Happy New Year all. I hope everyone had a wonderful Incarnation Day and a profitable Spendmas.
The topics we have had over the last few months have been well researched and quite specific. This month breaks that trend. Perhaps it is a little more personal as it affects everyone uniquely. The previous blogs have mentioned "traditional" views and all of our opinions seem to value some schools of thought while dismissing others.
Christianity has been around for a while now and has developed quite an interesting history. This month we will be discussing the history of the universal church. This is an extremely broad topic so I will attempt to narrow it down. Hopefully we can discuss what roles history and tradition play in your personal theologies.
How do you view prominent early church writings (Didache, Ignatius, Clement) and creeds? Do you value some writers over others? What about Roman Catholic doctrines that have been around for centuries? Or do you only read / care about post-reformation writers?
How do you explain the ideas of God's sovereignty and providence while looking at the sometimes nasty history of the Bride?
What do you say to seekers when they ask about denominationalism, the schism between the east and the west, and why the Body of Christ is split in a million pieces? What about Jesus’ prayer for unity in John 17? How does one practice and preach unity while living in the reality of the fragmented church?
I'm wondering how much importance people put in tradition. Because you are all much more wiser and learned than myself, I humbly ask, "What role should tradition play in the life of a modern follower of Christ?"
My apologies for the formatting of this entry. Also, the picture is of Saint Bernardine of Siena, patron saint of advertising, gambling addicts, and chest problems.
44 comments:
true to the alias! i love it.
Weak!!!
Dear readers: Just to clarify, the above two posts were in response to UnderAcheiver's delay in posting.
Thanks for finally posting, Underacheiver. I don't think this topic is a departure at all. This blog is all about how our faith informs our lives -- from the historical atrocities to modern embarassments. I really like your topic!
Of course there's a million things I'd like to write, but initially I'll say this: I love creeds. I was really glad that the curriculum for Theology 1 at college was based on the Apostle's creed (at least when Tuna and I were freshmen). We had to memorize the creed word for word and I can still quote it and it has been of incredible value to me. Thanks to Dr. Draper for that. I didn't appreciate it as much at the time but I do now.
I think that the Apostles Creed is my favorite because it addresses most of the critical aspects of our faith. I also like the Nicene creed because of it's attempt (struggle?) to put into words the concept of who Jesus Christ was.
You may be familiar with the slightly better known "Nicene Creed" which is actually the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed. (This is from Christian History Magazine, issue 85). The original Nicene Creed goes like this:
"We believe in one God, the Father, almighty, maker of all things visible and invisible;
And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the son of God, begotten from the father, only-begotten, that is, from the substance of the Father, God from God, light from light, true God from true God, begotten not made, of one substance from the Father, through whom all things came into being, things in heaven and things on earth, who because of us men and because of our salvation came down and became incarnate, becoming man, suffered and rose again on the third day, ascended to the heavens, will come to judge the living and the dead;
And in the Holy Spirit
But as for those who say there was when he was not, and, before being born he was not, and he came into existence out of nothing, or who assert that the son of God is a different hypostasis or substance, or is subject to change or alteration -- these the Catholid and Apostolic church anathematizes."
What I love about creeds in general (and it's so clearly displayed in the Nicene creed above) is that it's not only a way for people to try and encapsulize what they believe into an easy to remember form but it also gives us a historical perspective about what the church was struggling with at the time -- and in Nicea they were so concerned about Christ's divinity that they built into their creed the idea that the church anathematizes those who do not believe it, and we can look at the creed and note that his death didn't seem to be an issue that they cared about addressing and apparently neither was the Holy Spirit an issue since it got only one sentence.
Part of what I like about creeds goes back to a concept I talked about in our very first discussion, about the concept of inclusion and exclusion. While there are many people who say "I'm a Christian" and even on this blog we've asked ourselves what that means, a creed creates the barrier between inclusion and exclusion so that in a sense rather than being Christians the group of people inside the barrier are people who say, "I believe in God the Father Almighty, Maker of Heaven and earth and in Jesus Christ his only son our Lord... etc., etc.
I have lots more to say (what's new?) but I'll keep this one about creeds and give some more thoughts later.
this is an excellent topic! i will say that until this last summer my knowledge of history, particularly church history was largely deficient for three reasons:
1) a Tuna-like bad memory for names, places, dates, etc... (it is said that every new peice of knowledge for tuna pushes out old memories. when he took Greek he lost all recollection of his childhood)
2) relative disinterest most of my life
3) lack of exposure in church and general unawareness of the benefits
It has been rather alarming for me to be at seminary and to be talking about history so much. took history of modern evangelicalism in the summer and it blew my mind. in theo of the holy spirit we saw that there are very few new ideas out there. pretty much everything has come up before. the creeds were reactions to sketchy teachings, and the creeds in turn spawned some sketchy teachings. point is we could help ourselves out a lot if we familiarized with these events and the people involved.
it at least gives perspective to our issues today, and at best it could even help us solve them properly.
