Thursday, May 28, 2009
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
The Public Reading of Scripture
Paul tells Timothy to "give attention to the public reading of Scripture." (1Tim 4:13) Paul instructed that his letter to the Colossians be read publicly in the Collosian church and the Laodicean church. (Col 4:16) Ezra read the Law of Moses to the Jews restored to Israel out of captivity. (Neh 8:1-3) And Jesus participated in the public reading of Scripture in the synagogue. (Luke 4:16-21)
Of all the churches of which i have been a part, probably between 1/2 - 2/3 of them included a regular scripture reading in their worship service. Among those congregations that included the public reading of scripture, most of those were token readings done during the Lord's Supper. Others that included public scripture readings did so as a prompt for the sermon. I may be alone in my impression, but most of the public scripture readings in the Church of Christ i have personally witnessed seemed cursory and chore-like. The public reading of Scripture was never an end in itself, nor itself an organic, key-stone-like part of worship, but rather a brief defense or explanation or prompt of a practice. As a musician, i'm thinking of a "grace note." A grace note is not a note in itself played rhythmically or melodically for its own sake. A grace note is a note which is so closely fixed to another note to create the illusion that the more important note has an extra texture or layer or thickness it would lack without the grace note. In my experience, the public reading of Scripture that takes place within the Church of Christ is at best a metaphorical "grace note." (i grant you that the Bible gets arguably more attention than this from preachers with stylistically Book-Chapter-Verse-saturated sermons; but i would argue that even then the scriptures such preachers quote are really "grace notes" attached to the arguments and claims they wish those scriptures to support.)
Why?
The Church of Christ historically developed out of a notion to 'return' to the Bible and the Bible alone rather than creed or tradition. Yet we have no tradition of showcasing the Bible in our worship. Some of us pride ourselves on being "people of the book," yet "the book" often receives little spotlight (if any) in our assemblies.
There's a high school friend of mine that i studied with and who was baptized as a result. His parents, devout Methodists, were quite concerned about his conversion to the CoC. He doesn't know for certain, but he suspects from various clues that they visited a CoC to see what it was he had gotten into. He remembers walking in on a conversation they were having which he gathers was a critique of the CoC service they had visited, and he heard his father ask, "Why weren't there more Scripture readings?"
Is that not a valid question and worthy critique? If we claim to do everything just the way the Bible says it (not that i believe we necessarily do, but the claim is a common one, right?), why are there so few readings in our assemblies? And when there are public readings in our assemblies, why do they occupy such a state of de-emphasis? --why do they merely "piggy back" on our other practices?
My thoughts here were prompted by reading a small-but-significant section of N. T. Wright's book The Last Word. Notice a few quotes:
If scripture is to be a dynamic force within the church, it is vital that the public reading of scripture does not degenerate into what might be called "aural wallpaper," a pleasing and somewhat religious noise which murmurs along in the background while the mind is occupied elsewhere. (130)
Wright speaks here of degeneration, but has public scripture reading in the CoC ever occupied a place more significant than "aural wallpaper"?
In our public worship, in whatever tradition, we need to make sure the reading of scripture takes a central place.
The primary purpose of the readings is to be itself an act of worship, celebrating God's story, power and wisdom and, above all, God's son. (131)
To have a reading that lasts about ninety seconds, flanked by [songs] that last five or ten minutes, conveys the same impression as a magnificent sparkling crystal glass with a tiny drop of wine in it. The glass is important, but the wine is what really matters. (132)
And Wright remarks critically: Western individualism tends to highlight individual reading as the primary mode, and liturgical hearing as secondary (133)
Is Wright correct or is he mistaken? If he is even close to correct, i'm nearly frightened when i reflect that i have never seen public scripture reading treated this way in the CoC. What is emphasized in a CoC worship service? I think a nearly hunanimous answer would be the sermon and the singing. Scripture readings never occupy the same emphasis and prominance had by the sermon or the singing. Scripture is never publicly read for its own sake as an act of communal worship and edification. It is at best an accent tacked on to other practices. The scary thing is that public scripture reading in the CoC is often done in such a way that the worship basically would've had the same quality and impact with or without that scripture reading.
Is our de-emphasis of public scripture reading a tradition worth keeping?
