Skip to content

Monthly Archives for August 2006

λειτουργία: On Liturgies and other Public Works

As I’ve mentioned recently, I was raised Lutheran. Since leaving the Lutheran Church, I’ve attended and visited a number of different churches, from Greek and Russian Orthodox to Evangelical Free to independent charismatic and “third wave” churches, to post-modern experiments. I can say from experience that there are things to appreciate, and things to challenge, about all of these traditions.

One of the things I have noticed in the more contemporary, freestyle church is that they are made up of people who fall mainly into one of three groups:

  1. Those who were raised in the more traditional “liturgical” churches and upon “getting saved,” now despise their former church, seeing it as representative of “dead religion;”
  2. Those who were raised in a fundamentalist, anabaptist or other “non-liturgical” type of church, who have no personal experience of “high” church (and who also view high churches as dead religion);
  3. And, last but not least, those who have no church background whatsoever, and who more than likely have been given no theological framework for evaluating any church tradition (and who probably assume what they are in is the “best,” which is a normal default assumption).

These attitudes can come from what they have been taught, or simply from the modernist assumption that “newer is necessarily better.” In truth, newer is neither better nor worse, simply because it’s newer. Newer benefits from additional scholarship and historical perspectives; on the other hand, the modernist form of newer often tends to toss the baby out with the bath.

The result is that there is often a misunderstanding about liturgy; views range from seeing liturgy as merely old-fashioned to downright evil. An example is the adage, “liturgy is what you do when the Holy Spirit fails to show up.” Most critics fail to appreciate the historical importance of liturgy, which has served as a crucial teaching tool as well as a theological “rudder” through the ages, especially before the Bible was available for mass distribution.

The other common misunderstanding about liturgy is that contemporary churches don’t have it, which of course is an absurd thought. The Greek word from which we get our word “liturgy” simply means “public works,” or in other terms, “the way things are done.” If you go to church knowing you sing for 30 minutes, take an offering then listen to a sermon for the remainder of the time, you’ve got a liturgy.

What most people mean, however, in their dissing of liturgy is the repeated recitation of creeds, proclamations and prayers. The assumption here is that if it isn’t ad hoc or spontaneous, it’s not valid. I’ll not only disagree with this assumption, but offer this: if this is truly what you believe, then you’d better stop singing worship choruses, too. A song is merely a recitation put to music.

I will also suggest that if you are comparing 30 minutes of worship songs to 30 minutes of responsive readings and hymns, the choruses will come up short on many points. The main one for me is that creeds and responsive reading generally tend to be theologically and Biblically accurate, something which you can’t always say about worship songs.

Be honest: do you really believe what it is you are singing every Sunday morning? If not, you are not only participating in a meaningless liturgy, you might also be a hypocrite to boot!

I am not proposing that the so-called “high” churches are better than your church, or that they are worse. I am merely pointing out – once again – that the freestyle churches’ liturgies tend to lack in sound teaching and theology, and it’s time we changed that. What’s wrong with people learning sound doctrine through worship? I have a feeling that was the thought behind the Orthodox (which pre-dated Roman Catholicism) liturgy to begin with.

Learning in church… what a concept!

Written on 23 August 2006 by me under Church, My Own Personal Religion with 2 Comments

The problem with sermons

As I’ve mentioned before, I was raised Lutheran, which I consider to have been a good thing, even though I haven’t been to a Lutheran church in many, many years. It was a good thing because in this tradition, representative of what many would call “dead” religion, I was taught a very sound, living theology which has survived through waves of trends and movements.

One of the things which I now appreciate about my church and the liturgies as set forth in the “red” hymnal (I can’t speak for the newer ones) is that Scripture was highly valued – the reading of pre-chosen Bible passages from both the Old and New Testaments was given a very prominent place in the service. You may question various Lutheran interpretations of scripture, but that doesn’t mean that Scripture wasn’t shown the respect that it deserved.

One of the other things I now appreciate was that the sermon was only 10-15 minutes long.

For the last twenty-some years, I have been attending various “freestyle” churches which, to varying degrees, will claim to have a more vital and true interpretation and demonstration of the Bible. I will agree in part with this assessment; however, all is not well with the freestyle church.

One of the first things you notice when switching from a liturgical church to a more contemporary tradition is that the pastor talks a lot more; sermons can range from 30 to as much as 90 minutes long. That might not be so bad, except that most sermons only have enough quality stuff for about 10-15 minutes, and the rest is, at best, filler. (Hint: unless you’re David Letterman, let’s forget the warm-up comedy bits.)

