Herod the Great is one of my favorite characters to use as an illustration of what happened to the Roman Republic-turned-Empire. His grandfather, Antipater, had connived his way into becoming a power broker in Judea. His father, Antipater II/Antipas, had supported Pompey and Caesar (which is apparently what led to his assassination the year after Caesar's). Herod himself had become friends with Caesar's protege, Octavian, who defeated Caesar's enemies and later appointed Herod "King of the Jews" in 40 BC. I think it's safe to say that Octavian (who would go on to become Augustus Caesar) was using Herod as much as he was rewarding him (else how do we explain pardoning the fact that Herod actually backed Mark Antony during that fuss?). He needed someone who could keep the traditionally unstable region of Judea under control and be a buffer against the Parthians so he could focus on more pressing enemies closer to home. In fact, he didn't particularly even like Herod, once saying that "it's safer to be one of Herod's pigs than one of his sons." But he couldn't argue with Herod's success. Because he was both a megalomaniac and paranoid, Herod used his long leash from Rome to rule Judea by terror, murdering any supposed threat and putting down any opposition to his reign. He managed to keep just enough favor with all parties by completing a number of massive building projects that employed lots of Jews, gave much pride to the region, and flattered their namesakes in Rome. If that's how things were in a true backwater of the Roman Empire, how much more dysfunctional must things have been closer to Rome? But that's not the point here. I want to tap into a fascinating exchange in Matthew 2. After Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of King Herod, wise men from the east arrived unexpectedly in Jerusalem, saying, “Where is He who has been born King of the Jews? For we saw His star in the east and have come to worship Him.”
0 Comments
It comes down to the right perspective: Lead Your Church to Worship *Together* I recently attended a Christian conference in which the sessions each opened in corporate worship. The music leaders were top-notch musicians and very sincere. The quality of the music was excellent, but I found myself rather disconnected from worship most of those times. After the conference, I tried to take stock of my experience to figure out what happened, and that brought me back to this list of rather common mistakes worship leaders (including me) make. The New Testament does not speak directly to the “mechanics” of worship leadership, but it does speak to worship in the churches. I believe Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians 14:26-35 can actually help worship leaders more than we might realize: What then shall we say, brothers? When you come together, everyone has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation. All of these must be done for the strengthening of the church. If anyone speaks in a tongue, two--or at the most three--should speak, one at a time, and someone must interpret. If there is no interpreter, the speaker should keep quiet in the church and speak to himself and God. Two or three prophets should speak, and the others should weigh carefully what is said. And if a revelation comes to someone who is sitting down, the first speaker should stop. For you can all prophesy in turn so that everyone may be instructed and encouraged. The spirits of prophets are subject to the control of prophets. For God is not a God of disorder but of peace. We can identify three principles from these words that can guide our decisions in some very important areas:
Now, how do we translate those into specific actions that will help us do our jobs? Here is a nonexhaustive list that comes to mind:
I summarize all of that into these simple words for leading worship: worship personally (that means you and your leadership team), engage the community (build up your church), and connect every individual with God (or rather remove obstacles). That is your responsibility as a worship leader. With God’s help, we can do it. MW Note: I just discovered (through unrelated research) that this article was posted on WorshipLeader.com at https://worshipleader.com/leadership/7-action-steps-toward-church-participation-in-worship/. I had submitted it for them to post but never heard back from them (which usually means a rejection), which is why I posted it here without attribution. First of all, Stevie Wonder's Superstition is one of my all-time favorite songs. My wife doesn't enjoy it quite as much as I do (although she digs the bass line, which disappointed us both greatly to learn it was a synthesizer). Anyway, it rifles through some of the "classic" superstitions: ladders, the number 13, breaking a mirror. Here are the superstitions I remember hearing/having growing up:
I hate to be the lyrics curmudgeon, but sometimes I just get really bugged by a certain Christian song. It's actually been weeks that I first heard this song, but I've been really busy. It's time to talk "VIP" by Manic Drive. It's a catchy, fun-for-kids kind of song if you haven't heard it (the rapper has some annoying tendencies that make it hard to understand a few words), but I'm not sure it's all that innocent in its core theology. Here is the entire lyric from the air1 website, so it's going to be as close to right as I'll probably find on the internet: Ladies and gents, welcome to the rock show, center spotlight and we watch the stage glow Here's what I think the song is going for: God created every human as a unique and priceless treasure in His image. Jesus Christ died so that every such human would have not only access to God Himself but also have abundant life right here. That's the "VIP treatment" from God. That's a message I want everyone to know because it's true. Every single one of us is of utmost importance to God our Creator. That's not my problem.
