tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-88667690617068701072024-03-13T03:22:26.005-07:00The Pilgrimage ContinuesThe Ornery Pilgrimhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15236146088484883943noreply@blogger.comBlogger114125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8866769061706870107.post-71186847353894937752022-10-09T11:44:00.000-07:002022-10-09T11:44:15.008-07:00Mary<p>As an introduction, the title. I'm not calling her St. Mary, the Blessed Virgin, the Theotokos or anything else that might come to mind. I believe in a church with only one real titled position. Jesus the Messiah. That's it. There are not really any Father Stephens, Pastor Bills, Popes Francis, etc. Jesus explicitly told us this himself. If we had ears to hear we would have heard. We didn't and generally don't. And the following is to explore some of why specifically Mary doesn't deserve and presumably doesn't want the titles inflicted on her by an inexplicably adoring church.</p><p>Ever Virginity</p><p>The virgin birth from early times had a functional necessity in the story of the incarnation, both as a signal miracle of the uniqueness of Jesus and a vehicle of his sinless nature. What it didn't have was any value in and of itself. That was imputed to it later when the Romans got their grubby paws on the story. Romans involved virgins in their worship of deities. Jews did not. Catholic Mariology reports that Mary grew up in the temple as one of a cadre of virgins, but apparently Jewish historians don't think much of this idea. (I need to research that more) Jewish Christians did not add asceticism and monasticism as enhancements to their spiritual lives. The Romans did. When Paul talks of celibacy, he mentions it as a gift equal and different to non-celibacy. When he counsels couples to not deprive each other for long, he includes no parenthesis about Mary depriving Joseph for the whole of their married life. This tells us one, maybe two things. One, that it wasn't common knowledge in the early church, (which makes it strange that it should be so well known in the later church and what's Mary doing disclosing this anyway?) and two that if he knew about it, it wasn't nearly as important to Paul as it would be to later church leaders. <br /></p><p>With this as well as other bits of Mariology, one has to ask what
purpose does it serve? And actually the answer seems to be same in every
case. The story of the Incarnation is not enhanced, rather weakened. Along with Immaculate Conception, how can Jesus be really "tempted in every way we are" if he had a perfect mother and his parents never had sex? But what it does strengthen is the Catholic status quo.<br /></p><p>Queen of Heaven</p><p>When the idea of Mary's majesty as heavenly queen developed, we were not as aware as now as to the size of the universe. At this time we know of approximately 125 billion galaxies and have discovered 16 possibly habitable planets in our own. Assuming there are no more and that our galaxy is typical, this makes for 2 trillion possible locations for beings similar to ourselves with a God story of their own. Surely a creative God such as we believe in would have created life on any number of worlds. What could possibly make our story (potentially one in trillions) so much superior to theirs (maybe they never even had any 'fall'?) that one of the main characters in our story would be promoted to be their queen? The only way such a story makes sense is if God is not the God of the universe, but a solar deity, with a heavenly court not greater than the universe, but merely greater than the universe that we are able to dream of travel to. But then no other Christian story makes sense.<br /></p>The stable<p>The Christmas narrative we know well is probably not true. Animals were housed with people in Bethlehem. The Inn was not a Gentile travelers stop. It was a guest room in a family home in a culture so hospitable that thirty years later, Jesus horrifies his audience with the tale of a neighbour who had to be actually begged to assist his friend with an unexpected guest (using the cultural pressure the neighbour is under as one of several analogies for God's own motivation to hear and act when we pray) Even if you factor in gossip filtering south from Nazareth to Bethlehem, Mary is at this time a married woman. People got married after pregnancy back then as they do now. Even for a sanctimonious outsider a marriage is always an acceptable way of patching everything up. The kinswoman of the Joseph's home town would not have consigned their new relative to the barn, a distant cave, etc. to go through the trauma of a first childbirth. Makes no sense. The only purpose it serves to isolate Mary, to make her superhuman and as above, to bolster the myth at the centre of so much Catholic practice.</p><p>Well, you get the idea. Mary was one of us. And is still one of us. God asked much of her and she said yes. An absolutely incomparable example. But that's that. Anything more is just a distraction from the one that this whole thing is about. <br /></p>The Ornery Pilgrimhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15236146088484883943noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8866769061706870107.post-9696892897840714702022-10-09T09:17:00.000-07:002022-10-09T09:17:03.081-07:00Lessons from Living Among Charismatics<ol>
</ol> I was perusing my blog and I found this unpublished bit. I like it.<br /><ol><li>It's always been this messy</li>
<ol>
<li>If we accept that God still pours out his Spirit on the Church, we have to accept that there are not different eras in the history of this outpouring. People have always "seen through a glass darkly." Prophecies, miracles and such like have always contained some element of imperfection. It's a mistake to revere the Early Church times as something we need to get back to. It's a mistake to revere the writings of the Early Church as 'the perfect Word of God.' What we are saying if we take that view is that some workings of the Spirit are forever lost... And that runs counter to any ideal of the Church growing in power as, speaking intuitively, is God's obvious intent.</li>
</ol>
<li>God has never stopped inspiring his people. </li>
<ol>
<li>We are the people of the Holy Spirit. God has never stopped speaking or acting through us. Yes, it has come in waves. Yes, we have quenched the Spirit through sin or through lack of faith. But every time we get together, God is present and we experience his speaking to us. We are the people of his inspiration. </li>
</ol>
<li>No word, action, decision is perfect</li>
<ol>
<li>Everything we do has an aspect of our imperfection. This imperfection was just as present at the beginning as it now. Therefore all of the works of the church, the New Testament, are subject to it. Human character flaws work their way into the way we do any ministry. It's all at once blessed and open to question in the same way as what you see on 'any given Sunday' is blessed and open to question.</li>
</ol>
<li>Leaders do not have divine right status and can be disagreed with.</li>
<ol>
<li>Abuse is still abuse in whatever form. When leaders demand that you come under their 'authority' or never allow themselves to be disagreed with, they are in error. When you read that kind of thing in Paul's writings, you take it with the same grain of salt as you would a present day leader. Just because patriarchal authority was accepted in Early Church times, doesn't mean it needs to be kowtowed to today. Christ declares you to be equal. One Father. One Teacher. Compare Matthew 23 and 1 Corinthians 4:15. Paul is clearly in error here, though understandably. Leadership is not a top down, God ordained thing. It's a functional thing because large groups of humans need some form of delegated management. </li>
</ol>
<li>Our primary relationship with fellow Christians (past, present, future) is familial not positional</li>
<ol>
<li> Carrying on from Matthew 23, we are all brothers. Therefore in the presence of divinely blessed imperfect ministry, our default is to smile affectionately and recognize each style as unique. For instance, Paul in his letters, loves lists. It's his favourite way of fleshing out a concept. This does not mean that it's always the only way of looking at that concept and it certainly doesn't mean that the lists are exhaustive. It's just the same as certain prophets and healers like to raise their voices 'just so' when they are doing their stuff. It doesn't mean it's normative. It's just them. We stand up for them because they are our brothers and sisters but we don't have be like them or obey them in every particular.</li>
</ol>
<li>The simplistic survives.</li>
<ol>
<li>Nuances will always get lost from one generation to the next. Well reasoned theology and practise will be subordinated to crass formulaic mumbo-jumbo. This is not a good thing. It's a human thing. You can't stop it. People who weren't there won't get it. </li>
<li>There are two obvious solutions, neither of which work</li>
<ol>
<li>renewal, will probably go even farther in wiping out the nuances of the past. Renewal is very desirable but cannot bring back an understanding of what you once had.</li>
<li>Over-training to try to transmit nuances will probably just kill the precious thing you are trying to preserve by making it dry as dust.</li>
</ol>
</ol>
<li>Earnestness isn't always the answer</li>
<ol>
<li> So, let's try harder. Let's pray longer. Let's worship louder. Let's... It really doesn't always work. It's not inherently futile. Sometimes God just lets us run out of steam. Relax. Try again when it's the right time. Hopefully you'll know.</li>
</ol>
</ol>
The Ornery Pilgrimhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15236146088484883943noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8866769061706870107.post-20563300150895738932020-12-24T22:51:00.005-08:002022-10-09T11:48:08.630-07:00Prayer...“the real "work" of prayer is to become silent and listen to the voice that says good things about me. <br />Henri Nouwen<br /><br />Prayer is largely just being silent: holding the tension instead of even talking it through, offering the moment instead of fixing it by words and ideas, loving reality as it is instead of understanding it fully. Prayer is commonly a willingness to say “I don’t know.” We must not push the river, we must just trust that we are already in the river, and God is the certain flow and current.<br />Richard Rohr<br /><br />She did not, in the ordinary sense, "pray for" Nancy; she did not presume to suggest to Omniscience that it would be a thoroughly good thing if It did; she merely held her own thought of Nancy stable in the midst of Omniscience.<br />Charles Williams<br /><br />These quotes and countless others exalt a sort of prayer that while not in itself evil, (how could these activities be wrong?) is completely unknown in the Gospels, untaught by Jesus and, while it might be looked at as enriching one aspect of prayer, that is, adoration and/or contemplation, I argue is hardly the central essence at the core of our interactions with God. Do a quick online search for ‘the prayers of Jesus.’ Lists abound. And if you look through the lists, you will find none that fit into these admittedly pleasing molds. You might argue that records of the Lord praying all night indicate that he ‘must’ have been doing something like this, but that is pure conjecture. He does teach directly on the subject of prayer (“when you pray, pray like this:”), and, crudely, actually gives his disciples a prayer to pray, that only barely touches on what the above luminaries tell us is the very kernel, the very soul of prayer. (“Hallowed be thy Name.”)<br /><br />I have said that these mystical statements about prayer are naturally pleasing. Of course they are. They evoke bright imagery of high thoughts and a place of peace and beauty where all is taken care of as we rest in God’s love. If this is where you often find yourself, I would not want to take that away from you, but I suggest that most of the time we are not there. Rather we merely yearn for it without actively doing the one thing that might give us a fleeting taste of that bliss. We yearn for it and we exalt these ideals by sharing these beautiful quotes on social media. And our fellow pilgrims “like” them and everyone goes “ahhh.” And if our prayers are more in the manner taught by Jesus, which I submit is far more intuitive and natural for needy souls such as ourselves, it’s possible we feel guilty that we are not silently flowing down the river as Richard Rohr says we should.<br /><br />But it’s not merely their implied beauty that draws us to share and reshare words like this about prayer. I think the real reason is a bit more harsh. Prayer like this is never tested for results. By making this the central task of prayer, we completely avoid the nervous question of whether and how our prayers were actually answered. In this we diverge greatly from the one we claim as our rabbi, our model, our guru. Jesus prayed for things to happen, most of the time for things to happen as he spoke them. If he flowed in the river that has been described for us, and there is evidence that he did, he spoke out of his understanding of its current clearly as if what he said was the missing component that the river needed to accomplish its work. This is why I included the quote from Charles Williams. (It’s from one of his novels. The Greater Trumps can be read online at the Canadian and the Australian gutenberg sites. Good read!) The character of Sybil who can safely in the context of the book be called a sage and displays many worthy qualities, is unlike Jesus, because she never presumes to find out what ‘Omniscience’ might want to happen to her niece and therefore never actually prays anything specific for her. It’s the supplication equivalent of the other two quotes. Beautiful and without risk.<br /><br />I think that the intimacy actually comes in the risk. I think that it comes in finding out one was wrong to pray a thing or wrong about what to pray. I think that the intimacy comes in the agony of asking for something and not getting it for a long while or maybe never. I write this from experience. I have found that the statement, “you can’t always get what you want” applies to my prayer life. But I have found that some of what I ask for, I get, and really, I recognize the hand of God in that. I think the intimacy comes in sensing what God wants prayed and praying that, having a sense that yes, he could have done it without my help, but that he hadn’t just the desired result but also my participation as the end in view. (Daddy, can I help?)<br /><br />So I really don’t have any use for the “prayer” outlined above. What starts out looking beautiful becomes unattainable, off-topic and counter-intuitive.<br /><br />The Ornery Pilgrimhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15236146088484883943noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8866769061706870107.post-47309845313565292172020-03-25T16:41:00.002-07:002020-03-26T05:32:47.314-07:00The Bill of Goods (With some editorial assistance from <a href="http://ansak.blogspot.com/">ansak.blogspot.com</a>)<br />
