Apparently I'm not the only one with thoughts along the line of my last post. Check out my friend Isaac's blog post (here). He takes a slightly different approach in that he's more calm and probably nicer about it, but either way here is a slightly different perspective on the same issue.
And I don't think he read my post before he wrote his.
Enjoy.
- Ben
Thursday, February 28, 2008
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
Why I don't Like Protestant Worship Music
I'm trying to catch up on some reading for classes so I can't write a long post, but I wanted to jot down this thought before I got distracted.
For my independent study I've been reading the second volume of Jaroslav Pelikan's wonderful church history set entitled The Rise of Eastern Christendom. Since Pelikan's work chronicles the history of theology and thoughts I am finding that it's a moderately heavy read, especially given that even at seminary many of these historical concepts have not been taught to me.
Today I was reading about the Nestorian, Jacobite, and Monophysite heresies and on the hypostatis of Christ. Since Pelikan quotes from so many primary sources (something that is often missing in many church histories) I found myself getting a little confused concerning the hypostasis of Christ and what orthodox doctrine taught. Instead of turning to wikipedia or another source that would of taken a lot more time to find some resolution I remembered that there is an ancient hymn of pascha that briefly discusses the hypostasis of Christ. Since I had my ipod on me I decided to turn to the music of the church to teach me the orthodox way and bring about clarity of thought.
Granted the hymn isn't a treatise, but I wasn't looking for a treatise, I was merely looking for a quick answer as to how many hypostates Christ has. This is when I realized that I was able to articulate one of the many reasons I don't like Protestant worship music - namely, that I don't like to guess and check when it comes to the doctrine conveyed within my church music.
Due to the plethora of music in protestantism and the constant desire to update the music I find that one cannot trust the theology that is conveyed in much of it. In strict juxtaposition to this is the music that is sung at the Orthodox church I currently attend. When I hear the hymns of the Orthodox church I am sure that what is being taught is theologically in-line with the 7 ecumenical creeds of the church. I don't have to guess if I'm being taught something heretical because the songs have been tried by church and found fitting to be used in the worship of the Holy Trinity.
Sure, there may be some great assets to protestant music, but as a whole it is theologically vapid and emotive to a fault. While it is always good to asses and think about what is being sung in worship, I think that having to constantly analyze and wonder if the music is teaching correct doctrine is counterproductive to the church service. The music of the church should be filled with dogmatically correct theology and should be able to be used as a basis for the lay person to refute or accept notions of the divine. One can very easily argue that our theology in protestantism is weak because we do not sing it and we do not sing it because it is weak. This cycle is a disastrous one that is hurting the church and leading people into ignorance of the divine. How can we, expect to truly become partakers of the Divine essence (2Pet 1.4) if we do not even know God as he has revealed himself to us?
I fear I'm approaching a tangent so I will conclude now. If the reason I set out to articulate wasn't clear above let me sum up. Part of my aversion to Protestant worship music is that it has no substance and that which it tries to pass as substance is often near heretical if not blatantly so. The songs of the church should be those which have been tried by years of reflection and should be able to be used as concise creedal statements of belief that will plant the deep truths of the faith into the hearts of clergy and lay persons alike.
May the faith grow deep within you all
- Ben
For my independent study I've been reading the second volume of Jaroslav Pelikan's wonderful church history set entitled The Rise of Eastern Christendom. Since Pelikan's work chronicles the history of theology and thoughts I am finding that it's a moderately heavy read, especially given that even at seminary many of these historical concepts have not been taught to me.
Today I was reading about the Nestorian, Jacobite, and Monophysite heresies and on the hypostatis of Christ. Since Pelikan quotes from so many primary sources (something that is often missing in many church histories) I found myself getting a little confused concerning the hypostasis of Christ and what orthodox doctrine taught. Instead of turning to wikipedia or another source that would of taken a lot more time to find some resolution I remembered that there is an ancient hymn of pascha that briefly discusses the hypostasis of Christ. Since I had my ipod on me I decided to turn to the music of the church to teach me the orthodox way and bring about clarity of thought.
