aldenswan.com

“Between two worlds.” That’s a bit how I was feeling this morning, as I drove away from St. Paul’s Episcopal to attend my second worship service of the day at Salem Evangelical with my family.  As I’ve probably written before, my wife and I have been “Vineyard” for over twenty years, attending 5 different Vineyard churches over that period.  Besides the fact that my oldest was baptized in the Presbyterian church that my in-laws attended, and that we visited there 2 or 3 times over the years, the Vineyard is the only church that my kids have known.  For those of you not familiar with the Vineyard, it’s about as relaxed and informal a church as you can find; so for my children, any church where you can’t walk around or talk during worship is formal.  I have to say that at this point in my life, I have some regrets about that.

I was raised Lutheran, so liturgy is not new to me.  I’ve also visited Orthodox churches several times, so I’ve also been exposed to “extreme” high church.  For many years, I was completely content - even happy - with my informal church setting, never dreaming that I would someday start missing the liturgy.  But, the more theology I read, the more I became aware of how empty most contemporary worship services are. I won’t go into that any further now; I’ve dealt with some of that in some earlier posts.  At some point I began to realize that for me, the Vineyard was just a shallow veneer laid over the top of my richer church background and theology, but for those who have no background in theology (or Bible, for that matter), a veneer was all that there was. Most contemporary churches offer no theology, not even a hat tip to the creeds or Lord’s Prayer. The hymnology - if you could call it that - was also greatly lacking any real theological content.

So, now I find myself in search of a richer, more historically rooted worship expression, and I’m thrilled to have found a couple of good Episcopal churches in the area.  I still visit Lutheran churches on occasion, however I’m disappointed with how watered-down the liturgy seems to have become, especially when “special,” more relevant liturgies are used. I’m becoming quite fond of the Episcopal liturgy, so I will probably become more of a regular at St. Paul’s. However, there’s no way I’m expecting my family to attend with me; so, I have resolved to attend early services at Episcopal and Lutheran churches, then attend the local Evangelical church with my family.

They haven’t fully decided on Salem Evangelical either, however my neighbor is the pastor, and we respect him a lot. We all have a bit of a hard time with it culturally - it’s a bit like watching one of those televised services full of shiny, happy people - but they are both sincere and intent on what they do; and, it’s a pretty solid church.  They always have a public prayer time during the service, and have recently started giving place to the reading of Scripture - something not found in most contemporary churches.  And, they’re very involved in missions, always having teams off to one place or another.  So, while I cringe at the middle-aged choir singing “up-beat” choruses, the rest of the service, along with the message, is quite solid.  It certainly sets a better example of what it means to be a Christian than our old church.

But, it’s not enough for me.  I’m finding that I crave the historical church experience - the confessions, the prayers, the Lord’s Supper - enough to get up for the early services.  However, I can’t see ever becoming any more than a regular guest at any liturgical church, as I won’t join a church by myself. And, I can’t see at this point becoming part of the Evangelical church, although that could change, as long as we were all up front about my “alternate lifestyle.” But, in all this I am finding myself in 2 worlds, but at the same time not really in either one. I am between two worlds, and I’m not really comfortable there, either.

Just when we think we know something, we find a twist that could unravel it all.  This morning I ran across an article from the November issue of New Scientist that challenges current thoughts on cosmology:

IT WAS the evolutionary theory of its age. A revolutionary hypothesis that undermined the cherished notion that we humans are somehow special, driving a deep wedge between science and religion. The philosopher Giordano Bruno was burned at the stake for espousing it; Galileo Galilei, the most brilliant scientist of his age, was silenced. But Nicolaus Copernicus’s idea that Earth was just one of many planets orbiting the sun - and so occupied no exceptional position in the cosmos - has endured and become a foundation stone of our understanding of the universe.

Could it actually be wrong, though?