<br />
In the 80's most of us Christians were duped by the political puppets of the aspiring super-rich who sold us a bill of goods as part of a covert class war that they have ultimately won. Amazingly this bill of goods is still out there being touted by any number of people who after all these years, still see each entry on this intellectual invoice as obvious and axiomatic, standing by the same liars who promoted it in the first place. I say 'liars' because there is ample evidence that many of these talking points were known to be false by the people that originated them. That we bought into their ideas amounts to a swindle and a con game, and makes one wonder when reparations will be possible. It's been on my mind recently to itemize these ideas and provide some refutation of each. I recognize that my refutation will not be enough for many to simply about face on any of them as each are exploiting a deeply ingrained part of our cultural outlook, such that when what relate what I have now found to be true, many will simply read, and angrily dismiss. But that is the way of such things. So here, in not any particular order, the conservative bill of goods:<br />
<br />
<b>1. Small government is better than big government.</b> Not true. We need adequate government. When reducing government in size is an end in itself, regulatory measures are put at risk. These regulatory measures, ideally, are there largely to limit the ability of corporate interests to endanger the public in any number of ways. These are not "job killing regulations". They are "life-and-health saving regulations." An undersized government lacks the appropriate power to inspect and enforce regulations. Frustration over weak, bad, or even nonsensical regulations (government is a human institution) is not a justification for wantonly slashing government size. Achieving an under-regulated, under-enforced "small government" can only advantage the rich and give them a free hand to increase their advantage.<br />
<br />
<b>2. Government salaries as well funded support for the less able constitutes waste.</b> Related to point one in that the focus is misdirected onto the money that it takes to fund even adequate government and likewise not true. Government waste as a whipping boy is a huge talking point of those who wish us to vote in such a way as to limit their tax bill. As long as we are focused on that, we remain unaware of the obscene amount of wealth that is being removed to stay into the bank accounts of those who have promoting this. Even worse is the vilifying of the needy, who need the support of government to live, judging them by a standard which requires them to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps. "if only they would just get a job," or some such. Exploitation of this natural judgmentalism in our culture is par for the course. But there is again ample evidence that when support is made available, that many of the less fortunate are able to get far enough ahead as to be self-sufficient. But even if they are not, as humans and citizens of our country it's right to always give them that chance.<br />
<br />
<b>3. Tax cuts are good for everybody.</b> (related lies: trickle down economics, "rising tide lifts all boats") Manifestly not true. Tax cuts are a measure that only marginally benefits the low and middle wage earner and egregiously over-benefits the top earning brackets. What tax cuts do is produce a downward spiral supported by points one and two whereby government is now underfunded and we demand that it become leaner and certainly meaner. People that were supported in some way lose their support because that is now labelled 'waste.' This deplorable state is even legitimized with a semi-virtuous sounding name, that is, austerity. But austerity is really not the enforced necessary poverty it appears to be. What it is is when those who are advantaged by wealth are allowed to increase their advantage utilizing government, which should have been in place to defend us against them but has now become their weapon.<br />
<br />
<b> 4. Labour unions are evil, are all about greed, etc. etc.</b> Very wrong. Most of the labour laws that benefit us today, limiting work weeks to ensure that families can have a life together outside drudgery, adequate wages, extended health plans come to us via union bargaining and since they came to us, have been steadily chiselled away again by big business. Parallel to that has been a successful propaganda campaign to vilify the unions and tar them with any number of charges. Okay. its a fact is that the unions haven't been pure. Organized crime has had its grubby paws on some unions. But the current wage differential between labourer and brass is yet another indication that the class war being waged by the super-rich against the rest of us is going very well for them. We would be wise not to invoke Paul's advice to slaves (a gross misapplication) or other authoritarian claptrap when a union votes to strike. After the current covid-19 crisis is over, I guarantee the nurses will want a better deal, for instance and they will deserve it.<br />
<br />
<b>5. Free enterprise.</b> Yes, you heard correctly. Just the phrase itself is questionable. Money is based on, wait for it, money. This is something that we've learning about as society recently. It's called privilege. If you start with any sort of advantage you can increase your advantage. If you start with a disadvantage, you will likely not transcend it but probably end with a greater disadvantage. The ableist myth propagated by the idea of Free Enterprise is that anyone, through hard work and God-given smarts, can start any business and get ahead. I think it's an example of the true Scotsman fallacy (look it up) because as soon as you would limit that 'anyone' and demonstrate that many cannot and have indeed failed utterly, the proponent will, by circular reasoning claim that they simply didn't work hard enough. And while Christians argue amongst themselves in this manner, Big Enterprise happily continues to tell its success stories in this rubric pointing to themselves as proof that "free" enterprise works. But until the government levels the playing field through progressive taxation, redistributing the advantage, we would be wiser to refer to this idea rather as privileged enterprise.<br />
<br />
<b>6. We must enshrine Christian morality in law. </b>Here's the one where the super-rich (such a moral group) lead us along by the nose. They know our hot-button issues -- our nostalgia for the way things were when “evils” by the score were invisible because they were underground. Drugs, abortion, Feminism, LGBT, etc.: The super-rich know that if they can get us riled up about these issues, we are distracted from their depredations.They know that if they can package up promises to bring back the past along with all of their other dastardly schemes, we’ll vote for their said puppets. Secondly each of these categories represent people whom the donor class want to silence. The war on drugs for example is evidentially a creation of the Nixon Republicans to silence the hippy and black left. Outlawing abortion does nothing to help children live. The evidence is out there. Countries with liberal abortion laws have fewer abortions because co-incidentally they also have in place what actually helps children live, which is social support for the mothers of said children. But that eats into the profits treasured by the super rich. In the case of LGBT, it's not so much a political silencing but more of a divide and conquer tactic. While we waste our time wishing that this segment didn't exist thinking 'if only we could ban them through legislation,' we are distracted from finding the real culprit.<br />
<br />
<b>7. Capitalism is Christian.</b> False. No governmental system is Christian. But capitalism more than any system has few friends in the pages of scripture. Where do I start? Try the book of James. Condemns in no uncertain terms the oppression of the rich and the obsequious toadying of the rich by the church. Look at the Jubilee economic system (maybe never really tried -- we don't know) presented in Leviticus. Every fifty years, a reset. A limiting, balancing factor par excellence. Look at all the prophet's words against oppression by the rich on the poor. Oh, but you say, that's not against capitalism, that's against oppression by the wealthy. Let's have a wake up call, if you please. Wealth is oppression. If I have, it means that someone else doesn't have. If I have more, then someone else has less. Sounds terrible, but this thing has a scale. Here in the middle class, the oppression factor is maybe not as egregious. But when we realize that half of the world's wealth is owned by 1% of its population, the oppression is extreme.<br />
<br />
The wealth gained this way represents legalized tax evasion. Legalized through swindling the Christian white middle class vote through this bill of goods in the 1980's. We voted this way (tax cuts!) thinking it would do us good. but little gain has come our way and our ranks, which should have been swelled by many others entering the middle class as wages went up instead of down have been depleted and we are losing power to what are now not merely the wealthy but oligarchs, people who can and do outright buy political power to ever increase their hold on society. Democracy is dying. The legalized tax evasion has other dimensions too. The rich have access to tools the poor do not. Holding companies, offshore accounts, stocks, etc. etc. represent an upward spiral accessed through privilege. It's a thing crying out for a societal limiting factor. (something Judeo-Christian maybe, like the Jubilee year?) But no, we've eviscerated government so that they haven't the resources to control this. Maybe it's time to wake up.The Ornery Pilgrimhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15236146088484883943noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8866769061706870107.post-47339952468196877282019-11-01T06:29:00.000-07:002019-11-01T06:29:34.406-07:00The Enemy Within
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Spotifty is a great thing. I would never have signed up on my own,
but one day Wendy told me that we now had a family Spotify account.
Great. So I've been tooling around through all the old records that I
remember. Hey, they even have stuff like I heard when I was a
toddler. Anyone remember The Medical Mission Sisters with "Joy
is Like the Rain?" Anyhow among all the other memory lane
strollings, I used to really like Kerry Livgren's post Kansas group
AD so I downloaded Time Line (the album) for a listen. Not bad at all
but quite dated. One track stands out. New Age Blues. Brings back
such memories. Memories of a church that thought it was under siege
from values and experiences it had not known before. Afraid of
demonic influences. Afraid of it knew not what. And lashing out
against this perceived threat to its existence...</div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Fast forward to
today. The influence of the New Age on the church might actually have
been quite positive. The involvement of imagination and feeling in
our prayer life has been an avenue for the Holy Spirit to communicate
that just wasn't there before. We are now more open to God being
present in the thought life of those with other worldviews-- i.e.
western rationalism is no longer baptized as the only way to
understand the Gospel. We are maybe not quite as dyed-in-the-wool
about things as we used to be. And yet we elected Trump. How can
this be? (I am painfully lumping myself in with Christians I disagree
with in America here. I do relate to their motivation, even though
convinced against it. I write this way because there are
corresponding forces in my home and native land among Christians that
would have elected a junior Trump in Andrew Scheer.)</div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
My answer is that I
think we were great at identifying enemies from without but we were
blind to the enemy we carried within. This enemy, not a simple entity
by any stretch, might be labelled fear or pride or narrow-mindedness
or legalism or any one of dozens of labels which only partially
describe it. It can only really be identified by its narrative and
its results. The narrative is one of once more being under siege,
this time from the scientific community, the news media, the unions,
the educators, the medical community and so on. But now we have
political power of our own, “friends” in the media who will echo
and intensify our distrust, and don’t forget the population to
force the situation to swing in our favour. Population is an
important one. While those of our neighbours who had other views were
carefully guarding the world from overcrowding, we were breeding an
army of sometimes narrow-minded, but almost always conservative
home-schoolers to legally stuff the ballot boxes. So it was that we
really gained the upper hand, but we never admitted it. After all
what good would it be to live without the fear of being over run by
socialists? We might actually have space to breathe the free air and
think other thoughts. And anyway we had a few trophies that we were
dead set on taking. These trophies had eluded us for decades but were
now in our grasp-- if only we could get a president elected who could
tip the SCOTUS balance in our favour. And here he came, as the
scriptures put it, “to deceive even the elect” and no matter how
else morally, mentally, stupidly unfit for office, we labelled him
“God’s Man” and ushered him in. <br />
<br />
So we won. Brett
Kavanagh may yet down Roe vs. Wade. Other trophies regarding the
definition of “Family” may yet come. But what has that got us?
Let’s start with the word “Evangelical.” Nowadays, when people
hear that precious word they don’t think, as they ought, “Those
people are really all about the Gospel (The Evangel!) of the
Kingdom.” They think of us as those bitter sods who can’t see the
need of protecting the mother’s wellbeing through strong and
well-funded social welfare after bearing this child we sooo cared
about through pregnancy. They think of us as those who lash out in
fear and judgment against those who are honestly convinced of their
alternative gender identity. They think of us as those who would sell
out our country to the rich and powerful and cheer as they vote
themselves yet more money and power at everyone else’s expense.
They think of us as those who confuse God with Country and support
what can only be described as imperialist wars all around the world.
They think of us as those who lap up the oil-driven conservative
views on global warming and think blithely that the whole thing
really isn’t in crisis. Yes, the Evangel (The Good News!) has
suffered at our hands.
