Today in chapel there was what people like to call "liturgical dancing." By this I mean 4 people wearing white went on stage and danced to a song with the intention of conveying theological meaning.
As we were gearing up for chapel my friend Chad and I were wondering about the development of dance in the liturgy. I confess that I haven't really researched it but it seems to me that this must (save for probably some isolated instances) be a very very late development in the worshiping life of the Church.
As Chad and i pondered this we thought that maybe there was some use of dance, though not in the liturgy proper, in some of the early Christian meetings as sort of a hold-over from Judaism. But we figured that the current form of dancing probably comes from late, post-reformation roots - maybe around German pietism or later Celtic Christianity. If this is a correct assertion (which has yet to be proven) I wonder if this use of interpretive dance comes from syncretism with Druidic (which is was today's dance looked like) and other folk groups in those areas.
All wondering about development aside, what purpose does "liturgical" dance serve? First off the name is a complete misnomer. Sure it may be technically part of the "work of the people" and whatnot, but it seems to me that it really doesn't fit with the liturgical history of the Church as a whole.
It almost seems that the Protestant church is trying to harness dance and the other arts but that they really have no foundation for how to use art and/or convey theology through art because when they reacted against Rome they stripped the church of art, thus throwing the proverbial baby out with the bath-water.
I'm not really sure what point I'm making here. In fact, I find this post to be very scattered and incoherent. My excuse is that I'm tired and that I'm trying to read through David Bradshaw's book Aristotle East and West: Metaphysics and the Division of Christendom today.
All that to say that I struggled with liturgical dance when I first encountered it in high school, I mildly accepted it out of a generous attitude in college and now that I understand the development and purpose of liturgy and the church service I find that it doesn't really fit. I would appreciate some thoughts and some suggestions on this issue. Maybe I'm narrow-minded, or maybe I'm just overlooking something. Shoot, maybe I'm right and you can help me articulate why.
- Ben
Showing posts with label Liturgy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Liturgy. Show all posts
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
Thursday, February 28, 2008
Great Minds Think Alike
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
And I don't think he read my post before he wrote his.
Enjoy.
- Ben
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
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
Christ Our God?!?
Over the past few weeks there has been one phrase from church that has been constantly on my mind - the phrase "Christ our God." This phrase is repeated numerous times during the Divine Liturgy and is very clear in it's meaning - namely that Christ is our God and we worship him.
For some reason over the past few weeks this phrase has stuck out to me more than usual and thus I have been forced to wrestle with it's profundity and simplicity. I have been forced to realize what it means to truly say that Christ is our God. To say that in a seemingly nonsensical sense that we worship a man, but not just a man, we worship a person who is both fully God and fully man.
This truth is something I will die for and yet it is something that although I try, I cannot fully understand and so I am forced to stand in the paradox of confident humility.
While this is indeed is a good meditation, it was not where I had planned to go with this post, so let me get back on track.
As I have thought and have been forced to meditate on this phrase I have been equally dismayed by it's absence from Protestant services. I think I first noticed this because when I first started to think on this phrase I felt slightly uncomfortable and began to analyze why. I then realized that I don't usually hear the phrase Christ our God in worship. As I thought I realized that while I may have conversations about Christ's divinity and would defend it in a theological debate any day, I never have really experienced protestant worship that verbalized Christ as God and the object of worship in a doxological sense.
Now, I realize that I am opening up myself for a great critique here as I'm sure one could find a few counterexamples and will believe that to suffice for a refutation of my assertion, but I disagree. Think about our worship services, for you Asburians think about our Chapel services (which, though they should be the exception are likely to fail even more than our churches) when was the last time that the service was thoroughly Trinitarian? When was the last time that a service was Christo-centric in the sense that it drew your worship toward Christ and caused you to bless, worship and affirm Christ as both God and man? Are our services Trinitarian - rarely. Are they Christo-centric - mostly, but this Christo-centrism seems to be a thin veil in front of bland and vague affirmations about God, rather than a specificity that is uniquely Christian and prayerfully meditative of Christ as the object of our worship - the fully divine, fully human , God-man.
Now, I am not fully opposed to songs of worship that are very concerned with the intimacy to be had between the Christian and Christ (love songs with Jesus, if you will), but these are not a proper starting place. We must start with the foundational faith and then allow room for mystical expression and intimate experiences.
We must do a better job at teaching our people the faith and for most this will not effectively happen in the classroom or the pulpit, but my making these truths essential parts or our worship both in song and prayer. If we continue on the path of only emphasizing the essential truths of the faith in classrooms and teaching them only to pastors then the faith will cease to be passed down to the coming generations.
The early fathers closely linked godliness with correct theology and action. We wonder why our people don't live righteously- could it not be that it is because they are not grounded in the Truth?
For some reason over the past few weeks this phrase has stuck out to me more than usual and thus I have been forced to wrestle with it's profundity and simplicity. I have been forced to realize what it means to truly say that Christ is our God. To say that in a seemingly nonsensical sense that we worship a man, but not just a man, we worship a person who is both fully God and fully man.
God of the substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and man of substance of His mother, born in the world. Perfect God and perfect man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting. Equal to the Father as touching His Godhead, and inferior to the Father as touching His manhood. Who, although He is God and man, yet He is not two, but one Christ. One, not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by taking of that manhood into God. One altogether, not by confusion of substance, but by unity of person.
- Athanasian Creed
This truth is something I will die for and yet it is something that although I try, I cannot fully understand and so I am forced to stand in the paradox of confident humility.
While this is indeed is a good meditation, it was not where I had planned to go with this post, so let me get back on track.
As I have thought and have been forced to meditate on this phrase I have been equally dismayed by it's absence from Protestant services. I think I first noticed this because when I first started to think on this phrase I felt slightly uncomfortable and began to analyze why. I then realized that I don't usually hear the phrase Christ our God in worship. As I thought I realized that while I may have conversations about Christ's divinity and would defend it in a theological debate any day, I never have really experienced protestant worship that verbalized Christ as God and the object of worship in a doxological sense.
Now, I realize that I am opening up myself for a great critique here as I'm sure one could find a few counterexamples and will believe that to suffice for a refutation of my assertion, but I disagree. Think about our worship services, for you Asburians think about our Chapel services (which, though they should be the exception are likely to fail even more than our churches) when was the last time that the service was thoroughly Trinitarian? When was the last time that a service was Christo-centric in the sense that it drew your worship toward Christ and caused you to bless, worship and affirm Christ as both God and man? Are our services Trinitarian - rarely. Are they Christo-centric - mostly, but this Christo-centrism seems to be a thin veil in front of bland and vague affirmations about God, rather than a specificity that is uniquely Christian and prayerfully meditative of Christ as the object of our worship - the fully divine, fully human , God-man.
Now, I am not fully opposed to songs of worship that are very concerned with the intimacy to be had between the Christian and Christ (love songs with Jesus, if you will), but these are not a proper starting place. We must start with the foundational faith and then allow room for mystical expression and intimate experiences.
We must do a better job at teaching our people the faith and for most this will not effectively happen in the classroom or the pulpit, but my making these truths essential parts or our worship both in song and prayer. If we continue on the path of only emphasizing the essential truths of the faith in classrooms and teaching them only to pastors then the faith will cease to be passed down to the coming generations.
The early fathers closely linked godliness with correct theology and action. We wonder why our people don't live righteously- could it not be that it is because they are not grounded in the Truth?
Thursday, July 05, 2007
Summer Thoughts part II
For church on Sunday I decided to go visit the Greek Orthodox Church of the 12 Holy Apostles across town. While I love the church I'm staying at and will attend there most of the time during the summer I wanted to check out this Orthodox Church across town. Although some of the service was different from what I'm use to (a lot more Greek) it was pretty much the same liturgy. Despite saying and singing the same thing every Sunday for over a year I am still amazed every time God shows me another aspect of beauty in the liturgy. This Sunday was one of those occasions.
As we were going through the Liturgy we came to a line that I know I have sung many times, but this time it struck me as so profound and beautiful. The line simply says:
It's amazing how this small phrase ties together correct confession and worship with loving one another. It almost seems to be saying that if we do not love one another then we are indeed unable to truly confess the essential belief of the Christian faith - The Trinity: Father, Son and Holy Spirit, one in essence undivided.
How often have love and doctrine been divided? How long have we thought that we can correct affirm believe without living in love? This seems like a perennial issue for much of the Church and yet we have been confessing since the earliest times that without love we cannot truly make the Christian confession.
Praise the Lord and let us live in love having the mind of Christ who considered equality with God not something to be grasped but he humbled himself even to death on a cross!
Glory to the Father, Son and Holy Spirit! Amen.
As we were going through the Liturgy we came to a line that I know I have sung many times, but this time it struck me as so profound and beautiful. The line simply says:
Let us love one another, so that with one mind we can confess: Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
It's amazing how this small phrase ties together correct confession and worship with loving one another. It almost seems to be saying that if we do not love one another then we are indeed unable to truly confess the essential belief of the Christian faith - The Trinity: Father, Son and Holy Spirit, one in essence undivided.
How often have love and doctrine been divided? How long have we thought that we can correct affirm believe without living in love? This seems like a perennial issue for much of the Church and yet we have been confessing since the earliest times that without love we cannot truly make the Christian confession.
Praise the Lord and let us live in love having the mind of Christ who considered equality with God not something to be grasped but he humbled himself even to death on a cross!
Glory to the Father, Son and Holy Spirit! Amen.
