In case you didn't see the link in the comments my friend Nathaniel posted a response to my questions on dispassion over on his blog. It is worth checking out if I confused you or if you have been thinking about this issue for a while like I (and apparently Kyle) have.
Here is the link to Nathaniel's post.
There is also an interesting discussion about the over emphasis of music in Protestant services over on my friend JD's blog.
You can click here to read the post and comments.
Sadly I wasn't able to attend much of Ichthus yesterday because thunderstorms resulted in most of the evening being canceled. I was able to make it to Sandy Richter's morning devotion, which was good and I thought very accessible to target audience (the youth). I also made it out to see Delorean Grey at the Edge Stage. This is the third or fourth time I've seen them in concert (though every other time I've been doing production) and I really like their music. Their stage presence isn't super-great or anything, but then again they aren't a band that draws thousands so it is sort of hard to get pumped about small crowds.
Concerning the sound at the Edge Stage:
It is about what I would expect from the #3 stage at a festival like Ichthus. It wasn't perfect and could have used some tweaking, but it sounded OK and good enough to pass as average or above average. The reason I'm so hard on the main stage audio is because that should be amazing sound quality for the equipment they should have and the bands they are having on the stage. It was not. Again, I'm looking forward to checking it out again today.
Blessings,
- Ben
Showing posts with label Worship Music. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Worship Music. Show all posts
Saturday, June 14, 2008
Thursday, June 12, 2008
Misc. Thoughts from Ichthus: 1
Searching to quench the boredom from being unemployed I volunteered to help Ichthus ministries out today and my reward was a free weekend pass to the festival. For those of you who don't know, Ichthus is the oldest of the Christian music festivals complete with Christian rock bands, speakers, and all the standard fun. Tonight was the first night of the festival and here are some thoughts ranging from audio thoughts to deep theological wrestlings.
1. The rumors were proven true. In my time running sound professionally I've had the opportunity to travel quite a bit and after I tell people where I live there is one thing that I've heard from a few different companies and stage hands from a few different places: "Isn't that where that Christian music festival is?.... I've heard the audio there sucks!" It seems Ichthus has a reputation for having some of the worst audio production around. Since I've never been to Ichthus until this year I could never offer a value judgment....well I'm sad to report that the rumors are true.
I'm willing to admit that I'm an audio snob and that I'm use to working with top of the line gear like VDOSC and the like, but tonight was fairly bad. It could be said that I came into the concert with a predisposition and thus only found what I was looking for, but I really tried to be open and honest with myself.
I did my nerdy sound guy walking around listening to different areas and aspects and there were very few areas that I thought sounded good. In fact, one of the poorest sounding areas was the one place that it is supposed to sound the best: around the sound board. I thought the line array they were using didn't disperse evenly, a few of the frequencies were too hot and made listening uncomfortable in some places, the vocals in some places were buried to the point of unintelligibility, amidst a few other things.
I'm not saying that I'm a magic sound guy and that I could have done better. In my inexperience I probably would have made it sound worse, but I've heard the same type of gear they were using sound a lot better. Granted they weren't using top of the line gear (cough VDOSC.... cough) but they were using OK equipment... either way it should have sounded better. I'm looking forward to the next day or two to see if they are able to work out some of the kinks.
2. Maybe I'm just old, but it didn't seem like Skillet gave as sweet of a concert as I've seen from them in the past. Don't get me wrong, they still rocked and I enjoyed it (sans the audio problems mentioned above), but their stage presence seemed to be lacking. John Cooper, the front man, seemed like he was trying to force his humor and it ended up being flat. I've enjoyed every other Skillet show I've been too, so I'm willing to chalk it up to them having an off night.
3. While the audio production left a bit to be desired I thought the visual production was done very well. Props to Ichthus for going big on the light rigs. It could have used a few more movers, but all in all it was done well.
4. I couldn't find a Houghton College booth. That made me sad, hopefully I just missed it.
5. Warning: This one will probably be long and theological.
I've been thinking a lot lately about sanctification or whatever term you want to give it: I personally like: Partaking of the Divine Essence (2 Peter 1.4). In the Patristic tradition there this a concept/attribute of "dispassion" that accompanies this sanctification. The concept of dispassion is most fully articulated by the Eastern theologians, though it seems to me that it is also found in some of the western theologians as well. I'm not sure that I really understand what it means to be dispassionate (in fact it really confuses me and I need to study more), but I couldn't help but have thoughts surrounding it tonight at Ichthus.
At my basic and elementary understanding (which could be dead wrong) to be dispassionate is to not be moved by the passions (pride, lust, anger, etc) and to have one's soul quiet before the Lord. This doesn't mean, to my understanding, that one is a mopey kill-joy from then on, but that one is not easily moved to ecstatic reactions. We are in essence dead to the world, insofar as we find our entire orientation toward God.
With this in mind I started thinking about rock music, particularly Christian rock. I love rock as much as the next person, but I think if I were to speak honestly, I would have to admit that it does not quiet my soul. In fact anyone in attendance would have a hard time quieting their soul. The question I'm wrestling with is: "If one of the character traits to which we are striving is dispassion (this may be up for debate) then is there room within this striving for such music (or anything) that steers us from that goal?"
This music application can be taken further to encompass the current Protestant tread of contemporary worship music. While I enjoy the theologically deep songs (sadly there are few) I wonder how the genre helps to quiet one's soul and foster dispassion. At the risk of making a fallacious jump, I wonder if this leads to the problem of the current obsession with worship: focusing on the concept of worship so much that we lose focus on the object of worship.
I know there are a lot of ifs in the last point. It's something I'm just thinking through and I obviously welcome thoughts. Like I said, I'm not sure if I understand dispassion by itself or as a soteriological byproduct of theosis/sanctification. I'm also not sure that if I understand dispassion I have appropriated it correctly.
So there are some initial thoughts. The plan is to post some follow up to the first few as I listen to more concerts tomorrow. There are a few I'm excited about, but all in all the lineup seems pretty sparse this year. A few bands on my must-see list:
- Delorean Grey: A local-ish KY band I've met a couple times. They rock.
- MxPx: Old School... can't pass it up.
- Code of Ethics: I can't believe they are still making music!
- Family Force 5: I've heard they give a killer show
- Psalters: A total hippy-free-thinker band, but their latest CD is based on the Catholic and Orthodox liturgies. It sort of freaks me out because there is so much going on, but it's kinda cool.