My problem is the use of the VIP imagery. In Exodus 25, God gives Moses instructions on how to build the Tabernacle as well as the articles therein. We all know that there is a lot of gold in there; I have certainly taken that for granted. But reading it again, I was taken aback at how much gold was involved. Here are some excerpts from that chapter: They are to make an ark of acacia wood . . . Overlay it with pure gold; overlay it both inside and out. Also make a gold molding all around it. . . . Make poles of acacia wood and overlay them with gold. . . . Make a mercy seat of pure gold, 45 inches long and 27 inches wide. Make two cherubim of gold; make them of hammered work at the two ends of the mercy seat. . . . You are to construct a table of acacia wood . . . Overlay it with pure gold and make a gold molding all around it. Make a three-inch frame all around it and make a gold molding for it all around its frame. Make four gold rings for it, and attach the rings to the four corners at its four legs. . . . Make the poles of acacia wood and overlay them with gold, and the table can be carried by them. You are also to make its plates and cups, as well as its pitchers and bowls for pouring drink offerings. Make them out of pure gold. . . . You are to make a lampstand out of pure, hammered gold. It is to be made of one piece: its base and shaft, its ornamental cups, and its calyxes and petals. . . . All of it is to be a single hammered piece of pure gold. . . . Its snuffers and firepans must be of pure gold. The lampstand with all these utensils is to be made from 75 pounds of pure gold. Be careful to make them according to the pattern you have been shown on the mountain. That's a lot of pure gold! Why would God insist on so much gold? The cynics generally offer one of two reasons:
Not being wealthy, an investor, or a geologist, I haven't spent much time studying precious metals, so this is rather new to me. Here's a review of gold's properties:
A long time ago, a friend of mine asked me if I could find some good workout music for Christians, and I thought that sounded like a lot of work for something I didn't really get. Now my wife does aerobics. So I get it. So here's a list of possible workout songs based on beats per minute from a first pass through my itunes. My criteria is that I have to own the song to list it here, so no promises that you like my music! If anyone wants to add some of their own suggestions, please do. I'll come back with more as I take longer to dig through my music (harder to find these tempos than I thought). All of these are album versions except where listed. If you're not familiar with any of these songs, I've tried to give you a little help on styles of music.
Forgive me if you disagree with my terms. BPM / Song / Artist 111 / My Lighthouse / Rend Collective 114 / Hosanna / Paul Baloche 116 / Diverse City / tobymac 117 / The Happy Song / Delirious? 119 / Forever / Chris Tomlin 119 / Here Is Our King / David Crowder Band 120 / Happy / Ayieshe Woods 120 / Revolutionary / David Crowder Band 120 / Can You Feel It? / David Crowder Band 121 / Your Grace Is Enough / Chris Tomlin 122 / Making Me New / Royal Tailor 122 / These Things Take Time / Sanctus Real 123 / Sing like the Saved / David Crowder Band (Lime CD) 125 / God's Great Dance Floor / Chris Tomlin 125 / Hearts Sing Louder / MercyMe 127 / Set Free / The Ascent 129 / Rising / Paul Baloche 129 / Hang On (Dave Aude Radio Edit) / Plumb 130 / Waterfall / Chris Tomlin 130 / Gravity / Circleslide 130 / Jesus Saves / Tim Hughes (Happy Day album) 131 / Wake (Studio Version) / Hillsong Young & Free 132 / Undignified / David Crowder Band 133 / Alive (Studio Version) / Hillsong Young & Free 134 / Always Comes Around / Seven Day Jesus 135 / Because of Your Love / Brenton Brown 136 / I Am Free / Newsboys 136 / Life Is Good / Stellar Kart 140 / Set Free / Chris Tomlin & Matt Redman (Passion) 140 / Happy Day / Tim Hughes 141 / Ready Set Go / Royal Tailor 143 / Sing, Sing, Sing / Chris Tomlin 144 / Rise and Sing / Fee What other songs would you want to add to the list?
Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi
This phrase is sometimes used by liturgists to explain the priority of worship in the formation of theology. I have certainly argued that people learn more theology from worship than from any other source; I absolutely believe that to be true. This phrase is different. This phrase argues that worship is an authoritative source of theology. Granted, the liturgists don't mean just any act of worship (any prayer, any song) but rather an official written liturgy of some official church or another. These liturgies stand above theological critique, they would say. A key component of their argument is the difference between primary theology and secondary theology. Primary theology is an act of theology itself - people speaking of or to God. Secondary theology is any reflection on primary theology - people discussing what was spoken of or to God. Some liturgists, Aidan Kavanagh included, believe that primary theology cannot be corrected by secondary theology (in other words, it is meaningless for someone to try to point out a theological flaw in an act of worship because that act is its own theology). I said that very clunkily, so it sounds a bit worse than what he means. I referenced his On Liturgical Theology in my last post, and here is what he says about primary and secondary theology in worship:
Buuuuuuuut . . . According to Kavanagh and other liturgists, the authoritative experiences of worship are conditioned by the written liturgies. Again, we're not talking about just any act of worship, but the "official" acts handed down through the church for centuries. That worship is true theology. (I want to make that clear so that someone doesn't try to use this argument to validate any and every private experience of worship; such an approach would envelope mutually exclusive experiences.) And here's where I'm going - "The Lex" - Lex orandi, lex credendi; The rule of prayer is the rule of faith. That is the phrase used to justify that approach. The theology that is produced/understood within the worship experience is not just more real, it is more right. Sadly, that phrase is a poor summary and gross misunderstanding of the man who first coined it. One day I'll figure out how to write this clearly and concisely in book form, but for now let's just establish the facts. The original author of this idea is Prosper of Aquitaine; the source is his Defense of Augustine, specifically in his summary of Roman pronouncements on the matter of divine sovereignty and free will (Praeteritorum Sedis Apostolicae Episcoporum Auctoritates). The background of the discourse is actually quite simple. People are arguing (and this is loosely in the context of the ongoing debate between followers of Augustine and Pelagius) whether people are saved by virtue of an act of free will or solely by the sovereignty of God. Obviously, they didn't settle the matter. Prosper, an apologist for Augustine, points out that churches everywhere pray for God to save lost sinners. That means that the people believe God is sovereign in salvation because that is how they pray, and that is tacit proof that Augustine must be right. From a modern free church perspective, I might say along those lines, "So many people of God, guided by the same Spirit of God, say and believe this to be true that it must be true - God's Spirit would not allow so many of us to go astray." Now, that's not how Prosper is arguing, but I'm not dismissing his conclusion out of hand. What exactly did he say? I picked up a festschrift to one of my favorite sarcastic Catholic monks (Aidan Kavanagh) who takes worship very seriously. It was a good reminder of some important things that should be in our minds as we think about our gatherings for worship. Here is a quick summary of some of the ideas in his On Liturgical Theology:
In other words, Christianity is not a system to be learned, but a life to be lived. It is a culture, not a theology. Kavanagh uses these word pairs to explain himself: assert, not argue; proclaim, not explain; engage, not discourse. And he's right. I learn by doing and being. The classroom can only get me so far into the Christian life; I must experience and engage. The church's worship is designed to be that "classroom" of experience, fresh, alive, and transforming. Where is this going that means anything to us? Because worship is culture, it is enacted in ritual, which is a very unique type of behavior. He uses two very cool words to describe ritual: antistructural and rhythmic. They represent two boundaries to a healthy understanding of worship. Antistructural means that once it is reduced to a static or concrete form, it becomes oppressive and destructive. He believes we must resist unchecked structure in worship, and I believe he has a point. Antistructuralism prevents the nature of rhythm from becoming mindless repetition. Rhythmic, on the other hand, prevents antistructuralism from devolving into compulsive innovation (love that term). Rhythm unites people and is a teaching tool. Why is all of that important? Because liturgy (the church at worship) is the