I've been teaching my 8th grade confirmation Sunday school class about the Trinity the past two weeks. I've really enjoyed it even if I was sad that I don't have enough time to really dig deep with them on this issue.
There is one thing that I've been thinking through that has really bothered me the last few days. As I prepare for Sunday school I try to think through various issues the kids may raise and attempt to prepare answers for them. One issue that I've been thinking through in anticipation of the kids was the heresy of Modalism. Even though this issue didn't come up I've been thinking a lot about Modalism the past few days. Just to be clear I'm not thinking about it in a "maybe it's right" sort of way. I completely affirm with the Fathers and the councils that Modalism is a heresy and that it incorrectly describes the Trinity. What I've been thinking about is the soteriological ramifications of modalism.
I've spent the last three years reading, believing, and praying trinitarian doctrine. I affirm the truth brought forth in the seven ecumenical councils of the Church and am resolutely Trinitarian in every way. I can could go on and on explaining why certain Christological heresies strike right at the heart of our ability to be redeemed by God. I can explain to you why it is primarily a salvific issue that Mary be called Theotokos and not Christotokos (as the Nestorian heresy taught), I can tell you how Arianism distorts God's plan of salvation, and I can tell you why I believe that the insertion of the Filoque into the Nicene Creed creates a propensity for Modalism in the West.
Despite all this, when I was thinking about and trying to articulate why we reject I could do no better than penciling down how Modalism is directly contrary to the God explained in scripture. Don't get me wrong, that in and of itself is enough to reject a certain teaching, especially one concerning the Trinity. But I wanted to offer my kids (if they asked, which they didn't) something more than "obviously this isn't how God is spoken about in scriptures." Don't get me wrong, I have a very high view of the scriptures and I believe them to be very clear that the Father, the Son, and the Spirit are three different persons and yet all fully divine but the scriptures can be distorted and indeed they were used by the modalists to corrupt the teaching of the Godhead.
And so I decided this week that I wasn't going to look up the answer in Pelikan's history, a book on doctrine, or in the works of Irrenaeus and other such prolific defenders of the faith. I decided this because I have no doubts that the belief in Modalism is detrimental to our faith and it corrupts how we think about God. I also know that I have worked through this in the past but am merely drawing a blank. So I ask those of you more theologically astute than I am to post your thoughts on this.
It seems to me the Modalism largely strikes at the incarnation. The description is on the tip of my tongue but I cannot seem to fully articulate it. I had hoped writing this blog post would help me to be able to articulate things but it hasn't worked this time. If each person of the Trinity is not really a person but just a "mode" of God or a temporary manifestation of God (as Modalism teaches) then it seems that something about our redemption in Christ is incomplete. It seems that if Christ is just a mode then was humanity really assumed and redeemed? For we know as St. Basil states; "that which was not assumed cannot be redeemed" (paraphrase).
It also seems that if the Spirit is just a mode of some ethereal divine essence then I wonder how fully dwells within believers. I am so frustrated because I sense all these problems with Modalism and yet I cannot fully articulate it. So give input and we can have ourselves a nice old fashioned heresy bashing party.
Glory be to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit now and ever and unto ages of ages. Amen.
Showing posts with label Trinity. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Trinity. Show all posts
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Tuesday, November 06, 2007
Flippancy with Orthodoxy
I'm writing a paper this semester on the addition of the "Filioque" clause (for a more detailed explanation click here) in the Nicene Creed. While this may seem like a really nerdy project, and indeed it probably is, the reason I've elected to write on it is because this is a topic that is historically important but also one that I find to be very important for personal piety - especially if I am going to lead a congregation in saying the creed some day.
One may think that this is just a creedal variant and thus it only makes a difference in the deep realm of theology and not in that of the average church. Let me say that I agree with the early church fathers when they often argued that godliness (holiness) were one and the same with correct belief. They taught that out of correct belief comes correct action. While I don't want to get into the deep ramifications of the Filioque insertion, I do believe that it affects our view of the Trinity and thus it effects our view of God. Since I believe we should try to think rightly about God I also believe that I should be concerned with this issue, especially since I hold the Nicene Creed close to my heart as a definitive statement of Orthodoxy.