Nearly everyone accepts the thought that our little corner of the universe is the same, more or less, as the rest of the universe. While some claim that Earth is uniquely designed for life, they still accept the thought that the universe is more or less homogeneous. The homogenous principle, along with the isotropic principle (that the universe looks essentially the same from any angle), are necessary to make Einstein’s theory of relativity work. As the article also states,

They were introduced into cosmology not because of any observational evidence, but to save face. In 1917, Albert Einstein had applied his theory of gravity - general relativity - to the dynamics of the universe. Without the simplifying assumptions of homogeneity and isotropy, Einstein’s fiendishly complex equations proved impossible to solve.

Author Marcus Chown goes on to explain how cosmological models had to change to incorporate new information, including inventing “dark energy” to make the pieces fit (an “energy of the gaps” theory), only to find that dark energy doesn’t really work, either.

That is grounds enough, says George Ellis, a leading cosmology theorist based at the University of Cape Town in South Africa, to take a hard look at our assumptions about the universe and our place in it. “If we analyse the supernova data by assuming the Copernican principle is correct and get out something unphysical, I think we should start questioning the Copernican principle.”

An interesting thought.  An alternative model has been suggested by Ellis, that Earth could be sitting in what is essentially a large bubble of less density than what is outside of the bubble.  And, to explain for the seemingly apparent isotropic universe that we can see, Earth would have to be very near the center of the bubble.

Here we go again.   The full article is here.

Well, as I write this it’s 1 a.m. Christmas morning, and I’m waiting for my kids to go to bed so I can do the stocking thing and go to bed, too.  The living room is filled with opened gifts (our family tradition is to open most gifts on Christmas Eve), and a few saved for tomorrow.  I received some new photography equipment, which at the moment is kind of intimidating, as I really don’t know what I’m doing.

For many years, my standard line about Christmas was that I didn’t like to mix my religion with my holidays; I guess you could call that my “iconoclast” period.  That has changed, however neither do I need to reach to find some spirituality within the food, family and gifts.  My fresh appreciation for the Incarnation has changed all that.

Some of my friends don’t share my particular worldview, and I confess that this saddens me, as the reality of the Incarnation - the birth of Jesus, the “God-man” - offers so much.  It’s not just the non-believers I’m speaking about, but also the many Christians who have fallen for various versions of dualism that sees only the spiritual as good, and what is Earthly as evil. To them, the extravagance and commercialism stands as “anti-Christian,” although I only know of one person who claims not to buy Christmas gifts (who also is not a parent). Some people buy moderately (there’s nothing wrong with that), compromising high ideals with reality, and giving in to the expectations that Christmas brings. They try to resolve this by imposing some sense of spirituality to Christmas by doing things like wearing buttons reminding us to “keep the Christ in Christmas.” However, if you have to reach for it, you’ve missed it.

The reality of Christmas in some respects stands apart from all of the trimmings; it doesn’t matter, for example, that Jesus was probably born at some other time of the year, or that various non-Christian traditions have merged with this particular holy-day. What matter is that Jesus was, indeed, born as a man and that God indeed got “down and dirty” to become one with man, so that we could become one with Him.

Giving gifts to those we love (and perhaps to a few we don’t), giving to the poor, celebrating with feasts and fun, are - or could be - all incarnational activities, and besides, they’re just great fun. And, if it helps boost the economy, so much the better.  I should mention that receiving doesn’t suck, either.

Receiving is also what Christmas is about. This season, I encourage you to receive life, and truth, and “peace on Earth, good will toward men.”  The reality of Christmas is always here; we just focus on it one month out of the year. Everything we do this Christmas should be a reminder that God indwells his creation; in a manner of speaking, He is present in the presents, or at least the giving of them. He is here, Immanuel, God With Us, not just at Christmas, but certainly during Christmas.

Well, most of my family are having sugar plum dreams, and it’s time for another long winter’s nap.  Norad shows Santa has been here and gone, and is now somewhere over Hawaii. Tomorrow there will be more food, more time with family, more fun, and even a few more gifts.  Bring it on!

Have a very merry Christmas!