Sunday, July 01, 2007
Summer thoughts
Before I jump into the heart of the post (which as usual will be an assortment of randomness) allow me to do a quick update on my life. I'm not four weeks into my summer job with Youthworks (www.youthworks.com) in which I am the Site Director for their Duluth, MN site. This means that I manage a site staff of three college students (who are all awesome by the way) and together the four of us facilitate groups of about 60+ junior high kids and chaperones on week long missions trips into Duluth. While I don't get a lot of time to relax my job isn't that hard because my staff is incredible. While in Duluth we are living at a Lutheran Church which has been more than welcoming. They have lavished us with love and hospitality since the first day we stepped in the door. I will finish up with Youthworks on the 14th of August and then will leave MN after spending a couple days with my cousin Tony.
Now to the randomness.
Concerning the Eucharist:
I guess this sort of jumps off my last post. Since I am currently living in a Lutheran Church (ELCA not Missouri Synod) I have had the delight of attending three Lutheran liturgies (two traditional and one contemporary). In all three of these liturgies the Eucharist was served and in each one I noticed that the prayer of epiklesis was not said. For those unfamiliar with this term the prayer of epiklesis is the prayer which is prayed before the elements are recieved in which the Holy Spirit is asked to change the gifts and also us. I'm sure there is a better text book definition but I don't want to take the time to look it up. From what I understand historically concerning the development of liturgies the prayer of epiklesis is pretty much and essential part of any eucharistic liturgy. While the words may be nuanced this prayer is included in the Eastern Orthodox rite, the Catholic rite, the Methodist rite and I'm sure in many others. It appears in some of the earliest eucharistic traditions. Since the Lutheran liturgy has many similar phrases to the Catholic liturgy I assumed that I merely missed this prayer the first Sunday. After it was omitted the second Sunday I though the pastor forgot it and then after the third Sunday I resolved that it must not be part of the liturgy. I thought this to be extremely odd since Lutherans traditionally have a high view of the Eucharist. I didn't get a chance to talk to the pastor of the church in which we are staying, but this past week we did have a Lutheran Pastor come with his group. I asked this pastor and he informed me that the prayer of epiklesis is indeed not part of the Lutheran liturgy.
While I do not know Lutheran theology enough to comment on the inclusion or omission of this part of the liturgy I do think that it is hard for one to have a eucharistic theology of real presence (which I think Lutherans do) without a prayer of epiklesis. I suppose one could still hold this theology without invoking the Holy Spirit to make the change (or bring the presence), but I struggle to comprehend how this would look. I also wonder why it was taken out of the Liturgy during the reformation era.
-----------------------------------
A couple days ago I was asked by my supervisor what God was showing me through devotions. I thought for a second and came up with nothing. I thought some more and then provided some generic answer to avoid any possible shame that may be seen in the lack of an answer to that question. I didn't really think much of this until the other night I was down on the banks of Lake Superior with my staff and I wandered off by myself to think. The above conversation came to mind and I thought about how awful I felt for not having an answer. I felt awful not because God isn't working in my life and not because he hasn't been showing me something, but because I couldn't sufficiently meet the paradigm out of which the question was asked. Let me explain.
Has God been working in my life? YES.
Have I been growing closer to God? YES.
Have I learned to love God more over the past few weeks? YES.
Has God spoken to me in significant ways? YES.
Even with a resounding 'yes' to all of the above questions (which weren't asked in our conversation) I still feel as though I was unable to provide an appropriate answer to the question asked me. Why? Well it seems to me that the question that was asked begs for an answer that is significant. For example I think a good answer to that question is: "well, God has been teaching me that I'm self centered and here are 10 ways for me not to be" or "God has shown me that I need to do X, Y, or Z." These answers (and thus the question), while realistic at points in time, do not seem to do the Christian life justice. Sometime one cannot articulate what they are learning about God or what God is showing them. Sometimes growth happens in such a matter that we know we are growing but we are not sure how to articulate it. This is the process of the Christian life.
It seems to me that so much of protestantism focuses on the cataclysmic moments in one's faith and thus tends to error into heaping shame upon individuals or causing them to feel like no growth is occurring if there is not a moment of crisis. Will moments of crisis happen? Undoubtedly, but it seems that if we only look for crisis moments then we end up being blind to the working of God in all the normal moments of life.
All that to say that in retrospect I didn't like the question I was asked. God has been working in my life, but I'm not sure how to articulate it. I guess mostly I'm just learning obedience through the process and learning how to love him more and to partake in the divine essence.
-------------------------------------
One thing that I've noticed over the past few weeks is that I am slowly losing my longing for Sundays. Over the past few years I have come to love Sundays, not as sabbath, but as the Lord's Day. As a celebration of our Lord's resurrection. I have come to shift my eating and living happens to make Sunday truly a feast day that helps remind me that 'He is Risen.' While I still go to church and while I still celebrate Sunday, much of my Sunday is spend thinking about the group of kids that will arrive at the church at 4:00pm instead of thinking on Christ's Resurrection. Now I must be honest here over the past year some Sundays I just relaxed and didn't do much meditating and others I actually did homework, but on the whole I did at least consider one way or another to mark Sunday off as a celebration - as a mini-Easter. I find that since our Sunday schedule is packed I am not able to either relax or think about ways to celebrate his resurrection other than by attending church. I take joy in going to church but it seems that everyone around me perceives church differently than I do. I just heard one of my staff say that since she went to church tonight she doesn't need to go tomorrow (Sunday). While there is not much of an argument that can be built against that logic it makes me very sad that we have lost the meaning of Sundays. Why do we go to church on Sunday? To celebrate the resurrection with our primary family - the family of faith. Just thinking about Sunday in it's theological context gets me excited and makes me want to go to bed right now just so that when I wake up I can go to church. I'm not sure where I'm going with all this except that I'm sad that I don't get to enjoy Sundays as much anymore and I'm very sad that so much of the church (especially protestantism) has no clue what Sunday is even about or why we even do church or have it on Sunday.
----------------------
Well I think that's it for now. I hope I'll be able to blog a bit more this summer, but I can't promise anything.
May God bless you all,
Ben
Now to the randomness.
Concerning the Eucharist:
I guess this sort of jumps off my last post. Since I am currently living in a Lutheran Church (ELCA not Missouri Synod) I have had the delight of attending three Lutheran liturgies (two traditional and one contemporary). In all three of these liturgies the Eucharist was served and in each one I noticed that the prayer of epiklesis was not said. For those unfamiliar with this term the prayer of epiklesis is the prayer which is prayed before the elements are recieved in which the Holy Spirit is asked to change the gifts and also us. I'm sure there is a better text book definition but I don't want to take the time to look it up. From what I understand historically concerning the development of liturgies the prayer of epiklesis is pretty much and essential part of any eucharistic liturgy. While the words may be nuanced this prayer is included in the Eastern Orthodox rite, the Catholic rite, the Methodist rite and I'm sure in many others. It appears in some of the earliest eucharistic traditions. Since the Lutheran liturgy has many similar phrases to the Catholic liturgy I assumed that I merely missed this prayer the first Sunday. After it was omitted the second Sunday I though the pastor forgot it and then after the third Sunday I resolved that it must not be part of the liturgy. I thought this to be extremely odd since Lutherans traditionally have a high view of the Eucharist. I didn't get a chance to talk to the pastor of the church in which we are staying, but this past week we did have a Lutheran Pastor come with his group. I asked this pastor and he informed me that the prayer of epiklesis is indeed not part of the Lutheran liturgy.
While I do not know Lutheran theology enough to comment on the inclusion or omission of this part of the liturgy I do think that it is hard for one to have a eucharistic theology of real presence (which I think Lutherans do) without a prayer of epiklesis. I suppose one could still hold this theology without invoking the Holy Spirit to make the change (or bring the presence), but I struggle to comprehend how this would look. I also wonder why it was taken out of the Liturgy during the reformation era.
-----------------------------------
A couple days ago I was asked by my supervisor what God was showing me through devotions. I thought for a second and came up with nothing. I thought some more and then provided some generic answer to avoid any possible shame that may be seen in the lack of an answer to that question. I didn't really think much of this until the other night I was down on the banks of Lake Superior with my staff and I wandered off by myself to think. The above conversation came to mind and I thought about how awful I felt for not having an answer. I felt awful not because God isn't working in my life and not because he hasn't been showing me something, but because I couldn't sufficiently meet the paradigm out of which the question was asked. Let me explain.
Has God been working in my life? YES.
Have I been growing closer to God? YES.
Have I learned to love God more over the past few weeks? YES.
Has God spoken to me in significant ways? YES.
Even with a resounding 'yes' to all of the above questions (which weren't asked in our conversation) I still feel as though I was unable to provide an appropriate answer to the question asked me. Why? Well it seems to me that the question that was asked begs for an answer that is significant. For example I think a good answer to that question is: "well, God has been teaching me that I'm self centered and here are 10 ways for me not to be" or "God has shown me that I need to do X, Y, or Z." These answers (and thus the question), while realistic at points in time, do not seem to do the Christian life justice. Sometime one cannot articulate what they are learning about God or what God is showing them. Sometimes growth happens in such a matter that we know we are growing but we are not sure how to articulate it. This is the process of the Christian life.
It seems to me that so much of protestantism focuses on the cataclysmic moments in one's faith and thus tends to error into heaping shame upon individuals or causing them to feel like no growth is occurring if there is not a moment of crisis. Will moments of crisis happen? Undoubtedly, but it seems that if we only look for crisis moments then we end up being blind to the working of God in all the normal moments of life.
All that to say that in retrospect I didn't like the question I was asked. God has been working in my life, but I'm not sure how to articulate it. I guess mostly I'm just learning obedience through the process and learning how to love him more and to partake in the divine essence.
