You think the reformation is over? It is now . . .

Carl Trueman's excellent article on how the advent of mega churches signals the end of the reformation is well worth a read and has really stuck with me in my own struggles with a church which, while hardly mega, is getting to the point where it is difficult to know everybody, and certainly not possible to really know everybody.  However even in small churches I have noticed a tendency to jetison the insights and advances of the reformation without so much as a thought. 

This particular regression can be blamed on the "creative" outlet provided by digital video projectors whereby communion is now not complete without either a slide showing a blood stained figure on a cross, or a pained face with a crown of thorns, or even better yet a youtube video where some american crooner sings about the cross set to slide show put together by a theologically illiterate teenager in their bedroom complete with every cliched Christ image on google.  Suddenly we are worshipping an image in our allegedly Bible believing churches, using a cheesy digital image to focus our thoughts on the suffering of Jesus. 

Don't get me wrong I have no problem with movies made out of the story of Jesus, although some of them are terrible, or pictures in the children's Bibles.  But by playing such images as part of our worship, especially as part of a communion service we take attention away from the image Jesus actually did leave us, the bread and the wine shared among the people of God - which is clearly not Jesus but points us to his presence within and among us, and focuses us on the sad tragic physical suffering of crucifixion which is really not the focus of the Bible when it comes to the cross at all.  Jesus' death really wasn't that tragic in the vast scale of human suffering, others have died longer more painful and humiliating deaths.  The evangelists do not labour the fact that he was in pain, or that it was really sad that Jesus was being hurt, etc, etc.  The focus of the gospel writers was on the meaning of his death, and that should be our focus too, but it is hard to do that when corny gory images of someones idea of Christ are filling up the front of the church.

And to reward you for reading my rant, here is some unrelated light relief from the Sacred Sandwich,

Let me know what you think, :-)

A Waitangi Communion

It is Waitangi day today, so yesterday (Sunday) I wrote some communion responses (Lord's supper/ eucharist).  Obviously these are posted too late for anyone to use this year, but who knows what people will be searching for in 2013 and beyond?  :-)

(BTW because my church family are not used to liturgy I make it very clear that what we are doing is praying and reading scripture.  All scripture quotes have been adapted from the NIV.  Congregational responses in italics. Feel free to use or adapt this material for your own context.)

A Waitangi Communion

God of the nations, Thank you for bringing us to New Zealand.  In Maori, European, Asian, Pacific, Indian, African and all races represented in our country, we recognise your provision and grace, the answered prayers of many for a safe and prosperous place to live.

Is Segregated Worship the Spirit's Desire?

OK maybe that title was a little too provocative, I am not talking about racial segregation but gender and age segregation. With regard to gender James Jordan of Biblical Horizons seems to think so,

The simple fact is that for 2000 years, the Holy Spirit moved the church to have men and women sitting separately during divine worship. This is because in heaven there is neither marrying nor giving in marriage. There is neither male nor female, bond nor free, child nor parent. Hence, ascended worship, taking place seated in the heavenlies, involves an affirmation of God’s Family and a setting aside of the earthly family. As a matter of fact, if you want God to give you a healthy family, let Him take it apart and put it back together each week, for that is how God always glorifies and empowers His people .

HT Richard Walker

But with regard to age he does not.  Jordan also argues that liturgy and singing psalms are the best way to include children and youth in the life of the church,

Obviously children belong in worship. That is why the church historically has had a fully sung liturgy that is the same every week. Even three-year olds can join in. They don’t have to read different prayers every week. 

Which reminds me of Thalia Kehoe Rowden's opinions on having all age services,

All-age services offer the kind of deep community that including everyone fosters and the regular exercise of generosity this level of inclusion requires, and both these benefits mean I get really good bang for my buck in leading this community.

While Jordan clearly has a phd in gross generalisations and pontificating I have a great deal of sympathy with his point.  Many churches spend a great deal of time energy and money developing curriculum for multiple age groups, and the staffing issues with a medium sized childrens program must be experienced to be believed.  However for most of us declaring a weekly liturgy and psalm singing to be the solution looks rather like an acute case of trying to shut the door after the horse bolted went out into the bush and sired three generations of wild ponies. 


What do you think?

The first hymn

The Cyber Hymnal records that the first hymn written in English for public worship was penned by Isaac Watts at the ripe old age of 14 . . .

