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 Theological Development. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Theological Development. Show all posts
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
Tuesday, March 04, 2008
On the Untenable Nature of Calvinist/Predestinarian Theology
As I've mentioned before I'm taking an independent study in the historical and theological development of Eastern Christianity. I find that as I read through books like Jaroslav Pelikan's The Spirit of Eastern Christendom that I am learning not merely about Eastern Christian thought and theology, but that I am finding a much deeper grounding in the holy orthodox doctrines of the entire Church.
In my recent reading I came across a deep discussion by Pelikan concerning the council of Chalcedon and the discussion regarding the dual natures of Christ. Without getting into the depth of this issue and trying to articulate the issues concerning hypostatis, ousia, and the like, I'll try to cover the highlights in a more understandable way.
Coming out of the third ecumenical council held in Constantinople (680-681AD) the Christian Church reaffirmed that Christ was/is a unified being in his divinity and humanity and thus had two natures as the council at Chalcedon had decreed (451AD), and also that he did indeed have TWO wills. One can easily assess this by glancing through scripture at the passages where Jesus says he is here to do not his will but his Father's will, those where he acts out of divine foreknowledge, and various other passages.
If we hold this creedal assertion to be revealed dogma to the church, which we should, it raises some interesting questions. While Protestants may balk at the idea of asserting this creed as authoritative, it should be recognized that not until very recent times did any Christian anywhere question the authority of the creeds. Even Luther, Calvin, and Wesley, fully embraced them. Historically adherence to the 7 ecumenical creeds, of which Nicea (325AD) was the first, was one of the primary, if not the primary, markers to determine if one was in line with the teaching of the Church. These creeds were not viewed as new doctrinal assertions, but rather recapitulations of what the Holy Scriptures, the Apostles and the earliest Fathers had always taught though not necessarily in clarity for which the times called.
So if we hold to this creedal assertion of Christ having both a divine and a human will we can make some interesting observations - one of which I find to be very problematic for those who would like to hold a Calvinistic/predestinarian point of view. It would be interesting to see how Calvin himself treated this creed.
As the Fathers clarified the doctrine of the two wills of Christ (technically: dyotheletism) and thus ruled the notion that Christ has one will (technically: monotheletism) as heresy, the idea of free will rose near the forefront of the discussion. As a document from that time, entitled The Doctrine of the Fathers states: "his power to make choices shared in our being"
Thus part of the ontology of Christ's human will was the freedom of choice. As Maximus the Confessor, a deep defender of dyotheletism, states:
Pelikan, in an attempt at clarity states that for the Fathers who finalized the creed at Constantinople
If this is the way of Christ our God, even in his deified human will, then how can we begin to assert that our wills are coerced and ultimately predestined? The more I read church history the more I see that the predesitnary strain of theology is very small until it explodes with Calvin and Zwingly. I find this particular theology to be untenable and in light of this Holy orthodox doctrine of the church I find it nigh heretical. I am not willing to assert that it is indeed heretical, but I would really like to know how a good Calvinist theologian deals with this creedal doctrine of the Church, without merely dismissing the creed itself. I find the dismissing of the creed to not be a Christian option.
I'm sure more thoughts will come as I continue to dig deeper into the Faith and particularly the development of Eastern Christian thought. The reading for this independent study is absolutely amazing even though it makes my head want to explode because of its depth. I find it shameful that it took great initiative on my part and a very gracious professor for me to learn in depth these doctrines of the Church and their life-giving power.
Blessings to you all,
- Ben
In my recent reading I came across a deep discussion by Pelikan concerning the council of Chalcedon and the discussion regarding the dual natures of Christ. Without getting into the depth of this issue and trying to articulate the issues concerning hypostatis, ousia, and the like, I'll try to cover the highlights in a more understandable way.
Coming out of the third ecumenical council held in Constantinople (680-681AD) the Christian Church reaffirmed that Christ was/is a unified being in his divinity and humanity and thus had two natures as the council at Chalcedon had decreed (451AD), and also that he did indeed have TWO wills. One can easily assess this by glancing through scripture at the passages where Jesus says he is here to do not his will but his Father's will, those where he acts out of divine foreknowledge, and various other passages.