My main complaint, however, is not the length of the sermon. My complaint is that today’s contemporary sermons do not teach the Bible, or theology; rather, they are merely an opportunity for the pastor or speaker to present their Perspective on Life. As interesting as this may be, there is no place in the Bible where you can find justification for this practice.

The Perspective on Life Sermon can’t honestly be touted as Biblical exposition; in fact, the Bible is often manipulated by quoting partial passages from a dozen different locations to support the predetermined point the pastor wants to make. Often during these speeches, verses will come to my mind which cast at least some doubt on the point being made; however, these are never addressed in the sermon (although I would bet the speaker’s aware of the same verses), for to do so would detract from the pastor’s point. The Point has somehow become inspired, if not inerrant, and the Bible is used to support The Point.

Even in cases where “through the Bible” style sermon series are given, the pastor’s perspective will usually dominate the problem texts of Scripture, if they’re addressed at all. A good speaker can slalom his way down a passage of Scripture without really dealing with it; sometimes the pastor’s need to present his perspective is so great that the Biblical text is almost immaterial. Within the last few weeks I heard a pastor completely abandon his text to insert some personal perspectives which had nothing whatsoever to do with the passage he was speaking on, and present no Biblical basis whatsoever for his perspective. This is not “preaching the Word.” What it is, to varying degrees, is manipulation and deception.

Jeremiah 31, speaking of life in the New Covenant, said:

No longer will a man teach his neighbor,
or a man his brother, saying, ‘Know the LORD,’
because they will all know me,
from the least of them to the greatest,”
declares the LORD.

So… why do we need to pay some guy to give us his perspective on life? (You know, I’ve never heard a pastor speak on this passage…) In my humble opinion, it’s time to elevate the Bible back where it belongs, and to put the sermon back where it belongs – into a supporting role, if we have one at all. And, if we insist on having one, let’s shorten it up a bit.

Written on 17 August 2006 by me under Church, My Own Personal Religion with 7 Comments

I didn’t know they could plan for that… (a bonus post)

This is not my planned post for today, therefore a bonus post. Keep watching for the previously announced “the problem with sermons.” 

I read on MSNBC.com today that a new plan by the International Astronomical Union would add 3 planets to our Solar System (or 4, if you are one of the doubters who has already cast Pluto aside).  But why stop at 12? Why don’t they plan for more while they are at it?  Of course, the IAU would probably take offense at the characterization of their proposal as a “plan;” that’s MSNBC.com’s word.   

Rather, this international organization (who has authority from whom? I’m always amazed by these groups who claim to control the “sciences”) is apparently engaging in one of the favorite of post-modern activities, redefining things. The new definition of ”planet” would be:

“A planet is a celestial body that (a) has sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that it assumes a hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round) shape, and (b) is in orbit around a star, and is neither a star nor a satellite of a planet.”

Technically, they are not redefining the term; their complaint apparently was that it was never really formally defined to begin with.  Funny, I always knew what a planet was, since elementary school. I knew their names, and what color they were. We even made models out of styrofoam balls. 

I’m just glad that they didn’t devise a definition that failed to include Earth. That would have been a bummer.  As someone (perhaps Steven Wright) once said, “save the Earth; it’s where I keep all my stuff.”

Science is an amazing thing, it probably deserves a lot more study. I’m thinking that there should be an international agency for the study of science itself (rather than the scientific study of other stuff), the agency being made up of people from outside of the hard sciences (you can’t objectively study yourself).  Maybe they could even come up with a new definition for “science.”

So, keep your eyes opened; the solar system could be changing before our very eyes.

Written on 16 August 2006 by me under Humor and/or Sarcasm, Random Thoughts with 4 Comments

Further reflections on worship

I have written before (beginning here) concerning issues of contemporary “Evangelical” spirituality; if you haven’t read the prior “My Own Personal Religion” series, I highly recommend it. This is another in that series, as I continue to read, watch, and evaluate things. 

Among other things, I have been paying close attention to the lyrics of the worship songs we have been singing and the congregation’s (I am tempted to say audience’s) response. I’ve also paid close attention to the sermons I have heard (from 4 different speakers that I’ve heard in the last 2 months), and following are some observations.