</div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<div style="line-height: 100%; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
So the enemy within
has put us in a pretty bad place. And it really remains to be seen
where to go from here. How do you change a controlling narrative? How
do you change decades of telling our kids not to trust what the
hippies would have called the Establishment even while we became the
Establishment? How do you unconvince people conditioned to hear the
evil word communist every time there is a just call for government
funding, intervention, and regulation? How do you break the
my-little-kingdom-ism which motivates us to vote for the party which
promises tax cuts-- tax cuts that will make it impossible for the
government to support those less fortunate? (And how do we do that in
time for the world not to end?)</div>
<style type="text/css">p { margin-bottom: 0.25cm; line-height: 115%; background: transparent none repeat scroll 0% 0%; }</style><br />The Ornery Pilgrimhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15236146088484883943noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8866769061706870107.post-30821558773724539072019-06-17T18:33:00.001-07:002019-06-18T10:47:45.260-07:00Worship songwriter's manual <div dir="ltr">
Let's start with an explanation. This post is sort of masquerading as a manual, but is in fact more or less a polemic. There are some severe issues I see in the field of worship songwriting. I've been doing this myself for some twenty years or so now. And it appears to me that we're going about this wrong. Songwriters, worship song writers that is, have a tendency to see themselves as something so unique in the church that they have a special list of rules that only applies to them. So the following is an attempt to correct the skewed perspective we've been living with.</div>
<div dir="ltr">
1. Your songwriting is a spiritual gift, therefore, unlike songwriting in the secular world, what you produce does not belong to you. What you produce is inspired by the spirit of God for the people of God in the context of the church. It belongs firstly to the church. (Do the math. No Spirit, no church, no song.) Therefore, it's immoral to assume that residual income from copyright belongs to you or worse, to those you to whom you sign your 'rights' away. Money is a powerful corrupting influence and we have certainly seen that recently in the field of worship songwriting. Some people have "made good" as the saying goes, and so many others have jumped on the bandwagon, for their own gain. The quality of worship songs has suffered in the face of quantity. If, on the other hand we turned off the tap by recognizing that the money was never theirs to begin with, the dominance of powerful 'Christian' publishing houses who flood our churches with substandard worship songs, might be reduced. You, the worship songwriter can assist this by backing off of your vision to make serious bucks off of something that was freely given to you for others.</div>
<div dir="ltr">
2. Never lose your raw edge. What you wrote when you were inspired by your own anguish, or by a theological truth, or by a corporate experience is what will last and what people will remember. Beware the commercial music mentor, who comes to tell you what really works and how to craft music to his false standard. Speaking as a fan, after Famous Worship Leader X had this kind of encounter with Recording Artist A, few indeed are the songs written after this 'discipleship' that anyone wants to sing.</div>
<div dir="ltr">
3. Production values are false values. Creating perfect music is a worthy goal gone off the rails. Why will people sing your song? Because and only because God touched them once when they were singing it. Focus on that.</div>
<div dir="ltr">
4. Once the rush of inspiration on any one song has run its course, work on poetic composition. Rhymes are good, consistency of rhythm is good. Consistency of expression and thought are essential. Hill Song songs are the worst offenders. A best example of this is one of their older offerings: "My Redeemer Lives" can't stay on the same subject for more than one phrase. But this is hardly a one-off. I'd say that not more than five percent of any of their songs doesn't veer off-theme at least once. Another song which could have used some help was Brian Doerksen's "Holy God." The inclusion, without any other Hebrew names of God, of the word 'Adonai' was ill-judged in my view. We just don't use the term often enough to throw it in the way it was done. </div>
<div dir="ltr">
5. Publicity as a pursuit is a symptom of the involvement of money in this thing that should never have become an industry. Don't bother. Publicity photos drip with the vanity of assumed expressions, poses, etc. There's just nothing good about it. Also choosing cool names for your band, etc. What do you get out of it? Nothing.</div>
<div dir="ltr">
6. Beware elitism in your sector. This includes not just writers but performers and worship leaders. There isn't a need for you to think of yourselves as artists to be pandered to, even among yourselves. Connect with other people. In one event, I wasn't sure whether to be elated or disgusted when I was finally in conversation with Famous Worship Leader Y, whom, I'd been with in various places and churches with, for years. The reason for this extremely random connection? I'd just conducted a choir at some seasonal production at a Vineyard. Magically, I was now not a nonentity. Worship leading just a function in the church. Stop being so bloody aloof. And the pursuit of excellence must be subordinated to a bunch of other concerns. Firing someone off your band because there is now someone better available sends every wrong message about your own character and the character of your church.</div>
<div dir="ltr">
7. Also for the whole sector, don't let new teachers or new teachings side track you from what you do. A couple of years ago there was a nonsense circulating about how all of life was worship. Of course it's true in one sense, but not in the sense that we talk about when we say "corporate worship." Maybe we should be using the word liturgy, instead of worship. Would have been clearer. At any rate that teaching took the life out of corporate worship so effectively, we haven't really recovered.</div>
<div dir="ltr">
8. Wanting to teach your songs and wanting your congregation to make the most of their together time with God can be a conflict of interest. Be aware of that. Check on how it went.</div>
<div dir="ltr">
9. Music should be fairly original. There are some pretty hackneyed chord progressions going around these days. Stay away.</div>
<div dir="ltr">
10. Stop pillaging the public domain for your own gain. Chris Tomlin has no business claiming copyright on his version of Amazing Grace.</div>
<div dir="ltr">
11. As an alternative to copyright, being that you don't want others to falsely claim a song you wrote as their own, may I suggest Creative Commons Attribution? It's what I use.</div>
The Ornery Pilgrimhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15236146088484883943noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8866769061706870107.post-11716318699635129102019-02-11T07:51:00.002-08:002019-02-11T07:53:44.732-08:00That Darn Signpost<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre;">A poet of more stature, and with volumes to his name</span><br />
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre;">A forking of a path did find and wrote about the same.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre;">Between the two there was not much to guide his choice that day</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre;">Except that one was trampled more; he chose the other way.</span></div>
<br />
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre;">This story, in the main, is viewed with parabolic eye,</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre;">The path of life presented with a forward stretching “Y”.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre;">We’re forced to opt for one of two, we cannot choose them both</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre;">And as we go, our way is set more binding than an oath.</span></div>
<br />
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre;">But this is not that story nor an equal fame will get:</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre;">A choice of roads before me I but have not chosen yet.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre;">For I await the opening of yet another way,</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre;">Though how that will present itself I will not dare to say.</span></div>
<br />
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre;">At present there’s a signpost for the weary travelers gaze</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre;">Displays a gross dichotomy a parting of the ways.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre;">One arm proclaims a journey home to ancient, tried and true;</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre;">The other to forsaking all, and all you ever knew.</span></div>
<br />
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre;">The road of turmoil to this place scarce bears an explanation.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre;">Suffice to say the church has found itself in consternation.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre;">What thought we done and dusted rose again to give us trouble</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre;">And many shaken found that it’s their faith that's on the bubble.</span></div>
<br />
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre;">And thus the fateful moment comes upon the new arrival</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre;">And after all the buff’ting, what to do for his survival?</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre;">Shall he to safety promised by established thought and praxis?</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre;">Or deconstruct conviction with agnostic knives and axes?</span></div>
<br />
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre;">But I, as I have said before, am camped out by this junction.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre;">I’m filled with reticence to let it carry out its function.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre;">To make a choice between such poles is hardly a good option.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre;">And either seems to me an irrevocable adoption</span></div>
<br />
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre;">So stand I here like traffic cop or maybe concierge,</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre;">Watching all the passers as they come by in a surge.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre;">See streams to left and right and wonder how it now can be:</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre;">So many guiding lights are going somewhere not for me.</span></div>
<br />
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre;">My heart and head would holler after haulers down the halls,</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre;">And chooses each one way to yell, ‘what’s drawing you is false!’</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre;">The heart in desperation wants to call after the agnostic,</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre;">While Brainy sends his diatribe the other way (and caustic.)</span></div>
<br />
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre;">The heart would say “The things you did, the things you felt, were real!</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre;">You knew him in a way that was far more than you could feel.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre;">Why turn against him now just because the facts are blurry?</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre;">You’d do to any other so? why be in such a hurry?”</span></div>
<br />
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre;">“No issue is enough,” I’d cry if only they would hear it</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre;">“Whatever’s shaking you right now, your love could surely bear it.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre;">All claims of science, wounds in church, and swirl of changing mores</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre;">Do not compare with what you had before you shut your doors.”</span></div>
<br />
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre;">And yet I honour all the honest seekers who must stray,</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre;">Who sense no firm connection with convention’s well worn way.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre;">To seek the truth, if truth there be, though through the mist alone</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre;">Must touch the heart of Truth himself. I think he’ll guide them home.</span></div>
<br />
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre;">The head in disbelief must shake, declaim in tones of gloom</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre;">“Is there some common sense about or has it left the room?</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre;">The vestments, edifices, canon law, monasticism’s vow</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre;">All innovations in their time add nothing then or now”</span></div>
<br />
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre;">“For everything we’ve ever done expressing our faith thus</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre;">Through culture served to bring us yet a minus with each plus.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre;">A practise that has lasted long is neither here nor there.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre;">To mistake old for right and good? it makes me tear my hair.”</span></div>
<br />
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre;">Don’t get me wrong I’m not in fear at all for their salvation.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre;">These are true churches and they rank with any denomination .</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre;">A man can change his cult’ral trappings any time he pleases.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre;">The lie is that this change will bring him nearer at all to Jesus.</span></div>
<br />
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre;">But these my thoughts of heart and head will likely not suffice</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre;">To bend the steps of any who step up to throw the dice.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre;">The agony that brought them to this pass was theirs alone.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre;">My frustration doesn’t figure in the choice of their new home.</span></div>
<br />
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre;">For still the stream of pilgrims marches on to measures steady</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre;">To see it I would say that I am much more numb than ready.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre;">They make their choice for good or ill, for mundane or for odd,</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre;">And all that I have left is to commend their way to God.</span></div>
<br />
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre;">For God, whose presence does not thin, awaits at either end</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre;">T’assure them of his lasting love and name himself their friend.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre;">They may have left me far astern: my form is less than dim.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre;">They may have left me far behind but never could leave him.</span></div>
<br />
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre;">If that is so why should I wait? I could be just like they:</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre;">In awe of things liturgic, or too smart to even pray.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre;">But neither way seems good to me, they both appear so lame.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre;">I’d think myself an idiot, a loser at this game.</span></div>
<br />
