing to all the people of Christ. It was a petition that the Holy Spirit come upon the bread and wine as well as the celebrants of the meal. Protestants rightly rejected the idea of "sacrifice" (at least in one sense) but they quite likely over-reacted by removing the prayer of epiclesis altogether, or that is my view at least.

Congar argued that the entire life of the Christian church is "one long epiclesis." What he meant by this was that the church is to continually call down the Holy Spirit upon itself and the world that it seeks to serve. The epicletic character of the church should be present in many of the church's activities but especially at the table of the Lord. I believe this idea is not only ancient but consistent with John Calvin's view of the eucharist too. Calvin, as some readers will know, believed that the Holy Spirit came upon the actual elements, and the participants, with the result being the actual presence of Christ in mystery presented to living faith.

If the church is "one long epiclesis" then the character of our life together should be marked by constantly calling down the Holy Spirit in power among us. This is truly one of the most Christian and basic prayers we could offer. But I almost never hear it in Protestant churches, with the exception of charismatic ones.

I have long been persuaded that this is precisely what Jesus is talking about in Luke 11:13. If we would know the Spirit's great power there must be a continual epiclesis among us. We must ask the Father for the greatest gift he can give to us as the living church of God: the Holy Spirit.

"Dear Lord, grant that we may stop quarreling about how this happens and teach us to ask you for the Spirit with all our hearts. Make us a 'one long epiclesis.' Amen."