Blessings,
- Ben
1. The rumors were proven true. In my time running sound professionally I've had the opportunity to travel quite a bit and after I tell people where I live there is one thing that I've heard from a few different companies and stage hands from a few different places: "Isn't that where that Christian music festival is?.... I've heard the audio there sucks!" It seems Ichthus has a reputation for having some of the worst audio production around. Since I've never been to Ichthus until this year I could never offer a value judgment....well I'm sad to report that the rumors are true.
I'm willing to admit that I'm an audio snob and that I'm use to working with top of the line gear like VDOSC and the like, but tonight was fairly bad. It could be said that I came into the concert with a predisposition and thus only found what I was looking for, but I really tried to be open and honest with myself.
I did my nerdy sound guy walking around listening to different areas and aspects and there were very few areas that I thought sounded good. In fact, one of the poorest sounding areas was the one place that it is supposed to sound the best: around the sound board. I thought the line array they were using didn't disperse evenly, a few of the frequencies were too hot and made listening uncomfortable in some places, the vocals in some places were buried to the point of unintelligibility, amidst a few other things.
I'm not saying that I'm a magic sound guy and that I could have done better. In my inexperience I probably would have made it sound worse, but I've heard the same type of gear they were using sound a lot better. Granted they weren't using top of the line gear (cough VDOSC.... cough) but they were using OK equipment... either way it should have sounded better. I'm looking forward to the next day or two to see if they are able to work out some of the kinks.
2. Maybe I'm just old, but it didn't seem like Skillet gave as sweet of a concert as I've seen from them in the past. Don't get me wrong, they still rocked and I enjoyed it (sans the audio problems mentioned above), but their stage presence seemed to be lacking. John Cooper, the front man, seemed like he was trying to force his humor and it ended up being flat. I've enjoyed every other Skillet show I've been too, so I'm willing to chalk it up to them having an off night.
3. While the audio production left a bit to be desired I thought the visual production was done very well. Props to Ichthus for going big on the light rigs. It could have used a few more movers, but all in all it was done well.
4. I couldn't find a Houghton College booth. That made me sad, hopefully I just missed it.
5. Warning: This one will probably be long and theological.
I've been thinking a lot lately about sanctification or whatever term you want to give it: I personally like: Partaking of the Divine Essence (2 Peter 1.4). In the Patristic tradition there this a concept/attribute of "dispassion" that accompanies this sanctification. The concept of dispassion is most fully articulated by the Eastern theologians, though it seems to me that it is also found in some of the western theologians as well. I'm not sure that I really understand what it means to be dispassionate (in fact it really confuses me and I need to study more), but I couldn't help but have thoughts surrounding it tonight at Ichthus.
At my basic and elementary understanding (which could be dead wrong) to be dispassionate is to not be moved by the passions (pride, lust, anger, etc) and to have one's soul quiet before the Lord. This doesn't mean, to my understanding, that one is a mopey kill-joy from then on, but that one is not easily moved to ecstatic reactions. We are in essence dead to the world, insofar as we find our entire orientation toward God.
With this in mind I started thinking about rock music, particularly Christian rock. I love rock as much as the next person, but I think if I were to speak honestly, I would have to admit that it does not quiet my soul. In fact anyone in attendance would have a hard time quieting their soul. The question I'm wrestling with is: "If one of the character traits to which we are striving is dispassion (this may be up for debate) then is there room within this striving for such music (or anything) that steers us from that goal?"
This music application can be taken further to encompass the current Protestant tread of contemporary worship music. While I enjoy the theologically deep songs (sadly there are few) I wonder how the genre helps to quiet one's soul and foster dispassion. At the risk of making a fallacious jump, I wonder if this leads to the problem of the current obsession with worship: focusing on the concept of worship so much that we lose focus on the object of worship.
I know there are a lot of ifs in the last point. It's something I'm just thinking through and I obviously welcome thoughts. Like I said, I'm not sure if I understand dispassion by itself or as a soteriological byproduct of theosis/sanctification. I'm also not sure that if I understand dispassion I have appropriated it correctly.
So there are some initial thoughts. The plan is to post some follow up to the first few as I listen to more concerts tomorrow. There are a few I'm excited about, but all in all the lineup seems pretty sparse this year. A few bands on my must-see list:
- Delorean Grey: A local-ish KY band I've met a couple times. They rock.
- MxPx: Old School... can't pass it up.
- Code of Ethics: I can't believe they are still making music!
- Family Force 5: I've heard they give a killer show
- Psalters: A total hippy-free-thinker band, but their latest CD is based on the Catholic and Orthodox liturgies. It sort of freaks me out because there is so much going on, but it's kinda cool.
Blessings,
- Ben
Thursday, February 28, 2008
Great Minds Think Alike
Apparently I'm not the only one with thoughts along the line of my last post. Check out my friend Isaac's blog post (here). He takes a slightly different approach in that he's more calm and probably nicer about it, but either way here is a slightly different perspective on the same issue.
And I don't think he read my post before he wrote his.
Enjoy.
- Ben
And I don't think he read my post before he wrote his.
Enjoy.
- Ben
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
Why I don't Like Protestant Worship Music
I'm trying to catch up on some reading for classes so I can't write a long post, but I wanted to jot down this thought before I got distracted.
For my independent study I've been reading the second volume of Jaroslav Pelikan's wonderful church history set entitled The Rise of Eastern Christendom. Since Pelikan's work chronicles the history of theology and thoughts I am finding that it's a moderately heavy read, especially given that even at seminary many of these historical concepts have not been taught to me.
Today I was reading about the Nestorian, Jacobite, and Monophysite heresies and on the hypostatis of Christ. Since Pelikan quotes from so many primary sources (something that is often missing in many church histories) I found myself getting a little confused concerning the hypostasis of Christ and what orthodox doctrine taught. Instead of turning to wikipedia or another source that would of taken a lot more time to find some resolution I remembered that there is an ancient hymn of pascha that briefly discusses the hypostasis of Christ. Since I had my ipod on me I decided to turn to the music of the church to teach me the orthodox way and bring about clarity of thought.
Granted the hymn isn't a treatise, but I wasn't looking for a treatise, I was merely looking for a quick answer as to how many hypostates Christ has. This is when I realized that I was able to articulate one of the many reasons I don't like Protestant worship music - namely, that I don't like to guess and check when it comes to the doctrine conveyed within my church music.
Due to the plethora of music in protestantism and the constant desire to update the music I find that one cannot trust the theology that is conveyed in much of it. In strict juxtaposition to this is the music that is sung at the Orthodox church I currently attend. When I hear the hymns of the Orthodox church I am sure that what is being taught is theologically in-line with the 7 ecumenical creeds of the church. I don't have to guess if I'm being taught something heretical because the songs have been tried by church and found fitting to be used in the worship of the Holy Trinity.