If we hold this creedal assertion to be revealed dogma to the church, which we should, it raises some interesting questions. While Protestants may balk at the idea of asserting this creed as authoritative, it should be recognized that not until very recent times did any Christian anywhere question the authority of the creeds. Even Luther, Calvin, and Wesley, fully embraced them. Historically adherence to the 7 ecumenical creeds, of which Nicea (325AD) was the first, was one of the primary, if not the primary, markers to determine if one was in line with the teaching of the Church. These creeds were not viewed as new doctrinal assertions, but rather recapitulations of what the Holy Scriptures, the Apostles and the earliest Fathers had always taught though not necessarily in clarity for which the times called.
So if we hold to this creedal assertion of Christ having both a divine and a human will we can make some interesting observations - one of which I find to be very problematic for those who would like to hold a Calvinistic/predestinarian point of view. It would be interesting to see how Calvin himself treated this creed.
As the Fathers clarified the doctrine of the two wills of Christ (technically: dyotheletism) and thus ruled the notion that Christ has one will (technically: monotheletism) as heresy, the idea of free will rose near the forefront of the discussion. As a document from that time, entitled The Doctrine of the Fathers states: "his power to make choices shared in our being"
Thus part of the ontology of Christ's human will was the freedom of choice. As Maximus the Confessor, a deep defender of dyotheletism, states:
He was endowed not only with a will in accordance with his being god and homoousios [of the same substance] with the Father, but also [with a will] in accordance with his being man and homoousios with us.
Pelikan, in an attempt at clarity states that for the Fathers who finalized the creed at Constantinople
Every rational soul had to possess a decision-making capacity that was free of coercion. Even an unsympathetic interpreter of this Christology is obliged to admit that 'there is noticeable in dyotheletism [the doctrine of two wills]....a reaction against the overriding power of the divine nature in favor of a true and free humanity in Christ.' The freedom of the human will of Christ was not to be overwhelmed by his divinity, so that even such a patristic notion as "the deified will" was not permitted to obliterate this freedom.
If this is the way of Christ our God, even in his deified human will, then how can we begin to assert that our wills are coerced and ultimately predestined? The more I read church history the more I see that the predesitnary strain of theology is very small until it explodes with Calvin and Zwingly. I find this particular theology to be untenable and in light of this Holy orthodox doctrine of the church I find it nigh heretical. I am not willing to assert that it is indeed heretical, but I would really like to know how a good Calvinist theologian deals with this creedal doctrine of the Church, without merely dismissing the creed itself. I find the dismissing of the creed to not be a Christian option.
I'm sure more thoughts will come as I continue to dig deeper into the Faith and particularly the development of Eastern Christian thought. The reading for this independent study is absolutely amazing even though it makes my head want to explode because of its depth. I find it shameful that it took great initiative on my part and a very gracious professor for me to learn in depth these doctrines of the Church and their life-giving power.
Blessings to you all,
- Ben
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
Sunday, May 14, 2006
Current?
This post has been in my mind for a while, and thus I finally decided to write it. [edit: I penned most of this right after Christmas/January break 1/29 to be exact, and didn't post it because it wanted to edit it. So now I am doing it. Any significant thoughts that I add will be indicated in brackets and italics.] [edit 2: I reposted it but it posted way down on the list so i'm changing the date and reposting it.]
The thoughts started while I was reading Os Guinness' Prophetic Untimeliness, a book that Kyle Nagy recommended to me a year or so ago. I decided to read it over Christmas break and am just finishing it up. [edit: at the end of January]
As I read the introduction I felt as if I was reading my own blog... Well at least the thoughts from my blog put in coherent sentence structure by an Oxford educated man. The thoughts that I am talking about are the ones in the post entitled Postmodernism and other similar posts.
Although I saw some similarities between my post and Os' introduction there was also a difference, namely, that while I was critiquing our emphatuation with Postmodernism, he was critiquing modernism or more specifically our view of time. He did this, ironically without embracing Postmodernism, yay!!
Guiness argues that we are too caught up in being relevant or as he phrases it "timely." Basically what it says is that we place way to much importance on staying current. This caused me to wonder about that nature and the development of theology in recent decades or even centuries.