unlike many i run across i have to admit that i'm not convinced they always did it better than we do now. even in the earliest church. however, i'm also not convinced that we are always better today. at any point we may be experiencing entropy or progress. we don't know. but history may help us better than if we have our heads up our proverbial bums.
one thing that bugs me is that when people are suspicious of culture they hearken back to tradition, but then i'm not sure they care to figure out how much that tradition was shaped by its culture. the debate on women in leadership is a perfect example of this. it's like in this case we give anything ancient a "get out of discernment free" card and scrutinize today's culture with a fine toothed comb.
then in other ways we ignore tradition altogether, or even reject it, as is the tendency in evangelicalism which doesn't care for anything catholic, let alone eastern orthodox.
like trembling i could have more to say but i'll stop there for now. new year, new topic, let's do this! (oh i'm such a nerd)
haha, I love Fear's reference to a "get out of discernment free" card. Well done!
Yes, Fear, I've heard the thought stated before that "if only we were like the (fill in the blank: Corinthian/ Philippian/ Pre-Schism) church". Very annoying. Every part of church history has things we can learn and things we should avoid. Some embrace tradition too much and some throw the baby out with the bathwater. What we need is a middle road approach. (Sweet! 2 awards in 1 paragraph!). Creeds are a great example: They served a good purpose at one point in the church. They also spawned bad teaching. So what should we do with them today? Should we embrace them to the exclusion of other things? No. Should we discard them altogether? No, although that's been largely done in the anti-Catholic movement of the last half of the the 1900's. (In fact, while teaching a theology class at my church last spring I introduced a creed and someone older than me asked "what's a creed?"... they had never heard of one). I have seen creeds effectively used in church, but rarely... mostly at West Side.
Hey, something else I really like about tradition and church history that has had new meaning for me is Puritan writings, particularly Puritan prayers. Our pastor is big into these and has incorporated some periodically into our worship and they are definitely a highlight for me. I still vividly recall one where we were given the script to pray ourselves but it was read by someone who had a powerful James Earl Jones-like voice. Very dramatic and serious and awe-inspiring. Honestly I never would have had much exposure to them if it hadn't been for their integration into our service so I'm glad for it.
i have a book of Puritan prayers and at times I find them very helpful and inspiring and at other times i get caught up in the theology and start off on a rabbit trail about whether i believe what is being prayed.
but yes, they bring you before God's mercy, no doubt about that. HUGE contrast to most of what is prayed in church and home.
there have been some slags from the co-founders of the blog AND a new vote topic that mentions this post being two days late.
despite public knowledge that dr. fear and mr t. spent the wee hours of the new year hitting their browser's refresh button while everyone else was singing Auld Lang Syne, it's time to address this. first off, mr. fear, you'll notice that your august post wasn't up until the 9th. the ninth??? come on now. what excuse could you have had? new years?
secondly, i wear my alias on my shirt everyday (metaphorically).
thirdly, i frequently proclaim tuna's greatness while wrestling Pat Robertson on Dr. Phil's show. i don't know why he keeps inviting me back.
so i think the only real punishment (not punishING), would be sanctions. my suggestion is that i can't post on tuna's topic until the 28th of the month.
if none of this makes sense to the reader, just check out this month's vote.
I anathematize you, underachiever.
In regards to the posted question about denominational fragmentation, I'm really torn. In some ways I like it because it allows those of us who are slightly more liturgical to find meaningful worship while those of us who are slightly more charismatic to find meaningful worship. (I realize those aren't necessarily two points on the same spectrum but they're close enough for the conversation).
Years ago I didn't appreciate denominationalism as much so I looked forward to a special "non-denominational" service that a group of local churches put on in my hometown (in Oshawa ON -- go Generals!). They ended up being very disappointing since everyone's opinions of what should and shouldn't happen at a church service ended up washing out any value that I thought it could have had. After that I started realizing what value some denominational fragmentation can have.
However, it's like a lot of Bible versions now. It's not a bad idea to have a KJV, NIV, NRSV, NASB, etc. to read when you need different things. However, if you own "The Pet-Lover's NIV" or "The NRSV for Moms" or "The Archaeologist's NASB" I think we've gone too far.
I vote for sanctions for Underachiever as well. But I think not allowing him to post on Tuna's topic to the 28th is far too severe. So perhaps we should go to the opposite extreme and require him to post everday on Tuna's topic. I would vote for that.
Anyways, cool topic mr. underachiever. I look forward to seeing where this discussion is going to go. I am a little frightened because this probably means that I am actually going to have to go out and read some Didache, Ignatius, and Clement. My knowledge of the writings of the early church fathers is about as extensive as my familiarity with the full line of MAC cosmetics.
Some quick thoughts on creeds: I have always been a little bit skeptical of creeds. Not of their content but rather of their tendency to discourage independent thought. Maybe this is just me, but whenever I hear creeds spoken of from the pulpit it is always presented with the air of "this is what you believe". I think people tend to treat creeds as a "get out of independent thought free card".
I do like creeds though. I think they are a great way to kind of pull together a cohesive summary about what it is that is most important and central to our faith. But we just need to make sure they aren't discouraging people from studying and thinking and learning themselves.