Sure, there may be some great assets to protestant music, but as a whole it is theologically vapid and emotive to a fault. While it is always good to asses and think about what is being sung in worship, I think that having to constantly analyze and wonder if the music is teaching correct doctrine is counterproductive to the church service. The music of the church should be filled with dogmatically correct theology and should be able to be used as a basis for the lay person to refute or accept notions of the divine. One can very easily argue that our theology in protestantism is weak because we do not sing it and we do not sing it because it is weak. This cycle is a disastrous one that is hurting the church and leading people into ignorance of the divine. How can we, expect to truly become partakers of the Divine essence (2Pet 1.4) if we do not even know God as he has revealed himself to us?
I fear I'm approaching a tangent so I will conclude now. If the reason I set out to articulate wasn't clear above let me sum up. Part of my aversion to Protestant worship music is that it has no substance and that which it tries to pass as substance is often near heretical if not blatantly so. The songs of the church should be those which have been tried by years of reflection and should be able to be used as concise creedal statements of belief that will plant the deep truths of the faith into the hearts of clergy and lay persons alike.
May the faith grow deep within you all
- Ben
For my independent study I've been reading the second volume of Jaroslav Pelikan's wonderful church history set entitled The Rise of Eastern Christendom. Since Pelikan's work chronicles the history of theology and thoughts I am finding that it's a moderately heavy read, especially given that even at seminary many of these historical concepts have not been taught to me.
Today I was reading about the Nestorian, Jacobite, and Monophysite heresies and on the hypostatis of Christ. Since Pelikan quotes from so many primary sources (something that is often missing in many church histories) I found myself getting a little confused concerning the hypostasis of Christ and what orthodox doctrine taught. Instead of turning to wikipedia or another source that would of taken a lot more time to find some resolution I remembered that there is an ancient hymn of pascha that briefly discusses the hypostasis of Christ. Since I had my ipod on me I decided to turn to the music of the church to teach me the orthodox way and bring about clarity of thought.
Granted the hymn isn't a treatise, but I wasn't looking for a treatise, I was merely looking for a quick answer as to how many hypostates Christ has. This is when I realized that I was able to articulate one of the many reasons I don't like Protestant worship music - namely, that I don't like to guess and check when it comes to the doctrine conveyed within my church music.
Due to the plethora of music in protestantism and the constant desire to update the music I find that one cannot trust the theology that is conveyed in much of it. In strict juxtaposition to this is the music that is sung at the Orthodox church I currently attend. When I hear the hymns of the Orthodox church I am sure that what is being taught is theologically in-line with the 7 ecumenical creeds of the church. I don't have to guess if I'm being taught something heretical because the songs have been tried by church and found fitting to be used in the worship of the Holy Trinity.
Sure, there may be some great assets to protestant music, but as a whole it is theologically vapid and emotive to a fault. While it is always good to asses and think about what is being sung in worship, I think that having to constantly analyze and wonder if the music is teaching correct doctrine is counterproductive to the church service. The music of the church should be filled with dogmatically correct theology and should be able to be used as a basis for the lay person to refute or accept notions of the divine. One can very easily argue that our theology in protestantism is weak because we do not sing it and we do not sing it because it is weak. This cycle is a disastrous one that is hurting the church and leading people into ignorance of the divine. How can we, expect to truly become partakers of the Divine essence (2Pet 1.4) if we do not even know God as he has revealed himself to us?
I fear I'm approaching a tangent so I will conclude now. If the reason I set out to articulate wasn't clear above let me sum up. Part of my aversion to Protestant worship music is that it has no substance and that which it tries to pass as substance is often near heretical if not blatantly so. The songs of the church should be those which have been tried by years of reflection and should be able to be used as concise creedal statements of belief that will plant the deep truths of the faith into the hearts of clergy and lay persons alike.
May the faith grow deep within you all
- Ben
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
Christ Our God?!?
Over the past few weeks there has been one phrase from church that has been constantly on my mind - the phrase "Christ our God." This phrase is repeated numerous times during the Divine Liturgy and is very clear in it's meaning - namely that Christ is our God and we worship him.
For some reason over the past few weeks this phrase has stuck out to me more than usual and thus I have been forced to wrestle with it's profundity and simplicity. I have been forced to realize what it means to truly say that Christ is our God. To say that in a seemingly nonsensical sense that we worship a man, but not just a man, we worship a person who is both fully God and fully man.
This truth is something I will die for and yet it is something that although I try, I cannot fully understand and so I am forced to stand in the paradox of confident humility.
While this is indeed is a good meditation, it was not where I had planned to go with this post, so let me get back on track.
As I have thought and have been forced to meditate on this phrase I have been equally dismayed by it's absence from Protestant services. I think I first noticed this because when I first started to think on this phrase I felt slightly uncomfortable and began to analyze why. I then realized that I don't usually hear the phrase Christ our God in worship. As I thought I realized that while I may have conversations about Christ's divinity and would defend it in a theological debate any day, I never have really experienced protestant worship that verbalized Christ as God and the object of worship in a doxological sense.
Now, I realize that I am opening up myself for a great critique here as I'm sure one could find a few counterexamples and will believe that to suffice for a refutation of my assertion, but I disagree. Think about our worship services, for you Asburians think about our Chapel services (which, though they should be the exception are likely to fail even more than our churches) when was the last time that the service was thoroughly Trinitarian? When was the last time that a service was Christo-centric in the sense that it drew your worship toward Christ and caused you to bless, worship and affirm Christ as both God and man? Are our services Trinitarian - rarely. Are they Christo-centric - mostly, but this Christo-centrism seems to be a thin veil in front of bland and vague affirmations about God, rather than a specificity that is uniquely Christian and prayerfully meditative of Christ as the object of our worship - the fully divine, fully human , God-man.
Now, I am not fully opposed to songs of worship that are very concerned with the intimacy to be had between the Christian and Christ (love songs with Jesus, if you will), but these are not a proper starting place. We must start with the foundational faith and then allow room for mystical expression and intimate experiences.
We must do a better job at teaching our people the faith and for most this will not effectively happen in the classroom or the pulpit, but my making these truths essential parts or our worship both in song and prayer. If we continue on the path of only emphasizing the essential truths of the faith in classrooms and teaching them only to pastors then the faith will cease to be passed down to the coming generations.
The early fathers closely linked godliness with correct theology and action. We wonder why our people don't live righteously- could it not be that it is because they are not grounded in the Truth?