First, concerning worship: Most of the songs are theologically vacuous. That is, the songs beg for some real worship material. God, you are great…  Why?  Jesus, I love you…  Again, why?  What characteristics produce this response? What can inspire me to sing heartily along?  You’re too marvelous for words…  I think the Psalmists could disagree. Some of these songs are not far off from George Harrison’s My Sweet Lord.  Now, I am not totally against these songs; but, if that’s all you sing, it’s like eating cotton candy for every meal.

A couple of weeks ago, we sang a song by an old friend of mine, Brent Helming, Your Beloved:

Lord it was You who
Created the heavens
Lord it was Your hand
That put the stars in their place
Lord it is Your voice
That commands the morning
Even oceans and their waves
Bow at Your feet

Believe it or not, the song gets even better. One thing that I was instantly aware of was that my mind was actually engaged in worship, perhaps for the first time in months. It struck me at that moment that most of our contemporary worship songs are aimed at our emotions, actually encouraging us to disconnect our brains. 

In fact, if you actually think about many of the worship songs we sing, it actually kills worship – if the words aren’t wimpy, they’re actually wrong. There’s nothing like bad theology to kill a good worship set. That is, unless people have been encouraged to not think about what they are singing.  However, sing a great old hymn or a song like Your Beloved, and thinking about the words actually inspires worship! What a concept!

Last Sunday, this suspicion - that we are trained not to think about worship -was further supported: I watched the congregation as one wimpy song ended, and another song with a great beat and a heavy rock guitar riff started in – the people started “worshipping” without any words at all.  Worshipping? or just rocking out?  It’s really difficult to tell.  Perhaps they just anticipated the words…

Jesus told the woman at the well that “those who worship Him must worship in spirit and in truth.”  Now, this is a somewhat enigmatic statement, at least as it is translated into English. What I understand it to mean, at least in part, is that worship is not only a liturgical/physical/emotional act, it also has to be based in truth. That means that true worship should also involve our mind.

Bottom line: I believe that it is a worship leader’s job not just to manipulate an emotional / spiritual response – although an emotional / spiritual response is not in itself wrong. It is their job (yeah, I’ve been a worship leader…) to encourage people to worship with their minds as well as their spirits. In Spirit, and in Truth.  Of course, that requires a bit more of a worship leader than just being a fair musician.

Next: The problem with sermons

Written on 14 August 2006 by me under Church, My Own Personal Religion, Spiritual stuff with 2 Comments

The end of the innocence (theology by Don Henley)

Remember when the days were long
And rolled beneath a deep blue sky
Didn’t have a care in the world
With mommy and daddy standing by
…
But this is the end
This is the end of the innocence
- Don Henley, The End of the Innocence

I like Don Henley; Don really knows how to paint a glorious picture and then smash it to bits. But, in many ways The End of the Innocence paints an accurate picture of the “already but not yet” state the earthly inhabitants of the Kingdom of God find themselves. It’s brilliant, actually, but Henley has no answers, which makes the song so wistful and depressing. (Thank goodness for Bruce Hornsby’s wistful but bouyant piano work.)

I often think back to my childhood, spending lazy days laying on the cool grass, studying bugs, listening to the wind rustle through elm & cottonwood leaves, and watching clouds roll by. Even then, life was not always idyllic. Bad things happened: things broke, pets and people died, there were rumors of wars. I learned fairly early on that there were things outside of my control, and even outside of my parents’ control. However, for the most part, I did have my parents to rely on. I didn’t have to be responsible for much of anything except getting my homework done. I could hang out in my yard, which was miles away from the rest of the world, and life was good:

But I know a place where we can go
That’s still untouched by man
We’ll sit and watch the clouds roll by
And the tall grass wave in the wind

It’s not the same anymore. I lay out in our yard now, and I’m instantly aware that it needs mowing, or fertilizing, or something. I now have responsibility, to a lot of people. I’m responsible to my family, to everything I own, to my employer, to the hordes outside my gate to whom I have obligations. Everything comes with a bill attached.

Responsibility is the end of the innocence. The way Don Henley writes, it’s all someone else’s fault:

Armchair warriors often fail
And we’ve been poisoned by these fairy tales
The lawyers clean up all details
Since daddy had to lie
But I know a place where we can go
And wash away this sin …

Perhaps we can blame Adam (or Eve). We can pin it all on Satan. Or, if you’re one of the new liberals, on the President. But, in the long run, it doesn’t help:

Offer up your best defense
But this is the end
This is the end of the innocence

In the end, there’s really no one else to blame, or at least it doesn’t matter. Responsibility is what it is, no matter where it came from. Behind that, of course, is knowledge; more specifically, the knowledge of good and evil. That knowledge is a weight that we weren’t intended to bear, but as they say, that’s life. We know, and we are aware of responsibility.