That being said, I suppose the majority of christians probably don't really want to go into some in-depth study of their faith. So maybe the creeds fill an important role in that way.
I wonder if Saint Bernardine of Siena could help out an asthmatic. Where can I find an icon?
Some thoughts on Denominationalism:
-I think we often equate denominationalism with disunity, but this doesn't have to be the case, and shouldn't be either. Dr. Trembling mentioned some great points on some of the advantages of having different traditions, styles, practices, etc... and I would heartily agree. There's something out there for everybody I think.
-The problem comes in when our differences get in the way of healthy cooperation/communication. After all, regardless of our different methods, we should all be working towards the same goals.
So...give me denominatiolism and the creativity and uniqueness that comes with our different traditions, as long as it doesn't get in the way of our cooperation and the gospel. Also, my copy of the "Professional Engineer's NLT" says this is the most efficient method anyways.
"give me denominatiolism and the creativity and uniqueness that comes with our different traditions, as long as it doesn't get in the way of our cooperation and the gospel"
Trouble is, it has, hasn't it?
(By the way everyone, we'll be switching to BLogger Google. See note at sidebar)
*** WE INTERRUPT THIS CONVERSATION TO BRING YOU BREAKING NEWS ***
As Blogger switches out of beta mode it's becoming evident that we need to transfer our site to the new and improved Blogger.com. Apparently, as the creator of this site, I have to do that. Unfortunately, when it comes to this type of thing I'm retarded. I'll get to work on it just as soon as I've cooked and eaten my avocado and bacon salad. Pray that I don't choke on avocado and die, which will leave you all stranded.
I'll let you know once I've switched over. If you have any trouble signing in still, we'll work it out on a case by case basis.
** WE NOW RETURN TO OUR REGULARLY SCHEDULED CONVERSATION **
The avocado and bacon salad was delicious. Now I've moved everything over.
Watch your email for a new invitation before you'll be able to participate. Also, note at the bottom of the sidebar that we have now included a publishing calendar on a 3 week rotation. TheHansen, you're up on the 22nd!
THanks trembling, now back to this history and tradition thing. I have to say that while in principle I value the learning of history and the learning from history a great deal, in practice I'm not sure tradition and history affect me all that much.
Although I know the ancient creeds were a timely reaction to wrong teaching, and that Montanism was a heresy of Holy Spirit teaching which has cropped up again today, and that the Catholic and Orthodox churches contain much that is good, and that piety has looked many different ways besides 20th century style, and so on and so forth ... I am still pretty much acting and living within my current tradition.
And only recently have I come to see how cut off from church tradition as a whole this current tradition is. I don't really know what to do about it, to be honest.
I don't think you just go and bring back everything ancient. But there must be lots to be mined from the history books for our spirituality and theology today. There are also mistakes to be avoided and lessons to learn. There may also be things said in ancient times that are more relevant today than they were at the time.
But to me it is overwhelming at this point to consider going back and mining it all. What I really wish I had was a good resource book or two to help me dig up relevant and helpful stuff.
Thing is, isn't the living Church that resource? Isn't the pastor supposed to be somewhat too?
I'd love to revitalize communion. Community life. Sacred symbols even. But where do you start? Might our current tradition be hard to win over with this? We rarely look past Fanny Crosby let alone Martin Luther. Heck, a lot of people don't even look past Matt Redman to see Fanny Crosby.
I see a wealth of stuff to draw from. A Cloud of witnesses. But I admit I don't tap in very well or very often and I'm not sure where you start or who will come with.
Trembling, I'd like to order an avacado bacon salad sandwich for the super bowl please.
Okay, a few things: first, I don't know who Matt Redman is. Second, avocado salad doesn't make sandwiches, it makes salad: you put it on a plate and eat it with a fork and if you stuck it between two pieces of bread you'd not like it. And third, I thought Montanism was the belief that Montana was where God's 2nd coming would take place. (Just kidding on that last point).
Fear, I know what you're saying about not being able to access tradition in your current situation. Part of it, I would guess, is our upbringing within the Alliance. Have you ever attended an Anglican church? I'm not suggesting they've always got it right (as I think we'd all say that no church does) but I do appreciate how often the Anglican church does appreciate tradition a lot better than the Alliance does.
And as far as finding material from history, I agree that it can be a daunting task. I would recommend Christian History magazine. Honestly I wouldn't normally read it but I got a gift subscription for it a couple years in a row and I've enjoyed it. Like all magazines it doesn't give you an indepth look but each issue has a theme and when it does peak your interest (as it has for me on Chesterton from one issue and on the Council of Nicea in another) it's directed me to helpful resources and key texts.
(This post has been sponsored in part by Christian History magazine and all its subsidiaries: "you don't know history until you know Christian History"... as well as the Avocado Growers Association of America: "Enjoy life; enjoy avocados"... and by the Bacon Council of America: "Bacon; more is ALWAYS better".)
First of all, if Tuna has taught me anything, it is that ANYTHING can be a sandwich. So my Super Bowl order stands.
Secondly, aside from leaving my denomination to join the Anglicans, what can I do to bring my church into that great cloud of witnesses with its piety and its liturgy rather than divorcing itself from them?