Since I'm not sure how this inserted statement lines up with scriptural orthodoxy I have chosen to err on the side of not saying "and the Son" when I recite the Nicene Creed. Please know that I'm not saying all this to condemn those who don't think about this, I simply bring it up for two reasons: 1. it's something that I've been thinking through for the past year or so and 2. I catch a lot of crap for thinking this way.
The second reason is the one that I would like to address. Most of the crap that I catch for thinking so intently on this subject are from good friends who joke about it in good fun. I have no problem with this. I don't think it's sacrilege and I can take a joke. I'm sure I've probably been more sacrilegious than all of them combined. However, I am concerned with the number of people who flippantly don't care about this issue and joke about it based on that.
I don't want to be condemnatory toward the laity but I very disappointed in the seminarians who openly mock the notion that one would seriously think about this issue. This is seminary, this is the place where we are suppose to think on these sorts of things and I find it extremely disheartening that there are people on our campus that will argue about our ethos statement against drinking but will not think seriously about the creed we recite and what is says about our God. I am even more depressed when I think about being on chapel team last year. I was on a team that was supposed to lead the community in worship, of which the creeds were occasionally a part, and I was openly mocked by the team for declining to lead the congregation in the recitation of the Nicene Creed because I didn't want to lead them astray one way or the other.
I am amazed with the flippant nature Orthodoxy is treated with among the student body. I allow that this may be a "small issue" (though historically it may be the largest) but there is also a great deal of contempt that is shown toward historic orthodox doctrines in an effort to be creative and think outside of the box. While it is ok to think critically I find it disturbing when we treat historical Christian orthodoxy as chains from which to be freed. This even occurs among the faculty at times. I was in class the other day with a highly published professor and he closely approached the Arian line as he openly pondered if there was a point in eternity before creation at which Christ was unbegotten. He was very careful to say that there was always a Trinity (and thus avoided complete Arianism), but that there may have been a point in eternity when Christ was not begotten of the Father.
I shudder when i think about the generation of Pastors this seminary is training. We are neglecting the substance of the faith in an effort to create pastors that are able to memorize their sermons, use good illustrations, and learn how to be 'relevant'...and for what? So that they can recite sermons without substance from memory? So they can illustrate and perpetuate a form of weak Christianity? So they can lead people away from the Holy Faith and straight into nominal Christianity, in a nominal way?
Lord Have Mercy!!
May God save his people and bless his inheritance!!
One may think that this is just a creedal variant and thus it only makes a difference in the deep realm of theology and not in that of the average church. Let me say that I agree with the early church fathers when they often argued that godliness (holiness) were one and the same with correct belief. They taught that out of correct belief comes correct action. While I don't want to get into the deep ramifications of the Filioque insertion, I do believe that it affects our view of the Trinity and thus it effects our view of God. Since I believe we should try to think rightly about God I also believe that I should be concerned with this issue, especially since I hold the Nicene Creed close to my heart as a definitive statement of Orthodoxy.
Since I'm not sure how this inserted statement lines up with scriptural orthodoxy I have chosen to err on the side of not saying "and the Son" when I recite the Nicene Creed. Please know that I'm not saying all this to condemn those who don't think about this, I simply bring it up for two reasons: 1. it's something that I've been thinking through for the past year or so and 2. I catch a lot of crap for thinking this way.
The second reason is the one that I would like to address. Most of the crap that I catch for thinking so intently on this subject are from good friends who joke about it in good fun. I have no problem with this. I don't think it's sacrilege and I can take a joke. I'm sure I've probably been more sacrilegious than all of them combined. However, I am concerned with the number of people who flippantly don't care about this issue and joke about it based on that.