For some reason over the past few weeks this phrase has stuck out to me more than usual and thus I have been forced to wrestle with it's profundity and simplicity. I have been forced to realize what it means to truly say that Christ is our God. To say that in a seemingly nonsensical sense that we worship a man, but not just a man, we worship a person who is both fully God and fully man.
God of the substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and man of substance of His mother, born in the world. Perfect God and perfect man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting. Equal to the Father as touching His Godhead, and inferior to the Father as touching His manhood. Who, although He is God and man, yet He is not two, but one Christ. One, not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by taking of that manhood into God. One altogether, not by confusion of substance, but by unity of person.
- Athanasian Creed
This truth is something I will die for and yet it is something that although I try, I cannot fully understand and so I am forced to stand in the paradox of confident humility.
While this is indeed is a good meditation, it was not where I had planned to go with this post, so let me get back on track.
As I have thought and have been forced to meditate on this phrase I have been equally dismayed by it's absence from Protestant services. I think I first noticed this because when I first started to think on this phrase I felt slightly uncomfortable and began to analyze why. I then realized that I don't usually hear the phrase Christ our God in worship. As I thought I realized that while I may have conversations about Christ's divinity and would defend it in a theological debate any day, I never have really experienced protestant worship that verbalized Christ as God and the object of worship in a doxological sense.
Now, I realize that I am opening up myself for a great critique here as I'm sure one could find a few counterexamples and will believe that to suffice for a refutation of my assertion, but I disagree. Think about our worship services, for you Asburians think about our Chapel services (which, though they should be the exception are likely to fail even more than our churches) when was the last time that the service was thoroughly Trinitarian? When was the last time that a service was Christo-centric in the sense that it drew your worship toward Christ and caused you to bless, worship and affirm Christ as both God and man? Are our services Trinitarian - rarely. Are they Christo-centric - mostly, but this Christo-centrism seems to be a thin veil in front of bland and vague affirmations about God, rather than a specificity that is uniquely Christian and prayerfully meditative of Christ as the object of our worship - the fully divine, fully human , God-man.
Now, I am not fully opposed to songs of worship that are very concerned with the intimacy to be had between the Christian and Christ (love songs with Jesus, if you will), but these are not a proper starting place. We must start with the foundational faith and then allow room for mystical expression and intimate experiences.
We must do a better job at teaching our people the faith and for most this will not effectively happen in the classroom or the pulpit, but my making these truths essential parts or our worship both in song and prayer. If we continue on the path of only emphasizing the essential truths of the faith in classrooms and teaching them only to pastors then the faith will cease to be passed down to the coming generations.
The early fathers closely linked godliness with correct theology and action. We wonder why our people don't live righteously- could it not be that it is because they are not grounded in the Truth?
Saturday, October 21, 2006
About time eh?
Fear not, I have returned! After over a two month long hiatus I am back and wondering how I will ever begin to put all that is running through my head into a coherent blog. I will try to group it in sections so it's a little easier to follow, but who knows how that will go. With that said, dont' forget to check out my last post. I posted it yesterday and am particularly proud of it.
Part One: Ending the Summer - Learning to understand the development of heresy.
[note I have edited this section from the original post and have placed the restructured text in italics. Much is missing from the original and it is for the better.]
As I sit and reflect about the summer it really feels like it never had an end. I feel like it slammed right into the school year like a runaway train. I feel like I didn't really get a chance to catch my breath before the school year started, but I am still grateful for the summer. The job I worked was loads of fun even despite the countless sleepless nights and weary weeks and I met a bunch of great people and had some interesting experiences that I feel will form how I view people and ministry for years to come. On top of all that I learned a lot more about audio reinforcement and feel like I am a much better sound tech than I was at the beginning of the summer.
As I mentioned I feel like the summer ran right into the school year without a break. I think the reason for this is because I worked a gig the first two weekends I was back to school.
One of these gigs stands out because while I was there I had some interesting thoughts concerning the development of heresy in the early church. It seems to me that heresy could have developed by the bringing of the gospel to a place where it subsequently took root.
Over time - because the area was so isolated and was not connected to the global church- teaching began to develop in a heretical manner and thus that area became a breeding ground for heresy. Now we must be honest and say that this is just a hypothesis and surely not all heresies formed this way, but could it not be that is why all the early church fathers and mothers emphasized the importance of the bishop? They emphasized structure because it was the unity inherent in the structure that kept them connected in the bond they already shared - namely Christ's blood. It was this unity that allowed them to maintain the orthodox faith and determine what heresy was. If the church was to survive and to proclaim Christ for who he was the fathers knew that it couldn't hole itself up in a small geographic location, rather it must commune with believers the world over.
I fear that we, as the American church are in grave danger of doing this to ourselves. We neglect the worldwide church, we are ignorant of the defenders of the faith of ages past and when confronted with our neglect and ignorance we shrug and apathetic shoulder and continue on in our self-absorbed way of "Christianity." This is the travesty in the American church. This is why much of Western Christendom is bankrupt, and this is why we have scarcely a clue what true orthodoxy is in our churches.
Part Two: On the Incarnation
"Oh holy father Athanasius, like a pillar of orthoxy, you supported the church with your teaching, refuting the hertical nonsense of Arius - by asserting that the Father and Son are equal in essence."
Those are the opening lines of one the Athanasian hymn that is sung occasionally in my church. I'm not going to get into the issue of hymns to saints right now (for it would surely consume pages) but I write this to say that it is very true. Athanasius is deserving of sainthood. Even though he was mere scribe at the Council of Nicea and didn't really defend the co-substantial nature of the Father and Son at the council (contrary to popular belief), he truly proved to be a champion of the council's (and true Christian) teaching in his bishopric for years to come. One of his defences of this is his book On the Incarnation, which I finished at the end of the summer but will try to give a brief review here.
Let me say that the book itself is worth the read just for the introduction by C.S. Lewis in the St. Vladimir's Seminary publication. Lewis does an excellent job setting the framework - especially if one is reading this book as a protestant who has no clue what church history is, or what function church tradition should serve.
Aside form teh intro the book is absolutly amazing! I believe it to be a must read. Athanasius starts out discussing our problem as humans (namely the fall) and thus proceeds to describe God's solution to the problem - which is the glorious incarnation. He then describes the death and resurrection of Christ and why it must occur. After discussing and giving thorough explanations and defenses of the above he turns to the refutation of hypothetical objections by both Jews and Gentiles. My personal favorite passage of the book is found in his discourse on the resurrection.