-------------------------------------
One thing that I've noticed over the past few weeks is that I am slowly losing my longing for Sundays. Over the past few years I have come to love Sundays, not as sabbath, but as the Lord's Day. As a celebration of our Lord's resurrection. I have come to shift my eating and living happens to make Sunday truly a feast day that helps remind me that 'He is Risen.' While I still go to church and while I still celebrate Sunday, much of my Sunday is spend thinking about the group of kids that will arrive at the church at 4:00pm instead of thinking on Christ's Resurrection. Now I must be honest here over the past year some Sundays I just relaxed and didn't do much meditating and others I actually did homework, but on the whole I did at least consider one way or another to mark Sunday off as a celebration - as a mini-Easter. I find that since our Sunday schedule is packed I am not able to either relax or think about ways to celebrate his resurrection other than by attending church. I take joy in going to church but it seems that everyone around me perceives church differently than I do. I just heard one of my staff say that since she went to church tonight she doesn't need to go tomorrow (Sunday). While there is not much of an argument that can be built against that logic it makes me very sad that we have lost the meaning of Sundays. Why do we go to church on Sunday? To celebrate the resurrection with our primary family - the family of faith. Just thinking about Sunday in it's theological context gets me excited and makes me want to go to bed right now just so that when I wake up I can go to church. I'm not sure where I'm going with all this except that I'm sad that I don't get to enjoy Sundays as much anymore and I'm very sad that so much of the church (especially protestantism) has no clue what Sunday is even about or why we even do church or have it on Sunday.
----------------------
Well I think that's it for now. I hope I'll be able to blog a bit more this summer, but I can't promise anything.
May God bless you all,
Ben
Monday, April 02, 2007
Thoughts After a Shane and Shane Concert
On Saturday I ventured up to Cedarville, OH primarily to hang out with my friend Becca and also to see Shane and Shane in concert. Here are a few thoughts from the trip:
1. Sugar-free Red Bull works as well and tastes just as good as regular Red Bull.
Even though Red Bull is an essential part of my routine when I run sound at concerts, it was needed for this one as well. I ended up staying in Cedarville until after 1:00am talking and then decided to drive the 3 hours back to Wilmore so I could make it back for Church in the Morning. I had a hard time deciding on the sugar-free variety but I am now sold on it. It does lack just a little in the "liquid Smartie" taste as Nate Jacoby coined it. But it's hardly noticeable and if you don't think about it the difference is non-existent.
2. Shane and Shane seem like the type of people I would want to run sound for.
I have not always had the greatest experience running sound for artists. Some are great people to work with and some are just jerks. Sadly this includes worship leaders as I've worked with more than my share of difficult worship leaders. While you can't always tell what an artist is like from on stage you can notice a few things. The first thing I noticed was how laid back they were. There were a few minor sound glitches and things didn't sound "fantastic" but they (and their openers) were incredibly laid back and just rolled with it. We found out halfway through the show that Shane Everett was actually the one running sound for the openers and doing the 'check' for he and Shane Barnard. This is amazing. Most bands tour with a front of house tech (at a minimum) and usually a monitor tech, and are completely anal about everything, this was assuredly not the case here. They approached the show as if they were just spending an evening with friends and weren't worried if everything was going to be "performed" correctly. They didn't seem to present themselves as stars and appeared really down to earth. It could be argued that all this is a facade, but from my experience (although limited) it seems that they are the real thing. I came away from the show thinking that these are the type of people that I would enjoy running sound for and would even do it for free if given the chance. That is much more than I can say about most artists and as sad as it may be this includes a good number of Christian artists and worship leaders.
3. Shane and Shane's newer songs seem to lack the lyrical "zip" or depth that the older ones have. I'm not quite sure what it is that I'm referring to here, but there is a noticeably difference in the lyrical content of the older songs and the newer ones. The newer songs are still good, but they seem to be lacking in power and the ability to pierce to the heart when compared to the old ones. Maybe this is because many of the older songs were actually modified Psalms or other pieces of scripture. One could argue that I am just biased because the new songs are obviously new and I haven't had time to emotionally and experientially associate feelings with them. Although this is a valid point I don't think it's necessarily the correct one. I think the new music is good but it seems that they are trying to be more lyrically creative and while not bad it is bringing a slight shift to the scriptural weight and deep yearning that has come to define their music.
4. I can't think of a sentence which describes this point.
At the concert Shane and Shane played the song "Yearn" which includes these lyrics:
I think this song is fantastic and it is one of my favorites. As they were singing I had a few thoughts concerning the phrase "that I might seek and find my God." While the thoughts in the song convey a sense of yearning and longing for God and also convey a Scriptural anticipation they also sounded to me in that moment to convey a sense of not having found God yet. While this is a beautiful perspective on the 'already but not yet' nature of the Kingdom and our lives with God I also thought of this phrase in juxtaposition with a phrase from the Divine Liturgy of St. Chrysostom. The phrase I'm referring to in the Divine Liturgy reads:
To be fair I don't really see these phrases as juxtaposed but it was entertaining this thought of apparent juxtaposition that started the following thoughts. While the lyrics of the song are meant to convey a longing for God it seems to me that if taken out of context they could be used to convey a sense of postmodern agnosticism. It seems to me that one of things that typifies postmodernism is an unwillingness to definitively claim truth. This tendency may also be creeping into some of the more 'emergent' circles of Christianity in their attempts to be relevant. While postmodernism says that we can't know truth or, maybe more aptly, that all truth is relative, the postmodern church may be tempted to work within that paradigm and thus claim that there is truth and we think it is in Christ. This leads to a sense of 'we know, but we really can't be sure.' Thus, for the postmodern individual, we are still hoping that we can somehow, if it were at all possible, "seek and find our God," as the song says.
As I thought about this postmodern agnosticism I thought that the church does not need to commiserate with the postmodern as many of the emergents do. Rather, the church needs to boldly shout as the Orthodox Church does that "We have seen the true light; we have received the heavenly Spirit; we have found the true faith," and this truth is in "worshiping the undivided Trinity," because "the Trinity has saved us." Maybe this sounds elitist or arrogant, but in an age of uncertainty where all truth is perceived as relative we do not need to fall into the trap of claiming we don't know. It seems to me that if we truly wanted to be relevant (I shudder at the use of the word) then then best thing we can do is boldly proclaim what we know to be true and hold to that truth no matter how much the culture claims that we can't be certain. For it truly is a mystery that "Christ has died, Christ is risen and Christ will come again." But just because it's a mystery doesn't make it any less true. It seems that now more than ever we should be embracing the historic creeds of the Church, not because they're ascetically pleasing (like the emergents use them) but because they indicate the truth that has been handed down to us through the ages of faith.
1. Sugar-free Red Bull works as well and tastes just as good as regular Red Bull.
Even though Red Bull is an essential part of my routine when I run sound at concerts, it was needed for this one as well. I ended up staying in Cedarville until after 1:00am talking and then decided to drive the 3 hours back to Wilmore so I could make it back for Church in the Morning. I had a hard time deciding on the sugar-free variety but I am now sold on it. It does lack just a little in the "liquid Smartie" taste as Nate Jacoby coined it. But it's hardly noticeable and if you don't think about it the difference is non-existent.
2. Shane and Shane seem like the type of people I would want to run sound for.
I have not always had the greatest experience running sound for artists. Some are great people to work with and some are just jerks. Sadly this includes worship leaders as I've worked with more than my share of difficult worship leaders. While you can't always tell what an artist is like from on stage you can notice a few things. The first thing I noticed was how laid back they were. There were a few minor sound glitches and things didn't sound "fantastic" but they (and their openers) were incredibly laid back and just rolled with it. We found out halfway through the show that Shane Everett was actually the one running sound for the openers and doing the 'check' for he and Shane Barnard. This is amazing. Most bands tour with a front of house tech (at a minimum) and usually a monitor tech, and are completely anal about everything, this was assuredly not the case here. They approached the show as if they were just spending an evening with friends and weren't worried if everything was going to be "performed" correctly. They didn't seem to present themselves as stars and appeared really down to earth. It could be argued that all this is a facade, but from my experience (although limited) it seems that they are the real thing. I came away from the show thinking that these are the type of people that I would enjoy running sound for and would even do it for free if given the chance. That is much more than I can say about most artists and as sad as it may be this includes a good number of Christian artists and worship leaders.
3. Shane and Shane's newer songs seem to lack the lyrical "zip" or depth that the older ones have. I'm not quite sure what it is that I'm referring to here, but there is a noticeably difference in the lyrical content of the older songs and the newer ones. The newer songs are still good, but they seem to be lacking in power and the ability to pierce to the heart when compared to the old ones. Maybe this is because many of the older songs were actually modified Psalms or other pieces of scripture. One could argue that I am just biased because the new songs are obviously new and I haven't had time to emotionally and experientially associate feelings with them. Although this is a valid point I don't think it's necessarily the correct one. I think the new music is good but it seems that they are trying to be more lyrically creative and while not bad it is bringing a slight shift to the scriptural weight and deep yearning that has come to define their music.