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre;">The truth is this, no change is sure, no state is so enduring.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre;">Give but ten years or slightly more and all that we were fearing</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre;">Will melt away, be swept aside by’vents then in arrival</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre;">With all my heart I hope that those events will be revival</span></div>
<br />
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre;">Historic’lly it always comes when the church is really low,</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre;">Disordered and bewildered and unsure of where to go.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre;">God wades right in and shakes us all with some new understanding</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre;">Somehow </span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 11pt; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre;">en masse</span><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre;"> we turn to him, diff’rences notwithstanding</span></div>
<br />
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre;">And that’s the third way I expect though when I do not know.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre;">It gets here when it gets here and that’s neither fast nor slow.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre;">What shape that it will take is more than anybody’s guess</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre;">Just hope that when you see it come, your answer will be ‘yes!’</span></div>
<br />
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre;">Some mention must be made about the movements of today</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre;">Who claim to be the thing for which the intercessors pray.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre;">Who knows? It could be you He’ll use to bring the change about.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre;">But your commercial bent I think puts all of that in doubt.</span></div>
<br />
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre;">Who knows? I might be wrong about the stuff I find repelling</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre;">But just for now I’ll steer clear the odour I am smelling.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre;">The constant use of catchphrases is much too much like magic.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre;">I’m sure that’s not intended and I find it rather tragic.</span></div>
<br />
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre;">So here I stay, the signpost near, awaiting something real.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre;">I hold so lightly what I know not trusting all I feel.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre;">I’ve walked the road to get here and I know the sense of loss</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre;">And many are the tenets held have had to get the toss.</span></div>
<br />
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre;">Still I will hope the time will come for holy interventions</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre;">And clarity despaired of now will come in all dimensions.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre;">Then neither left nor right will serve as king takes back his crown</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: "arial"; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre;">For straight ahead we’ll forge a way and tear that signpost down.</span></div>
The Ornery Pilgrimhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15236146088484883943noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8866769061706870107.post-62999810320006710012016-11-02T05:28:00.000-07:002016-11-02T05:28:30.120-07:00Problems with Christus Victor<ul>
</ul>
The following are some points of conflict I have with the Christus Victor atonement theory but not with the theory itself, rather with the theory as advertised. C-V to my mind, has a firm place in Christian thought, a facet in a multifaceted idea, a helpful view on a subject that we will never fully understand, a further approximation to assist us to understand what God has done for us. But what follows is what troubles me in its mode of presentation. I might be accused of laying it on thick, but I would counter that I'm not the only one.<br /><ul>
<li>Exclusivity: Instead of, "Here's a beautiful new/ancient way to look at atonement. Doesn't this make it richer?" we hear "Aha! we've discovered the true way. Free yourself from the evils of any other theory and embrace the truth!" The problem with this is that we are talking about something that is difficult to see from any distance because it's being done to us. Have some humility and don't be so sure you know how it works. Any of a number of pictures are needed to approximate the best understanding.</li>
<li>Mono-dimensionality: 1) To obviate the need for the legal aspects of atonement, Sin is explained away as merely one thing: variously, that which separates us from God, how we wound ourselves, how we reject the love of God. 2) God's person is portrayed only as Father, to the exclusion of Creator, King, Judge, etc. 3) God's essence is portrayed as only love, meaning only love in the sense that we would judge all his actions to be love, ruling out anything that we would not understand that way. Which brings us to the next point...</li>
<li>Co-Adulthood with God: We reserve the right to rule on any item in the written record or in the opposite theory as being outside of what a "God of Love" would do. It seems to me somewhat sophomoric. It's like teenage kids judging their Dad for what they can not understand. It's like my toddlers crying and clinging to me on the way out the door to work because they couldn't understand why a "Dad of Love" would leave them. My context is simply larger than theirs. Unless I work, they have no food or shelter. I am motivated by love and they can not grasp it although they benefit by it. How can we even guess at God's larger context? It's orders of magnitude greater than the difference between mine and my kids.</li>
<li>Moral Squeamishness: Much of what drives people to choose C-V above for example P-S (penal substitution) is horrification at the thought of God executing judgement on his own Son on our behalf. "Child abuse!" is the cry! This is a bit of a straw man, though. Jesus was in on the plot, too, don't you know? If sin was such a big problem that it required the sacrifice of the God of the Universe to deal with it, you may be sure that all of that God knew his own mind. Horrification is also directed at the whole idea of a deserved punishment. How could a God of Love (Eye roll!) allow such a thing to be?</li>
<li>Chronological snobbery: This label I borrow from C. S. Lewis who used it to cast into disrepute arguments for theories advanced on the basis of their modernity. In the case of Christus Victor, it's the inverse. Precisely because of its supposed ancientry, (it's oh so Patristic, don't you know) it's touted as the one true atonement theory. Actually when a theory was first thought of adds precisely nothing to its veracity or viability.</li>
<li>Disdain for the Rules of the Game: God, we are told, doesn't need Christ's sacrifice to forgive us. He can simply forgive us at his whim, as Christ seems to do for the paralytic lowered down to him through the roof. Besides the obvious question of why he didn't then simply forgive and restore us in the Garden, instead of condemning us to millennia of suffering, uncertainty and death, what comes to mind is, why, if God can be so arbitrary, is the story of Christ's coming so full of almost ceremonial elements like fulfilled prophecy and symbolic acts? Why was it done, as the Elephant's Child put it, just so? What's the whole "in the fulness of time" thing, if not evidence that there was a particular way that it had to be done. Oh no! But what about God's omnipotent forgiving power? I suggest that God really is subject to the justice he has built into the universe because to abrogate it, is to unmake the world.</li>
<li>Quick to Blame God: Well no, not really. But quick to take on the unjust accusations hurled at the Redemption story by the world (Not Fair! Not Fair!) and validate them by responding that God isn't really like that -- and by bending the story around the perceived slight. Presented with the same accusations, Paul for example, would probably instead respond that they come from those who can't endure sound doctrine. I'm thinking specifically of the meme where in the familiar picture of Jesus knocking at the door, he is offering to save those on the other side from what he's going to do to them if they don't open. This was advanced in a recent discussion on Facebook against P-S. Ludicrous. Because we have shut ourselves off to the simple idea that if you sin you are actually guilty and condemned, we are unable to receive the remedy to it and worse, accuse the one who offers himself on our behalf of starting the whole thing himself in some kind of abusive cycle. To which, I contend as above that we might just as well say he's "guilty" of creating the world.</li>
<li>Dismissive of Slights Against God: Mercy becomes a smoke screen. Because we understand that his loving response to our offences is always mercy (and I agree that it is!) the offences are discounted. But that is a trap. God the Creator does not deserve to have his beloved creation rebel. God the Redeemer does not deserve to have his redemption ignored. God the Father does not deserve to see his children reject his love. These are catastrophic and universal slights with an incalculable penalty. Of which, as John puts it, we are condemned already. So the only hope is to throw ourselves on his mercy, And by this we admit our fault and are proper candidates for mercy, for no one ever could have mercy on the virtuous, as they, whoever they are, really deserve the benefits that come to them.</li>
<li>Uncharitable to those of Other Views: Christian greats of the past who held staunchly to opposing views of Atonement are held up to ridicule. Jonathan Edwards, is one that comes to mind. Yes, "Sinners in the hands of an angry God" is offensive to today's sensibilities, but it wasn't offensive to those who heard it. They were, as Luke puts it, "cut to the heart." Also, derision seems heaped on those who hold opposing views, for if you follow an "abusive and judgemental" God, you must also have adopted his traits. To which one can only point to millions of elderly Christians now alive who are anything but abusive and judgemental but who hold by ideas of atonement which seem to you repugnant.</li>
</ul>
The Ornery Pilgrimhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15236146088484883943noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8866769061706870107.post-63837552370007763182016-05-05T23:21:00.000-07:002016-05-05T23:27:55.723-07:00The Problematic Idea of "Five-Fold Ministry"Just saw what might be good news on my Facebook feed about a revival here on this side of the North American Continent. They're starting to call it the rumble in the Northwest. I hope there is real stuff happening. But reading the news about it turned up something else interesting. The revival is being associated with something called the New Apostolic Reformation. Interesting. So I looked if up and found that actually, although I wasn't aware of the label, I do know something about this, since for a while I was in a church which was into this.<br />
<br />
The New Apostolic Reformation centres around a reading of Ephesians 4:11 that states that for the church to be truly complete, all of the functions mentioned in the passage have to be present -- the Five-Fold Ministry (don't forget the capitals.) Apostles, evangelists, prophets, pastors, and teachers. And along with the idea comes a narrative. And it's the narrative that gives the idea its power. It goes something like this. After the time of its infancy, the church lost its power possibly because they left a God-given structure and opted for a politically supported hierarchy of priests. (or something like that) At any rate the Five-Fold Ministry was lost to the church. But since that time God has been restoring to the church the different offices (pastors, teachers, prophets etc.) And here we are directed to different points of time in the history of the charismatic movement as exemplary of the restoration of this or that office. Proof positive of a divine plan. The whole thing culminates in the recent restoration of apostles among us.<br />
<br />
And so now we can really get this party started, so to speak, because each of the offices will equip the body of Christ in their own special way. And that sounds fine enough. The pastors and teachers will shepherd and inform. The prophets and evangelists will stir up speaking from God and reaching out to the world. And the apostles? Well there's the really big problem. What are the apostles going to do? I've heard that they inspire the church to new things. But that isn't what really is about is it? Because if there's one impression of what apostles did in the early church, its that when push came to shove, they ruled.<br />
<br />
But let's walk backwards from the point of ruling, and looking at Paul, (our most prominent example of an apostolic ruler) let us understand how it was that he ruled (gave direction, admonishment) all of the churches that he wrote to. The picture simplifies itself then. Thing is, most of them, he himself planted. Of course he's going to watch over them and try to keep them on the right track. And there's crux of the issue. Apostolic authority did not reside in the office of the apostle. Rather it flowed from the apostle doing his function, which was to plant churches. It's only later that people started to equate apostleship with rule.<br />
<br />
A humorous side note: Some would-be apostles like to try to have it both ways (humble and vain.) "No we're not really Capital A Apostles. We're small a apostles." This is a laugh because the original text of the New Testament was written in uncial letters. Uncials are all the same case. The usage of capitals came later. Big A or little a, if you claim apostleship, you know what you've got to do. Apply to your nearest mission board and get out of here.<br />
<br />
Because, you see, the word apostle (sent one) is synonymous with missionary (sent one.) It is not, as some would have it, synonymous with 'benevolent dictator for life.' I think this might disappoint some of the new 'apostles' that have cropped up, but, truthfully, if they want the term to apply to them, they have to leave here and plant churches in other cultures. Because Eph 4:11 is not the only place that apostles shows up in a list. In I Cor 12:28, the phrasing is different. "First apostles, second prophets..." Suddenly we have not a five fold ministry, but a multi stage ministry. And "first apostles" makes a heck of lot of sense in that context. Who else to start a work in any location but the apostles? Furthermore, the fact that one list is a chronology, makes a really good case for the similar other list being a chronology, too.<br />
<br />
Another weakness of the restoration narrative is that it's an attempt, not to progress as the church, "brighter and brighter till the full day," nor surpass the early church and do "greater works" than Jesus -- as he promised-- but to look back to the good old days and try to be the church in the New Testament. Do people really have the idea that everything in the New Testament is a template? That every work-in-progress solution found in the NT to the problems of church polity against the backdrop of the Graeco-Roman world is God's design for the church forever?<br />
<br />
So go ahead and enjoy the Lord's presence as he is apparently visiting the North West. Love him and follow him with all your heart. But don't necessarily buy into the whole Five-Fold/New Apostolic thing. Unless God is telling you to. Because you'll need more authority behind the choice than a misread passage...The Ornery Pilgrimhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15236146088484883943noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8866769061706870107.post-22801896853561495352016-04-22T05:15:00.001-07:002016-04-22T09:17:10.877-07:00Seeing in Stereo<div dir="ltr">
So what's the central fact of our existence? Is it that we are created? Being a creation implies total ownership of the creation by the Creator and total freedom to the Creator to adjust his creation to serve his purposes better. It carries with it 100% obligation on our part to fulfil our Creator's purposes for us and 0% obligation on his part to answer to us for anything he does. Any wilful deviation from his purposes is a cosmic fault. Sounds so dire, doesn't it. But it's not. It's simply what being his creation means.</div>