In a lengthy dis­cuss­ion with his fa­ther, Watts ar­gued that sing­ing on­ly the Psalms in church made them miss much im­port­ant New Test­a­ment truth. Once his con­gre­ga­tion was con­vinced of what Isaac was say­ing, he be­gan turn­ing out a new hymn a week. But this one is the ve­ry first, mak­ing the words Pre­pare new hon­ors for His name, and songs be­fore un­known es­pe­cial­ly mean­ing­ful. This hymn al­so re­veals Watts’ amaz­ing breadth of bib­lical know­ledge (he was on­ly a teen­ag­er at the time); there are al­lu­sions to ma­ny Script­ure pass­ag­es.

And the following is what resulted

Behold the glories of the Lamb
Amidst His Father’s throne.
Prepare new honors for His name,
And songs before unknown.

Let elders worship at His feet,
The Church adore around,
With vials full of odors sweet,
And harps of sweeter sound.

Those are the prayers of the saints,
And these the hymns they raise;
Jesus is kind to our complaints,
He loves to hear our praise.

Eternal Father, who shall look
Into Thy secret will?
Who but the Son should take that Book
And open every seal?

He shall fulfill Thy great decrees,
The Son deserves it well;
Lo, in His hand the sovereign keys
Of Heav’n, and death, and hell!

Now to the Lamb that once was slain
Be endless blessings paid;
Salvation, glory, joy remain
Forever on Thy head.

Thou hast redeemed our souls with blood,
Hast set the prisoner free;
Hast made us kings and priests to God,
And we shall reign with Thee.

The worlds of nature and of grace
Are put beneath Thy power;
Then shorten these delaying days,
And bring the promised hour.

Obviously the main muse for the hymn comes from the book Apocalypse of John.  Watts went on to be a very serious non-conformist theologian and preacher as well as penning nearly 800 hymns.  Of course, my favourite Watts hymn is entitled "Blest is the man whose bowels move." I kid you not, and the second verse is even better than the first line!

brick-a-brack 140911

• Ben Myers defends Rob Bell's Love Wins (and of course Karl Barth as well)
• Daniel Kirk explains to his students how biblical studies will ruin their faith (in a good way)
• Kevin DeYoung lists the values that guide the way his church worships (HT Marc)

let me know what you think! :-)

Worship Wars in The Cafeteria of Life

Thanks to DP for pointing to this provocative "rant from a loser in the worship wars", well worth a read and uncannily appropriate given the Sacred Sandwich cartooon for today:

The Arminian Creed(?)

This tongue in cheek creed comes from an hilarious order of service from a (otherwise unimaginative) calvinist website, (HT Justin)

“I believe in God who once was Almighty, but sovereignly chose not to be sovereign; and in Jesus, my personal Lord and Saviour, Who loves me and has a wonderful plan for my life, Who came into my heart when I asked him to, and is now seated at the right ventricle of my belief in Him, Who walks with me and talks with me along life’s narrow way, and tells me I am His own, Who shall come again with secrecy to rapture us out of here, Whose Kingdom shall last one thousand years; And in the Holy Ghost, who did some weird stuff at Pentecost, but doesn’t do much more anymore except speak secretly to the hearts of individual believers. And I believe in this local, independent, and powerless church, insofar as it is in line with my personal interpretation of the Bible and does stuff! like; in one believer’s baptism for the public proof of my decision for Christ; and in giving my personal testimony for soul winning. And I look for the identity of the Antichrist, and know that the Last Days are now upon us. Ay-men.”

Meanwhile John Hobbins calls us to a more excellent way out of the Arminian/Calvinist debate.

Two posts on worship

 pic from Sacred Sandwich

I am very excited about Marc's new series on lessons from the Dark Ages for church worship.

And Roger Olsen poses an interesting question about a perplexing correlation between different churches' worship styles and their theology.

Worship Thoughts

The church in North America lives too much by borrowing and creating nostalgic moments; too much of our worship events are media-driven uses of nostalgia to create moments of personal experience in a crowd of strangers.  Too little does it live into the memory of its story; it is largely forgotten by most who come to church buildings looking for moments of spiritual engagement to resource the thinness of their disembedded, fragmented lives. 

Roxburgh and Boren, Introducing the Missional Church, 2009, p61

You might also be interested in this interesting review of a David Crowder worship conference, and/or some good advice about geting really good at something.