It seems to me that so many theologians today are busy trying to come up with a new idea or trying to discuss the latest trend that they forget what made the great Christian thinkers of the past great - the trial of Church history. We bounce from idea to idea and consider men like Pinnock, Sanders, Piper, Pagit, and so many others to be great thinkers and the new standard for where theology is going. We hold them up with the great minds of Christian antiquity like St. Athanasius, Augustine, Aquinas, and Ignatius, forgetting that it wasn't the fact that Augustine and the rest came up with great ideas that made them great, rather it was that their ideas lasted the test of time. They were forged in Church history! Their ideas slowly progressed throughout the church and were slowly approved of by the masses of Christians throughout the world.
Today we dialogue about ideas in seconds and publish articles after a month or a year of thought. Once these things are published, Pastors, laity, and students who strive to be on the "cutting edge" grab ahold of them like they've found the Holy Grail. There is no sense of historical community, no trial by fire. We don't allow time for these ideas to circulate through the church and and be approved or repudiated by the masses.
One chief example of this is Open Theism. Clark Pinnock published a book and so did a couple of his friends, their ideas spread through the seminaries and Christian colleges like crazy. The ideas were new and trendy and it seems that may decided to embrace the idea because it appeared to "work" and it was the new thing.
There was little dialogue on this concept done in the churches, this concept was strictly and ivory tower debate among scholars. There was no time given for this idea to pass through the godly saints of the church, the masses of saints who are out of touch with scholarly circles. It was simple, they had an idea, the published the idea and now there are many open theists around the globe.
Suppose this process had been the case with Arianism back in the early centuries of the church (300-500ad). We would have surely had a problem on our hands. Suppose for a moment that Arias had and idea, wrote a book and published it. Suppose the communication was as quick as it is now. Arianism would have spread geographically to all parts of the church. The Orthodox faith of the Trinity would have been attacked from all sides [This is not to say that Arianism has not spread, but rather to say that it's spread was contained by the filter of Christian Saints testing and approving (or in this case disapproving) this teaching.]
I wonder, if open theism had been proposed in the early centuries of the church (say 300-500ad) would the Fathers and Mothers of the faith have been so willing to accept it without a moments notice? Wouldn't it have taken years to discuss and dialogue. [I think this is just one example where we run into danger by our emphasis on staying current and relevant. I'm not saying (yet) that Open Theism is a heresy (although it's right on the edge), but because this teaching is so new and so incredibly 'original' we should be very wary. This is just one example.]
[Along these same lines, is something that I briefly touched on above. Namely that I think scholars and those of us who run in scholarly circles often find more joy in coming up with a new thought or idea than we do when we internalize an important truth about God. I find this is especially the case with Protestant scholarship. The Protestant community has long forgotten that any church history happened before Luther nailed his infamous 95 Theses to the Door of the Wittenberg Cathedral. We have allowed ourselves to ignore church history and the teaching of the great cloud of witness that has preserved the scriptures through the ages. We emphasize the latest trends and hot topics and forget that if something is new it should be tested and weighed heavily. In fact some Saints of the church held to the belief that if there was anything new in their writing then it must be discarded at once (cf. Tozer, C.S. Lewis). We feel that in the name of good scholarship that we can treat the text how we want, this however is absurd. We have been handed the scripture through the witness of generations of Christians before us, what makes us think that we, being increasingly more removed from Christ's earthly life, have superior insight into what he really said. Yes we may gain some better insights and understanding through the analysis of texts and recent discoveries, but if anything is truly different than what the church has believed for centuries then what real good is it?]
[I think I rambled a bit there in the last paragraph and didn't really express my thoughts clearly. I'm tempted to put off posting these thoughts until I can better refine them but as the story of this post accounts, that may not be a good idea, as I probably won't get around to it again until July. So I guess I'll leave the thoughts as they are. They're a work in progress and as always I open myself up to your insights and thoughts on the matter. Maybe I'm completely off base or maybe I hit the nail right on the head, who knows. ]
The thoughts started while I was reading Os Guinness' Prophetic Untimeliness, a book that Kyle Nagy recommended to me a year or so ago. I decided to read it over Christmas break and am just finishing it up. [edit: at the end of January]
As I read the introduction I felt as if I was reading my own blog... Well at least the thoughts from my blog put in coherent sentence structure by an Oxford educated man. The thoughts that I am talking about are the ones in the post entitled Postmodernism and other similar posts.
Although I saw some similarities between my post and Os' introduction there was also a difference, namely, that while I was critiquing our emphatuation with Postmodernism, he was critiquing modernism or more specifically our view of time. He did this, ironically without embracing Postmodernism, yay!!