Its funny, some mormons were trying to convince me one time that there was complete depravity on the earth between the time of the apostles and the coming of Joseph Smith, and I thought, hmmmmm, that's kind of how I've learned to think about Martin Luther isn't it?
We are so anti-catholic and anti-orthodox in our thinking in evangelicalism. How did it get like this? And can we not continue to exist as separate Chrisian entities while also becoming more unified and even learning from each other? I would LOVE to see that. God can't possibly have separated himself from any of these three groups for all time.
By the way, from what I'm hearing, it is starting to happen a) in some theological circles and b) because of the charismatic movement, which is active in all three groups.
HERE'S WHAT I KNOW OF HISTORY:
Two major schisms in church history: 1054 the West pulls a power-play on the East over a phrase in the Nicene Creed known as the filioque. Although both sides have good points to make (on whether or not the Spirit proceeds from the Father alone, or from the Father through the son (latin: filioque)), the church is divided for at least the next 1000 years.
Then in 16whatever, Luther nails a document to a door, and though he does not intend to leave the Catholic church but to reform it, the ramifications are phenomenal, and a more individualized, personal faith (which is a good development with some bad side effects of its own) emerges and, quite frankly, is still doing both good and bad things.
That's what I know of church history. Some say the pentecostal/charismatic movement of the last couple centuries is the creation of a new group of Christians, but I don't see it. Rather, I see this being the Spirit's crazy way of uniting us, possibly. Uniting us first of all in suspicion against it, and hopefully, finally, in action appropriating it.
I don't think there can or should be a universal church without diverse congregations or denominations. But I'd sure like to see more unity in our diversity.
It seems to me that we've had a lesser (or, unofficial?) schism in the last century between the Catholic and protestant churches where anything liturgical is (incorrectly) associated with Catholicism.
What's ironic is that the pushback from liturgy (because of the notion that liturgy = dead spirituality) has created its own liturgy:
* choruses song twice through
* a package of choruses before the announcements
* offering
* hymns (ladies only on the the third verse)
* sermon
* communion (plate is passed down the aisles)
* closing hymn
... or something similar anyway. Try floating the idea of going forward for communion in a lot of protestant churches (I mean similar-to-Alliance protestant) and you'll get pushback because that smacks of Catholicism.
I suppose that's technically part of the schism from Luther but I think it's different because in 16whatever they didn't get rid of all their liturgy (if I recall correctly)... I think it's been diminished and it seems to me like it's been eradicated in the 1900s. Of course, I'm could be wrong (I'm chief among sinners and chief among the ingorant, too).
That's an interesting take on the idea of the charismatic movement uniting us. I wouldn't have said it was a schism but I hadn't thought of it as a way to unite. I'll have to think about that for a while.
You're right that there can't be a universal church without some diversity. I think that diversity makes us rich. Really, there will be problems with both a homogenous and a heterogenous church and I think, on balance, a church with differences makes for a richer experience that is more accessible to people.
This is really turning into the Fear and Trembling show. Where is everyone else?
Oh yeah, forgot to talk about this: what can I do to bring my church into that great cloud of witnesses with its piety and its liturgy rather than divorcing itself from them?
My advice, (for what it's worth... consider the source!) is to slowly introduce some things back into the service. I've seen really anti-Catholic churches respond positively to standing during Scripture readings, respond enthusiastically during pastoral prayers (i.e., "Lord, hear our prayer" or something).
I also like what we did at our old church in Regina. We followed the church calendar closely and kept things understated but still decorated subtly with calendar-appropriate colors with a runner over the communion table.
Also, I think we've taken some of the really rich and meaningful art out of our sanctuaries (and then replaced the sanctuaries with auditoriums)... if I were a pastor (which isn't likely going to happen any time soon) I'd encourage artistic members of the church to create quality art incorporating church calendar colors and centered around the broad themes of the church calendar. I think this is an acceptable step toward full-out esthetics in the sanctuary because the congregation would be more likely to appreciate and celebrate the skills of one of their own.
As usual, I'd like to write more but I have some work to do.
Well said trembling. I would love to bring the church calendar back into relevance. Right now we have Easter and Advent. Trembling - I also appreciate the way West Side used art and colours. Art would be easy to incorporate into anti-RC churches. Just stay away from portraits of saints, Mary and Christ on the cross. Concentrate on Christ's redemptive work.
Colours could be tastefully and subtly done as well. A few well written explanations in the bulletin of the colour’s significance would probably be more beneficial than explaining it verbally. I find that the people who are interested in that type of information generally read the bulletin during announcements.
Fear - I would also love to revitalize communion. Bring back the love feast where people actually eat together. What a difference it would make in community life where people actually knew each other at church. We wouldn’t simply recognize each other and shake hands after announcements. We would actually converse around food. How counter-cultural is that thought? Getting back to the hand shakes, I actually do enjoy this Protestant equivalent to “passing the Peace”. Physical contact is rare in our society so this is can be a tangible expression of unity and love. I don’t think the idea of church potlucks will work anymore in our society. Too many people are used to being invisible at church and would just sneak out the back. Individuals need to be intentional and make an effort to perform these “celebration” dinners.