Burning the Q'ran, a theological T-shirt for you, a worship test, etc

[Pic by ASBO Jesus]

Well I really didn't want to weigh in on all the hullaballoo about that unregenerate fundamentalist moron Terry Jones, because all I'll do is get angry and be rude, and I try to keep blogging a positive experience.  James does better and suggests a positive alternative to burning books, while Jim just goes on and on (but he's dead right, apart from the first link, which is just wrong on so many levels).

In Europe, however, this

is just one of a number of fasinating Christian T-shirts exegeted by TSK, well worth studying them all.

And in the UK, Alex proposes a new way of testing if people in your church are really paying attention or just going through the motions:

Other posts worthy of note

• Richard Beck thinks nudity might be the best way to fight pornography
• Jim West makes a pithy case for Biblical Historical Minimalism (I'm not convinced, but I'm listening)
• Clayboy wonders what to call the Old Testament, a problem I've also experienced
• And NZ's building minister makes some lame jokes about Islam, but hey being a goofball isn't the same as being a racist

Let me know what you think, :-)

Today!

Today I have printed off my thesis for submission and spiral bound it, I feel giddy.
Today I also entered the illustrious ranks of the Biblioblog top 50 at no.33, making me even giddier.
(and yes Jim you are still #1, but Jesus is #1 in my heart)

Not only that but don't miss

• The way language affects thought
• The need to actually know the Bible
• The August Biblical Studies Carnival
• Hurtado on historically conditioned scripture
• A priceless Gordon Fee quote on Revelation
• A deeper than you think rant on contemporary (sic) worship

Why is church so boring?

thanks to ASBO Jesus for the pic

Honestly, how do we manage to turn the good news about God reconciling the world to himself in Jesus Christ into such a yawn fest?  And no, the answer is not more screens and louder bands and more wax in the pastor's hair.  The answer is to stop the "show."   Church is not about music, or a great preacher, or presentation, or the service.  Church is the people of God worshipping God in Spirit and in truth, as opposed to the people of God watching some dude on a stage. 

More good stuff

So much good stuff landing online at the moment, check out:

• NT Wright on CS Lewis
• Gordon Fee on Revelation and understanding scripture
• Ben Witherington on Atonement
• Clayboy's review of a book on "liturgy"
• James McGrath musing and enthusing about education
• Larry Hurtado suggests a reason for Mark's "ommissions"
• Rod points out the contradictions in the way early Christianity is used to bolster people's agendas

Is Church a Net or an Ark?

I remember being involved with a university mission week once, it was a pretty massive effort with rather minimal results.  Lots of big events and speakers and stunts to get people's attention.  One memory from that week is how a girl from my circle of friends was accidentally invited to a prayer meeting (for Christians only ;-)) by one of the guest evangelists who presumably mistook her for a Christian.  What a disater!  How are the Christians supposed to pray with an unbeliever in their midst?  But, surprise-surprise, she was so impacted by seeing Christians praying passionately to their God that faith found her there and then.

Often when we are exhorting Christians to be more missional and to think more about people outside of church we are reacting against an experience of church that has been insular, selfish and out of touch with the world around it.  However this can become a reflex that has its own tendency to a different extreme that is so focused on reaching the world it forgets to edify (build up) the saints.  It is not that I think Christians should go to church to "get something" for themselves but at the same time they perhaps should not be expected to turn up week after week purely on the off chance that a stranger walks in from the street and therefore gets to see a room full of "happy" people.

The thing is, maintaining one's faith is really hard work.  We are surrounded by forces that wear down our resolve and passion.  Church mission is so often lackluster and passionless because church people are so often underfed and barely keeping their heads above water themselves.  We don't feel like sharing the gospel because we are not so sure we still want it ourselves. Worship should not be primarily about evangelism or being seeker friendly.  It should first be about seeking God and second about reafirming and strengthening the congregation in their diaspora identity as the people of God.  If God's people are meeting with God in spirit and in truth that should be a more powerful way to introduce and strangers to Christ than creating some kind of inoffensive tepid bath of a church experience in the hope of enticing them back again. 

I've got to be honest, I go into 2010 kind of jaded about church wondering if I will ever find it the source of life, joy, and inspiriation that I used to.  Still, I am a great believer in trying to be part of the solution (cos let's face it, I do my share of whinging about the problems).  For the first half of this year, at least, I am withdrawing from preaching duties.  This was initially for the purpose of making time for finishing my thesis and for the family issues that we will be facing this year.  But I will be leading worship about once a month, and I am looking forward to having a bit of headspace and really working to create worship services that connect people to God and build them up in their faith.