Guiness argues that we are too caught up in being relevant or as he phrases it "timely." Basically what it says is that we place way to much importance on staying current. This caused me to wonder about that nature and the development of theology in recent decades or even centuries.
It seems to me that so many theologians today are busy trying to come up with a new idea or trying to discuss the latest trend that they forget what made the great Christian thinkers of the past great - the trial of Church history. We bounce from idea to idea and consider men like Pinnock, Sanders, Piper, Pagit, and so many others to be great thinkers and the new standard for where theology is going. We hold them up with the great minds of Christian antiquity like St. Athanasius, Augustine, Aquinas, and Ignatius, forgetting that it wasn't the fact that Augustine and the rest came up with great ideas that made them great, rather it was that their ideas lasted the test of time. They were forged in Church history! Their ideas slowly progressed throughout the church and were slowly approved of by the masses of Christians throughout the world.
Today we dialogue about ideas in seconds and publish articles after a month or a year of thought. Once these things are published, Pastors, laity, and students who strive to be on the "cutting edge" grab ahold of them like they've found the Holy Grail. There is no sense of historical community, no trial by fire. We don't allow time for these ideas to circulate through the church and and be approved or repudiated by the masses.
One chief example of this is Open Theism. Clark Pinnock published a book and so did a couple of his friends, their ideas spread through the seminaries and Christian colleges like crazy. The ideas were new and trendy and it seems that may decided to embrace the idea because it appeared to "work" and it was the new thing.
There was little dialogue on this concept done in the churches, this concept was strictly and ivory tower debate among scholars. There was no time given for this idea to pass through the godly saints of the church, the masses of saints who are out of touch with scholarly circles. It was simple, they had an idea, the published the idea and now there are many open theists around the globe.
Suppose this process had been the case with Arianism back in the early centuries of the church (300-500ad). We would have surely had a problem on our hands. Suppose for a moment that Arias had and idea, wrote a book and published it. Suppose the communication was as quick as it is now. Arianism would have spread geographically to all parts of the church. The Orthodox faith of the Trinity would have been attacked from all sides [This is not to say that Arianism has not spread, but rather to say that it's spread was contained by the filter of Christian Saints testing and approving (or in this case disapproving) this teaching.]
I wonder, if open theism had been proposed in the early centuries of the church (say 300-500ad) would the Fathers and Mothers of the faith have been so willing to accept it without a moments notice? Wouldn't it have taken years to discuss and dialogue. [I think this is just one example where we run into danger by our emphasis on staying current and relevant. I'm not saying (yet) that Open Theism is a heresy (although it's right on the edge), but because this teaching is so new and so incredibly 'original' we should be very wary. This is just one example.]
[Along these same lines, is something that I briefly touched on above. Namely that I think scholars and those of us who run in scholarly circles often find more joy in coming up with a new thought or idea than we do when we internalize an important truth about God. I find this is especially the case with Protestant scholarship. The Protestant community has long forgotten that any church history happened before Luther nailed his infamous 95 Theses to the Door of the Wittenberg Cathedral. We have allowed ourselves to ignore church history and the teaching of the great cloud of witness that has preserved the scriptures through the ages. We emphasize the latest trends and hot topics and forget that if something is new it should be tested and weighed heavily. In fact some Saints of the church held to the belief that if there was anything new in their writing then it must be discarded at once (cf. Tozer, C.S. Lewis). We feel that in the name of good scholarship that we can treat the text how we want, this however is absurd. We have been handed the scripture through the witness of generations of Christians before us, what makes us think that we, being increasingly more removed from Christ's earthly life, have superior insight into what he really said. Yes we may gain some better insights and understanding through the analysis of texts and recent discoveries, but if anything is truly different than what the church has believed for centuries then what real good is it?]
[I think I rambled a bit there in the last paragraph and didn't really express my thoughts clearly. I'm tempted to put off posting these thoughts until I can better refine them but as the story of this post accounts, that may not be a good idea, as I probably won't get around to it again until July. So I guess I'll leave the thoughts as they are. They're a work in progress and as always I open myself up to your insights and thoughts on the matter. Maybe I'm completely off base or maybe I hit the nail right on the head, who knows. ]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
