December 26, 2005
The Oxford History of Christian Worship
I have been enjoying reading a book I got with a great deal a few weeks ago from the History Book Club. Released just this year, The Oxford History of Christian Worship should prove to be an excellent resource for years to come. The book is arranged more or less chronologically but also has essays on Christian worship as performed by certain traditions (e.g. Mennonite, Baptist, Pentecostal, Anglican, Catholic) in certain parts of the world (e.g. India, Australia, Latin America, Korea, Africa) in association with various activites (music, art, cultural transformation, vestments). I just finished reading the intoductory chapter called "Christian Worship: Scriptural Basis and Theological Frame," written by one of the book's editors Geoffrey Wainwright. If that essay is a foretaste of the rest of the essays, I can hardly wait to dive into the book and bathe in its depths! Here are some words that Mr. Wainwright wrote concerning worship that I thought particularly worthy of noting.
"Christian worship recognizes its own scriptural basis by the fact that the continual reading of the scriptures is a constitutive part of the liturgy: these scriptures narrate the fundamental story, up to and including its awaited consummation; they contain the promises, commands, and patterns that worshipers take up as they play their own part in the story. The theological frame is vital because scripturally derived doctrine concerning God, man, and their proper relationship proves the standards by which Christian worshipers seek to abide as they embody and enact the ongoing life of the Church before God that is Tradition. In very broad lines, there is a consistency in the content and structures of Christian worship across the centuries..." (4).
"God's glory, in the first instance, is the sheer 'godness' -- the deity -- of God, which is love (1 John 4:16). Christian theological speculation, prompted by the self-revelation of God in history, will figure this as the love among the Three Persons of the Blessed Trinity in all eternity. It can be said -- after the event -- that it was God's love that freely undertook the creation of a world other than himself, and that it was God's good purpose especially to create humankind in the expectation of a loving response that would also please God. In the words of the late-second-century bishop Irenaeus of Lyons..., 'the glory of God is man alive,' whose 'life is the vision of God'... Humankind, however in its God-given freedom has preferred to go its own way: idolatry is, at root, creaturely self-worship. Thus humankind has failed to reflect the radiant, self-diffusive goodness of God (cf. Exod. 33:17-23). In so doing, humanity has missed its vocation, as made in the image of God, to 'render' glory to God. True worship occurs when human beings are restored to their original vocation and final end. This has happened redemptively in Jesus Christ, who is the image of God both from the divine side (2 Cor. 4:6; Col. 1:15-20; Heb. 1:1-3) and from the Adamic side (Rom. 5:15-21; 1 Cor. 15:42-50), being himself (in Chalcedonian terms) on Person, the Son, known in two natures. 'And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth; and we have beheld his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father... No one has ever seen God; the only Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has made him known' (John 1:14, 18).
"Those who adhere to Christ by faith and are incorporated into him by baptism are being renewed after the image of their Creator (Col. 3:1-10), conformed to the image of the firstborn Son (Rom. 8:29), and may thus, in the power of the Holy Spirit, render God the glory that is theirs by reflection (Rom. 8:30; 2 Cor. 3:17-18). Their daily lives and their cultic acts will not be at variance. Eschatologically, Hans Urs von Balthasar suggests, the bringing home of humankind to God may be considered an 'additional gift' ... in the eternal and ever-new mutual self-giving of the Father, Son, and Spirit, in 'enrichment'... or 'enhancement'... of the divine life through its inclusion of the redeemed creature to which God grants participation in himself. God's generosity in creation and salvation is his own 'greater glory'" (8-9).
"Christian ritual constitutes a complex symbolic system—employing verbal, gestural, and material signs—by which the Church and the churches explore, describe, interpret, and fashion reality; express and form their thoughts, emotions, and values; and communicate across time and space in ways that both build and convey traditions as well as both allowing and reflecting social relations in the present" (16).
Well worth the read!
Posted by jhyink at 06:30 PM | Comments (0)
March 13, 2005
Continuity in the use of 'Son of God'
As I go through Climax of the Covenant by N. T. Wright a second time, I must pause to make a preliminary observation of a particular passage. In Chapter 3, Wright is arguing for an incorporative sense of 'Messiah.' This is not merely Jesus' last name, but carries the idea that the Messiah is "the one in whom the people of God are summed up, so that they can be referred to as being 'in' him, as coming or growing 'into' him, and so forth" (41). One of his lines of argument struck me as particularly worth noting, and that is Paul's references to Jesus as 'Son of God.' He shows that this same title is used for Israel, for Jesus, and for the church.