I'll let you know how it goes.  Pax

bad music is better

My Grandfather was a missionary in India back in the days before independence. He would treck around the place taking services and preaching. In some of the churches he went to they might not have a pianist able to lead the singing, in which case he would do double duty and play the piano as well. After one particular service a lady approached my grandad and said, "well, I guess it is better to have bad music than no music at all!" My grandfather never played the piano again.

Apart from being a salutary lesson about the power of unkind comments I also think the lady's statement was somehow missing the point completely. CS Lewis remarks in God in the Dock (p61-2) that when he became a Christian he was at first appalled by the "sixth rate" music and terrible singing that he found in churches. He soon worked out though that the point of the music wasn't whether or not it was good, but whether or not it was being used for true devotion towards God.

In this way it is in fact better to have bad music than good music in church. When the music is good, you might be mistaken into thinking that you were there to enjoy the music, or that the music was somehow the point of the exercise, or even that the music was glorifying God on your behalf. When it is bad there can be no mistaking that those who join in are more concerned with worshipping God than enjoying music.

The popular notion that churches with great music will atract people is of course true, they will attract people towards music. Churches with great devotion to God, however, will attract people to devotion to God.

Of course all this comes undone when the bad music is actually the result of the musicians picking inappropriate songs, not rehearsing properly, not bothering to learn their instruments to an adequate standard, or general laziness. The attitude of 'it's only church' is as antithetical to worship as the attitude 'the music must be perfect.'

Sometimes I dream of a church without music...

Ben Witherington on Worship

Nice post here by Ben witherington (the third!!!) on the subject of worship in the New Testament.

I do wonder if he is drawing a lot of conclusions from a little data but on the whole very interesting.

I especially like his point about the way the NT always tries to use the most exalted language it can when praising God and this critiques those (contemporary) songs which tend to be a bit buddy buddy, or even lovey dovey! Let me know what you think :-)

A couple of thoughts on the Temple in 1 Chronicles

So, I am reading through Chronicles this month and have (as tends to happen) spotted some things I hadn't seen before. here's a couple around the theme of the Temple:

1 Chronicles 17. David decides to build a 'house' (i.e. temple) for God because he feels it is wrong that he lives in 'a house of cedar, but the ark of the covenant lives in a tent.' But God stops him and instead promises to build a 'house' (i.e. family line) that will last forever. This is one more example of how this God, in contrast to the other gods of the ancient world, needs nothing from human hands but yet gives abundantly, not in return for favours done, but because it is God's pleasure/will to show love.

1 Chronicles 21:28-22:1. God's wrath comes against Israel for Davids sin in taking a census of all the fighting males. I've not yet figured out exactly what the problem was, but that is a question for later. God's wrath here takes the form of a 'pestilence' and a 'destroying angel'. God himself stops the destroying angel from destroying Jerusalem and the angel comes to a halt at the threshing floor of Ornan the Jebusite. David then builds an altar and offers a sacrifice. Afterwards David decides that this is the spot where the Temple should eventually be built. First it is worth pointing out that God's wrath relents not because of the sacrifice but before it happens. Again, this is a radical reversal of the way ancient people tended to think gods operated. Instead, the sacrifice, David's act of worship, is a response to God's action - not a cause of it. And so this is the significant thing about the location of the Temple, it is put where God's anger stopped and his mercy began. It is put at the point where God's mercy has already taken place and our only task is to respond to what God has already done.

I think perhaps for Christians both things point (especially the second) towards the cross of Christ as our primary topos (place) of worship. When we worship 'at the cross' we are not worshipping to influence God actions towards us but in recognition of what God has already done through Christ.

What's wrong with the songs we sing?

For many in the west church life in the 80s and 90s was marred by what is often called the 'worship wars.' Clashes between generations over what was appropriate content for worship in church, usually, but not necessarily, between those who wanted to sing traditional hymns and those who wanted guitars and 'choruses'. By and large I think these days people have realised how destructive such behaviour is and take a more relaxed attitude towards things, almost anything goes... And if you don't like it go down the road to another church that does it your way.