This is the end of the song, but not of the story. If the story ended, leaving us only with responsibility, I’d be as depressed as any of the existentialists. However, as the Bible says, “He (God) gives more grace.” Grace empowers us to deal with life in the interim – the world as we know it. Grace also reconnects us with the source of all responsibility, lifting it again off of our shoulders (Come, he who is burdened …). Grace empowers us to mow the grass, as it were, and to get back to laying in the grass.

But I know a place where we can go
That’s still untouched by man
We’ll sit and watch the clouds roll by
And the tall grass wave in the wind

The end of the innocence? No – grace is the beginning.

Written on 11 August 2006 by me under Spiritual stuff with No Comments

Microsoft does something right

First, I’m not talking about their software or business practices. What I am talking about is a great video clip (da SBS Code) that they had produced for the lauch of a recent product, which you can accesss here.

The clip is a take-off of The Da Vinci Code, one of my favorite things to make fun of. It is brilliant, and hilarious, even when they’re trying to make a point. It’s definitely worth 4 minutes of your time (or 8, or 12…; I watched it several times…).

Everyone needs a little levity…

Written on 10 August 2006 by me under Random Thoughts with No Comments

On the current state of the Middle East

First, before you do anything else, read this (just don’t forget to come back here).

Everyone knows that the Middle East is a mess, and has been for mega years. The other day I came across a rather humorous analysis of the situation, written by writer/actor/humorist (apparently he played a doorman on Seinfeld), who is a contributing humorist to The Daily Standard. That being said, here are some select quotes from the full article, written in 2002:

“The Palestinians want their own country. There’s just one thing about that: There are no Palestinians. It’s a made up word. Israel was called Palestine for two thousand years. Like “Wiccan,” “Palestinian” sounds ancient but is really a modern invention. Before the Israelis won the land in the 1967 war, Gaza was owned by Egypt, the West Bank was owned by Jordan, and there were no “Palestinians.”

As soon as the Jews took over and started growing oranges as big as basketballs, what do you know, say hello to the “Palestinians,” weeping for their deep bond with their lost “land” and “nation.”

The history of the Middle East is not quite so simple as Mr. Miller lays it out, but he is correct in that there are no historical “Palestinians” and that those who would be Palestinians turned down an offer of having a country called Palestine in 1947.

I recommend reading a bit about this history – it’s more convoluted than “The Da Vinci Code.” And, it’s enough to let you know that most of the people blowing off steam about the current situation are over-simplifying it. The liberal analysis tends to ignore many of the salient points (since acknowledging the elephants in the living room would undermine their position). The ultraconservative analysis is tainted by other issues, not the least of which is the bad theology of Christian Zionism that fuels much of conservatism.

The real story is about power, and hatred, contradictory extremist idealisms, and about imperfect past decisions for which there is no easy answer. The question now is not how to fix the past, but how to proceed. It seems all are making errors – who can blame that, considering the mess that exists. It seems there is no real good side to Hezbollah, who seems to operate mafia-style within Lebanon and whose primary reason to exist is apparently the eradication of Israel. Lebanon is, if nothing else, guilty by omission. Syria and Iran may be involved more than we know. Israel is at times a victim, but often appears to be too willing an aggressor; a blind support of Israel is no answer, but neither is a blanket condemnation.

While we argue over the appropriate use of violence, that is not an issue for any country actually in the Middle East. The Jews have a violent history, often apparently with the blessing of Jehovah; there’s no reason for them to stop now. The Islamists, it goes without saying, have no issue with violence. We can work to try to avoid major violence, but it seems all we will do is delay it. If violence escalates, it is sure to involve us one way or another; the world is now too interconnected.

Over here, of course, the main issue is politics. We haven’t gotten any straight talk out of the Left for years, and it’s not going to get any better. No matter what Bush does, he’ll be criticized by both sides, who are afraid to offend the voters. Working with the UN, especially if the UN actually wakes up to the larger game going on, seems wise.

All of this, of course, involves millions of people who would just as soon be friends. I know, through the internet, of Israelis who periodically check up on Lebanese friends. It’s a weird world.

Written on 09 August 2006 by me under Politics/Current Events with 2 Comments

The Myth of Entitlement

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
- The Declaration of Independence

One of the problems with “we, the people” is that our country began with the assertion that we have been given, by God, these “inalienable” rights. It’s interesting, then, that God allowed His people to spend so much time as slaves. Or, perhaps it’s just us Americans who have these rights?