Of all the churches of which i have been a part, probably between 1/2 - 2/3 of them included a regular scripture reading in their worship service. Among those congregations that included the public reading of scripture, most of those were token readings done during the Lord's Supper. Others that included public scripture readings did so as a prompt for the sermon. I may be alone in my impression, but most of the public scripture readings in the Church of Christ i have personally witnessed seemed cursory and chore-like. The public reading of Scripture was never an end in itself, nor itself an organic, key-stone-like part of worship, but rather a brief defense or explanation or prompt of a practice. As a musician, i'm thinking of a "grace note." A grace note is not a note in itself played rhythmically or melodically for its own sake. A grace note is a note which is so closely fixed to another note to create the illusion that the more important note has an extra texture or layer or thickness it would lack without the grace note. In my experience, the public reading of Scripture that takes place within the Church of Christ is at best a metaphorical "grace note." (i grant you that the Bible gets arguably more attention than this from preachers with stylistically Book-Chapter-Verse-saturated sermons; but i would argue that even then the scriptures such preachers quote are really "grace notes" attached to the arguments and claims they wish those scriptures to support.)
Why?
The Church of Christ historically developed out of a notion to 'return' to the Bible and the Bible alone rather than creed or tradition. Yet we have no tradition of showcasing the Bible in our worship. Some of us pride ourselves on being "people of the book," yet "the book" often receives little spotlight (if any) in our assemblies.
There's a high school friend of mine that i studied with and who was baptized as a result. His parents, devout Methodists, were quite concerned about his conversion to the CoC. He doesn't know for certain, but he suspects from various clues that they visited a CoC to see what it was he had gotten into. He remembers walking in on a conversation they were having which he gathers was a critique of the CoC service they had visited, and he heard his father ask, "Why weren't there more Scripture readings?"
Is that not a valid question and worthy critique? If we claim to do everything just the way the Bible says it (not that i believe we necessarily do, but the claim is a common one, right?), why are there so few readings in our assemblies? And when there are public readings in our assemblies, why do they occupy such a state of de-emphasis? --why do they merely "piggy back" on our other practices?
My thoughts here were prompted by reading a small-but-significant section of N. T. Wright's book The Last Word. Notice a few quotes:
If scripture is to be a dynamic force within the church, it is vital that the public reading of scripture does not degenerate into what might be called "aural wallpaper," a pleasing and somewhat religious noise which murmurs along in the background while the mind is occupied elsewhere. (130)
Wright speaks here of degeneration, but has public scripture reading in the CoC ever occupied a place more significant than "aural wallpaper"?
In our public worship, in whatever tradition, we need to make sure the reading of scripture takes a central place.
The primary purpose of the readings is to be itself an act of worship, celebrating God's story, power and wisdom and, above all, God's son. (131)
To have a reading that lasts about ninety seconds, flanked by [songs] that last five or ten minutes, conveys the same impression as a magnificent sparkling crystal glass with a tiny drop of wine in it. The glass is important, but the wine is what really matters. (132)
And Wright remarks critically: Western individualism tends to highlight individual reading as the primary mode, and liturgical hearing as secondary (133)
Is Wright correct or is he mistaken? If he is even close to correct, i'm nearly frightened when i reflect that i have never seen public scripture reading treated this way in the CoC. What is emphasized in a CoC worship service? I think a nearly hunanimous answer would be the sermon and the singing. Scripture readings never occupy the same emphasis and prominance had by the sermon or the singing. Scripture is never publicly read for its own sake as an act of communal worship and edification. It is at best an accent tacked on to other practices. The scary thing is that public scripture reading in the CoC is often done in such a way that the worship basically would've had the same quality and impact with or without that scripture reading.
Is our de-emphasis of public scripture reading a tradition worth keeping?
The Spirit Working "Only Through The Word"
There are quite a few within the CoC who feel that as it stands, the Holy Spirit works but "only through the word." And there are quite a few who take great opposition to such an idea and insist that the Holy Spirit works in other ways in the present day.
i'm not writing a blog to grapple with whether the Holy Spirit does or doesn't work only through the word. To be frank, i have very few settled convictions about the Holy Spirit and what He does or doesn't do. And from what little i've read of the debate, it appears to me that both sides are neglecting more systemic issues that underlie the debate and thus largely talk past each other.
But something did occur to me the other day as a tangent to something i was reading. What exactly could the Holy Spirit do through the word? i take it that many people throw a fuss about this "only through the word" business because it sounds like such a crippling limitation on the Spirit's abilities and powers. i take it that many people feel safe saying "only through the word" because it creates the illusion of safety from doctrines they feel are dangerous (calvinism or pentecostalism or whatever). So both parties have a notion that this "only through the word" is a very limiting concept.