4. I can't think of a sentence which describes this point.
At the concert Shane and Shane played the song "Yearn" which includes these lyrics:
Holy design
this place in time
that i might seek and find my God
my God
Lord i want to yearn for You
i want to burn with passion
over You and only You
Lord i want to yearn
I think this song is fantastic and it is one of my favorites. As they were singing I had a few thoughts concerning the phrase "that I might seek and find my God." While the thoughts in the song convey a sense of yearning and longing for God and also convey a Scriptural anticipation they also sounded to me in that moment to convey a sense of not having found God yet. While this is a beautiful perspective on the 'already but not yet' nature of the Kingdom and our lives with God I also thought of this phrase in juxtaposition with a phrase from the Divine Liturgy of St. Chrysostom. The phrase I'm referring to in the Divine Liturgy reads:
We have seen the true light; we have received the heavenly Spirit; we have found the true faith, worshiping the undivided Trinity, for the Trinity has saved us
To be fair I don't really see these phrases as juxtaposed but it was entertaining this thought of apparent juxtaposition that started the following thoughts. While the lyrics of the song are meant to convey a longing for God it seems to me that if taken out of context they could be used to convey a sense of postmodern agnosticism. It seems to me that one of things that typifies postmodernism is an unwillingness to definitively claim truth. This tendency may also be creeping into some of the more 'emergent' circles of Christianity in their attempts to be relevant. While postmodernism says that we can't know truth or, maybe more aptly, that all truth is relative, the postmodern church may be tempted to work within that paradigm and thus claim that there is truth and we think it is in Christ. This leads to a sense of 'we know, but we really can't be sure.' Thus, for the postmodern individual, we are still hoping that we can somehow, if it were at all possible, "seek and find our God," as the song says.
As I thought about this postmodern agnosticism I thought that the church does not need to commiserate with the postmodern as many of the emergents do. Rather, the church needs to boldly shout as the Orthodox Church does that "We have seen the true light; we have received the heavenly Spirit; we have found the true faith," and this truth is in "worshiping the undivided Trinity," because "the Trinity has saved us." Maybe this sounds elitist or arrogant, but in an age of uncertainty where all truth is perceived as relative we do not need to fall into the trap of claiming we don't know. It seems to me that if we truly wanted to be relevant (I shudder at the use of the word) then then best thing we can do is boldly proclaim what we know to be true and hold to that truth no matter how much the culture claims that we can't be certain. For it truly is a mystery that "Christ has died, Christ is risen and Christ will come again." But just because it's a mystery doesn't make it any less true. It seems that now more than ever we should be embracing the historic creeds of the Church, not because they're ascetically pleasing (like the emergents use them) but because they indicate the truth that has been handed down to us through the ages of faith.
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
Lent: Feasting During the Fast
This lent has been interesting for me. Though I've not had a great many Lenten epiphanies to blog about I think that God is still teaching me good things. Probably the most significant thing I'm learning is how to feast on him while I'm fasting.
The past week or two I've been fighting diligently against a constant bad/angry mood. It's all that I can do to keep from saying or doing something in my angst - something I will likely regret later. My frustration and my "pissyness" (for lack of a better term) seems to be perpetual. I don't want to get into all the reasons for this now, but let us suffice it to say that it is not caused by the Lenten fasting (though a burger would be great right now).
Despite this "funk" the Lord has been my constant help and comfort. The Holy Spirit has sustained me through a few significant things. It seems as if I must constantly feed myself or else I will break. Here is what is sustaining me.
Psalm 103: Bless the Lord, Oh my soul and all that is within me bless his holy name. Bless the Lord, Oh my soul and forget not all his benefits. He forgives all your iniquities and heals all your diseases... The Lord, is compassionate and merciful, long suffering and of great goodness. Bless the Lord Oh my soul.
Though this is not verbatim with the text we sing this Psalm every Sunday in church and is has been my friend and food during this season. My mind and my soul sing it when things are quiet and it is the first thing that I force myself to utter when I feel this angst building.
Psalm 146: Praise the Lord, Oh my soul. I will praise the Lord as long as I live; I will sing praises to my God while I have being. Put not your trust in princes and sons of men, in whom there is no salvation. When his breath departs he returns to his earth. On that very day his plans perish. The Lord, will reign for ever, They God oh Zion to all generations. Now and ever and unto ages of ages Amen.
This psalm is much like the first. although not word for word with the text we sing it every Sunday. It like Psalm 103 often springs forth from within me and sometimes I make is a forced prayer and cry to the Lord.
The Nicene Creed: I won't recap the whole creed here. This is also sung every Sunday at my church and it encourages me and fills my spirit with joy.
Colossians 3:1-4 Since, then, you have been raised with Christ, set your hearts on things above, where Christ is seated at the right hand of god. Set your minds on things above, not on earthly things. For you died, and your life is now hidden with Christ in God. When Christ who is your life, appears then you also will appear with him in glory.
We have been memorizing this passage as a chapel team and it has truly sustained me during these periods. This is incredibly ironic because most (if not all) of my frustration and angst comes during times that I'm doing chapel things. I'm not sure if that means anything except that it's interesting.
The Lord's Prayer: Lord teach me how to pray! This is often my cry and then I dive deep into the prayer our savior taught us to pray. This has become a form of strength and spiritual food.
Various prayers: I also find myself scrambling at night when I'm reflecting on the day or even throughout the day for the Lent Reader that Asbury put out. I find myself flipping through the pages and frantically prayer every prayer from every page. I ask the Lord to teach me how to pray some of the prayer and others just gush out from my being. These prayer are from a variety of places: the book of common prayer, various saints (St. Anselm, St. Ephraim), other Christian figures (Mary Fletcher) and I even wrote a few of them for the reader.
These are the things that are sustaining me. These are the things that the Holy Spirit has placed in my life to feed me and has allowed me to feast on during this great and holy fast. Looking back over this post it seems so rigid and dry. Believe me when I say this is anything but dry. These wells are full of living water which the Lord pours out to me. I drink to partake of the Lord and distance myself from the flesh. I drink often and deep. I feel as though I must drink or I will die! I have to sing the songs of Zion. I have to pray the prayers of God's people. I must recite the symbol of the faith!! The Lord has given us these good gifts to bring life and health and freedom to our souls. This they have brought to my soul. If it wasn't for these gifts of grace I shudder to think how much more offensive and mean I would be. Yes, I am still frustrated and angry but these gifts feed me in this desert. I'm looking at making changes to help eliminate some of this angst but until the Lord leads in those decisions I must rest in these gifts. I must grab them and not let go. I don't care if I am charged with using them as a crutch because it seems as if that's what they are for now.
May our God - the Giver of good gifts grant you all things on which to feast during this holy fast!!
- Ben
The past week or two I've been fighting diligently against a constant bad/angry mood. It's all that I can do to keep from saying or doing something in my angst - something I will likely regret later. My frustration and my "pissyness" (for lack of a better term) seems to be perpetual. I don't want to get into all the reasons for this now, but let us suffice it to say that it is not caused by the Lenten fasting (though a burger would be great right now).
Despite this "funk" the Lord has been my constant help and comfort. The Holy Spirit has sustained me through a few significant things. It seems as if I must constantly feed myself or else I will break. Here is what is sustaining me.
Psalm 103: Bless the Lord, Oh my soul and all that is within me bless his holy name. Bless the Lord, Oh my soul and forget not all his benefits. He forgives all your iniquities and heals all your diseases... The Lord, is compassionate and merciful, long suffering and of great goodness. Bless the Lord Oh my soul.
Though this is not verbatim with the text we sing this Psalm every Sunday in church and is has been my friend and food during this season. My mind and my soul sing it when things are quiet and it is the first thing that I force myself to utter when I feel this angst building.
Psalm 146: Praise the Lord, Oh my soul. I will praise the Lord as long as I live; I will sing praises to my God while I have being. Put not your trust in princes and sons of men, in whom there is no salvation. When his breath departs he returns to his earth. On that very day his plans perish. The Lord, will reign for ever, They God oh Zion to all generations. Now and ever and unto ages of ages Amen.
This psalm is much like the first. although not word for word with the text we sing it every Sunday. It like Psalm 103 often springs forth from within me and sometimes I make is a forced prayer and cry to the Lord.
The Nicene Creed: I won't recap the whole creed here. This is also sung every Sunday at my church and it encourages me and fills my spirit with joy.
Colossians 3:1-4 Since, then, you have been raised with Christ, set your hearts on things above, where Christ is seated at the right hand of god. Set your minds on things above, not on earthly things. For you died, and your life is now hidden with Christ in God. When Christ who is your life, appears then you also will appear with him in glory.
We have been memorizing this passage as a chapel team and it has truly sustained me during these periods. This is incredibly ironic because most (if not all) of my frustration and angst comes during times that I'm doing chapel things. I'm not sure if that means anything except that it's interesting.
The Lord's Prayer: Lord teach me how to pray! This is often my cry and then I dive deep into the prayer our savior taught us to pray. This has become a form of strength and spiritual food.
Various prayers: I also find myself scrambling at night when I'm reflecting on the day or even throughout the day for the Lent Reader that Asbury put out. I find myself flipping through the pages and frantically prayer every prayer from every page. I ask the Lord to teach me how to pray some of the prayer and others just gush out from my being. These prayer are from a variety of places: the book of common prayer, various saints (St. Anselm, St. Ephraim), other Christian figures (Mary Fletcher) and I even wrote a few of them for the reader.
These are the things that are sustaining me. These are the things that the Holy Spirit has placed in my life to feed me and has allowed me to feast on during this great and holy fast. Looking back over this post it seems so rigid and dry. Believe me when I say this is anything but dry. These wells are full of living water which the Lord pours out to me. I drink to partake of the Lord and distance myself from the flesh. I drink often and deep. I feel as though I must drink or I will die! I have to sing the songs of Zion. I have to pray the prayers of God's people. I must recite the symbol of the faith!! The Lord has given us these good gifts to bring life and health and freedom to our souls. This they have brought to my soul. If it wasn't for these gifts of grace I shudder to think how much more offensive and mean I would be. Yes, I am still frustrated and angry but these gifts feed me in this desert. I'm looking at making changes to help eliminate some of this angst but until the Lord leads in those decisions I must rest in these gifts. I must grab them and not let go. I don't care if I am charged with using them as a crutch because it seems as if that's what they are for now.