As far as the actual sacrament part of communion, the Didache gives an amazing way to do corporate communion. It includes thanks for the chalice, the bread, thanks to God, praise and petitions. It encourages unity throughout. The great part is, after all of these detailed guidelines, the author basically says that prophets can disregard this and do as they please. Hilarious. CSU – if nothing else, read the Didache. You can read it online. It’s a quick read. I’m afraid I’ve over-hyped it though.
I also enjoy structured, corporate prayer. However, I think I’ve been trained to think this isn’t “authentic” because the words aren’t spontaneously from my own heart. I have learned to push that aside, make the words true for myself, and appreciate the richness of words that my simple heart could not put together on its own.
As for how tradition affects my theology, I had some great professors who stressed the importance of history. This definitely rubbed off on me and the way I approach theology. I learned a lot from courses such as second century Christianity, after the apostles, and even my Dead Sea Scrolls course. When asked about issues, my secondary sources are usually my early Christian writings books, my RC catechism book and my Christian history books. All are great resources and, like mentioned somewhere in a previous post, very few "new" ideas are actually new. For some reason, I just trust these books more than modern scholars. Is trust the right word? I think I mean that I esteem or respect these sources more. I also love reading some of the more outlandish medieval Christian literature. The grail quests and missionary adventures are often entertaining. The depth of some of their prayers is fascinating.
I wouldn't say that I am a history expert, but I love church history. I love the way God has worked with broken people. I love seeing how God allows us to screw up and He still builds His kingdom. I love reading about great Christian "heroes" and being challenged to allow the same God to work through me. I love seeing how God uses our misinterpretations to refine and confirm His message. God is indeed guiding the Church. Just as I believe Christ followers will never be fully sanctified this side of heaven (except Dobson), I think the Bride of Christ will not be pure and spotless until the return of the Bridegroom. Is it an exegetical fallacy to say that the "broken" church can actually be the body in Romans 12? Just a thought.
Well I'm glad I had the opportunity to break up the Fear and Trembling show. Looking forward to some more contributions.
it is refreshing to hear your take on history (as the history of broken people used by God). I need that perspective. I've been realizing that one reason I might shy away from history is because it depresses me. Just as you are encouraged by God using broken people, I am discouraged by our perpetual circle of error. I guess the chalice is either half full or half empty.
Interesting, we want to bring back ancient communion, but I imagine the love feast is not an ancient idea. It may actually be more of a Protestant thing. (I know it was Jesus, and Moses, who started it, but what I'm saying is that I think ancient eucharist did not involve a meal) Anyone know who has done this in history, or has it been left by the wayside since the Last Supper?
Awesome resources you've mentioned. I gotta check those out. A book I was just reading quoted the Roman catechisms a lot. It was really interesting.
During the communion unit in a Church and Ministry course I tried floating the idea of communion being more than a 1/8 saltine and a shot glass of grape juice just sitting in your own seat... I tried to raise the conversation of a love feast -- or at least a potluck! -- as having real "communion" value but I got shot down hard. (I later bled the air of the prof's tires). haha
Anyway, I see value in a ritualistic eucharist but I really struggle with how individual it is. I like it when we go forward but not everyone does: In fact, when my sister attended West Side once she said she didn't like going up for communion (which we were doing) because communion was supposed to be an individual action between you and God and I tried to convince her otherwise but to no avail.
I enjoyed being a communion server at CBC because it was meaningful to me to say "The blood of Christ for you, Fear" and "The blood of Christ for you, Underacheiver" (and "The retribution of Christ on you, Tuna!!!"... just kidding about that last part)
Thank you for the comments, Underachiever. I like to think that we can find MIDDLE GROUND between anti-liturgy and excessive liturgy. In fact, for aesthetic worshipers like myself, it needs to happen if I am to have meaningful worship.
I can post again! I have a lot of catching up to do for reading but I'll chime in tonight. I wrote a big entry a few days ago but couldn't post due to having converted to google blogging.
Basically I said that it is with remorse that I think back to my evangelical upbringing and the lack of acknowledgment of tradition. At the same time I don't believe in tradition for tradition's sake.
I'll write more when I've caught up and read all 22 posts.
The love feast didn't end at the last supper as far as I know. I can't cite any proof off the top of my head and with my limited resources here at work but my understanding is that the early church did this regularily and was criticized for being drunkards because they were having so many love feasts. Paul goes on to instruct a church (can't remember where) to take it easy and respect the Lord's Supper.
I remember reading in Magic, Mystery and Ritual (a great class I took with Reimer) in an extra-biblical source that people outside the church called the Christians drunkards (love feasts), incestual (calling everyone brother and sister) and cannibals (eating Christ's body and drinking his blood). I don't imagine the drunkards accusation comes about if the early church is eating a cracker and drinking a shot of wine.