But why? Again, i am not saying i think the Spirit operates only through the word. i genuinely don't have a definite opinion about the matter. What occurred to me though was to question the notion that "only through the word" is so limiting of a concept. Why is it so limiting?
Maybe it's assumed that "only through the word" implies that the only thing the Holy Spirit "does" in our day and time occurs when information from the Canon is transmitted to a person in either written or verbal form. The end. If the "only through the word" people are right, then that's all the Holy Spirit does.
Now i'm genuinely not meaning to caricature or oversimplify. Some proponent of the "only through the word" position may wish to say something about the Spirit convicting and convincing people; but i take it at the end of the day this means nothing more than that a person was informed of certain facts pertaining to spiritual matters, and chose rationally to believe them and act on them. And the Holy Spirit's "work" is really restricted to that informing process. Now if that's a gross misrepresentation, i'm certainly willing to be corrected. However, i doubt it's a gross misrepresentation of everyone's position who feel that the Spirit works "only through the word."
So my question(s) is: Why should we think that the only thing the Holy Spirit can do through the word is inform? Why couldn't there be a great many other things the Holy Spirit can do through the word that we're not even aware of or able to measure? What if something sacramental takes place in hearing/reading the Scriptures?
So to the opponents of the "only through the word" position: if you think that the "only through the word" position unduly limits the Spirit's work and power, are you not also unduly limiting the Spirit's work and power by assuming that He can't do much of anything "through the word"?
Or to the proponents of the "only through the word" position: if you think it's safe to assume from the "only through the word" claim that several seemingly dangerous doctrines about the Holy Spirit are false, is that really a safe assumption? Who's to say the Spirit can't "do" what it is you fear in those other doctrines, but do it "through the word"?
i'm not writing a blog to grapple with whether the Holy Spirit does or doesn't work only through the word. To be frank, i have very few settled convictions about the Holy Spirit and what He does or doesn't do. And from what little i've read of the debate, it appears to me that both sides are neglecting more systemic issues that underlie the debate and thus largely talk past each other.
But something did occur to me the other day as a tangent to something i was reading. What exactly could the Holy Spirit do through the word? i take it that many people throw a fuss about this "only through the word" business because it sounds like such a crippling limitation on the Spirit's abilities and powers. i take it that many people feel safe saying "only through the word" because it creates the illusion of safety from doctrines they feel are dangerous (calvinism or pentecostalism or whatever). So both parties have a notion that this "only through the word" is a very limiting concept.
But why? Again, i am not saying i think the Spirit operates only through the word. i genuinely don't have a definite opinion about the matter. What occurred to me though was to question the notion that "only through the word" is so limiting of a concept. Why is it so limiting?
Maybe it's assumed that "only through the word" implies that the only thing the Holy Spirit "does" in our day and time occurs when information from the Canon is transmitted to a person in either written or verbal form. The end. If the "only through the word" people are right, then that's all the Holy Spirit does.
Now i'm genuinely not meaning to caricature or oversimplify. Some proponent of the "only through the word" position may wish to say something about the Spirit convicting and convincing people; but i take it at the end of the day this means nothing more than that a person was informed of certain facts pertaining to spiritual matters, and chose rationally to believe them and act on them. And the Holy Spirit's "work" is really restricted to that informing process. Now if that's a gross misrepresentation, i'm certainly willing to be corrected. However, i doubt it's a gross misrepresentation of everyone's position who feel that the Spirit works "only through the word."
So my question(s) is: Why should we think that the only thing the Holy Spirit can do through the word is inform? Why couldn't there be a great many other things the Holy Spirit can do through the word that we're not even aware of or able to measure? What if something sacramental takes place in hearing/reading the Scriptures?
So to the opponents of the "only through the word" position: if you think that the "only through the word" position unduly limits the Spirit's work and power, are you not also unduly limiting the Spirit's work and power by assuming that He can't do much of anything "through the word"?
Or to the proponents of the "only through the word" position: if you think it's safe to assume from the "only through the word" claim that several seemingly dangerous doctrines about the Holy Spirit are false, is that really a safe assumption? Who's to say the Spirit can't "do" what it is you fear in those other doctrines, but do it "through the word"?