May our God - the Giver of good gifts grant you all things on which to feast during this holy fast!!
- Ben
Monday, March 12, 2007
Ray Boltz is a heretic and other thoughts from church on Sunday
I'm not sure if anyone else even knows who Ray Boltz is, but he was a Christian pop singer in the early 90's that was quite popular with our parents generation. Ol' Ray had a sweet curly mullet sorta thing going on with a huge 'stache he was the archetype for the mid-life crisis wanna be "rock/pop star" for the Christian worldview. I'm very familiar (as I'm sure my sister is) with Boltzy because my dad became a huge fan during a Promise Keepers crusade back in the day. Our house and somehow our church became a Ray Boltz extravaganza and I'm sure there are many kids from our church (like myself) that could sing almost all of Ray Ray's songs from memory. Although all the above information is greatly important (or not so much) the point of this post is really not to bash Ray, and his sweet moustache, the point it rather to address theological ideal espoused in one of his songs and indeed much of western theology.
The song I want to draw attention to is "One Drop of Blood" (lyrics: here) and to be honest Ray is primarily guilty of mixing metaphors and not necessarily heresy per se. The metaphors he mixes (and I could be wrong so please correct me) is at the beginning he seems to assert "the accuser of the brethren" is demanding the the plea and later in the song he seems to be saying that the one to whom "their righteousness is filthy rags" is demanding the payment. Either way the music video (yes I've seen it) is what caused me to think of this song in church. In it Ray Ray depicts the courtroom where he stands accused by the prosecutor (probably a satanic figure) and it is the judge (set up as the Father) demands payment.
While we may vary on our theologies of atonement let me humbly suggest that the way this penal substitutionary view has worked itself out since St. Anselm is near heretical.
This is where we get to church. The priest at my church was talking about the cross on Sunday and how there is a view of the cross as a divine extraction of justice. When he was describing all this the scenes from Ray's video kept coming to mind. While my priest did not specifically say this view is heretical let me explain the process that caused me to think this.
This divine extraction of justice is often portrayed in a courtroom setting (as Ray does) and depicts the Father as Judge and sometimes even accuser. This image also portrays Christ as defense and substitution. This image often sets the Father up as condemning and the Son as mercifully intervening. This view seems to violate the essential doctrine of the Trinity. The Father and Christ are not opposed and neither do they have contrary wills. We should not allow analogies of atonement in our churches that are contrary to the Trinitarian doctrine of the church. We cannot and must not see the Father as a vengeful judge and Christ as a merciful ambassador. This dichotomy cannot stand! How can we assert that the Trinity is of one essence and yet has three different wills. Correct Christian theology has always taught that the Trinity is united in will because the three persons are united in essence. Three persons and one substance. This implies that it was not the Father mandating the sending of the Son, but rather the Holy Trinity participating in this act willfully unified.
Contrary to my title, I'm not necessarily claiming that Ray Boltz is a heretic, rather I am just using him as an illustration. I also have not read enough of St. Anselm to know if he espoused these ideas or, as with some theological constructs (i.e. Augustinian theology) it just decayed over time. I am also willing to recieve correction if anything that I have said violates the history of Christian orthodox teaching. I am not an expert on the Trinity, but I do think that what I have said is correct.
---------------------
Here is another and possibly even more interesting (read: less nerdy) thing from sunday. Though we practice the same liturgy with a few mild variation every sunday I am continually struck by the beauty and precise articulation of the service. Sometimes I notice phrases or pieces of the liturgy that I have never heard befoer and they sink deep within my soul. Yesterday was one of those occasions.
During one part of the liturgy the priest was offering prayers and he said something similar to: "for those who love us and those who hate us, may you remember in your kingdom always" to which the congregation responds "Amen." I've heard prayers for enemies before (sadly too few) but to have it as a part of the liturgy and to say "remember in your kingdom always" is amazingly beautiful and humble. I ask myself if I could say that about those who have wronged me and to an even greater extent, could I say it about someone if I had been severly wronged. I hope so. It seems to me that it is one thing to pray for those who hate you, but to ask God to remember them in his kingdom is a very bold statement. Hopefully this prayer can resound in all of our hearts. Amen Amen Amen.
Now and even deeper question comes to mind. How does this prayer fit with the above section of my post? If someone is outrightly espousing heresy can we bless them? Is it not our job to refute that heresy and uphold the truth of the faith? I believe that it is, but we must find a way to do it in love and a prayerful spirit. We must have in mind the salvation of the person espousing heresy. Just as Paul says: hand them over to the devil so that their soul maybe saved. Maybe this is an inadequate answer, but it's a start.
May the Lord God remember you all in his Kingdom now and ever,
Ben
The song I want to draw attention to is "One Drop of Blood" (lyrics: here) and to be honest Ray is primarily guilty of mixing metaphors and not necessarily heresy per se. The metaphors he mixes (and I could be wrong so please correct me) is at the beginning he seems to assert "the accuser of the brethren" is demanding the the plea and later in the song he seems to be saying that the one to whom "their righteousness is filthy rags" is demanding the payment. Either way the music video (yes I've seen it) is what caused me to think of this song in church. In it Ray Ray depicts the courtroom where he stands accused by the prosecutor (probably a satanic figure) and it is the judge (set up as the Father) demands payment.
While we may vary on our theologies of atonement let me humbly suggest that the way this penal substitutionary view has worked itself out since St. Anselm is near heretical.
This is where we get to church. The priest at my church was talking about the cross on Sunday and how there is a view of the cross as a divine extraction of justice. When he was describing all this the scenes from Ray's video kept coming to mind. While my priest did not specifically say this view is heretical let me explain the process that caused me to think this.
This divine extraction of justice is often portrayed in a courtroom setting (as Ray does) and depicts the Father as Judge and sometimes even accuser. This image also portrays Christ as defense and substitution. This image often sets the Father up as condemning and the Son as mercifully intervening. This view seems to violate the essential doctrine of the Trinity. The Father and Christ are not opposed and neither do they have contrary wills. We should not allow analogies of atonement in our churches that are contrary to the Trinitarian doctrine of the church. We cannot and must not see the Father as a vengeful judge and Christ as a merciful ambassador. This dichotomy cannot stand! How can we assert that the Trinity is of one essence and yet has three different wills. Correct Christian theology has always taught that the Trinity is united in will because the three persons are united in essence. Three persons and one substance. This implies that it was not the Father mandating the sending of the Son, but rather the Holy Trinity participating in this act willfully unified.
Contrary to my title, I'm not necessarily claiming that Ray Boltz is a heretic, rather I am just using him as an illustration. I also have not read enough of St. Anselm to know if he espoused these ideas or, as with some theological constructs (i.e. Augustinian theology) it just decayed over time. I am also willing to recieve correction if anything that I have said violates the history of Christian orthodox teaching. I am not an expert on the Trinity, but I do think that what I have said is correct.
---------------------
Here is another and possibly even more interesting (read: less nerdy) thing from sunday. Though we practice the same liturgy with a few mild variation every sunday I am continually struck by the beauty and precise articulation of the service. Sometimes I notice phrases or pieces of the liturgy that I have never heard befoer and they sink deep within my soul. Yesterday was one of those occasions.
During one part of the liturgy the priest was offering prayers and he said something similar to: "for those who love us and those who hate us, may you remember in your kingdom always" to which the congregation responds "Amen." I've heard prayers for enemies before (sadly too few) but to have it as a part of the liturgy and to say "remember in your kingdom always" is amazingly beautiful and humble. I ask myself if I could say that about those who have wronged me and to an even greater extent, could I say it about someone if I had been severly wronged. I hope so. It seems to me that it is one thing to pray for those who hate you, but to ask God to remember them in his kingdom is a very bold statement. Hopefully this prayer can resound in all of our hearts. Amen Amen Amen.
Now and even deeper question comes to mind. How does this prayer fit with the above section of my post? If someone is outrightly espousing heresy can we bless them? Is it not our job to refute that heresy and uphold the truth of the faith? I believe that it is, but we must find a way to do it in love and a prayerful spirit. We must have in mind the salvation of the person espousing heresy. Just as Paul says: hand them over to the devil so that their soul maybe saved. Maybe this is an inadequate answer, but it's a start.
May the Lord God remember you all in his Kingdom now and ever,
Ben
Saturday, October 21, 2006
About time eh?
Fear not, I have returned! After over a two month long hiatus I am back and wondering how I will ever begin to put all that is running through my head into a coherent blog. I will try to group it in sections so it's a little easier to follow, but who knows how that will go. With that said, dont' forget to check out my last post. I posted it yesterday and am particularly proud of it.
Part One: Ending the Summer - Learning to understand the development of heresy.
[note I have edited this section from the original post and have placed the restructured text in italics. Much is missing from the original and it is for the better.]
As I sit and reflect about the summer it really feels like it never had an end. I feel like it slammed right into the school year like a runaway train. I feel like I didn't really get a chance to catch my breath before the school year started, but I am still grateful for the summer. The job I worked was loads of fun even despite the countless sleepless nights and weary weeks and I met a bunch of great people and had some interesting experiences that I feel will form how I view people and ministry for years to come. On top of all that I learned a lot more about audio reinforcement and feel like I am a much better sound tech than I was at the beginning of the summer.