If I could type it all out I would but I'm afraid that wouldn't be within copyright law so I will direct you to a link that you can find the whole section. Click here to find this passage.
In this section Athanasius defends the notion that death is completly and utterly destroyed by the resurrection. His defense of this includes the fact that "All the disciples of Christ despised death; they take the offensive against it and, instead of fearing it, by the sign of the cross and by faith in Christ trample on it as on something dead." Athanasius continues saying that before Christ's death and resurrection even the holy men feared death, but now death has no merit and should not be feared, stating that "all those who believe in Christ tread it [death] underfoot as nothing, and prefer to die rather than to deny their faith in Christ..." The holy saint continues in his defense of Christ's blessed triumph over death in what I find to be the most beautiful example: (let it be known that this example is a little sexist, but if we look at it from a patristic culture point of view then it truly is beautfil - I don't share the Saint's cultural sexism but do share his excitement that death is trampled.)
"...for men who, before they believed in Christ, think death horrible adn are afraid of it, once they are converted despise it so competely that they go eagerly to meet it, and themselves become witnesses of the Savior's resurrection from it. Even children hasten thus to die, and not men only, but women train themselves by bodily discipline to meet it. So weak has death become that even women, who used to be taken in by it, mock at it now as a dead thing robbed of all its strength. Death has become like a tyrant who has been completely conqured by the legitimate monarch; bound hand and foot as he now is, the passers-by jerr at him, hitting him and abusing him, no longer afraid of his cruelty and rage, because of the king who has conquered him. So has death been conqured and branded for what it is by the Savior on the cross."
Wow!! I can't believe that. I about fall out of my chair every time I think of this passage. Amen and Amen is all I can say.
This isn't the only part of the book I enjoyed but it is the part that brings me to tears of joy and sorrow at the same time (and it is one that allows me to launch into a rant). If you know me well, as most of you who read this do, then you can probably anticipate why I love this passage. My longing and expectance of martydom is no secret to many of you (as it has been a constant in my mind for the past 3 years) and this passage is encouraging as it makes me seem not so crazy for having no fear of death and even as the saint says running "eagerly to meet it. But more than that I find it so uplifting to know that the message of Christ's conquering of death is so essential and so connected to the incarnation and act of our Savior that we can scarcely meditate on Christ without thinking of it. Yes I long for martrydom, not as a mad man, but as one who has no fear of death. And this is where the rant begins.
It seems to me that this theology has left our churches. In general the protestant church as a whole fears death. In fact, we don't just fear death we fear almost everything. I can barely look at the western church today without seeing a group that is drenched in fear. If you doubt this take a look at the popular theological (or rather psuedo-theological) works that are popular among many christians. Look at the rise and expectancy of the pre-tribulation rapture and the numerous books and shows that propegate a theology that declares Christ's return in the next few years. Even examin at a distance the plethora of books (both fictional and non) about the evil powers that prevail against us and provide us with gimicks on how to overcome. The church today is drenched and filled with fear!!! We are afraid of the evil one, we are afraid of the powers, we are afraid of the government, and we are especially afraid of death. The question I ask is why?!?
Why on earth are our churches living in such states of fear? I propose that it is because we have no concept of the power of the cross. If Christ truly has conquered the power of death, and thus we should have no fear of it, then why in the world should we fear anything. It is by the power of the cross and ressurection that we are saved and thus are given authority and power as children of God. If we need not fear death then we also need not fear anything. All is in submission to the cross and if we bear that cross then we have nothing to fear... not even, as the cliche says, 'fear itself'. I suggest that the church reclaim this teaching, and walk in this boldness. Embrace the fact that we died and were raised with Christ in our baptism and run to our death. It may be a scary thought but we need not fear it. Out death may be immenant or it may be far off. My thought is who cares, pursue the cross and it matters not when death comes - for it truly comes in vain!!
Part Three: Solo (and not the DC Talk album)
Since sophomore year in college I have been under the opinion, which as with all of my opinions I do not hold to lightly, that solos (i.e. a guitar solo - though it could be any instrument or voice) are completely out of place in the worship of the church.
I came about to this thinking as a result of the mentorship of Troy Mcknight and Brian Emerson in Koinonia and continued to teach this idea as a leader in that ministry in undergrad and as a pastoral intern without giving much thought to an opposing view point. I say all this not because I'm questioning my thinking, because I would firmly argue that solos don't belong in the worship of the church for various reasons, but because I have met with some resitance to this thinking and am looking to clarify it. First let me lay out a few reasons why I think solos have no place.
1. They draw attention to one individual and are a novelty that takes the worship away form the Triune God and places it on the individual performing the solo.
2. As if 1 wasn't reason enough, they serve no theological purpose in ushering the community into the presence of God.
3. The spontaneous nature of the solo in the context of corporate worship, specificaly because it lacks introduction and explanation via the structure of the service or audible explanation, disengages the congregation and inturupts their participation in the worship of God.
4. The solo is inherently self-focused and being performed rather than serving as an integral part of the liturgy that allows the "work of the people" (literal meaning of liturgy) to continue.
Let me be clear on one of these points. In number 3 I am in no means rejecting any spontinaity in worship. Worship can and should have degress of spontinaity but, that spontinaity is often placed within the structure of the church's worship so that it is contextualized by the service, and thus explained, or is prefaced by an explanation of some sort that explains what the spontanious time is meant to do. Performing a solo without liturgical context or verbal explanation seems to be quite analogous to speaking in tongues without an interpretor in a corporate setting - and as we know, St. Paul tells us that this is right out.
Just incase it hasn't been clear so far I am mostly referring to an instrumental (and also a vocal) solo during a worship team lead liturgy as this is the most common venue for this occurance. The reason I write all this is because as I think about this I am at a struggle to precisely define what the difference is between a solo and such things as an interlude, a fill, or an anthem.
I think my above number 3 seems to set a solo off from an anthem but I am still interested in what you all are thinking - especially my friends from undergrad who have music degrees. What are the musical differences, how about theological ones? Do you think I'm right in my assertion or am I am off base? I would appreciate help in thinking through this. So let me know. As always comments are good but you are all my friends (unless your some stranger) and you probably have my phone number so calls are welcome as well.