Monday, May 4, 2009
Drawing Circles (Exclusivism and Ecumenicism) Part 2
A second thing that surprises me when people start wanting to talk about who's saved and who's not:
Some people reject the circles drawn by others simply because of how small others' circles appear. Some people say, "you just can't be right, because surely God has to save more people than that." In other words, it's not a matter of the criteria used to draw the circle, but the size of the circle. If a position about who's saved and who's not entails that a shockingly small number of people are saved, then that position can't be right. (I suppose you could say it the other way around, too: People freak out when a someone implies shockingly large number of people are lost.)
i think this reaction isn't a good way to judge answers to the question for at least two reasons.
(1) i have to say that it seems almost common sensical to me that if even half the things the Bible says are true, then ...well....yes...in comparison to everyone who ever lived, a shockingly small number of people are heaven bound. Suppose we had everyone who had ever lived in all of human history standing before us, and then Jesus divided them up right before our eyes into the saved and the lost. What do we expect to happen? For no one to be lost? For only a handful of people to be lost? For no more than half? Why did Jesus say to enter through the narrow gate, and few there be that find it? Consider the fact that there are 6 billion people on the planet right now, and the majority of them are not Christians by any distinctive definition. And in the Bible, it seems almost a trend with God to work with minorities. Noah and his family (eight people in all) were rescued while the rest of the entire world was washed away in the flood. The Jews were a tiny nation on a global scale. Christianity was an incredibly small, cultural minority for almost four hundred years after its inception.
(2) Rejecting a certain circle someone has drawn just because it's small is perpectival. It's relative to the eye of the beholder. Sure, the circle may seem small to you (i'm using "you" here in the general sense of anyone)? But to someone else it might seem just right or too large. So why does it appear too small to you? Does it seem like more people deserve to be in the "in" circle than that? Does it seem like it excludes people you think of us as 'good' or 'nice' or 'worth saving'? Probably everyone who ever lived seemed 'good' or 'nice' to someone. (Even Hitler had a mother.)
i think the Bible represents those in God's favor as a historical minority, and we shouldn't reject answers about who's in and who's out just because the circle appears small.
Some people reject the circles drawn by others simply because of how small others' circles appear. Some people say, "you just can't be right, because surely God has to save more people than that." In other words, it's not a matter of the criteria used to draw the circle, but the size of the circle. If a position about who's saved and who's not entails that a shockingly small number of people are saved, then that position can't be right. (I suppose you could say it the other way around, too: People freak out when a someone implies shockingly large number of people are lost.)
i think this reaction isn't a good way to judge answers to the question for at least two reasons.
(1) i have to say that it seems almost common sensical to me that if even half the things the Bible says are true, then ...well....yes...in comparison to everyone who ever lived, a shockingly small number of people are heaven bound. Suppose we had everyone who had ever lived in all of human history standing before us, and then Jesus divided them up right before our eyes into the saved and the lost. What do we expect to happen? For no one to be lost? For only a handful of people to be lost? For no more than half? Why did Jesus say to enter through the narrow gate, and few there be that find it? Consider the fact that there are 6 billion people on the planet right now, and the majority of them are not Christians by any distinctive definition. And in the Bible, it seems almost a trend with God to work with minorities. Noah and his family (eight people in all) were rescued while the rest of the entire world was washed away in the flood. The Jews were a tiny nation on a global scale. Christianity was an incredibly small, cultural minority for almost four hundred years after its inception.
(2) Rejecting a certain circle someone has drawn just because it's small is perpectival. It's relative to the eye of the beholder. Sure, the circle may seem small to you (i'm using "you" here in the general sense of anyone)? But to someone else it might seem just right or too large. So why does it appear too small to you? Does it seem like more people deserve to be in the "in" circle than that? Does it seem like it excludes people you think of us as 'good' or 'nice' or 'worth saving'? Probably everyone who ever lived seemed 'good' or 'nice' to someone. (Even Hitler had a mother.)
i think the Bible represents those in God's favor as a historical minority, and we shouldn't reject answers about who's in and who's out just because the circle appears small.
Drawing Circles (Exclusivism and Ecumenicism) Part 1
By "drawing circles," i mean who's "in" and who's "out"? Who's a Christian and who's not? Who's saved and who's not? Who's heavenbound and who's not? Who should i fellowship and who should i not? i think practically we're all after the same thing with any of the terms we put on that list (though i'm open to hear an objection to that assumption.)
in regards to circle drawing, i'm surprised by four things i find, and find i can't go along with them. Here's the first one.