I don't want to be condemnatory toward the laity but I very disappointed in the seminarians who openly mock the notion that one would seriously think about this issue. This is seminary, this is the place where we are suppose to think on these sorts of things and I find it extremely disheartening that there are people on our campus that will argue about our ethos statement against drinking but will not think seriously about the creed we recite and what is says about our God. I am even more depressed when I think about being on chapel team last year. I was on a team that was supposed to lead the community in worship, of which the creeds were occasionally a part, and I was openly mocked by the team for declining to lead the congregation in the recitation of the Nicene Creed because I didn't want to lead them astray one way or the other.
I am amazed with the flippant nature Orthodoxy is treated with among the student body. I allow that this may be a "small issue" (though historically it may be the largest) but there is also a great deal of contempt that is shown toward historic orthodox doctrines in an effort to be creative and think outside of the box. While it is ok to think critically I find it disturbing when we treat historical Christian orthodoxy as chains from which to be freed. This even occurs among the faculty at times. I was in class the other day with a highly published professor and he closely approached the Arian line as he openly pondered if there was a point in eternity before creation at which Christ was unbegotten. He was very careful to say that there was always a Trinity (and thus avoided complete Arianism), but that there may have been a point in eternity when Christ was not begotten of the Father.
I shudder when i think about the generation of Pastors this seminary is training. We are neglecting the substance of the faith in an effort to create pastors that are able to memorize their sermons, use good illustrations, and learn how to be 'relevant'...and for what? So that they can recite sermons without substance from memory? So they can illustrate and perpetuate a form of weak Christianity? So they can lead people away from the Holy Faith and straight into nominal Christianity, in a nominal way?
Lord Have Mercy!!
May God save his people and bless his inheritance!!
Tuesday, July 31, 2007
The Crucifixion
I've been meditating on the cross of Christ a lot lately, especially in light of leading weekly short-term mission trips that are primarily social action initiatives. I think upon the cross because I believe it is in the cross that Christian servanthood is defined. As the Holy Apostle Paul says in Philippians:
With this in mind I was sharing a devotion with my adult leaders a while ago in which I explained my thoughts that the cross is the center for a Christian understanding of service. I also shared that my hope for the week is that the kids and all of us (staff and adults) would be shaped in the cross for as St. Paul says in his first letter to the Corinthians, “For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and him crucified.”
I also shared Paul’s thoughts on the cross immediately preceding this verse in 1 Corinthians where Paul says:
After the meeting one of the adult leaders came to me and gave me a comment card with the following written on it.
If we taught more doctrine in our churches, not as stale dogma but as life-giving water, we would also realize that the life and teachings of Jesus cannot realistically be separated from who Jesus is – namely – true God of true God. It is who Jesus is that separates him from the Ghandis, the Martin Luther King Jrs. and the other great moral teachers of the world. Jesus is God and that is what gives his teachings and life weight. It is also his being fully God that makes the crucifixion and selfless act of giving and love rather than a reluctantly followed harsh command from a cruel father.
Yes, this may be hard to conceive, but if we decide (as this adult leader has) that the cross to mean or disturbing, then what have we to gain? We have just thrown our faith away by trying to cater to our pluralistic ‘let’s love everyone’ society. Does this person not realize what the cross accomplished? Does she not realize by his death our Lord made life possible? Does she not comprehend that because of our Lord’s death and resurrection the curse has be overturned and new life has been given in the new Adam? How can one look at the crucifixion and say ‘what a horrendous act’? How can one even begin to think about not talking about the crucifixion because it doesn’t have to do with love? The crucifixion changes everything!! Love is now free to reign because Christ has died and risen.
What kind of gospel are people accepting if they are not embracing one of Christ and his death and resurrection. To proclaim a gospel that does not include the crucifixion is paramount to condemning these people. It is as if we are turning and trying to proclaim another gospel. We cannot tolerate this breakdown of the gospel. Just as Paul says to the Galatians: “But even if we or an angel from heaven should proclaim to you a gospel contrary to what we proclaimed to you, let that one be accursed! As we have said before, so now I repeat, if anyone proclaims to you a gospel contrary to what you received, let that one be accursed!”