Granted the hymn isn't a treatise, but I wasn't looking for a treatise, I was merely looking for a quick answer as to how many hypostates Christ has. This is when I realized that I was able to articulate one of the many reasons I don't like Protestant worship music - namely, that I don't like to guess and check when it comes to the doctrine conveyed within my church music.
Due to the plethora of music in protestantism and the constant desire to update the music I find that one cannot trust the theology that is conveyed in much of it. In strict juxtaposition to this is the music that is sung at the Orthodox church I currently attend. When I hear the hymns of the Orthodox church I am sure that what is being taught is theologically in-line with the 7 ecumenical creeds of the church. I don't have to guess if I'm being taught something heretical because the songs have been tried by church and found fitting to be used in the worship of the Holy Trinity.
Sure, there may be some great assets to protestant music, but as a whole it is theologically vapid and emotive to a fault. While it is always good to asses and think about what is being sung in worship, I think that having to constantly analyze and wonder if the music is teaching correct doctrine is counterproductive to the church service. The music of the church should be filled with dogmatically correct theology and should be able to be used as a basis for the lay person to refute or accept notions of the divine. One can very easily argue that our theology in protestantism is weak because we do not sing it and we do not sing it because it is weak. This cycle is a disastrous one that is hurting the church and leading people into ignorance of the divine. How can we, expect to truly become partakers of the Divine essence (2Pet 1.4) if we do not even know God as he has revealed himself to us?
I fear I'm approaching a tangent so I will conclude now. If the reason I set out to articulate wasn't clear above let me sum up. Part of my aversion to Protestant worship music is that it has no substance and that which it tries to pass as substance is often near heretical if not blatantly so. The songs of the church should be those which have been tried by years of reflection and should be able to be used as concise creedal statements of belief that will plant the deep truths of the faith into the hearts of clergy and lay persons alike.
May the faith grow deep within you all
- Ben
Monday, February 25, 2008
Reading the Fathers
There has been a lot of talk lately about protestants embracing their roots and turning to the Fathers of the Church for wisdom and guidance. If you need some evidence of this pick up the latest issue of Christianity Today or any one of magazines/journals that deal with the theological trends within protestantism. This marked interest in patristic reading (reading of the Fathers) is especially obvious when one looks around Asbury. There are a good number of students here that continue to express interest in patristic studies. Maybe I'm more aware of these individuals because this is my pet area of interest, maybe part of the trend on campus is fueled by the recent readers, or maybe it is just a part of this macrocosmic event happening in protestantism. Either way, the reason for this trend is unimportant to this post.
The reason I bring up this trend is because I find it disconcerting. This is something I've been thinking about for the past few weeks, but I recently was given some words to describe it by talking with my friend Nathaniel. I guess it's odd that I find this trend concerning because I'm such a lover of patristic studies and reading the Fathers has fed my soul for the past four years, so let me explain myself.
I find this trend concerning because of the way in which many people, especially at Asbury, approach the Fathers. This new found resurgence of the patristic witness at Asbury, in the Emergent communities, and in protestantism in general tends to approach the Fathers as nothing more than another source from which to feed personal agendas.
What I mean is that a plethora of individuals are reading the Fathers and Mothers of the faith, but that they approach them as if they were just another contemporary theologian that can be easily discarded if one disagrees with them. I would say these new readers treat the Fathers as just another Rob Bell, but fearfully Rob Bell is given much more respect and is more highly valued than any of the saints of old. These saints, who have died for the faith, who have lived through imperial exiles, who have loved the church even unto their last breaths are being treated as if they were peers, as Nathaniel aptly assessed.
In my opinion it is criminally prideful and nigh heretical for one to consider the Fathers and Mothers of the church as peers that can easily be used to profit one's theological agenda and then discarded like an old sweater when they disagree with how we want to live or think. As I have said these men and women are the ones who have preserved the Faith for us. They have fought, bled and died for that which they have passed on to us. They are not our peers! They are worthy of respect and honor and deserve to be considered our mentors and spiritual fathers and mothers.
Granted not all of the early church sources agreed on everything, of course there are matters of holy opinion, but we cannot be so willing to disagree with these men and women. They are the continuation of the cloud of witnesses talked about in Hebrews, they are those who preserved the faith that is the foundation on which the church was built, and it is their blood that serves as the seed of the church.