In the larger category of tradition the conversation makes me think back to church as a kid and responsive readings. I hated them, still do. Mostly because it seemed so forced and fake and people paid even less attention to the words than they do when they sing. I don't remember EVER having the history behind readin aloud together explained. That may have helped the sincerity of it for everyone.
Avocado is great on a sandwich.
Trembling, I have to disagree with you. You said "It seems to me that we've had a lesser (or, unofficial?) schism in the last century between the Catholic and protestant churches where anything liturgical is (incorrectly) associated with Catholicism."
I really don't see this as a schism, and also I'm not sure what happened was a break with liturgy, but, as you mentioned, it was a revamping of liturgy.
In tune with reformation thinking it was made more personal, more experiential, more congregationally expressive, and in some ways less structured, but I'm not sure there was ever a rejection of liturgy. It was a rejection of top-down, platform oriented, you do the worshipping for me kind of approach to corporate worship. I guess you could call it a schism, but I'd say it was more of an inevitable outworking of the reformation.
Funny thing is, now we've taken it and made it so that the expressive, personal stuff now is platform oriented, and so many of us who don't connect with BOOMER WORSHIP or maybe want some lament or Scripture reading or meditation or what have you, are STARVING for something we can sink our teeth into again. ANd the old liturgy is attractive in some ways. But I'm not sure we want the old dry and crusty responsive readings that tanti was referring to either.
So how do we have liturgy that is alive?
I think this month's topic is on to something, in that we need to draw from all tradition, and not just stick our heads in the proverbial sand of the recent and preferred past.
Okay, I propose a little round of betting between those of us who have posted so far on this blog:
A race between TheHansens and Tuna. Who will post first?
Neither are out of the starting gate yet. Both have challenges that keep them from being regular posters: TheHansens have children and jobs. Tuna can't always remember what year it is or that he is a member of a blog. (And there is some debate about whether he has children and a job).
Who will win? Who will lose?
My money's on thehansens.
i'll put my money on tuna because he will not let the challenge go unanswered. and while neither he nor the hansens is likely to actually see the challenge until sometime late in the month, tuna has a knack of sensing such things and so even now is feeling the urge to post a comment in response to trembling's words. it is a little known fact that tuna can sense anger and hatred from a great distance. in fact he does not use an alarm clock. the hatred of the world wakes him up each morning and propels him to take on the day.
You make a good point, Fear. Without any motivation from us, I'd have suggested that TheHansens are most likely to post first. But now that the challenge is on the table, I know that Tuna will now be motivated to respond. So in my opinion, it all boils down to this: Which of the two can figure out how to switch over to a Google account the fastest?
My money is on TheHansens.
Here's why I'm betting against Tuna: Tuna is all about "once bitten, twice shy"... he loved the New Kids On The Block but then discovered that they were a fad. When that fad disappeared, he was devastated. (I don't think he ever recovered). He now believes the internet is a passing fad as well and doesn't want to make a commitment.
The internet is just a fad. Just like telecommunications.
Back to the topic, I'd be very interested to hear some discussion on underachievers point about the lack of unity. Jesus prayed for unity, he also left us the Spirit and told us we would be better off with the Spirit than when he was here himself. That's hard to believe for me sometimes when I see the kind of people who claim to be led by the very same Spirit.
Where is the unity? Fascinating point by fear that maybe the charismatic movement really is the Spirit, it's one of the few "movements" that you can find in every denomination, even the mainline churches. Even there though, there are plenty of good-hearted Christians who feel this movement is not only not unifying but is from the Devil.
Why can't the Spirit just tell us all what to do?
I really don't think visible unity is anything we are going to see this side of Abraham's Bosom. but you are right, why did Jesus say we are better off with the Spirit? either we vastly have undervalued and under-grasped the Spirit or we are overvaluing the advantage of having Jesus in the flesh.
Truth is, even when Jesus walked the earth there was disunity among the 12 disciples, there was havoc in Judaism, and frankly, there was a lot of work to do. By virtue of his fleshiness Jesus couldn't get around all that much. So as far as the world mission goes, the Spirit is better than Jesus in the flesh. At least the Spirit can be everywhere.
By why don't we have unity? Maybe we have more unity than we think. Maybe when a Hindu person makes a great sacrifice out of love for someone else, it is the Spirit who has prompted it. Maybe when an atheist CEO decides to make sweeping changes on his company's production line to take better care of the earth and its resource, we have the Spirit at work. Maybe when a United Church-goer starts a weekly food bank and a Baptist fundamentalist comes alongside, we are seeing unity at work, even if they have lots of arguments every week as they make sandwiches.
Is everyone saved? Is everyone on the same page even about what salvation is? No. And this is disturbing. I'm not sure I'd say the charismatic movement is the answer, but perhaps it is GOd's way of cutting the crap and getting some life stirred up. Rattling some rationalist cages and getting some of the more emotive folks excited again.
I am oddly optimistic today. This will pass within the hour I'm sure. I just wonder if unity is all about dialogue in love around the truth (which we don't do too well but are getting better at) rather than full agreement on what the exact truth is.
I'm having a hard time with Fear's idea that the charismatic movement is a unifying movement from the Spirit.