So with all this as the foundation I still wonder why I am questioned when I tell people that we need to have Trinitarian worship services and that we need to speak about the Trinity in our churches. If we neglect the doctrine of the Trinity then we are bound to develop faulty views of the working of the Godhead and thus we will come up with kooky and zany ideas of how the Father relates to the son and will end up with proposed scenarios, such as we have here, where the Cross is a mean, viscous, and evil rather than what it truly is – life-giving, wonderful, and the epitome of love and service.
I know this post didn’t have much coherence, but this has been brewing for a few weeks and I needed to get it out. I am still awestruck by how easily this woman discarded the cross in the name of ‘evangelism.’ I can’t believe it!!
do nothing from selfishness or empty conceit, but with humility of mind regard one another as more important than yourselves; do not merely look out for you own personal interests, but also for the interests of others. Have this attitude in yourselves, which was also in Christ Jesus.Paul then particularizes this exhortation by quoting an early Christian hymn that describes the 'actions' of Jesus and thus shows what he means by having the attitude that was in Christ. This attitude Paul says, is exemplified in Christ who:
although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. Being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.It is this attitude and action of Christ that I believe shows us what true humility and true service looks like. It is this action of Christ that opens for us the door so that we may truly love God and love our neighbor as ourselves. With Christ as our archetype and his Spirit as our empowerment we are enabled to live the selfless live that Christ did. Thus it seems to me that it is in the Cross where we see what real service looks like, and it is in the cross that we see what real humility looks like.
With this in mind I was sharing a devotion with my adult leaders a while ago in which I explained my thoughts that the cross is the center for a Christian understanding of service. I also shared that my hope for the week is that the kids and all of us (staff and adults) would be shaped in the cross for as St. Paul says in his first letter to the Corinthians, “For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and him crucified.”
I also shared Paul’s thoughts on the cross immediately preceding this verse in 1 Corinthians where Paul says:
For the message about the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the discernment of the discerning I will thwart.” Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, God decided, through the foolishness of our proclamation, to save those who believe. For Jews demand signs and Greeks desire wisdom, but we proclaim Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For God’s foolishness is wider than human wisdom, and God’s weakness is stronger than human strength.After sharing these verses I exhorted the adult leaders to realize that service is truly cruciform, and that our goal here this week is that the kids may indeed know Christ and him crucified so that they can more fully love God and thus more fully love their neighbor as themselves.
After the meeting one of the adult leaders came to me and gave me a comment card with the following written on it.
If we focus on the death on the cross, rather than on Jesus’ life of loving and afterlife of the community of Jesus followers, we keep people away from Christianity rather than draw them in. The majority of students in my classroom, new arrivals to USA, are Muslims. I try to show God’s love to them each and every day. My impression of Allah is not of a loving, forgiving God, but of an angry, rule-bound God. The God of Jesus is the big difference for us to show. Jesus, the crucified, is very awful to a non-Christian (“God would kill his own son! I could never love this God!”) So to me the most important thing to me about Jesus is not his crucifixion, but his life and the things he taught all of us while he was here.Are you kidding me?! It seems to me that this statement encapsulates what is wrong with so much of western protestant Christendom. How have we ever differentiated the cross from the love of God?? This is absurd. It seems to me that the failure to comprehend that the crucifixion is one of the most wonderful acts of love stems from the lax teaching on the Trinity within much of Protestantism. If our churches were teaching their congregations the deep doctrines of the faith rather than fluffy nonsensical story-time sermons we would never be able to conceive of the death of our Lord and an atrocious act committed by the Father. If we truly taught about the Trinity so that our parishioners understood it, we would quickly realize that there is no room for any concept of a disjuncted Godhead in which the Father cruelly condemns his son to suffer.