My argument is that we cannot claim the heritage of these Fathers and Mothers without accepting them as authoritative for our lives. We must give them the right to speak into our lives and allow them to have the authority to dictate how we must conform our lives to the Faith.
Granted my beloved Orthodox friends would likely agree with me and then argue that I am guilty of the problem that I lay out since I have not become Orthodox. I don't want to get into that issue right now, but nevertheless my point stands and protestant scholars, students, and lay people cannot continue to pretend that they are embracing the Fathers when they treat them as peers and do not allow them to speak authoritatively into their lives.
Without getting into a mess of tangential issues I think this goes to one of the roots of the Protestant problem. One of the beauties that I have seen in the time spent with my Orthodox friends is that the Orthodox church approaches the Faith as something handed down to which individuals and the Church itself must conform. The Faith is alive and exists in its fullness within Orthodoxy, but it is authoritative and something to which we must conform. Protestantism, on the other hand, seems to view the Faith as something fluid that must conform to personal belief. Thus there is no standard of authority save one's own belief system which dictates what the substance of the Faith is. I believe this is part of Protestantism's biggest problem and the reason why the Faith continues to be torn apart within Protestantism. And part of the reason why individuals think they can critique the Holy Fathers as if they were peers.
Yes, protestants are beginning to discover a great wealth of spiritual wisdom. This must be a good thing, but it saddens me beyond belief that these Holy saints of the church are treated with so much disrespect.
I often get chided for the fact that almost all of my deepest spiritual fathers and mothers have been dead for hundreds of years. But I must argue what better father and mother can one have than those that have been affirmed and validated by the church for hundreds and hundreds of years. They can dictate how I should live in holy pursuit of God any day because they are the ones who's writings have survived the test of time and the test of the Church and as such I will think long, hard, and prayerfully before I dare disagree with these holy saints.
May we all have such mentors that will encourage us to pursue God even unto death!
- Ben
The reason I bring up this trend is because I find it disconcerting. This is something I've been thinking about for the past few weeks, but I recently was given some words to describe it by talking with my friend Nathaniel. I guess it's odd that I find this trend concerning because I'm such a lover of patristic studies and reading the Fathers has fed my soul for the past four years, so let me explain myself.
I find this trend concerning because of the way in which many people, especially at Asbury, approach the Fathers. This new found resurgence of the patristic witness at Asbury, in the Emergent communities, and in protestantism in general tends to approach the Fathers as nothing more than another source from which to feed personal agendas.
What I mean is that a plethora of individuals are reading the Fathers and Mothers of the faith, but that they approach them as if they were just another contemporary theologian that can be easily discarded if one disagrees with them. I would say these new readers treat the Fathers as just another Rob Bell, but fearfully Rob Bell is given much more respect and is more highly valued than any of the saints of old. These saints, who have died for the faith, who have lived through imperial exiles, who have loved the church even unto their last breaths are being treated as if they were peers, as Nathaniel aptly assessed.
In my opinion it is criminally prideful and nigh heretical for one to consider the Fathers and Mothers of the church as peers that can easily be used to profit one's theological agenda and then discarded like an old sweater when they disagree with how we want to live or think. As I have said these men and women are the ones who have preserved the Faith for us. They have fought, bled and died for that which they have passed on to us. They are not our peers! They are worthy of respect and honor and deserve to be considered our mentors and spiritual fathers and mothers.
Granted not all of the early church sources agreed on everything, of course there are matters of holy opinion, but we cannot be so willing to disagree with these men and women. They are the continuation of the cloud of witnesses talked about in Hebrews, they are those who preserved the faith that is the foundation on which the church was built, and it is their blood that serves as the seed of the church.
My argument is that we cannot claim the heritage of these Fathers and Mothers without accepting them as authoritative for our lives. We must give them the right to speak into our lives and allow them to have the authority to dictate how we must conform our lives to the Faith.
Granted my beloved Orthodox friends would likely agree with me and then argue that I am guilty of the problem that I lay out since I have not become Orthodox. I don't want to get into that issue right now, but nevertheless my point stands and protestant scholars, students, and lay people cannot continue to pretend that they are embracing the Fathers when they treat them as peers and do not allow them to speak authoritatively into their lives.