But here is a complaint from academic John Stackhouse about a certain contemporary Christian songwriter's worship songs.

Two of his points I think are perhaps nit picking: the lack of rhyming and the mixing of metaphors. In contemporary song rhyme is not essential and even many of the great hymn writers of yesteryear were not shy of forcing the odd rhyme from two words that really didn't. More to the point Hebrew poetry (the Psalms) didn't rhyme at all but used parallelism instead. And again, although it may be bad English to mix your metaphors it was something many of the biblical writers seemed to enjoy doing.

But, I do think he has a point that often songs are 'put out there' long before they are finished. Rather than being crafted carefully and patiently and critically. They are merely thought of, written down, recorded on a CD, and sent round the world, long before any process of biblical, theological, and communal reflection can take place. I wonder if this comes from a misplaced assumption that if something is Spirit inspired that there should be no further work done on it. However even that most Spirit-inspired work of art, the Bible, shows signs of careful editing and organisation. The Spirit does not give us inspiration in order to deny us the act of creation, but to stir us to it. Or maybe it just comes from laziness, after all most people are quite happy to buy the CD and sing the song because although the lyrics are half finished, the production, packaging, and marketing are absolutely first rate!

Idols or something else?

Jeremiah 10:5:

Their idols are like scarecrows in a cucumber field, and they cannot speak; they
have to be carried for they cannot walk.Do not be afraid of them, for they cannot
do evil, nor is it in them to do you good.

The language of idolatry is very popular still (and I'm not just thinking of 'pop idol' TV shows). In fact half the google searches that have picked up this blog have been to do with idolatry, which is interesting given that I dont believe I have dedicated much space to the idea. Now in my observation we (Christians) usually interpret idolatry as anything which we worship (give our 'worth' to) in place of God (the only one who truly has a right to our worship). This often then stands for career, or wealth, status, possesions or relationships that we put up as 'idols' in our own lives in place of God, e.g. instead of seeking to do God's will with our lives we seek what will bring us the most wealth.

But as I have been reading through the prophets I have noticed most of the polemic (attack in argument) against idolatry in scripture has been on the basis of the idols impotence to do anything at all (e.g. Isaiah 46:6-7), whereas career, wealth, status, possesions or relationships are all powerful tools for doing either harm or good.

• Does that mean they are not 'idols' in the Biblical sense?
• If not, then what are they?
• And what are modern day idols?
• Or don't we have any?

Let me know what you think :)

Communion: Symbolic Meal or Love Feast?

Almost any church you go to in the western world observes a ritual meal in which token amounts of bread and wine/juice are consumed as a way of remembering Jesus' sacrifice on the cross. Depending on which tradition you belong to the method and explanation of this ritual will vary. but whether brethren or catholic it is still essentially the same idea (at least from the point of view of the meal). Now the first question is how did we get from the early christian practice of a full community meal to this token meal that we now share? Darrell Pursiful writes about this historical movement from full meal to a token symbolic meal here and here. Essentially, for a number of reasons located in particular social, philosophical and political conditions this change took place over the first few centuries of Christianity. But my question for you is, should we change the way we do it now? Would it be a more meaningful act of fellowship to return to sharing a full meal together, rather than just a morsel of bread and a mouthful of juice? Darrell describes one ancient pattern of early christian worship like this:

• Beginning Prayer (all standing)
• Meal
• Hand-washing and lamp-lighting
• Hymnody (including “table talk” and/or charismatic expressions?)
• Concluding Prayer

Obviously this was an evening rather than a morning activity (hence the full meal and lighting of lamps). Personally I like the idea of a church meeting where everyone is not thinking about what they will have for lunch afterwards... (or is that just me?) But the real question for me is, as an expression of unity and of Jesus presence with us isn't a full meal both more meaningful and more respectful than the symbolic ritual we currently perform?

• We would enjoy and savour fellowship rather than just acknowledge it.
• We could demonstrate concern and hospitality to each other rather than just remind ourselves of our obligation.
• Praise, teaching and the exercise of gifts would then take place in an atmosphere of family around the table instead of one where only those 'up-front' feel able to contribute.
• Our remembrance of Christ's death, resurrection, and coming return would not be over and done with in 5 minutes before moving on to more important matters but be the main event.
• Fellowship with Jesus and each other would be the most signifcant part of the meeting and singing and teaching (wonderful as they are) auxillary to that.
  

Let me know what you think :)