If we taught more doctrine in our churches, not as stale dogma but as life-giving water, we would also realize that the life and teachings of Jesus cannot realistically be separated from who Jesus is – namely – true God of true God. It is who Jesus is that separates him from the Ghandis, the Martin Luther King Jrs. and the other great moral teachers of the world. Jesus is God and that is what gives his teachings and life weight. It is also his being fully God that makes the crucifixion and selfless act of giving and love rather than a reluctantly followed harsh command from a cruel father.
Yes, this may be hard to conceive, but if we decide (as this adult leader has) that the cross to mean or disturbing, then what have we to gain? We have just thrown our faith away by trying to cater to our pluralistic ‘let’s love everyone’ society. Does this person not realize what the cross accomplished? Does she not realize by his death our Lord made life possible? Does she not comprehend that because of our Lord’s death and resurrection the curse has be overturned and new life has been given in the new Adam? How can one look at the crucifixion and say ‘what a horrendous act’? How can one even begin to think about not talking about the crucifixion because it doesn’t have to do with love? The crucifixion changes everything!! Love is now free to reign because Christ has died and risen.
What kind of gospel are people accepting if they are not embracing one of Christ and his death and resurrection. To proclaim a gospel that does not include the crucifixion is paramount to condemning these people. It is as if we are turning and trying to proclaim another gospel. We cannot tolerate this breakdown of the gospel. Just as Paul says to the Galatians: “But even if we or an angel from heaven should proclaim to you a gospel contrary to what we proclaimed to you, let that one be accursed! As we have said before, so now I repeat, if anyone proclaims to you a gospel contrary to what you received, let that one be accursed!”
So with all this as the foundation I still wonder why I am questioned when I tell people that we need to have Trinitarian worship services and that we need to speak about the Trinity in our churches. If we neglect the doctrine of the Trinity then we are bound to develop faulty views of the working of the Godhead and thus we will come up with kooky and zany ideas of how the Father relates to the son and will end up with proposed scenarios, such as we have here, where the Cross is a mean, viscous, and evil rather than what it truly is – life-giving, wonderful, and the epitome of love and service.
I know this post didn’t have much coherence, but this has been brewing for a few weeks and I needed to get it out. I am still awestruck by how easily this woman discarded the cross in the name of ‘evangelism.’ I can’t believe it!!
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.
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.
Monday, August 22, 2005
Church experiment part II
After my experience with the "charismatic ministry" I was a little hesitant to try out any "off-band" (not denominationally tagged) churches. However hesitant I may have been, I was evidently more curious because I set out at 9:45 Sunday morning in search of Great Commission Fellowship (GCF) a church that one of the head guys of the International House of Prayer helped plant. Well after driving around for 20 minutes not finding it, I drove by Gospel Word Missionary Fellowship. I didn't want to stop, because of the "word" in the name, in fact I drove by twice, but for some reason (either the Holy Spirit's prodding or my own curiosity) I pulled in the parking lot and went to Sunday school and church there. I was hoping upon all hope that this wouldn't be like the last church I attended. I didn't want "word of faith" stuff, I wanted good bible teaching, I wanted to commune with passionate believers, I wanted to be formed and to help form others. The name was enough to drive me away, but I pressed on through my trepidation and walked it. Sunday school had already started so I walked in and sat in the back of the room. I was greeted by a large man who told me what passage we were studying as the women teaching the class continued. Even before I grasped the teaching I felt that this was a good church. Maybe it's because I was the minority (one of only 5 or 6 white faces... Which I loved), maybe it was because there was a woman leading the class, or maybe it was because of the sense of desire for God in the place (I'm thinking it's the last reason).
I almost jumped up and shouted for joy in between Sunday school and the regular service when the little kids' class (5-10 yr olds) came in and recapped their lesson for the adults. They told us how they learned about the Trinity, yes the blessed and neglected doctrine of the Godhead. They explained how each member is God, how they are united in will and in purpose, and substance (thought they didn't use those words) while functioning uniquely. This wasn't some cheesy; let's watch Veggie Tales Sunday school class... No this was teaching kids doctrine while focusing on the practical implications of the doctrine. The kids seemed to understand it and to realize that it's who God is and how God relates to them in each person. Praise the Lord!!