Without getting into a mess of tangential issues I think this goes to one of the roots of the Protestant problem. One of the beauties that I have seen in the time spent with my Orthodox friends is that the Orthodox church approaches the Faith as something handed down to which individuals and the Church itself must conform. The Faith is alive and exists in its fullness within Orthodoxy, but it is authoritative and something to which we must conform. Protestantism, on the other hand, seems to view the Faith as something fluid that must conform to personal belief. Thus there is no standard of authority save one's own belief system which dictates what the substance of the Faith is. I believe this is part of Protestantism's biggest problem and the reason why the Faith continues to be torn apart within Protestantism. And part of the reason why individuals think they can critique the Holy Fathers as if they were peers.
Yes, protestants are beginning to discover a great wealth of spiritual wisdom. This must be a good thing, but it saddens me beyond belief that these Holy saints of the church are treated with so much disrespect.
I often get chided for the fact that almost all of my deepest spiritual fathers and mothers have been dead for hundreds of years. But I must argue what better father and mother can one have than those that have been affirmed and validated by the church for hundreds and hundreds of years. They can dictate how I should live in holy pursuit of God any day because they are the ones who's writings have survived the test of time and the test of the Church and as such I will think long, hard, and prayerfully before I dare disagree with these holy saints.
May we all have such mentors that will encourage us to pursue God even unto death!
- Ben
Thursday, February 14, 2008
What a wonderful holiday!!
That's right, today is the day that pitchers and catchers report to spring training! While there still isn't really a whole lot to watch or get excited about yet (i.e. no games are being played yet) this still means that baseball season has officially begun.
Soon enough our waiting and anticipation will be over and the regular season will be upon us, but until then we can fill our baseball addictions with thoughts of spring training and that somewhere in Florida and in Arizona grown men are starting to hone their curves, sliders, change-ups, and the rest of the pitches in their arsenal.
Fear not, I won't make any grandiose predictions for the Baltimore Orioles like I did last year. Well, that is, until it gets closer to the regular season and I actually know what the starting rotation for the O's is likely to be.
On another note today is also St. Valentines Day, if you're looking for my post on that click here. It's not the greatest post, but it's good enough that I don't need to repeat the exercise. Shoot, I have even cleaned up the spelling errors (or at least the two or three that jumped out at me).
Hope you all enjoy pitchers and catcher day!
- Ben
Soon enough our waiting and anticipation will be over and the regular season will be upon us, but until then we can fill our baseball addictions with thoughts of spring training and that somewhere in Florida and in Arizona grown men are starting to hone their curves, sliders, change-ups, and the rest of the pitches in their arsenal.
Fear not, I won't make any grandiose predictions for the Baltimore Orioles like I did last year. Well, that is, until it gets closer to the regular season and I actually know what the starting rotation for the O's is likely to be.
On another note today is also St. Valentines Day, if you're looking for my post on that click here. It's not the greatest post, but it's good enough that I don't need to repeat the exercise. Shoot, I have even cleaned up the spelling errors (or at least the two or three that jumped out at me).
Hope you all enjoy pitchers and catcher day!
- Ben
Monday, February 11, 2008
Book Review: "Three Treatises on the Divine Images" by St. John of Damascus
This will be the last post before the semester starts. Hopefully that doesn't mean that my blogging will drastically decrease, but it does mean that I have to assess the amount of success (or in my case failure) to actually finish the books on my reading list for break.
I'm not sure if I have reading ADD or what, but instead of finishing the three books I wanted to finish before the semester I actually started two more. Why? I'm not sure.
I did, however, finish one of the books. In case you couldn't guess from the title of the post; I ended up finishing St. John of Damascus' Three Treatises on the Divine Images. The edition that I read (here) was by St. Vladimir's Press and was translated by Andrew Louth. While I'm not a Byzantine Greek scholar, I do think that Louth's translation was very thorough. His footnotes were explanatory and he was good about highlighting vocabulary nuances as well as providing citations to referenced scripture passages and other Fathers of the Church.