As is well known, one of the most striking Old Testament uses of this phrase is to denote the Davidic king: Psalm 2.7 and 2 Samuel 7.14... indicate that, although not frequent, this usage had at least a clear royal connotation, which correlates closely with the idea of Israel herself as God's Son (Exodus 4.22, etc.). This might be thought a mere irrelevance, or at best an odd coincidence; but there are good reasons for thinking that it had become thematic for Paul. In a passage like Galatians 3-4, for instance, the argument hinges on the promises to Abraham--promises about the family that God would give him--being fulfilled in the coming one, the Messiah.... When, precisely in that context, we find references to Israel as the young son who now comes to maturity, and at the same time to Jesus as the son in whom the promises are fulfilled, and to the church as the sons who now become the beneficiaries of those promises (Galatians 4.1-7), there can be little doubt that a whole train of thought is being evoked, in which Jesus, precisely as [Xpistos], Messiah, represents and draws together in himself the physical family of Abraham, in order then to be the focal point of a new community, the renewed people of God.
This is a brilliant observation from Galatians 4. Israel under the Old Covenant was God's son in immaturity. The law gave explicit guidelines for every facet of life. This is exactly what good parents do for younger, immature children. But the church is now God's son in maturity. God has given the church the responsibility to exercise discernment as a mature body. She looks to the requirements of her days of immaturity and uses them as guides in making decisions. But alas, the implications of these truths go far beyond the simple observation I'm making here.
Beside the point that Paul is making concerning the 'Messiah," I am satisfied with this line of thinking concerning continuity. I remember reading an article once by Kenneth Gentry called "Must God Stutter?" His basic thesis was that God doesn't need to repeat himself in the New Testament in order for his commands to remain in effect, and I appreciate the point he is making. This is the basic approach that most people took when I became persuaded of covenant theology. But if I remember correctly, Gentry applied this line of thinking not merely in refutation of dispensationalism but also in promoting a theonomic application of the law. And again, whereas I certainly sympathize with his passion for taking all of Scripture seriously, I don't believe the transition from the Old Covenant to the New can be explained quite so simplistically. There are a great number of ways in which Israel and the Church are identical, but much has changed as well! The cross did much more than change a few things here and there that happened to be specifically mentioned as having changed in the New Covenant. All that to say, I appreciate Wright's approach to continuity, which is rooted in exegesis of relevant texts and concepts.
Posted by jhyink at 09:32 PM | Comments (0)
March 13, 2004
Thankful for Being Offended
I had a conversation with a co-worker the other day about drinking alcoholic beverages. His reason against drinking them is in order to avoid offending another believer. Basically, he (and many others that I have talked to) uses the classic argument from Romans 14 in order to forbid certain practices that God does not. And I think the passage is useful in such situations as far as it goes. But without doing a complete exposition of the texts, I see some pretty large holes applying it the way that they do.
One of the problems I see is their understanding of the word "offend." Understandably, people understanding this term to mean the same as it does in the common vernacular. The most common usage of the word "offend," according to my dictionary is, "to cause displeasure, anger, resentment, or wounded feelings in." The second most common is "to be displeasing or disagreeable to." Importing this meaning into Romans 14, then, forbids causing any sort of displeasure, anger, etc. to a fellow believer by my behavior. Fortunately, the Biblical term means something different. It, rather, communicates the idea of placing a stumbling block before someone or causing someone to sin. Frankly, I am glad that I have had the privilege of being "offended," in the modern sense of the word. I have had the frequent experience of seeing or hearing of someone (usually whom I respect) doing some activity, and my reaction is one of displeasure and even anger or resentment. But those feelings have forced me to evaluate that behavior according to Scripture. And frequently I have discovered that indeed God does not forbid that activity. Consequently, letting go of the legalism of forbidding that which God does not (thus, being holier than God), I am sanctified. In the end, I am thankful for being offended.
Another problem that I see with this thinking is that it implies that weakness is almost commended. Paul's argument is not meant to encourage the weak man in his weakness. He is, after all, weak. In his forbidding, his conscience is not bound by God's law. This is not a good thing he is doing. I am not saying that we ought, therefore, to flaunt our liberty in front of the weak believer (that is forbidden). I am saying that it is not wrong to attempt to educate him (even at the risk of "offending" him--in the common sense).