<div dir="ltr">
<br></div>
<div dir="ltr">
Or is the central fact that we are loved? Through love we find that a large portion of his purposes are focused on blessing us and broadening, not narrowing our scope. Through love we find that the cosmic fault has been mended at immense personal cost to our Creator. Through love we find that somehow this Being, of a so much higher order than ourselves, is ever interested in relationship with us personally, as families, tribes, churches, communities, nations, and the whole world, and not merely pleased to watch, "from a distance" he has come to be present among us. It all amazes us and causes us to return his love.</div>
<div dir="ltr">
<br></div>
<div dir="ltr">
So much talk these days focuses on the second "central fact" that I find myself ever in defence of the first, yet if I had found myself in a more judgemental age, I would have become the irritating advocate of love. But it's not so much the focus that's the issue. It's the apparent embarrassment we have with the first fact that bothers me.</div>
<div dir="ltr">
<br></div>
<div dir="ltr">
My take is that these two are like separate frames of the same stereo view. Only if we keep both eyes open do we see in three dimensions. If we focus on one over the other, our view is distorted and flat. Stark dichotomy ensues. God the Judge vs. God the Lover. Law vs. Grace. Pick your poison and choose your side. Complementary pairs become theological battle lines.</div>
<div dir="ltr">
<br></div>
<div dir="ltr">
"He who has been forgiven much loves much" is a statement that sees in stereo. Awareness of the need to be forgiven proceeds from the awareness of the depth of the offence against the just claims of the Creator. He is not arbitrarily and vindictively enforcing his claims. The claims are inescapable because they are inherent in being his creation. Offence against them is of incalculable harm; to us, to our loved ones, to the whole universe. And the costly healing of this harm by the one who had no obligation to us, rightly produces a love response in us. But outside of this understanding, love because of received mercy is irrelevant, because we just have no idea of what forgiveness means or what the mercy cost.</div>
<div dir="ltr">
<br></div>
<div dir="ltr">
Yes this how it looks from my position in the <a href="http://thepilgrimagecontinues.blogspot.ca/2016/03/the-amphitheatre-why-nobody-bats-1000.html" target="_blank">Amphitheature,</a> but it's as valid as your view.</div>
The Ornery Pilgrimhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15236146088484883943noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8866769061706870107.post-2682709928207926842016-03-21T12:39:00.000-07:002016-03-21T12:40:20.288-07:00The Amphitheatre: Why Nobody Bats 1.000 in Christian TheologyHere's a picture that's been on my heart for a long time and I'm really sure that it's a good representation of our corporate attempt to adequately articulate and describe what we believe about the Christian faith. And if this inspires anyone to actually create it visually I'd welcome that. But at this time, as I can't really be doing that myself, I will try to put into words.<br />
<br />
Start with a stage in a large semicircular format. The stage has two features. The rear of the stage, in a wide sweeping curve, is a series of pictures representing the history and writings of the Old Testament. In the centre of the stage is a large multi-faceted crystaline structure that represents, not the New Testament, but what some term the Christ Event. The Christ Event may be slowly turning, it may be not, but certainly the facets as you gaze on them from whatever side obscure what is visible from some other angle. And maybe as you gaze on the Christ event from a certain angle it obscures to the point of blotting out some of the Old Testament behind it. The visible panels of the Old Testament become part of the whole picture that you see so that wherever you are there is a whole and possibly satisfying picture that differs from what is seen from the other parts of the amphitheatre.<br />
<br />
The other feature of the place is the seating. The seating is also semi-circular. In the front rows are the writers of the New Testament. They got first crack at articulating the meaning of what they experienced. But even they saw things from a slightly different angle from each other. And here I diverge somewhat from tradition and say that in this enterprise of discovering 'what it all means,' we are their equals. We are indebted to them for reporting on the Christ Event and starting the discussion, but the discussion goes on because the Holy Spirit is still with us and we are still exploring.<br />
<br />
The rows in the seating have been gradually filling up: not as fast as the church grows, mind you; many Christians hardly ever visit this amphitheatre. Theology as such is just not a pursuit for most and that is worth remembering for those for whom it is a passion. It would have made sense for the place to fill up in a linear fashion with people filing in and filling it up row by row. But such is not the case. Camps have formed in different areas of the seating, populated by people of similar viewpoints who like the view best from this or that location. Because the seats also represent a spectrum of culture and experience and people of certain cultures and experiences will gravitate to what they are the most comfortable with.<br />
<br />
And there is a ludicrous, though perhaps not unnatural, side effect to the camps. Those in the camps have started to be more aware of the other camps than of the star of the show, the Christ Event, and have started to focus on how different they are from the other camps, while if they really wanted to find out at a deeper level why they're so different, the answer is a short walk away.<br />
<br />
The walk to another part of the seating would reveal a set of questions that your pet view does not address, and cultural forces and assumptions that make your answers seem irrelevant and yet these also are followers of the Messiah. So don't think that your view is the final, the real, the complete version. Not even if it's newly (re)discovered. It will only ever be complete in the context of your set of questions, forces, and assumptions. There will be a cultural shift in the future that will set it all on its ear again. The Ornery Pilgrimhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15236146088484883943noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8866769061706870107.post-88932672388677398462016-03-16T16:41:00.001-07:002016-03-16T16:47:25.797-07:00Whole Food Theology III suppose that I could actually title this, "If you are a Christian you are this..." It was that sort of Facebook dialogue that is the catalyst for this.<br />
<br />
My daughter says I should just clean up my friends list to avoid being embroiled in controversies. But some people are still friends though I haven't seen them for years and our opinions have diverged. Anyhow someone in my friend list was rah-rah-ing Ted Cruz for walking off the stage at a persecuted Christians gala because he was committed to supporting Israel and they saw Israel as part of the problem. I read the referenced article as well as a few others covering the event and suggested that there was more than one way to spin his exit. Well, some people, not the original poster, although she didn't like it either, were retorting with "You better be on Israel's side if you are on God's side!" style stuff at the merest suggestion that there was any other way to read the event.<br />
<br />
There was a bit more back and forth and one of my rebuttals is the basis of this post. So, with the hubris required for me to actually quote myself:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
[It's a question of ]<span data-ft="{"tn":"K"}"><span class="UFICommentBody _1n4g"> "if you are Christian, you are this," [or] "if you are a
Christian you diligently do your best to think all these issues through...</span></span></blockquote>
I'm thinking we have all encountered a lot of "if you are a Christian, you are this.." The aforementioned group that believes that the modern state of Israel (and it is a modern state in every way and not the restoration of the Davidic Monarchy) is the successor to the Israel and Judah of Bible times. The people who believe the opposite. The people who view the Atonement through a Neo-Calvinistic lens. The people who find that abhorrent. I've had all sorts of assumptions thrown at me about what bandwagons I had better be on from all of them. Okay, not directly, but in the writings, articles, blogposts. But you might have heard me say this before. What about not being sure yet?<br />
<br />
Brad Jersak once wrote a book I really enjoyed called <u>Her Gates Shall Never Be Shut</u> about the many different options in scripture as to what happens to non-believers after death. He called it a polyphony. Truth is, about so much of this stuff, there is also the same: a polyphony. And here's where I go back to my earlier post about Whole Food Theology as opposed to Refined Theology. It's the polyphony that gives us not one but many pictures to enlighten, flesh out, and yes, even confuse our efforts to be sure of some theological fact. I could go through the list of different viewpoints plus many more and demonstrate why I can't be wholly satisfied by any one of them, but perhaps that would be too much. At any rate I return once more to my favourite theological statement, the one that really sums it up and is all I can be sure of these days: I have decided to follow Jesus... The Ornery Pilgrimhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15236146088484883943noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8866769061706870107.post-91976859817290309892016-02-04T18:24:00.001-08:002016-02-04T18:24:55.579-08:00Whole Food TheologyI once knew an herbalist who told me something interesting about the drug valium. She said that a small percentage of people have a very severe reaction to it but that if one of those people had instead taken valerian, the herbal source of valium, they would have just vomited and been perfectly safe. By refining the valerian, the drug companies had managed to remove built in safeguards in the form of other substances present in the unprocessed valerian.<br />
<br />
I'd like to propose something similar in the area of theology. A few Sundays ago, I heard a very awkward exposition of penal substitution by someone who claimed to be a former pastor. It was during an open mike response time after the sermon. Now recently I've found myself defending penal substitution, not because I am bound and determined that it's the true way or anything, but rather that I think it's 1) a possible way to look at atonement which answers adequately at least some of the questions raised by atonement, and 2) a view that many quality Jesus followers have had in the recent past and to impugn it as evil would be to impugn them. Point out weaknesses, yes, propose something different, yes, but vilify, no. But hearing this fellow put it "God had to protect us from himself..." I thought, "that can't be it." and "I guess it's this kind of thing that my sometime opponents are fighting against."<br />
<br />
As I see it, the ex-pastor fellow had a highly refined and potentially toxic form of theology. The demands for purity that he had put upon it were distorting it all out of shape. But the solution is not to formulate an antidote. I think the antidote will always be just as distorted. Read the story. The story itself, with its symbols and foreshadowing and relationships both unfathomably cosmic and accessibly human, is like the valerian. The theology could sometimes be like the valium, distilled, pure -- and potentially toxic. No, I am not putting down theology in general. I am merely proposing that we try not to define things in the hard and fast manner to which we have become accustomed and admit that we don't know.<br />
<br />
(cue a memory of singing beside my Dad in church, "But I know whom I have believed...")The Ornery Pilgrimhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15236146088484883943noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8866769061706870107.post-38858642037472179752015-12-25T18:28:00.001-08:002015-12-25T18:28:23.711-08:00A Star Wars Post<p dir="ltr">When I was a kid some well meaning Christian published a book called "The Force of Star Wars." The idea was to lead the reader past the rather lame religion espoused by the Jedi in the movie (not lame? Good and Evil in balance? What an idea. Nuff said.) on to an awareness to the Person from whom all power originates. I'm not sure how effective the book was. And I'm sure I don't want to try the same.</p>
<p dir="ltr">But I had an experience at this last Star Wars movie that might be useful to someone. Without venturing into spoiler-land I'll try to describe the scene. It's essentially the final duel. In the middle the young and emerging good character is given the obligatory offer: "Come with me and I'll teach of the ways of the Force." This was really the wrong thing to say. Our hero is suddenly aware of this thing that she has only recently begun to experience and all because the villain made the ill-considered offer to remind her. Of course that was the turning point.</p>
<p dir="ltr">But what happened certainly had some commonality with something I know about. She takes a breath, relaxes, and reminds herself what the Force really is. And suddenly the Force is all around her, guiding her and backing her up. And I went, "hey!" Cause that's where I go if I'm called on to pray for healing.</p>
<p dir="ltr">Admittedly, I wish more people would get healed when I pray for them. But I've got to say I love that moment when I remember (I mean really remember) who God really is...</p>
<p dir="ltr">(Disclaimer: this is my first post ever from just cell phone. Editorial quality may have suffered)<br>
</p>
The Ornery Pilgrimhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15236146088484883943noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8866769061706870107.post-88963366239387279932015-12-17T17:55:00.000-08:002015-12-18T14:43:34.163-08:00The Smoking Gun<i>Premise</i>: There are no original, universal or authoritative churches. There have only ever been indigenous culturally unique churches. Anyone who has moved from one church to another on the understanding that they have now found the one true church has been mistaken or worse, swindled.<br />
<br />
Support for this view of Church history is comparatively easy to find. There are two such churches reported in the book of Acts, namely the Jewish church of Jerusalem, and the much larger Graeco-Roman (or simply Roman) Gentile church of the rest of the known world. From the beginning, these churches were equal but different. And the leaders at Jerusalem seemed to grasp this intuitively. When presented with the issue of Gentile believers, they did not talk as overlords with new subjects but as a first daughter, who has discovered she has a sister -- "<span class="st">Well then, God has granted to the Gentiles also.<i>" </i></span>When asked for a ruling on whether the Gentiles were to be subjected to strict Jewish observances, the answer was a simple "No: why should they be subject to our laws?"<br />
<br />
Over time it's evident that this collegiality between indigenous churches was forgotten. The Roman church started to view itself as Mother (note the capital M) instead of second sister. It's a cultural thing. Rome was big and pervasive. It was only natural that her indigenous church should think of herself the same way.<br />
<br />
But she soon was not so universal anymore -- although she kept up the illusion to herself. Sure, her elder sister, the indigenous Jewish church, the same that had welcomed her as an equal, died off so she was able to claim successor-ship to her with no dissenting voices. But her Roman-ness, which drove her to organize and legislate and rule so assiduously, managed at length to alienate and spin off two other indigenous churches, namely the Assyrians and the Egyptians (Coptics) which are here to this day. And finally there was a territorial split so even the great Roman church became two. East and West.<br />
<br />
Still, ironically, to this day both of the branches of the Roman Church maintain the idea that they are the true Mother Church and all true followers of Christ will be brought into their fold.<br />
<br />