I can't see how the charismatic movement "cuts through the crap." Having spent 10 very formative years in a charismatic Pentecostal church I can tell you that there is a lot of crap in the charismatic movement but I would say no more and no less than in any other movement.
And, among some of the churches I'm connected to in various ways (i.e., through family or friends), the charismatic movement is creating incredible disunity right now with its belief in freedom of expression in the service. I understand that they are pushing back from the a chorus has to be sung through twice, which isn't perfect either, but they are ignoring that the Spirit wants order as much as unity (1 Cor 14:26-40). I know of one church where an entire contingent of people left because the pastor wouldn't throw out the order of service and "just let the Spirit guide the service". That's terrible! It's emotionalism disguised as spirituality. This movement has always been around but it seems (to me at least) to have increased in the past couple years and they are pursuing a freedom in worship that is incredibly threatening to the unity and order in the church.
It seems that each movement (let's call them a "rational" movement and an "emotional" movement, to borrow from Fear's earlier post) thinks it's more in touch with God and the other movement is out to lunch. The rational movement thinks the emotional movement doesn't have thought (and sometimes it doesn't). The emotional movement thinks the rational movement doesn't have enough expression (and sometimes it doesn't). The problem is, once again, it's the middle road that's preferable.
Honestly, I think it's easy for us who can often become jaded in our own denomination to point elsewhere and say "yes, that's the answer, they really have it together". Sort of a "grass is greener" approach to criticism. I do that all the time with much more liturgical (uhh, ritualistic?) churches. In fact, I think I did that earlier in this blog with the Anglican church.
I'm not calling for a middle road approach in order to be conciliatory. I think that moderation among denominations gives us the room we need for each of us to worship authentically in a way that we find meaningful to the way God made us... sort of a unity in diversity if you will. When I drive down the road, as long as I stay on the pavement I'm okay. But if I move onto the gravel things become a little rough and I'm in danger of veering off completely. Too far to one side and I'm too rational/ritualistic and too far on the other and I'm too emotive/charismatic. What we need to do is find where those markers are that indicate we are no longer on the pavement.
Okay, I'm sorry to always be calling for the middle road. I'm not trying to get the award. I just don't think that any church has it completely right but, like a Venn diagram, if we put the good parts of a church together we'll get a picture of what the Spirit wants... (however, I would say that we should only put the good parts of the church together in theory because if we do it in practice we get the united church!)
I agree about the unity in diversity thing. And while I see advantages in having different denominations with different traditions, I do believe that the universal church is supposed to be dialoguing on interpretive issues and ideas a lot more, not to mention sharing in the same mission, and I might add, finding a way to be accountable to one another.
Regarding the charismatic movement perhaps being the Spirit's attempt at unity, this isn't really my idea to begin with, but I think the point is that because charismatic stuff has broken out in almost every stream of Christianity, perhaps this is the Spirit's way of "mixing things up" in a time when rationalism and its dogmatic divisions prevail.
Although charismatic stuff probably appeals more readily to more emotionally leaning personalities, I don't think it can be equated with emotionalism. There is plenty of unthinking riff-raff I'm sure, but there is a growing articulation of the movement and I think it is far past time that the rational types and emotive types got together to figure out what to do with the Spirit's fire.
Speaking as one who barely smiles in church let alone barks with laughter, I'm not sure whose chief of sinners I am.
I would like to ask nother question on top of all this. What do you all (and by that I mean the few of us involved in this conversation) think of icons?
Yes, yes, I know they sniff of idolatry, but don't our statements of faith, hymns, and preferred worship styles have the same odour? I am increasingly intrigued by the Orthodox tradition and want to know more.
But again, Underachievers topic this month makes a good query, when it comes down to the place of history in my life as a Christian, I don't know much and I don't use what I know much either.
Interesting ideas about the charismatic movement. Who is articulating the movement more clearly? While I do have concerns about some charismatic movement confusing emotion for spirituality, I also have concerns about the rational movement... perhaps not being so rational.
I like icons and I bow down to worship them any chance I get.
Just kidding, of course. Anything in church is meant to remind us of God's glory. If the ark of the covenant remind us, great. If spare-no-expense of Solomon's temple remind us, great. If pictures of saints remind us, great. Like all things, it has been carried too far by some; ie, veneration, etc. But there is value in anything that legitimately points us toward God and his glory.
First off, I'm not entirely sure how icons are defined. Are they just the pictures and statues of Christ, Mary, and saints?
I think icons can be used as worship aides. By no means am I suggesting that we go on relic hunts. However, I think they can help some "visual" people focus their thoughts. For instance, if some church had a presentation or display on "the way of the cross", people could grasp (or be reminded of) what Christ went through for us. I don't really see the value of Mary or Saint icons though. To see a bunch of neat icons, check out www.religiousmall.com
I often equate symbols with icons. I'm not sure if this is correct or not. Dr. Gene Rivard taught people how to recognize what churches value by looking at the centre of the stage. It used to be the communion table but has been replaced by the drum kit. In our church's sanctuary (auditorium?), the cross is off to the side of the stage. It's barely noticable, but at least there is a cross. I don't think the C&MA symbol is anywhere in the place. Could this be considered an icon? If so, I think it is a great aide to help teach the denomination's values.