I have also heard argued that our modern culture has corrupted certain practices, and so by their association with the culture, the practices (though not wrong of themselves) are inappropriate for believers. Besides the fact that this assumes an a priori negative view of culture, this thinking cannot be applied consistently. Applied consistently, it would forbid drinking alcoholic beverages because it is associated with drunkenness. It would also forbid marriage because it is associated with adultery and divorce. It would forbid politics because it is associated with lying (maybe that would actually be good!). It would forbid owning anything because that is associated with materialism. It would forbid many other legitimate functions because they have been corrupted by sin. Rather, Christians need to participate in these things in a distinctively Christian way. All the world is Christ's. We ought not call unclean what He does not.
Posted by jhyink at 09:55 PM | Comments (0)
March 05, 2004
A Plea for Charity
Tim Enloe, in his post called "Anymore, I Don't Get It," has given an empassioned plea for charity in spite of disagreement. Recently, I have been reading The Next Christendom: The Coming of Global Christianity by Philip Jenkins, and he speaks of Christianity as a demographic unit. Thus, he includes even those bodies like Nestorians and Monophysites, who have been declared as heretical. I have been forced to consider how I am related to such people. I have a background in churches that give the impression that they are the only bodies left who stand for the truth. Naturally, therefore, I assumed that other ecclesiatical bodies are not really churches, thus removing any obligation that I might have toward them. What Tim is promoting is a healthy ecumenism, a recognition that Christ's Church consists of more than just those of us who dot all our i's and cross all our t's correctly. Besides, assuming that Christ is currently sancitifying his Church, by washing her with the Word, what does that say about us when we find out that we have misplaced a dot (a jot or a tittle)? This is a very complex issue, and his has many implications. But I too echo Tim's plea for charity toward those within other theological and ecclesiatical traditions. We are Christ's Church.
Posted by jhyink at 10:30 AM | Comments (0)
February 04, 2004
Parable of the Talents
On Wednesday evenings I go to a Bible study at my church led by one of our pastors. I have found it to be very helpful and convicting, especially for me recently. Tonight he spoke on the parable of the talents. My understanding of parables like this has deepened greatly over the last several months. We are studying the book of Matthew, which is focused specifically on the Jews’ rejection of Christ and the consequent transition of the kingdom away from them. This parable is located in the last great discourse of the book, and appropriately it concerns the second coming of Christ. In it, Christ addresses how people are to act until the judgment day as well as the basis of that judgment. I would like to make some of my own additional observations from this parable.
First, the main characters of the parable are a master and three servants. The master is obviously Christ, who gives the talents to his servants. The servants are His people, who are obligated to do His work. Notice, they are all really and truly servants. All have real and true obligations as well as real and true hopes for rewards upon faithful performance of those obligations. In other words, these people are related to Christ by covenant. They are members of Christ’s body, the Church. Although the unfaithful servant is by no means meant to be the norm in the Church, yet within the church, there are those who are still cast into outer darkness for their unfaithfulness. The New Covenant into which Christ has entered with the Church has not only blessings for obedience but also a true, eternal curse for disobedience. I find this truth also clearly taught in Christ’s parable of the vine and branches, where the obligation is the same (multiplication or fruitfulness) as well as the blessings and curse. If the New Covenant is exclusively spiritual, then passages like these are difficult to explain without being completely Arminian.
Second, until recently I have been accustomed to understand these servants exclusively as individuals. And certainly, all individuals who are Christ’s have these obligations. But I am pretty certain that these servants also may be corporate entities who are covenantally related to Christ. The last servant, Israel (Isa. 41:8, 44:1-2), was unfaithful and unfruitful, and so its "talent" was taken away and given to another servant (the Church) who would be faithful. Jesus is predicting the same thing that he predicted earlier in Matthew 22:43: "Therefore I say to you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you [Israel] and given to a people [the Church], producing the fruit of it." I think this also may apply to ecclesiastical bodies or individual churches. For instance, Jesus warns the church of Ephesus of removing their lampstand if they do not repent (Rev. 2:5).
Finally, my pastor rightly pointed out that the talents represent the Gospel. The Church and each individual in it has a responsibility of spreading the Gospel. Israel was set up as a kingdom of priests to mediate the gospel to the world (Exod. 19:6). Now, in its place, the Church is a holy nation and royal priesthood (1 Peter 2:9). Our responsibility is to take Christ’s teaching to all nations (Matt. 28:19-20). This parable gives us hope that we will be successful. In Christ’s teaching the talents (the Gospel) don’t grow suddenly and then diminish gradually into a very small portion when the master returns. Rather, the talents multiply in the history leading to the return of the master; and then comes the judgment. Christ gives us hope that investment in Gospel work can and will multiply through our faithful labor.
Posted by jhyink at 10:14 PM | Comments (4)