You'd think someone might have listened after the so-called Reformation. It wasn't a reformation really, it was a re-indigenization. Germans now had a German church, Scots had a Scottish church, the Swiss had a Swiss church, etc. Most of Europe, coming out into self-awareness from under the pervasive influence of the Roman universal ideal (kept alive by the Western Roman church) decided it was time to make their own choices about how and why to worship.<br />
<br />
Unfortunately the Roman Church did not follow the same model as was laid out for them by their late sister. The Jewish Church had acknowledged the second sister as originating from God --"God has granted..." The Roman Church had a different idea, namely Succession: "If you aren't authorized by us who have been authorized by those in the past, you are not connected with the original church and therefore not really a church." So there was no welcoming of the new sisters, but condemnation for leaving the "original" church. Funny thing is, they had never <i>been</i> the original church.<br />
<br />
Which brings us to the title of the post. What's the "<i>smoking gun</i>?" Quite simply, I'm looking for evidence that the Roman church is not the original church as they claim. And I believe that I have found it. Woven into the fabric of their teaching is something so ethnically Roman, so orthogonal to the general message of the Gospel, that they are exposed as just another sister or rather two sisters among many. All of us have cultural foibles which don't translate well into other cultures. To cling to such foibles marks you out as indigenous, not universal. And both branches of the Roman church have at least one such foible. The smoking gun to which I refer is the Perpetual Virginity of Mary.<br />
<br />
Forget the argument over proof texts (Jesus had "brothers" -- no, the word is broad enough to mean "cousins," etc.). The burden of proof lies with the barest plausibility that a Jewish woman would even engage in virginal celibacy for the whole of her married existence. And there isn't any. Virginity and celibacy linked with religious observance just isn't a Jewish ideal. But it <i>is</i> a Roman ideal. The Romans had an priestly order of virgins guarding the flame of the goddess Vesta in Rome. And on the Greek side, there was a view that sex itself was evil, that necessary though it is, the act itself debases us. Put those together and you have a need to keep this emerging demi-goddess (I admit that's a worst-case version of sainthood) from ever having been stained herself this way-- a need to stretch the story past the unique birth of Jesus to lift her preternaturally high above the ordinary.<br />
<br />
But even the maturing Roman church couldn't square the idea that Mary would, all on her own, have chosen this un-Jewish mode of being, so with all the industriousness of a Marvel screenwriter they created a backstory (it's called the Proto-Evangelium of James) to include the existence of an order of virgins at the Temple in Jerusalem, of which Mary was some time part. But it's a pure invention (actually, I am told the current word is retcon -- Retroactive Continuity). Ask any Rabbi; I've followed several such conversations on the web. There was no such order. It is precisely what it looks like. A order of quasi-vestals at the Jerusalem Temple fulfils a purely cultural need to impute perpetual virginity to Mary. And I submit to you that any church that entrenches such a mono-cultural need is not, and cannot be, the Mother of us all. Entrenching culture in your worship of God is an indigenous thing, not a universal thing. We all do it and so do you. You (actually both of you) are our sister not our Mother. Welcome home, to the sisterhood of indigenous churches.<br />
<br />
I could leave it right there, but I won't. There are critiques arising from this paradigm of church history that need to be voiced. One, I've already alluded to. Namely if you have joined the Catholics or the Orthodox because they are the original church, you have erred. The original church worshipped in synagogues and did and believed things very different than you do. You joined your church, hopefully, because something about them appealed to you. You wanted to join-- you were not forced by realizing the truth of their claims. Unfortunately, to join, you had to also agree with them that they are Mother Church and so semi-shut the door on the rest of us.<br />
<br />
Secondly, adopting all the early writings of the early Roman Church, and giving them a semi-authoritative place, calling them Patristic and viewing them as seminal for all churches is questionable. Returning to them as more true to the original design and appealing to them for support for your paradigm is not as valid as it is advertised to be. If you think they said something better, quote it and agree with it. But don't lean on it, saying that your view is more Patristic and therefore better. We're all seeking for the truth together and time and space don't matter. These are the writings of one of many equal sisters. Others have found different solutions to the same problems and though you may not like their solutions, don't play one sister against another.<br />
<br />
Finally, presently, we are seeing tectonic shifts in how we view the Bible and the Atonement, and seemingly a host of other issues. I submit to you, though, that these shifts are not a final revelation of the truth or any such thing. They are simply a new culture asserting itself in the church and asking questions that didn't occur to other earlier cultures and getting answers that those earlier cultures don't like. The fact that both sides of an issue don't like each others' conclusions is more a comment on their starting place, which in each case is very different. Speaking as one who is sometimes of the former set, I'll try not to point fingers at you and say that you've strayed if you agree not to point fingers back at us and say how wrong we've always been. There are questions arising from my culture that are answered better by my conclusions, questions that are apparently not as important to you in your culture. Given enough time, there'll be other shifts that will bug you just as much. The Ornery Pilgrimhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15236146088484883943noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8866769061706870107.post-77453066019753939732015-10-28T08:02:00.001-07:002015-10-28T08:02:48.356-07:00The impoverishment of the Father idea.<p dir="ltr">It's become a popular thing to remind people over and over that God is first and foremost, a loving Father. The object seems to be to distance the speaker from the judgmentalism and legalism (so distasteful) of the past and  welcome them into the non- condemning now. And how could I disagree with such a statement? I don't. But when Jesus introduced the idea, it had a context that we are now missing. Those to whom God was first revealed as Father, were already very cognizant of him as Creator, Judge and King. It's those other essential roles, so faint in the current picture people want to paint, that make his offer of Fatherhood so precious. He's under no obligation to be father to us. It may be in his nature, but like the returning prodigal, it's not our place to presume on that. Yes, once welcomed in, we would do well to humbly receive the robe, ring, sandals and fatted calf he lavishes on us. Continuing in condemnation is so obviously not his program for us. But forgetting what else he is besides Father is liable to cause us to lose the intended eternality of gratitude due him.</p>
The Ornery Pilgrimhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15236146088484883943noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8866769061706870107.post-53636632961671086742015-09-08T18:53:00.002-07:002015-09-08T18:53:41.413-07:00Zahnd, Brown and BernoulliSunday night (on to Labour Day Monday, you'll understand) I stayed up rather late (2:00 AM: yes, it was that good) to watch <a href="https://t.co/UUkfmJapGh" target="_blank">this</a>. It was most instructive. On one side you have Brian Zahnd, proposing a view of the atonement that is either novel or a return to earlier ideas, depending on your perspective, and on the other side you have Michael Brown rebutting that with a view that is either traditional or a Calvinist innovation, again depending on your perspective.<br />
<br />
Really, I found myself in sympathy with both views, which supports my idea that all such debates are rooted in different sets of cultural values that the Christ event can legitimately be viewed through and, if it results in the viewer following Jesus, be equally valid. (And yes, I admit there is a bit of hubris involved in watching a debate and declaring myself the winner.)<br />
<br />
Monday morning found me running as usual. On one of the legs of my journey, there was before me an upside down styrofoam plate with rounded sections for different parts of the meal. And I imagined a wind blowing over it and sucking it up into the air in the manner of an airplane's wing. And suddenly it came to me what a parable it was for the debate I had just watched.<br />
<br />
It's like this. Every child (in my country) with some science training is aware of the operation of Bernoulli's principle upon the shape of an airplane's wing. The classic diagram is a cross section of the wing showing the air above being forced to travel faster than the air below, and based on that differential and the resulting differential in air pressure, lift occurs. The plane is literally sucked into the air. But is it? Actually Bernoulli's principle accounts for only a percentage of the lift. Most of the lift comes from the air deflecting off the bottom of the wing as it tilts slightly upward against the air rushing past as the thrust from propeller pulls the plane forward. That's called "angle of attack."<br />
<br />
So which is it? "Bernoulli's Principle" or "Angle of Attack?" Well the story is not complete without either. The plane doesn't generate enough lift without both. But the thing flies nonetheless. So with theories of the atonement. Somehow, no story is really complete. And from one side of the wing, so to speak, you feel that yours is the only story and every other story is an offence. But if you can manage to try the other side there's a whole new paradigm awaiting your arrival. But ultimately, no matter how it works, it really does work.<br />
<br />The Ornery Pilgrimhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15236146088484883943noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8866769061706870107.post-35208401817110321342015-06-12T19:46:00.001-07:002015-06-12T19:46:59.613-07:00In Love with Love<br />
The Church is struggling to have
a voice in this increasingly strange world. I get that. Morally, we are
very unsure of our message. People have great difficulty with being
told what is moral or righteous and being measured against a standard of
morality. We in the Church, on the other hand, are not as sure of what
is right and wrong any more. It used to be so obvious. Things that used
to be right are now wrong and things that used to be wrong are a matter
of someone's rights. The difficult events in the Old Testament have
become more difficult. What we used to look on with "There but for the
grace of God, go I." we now condemn as genocide. God used to be
understood to know best in these things. Now we want to distance
ourselves from the idea of God who, at need, punishes whole nations.<br />
<br />
I
think there is a reason for this confusing state of things. I think
we've gone out on a limb for the word "Love." We've made a God out of
"God is Love." We've drunk the Kool-aid of our own marketing.
Contemporary worship songs are symptomatic. Over Easter, I heard one
that described Jesus' resurrection as some kind exertion of Love. What
happened to the triumph of Life over Death? What happened to the triumph
of Righteousness over Sin? I guess that kind of thing is passe.<br />
<br />
But who
is going to speak against Love? It's the ultimate
Motherhood-and-Apple-Pie issue. And tagged to this present out-of-focus
focus is another biblical catchphrase, "God is light and in him is no
darkness at all." And we've brought to the table our contemporary ideas
of what constitutes darkness and said "God can't be that." We've
forgotten that sometimes, light burns. It used to be that we would look
at the difficult parts of the Old Testament and say, "God knows best."and walk away
with a healthy fear of God -- which Proverbs tells us is the beginning
of [true] wisdom. Now we judge everything we read -- and say that it all
must have been based on a distorted view of God and walk away without
any moral compass at all. The Ornery Pilgrimhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15236146088484883943noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8866769061706870107.post-20298099912085688872015-05-17T14:12:00.001-07:002015-05-17T14:12:51.302-07:00Re-Discovery?Lots of noise is being made these days about the Church rediscovering the truth about the atonement, about the faith, about the nature of God. I've made noises earlier in this blog about the magic word "Patristic" and how it seems to be used as a golden ticket to selling your views especially when presented over against a more recent view. After all it's Patristic...<br />
<br />
But I'd like to take a bit of a swing at the whole rediscovery thing. And the first thing to be made clear is that this is not like the story in Kings, where the Book of the Law had been lost and now it has been found again. This is one view, expressed chronologically earlier than another view expressed more recently. The assumption that that the one marketed to is expected to take on board is that the earlier view is 'of course' right because it's earlier and the later 'of course' wrong because it's later. But it all depends on how you tell the story. One way is to say that this was lost early on and now, thank God we've found it. The other way is to say that our understanding is now evolved and the newer idea has superseded the old. Can you see the problem? There's no way to tell which is the true tale. Which means no re-discovery has taken place. We've merely found something we like better than what we had. And we're willing to depend on a bad sales job, namely, what C.S.Lewis used to call chronological snobbery, to assure ourselves that it's the right one.<br />
The Ornery Pilgrimhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15236146088484883943noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8866769061706870107.post-3670887859894543712015-05-13T06:00:00.000-07:002015-05-13T06:00:45.580-07:00The Unpopular JesusMuch is being made these days of Jesus words, "If you've seen me, you've seen the Father." And the thrust of this always seems to be a repudiation of the Old Testament view of God. Now I believe I've blogged this elsewhere, but I think it bears repeating, that if you don't have the Old Testament, you don't have Jesus. His ministry and Messiahship are rooted in and validated by the Old Testament. There's been a change after Jesus' coming, no doubt. But whatever we learn of God from Jesus gets integrated into the whole of what the Old Testament teaches, and does not cancel it out because if the God of the Old Testament is false, then he can't bring forth the Christ. But that is not what this post will be about. I think that there are enough examples in the Gospels themselves that amply demonstrate that God as revealed in Jesus still carries with him the unpopular traits that the church these days finds so embarrassing, but without which he is truly the 'tame lion' alluded to by C.S.Lewis.<br />
<br />
Jesus the Law Giver<br />
<br />
In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus has a go at the law. And in every case, he validates the existing Law by strengthening it. Everything is now not merely about action, but motivation. This is very significant. By strengthening the law, he makes the offence against the law a much bigger deal than it ever was. When we examine our actions, we might say they're better than someone else's, but when we look at our motivations we are rightly ashamed.<br />
<br />
Jesus the Severe<br />
<br />
Examine how Jesus speaks to those he admonishes. Frequently he warns of extreme consequences if his words are not heeded. "Whoever denies me... I will deny..." "It will be more bearable for the region of Sodom than for you." He does it with a wonderfully unadorned style. He's not portrayed as rageful. But the consequences remain and are spoken of frequently. Even more significant are the God-figures in his parables. Kinglike, they bless the good and just and severely punish the evildoer. <br />