ritual that enacts our Christian culture. It is the way that "Christianity" is made accessible to those present. So here's what we can do with this: (1) Think of the liturgies (in Baptist life we call them "orders of worship") we experience each week as more than a series of actions but the very formation of Christian identity. We want to find a way to be drawn into participating in the very rite of redemption. What makes baptism and the Lord's Supper so powerful? The participation, the symbolism, the action, the meaning, the imagery. Those might be the only two Scriptural ordinances (contra our friend Fr. Kavanagh), but there are so many other rites that could engage all of this. (2) Remember those most excellent boundaries: antistructural and rhythmic. Those are very thick words. They encourage us to stay away from a concrete order of service and from unbridled sponaneity. There is value both in restless creativity and also in principled repetition. I think Kavanagh makes a better point than even he realizes - as we move further and further away from true Christian community, every blast of ritual identity is made that much more important. Be encouraged. Our liturgical experiences are critical to our future! Yes, the title itself is more than a bit ridiculous because the "movement" we think of as neoorthodoxy was a product of its time. It wouldn't have happened had it not been for the conditions in Europe between the two world wars. Here's where I'm going with that - neoorthodoxy is generally seen to be obsolete or a relic; most folks know nothing about it and I would imagine that few seminaries spend much time with it. (In truthfulness, how many students are really going to get through Church Dogmatics?) I mentioned neoorthodoxy in a post knowing that I would have to explain myself eventually. When I peel away some of the scary words, we'll see that the essentials of this approach to Christianity sound a lot like "cutting edge" popular theology. I can use that both to sound some warnings about popular theology and also to show where neoorthodoxy may have had a good point.
It's impossible to "identify" neoorthodoxy. The men who shaped it had the common experience of being shaped by the conditions mentioned above, but they did not really attempt to promote a systematic statement of beliefs (as a group; individuals such as Barth did). Names often associated with this group of course include Karl Barth, but also Emil Brunner, C. H. Dodd, Gustav Aulen, Richard and Reinhold Niebuhr, Paul Tillich, and Dietrich Bonhoeffer. There is nothing uniform about their writings except that they reacted to common concerns. Neoorthodoxy often has a rather negative connotation, mostly going to Barth's controversial statement, "The Bible is God's Word so far as God lets it be His Word." We'll get to that. But for starters (or non-starters), we need to know that this movement started as a rejection of Protestant liberalism and Protestant scholasticism. The loose association of scholars who eventually took on this moniker rejected the basic elements of liberalism: Christianity should be accommodated to science and culture, and humanity was steadily improving. But they also rejected the basis of scholasticism: that Christianity can be entirely summarized in a series of analytic propositions that are absolutely rational and coherent. I still see both of these tendencies in American Christianity, and I still see reactions against them. If you've ever heard someone say on the one hand that "social justice is no substitute for a clear presentation of the Gospel" or on the other hand that "true faith has to travel from your head to your heart" then you're also aware of these reactions. It's the starting point for emergent and emerging churches (both Rob Bell and Brian McLaren are regularly accused of having a neoorthodox understanding of Scripture, at the very least; actually, the term neo-neoorthodox comes to mind to describe that entire programme, and I think that's no small part of the reason why Barth is taking a beating again in conservative evangelical circles). I have heard neo-orthodoxy traced to the great and unintentional Christian existentialist Soren Kierkegaard. Like other passionate and novel thinkers (Phoebe Palmer comes to mind), I think we can find the roots of their unique writings in the unique tragedies of their lives. Palmer lost a child to a crib fire, leading her to create the altar theology of the holiness movement. Kierkegaard gave up the love of his life (for reasons that I don't really understand), leading him to emphasize the relationship between love and loss, choice and consequence. He rejected the popular idealism of his day (the German idealism of Hegel, the monistic opposite of materialism) because he believed that life could not be systematized, only experienced. In other words, a book about love couldn't begin to approximate the experience of loving. (By the way, isn't he right? And isn't that one of the major claims of evangelicalism?) Here is Kierkegaard's most important observation: faith, like love, cannot be reasoned - it can only be experienced. Indeed, and