As I mentioned I feel like the summer ran right into the school year without a break. I think the reason for this is because I worked a gig the first two weekends I was back to school.
One of these gigs stands out because while I was there I had some interesting thoughts concerning the development of heresy in the early church. It seems to me that heresy could have developed by the bringing of the gospel to a place where it subsequently took root.
Over time - because the area was so isolated and was not connected to the global church- teaching began to develop in a heretical manner and thus that area became a breeding ground for heresy. Now we must be honest and say that this is just a hypothesis and surely not all heresies formed this way, but could it not be that is why all the early church fathers and mothers emphasized the importance of the bishop? They emphasized structure because it was the unity inherent in the structure that kept them connected in the bond they already shared - namely Christ's blood. It was this unity that allowed them to maintain the orthodox faith and determine what heresy was. If the church was to survive and to proclaim Christ for who he was the fathers knew that it couldn't hole itself up in a small geographic location, rather it must commune with believers the world over.
I fear that we, as the American church are in grave danger of doing this to ourselves. We neglect the worldwide church, we are ignorant of the defenders of the faith of ages past and when confronted with our neglect and ignorance we shrug and apathetic shoulder and continue on in our self-absorbed way of "Christianity." This is the travesty in the American church. This is why much of Western Christendom is bankrupt, and this is why we have scarcely a clue what true orthodoxy is in our churches.
Part Two: On the Incarnation
"Oh holy father Athanasius, like a pillar of orthoxy, you supported the church with your teaching, refuting the hertical nonsense of Arius - by asserting that the Father and Son are equal in essence."
Those are the opening lines of one the Athanasian hymn that is sung occasionally in my church. I'm not going to get into the issue of hymns to saints right now (for it would surely consume pages) but I write this to say that it is very true. Athanasius is deserving of sainthood. Even though he was mere scribe at the Council of Nicea and didn't really defend the co-substantial nature of the Father and Son at the council (contrary to popular belief), he truly proved to be a champion of the council's (and true Christian) teaching in his bishopric for years to come. One of his defences of this is his book On the Incarnation, which I finished at the end of the summer but will try to give a brief review here.
Let me say that the book itself is worth the read just for the introduction by C.S. Lewis in the St. Vladimir's Seminary publication. Lewis does an excellent job setting the framework - especially if one is reading this book as a protestant who has no clue what church history is, or what function church tradition should serve.
Aside form teh intro the book is absolutly amazing! I believe it to be a must read. Athanasius starts out discussing our problem as humans (namely the fall) and thus proceeds to describe God's solution to the problem - which is the glorious incarnation. He then describes the death and resurrection of Christ and why it must occur. After discussing and giving thorough explanations and defenses of the above he turns to the refutation of hypothetical objections by both Jews and Gentiles. My personal favorite passage of the book is found in his discourse on the resurrection.
If I could type it all out I would but I'm afraid that wouldn't be within copyright law so I will direct you to a link that you can find the whole section. Click here to find this passage.
In this section Athanasius defends the notion that death is completly and utterly destroyed by the resurrection. His defense of this includes the fact that "All the disciples of Christ despised death; they take the offensive against it and, instead of fearing it, by the sign of the cross and by faith in Christ trample on it as on something dead." Athanasius continues saying that before Christ's death and resurrection even the holy men feared death, but now death has no merit and should not be feared, stating that "all those who believe in Christ tread it [death] underfoot as nothing, and prefer to die rather than to deny their faith in Christ..." The holy saint continues in his defense of Christ's blessed triumph over death in what I find to be the most beautiful example: (let it be known that this example is a little sexist, but if we look at it from a patristic culture point of view then it truly is beautfil - I don't share the Saint's cultural sexism but do share his excitement that death is trampled.)
"...for men who, before they believed in Christ, think death horrible adn are afraid of it, once they are converted despise it so competely that they go eagerly to meet it, and themselves become witnesses of the Savior's resurrection from it. Even children hasten thus to die, and not men only, but women train themselves by bodily discipline to meet it. So weak has death become that even women, who used to be taken in by it, mock at it now as a dead thing robbed of all its strength. Death has become like a tyrant who has been completely conqured by the legitimate monarch; bound hand and foot as he now is, the passers-by jerr at him, hitting him and abusing him, no longer afraid of his cruelty and rage, because of the king who has conquered him. So has death been conqured and branded for what it is by the Savior on the cross."
Wow!! I can't believe that. I about fall out of my chair every time I think of this passage. Amen and Amen is all I can say.
This isn't the only part of the book I enjoyed but it is the part that brings me to tears of joy and sorrow at the same time (and it is one that allows me to launch into a rant). If you know me well, as most of you who read this do, then you can probably anticipate why I love this passage. My longing and expectance of martydom is no secret to many of you (as it has been a constant in my mind for the past 3 years) and this passage is encouraging as it makes me seem not so crazy for having no fear of death and even as the saint says running "eagerly to meet it. But more than that I find it so uplifting to know that the message of Christ's conquering of death is so essential and so connected to the incarnation and act of our Savior that we can scarcely meditate on Christ without thinking of it. Yes I long for martrydom, not as a mad man, but as one who has no fear of death. And this is where the rant begins.
It seems to me that this theology has left our churches. In general the protestant church as a whole fears death. In fact, we don't just fear death we fear almost everything. I can barely look at the western church today without seeing a group that is drenched in fear. If you doubt this take a look at the popular theological (or rather psuedo-theological) works that are popular among many christians. Look at the rise and expectancy of the pre-tribulation rapture and the numerous books and shows that propegate a theology that declares Christ's return in the next few years. Even examin at a distance the plethora of books (both fictional and non) about the evil powers that prevail against us and provide us with gimicks on how to overcome. The church today is drenched and filled with fear!!! We are afraid of the evil one, we are afraid of the powers, we are afraid of the government, and we are especially afraid of death. The question I ask is why?!?
Why on earth are our churches living in such states of fear? I propose that it is because we have no concept of the power of the cross. If Christ truly has conquered the power of death, and thus we should have no fear of it, then why in the world should we fear anything. It is by the power of the cross and ressurection that we are saved and thus are given authority and power as children of God. If we need not fear death then we also need not fear anything. All is in submission to the cross and if we bear that cross then we have nothing to fear... not even, as the cliche says, 'fear itself'. I suggest that the church reclaim this teaching, and walk in this boldness. Embrace the fact that we died and were raised with Christ in our baptism and run to our death. It may be a scary thought but we need not fear it. Out death may be immenant or it may be far off. My thought is who cares, pursue the cross and it matters not when death comes - for it truly comes in vain!!
Part Three: Solo (and not the DC Talk album)
Since sophomore year in college I have been under the opinion, which as with all of my opinions I do not hold to lightly, that solos (i.e. a guitar solo - though it could be any instrument or voice) are completely out of place in the worship of the church.
I came about to this thinking as a result of the mentorship of Troy Mcknight and Brian Emerson in Koinonia and continued to teach this idea as a leader in that ministry in undergrad and as a pastoral intern without giving much thought to an opposing view point. I say all this not because I'm questioning my thinking, because I would firmly argue that solos don't belong in the worship of the church for various reasons, but because I have met with some resitance to this thinking and am looking to clarify it. First let me lay out a few reasons why I think solos have no place.
1. They draw attention to one individual and are a novelty that takes the worship away form the Triune God and places it on the individual performing the solo.
2. As if 1 wasn't reason enough, they serve no theological purpose in ushering the community into the presence of God.
3. The spontaneous nature of the solo in the context of corporate worship, specificaly because it lacks introduction and explanation via the structure of the service or audible explanation, disengages the congregation and inturupts their participation in the worship of God.
4. The solo is inherently self-focused and being performed rather than serving as an integral part of the liturgy that allows the "work of the people" (literal meaning of liturgy) to continue.
Let me be clear on one of these points. In number 3 I am in no means rejecting any spontinaity in worship. Worship can and should have degress of spontinaity but, that spontinaity is often placed within the structure of the church's worship so that it is contextualized by the service, and thus explained, or is prefaced by an explanation of some sort that explains what the spontanious time is meant to do. Performing a solo without liturgical context or verbal explanation seems to be quite analogous to speaking in tongues without an interpretor in a corporate setting - and as we know, St. Paul tells us that this is right out.
Just incase it hasn't been clear so far I am mostly referring to an instrumental (and also a vocal) solo during a worship team lead liturgy as this is the most common venue for this occurance. The reason I write all this is because as I think about this I am at a struggle to precisely define what the difference is between a solo and such things as an interlude, a fill, or an anthem.
I think my above number 3 seems to set a solo off from an anthem but I am still interested in what you all are thinking - especially my friends from undergrad who have music degrees. What are the musical differences, how about theological ones? Do you think I'm right in my assertion or am I am off base? I would appreciate help in thinking through this. So let me know. As always comments are good but you are all my friends (unless your some stranger) and you probably have my phone number so calls are welcome as well.
Part Four: Community vs. the Trinity
Both at Houghton and at Asbury over the past few years there has been much discussion as to the great importance of community in the church. This has been brought to our attention through things such as postmodernism, the vast lack of a sense of community in the church, and the emergent movement. As a member of the worship design (aka Chapel Intern) at Asbury I have been examining and listening to our chapel speakers to see what is being emphasized in our chapels. I have noticed that quite often community is stressed, the practice of it is implored and the abandonment of it has been chastized. One other thing that I have noticed is that Community is mentioned 10:1 over the Trinity. And while the argument can be made that we frame our discussion of community trinitarianly I would argue that "framing" is not enough. If we hold to the Trinity as the ultimate truth of the Godhead revealed, which I do, then we must do more than use it to frame our thinking. Why on earth are we talking about community more than the Triune God? Has community become our new idol along with relevance? (see my earlier post entitled "Current??")