After the singing the pastor got up to speak and started by saying that he had read an article lately that talked about 7 steps for Church Growth. He said that he didn't know it but they basically were the same as what he had been preaching the last 3 weeks. I thought to myself, "here we go again." I was almost ready to tone him out when he said that the 3rd step goes along with this week's sermon. He said the 3rd step to church growth is PERSECUTION!!
This wasn't some church growth putz; this was a man of God, a prophet to the people of God. He asked us if the Cross of Christ was really worth it. Was it worth it to proclaim the "WHOLE Gospel" of Jesus? In his sermon he spoke against prosperity gospel, weak and complacent Christianity, right wing unbiblical "Christian" stances, and a plethora of other topics that resonate within my very being. He called us to live out the whole Kingdom of God. To be a people of the kingdom, to live like Christ and to love like Christ. It was almost as if all of the sermons that I have ever preached were being compiled and spewing forth from this man's mouth (oh and there was enough time for that, he preached for 2- 2.5 hours).
My heart was encouraged. I'm not a lonely voice, crying out for the church to come back and be the people of God. It's not just my Houghton friends who are passionate citizens of the kingdom, no; God is doing a work throughout his church. He is raising up prophets and teachers to call his people back to be his people again.
I'm not sure if I'll make this church my home or not (especially not if I get a job working at another church) but it is nice to know that there are others who are proclaiming "prepare yet the way of the Lord."
____________________________________
Sunday evening I went to another "church" called communality in Lexington. I found this community because it is loosely affiliated with the C&MA. The nature of the community is very Doug Pagit-esq. It's shaped like a house-church and it is very involved with social agendas. I really enjoyed it and will probably continue to go (again, unless I get a job at church and have youth group on Sunday nights). I was late for the service, but got to talk to one of the leaders (an ATS grad) for about an hour after the service.
This group seems to be more concerned with Orthodoxy than Pagit's group (probably because most of the people are connected with the seminary, although there are a few people who are just part of the city), but I still have some concerns with it.
My first concern is that the community is not very intergenerational. Granted I don't know how intergenerational you can be when you have a few seminary students starting a house church of about 20 people. But then again, it has been going for 7 or 8 years and there are now 3 house churches that are part of "Communality." I just feel that not being multi-generational is dangerous. I know we have to start somewhere, and indeed the NT churches probably did as well, but we still must strive to be multi-generational.
My second concern is that the group is very involved in political (mostly social and environmental...aka hippie/liberal) concerns. I'm all for environmentalism, and social action (especially social action) but I'm not sure if tying a "church" so closely to various liberal (or conservative) political agendas is a good idea. Although the Kingdom of God has political ramifications, it is not primarily a political kingdom. As a future pastor I'm fine with my congregants participating as Christians in various groups, but to be linked as a "church" seems a bit compromising. We yell at the right-wing conservative church for doing this sort of thing and then we go and do the same on the left. I'm not completely decided on this issue, because I do believe that Christians can't be politically ignorant or apathetic, but as far as the extent of the connection to political agendas goes: I'm not sure.
My third concern is the use of the Charisms (gifts of the spirit) in the group. The group is a deliberate thrust to get away from the standard way of doing church, but in doing so are they limiting the use of the Charisms? Admittedly the "regular" church has exalted the role of the preacher and thus elevated those (preaching/teaching/ and maybe prophesy depending on your definition) gifts. But is this group allowing for those gifts to be used? There is no time for public exhortation so is one with the gift of prophecy/preaching going to be able to use their gift. What about other gifts? Are they used in this community or is it basically a community of like-minded, like-gifted teachers all teaching each other. If so, is it a good thing? I'm not saying it's a bad thing, I'm just questioning.