St. John (died around 750AD) defended of the use of icons in the life and worship of the Church during the time in which the Emperor Leo III condemned icons as a violation of the 2nd commandment (no idols). As the debate between the iconoclasts (those destroying and condemning the icons) and the iconodules (those in support of icons) raged St. John penned his three treatises in favor of the use and practice of veneration of icons.
In general St. John's treatises might be a little heavier reading than some of the other church fathers that I have read and subsequently reviewed. The topic may also be one that causes many protestants much grief and dismay as icons are very foreign to the Western Church. However, it is probably safe to say that if it wasn't for St. John's treatises on the Divine Images there would be little-to-no room for any Church art.
As I read through St. John's work his words and phraseology made it very clear that for him this was not a dry theological debate. St. John's concern is rooted in his deep love for God and his love for the Church and the faith which it has carried down from the Apostles. John views the use of icons in worship as something which has early and even apostolic roots even if it isn't embedded in scripture. Along these lines St. John quotes from St. Basil to exhort his readers:
Building upon this John pleads with his adversaries and with the Church as a whole:
While this material and some of the language that St. John uses will likely make many protestants uncomfortable it is worth a read. St. John's treatises form a concise discussion on icons and their place in worship. In his third treatise St. John also sets forth a valuable discussion of worship and how it is to be approached by the Church and the Christian. At times the work felt redundant because of repeated arguments between the treatises and repeated citations, but it is an essential work for any student of Church history to read. This work seems to inform and provide much of the basis for the decision of the Seventh Ecumenical Council which approved of the use of icons. If nothing else is achieved by reading this work it will help protestants understand and appreciate the position of the Catholic and Orthodox Christians concerning this matter.
As I said before, I think one of the most beautiful things about this work is not that St. John is concerned with ivory tower theology, but that he is concerned with health and life of the Church. St. John views icons as essential parts of the worship of the faithful and as aids to holiness. It is obvious to even a casual reader of this book that St. John desires holiness for the people of God and views the iconoclast position as impious and destructive to the faith of the Church.
So there is a short review for the only fun book that I managed to finish this January break. Hopefully I'll get back to posting some more of my random thoughts soon.
Blessings to you all,
Ben
I'm not sure if I have reading ADD or what, but instead of finishing the three books I wanted to finish before the semester I actually started two more. Why? I'm not sure.
I did, however, finish one of the books. In case you couldn't guess from the title of the post; I ended up finishing St. John of Damascus' Three Treatises on the Divine Images. The edition that I read (here) was by St. Vladimir's Press and was translated by Andrew Louth. While I'm not a Byzantine Greek scholar, I do think that Louth's translation was very thorough. His footnotes were explanatory and he was good about highlighting vocabulary nuances as well as providing citations to referenced scripture passages and other Fathers of the Church.
St. John (died around 750AD) defended of the use of icons in the life and worship of the Church during the time in which the Emperor Leo III condemned icons as a violation of the 2nd commandment (no idols). As the debate between the iconoclasts (those destroying and condemning the icons) and the iconodules (those in support of icons) raged St. John penned his three treatises in favor of the use and practice of veneration of icons.
In general St. John's treatises might be a little heavier reading than some of the other church fathers that I have read and subsequently reviewed. The topic may also be one that causes many protestants much grief and dismay as icons are very foreign to the Western Church. However, it is probably safe to say that if it wasn't for St. John's treatises on the Divine Images there would be little-to-no room for any Church art.
As I read through St. John's work his words and phraseology made it very clear that for him this was not a dry theological debate. St. John's concern is rooted in his deep love for God and his love for the Church and the faith which it has carried down from the Apostles. John views the use of icons in worship as something which has early and even apostolic roots even if it isn't embedded in scripture. Along these lines St. John quotes from St. Basil to exhort his readers:
Of the dogmas and preachings preserved in the Church, some we have from the written teaching, others we received from the tradition of the Apostles, handed down to us in secret, both of them having the same force for piety. No one who has the least experience of the laws of the Church will object to these, for if we try to dismiss that which is unwritten among the customs as of no great authority, then without noticing it we shall damage the Gospel.