It worries me that the western protestant church is spending so much time worrying about community and not talking about the fullest revelation of truth. Are we or are we not a people who claim to worship a Triune God? If we are then I suggest we do it - with our "framing" with our words and with our actions. I believe that becasue the Trinity is in community then community will flow out of our worship of the Trinity, but I seriously doubt that true trinitarian worship can ever flow strictly out of the practice of community.
This emphasis on community is particularly emphasized in many of the self proclaimed "emergent churches," which as many of you already know I consider nothing more than a great basterdization of the church, but nonetheless they serve as another great example of the wrong direction the church is taking.
Many of these emergent churches have decided to meet in the "round" (cf. Doug Pagit "Re-imagining Spiritual Formation) which basically means that they design their seating so as to face each other in a circle. They do this so as not to elevate one person (ie the pastor) over the rest of the congregation and also to emphasize that everyone is important.
Now compare this seating design to that of the high-church Orthodox Church. In the Orthodox church the congregation always faces east to symbolize the direction in which Christ ascended and will return. An Icon of Christ is always placed at the front to focus the worship of the congregation on Christ our God. The priest, instead of facing the congregation for the whole service (as in western traditions) faces the icon to symbolize the priestly mediation of the prayers of the people ascending toward God.
Now tell me the implicit theological focus of each one of these seating designs. Who is the object, center and focus for the Orthodoxy - well the seating as well as the liturgy declare that it is Christ our God who recieves all Glory with the Father and the all Holy, Good, and Life Creating Spirit, now and ever and unto ages of ages. While the design of the emergent gathering focuses on one another, on the "community" and thus places us as the object of worship.
This is a perfect example of how we are slowly elevating "us" to the center of worship. All this is is classic theological liberalism at it's best and paganism at it's worst. We can never get Triune theology out of community, but we can and will get community out of Trinity. The question posed to us as Christians is which do we want to emphasize.
Part Five: Regularity and Novelty
This one should be pretty short. I've been asked a few times (mainly by my parents) but also by a few other people how I can get anything out of church. To be fair this question is based on the fact that I go to an Orthodox Church which practices the same liturgy every Sunday. So the question is very fair and very appropriate.
There really isn't an easy answer. I do know that God reveals himself to me in the liturgy every Sunday. I know that as I recite the liturgy over and over I am begining to learn scripture and theology and allowing it to embed in my being deeper and deeper.
I don't want to assert that variety in worship is bad, but I do think there is much value to consitency and repetition. Our priest gave a great example of this the other day in church. He was expounding on the Orthodox practice of saying "Lord have mercy" repeatedly and pointed out that there are some prayers in which that line is said almost 50 times in a row. When questioned explaining how it could have meaning the 50th time he said that we really only understand what were saying the last 3 times. The first 47 times are preparing us and shaping our hearts to really understand and mean "Lord have mercy." I thought this was a beautiful illustration.
Another great explanation as to how repeated liturgy can be beneficial is offered by the great protestant theologian C.S. Lewis. Lewis says the following:
“A worship service works best when, through long familiarity, we don’t have to think about it… The perfect church service would be the one we were almost unaware of; our attention would have been on God. But every novelty prevents this. It fixes our attention on the service itself; and thinking about worship is a different thing from worshipping… Tis mad idolatry that makes the service greater than the god. A still worse thing may happen. Novelty may fix our attention not even on the service but on the celebrant…There is really some excuse for the man who said, ‘I wish they’d remember that the chart to Peter was ‘Feed my sheep’; not ‘Try experiments on my rats’, or even ‘Teach my performing dogs new tricks.’”
To Lewis' statement all I have to say is Amen. I do feel that there is so much novelty in so many of our church services that we lose sight of the true importance. We reject the great affirmations of the faith because we recited them every Sunday as kids, or we throw out theologically packed hymns because they're old and boring.
The problem, my friends, is not with the liturgy, the hymns, the creeds, no it is with us. We have allowed our entertainment cravings for something new to drive our worship of God. We have ceased to see ceased to see God in the ordinary things of the liturgy not because we they're too often said and thus God is not speaking through them, but because we've hardened our hearts to them because we're bored. As Ben Witherington once said "Boredom is the state of mind for those who lack imagination" and to be sure we have become theologically bored with the great traditions of the faith not because they are rote, but because we lack an imagination that is holy and constantly renewed by God.
Part One: Ending the Summer - Learning to understand the development of heresy.
[note I have edited this section from the original post and have placed the restructured text in italics. Much is missing from the original and it is for the better.]
As I sit and reflect about the summer it really feels like it never had an end. I feel like it slammed right into the school year like a runaway train. I feel like I didn't really get a chance to catch my breath before the school year started, but I am still grateful for the summer. The job I worked was loads of fun even despite the countless sleepless nights and weary weeks and I met a bunch of great people and had some interesting experiences that I feel will form how I view people and ministry for years to come. On top of all that I learned a lot more about audio reinforcement and feel like I am a much better sound tech than I was at the beginning of the summer.
As I mentioned I feel like the summer ran right into the school year without a break. I think the reason for this is because I worked a gig the first two weekends I was back to school.
One of these gigs stands out because while I was there I had some interesting thoughts concerning the development of heresy in the early church. It seems to me that heresy could have developed by the bringing of the gospel to a place where it subsequently took root.
Over time - because the area was so isolated and was not connected to the global church- teaching began to develop in a heretical manner and thus that area became a breeding ground for heresy. Now we must be honest and say that this is just a hypothesis and surely not all heresies formed this way, but could it not be that is why all the early church fathers and mothers emphasized the importance of the bishop? They emphasized structure because it was the unity inherent in the structure that kept them connected in the bond they already shared - namely Christ's blood. It was this unity that allowed them to maintain the orthodox faith and determine what heresy was. If the church was to survive and to proclaim Christ for who he was the fathers knew that it couldn't hole itself up in a small geographic location, rather it must commune with believers the world over.
I fear that we, as the American church are in grave danger of doing this to ourselves. We neglect the worldwide church, we are ignorant of the defenders of the faith of ages past and when confronted with our neglect and ignorance we shrug and apathetic shoulder and continue on in our self-absorbed way of "Christianity." This is the travesty in the American church. This is why much of Western Christendom is bankrupt, and this is why we have scarcely a clue what true orthodoxy is in our churches.
Part Two: On the Incarnation
"Oh holy father Athanasius, like a pillar of orthoxy, you supported the church with your teaching, refuting the hertical nonsense of Arius - by asserting that the Father and Son are equal in essence."
Those are the opening lines of one the Athanasian hymn that is sung occasionally in my church. I'm not going to get into the issue of hymns to saints right now (for it would surely consume pages) but I write this to say that it is very true. Athanasius is deserving of sainthood. Even though he was mere scribe at the Council of Nicea and didn't really defend the co-substantial nature of the Father and Son at the council (contrary to popular belief), he truly proved to be a champion of the council's (and true Christian) teaching in his bishopric for years to come. One of his defences of this is his book On the Incarnation, which I finished at the end of the summer but will try to give a brief review here.
Let me say that the book itself is worth the read just for the introduction by C.S. Lewis in the St. Vladimir's Seminary publication. Lewis does an excellent job setting the framework - especially if one is reading this book as a protestant who has no clue what church history is, or what function church tradition should serve.
Aside form teh intro the book is absolutly amazing! I believe it to be a must read. Athanasius starts out discussing our problem as humans (namely the fall) and thus proceeds to describe God's solution to the problem - which is the glorious incarnation. He then describes the death and resurrection of Christ and why it must occur. After discussing and giving thorough explanations and defenses of the above he turns to the refutation of hypothetical objections by both Jews and Gentiles. My personal favorite passage of the book is found in his discourse on the resurrection.
If I could type it all out I would but I'm afraid that wouldn't be within copyright law so I will direct you to a link that you can find the whole section. Click here to find this passage.
In this section Athanasius defends the notion that death is completly and utterly destroyed by the resurrection. His defense of this includes the fact that "All the disciples of Christ despised death; they take the offensive against it and, instead of fearing it, by the sign of the cross and by faith in Christ trample on it as on something dead." Athanasius continues saying that before Christ's death and resurrection even the holy men feared death, but now death has no merit and should not be feared, stating that "all those who believe in Christ tread it [death] underfoot as nothing, and prefer to die rather than to deny their faith in Christ..." The holy saint continues in his defense of Christ's blessed triumph over death in what I find to be the most beautiful example: (let it be known that this example is a little sexist, but if we look at it from a patristic culture point of view then it truly is beautfil - I don't share the Saint's cultural sexism but do share his excitement that death is trampled.)
"...for men who, before they believed in Christ, think death horrible adn are afraid of it, once they are converted despise it so competely that they go eagerly to meet it, and themselves become witnesses of the Savior's resurrection from it. Even children hasten thus to die, and not men only, but women train themselves by bodily discipline to meet it. So weak has death become that even women, who used to be taken in by it, mock at it now as a dead thing robbed of all its strength. Death has become like a tyrant who has been completely conqured by the legitimate monarch; bound hand and foot as he now is, the passers-by jerr at him, hitting him and abusing him, no longer afraid of his cruelty and rage, because of the king who has conquered him. So has death been conqured and branded for what it is by the Savior on the cross."
Wow!! I can't believe that. I about fall out of my chair every time I think of this passage. Amen and Amen is all I can say.