My fourth and final concern (for now) is doctrine. In typical small groups doctrine sort of gets brushed over. If there was a new convert or a young Christian, would they be formed doctrinally? I know that doctrinal language isn't essential, and that doctrine isn't the ultimate, but it is important. Would one learn the doctrine of the Trinity through something other than casual observance? When I posed this question Bill (the guy I talked with) answered that most of the community is theologically formed and they hold to more of a "social-trinitarianism" as per Multmon. I'm not really familiar with this so I'll have to do some more research before I decide what I think about it. Like I said doctrine isn't the ultimate thing, but it is important in spiritual formation, it will be interesting to see how this is approached as more people from non-seminary backgrounds enter the group.
Don't misunderstand me; I'm not bashing this group. These are just a few concerns that I have. I think the group is good and very incarnational in the city. There are a number of people in the city that have experienced grace and redemption through communality. There are also people in the community that wouldn't set foot in a regular church, people with mental disorders, without homes, and without people who care about them. These disenfranchised people have found a family in Communality.
I plan to continue to attend there, because the people are good, they are in pursuit of God and long to see him move. They long to be incarnational in the city and to the people they live among. This is a wonderful picture of the love of Christ. Maybe I'm too traditional in my ecclesiology, because I have so many reservations. I guess we'll see how my thoughts form as I continue to attend. I really am looking forward to next Sunday when we have a meal together and fellowship as a true community. I'm really hoping I can make it. I have a job "trial" with a pro audio production company next weekend in which we're going to Notre Dame to run sound for a huge show. The job would be really cool and give me a chance to be incarnational in a place that most Christians wouldn't get to go. We're scheduled to get back on Sat. So I should be able to make it to Communality, but there is always the chance that we'll be late or something. I doubt it though.
Hopefully you continue to find my ramblings enlightening and formational. I pray that one of the simple-minded things that I type may draw you closer to the Father this day.
I almost jumped up and shouted for joy in between Sunday school and the regular service when the little kids' class (5-10 yr olds) came in and recapped their lesson for the adults. They told us how they learned about the Trinity, yes the blessed and neglected doctrine of the Godhead. They explained how each member is God, how they are united in will and in purpose, and substance (thought they didn't use those words) while functioning uniquely. This wasn't some cheesy; let's watch Veggie Tales Sunday school class... No this was teaching kids doctrine while focusing on the practical implications of the doctrine. The kids seemed to understand it and to realize that it's who God is and how God relates to them in each person. Praise the Lord!!
After the singing the pastor got up to speak and started by saying that he had read an article lately that talked about 7 steps for Church Growth. He said that he didn't know it but they basically were the same as what he had been preaching the last 3 weeks. I thought to myself, "here we go again." I was almost ready to tone him out when he said that the 3rd step goes along with this week's sermon. He said the 3rd step to church growth is PERSECUTION!!
This wasn't some church growth putz; this was a man of God, a prophet to the people of God. He asked us if the Cross of Christ was really worth it. Was it worth it to proclaim the "WHOLE Gospel" of Jesus? In his sermon he spoke against prosperity gospel, weak and complacent Christianity, right wing unbiblical "Christian" stances, and a plethora of other topics that resonate within my very being. He called us to live out the whole Kingdom of God. To be a people of the kingdom, to live like Christ and to love like Christ. It was almost as if all of the sermons that I have ever preached were being compiled and spewing forth from this man's mouth (oh and there was enough time for that, he preached for 2- 2.5 hours).
My heart was encouraged. I'm not a lonely voice, crying out for the church to come back and be the people of God. It's not just my Houghton friends who are passionate citizens of the kingdom, no; God is doing a work throughout his church. He is raising up prophets and teachers to call his people back to be his people again.
I'm not sure if I'll make this church my home or not (especially not if I get a job working at another church) but it is nice to know that there are others who are proclaiming "prepare yet the way of the Lord."
____________________________________
Sunday evening I went to another "church" called communality in Lexington. I found this community because it is loosely affiliated with the C&MA. The nature of the community is very Doug Pagit-esq. It's shaped like a house-church and it is very involved with social agendas. I really enjoyed it and will probably continue to go (again, unless I get a job at church and have youth group on Sunday nights). I was late for the service, but got to talk to one of the leaders (an ATS grad) for about an hour after the service.