For some people, to be inside the circle basically requires perfection. They'd never say it that way, but that's what their criteria amounts to. In order to be "in," i have to do everything right all the time. (And doing everything right could include believing all the right doctrines, or not supporting orphan's homes, or belonging to a "sound" congregation, or whatever.) The moment i slip, i'm no longer in the circle, and i have to repent and pray my way back in, and i have to be perfect to stay there. Basically then, God expects sinlessness and all Christ's death does for me is give me another crack at perfection.
i think this idea misses the point of Christianity by a mile for a few reasons.
(1) if you want to argue about whether or not some biblical characters are heavenbound or not, fine, so be it. The Bible doesn't tell us flat out who all went where after they died. Nevertheless, i think there are plenty of examples where a person who is portrayed as having God's favor was not a perfect individual, and those imperfections were never dealt with in that person's life, at least not in recorded history. What about the polygamy common among our Old Testament heroes? What about that the Chronicler tells us that David only sinned in the matter of Uriah the Hittite? Um, really? What about the census or waltzing into the tabernacle and helping himself to the showbread? And even without those examples, just think about it: REALLY? David NEVER sinned his whole life other than that? It appears many things were simply overlooked. There are plenty more characters to be considered as evidence, but i think you get the point. This circle drawing leaves "out" some Bible characters who seem obviously "in."
(2) There is a difference between sin as a struggle and sin as a lifestyle. John wrote in hopes that his readers wouldn't sin and told them that no one in Christ keeps on sinning, but if they did they had an advocate. Clearly there must be some category distinctions in John's mind for all that to be consistent. Ezekiel talks about people who turn away from their righteousness. Does he mean for us to think that every single time i fail to measure up, i've "turned away" from my righteousness? i really don't think so.
(3) This view fails to treat people holistically--namely, as existing along a time line. Every second of my life is treated as a frozen state at which i'd better be perfect if i want in the "in" circle." But what about the fact that discipleship is a journey through time? --a process by which i'm grown and tested and trained and taught? This view leaves no room for growth except possible in the realm of superogatory matters.
i'm surprised that people would have such a stringent standard for being 'in the circle.' Do they really think they're perfect? Whether they do or not, i really don't think the Bible draws circles that way.
in regards to circle drawing, i'm surprised by four things i find, and find i can't go along with them. Here's the first one.
For some people, to be inside the circle basically requires perfection. They'd never say it that way, but that's what their criteria amounts to. In order to be "in," i have to do everything right all the time. (And doing everything right could include believing all the right doctrines, or not supporting orphan's homes, or belonging to a "sound" congregation, or whatever.) The moment i slip, i'm no longer in the circle, and i have to repent and pray my way back in, and i have to be perfect to stay there. Basically then, God expects sinlessness and all Christ's death does for me is give me another crack at perfection.
i think this idea misses the point of Christianity by a mile for a few reasons.
(1) if you want to argue about whether or not some biblical characters are heavenbound or not, fine, so be it. The Bible doesn't tell us flat out who all went where after they died. Nevertheless, i think there are plenty of examples where a person who is portrayed as having God's favor was not a perfect individual, and those imperfections were never dealt with in that person's life, at least not in recorded history. What about the polygamy common among our Old Testament heroes? What about that the Chronicler tells us that David only sinned in the matter of Uriah the Hittite? Um, really? What about the census or waltzing into the tabernacle and helping himself to the showbread? And even without those examples, just think about it: REALLY? David NEVER sinned his whole life other than that? It appears many things were simply overlooked. There are plenty more characters to be considered as evidence, but i think you get the point. This circle drawing leaves "out" some Bible characters who seem obviously "in."
(2) There is a difference between sin as a struggle and sin as a lifestyle. John wrote in hopes that his readers wouldn't sin and told them that no one in Christ keeps on sinning, but if they did they had an advocate. Clearly there must be some category distinctions in John's mind for all that to be consistent. Ezekiel talks about people who turn away from their righteousness. Does he mean for us to think that every single time i fail to measure up, i've "turned away" from my righteousness? i really don't think so.
(3) This view fails to treat people holistically--namely, as existing along a time line. Every second of my life is treated as a frozen state at which i'd better be perfect if i want in the "in" circle." But what about the fact that discipleship is a journey through time? --a process by which i'm grown and tested and trained and taught? This view leaves no room for growth except possible in the realm of superogatory matters.
i'm surprised that people would have such a stringent standard for being 'in the circle.' Do they really think they're perfect? Whether they do or not, i really don't think the Bible draws circles that way.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)