<br />
Jesus the Judge<br />
<br />
Much is made, and rightly so, of the tempering of justice with mercy. The converse is also true. Jesus freely admits that the people he calls are sinners, even while he implies that the righteous are worse off because they are not being called. But while we recognize the reversal -- the righteous are not actually righteous because they deny their need -- let's not forget that the ones who come are acknowledged as sinners, that is, those deserving punishment, to whom the offer of mercy is actually meaningful. <br />
<br />
Jesus the Descriminator<br />
<br />
"Not everyone, who says to me Lord, Lord..." "The knowledge of the Kingdom of God has been given to you but not to them." "Depart from me, I never knew you." These are just three examples of a theme that no one likes exploring, because it makes us terribly nervous, but that is throughout all the Gospels. The idea is that in end some won't be in after all. They might think they are just great, but they will have been deceived. Ow.<br />
<br />
Jesus who calls it as he sees it.<br />
<br />
Look at how Jesus treats his own friend Peter. "Are you still so foolish?" "Get behind me Satan" etc. There are obviously times of no mincing of words, no gentle remonstrance. Are we open to being talked to like this? Even more cutting language is levelled against religious leaders. (try the choice phrase "twice as much a child of hell as you" about the Pharisee's disciples.)<br />
<br />
Jesus the Inscrutable <br />
<br />
Sometimes Jesus does things that would tend to offend us -- with no explanation. Why did he curse that fig tree? In the narrative, no real explanation is given.<br />
<br />
etc.<br />
<br />
One of the prophecies (Isaiah 11) about Jesus says that he will delight in the fear of the Lord. I think that we need, even while we strengthen the message of God's love for us, to recognize that we are still in the presence of one who has every right to treat us severely and even harshly if he deems it necessary. As he extends love to us, let us receive it gladly because he has not "treated us as our sins deserve." Let us not try to sugar coat either our situation or God's righteous judgement. If we truly believe that if we have seen Jesus we have seen the Father, then we must be willing to acknowledge the uncomfortable parts of the Father that Jesus reveals along with the parts that bring us relief.The Ornery Pilgrimhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15236146088484883943noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8866769061706870107.post-77936344687436456352015-04-23T05:56:00.000-07:002015-04-23T16:56:17.384-07:00The Failure of Radicalism in the ChurchI don't know about you, but I think that the effort of the primitive church to recreate Old Testament religion is nothing short of monumental. To read some of the New Testament, especially the Gospels and -- what I am starting to think of as part of the Gospels because it's from them that Jesus' Messiahship receives validity -- the Messianic prophecies, you might get the view that everything was now changed. The Spirit was to be our guide because the Laws of God were to be written on our hearts, we were all to be equal, the temple worship was to be subsumed into our new communion with the Father through the resurrected Christ, and the works of Jesus would be a commonplace (though revered) occurrence among us, because Christ's "not of this world" kingdom is breaking into our present reality. But their legacy is quite different.<br />
<br />
For any number of reasons we now inherit the following: a new Torah and Talmud -- the Canon, Patristic writings and Canon Law, -- a hierarchy of priests, temples and ceremony and a varying experience of the miraculous, where either in their lifetime or after, those who experience the miraculous are considered more meritorious -- to the point of sainthood-- than the unwashed masses or written off as frauds, depending on your tradition. The pinnacle of this recreation of the Old Testament world was of course the unexpected success in the political arena. This not-of-this-world kingdom now could bask in the patronage of, exult in the new ability to influence, and languish under the equal and opposite force of control of the most powerful administration on earth. I'm sure they found it addicting.<br />
<br />
The whole process looks very much like a slow motion sell-out, which is of course, not quite fair. The big picture that I am gleaning from the New Testament, especially from the Gospels, just wasn't at the fingertips of those who were doing the original work of spreading the word. Much of the material just hadn't been written yet and after it was, it took some time to disseminate. The hierarchical models of Church polity were what they had at hand. It was culturally relevant. Who can fault them for starting that way? But their successors should maybe have pondered Jesus' words in Matthew 23 which shout 'Equality!' or those so ready to excommunicate based on doctrine might have spent some time with John 14 where Jesus us gives the idea that "in" or "out" is dependent rather on obedience. Already ingrained practices could have been reworked. Instead, the practices remained and the words of Jesus ignored or explained away. <br />
<br />
And the emphasis seems to have been on regimentation and control. After all, the government was now involved. Issues might have headlined like "Who's in and who's out," "Cornering the market on Grace," "Creating a new Torah" -- which was done mostly out of letters addressed by one us to specific groups of us suddenly pressed into service as letters by God to all of us. And the New Testament was highly important as doctrine and heresy increasingly came into the centre stage. If tenets of belief determine in and out, we must have a document to base the correct tenets of belief. So the church congratulated itself on the excision of the Nestorians and the Arians etc. And as time progressed, this church of "all brothers with only one Father" transformed into a hierarchy centered around increasingly arcane and intricate ceremonies which now could only be performed by clergy (those higher up in in the higher-archy) in beautiful temples. Nobody asked what had happened to the simple meal it was based on. <br />
<br />
By the time of the Reformation, some were crying foul. The simplicity of Jesus' teachings had so obviously been traded for intricacy and convolution. Some kind of radical rework was necessary. And so the reformed church and the free church were born. Results varied, but the intent was the same, that being an attempted return to what the church once was or ought to have been.<br />
<br />
Fast-forward to today. There is now a movement to return to the church that the reformers left, or if not that church, the eastern version of the same, all in the name of coming home to the true inheritors of the primitive church. It's an ongoing event that continues to trouble me. After all, the reasons we left haven't gone away. Worship and polity in these churches are still entirely unlike and largely impossible to derive from anything in Jesus' teachings or practice and what does correspond seems hopelessly embellished. (The same charge could be levelled against us that what we do is not
very like Jesus' ministry. The only difference is that we don't view our
ceremony as vital to salvation itself.) But the underlying reason for this re-exodus must be that the radicalism of the reformation has failed. Five hundred years or so later, we are in essentials the same as that which we left -- we're just a poor imitation. We kept the new Torah and built up our own Talmud around it. We've replaced images and symbols and icons with well, actually, more images and symbols and icons and... preaching, lots of preaching. Eventually one wants something different. And the claim of the 'ancient' churches to being the original, true, version of the church is hard for some to refute.<br />
<br />
So where did we go wrong? I think it's a failure to recognize that keeping the new Torah as that which all truth must be built upon was a mistake. No, I'm not throwing out the New Testament. I'm just wanting us to recognize a few things about it. Firstly, it was written not by those somehow above us, but our equals (see Matthew 23). Secondly, there's no doubt about its inspiration (read it!) but this is the Church. Inspiration ideally abounds among us. To look back and say this is the only inspired writing is surely an offence against the promise of the Spirit's presence. It's akin to other cessationist positions, exalting the past over the present in despair, ignoring the picture of the ever more victorious church that Jesus paints with his allusion to 'greater works.' I would like to reform the Bible to include in the New Testament an
index of ALL Christian writings that follow -- as a way of recognizing that
the Spirit has not stopped communicating and that all Christians are
part of the conversation. Thirdly, we need to have the simple right to disagree or at least take a grain of salt with some of what we read as we already do with other teachers and leaders today. The male chauvinism of some passages for example, is ingrained in the culture of the writer, and we need not spend the monumental effort some have spent to explain it away in the name of preserving the "inerrant Word of God." We have to realize that what is today, is more of the same of what used to be. The early apostles were not qualitatively different than we are. We sometimes make inspired statements which have a certain slant and so did they. Therefore, to forever use their words as the only starting point of our theology is a mistake. I think only Jesus' own words have that place. <br />
<br />
I also think that we erred in carrying on the practise of judging "in" or "out" based on theology. An atheist sacrificing to do right by those for whom he is responsible might be closer to God than an idler whose theology is impeccable because the atheist is actually doing. According to Jesus, actions, not theory, are central. But for us, theology is the in or out determinator. Those leaving for the 'ancient' churches have been conditioned to put themselves in and others out by dint of their choice of theology. And now some cannot even take communion with brothers and sisters with whom they have previously laboured side by side in the kingdom of God. We can't blame them for such foolishness. It was taught them by the churches they are leaving. But is there not room for many different takes on the Christ event? And I mean takes that need not use the Epistles as a lens for the Gospels, but that look at the Gospels themselves first. Can we not take our equal place along side the apostle Paul, who, just like us, wasn't there to travel with Jesus on the roads of Palestine and see him die? Can we not, like him, gaze on the event and inspiredly speak of its meaning? And still not deprecate and denigrate other brothers and sisters who see other meanings..? <br />
<br />
And where ought our radicalism have taken us? Well actually, our birthright is being where John the apostle spent the Last Supper. As close to Jesus as we can get. Intricate ceremony is to celebrate that which is distant. Formula, symbols and symbolism are of that which is barely accessible. Contemplation is about that which is not here. And the need for interaction with other mediators, such as priests and saints emphasizes how far we have strayed. But Jesus said he is with us always, and that we his sheep, hear his voice. What could be simpler, until our perception is that he's not and we don't? That's when it gets complicated. That's when you resort to ceremony.<br />
<br />
The mistake that we of the reformation churches make is that we are free from all that. We're not. The church outside of revival must always eventually fall back into formula, until we "humble ourselves and pray" and he "hears from heaven." But now our formulae are tainted with the commercialism of the worship music industry and the book tables of the conference circuit. Can you blame someone for making the mistake of searching out other formulae? (I say "mistake" because really, it should be obvious that a change in formulae cannot possibly be the answer.) Especially when they offer such apparent authenticity and what they've come from is now so lame?<br />
<br />
If I had to think of a way out of this mess I'd say it's got to have something to do with simplicity. I think the most important theological statement anyone can espouse is found in that famous Hindi gospel song (and yes it was written in Hindi first!) "I have decided to follow Jesus... No turning back." And somewhere in the mix, revival must come. A sudden increase of God's presence would bring a clarity that we are missing just now. One can only hope...The Ornery Pilgrimhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15236146088484883943noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8866769061706870107.post-81982900662523879882015-01-01T17:02:00.000-08:002015-01-01T17:02:00.514-08:00Guest Post: To worship band membersThe following came to me in an email and I asked the sender if I could use it as a guest post. <br />
<br />
Unless we've played together, you don't know me. And no, this isn't an American Express commercial. And that's okay.<br />
<br />
By trade, I am a software developer. By passion I am a learning addict. My main interests are, well, everything but all that is by the by for the moment. By habit borne of talent, persistence and passion, I lead worship. I do so on my own in whatever home group I've joined, if it suits what the group does. I worship at church when I'm not part of the band, but I'm part of the band pretty often and willingly: in bands large and small, high-profile and unknown. And I've been doing this for 30 years and maybe a bit more. In that time, I've gotten more opinionated -- and perhaps, just perhaps my opinions have become slightly more worth sharing.<br />
<br />
If you're involved in worship in a church setting, the key question you need to know the answer to is this: "Why are you there?" Worship leaders great and small -- especially the worship leader you serve under -- are ready to give many and diverse answers to that question, and in the words of Huckleberry Finn, they "tell the truth mostly." Still, if you're normal there'll always be this nagging doubt that the things they say are at least partially self-serving: they want to fix you in place, to serve their interests, to prop them up. Since the heart "is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked, who [even a worship leader] can know it?" there's just the possibility that that's the case. So, I thought perhaps there's some sense in me, that you'll probably never see in a pulpit -- certainly never headlining a band "coming soon to a stadium near you" -- outlining what I've come to see as answers to that question, true enough to make you as effective in that role as you can be; as Papa wants you to be, for his own sake, yes, but just as surely for your own.<br />
<br />
You, indeed the whole band and the worship leader are there for one primary reason -- and it's one that a worship leader I served under a long time ago highlighted repeatedly: It's like John the Baptist said when his disciples were disgruntled that Jesus was gaining more followers than he was in John 3:30: "He must become greater, I must become less." How much more should I say than that? But I will say a bit more on this and a few more points.<br />
<br />
Whatever you do, your goal should be to draw attention to Jesus' beauty, to his glory. Go ahead and play the best licks, riffs and vamps that you can manage -- within what works for the arrangement, more on this anon -- but do whatever virtuosity you can manage with the heart of a kindergartener bringing home his crayon drawings of "Daddy at work", and do it in such a way as to make focusing on Jesus and to make deeply expressing love, honour, awe, praise, thanksgiving, supplication toward him easier for everyone.<br />
<br />
Some modicum of modesty is indicated (ask yourselves, sisters, what would your granny approve of?) but probably not the narrowest definition ever (we are under grace, not Torah or Shari`a) -- walk this one out as your conscience and local scruples balance out.<br />
<br />
Some level of physical expression is probably a good idea: break dancers would be distracting in many settings but triumphal notes and rousing words, such as the repetitions of "There is no God but Jehovah" in Robin Mark's "Days of Elijah" becomes comical when the worship band is as animated as zombies. You can find some balancing point between those two extremes in your own setting, so do so; something appropriate to the lyrical and musical content of the song being used and the congregation you're serving.<br />