Building upon this John pleads with his adversaries and with the Church as a whole:
I entreat the people of God, the holy nation, to cling to the traditions of the Church. For just as the removal of one of the stones of a building will quickly bring ruin to that building, so will the removal, ever so little, of what has been handed down. Let us be firm, unflinching, unmoved, established upon the secure rock, which is Christ, to whom is due glory, honor and veneration, with the Father and the Spirit, now and for ever and to the unbounded ages of ages. Amen.Cutting to the core content of the work (or works if you prefer) John argues for the allowance of the veneration of icons, both of Christ and of the "friends of God." In order to defend this stance St. John argues, following Basil, that the honor given to the image passes to the archetype. Through his work John defines and distinguishes between worship and veneration as well as different types of veneration. He also tackles the accusation that icons violate the second commandment by illustrating from scripture the multiple times where images are made and honored and yet not worshiped.
While this material and some of the language that St. John uses will likely make many protestants uncomfortable it is worth a read. St. John's treatises form a concise discussion on icons and their place in worship. In his third treatise St. John also sets forth a valuable discussion of worship and how it is to be approached by the Church and the Christian. At times the work felt redundant because of repeated arguments between the treatises and repeated citations, but it is an essential work for any student of Church history to read. This work seems to inform and provide much of the basis for the decision of the Seventh Ecumenical Council which approved of the use of icons. If nothing else is achieved by reading this work it will help protestants understand and appreciate the position of the Catholic and Orthodox Christians concerning this matter.
As I said before, I think one of the most beautiful things about this work is not that St. John is concerned with ivory tower theology, but that he is concerned with health and life of the Church. St. John views icons as essential parts of the worship of the faithful and as aids to holiness. It is obvious to even a casual reader of this book that St. John desires holiness for the people of God and views the iconoclast position as impious and destructive to the faith of the Church.
So there is a short review for the only fun book that I managed to finish this January break. Hopefully I'll get back to posting some more of my random thoughts soon.
Blessings to you all,
Ben
Sunday, February 03, 2008
A Quick Non-Theological Post
Since today is Super Bowl Sunday, I've decided to allow myself an obligatory football post, though it's not about the Super Bowl. If any of you are fans of the Minnesota Vikings (in reality the only reader who is is probably my dad, but it's my blog so whatever) you are likely sitting in disbelief that Chris Carter got passed over for a first-ballot Hall of Fame selection.
Yep, that's right. Chris Carter, Mr. "All he does is catch touchdowns" didn't make the Hall of Fame in his first year of eligibility. So who did make it? Art Monk.
I'm not going to chronicle the entire case against Monk and for Carter here as it has already been done by Pacifist Viking over here. While I'm still undecided if I share the opinion if Art Monk deserves to actually be in the Hall of Fame, I do think that PV offers great analysis of the issue. So check it out if your into sweet nerdy arguments as to why one retired football player is better than another.
With this and the trends in baseball Hall of Fame voting I'm begining to lose my faith in the Hall of Fame voters. So often I think they decide on or against players for stupid reasons without analyzing all the pertinent data. One prime example is the dork who didn't vote for Cal Ripken Jr. to make the baseball hall of fame this year. Seriously!?! That person should be taken out to the street and put in the stocks.
Ok, that's it for now.
Peace.
Yep, that's right. Chris Carter, Mr. "All he does is catch touchdowns" didn't make the Hall of Fame in his first year of eligibility. So who did make it? Art Monk.
I'm not going to chronicle the entire case against Monk and for Carter here as it has already been done by Pacifist Viking over here. While I'm still undecided if I share the opinion if Art Monk deserves to actually be in the Hall of Fame, I do think that PV offers great analysis of the issue. So check it out if your into sweet nerdy arguments as to why one retired football player is better than another.
With this and the trends in baseball Hall of Fame voting I'm begining to lose my faith in the Hall of Fame voters. So often I think they decide on or against players for stupid reasons without analyzing all the pertinent data. One prime example is the dork who didn't vote for Cal Ripken Jr. to make the baseball hall of fame this year. Seriously!?! That person should be taken out to the street and put in the stocks.
Ok, that's it for now.
Peace.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