this is one of the valuable pickups of neoorthodoxy, the Christian faith cannot be rationalized. I understand that the purpose of activities such as apologetics is to establish the reasonability of Christianity, but I find it a great error when that exercise becomes substituted with analytical rationality. There are major elements of the Christian faith that cannot be explained. In fact, take a look at this list: creation ex nihilo, fall, incarnation, substitutionary atonement, resurrection, salvation, consummation, eternity. How many of those can you prove logically and rationally? NONE! We can explain them in terms that are reasonable, but that's it. These truths require faith. In fact, Kierkegaard saw that Christianity is actually an experience of crisis; that's why he said it began with a "leap of faith". To him, existence, true, free, existence could only be found in the exercise of this very choice (hence the term existentialism). The neoorthodox picked up on this. Christianity cannot simply be an intellectual assent to a religious creed. A Christian must go through the anxiety and tension of doubts associated with the paradox of changing from death to life and take that leap of faith (this is very unlike the process I mentioned with respect to the Puritan Golden Chain). To them (and they certainly have a point), liberals neutered the faith by ignoring this exclusivistic tension; scholastics dissolved the faith by propositionalizing it. In a way I guess similar to Tertullian, the neoorthodox embraced the paradox of Christianity and celebrated its irrationality. How can God be both transcendent and imminent? How can Jesus be both God and man? How can a Christian be both sinner and saint? How can salvation be both of God's sovereignty and man's responsibility? How can the temporal relate to the eternal? These are truly great and largely unanswerable questions. What got the neoorthodox in trouble (if you want to use that term) is their focus on the self-revelation of the transcendent God. I agree with them that this is of central importance to Christianity. Indeed, I've often thought that a systematic theology must begin with revelation, not theology, because what we know of God is what He wants us to know. How has He revealed such to us? What does the act itself of revelation tell us about God-who-wants-to-be-known? God somehow condescends to humanity (preserving us in the great peril of this encounter); He even becomes incarnate as a way of elevating our relationship. Jesus is the Word made flesh. The Bible is the Word inscripturated. And yet, not everything Jesus said and did is in the Bible (John 21:25). That must mean that the Word of God is more than the Bible. While the relationship between general and special revelation was a major controversy among the neoorthodox, that's not actually my concern here. They took the step of saying that the Bible therefore contains the Word of God. Barth then took the next logical step (seeing as how non-Christians could be unaffected by the Bible) of concluding that the Bible became the Word of God in the power of the Holy Spirit. My church is blessed with a few guys who wear bowties (bowties are cool), and we even have a gentleman who will rock the occasional cravat. It's brilliant. Anyway, when I studied YouTube to learn how to tie my own bowtie, I stumbled into a new world of necktie knots, a world I'm sad to say I'd never heard of. Everyone I knew growing up used the half-windsor (and if they used something else, they called it the half-windsor). I didn't even realize there *were* other ways to tie a tie! Then my friend Vera sent me a knot she thought would look really nice, and the game was on. Not surprisingly, there are hundreds of ways to tie a tie, each one looking just a little different. (There are also hundreds of websites explaining these knots, each one of a varying level of condescension.) While this is not a proper application of 1 Cor 13:11, it did raise an important theological question for me: does wearing a non-standard tie knot inappropriately shift attention from God to the wearer? Like every such question, the answer comes down to the heart. If I intend to attract attention to myself through my knots, then yes, I've got it all wrong. But that doesn't have to be the case, and here's how.
The Trinity KnotThis is the most beautiful tie knot I've ever seen, and it really does look like the old Celtic Trinity. That gives it aesthetics and theological value (after a kind; okay, not really). It takes some work, but like the bowtie is so worth the effort. As a pastor, I'm comfortable wearing this knot anywhere. Let me give credit to ties.com, agreeordie.com (not sure what that title is all about), and shirtsmyway.com for the images, instructions, and videos. The videos are all linked at the bottom of the page for those of you/us who need to see something demonstrated before we can just pick up and go. |
AuthorIf I ever say something in here that doesn't make sense, please ask me to clarify. It always makes sense in my head, but that doesn't necessary mean anything to you . . . Categories
All
|