This group seems to be more concerned with Orthodoxy than Pagit's group (probably because most of the people are connected with the seminary, although there are a few people who are just part of the city), but I still have some concerns with it.
My first concern is that the community is not very intergenerational. Granted I don't know how intergenerational you can be when you have a few seminary students starting a house church of about 20 people. But then again, it has been going for 7 or 8 years and there are now 3 house churches that are part of "Communality." I just feel that not being multi-generational is dangerous. I know we have to start somewhere, and indeed the NT churches probably did as well, but we still must strive to be multi-generational.
My second concern is that the group is very involved in political (mostly social and environmental...aka hippie/liberal) concerns. I'm all for environmentalism, and social action (especially social action) but I'm not sure if tying a "church" so closely to various liberal (or conservative) political agendas is a good idea. Although the Kingdom of God has political ramifications, it is not primarily a political kingdom. As a future pastor I'm fine with my congregants participating as Christians in various groups, but to be linked as a "church" seems a bit compromising. We yell at the right-wing conservative church for doing this sort of thing and then we go and do the same on the left. I'm not completely decided on this issue, because I do believe that Christians can't be politically ignorant or apathetic, but as far as the extent of the connection to political agendas goes: I'm not sure.
My third concern is the use of the Charisms (gifts of the spirit) in the group. The group is a deliberate thrust to get away from the standard way of doing church, but in doing so are they limiting the use of the Charisms? Admittedly the "regular" church has exalted the role of the preacher and thus elevated those (preaching/teaching/ and maybe prophesy depending on your definition) gifts. But is this group allowing for those gifts to be used? There is no time for public exhortation so is one with the gift of prophecy/preaching going to be able to use their gift. What about other gifts? Are they used in this community or is it basically a community of like-minded, like-gifted teachers all teaching each other. If so, is it a good thing? I'm not saying it's a bad thing, I'm just questioning.
My fourth and final concern (for now) is doctrine. In typical small groups doctrine sort of gets brushed over. If there was a new convert or a young Christian, would they be formed doctrinally? I know that doctrinal language isn't essential, and that doctrine isn't the ultimate, but it is important. Would one learn the doctrine of the Trinity through something other than casual observance? When I posed this question Bill (the guy I talked with) answered that most of the community is theologically formed and they hold to more of a "social-trinitarianism" as per Multmon. I'm not really familiar with this so I'll have to do some more research before I decide what I think about it. Like I said doctrine isn't the ultimate thing, but it is important in spiritual formation, it will be interesting to see how this is approached as more people from non-seminary backgrounds enter the group.
Don't misunderstand me; I'm not bashing this group. These are just a few concerns that I have. I think the group is good and very incarnational in the city. There are a number of people in the city that have experienced grace and redemption through communality. There are also people in the community that wouldn't set foot in a regular church, people with mental disorders, without homes, and without people who care about them. These disenfranchised people have found a family in Communality.
I plan to continue to attend there, because the people are good, they are in pursuit of God and long to see him move. They long to be incarnational in the city and to the people they live among. This is a wonderful picture of the love of Christ. Maybe I'm too traditional in my ecclesiology, because I have so many reservations. I guess we'll see how my thoughts form as I continue to attend. I really am looking forward to next Sunday when we have a meal together and fellowship as a true community. I'm really hoping I can make it. I have a job "trial" with a pro audio production company next weekend in which we're going to Notre Dame to run sound for a huge show. The job would be really cool and give me a chance to be incarnational in a place that most Christians wouldn't get to go. We're scheduled to get back on Sat. So I should be able to make it to Communality, but there is always the chance that we'll be late or something. I doubt it though.
Hopefully you continue to find my ramblings enlightening and formational. I pray that one of the simple-minded things that I type may draw you closer to the Father this day.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