Part Four: Community vs. the Trinity
Both at Houghton and at Asbury over the past few years there has been much discussion as to the great importance of community in the church. This has been brought to our attention through things such as postmodernism, the vast lack of a sense of community in the church, and the emergent movement. As a member of the worship design (aka Chapel Intern) at Asbury I have been examining and listening to our chapel speakers to see what is being emphasized in our chapels. I have noticed that quite often community is stressed, the practice of it is implored and the abandonment of it has been chastized. One other thing that I have noticed is that Community is mentioned 10:1 over the Trinity. And while the argument can be made that we frame our discussion of community trinitarianly I would argue that "framing" is not enough. If we hold to the Trinity as the ultimate truth of the Godhead revealed, which I do, then we must do more than use it to frame our thinking. Why on earth are we talking about community more than the Triune God? Has community become our new idol along with relevance? (see my earlier post entitled "Current??")
It worries me that the western protestant church is spending so much time worrying about community and not talking about the fullest revelation of truth. Are we or are we not a people who claim to worship a Triune God? If we are then I suggest we do it - with our "framing" with our words and with our actions. I believe that becasue the Trinity is in community then community will flow out of our worship of the Trinity, but I seriously doubt that true trinitarian worship can ever flow strictly out of the practice of community.
This emphasis on community is particularly emphasized in many of the self proclaimed "emergent churches," which as many of you already know I consider nothing more than a great basterdization of the church, but nonetheless they serve as another great example of the wrong direction the church is taking.
Many of these emergent churches have decided to meet in the "round" (cf. Doug Pagit "Re-imagining Spiritual Formation) which basically means that they design their seating so as to face each other in a circle. They do this so as not to elevate one person (ie the pastor) over the rest of the congregation and also to emphasize that everyone is important.
Now compare this seating design to that of the high-church Orthodox Church. In the Orthodox church the congregation always faces east to symbolize the direction in which Christ ascended and will return. An Icon of Christ is always placed at the front to focus the worship of the congregation on Christ our God. The priest, instead of facing the congregation for the whole service (as in western traditions) faces the icon to symbolize the priestly mediation of the prayers of the people ascending toward God.
Now tell me the implicit theological focus of each one of these seating designs. Who is the object, center and focus for the Orthodoxy - well the seating as well as the liturgy declare that it is Christ our God who recieves all Glory with the Father and the all Holy, Good, and Life Creating Spirit, now and ever and unto ages of ages. While the design of the emergent gathering focuses on one another, on the "community" and thus places us as the object of worship.
This is a perfect example of how we are slowly elevating "us" to the center of worship. All this is is classic theological liberalism at it's best and paganism at it's worst. We can never get Triune theology out of community, but we can and will get community out of Trinity. The question posed to us as Christians is which do we want to emphasize.
Part Five: Regularity and Novelty
This one should be pretty short. I've been asked a few times (mainly by my parents) but also by a few other people how I can get anything out of church. To be fair this question is based on the fact that I go to an Orthodox Church which practices the same liturgy every Sunday. So the question is very fair and very appropriate.
There really isn't an easy answer. I do know that God reveals himself to me in the liturgy every Sunday. I know that as I recite the liturgy over and over I am begining to learn scripture and theology and allowing it to embed in my being deeper and deeper.
I don't want to assert that variety in worship is bad, but I do think there is much value to consitency and repetition. Our priest gave a great example of this the other day in church. He was expounding on the Orthodox practice of saying "Lord have mercy" repeatedly and pointed out that there are some prayers in which that line is said almost 50 times in a row. When questioned explaining how it could have meaning the 50th time he said that we really only understand what were saying the last 3 times. The first 47 times are preparing us and shaping our hearts to really understand and mean "Lord have mercy." I thought this was a beautiful illustration.
Another great explanation as to how repeated liturgy can be beneficial is offered by the great protestant theologian C.S. Lewis. Lewis says the following:
“A worship service works best when, through long familiarity, we don’t have to think about it… The perfect church service would be the one we were almost unaware of; our attention would have been on God. But every novelty prevents this. It fixes our attention on the service itself; and thinking about worship is a different thing from worshipping… Tis mad idolatry that makes the service greater than the god. A still worse thing may happen. Novelty may fix our attention not even on the service but on the celebrant…There is really some excuse for the man who said, ‘I wish they’d remember that the chart to Peter was ‘Feed my sheep’; not ‘Try experiments on my rats’, or even ‘Teach my performing dogs new tricks.’”
To Lewis' statement all I have to say is Amen. I do feel that there is so much novelty in so many of our church services that we lose sight of the true importance. We reject the great affirmations of the faith because we recited them every Sunday as kids, or we throw out theologically packed hymns because they're old and boring.
The problem, my friends, is not with the liturgy, the hymns, the creeds, no it is with us. We have allowed our entertainment cravings for something new to drive our worship of God. We have ceased to see ceased to see God in the ordinary things of the liturgy not because we they're too often said and thus God is not speaking through them, but because we've hardened our hearts to them because we're bored. As Ben Witherington once said "Boredom is the state of mind for those who lack imagination" and to be sure we have become theologically bored with the great traditions of the faith not because they are rote, but because we lack an imagination that is holy and constantly renewed by God.
Part One: Ending the Summer - Learning to understand the development of heresy.
[note I have edited this section from the original post and have placed the restructured text in italics. Much is missing from the original and it is for the better.]
As I sit and reflect about the summer it really feels like it never had an end. I feel like it slammed right into the school year like a runaway train. I feel like I didn't really get a chance to catch my breath before the school year started, but I am still grateful for the summer. The job I worked was loads of fun even despite the countless sleepless nights and weary weeks and I met a bunch of great people and had some interesting experiences that I feel will form how I view people and ministry for years to come. On top of all that I learned a lot more about audio reinforcement and feel like I am a much better sound tech than I was at the beginning of the summer.
As I mentioned I feel like the summer ran right into the school year without a break. I think the reason for this is because I worked a gig the first two weekends I was back to school.
One of these gigs stands out because while I was there I had some interesting thoughts concerning the development of heresy in the early church. It seems to me that heresy could have developed by the bringing of the gospel to a place where it subsequently took root.
Over time - because the area was so isolated and was not connected to the global church- teaching began to develop in a heretical manner and thus that area became a breeding ground for heresy. Now we must be honest and say that this is just a hypothesis and surely not all heresies formed this way, but could it not be that is why all the early church fathers and mothers emphasized the importance of the bishop? They emphasized structure because it was the unity inherent in the structure that kept them connected in the bond they already shared - namely Christ's blood. It was this unity that allowed them to maintain the orthodox faith and determine what heresy was. If the church was to survive and to proclaim Christ for who he was the fathers knew that it couldn't hole itself up in a small geographic location, rather it must commune with believers the world over.