This isn't the only part of the book I enjoyed but it is the part that brings me to tears of joy and sorrow at the same time (and it is one that allows me to launch into a rant). If you know me well, as most of you who read this do, then you can probably anticipate why I love this passage. My longing and expectance of martydom is no secret to many of you (as it has been a constant in my mind for the past 3 years) and this passage is encouraging as it makes me seem not so crazy for having no fear of death and even as the saint says running "eagerly to meet it. But more than that I find it so uplifting to know that the message of Christ's conquering of death is so essential and so connected to the incarnation and act of our Savior that we can scarcely meditate on Christ without thinking of it. Yes I long for martrydom, not as a mad man, but as one who has no fear of death. And this is where the rant begins.
It seems to me that this theology has left our churches. In general the protestant church as a whole fears death. In fact, we don't just fear death we fear almost everything. I can barely look at the western church today without seeing a group that is drenched in fear. If you doubt this take a look at the popular theological (or rather psuedo-theological) works that are popular among many christians. Look at the rise and expectancy of the pre-tribulation rapture and the numerous books and shows that propegate a theology that declares Christ's return in the next few years. Even examin at a distance the plethora of books (both fictional and non) about the evil powers that prevail against us and provide us with gimicks on how to overcome. The church today is drenched and filled with fear!!! We are afraid of the evil one, we are afraid of the powers, we are afraid of the government, and we are especially afraid of death. The question I ask is why?!?
Why on earth are our churches living in such states of fear? I propose that it is because we have no concept of the power of the cross. If Christ truly has conquered the power of death, and thus we should have no fear of it, then why in the world should we fear anything. It is by the power of the cross and ressurection that we are saved and thus are given authority and power as children of God. If we need not fear death then we also need not fear anything. All is in submission to the cross and if we bear that cross then we have nothing to fear... not even, as the cliche says, 'fear itself'. I suggest that the church reclaim this teaching, and walk in this boldness. Embrace the fact that we died and were raised with Christ in our baptism and run to our death. It may be a scary thought but we need not fear it. Out death may be immenant or it may be far off. My thought is who cares, pursue the cross and it matters not when death comes - for it truly comes in vain!!
Part Three: Solo (and not the DC Talk album)
Since sophomore year in college I have been under the opinion, which as with all of my opinions I do not hold to lightly, that solos (i.e. a guitar solo - though it could be any instrument or voice) are completely out of place in the worship of the church.
I came about to this thinking as a result of the mentorship of Troy Mcknight and Brian Emerson in Koinonia and continued to teach this idea as a leader in that ministry in undergrad and as a pastoral intern without giving much thought to an opposing view point. I say all this not because I'm questioning my thinking, because I would firmly argue that solos don't belong in the worship of the church for various reasons, but because I have met with some resitance to this thinking and am looking to clarify it. First let me lay out a few reasons why I think solos have no place.
1. They draw attention to one individual and are a novelty that takes the worship away form the Triune God and places it on the individual performing the solo.
2. As if 1 wasn't reason enough, they serve no theological purpose in ushering the community into the presence of God.
3. The spontaneous nature of the solo in the context of corporate worship, specificaly because it lacks introduction and explanation via the structure of the service or audible explanation, disengages the congregation and inturupts their participation in the worship of God.
4. The solo is inherently self-focused and being performed rather than serving as an integral part of the liturgy that allows the "work of the people" (literal meaning of liturgy) to continue.
Let me be clear on one of these points. In number 3 I am in no means rejecting any spontinaity in worship. Worship can and should have degress of spontinaity but, that spontinaity is often placed within the structure of the church's worship so that it is contextualized by the service, and thus explained, or is prefaced by an explanation of some sort that explains what the spontanious time is meant to do. Performing a solo without liturgical context or verbal explanation seems to be quite analogous to speaking in tongues without an interpretor in a corporate setting - and as we know, St. Paul tells us that this is right out.
Just incase it hasn't been clear so far I am mostly referring to an instrumental (and also a vocal) solo during a worship team lead liturgy as this is the most common venue for this occurance. The reason I write all this is because as I think about this I am at a struggle to precisely define what the difference is between a solo and such things as an interlude, a fill, or an anthem.
I think my above number 3 seems to set a solo off from an anthem but I am still interested in what you all are thinking - especially my friends from undergrad who have music degrees. What are the musical differences, how about theological ones? Do you think I'm right in my assertion or am I am off base? I would appreciate help in thinking through this. So let me know. As always comments are good but you are all my friends (unless your some stranger) and you probably have my phone number so calls are welcome as well.
Part Four: Community vs. the Trinity
Both at Houghton and at Asbury over the past few years there has been much discussion as to the great importance of community in the church. This has been brought to our attention through things such as postmodernism, the vast lack of a sense of community in the church, and the emergent movement. As a member of the worship design (aka Chapel Intern) at Asbury I have been examining and listening to our chapel speakers to see what is being emphasized in our chapels. I have noticed that quite often community is stressed, the practice of it is implored and the abandonment of it has been chastized. One other thing that I have noticed is that Community is mentioned 10:1 over the Trinity. And while the argument can be made that we frame our discussion of community trinitarianly I would argue that "framing" is not enough. If we hold to the Trinity as the ultimate truth of the Godhead revealed, which I do, then we must do more than use it to frame our thinking. Why on earth are we talking about community more than the Triune God? Has community become our new idol along with relevance? (see my earlier post entitled "Current??")
It worries me that the western protestant church is spending so much time worrying about community and not talking about the fullest revelation of truth. Are we or are we not a people who claim to worship a Triune God? If we are then I suggest we do it - with our "framing" with our words and with our actions. I believe that becasue the Trinity is in community then community will flow out of our worship of the Trinity, but I seriously doubt that true trinitarian worship can ever flow strictly out of the practice of community.
This emphasis on community is particularly emphasized in many of the self proclaimed "emergent churches," which as many of you already know I consider nothing more than a great basterdization of the church, but nonetheless they serve as another great example of the wrong direction the church is taking.
Many of these emergent churches have decided to meet in the "round" (cf. Doug Pagit "Re-imagining Spiritual Formation) which basically means that they design their seating so as to face each other in a circle. They do this so as not to elevate one person (ie the pastor) over the rest of the congregation and also to emphasize that everyone is important.
Now compare this seating design to that of the high-church Orthodox Church. In the Orthodox church the congregation always faces east to symbolize the direction in which Christ ascended and will return. An Icon of Christ is always placed at the front to focus the worship of the congregation on Christ our God. The priest, instead of facing the congregation for the whole service (as in western traditions) faces the icon to symbolize the priestly mediation of the prayers of the people ascending toward God.
Now tell me the implicit theological focus of each one of these seating designs. Who is the object, center and focus for the Orthodoxy - well the seating as well as the liturgy declare that it is Christ our God who recieves all Glory with the Father and the all Holy, Good, and Life Creating Spirit, now and ever and unto ages of ages. While the design of the emergent gathering focuses on one another, on the "community" and thus places us as the object of worship.
This is a perfect example of how we are slowly elevating "us" to the center of worship. All this is is classic theological liberalism at it's best and paganism at it's worst. We can never get Triune theology out of community, but we can and will get community out of Trinity. The question posed to us as Christians is which do we want to emphasize.
Part Five: Regularity and Novelty
This one should be pretty short. I've been asked a few times (mainly by my parents) but also by a few other people how I can get anything out of church. To be fair this question is based on the fact that I go to an Orthodox Church which practices the same liturgy every Sunday. So the question is very fair and very appropriate.
There really isn't an easy answer. I do know that God reveals himself to me in the liturgy every Sunday. I know that as I recite the liturgy over and over I am begining to learn scripture and theology and allowing it to embed in my being deeper and deeper.
I don't want to assert that variety in worship is bad, but I do think there is much value to consitency and repetition. Our priest gave a great example of this the other day in church. He was expounding on the Orthodox practice of saying "Lord have mercy" repeatedly and pointed out that there are some prayers in which that line is said almost 50 times in a row. When questioned explaining how it could have meaning the 50th time he said that we really only understand what were saying the last 3 times. The first 47 times are preparing us and shaping our hearts to really understand and mean "Lord have mercy." I thought this was a beautiful illustration.
Another great explanation as to how repeated liturgy can be beneficial is offered by the great protestant theologian C.S. Lewis. Lewis says the following:
“A worship service works best when, through long familiarity, we don’t have to think about it… The perfect church service would be the one we were almost unaware of; our attention would have been on God. But every novelty prevents this. It fixes our attention on the service itself; and thinking about worship is a different thing from worshipping… Tis mad idolatry that makes the service greater than the god. A still worse thing may happen. Novelty may fix our attention not even on the service but on the celebrant…There is really some excuse for the man who said, ‘I wish they’d remember that the chart to Peter was ‘Feed my sheep’; not ‘Try experiments on my rats’, or even ‘Teach my performing dogs new tricks.’”
To Lewis' statement all I have to say is Amen. I do feel that there is so much novelty in so many of our church services that we lose sight of the true importance. We reject the great affirmations of the faith because we recited them every Sunday as kids, or we throw out theologically packed hymns because they're old and boring.
The problem, my friends, is not with the liturgy, the hymns, the creeds, no it is with us. We have allowed our entertainment cravings for something new to drive our worship of God. We have ceased to see ceased to see God in the ordinary things of the liturgy not because we they're too often said and thus God is not speaking through them, but because we've hardened our hearts to them because we're bored. As Ben Witherington once said "Boredom is the state of mind for those who lack imagination" and to be sure we have become theologically bored with the great traditions of the faith not because they are rote, but because we lack an imagination that is holy and constantly renewed by God.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