Back to TT's question: Where's the unity? Not sure if this is faulty logic, but if there was unity in the beginning, why would Jesus have prayed for it? I think that may be the point of Jesus' prayer. We should be striving for unity and praying for it. We should be demonstrating it to others. We should desire unity. Like many other things, it is something Christ followers should strive for, but, as Fear said, it probably won't happen this side of the bosom. That's not to say we shouldn't bother with unity.
Regarding responsive readings: I loved them, but for the wrong reasons. I was the guy who was a half-second behind everyone else. I thought I was hilarious. I agree that they may be a distraction and turn-off in the modern worship service. However, a dramatic reading with happenin' word art on the screen would be effective. Also, I think corporate prayer could make a comeback. If the leader (better yet - leaderS) made a statement of praise, the congregation could simply agree with a corporate "Hallelujah, Praise God". When a petition is brought before God, the people say, "Lord hear our prayer". Simple stuff that may make the prayer more powerful to individuals, yet still convey a corporate unity. Rather than thinking about the game, dozing, or reading the bulliten, Pew-sittin' Bob will hopefully be actively listening. Thoughts?
Also, I'm not sure if either theHansens or Tuna will post on this topic before the 22nd. If I had to make a guess though, I'd say theHansens because I'm sure Fear will send out an e-mail reminding them to post on the 22nd.
who is articulating the movement more clearly? i'm not sure. i just know that as i read theology texts they all seem to interact with charismatic stuff quite thoughtfully instead of merely poo pooing it off hand.
jonathan edwards wrote about it a lot though i think.
what i like about icons is that they look so good. christian art you see nowadays looks so cartoony. the old iconic paintings are amazing. there is this reverent reality to them that actually moves me. it would be something to have art around that you couldn't just walk past.
now that would be something.
a few thoughts further on underachiever's original questoins:
why all the disunity in church history and what do we do with it? i really wonder if, in light of the fact that none of us can actually get it ALL right and together, if the way GOd keeps the Church on task is to keep letting us have tensions and disagreeing with each other so that by pulling at each other we actually in the large scheme of things stay on track somewhat.
That track might actually be quite theologically wide, and the actual key to staying on it isn't so much in being right as in treating each other right. the schisms aren't so much a matter of someone being right and someone being wrong, but are failures to be able to speak the truth in love and carry on a dialogue in Christ.
and even then GOd uses them.
And I wonder if we are on teh verge of another HUGE schism, between fundamentalists and people like us.
"...between fundamentalists and people like us." Brilliant!
Modern Christian art is weak. Depictions of Christ, for example, are so sugary-sweet with his well-kept beard and Aryan-approved good looks. And he is always sublimely resplendent in his white robe and blue sash. I half expect a little bluebird to come fluttering out of the sky and rest on his shoulder and start whistling (a la Uncle Tom or Snow White).
When I was a kid I had a calendar of a bunch of "heroes of the Old Testament". They were actually well-drawn and I kept them for a long time because I was impressed by the artwork. What I didn't like was that they were just people standing there in the picture, there was no reason why one was labelled Abraham and another was labelled Joseph. It's as if someone commissioned an artist to draw 12 ancient people and then randomly assigned Biblical names to them.
Thomas Kinkade's work drives me crazy. It's another type of sugary-sweet work but what's worse is that I feel it's been hijacked by the Christian community.
There really isn't a lot of quality out there and, like music and books and movies, you have to step outside of the Christian bookstores to find it.
fear, I've been truly inspired lately by your idea that "it isn't so much in being right as in treating each other right". I also like your point about the road being wide. But isn't the way narrow?
Different analogies I know.
Trembling, you're right, Kinkade's stuff is the Christian version of the plates they sell on the shopping channel.
Now for a summary statement:
History is cool but we don't need it.
One last comment about the "love feast" that I came accross during some bible reading. Jude 12 mentions people eating "fellowship meals commemorating the Lord’s love". Although it doesn't tie directly to the eucharist, it does give a sense of celebrating Christ through a communal meal. Pretty neat.
Anyway, I appreciate all the comments and discussion.
On to TheHansens...
I DISAGREE WITH THE SUMMARY STATEMENT! If anything the topic of the month made me realize that history is cool and useful and that we need it (an awareness of it and a use of it) more than we think we do!
Great topic Underachiever.
What kind of summary statement was that? It was antithetical, I think, given our earlier discussion:
... icons, creeds, Puritan prayers, this stuff is gold!
Revised summary statement: underachiever is on crack. History has great value because it inspires and informs us and warns us of past mistakes.
The only time history has no value is when we ignore it.
Sorry, I wish I could convey sarcasm more efficiently in text. I am in love with church history (hence the topic) and as I mentioned earlier, my go-to texts are usually timeless classics. The story of how God continues to still be relevent despite all of the church's shortcomings amazes me. As my supervising pastor from internship days said, "History is really His Story." I think trembling's statement is an adequate summary:
"[History] is gold."
Post a Comment