I fear that we, as the American church are in grave danger of doing this to ourselves. We neglect the worldwide church, we are ignorant of the defenders of the faith of ages past and when confronted with our neglect and ignorance we shrug and apathetic shoulder and continue on in our self-absorbed way of "Christianity." This is the travesty in the American church. This is why much of Western Christendom is bankrupt, and this is why we have scarcely a clue what true orthodoxy is in our churches.
Part Two: On the Incarnation
"Oh holy father Athanasius, like a pillar of orthoxy, you supported the church with your teaching, refuting the hertical nonsense of Arius - by asserting that the Father and Son are equal in essence."
Those are the opening lines of one the Athanasian hymn that is sung occasionally in my church. I'm not going to get into the issue of hymns to saints right now (for it would surely consume pages) but I write this to say that it is very true. Athanasius is deserving of sainthood. Even though he was mere scribe at the Council of Nicea and didn't really defend the co-substantial nature of the Father and Son at the council (contrary to popular belief), he truly proved to be a champion of the council's (and true Christian) teaching in his bishopric for years to come. One of his defences of this is his book On the Incarnation, which I finished at the end of the summer but will try to give a brief review here.
Let me say that the book itself is worth the read just for the introduction by C.S. Lewis in the St. Vladimir's Seminary publication. Lewis does an excellent job setting the framework - especially if one is reading this book as a protestant who has no clue what church history is, or what function church tradition should serve.
Aside form teh intro the book is absolutly amazing! I believe it to be a must read. Athanasius starts out discussing our problem as humans (namely the fall) and thus proceeds to describe God's solution to the problem - which is the glorious incarnation. He then describes the death and resurrection of Christ and why it must occur. After discussing and giving thorough explanations and defenses of the above he turns to the refutation of hypothetical objections by both Jews and Gentiles. My personal favorite passage of the book is found in his discourse on the resurrection.
If I could type it all out I would but I'm afraid that wouldn't be within copyright law so I will direct you to a link that you can find the whole section. Click here to find this passage.
In this section Athanasius defends the notion that death is completly and utterly destroyed by the resurrection. His defense of this includes the fact that "All the disciples of Christ despised death; they take the offensive against it and, instead of fearing it, by the sign of the cross and by faith in Christ trample on it as on something dead." Athanasius continues saying that before Christ's death and resurrection even the holy men feared death, but now death has no merit and should not be feared, stating that "all those who believe in Christ tread it [death] underfoot as nothing, and prefer to die rather than to deny their faith in Christ..." The holy saint continues in his defense of Christ's blessed triumph over death in what I find to be the most beautiful example: (let it be known that this example is a little sexist, but if we look at it from a patristic culture point of view then it truly is beautfil - I don't share the Saint's cultural sexism but do share his excitement that death is trampled.)
"...for men who, before they believed in Christ, think death horrible adn are afraid of it, once they are converted despise it so competely that they go eagerly to meet it, and themselves become witnesses of the Savior's resurrection from it. Even children hasten thus to die, and not men only, but women train themselves by bodily discipline to meet it. So weak has death become that even women, who used to be taken in by it, mock at it now as a dead thing robbed of all its strength. Death has become like a tyrant who has been completely conqured by the legitimate monarch; bound hand and foot as he now is, the passers-by jerr at him, hitting him and abusing him, no longer afraid of his cruelty and rage, because of the king who has conquered him. So has death been conqured and branded for what it is by the Savior on the cross."
Wow!! I can't believe that. I about fall out of my chair every time I think of this passage. Amen and Amen is all I can say.
This isn't the only part of the book I enjoyed but it is the part that brings me to tears of joy and sorrow at the same time (and it is one that allows me to launch into a rant). If you know me well, as most of you who read this do, then you can probably anticipate why I love this passage. My longing and expectance of martydom is no secret to many of you (as it has been a constant in my mind for the past 3 years) and this passage is encouraging as it makes me seem not so crazy for having no fear of death and even as the saint says running "eagerly to meet it. But more than that I find it so uplifting to know that the message of Christ's conquering of death is so essential and so connected to the incarnation and act of our Savior that we can scarcely meditate on Christ without thinking of it. Yes I long for martrydom, not as a mad man, but as one who has no fear of death. And this is where the rant begins.
It seems to me that this theology has left our churches. In general the protestant church as a whole fears death. In fact, we don't just fear death we fear almost everything. I can barely look at the western church today without seeing a group that is drenched in fear. If you doubt this take a look at the popular theological (or rather psuedo-theological) works that are popular among many christians. Look at the rise and expectancy of the pre-tribulation rapture and the numerous books and shows that propegate a theology that declares Christ's return in the next few years. Even examin at a distance the plethora of books (both fictional and non) about the evil powers that prevail against us and provide us with gimicks on how to overcome. The church today is drenched and filled with fear!!! We are afraid of the evil one, we are afraid of the powers, we are afraid of the government, and we are especially afraid of death. The question I ask is why?!?
Why on earth are our churches living in such states of fear? I propose that it is because we have no concept of the power of the cross. If Christ truly has conquered the power of death, and thus we should have no fear of it, then why in the world should we fear anything. It is by the power of the cross and ressurection that we are saved and thus are given authority and power as children of God. If we need not fear death then we also need not fear anything. All is in submission to the cross and if we bear that cross then we have nothing to fear... not even, as the cliche says, 'fear itself'. I suggest that the church reclaim this teaching, and walk in this boldness. Embrace the fact that we died and were raised with Christ in our baptism and run to our death. It may be a scary thought but we need not fear it. Out death may be immenant or it may be far off. My thought is who cares, pursue the cross and it matters not when death comes - for it truly comes in vain!!
Part Three: Solo (and not the DC Talk album)
Since sophomore year in college I have been under the opinion, which as with all of my opinions I do not hold to lightly, that solos (i.e. a guitar solo - though it could be any instrument or voice) are completely out of place in the worship of the church.
I came about to this thinking as a result of the mentorship of Troy Mcknight and Brian Emerson in Koinonia and continued to teach this idea as a leader in that ministry in undergrad and as a pastoral intern without giving much thought to an opposing view point. I say all this not because I'm questioning my thinking, because I would firmly argue that solos don't belong in the worship of the church for various reasons, but because I have met with some resitance to this thinking and am looking to clarify it. First let me lay out a few reasons why I think solos have no place.
1. They draw attention to one individual and are a novelty that takes the worship away form the Triune God and places it on the individual performing the solo.
2. As if 1 wasn't reason enough, they serve no theological purpose in ushering the community into the presence of God.
3. The spontaneous nature of the solo in the context of corporate worship, specificaly because it lacks introduction and explanation via the structure of the service or audible explanation, disengages the congregation and inturupts their participation in the worship of God.