I ask this rhetorically, of course, not to mention sarcastically. In America, we’re all about rights – we yell and scream over them, file lawsuits about them, and create news stories about them. We’re more than just the land of opportunity; we’re the land of rights. Everybody has rights – more rights than we know what to do with. We’re up to our necks in rights. We’ve got more rights than the Colonel has chicken. I have rights that I’ve never even used.

Do we really have these inalienable, God-given rights? Just where in the Bible might we find them? It has always been my impression from reading through the Bible, especially the New Testament, that we have been given gifts, not rights, except for this: Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God— (John 1:12). This, in turn, does give us certain rights as “fellow heirs.” However, these rights are not necessarily what is conjured up by the D of I. Physical liberty is not guaranteed (as evidence by Paul and other apostles), eternal life is ours, but again, the apostles’ example is enough to show that does not necessarily apply to physical life. And “pursuit of happiness?” We have joy, of course.

We can debate to death what is ours through Christ- some would even go so far as to say wealth and perfect health (though they are dead wrong). My proposition is this: it doesn’t matter.

If you have any encouragement from being united with Christ, if any comfort from his love, if any fellowship with the Spirit, if any tenderness and compassion, then make my joy complete by being like-minded, having the same love, being one in spirit and purpose. Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit, but in humility consider others better than yourselves. Each of you should look not only to your own interests, but also to the interests of others.

Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus:
Who, being in very nature God,
did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,
but made himself nothing,
taking the very nature of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
and became obedient to death—
even death on a cross!
- Paul, Letter to the Philippians

The only heir who wasn’t adopted had all the rights of the one who created everything; that includes the right to crush creation on a whim and start over. He had the right to take whatever he wanted, do whatever he wanted, live like a – well – a God. The point is that he didn’t; he gave up all of these rights in order to serve his creation. He gave up position, safety, comfort, a life without pain, a life without hassles, a life without physical death, and – think of it – a life without the confines of a human body.

Jesus, Paul states, is to be our example. To live a life without rights, constantly putting yourself in a position of weakness and humility, serving others. Our expectation is not that we will be great in this life, or rich, or even comfortable. We are not promised this – in fact, we are sometimes promised quite the opposite.

Wow… that kind of takes all the fun out of being an American, doesn’t it?

Written on 07 August 2006 by me under Spiritual stuff with 5 Comments

There are no innocent readers

… there are no innocent readers anymore. Each overlays the text with his own perverse view. A reader is the total of all he’s read, in addition to all the films and television he’s seen. To the information supplied by the author he’ll always add his own. And that’s where the danger lies … Arturo Peres-Reverte, The Club Dumas

There are no innocent readers. We may think that we read the Bible and take away from it what is plainly there; but do we? Can we read, for example, one of Paul’s letters to a first Century church, without somewhere in the back of our mind understanding that they occupy a building such as the ones we attend, or that they have an organization similar to what we know, or hold services of a similar nature to ours? Can we read the Old Testament and understand what it was like to live without the presence, or even the direct influence, of the Holy Spirit?

We may try, and think we do a mighty fine job. And perhaps, given the fact that we are “polluted” with extrinsic information and experience and interpretation, we do. But, maybe we don’t. Maybe we assume too much, jump to too many conclusions. We trust the Holy Spirit to speak to us, and I believe that He does – but, we know for a fact that the Holy Spirit doesn’t prevent us from error. Remember, we’re not perfect, just forgiven… (that was sarcasm, in case you missed it).

And what about those of us who claim to “hear” from God directly? Can we even hear what the preacher says, and walk away with a correct impression of what he said? We’ve all played the rumor game, where you sit in a circle and pass around a bit of information, which ends up completely different than what was originally said.

I’m not mentioning this to make us feel hopeless and dejected, but to merely point out that we need to keep in mind what is called “interference,” the other information and noise that makes us not be innocent readers and hearers. It’s just a fact; we do see through a glass darkly. It’s scriptural…

We read and hear with our individual and cultural filters in place, and it takes work to photoshop the information back into a reasonable likeness of what was really said. Discussion is probably a good way to recognize and deal with our filters, as long as we are discussing with those with a different set of filters (otherwise we just justify our common filters). When we talk (or blog), we display our filters, not only to others, but to ourselves. That’s why I do this…

So, know this: you are not an innocent reader. But then, neither am I.

Written on 02 August 2006 by me under My Own Personal Religion with 1 Comment