4. The solo is inherently self-focused and being performed rather than serving as an integral part of the liturgy that allows the "work of the people" (literal meaning of liturgy) to continue.
Let me be clear on one of these points. In number 3 I am in no means rejecting any spontinaity in worship. Worship can and should have degress of spontinaity but, that spontinaity is often placed within the structure of the church's worship so that it is contextualized by the service, and thus explained, or is prefaced by an explanation of some sort that explains what the spontanious time is meant to do. Performing a solo without liturgical context or verbal explanation seems to be quite analogous to speaking in tongues without an interpretor in a corporate setting - and as we know, St. Paul tells us that this is right out.
Just incase it hasn't been clear so far I am mostly referring to an instrumental (and also a vocal) solo during a worship team lead liturgy as this is the most common venue for this occurance. The reason I write all this is because as I think about this I am at a struggle to precisely define what the difference is between a solo and such things as an interlude, a fill, or an anthem.
I think my above number 3 seems to set a solo off from an anthem but I am still interested in what you all are thinking - especially my friends from undergrad who have music degrees. What are the musical differences, how about theological ones? Do you think I'm right in my assertion or am I am off base? I would appreciate help in thinking through this. So let me know. As always comments are good but you are all my friends (unless your some stranger) and you probably have my phone number so calls are welcome as well.
Part Four: Community vs. the Trinity
Both at Houghton and at Asbury over the past few years there has been much discussion as to the great importance of community in the church. This has been brought to our attention through things such as postmodernism, the vast lack of a sense of community in the church, and the emergent movement. As a member of the worship design (aka Chapel Intern) at Asbury I have been examining and listening to our chapel speakers to see what is being emphasized in our chapels. I have noticed that quite often community is stressed, the practice of it is implored and the abandonment of it has been chastized. One other thing that I have noticed is that Community is mentioned 10:1 over the Trinity. And while the argument can be made that we frame our discussion of community trinitarianly I would argue that "framing" is not enough. If we hold to the Trinity as the ultimate truth of the Godhead revealed, which I do, then we must do more than use it to frame our thinking. Why on earth are we talking about community more than the Triune God? Has community become our new idol along with relevance? (see my earlier post entitled "Current??")
It worries me that the western protestant church is spending so much time worrying about community and not talking about the fullest revelation of truth. Are we or are we not a people who claim to worship a Triune God? If we are then I suggest we do it - with our "framing" with our words and with our actions. I believe that becasue the Trinity is in community then community will flow out of our worship of the Trinity, but I seriously doubt that true trinitarian worship can ever flow strictly out of the practice of community.
This emphasis on community is particularly emphasized in many of the self proclaimed "emergent churches," which as many of you already know I consider nothing more than a great basterdization of the church, but nonetheless they serve as another great example of the wrong direction the church is taking.
Many of these emergent churches have decided to meet in the "round" (cf. Doug Pagit "Re-imagining Spiritual Formation) which basically means that they design their seating so as to face each other in a circle. They do this so as not to elevate one person (ie the pastor) over the rest of the congregation and also to emphasize that everyone is important.
Now compare this seating design to that of the high-church Orthodox Church. In the Orthodox church the congregation always faces east to symbolize the direction in which Christ ascended and will return. An Icon of Christ is always placed at the front to focus the worship of the congregation on Christ our God. The priest, instead of facing the congregation for the whole service (as in western traditions) faces the icon to symbolize the priestly mediation of the prayers of the people ascending toward God.
Now tell me the implicit theological focus of each one of these seating designs. Who is the object, center and focus for the Orthodoxy - well the seating as well as the liturgy declare that it is Christ our God who recieves all Glory with the Father and the all Holy, Good, and Life Creating Spirit, now and ever and unto ages of ages. While the design of the emergent gathering focuses on one another, on the "community" and thus places us as the object of worship.
This is a perfect example of how we are slowly elevating "us" to the center of worship. All this is is classic theological liberalism at it's best and paganism at it's worst. We can never get Triune theology out of community, but we can and will get community out of Trinity. The question posed to us as Christians is which do we want to emphasize.
Part Five: Regularity and Novelty
This one should be pretty short. I've been asked a few times (mainly by my parents) but also by a few other people how I can get anything out of church. To be fair this question is based on the fact that I go to an Orthodox Church which practices the same liturgy every Sunday. So the question is very fair and very appropriate.
There really isn't an easy answer. I do know that God reveals himself to me in the liturgy every Sunday. I know that as I recite the liturgy over and over I am begining to learn scripture and theology and allowing it to embed in my being deeper and deeper.
I don't want to assert that variety in worship is bad, but I do think there is much value to consitency and repetition. Our priest gave a great example of this the other day in church. He was expounding on the Orthodox practice of saying "Lord have mercy" repeatedly and pointed out that there are some prayers in which that line is said almost 50 times in a row. When questioned explaining how it could have meaning the 50th time he said that we really only understand what were saying the last 3 times. The first 47 times are preparing us and shaping our hearts to really understand and mean "Lord have mercy." I thought this was a beautiful illustration.
Another great explanation as to how repeated liturgy can be beneficial is offered by the great protestant theologian C.S. Lewis. Lewis says the following:
“A worship service works best when, through long familiarity, we don’t have to think about it… The perfect church service would be the one we were almost unaware of; our attention would have been on God. But every novelty prevents this. It fixes our attention on the service itself; and thinking about worship is a different thing from worshipping… Tis mad idolatry that makes the service greater than the god. A still worse thing may happen. Novelty may fix our attention not even on the service but on the celebrant…There is really some excuse for the man who said, ‘I wish they’d remember that the chart to Peter was ‘Feed my sheep’; not ‘Try experiments on my rats’, or even ‘Teach my performing dogs new tricks.’”
To Lewis' statement all I have to say is Amen. I do feel that there is so much novelty in so many of our church services that we lose sight of the true importance. We reject the great affirmations of the faith because we recited them every Sunday as kids, or we throw out theologically packed hymns because they're old and boring.
The problem, my friends, is not with the liturgy, the hymns, the creeds, no it is with us. We have allowed our entertainment cravings for something new to drive our worship of God. We have ceased to see ceased to see God in the ordinary things of the liturgy not because we they're too often said and thus God is not speaking through them, but because we've hardened our hearts to them because we're bored. As Ben Witherington once said "Boredom is the state of mind for those who lack imagination" and to be sure we have become theologically bored with the great traditions of the faith not because they are rote, but because we lack an imagination that is holy and constantly renewed by God.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