<br />
Serving, yeah... That's not just a nice religious word, it's what you're doing. And if you're not leading worship with serving in mind, then you're probably heading off the rails soon if you aren't already in the ditch. Whom are you serving? Primarily God, of course, but in your context, the band is serving the congregation (or the individual leading in a homegroup is serving the, um, homegroup) and you as a member of the band are also serving the leader and your fellow team-mates. So, sniping is out. Competing for spots is out. Ignoring the arrangement the leader said he wanted to follow is out. Even, ignoring the arrangement the leader is actually using is out. If the music says "A major" but the leader keeps playing "A minor" in that one place, and you notice it, following the music too closely is out. Do what he/she says (or does, in a case like the wrong chord) or the result will be distracting from the primary purpose: corporate worship.<br />
<br />
This extends, especially for the older and/or more educated and/or more skillful members of the band to further issues. Sometimes the arrangements suck. For whole sets. Sometimes the songs suck. It's what the congregation loves but you're finding it cheesier by the week. Sometimes the same lame chord progression is used for the whole song. Including the chorus; AND the bridge. Sometimes secondary key signatures are introduced in the most bizarre fashion imaginable. Sometimes the theology of the lyrics is weak -- even bordering on heretical. Like "Lord I Lift Your Name on High" implicitly denies the resurrection. Like why are we singing about absolution? We're not Catholics or anything -- and I'll bet they wouldn't even use the word that way. Like how do you "walk upon salvation"? Tim Hawkins has highlighted some lovelies here. Do yourself a favour and look for him on youtube -- all I can say is "I can only eat margarine."<br />
<br />
So what do you do? Step one is not "I quit." In fact, "I quit" doesn't show up on the list of things to do at all. You know that saying about making a silk purse out of a sow's ear? That's what you get to do. At least, sort of. The truth is, no worship leader's arrangements, songs or set -- unless the worship leader is about to be sacked by others for other reasons -- is really a sow's ear. But even if it were, we're working in the Kingdom Dimension now and it is Jesus' promise that every gathering of two or more of his loved ones will be graced by his presence, not just those that feature a "perfect" song set. So if it all sucks, suck it up, princess, and play your best for the Audience of One, in support of the ones around you, so that they, too, will be able to do their best in the same endeavour. It may leave you cold. You may long for something better to happen. But in the meantime, the Body will be blessed and that's what the job's about. Remember point one? When Jesus becomes greater and we become less, that's when the Body is most blessed.<br />
<br />
Sure the worship leader likes every song to start in the same ways (or in too different ways that seem to jar when you play the set). Sure there are rhythm and/or tuning problems but the best response from YOU in that situation is to stay loyal to Papa's side in the fight, which for that moment means pulling together with the ones you're serving with.<br />
<br />
Your day to dictate what should happen will come -- or maybe not. And whether it does or not (as it really hasn't for me; probably never will) God will use you to extend his kingdom in big and small ways. And please believe that whatever reason others might have for saying that, I at least am not saying this to keep you down. I'm saying it because this set of attitudes has blessed and sustained ME in my in-again out-again, up-again down-again career as a volunteer member of worship bands wherever it has been my privilege to contribute. And I'm sure they will be of benefit to you even if you never hear me say it in person.<br />
<br />
Sometimes you'll be involved on the platform -- or even in a homegroup -- more, sometimes less. And maybe the changes will happen because of the carnality of the worship leader, like David was delayed in getting to the throne by Saul. So be more like David than like his son Absalom -- Tale of Three Kings, there's another book that helps outline what kind of a heart you should have within a worship band. Only not just in a band but in life generally: see to it that you're more like David away from the platform, too. To put it another way, live like Brother Lawrence did (skillfully re-set by David Winter in "Closer Than a Brother" if the medieval sounding translation of "Practice of the Presence" is too crusty for you): Jesus' presence is available to all of us individually. Speak into the silence when no one else is listening and wait. Answers do come.<br />
<br />
Be skillful; be as skillful as you can be -- don't short-circuit that for anyone. It takes just as much skill to play well one way as another. It takes another set of skills to select from your toolbox things you don't typically choose to do because the setting demands it. Wait and look for opportunities to contribute your ideas when arrangements and sets are being developed, sure. But be even surer that the worship leader you serve with is correctly confident that whatever he does, even if it veers away from what he or she said would be done, that you'll do your best to follow so as to make the result sound as good as possible: again, not for anyone's aggrandizement but so that there should be a minimum of confusion in what is played so that the attention goes where it belongs: our beloved bridegroom.<br />
<br />
There. Now I'll be like the rich man in James and "fade away, even while I go about my business..."The Ornery Pilgrimhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15236146088484883943noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8866769061706870107.post-71080827770643924182014-12-28T21:10:00.000-08:002015-01-09T11:53:11.809-08:00The Paul EventI had a thought recently that with all the justifiable attention we pay to the Christ event, we might well miss the potential significance of the Paul event.<br />
<br />
Think of hierarchy. Think of succession. Think of disciples. Think of those entrusted with Christ's own teachings. And then think of a compleat interloper having the majority say on the meaning of all that happened in the presence of those same guardians! Such a thing flies directly in the face of the whole concept of succession. It should have called into question the whole fantasy of the rule on rule, the whole quasi-talmudic approach where everything is built on something else. But instead, the early church got around the issue by declaring the interloper an Apostle after all. And we have since based much of our teaching on his. There's a weird irony around the word "Apostle." It's supposed to be the same as missionary, which Paul obviously was. The irony is the historical assumption that it also means something akin to "benevolent dictator for life," which I just don't think was Jesus' intent.<br />
<br />
But really, doesn't it blow everything wide open, that someone so from the outside of everything could have a personal revelation of Christ and leave such a deep mark on a movement that he had nothing to do with starting? It says to me that actually we are all equal partners in the New Testament conversation after all. God starkly and astonishingly ignores the fledgling hierarchy of the church right at its outset. Maybe he was trying to help the church set aside any idea of hierarchy. Such an action on God's part means that potentially we all have a voice. We are nobodies in the church but Paul was less than nobody -- he was, to borrow a biological term, an antibody. If such a one as he can look on the Christ event and commentate on its meaning, ought we not also to be able to do the same? The Ornery Pilgrimhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15236146088484883943noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8866769061706870107.post-83876544660152414302014-12-08T06:28:00.000-08:002014-12-08T16:58:45.717-08:00Missing the point with MarySomewhere in my bible school music training one of the instructors quoted something like the following, which, regrettably, I can't immediately source:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Christians are more likely to sing heresy than teach it.</blockquote>
Well this Christmas, I am guilty. I'm part of a group that will be performing a chant that extols Mary as "Virgo semper intacta" which renders in English as "virgin ever pure." Now in one sense, that of redemption through the death, resurrection, and return of her firstborn, I have no problem ascribing to her any amount of purity. But the literal sense of the Latin doesn't lead us in that direction at all. "Intacta" signifies untouched, by which we may assume that she never, through long years of 'marriage,' ever copulated with her husband Joseph. And that idea I find viciously problematic.<br />
<br />
Now the Gospels clearly state that the couple abstained until the birth of Jesus. And I wonder how anyone could extrapolate "never" from such a statement. I mean, why include the limiting preposition "until" if you really mean "never?" But that is by the by. I have been sometimes accused of being a grammar cop, but I shall try to avoid that here.<br />
<br />
It's not the misuse of the text that is so problematic, but the damage that the eternal "purity," and (let's go ahead and say it) 'Immaculate Conception' of Mary does to the whole story of Incarnation. To me the point of Jesus' coming was for God to come as an everyman and not have any advantages that could compromise the worth of his sinless life. Think how much easier he had it, if throughout his whole upbringing, his mother was without any faults. How is that fair? And take yourself back to the time he lived in and imagine that he was the only boy in his neighbourhood of probable one room dwellings who had not experienced the childhood trauma of waking up to the sound of his parents' revels at midnight. "Go back to sleep, son -- no, everything's alright, we'll explain in a few years..." Paul's idea is "tempted in every way that we are" and I think he's right. I think he gets the Incarnation in a way that those who wish to ascribe all sorts of fairy tale virtues to Mary just don't.<br />
<br />
In black and white, then, the more we embellish the character of Mary, more we detract from the redemption. If Jesus had some unique advantage, he can't be our Saviour and he can't be our Example.<br />
<br />
But the quote stands. I will, as agreed, sing this heresy. But not without comment.<br />
<br />
<br />The Ornery Pilgrimhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15236146088484883943noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8866769061706870107.post-50823119612490350452014-11-19T06:12:00.000-08:002014-11-19T06:15:44.742-08:00Rule on RuleWhat do the Jewish Talmud, the teachings of the Catholic and Orthodox churches, the teachings of Bill Gothard, and many of the teachings that come out of the Charismatic movement have in common? My take is that much of all of these are based on stuff that is based on other stuff that is based on some original information or saying from the Bible.<br />
<br />
The story of the Talmud is well known. It's a commentary on a commentary on commentary. And the rabbinical culture which produced it, produced much of the legalism that Christ had such a dislike for. I hope I am not wrong in the understanding that much of the that legalism is contained in the Talmud.<br />
<br />
I'll skip over to Bill Gothard, since so much of my childhood Christianity was framed by his teaching. A clever man, that Bill. Could keep you listening to him for hours. Lots of helpful material, too. But when it came to overarching theory, it got a little sketchy. Bill liked to derive principles from the Bible and then derive principles from other principles and that's where he falls into the same camp as the Pharisees. My favourite was the reasoning behind his idea that rock music is evil. The whole idea comes from the mention in Paul's letters of spirit, soul, and body. Now Paul doesn't say that much about those three; in fact he was probably expressing the totality of human existence. But Bill had lots to say. For Bill, they represented not a totality but a hierarchy. Spirit on top, soul in subjection to spirit, body in subjection to spirit and soul. Based on this Bill constructed a theory of music. As follows: the spirit corresponds to the melody, the harmony to the soul (think "mind"), and the beat to the body. So rock music is obviously wrong because the body component of the music is emphasized. I'm guessing he probably didn't have much time for vocal jazz either, because the soul (think "mind") component is too prevalent in all those harmonies.<br />
<br />
Two months or so ago, I had an extended discussion on Facebook about Mary as theotokos, or Mother of God. I questioned the use of the title, because it has always seemed to me to make Mary the originator of God. One response I got was, was I setting myself up against the third ecumenical council that declared her to be that? Well I finally looked up the council that declared her to be theotokos, (on Wikipedia -- hardly a primary source, but...) and the sense I got was not that it was focused on elevating Mary to a permanent exalted position in the Kingdom, but on proclaiming Jesus as God instead of merely Christ. The council was choosing between God-bearer and Christ-bearer. (And yes, the use of "bearer" instead of "originator," deals with my scruples about "Mother of God," but that's still an aside.) Assigning that title, though, to Mary has had its consequences. For centuries after, Christian worship has, to my mind, counter-intuitively included her in regular liturgy. <br />
<br />
<br />
The point I am trying to make is that teachings that are second or third generation (based on stuff that is based on other stuff) is suspect. A small amount of bias in a primary teaching is forgivable -- we are all human after all. But error compounds upon error and soon you have something that is not recognizable as stemming from the original.<br />
<br />
Take the Trinity for example. The Trinity is, to my mind, a best-guess label for the mysterious relationship and identity Father Son and Holy Spirit have together. From the Bible, it's easily defensible as a good working concept. But it's never explicitly taught. We've derived it from what we read, honestly and humbly enough. But then someone the other day was telling me that he was meditating on the perichoresis, a deeper concept which describes of the intricacies of that mysterious relationship (read up in it yourself.) But how, I ask, can there even be a perichoresis, when we don't even really know if there is a Trinity? Our humble best-guess has exalted itself into being the basis for a whole other teaching. We've strayed into what we can't actually know.<br />
<br />
How quickly this process occurs in the Church is evident in the some of the practises that have arisen among Charismatics. "Binding Satan" in prayers is surely based on stuff that is based on other stuff. (You never hear Jesus or the early church praying that way.) Catchphrases abound. "Come into alignment," "plead the blood," etc. All had some traction at one time in context of someone's inspiring teaching. But they are hardly central and should really be discarded before someone bases anything more on them.<br />
<br />
I have an Orthodox co-worker, who justly accuses me of minimalism. Guilty as charged, I say. The enormous jurisprudence of canon law terrifies me. I read the intricate distinctions of who can have communion, what kind of marriages are legitimate, (divorce is unlawful, but you can get an annulment) etc. and wonder how any of that is foreshadowed by Jesus and his ministry here on earth. It's not. It's rule on rule, rule on rule, a little here, a little there. (And for those who think that that's a good thing, reread the Isaiah passage where that phrase occurs.)<br />
<br />
So I propose a sort of hierarchy of teaching. The original sources are more authoritative. First generation teachings based on those sources are less so. Second generation teachings based on the first are suspect. Third generation teachings should probably be discarded. I'm probably wrong, but it's where I'm at right now.The Ornery Pilgrimhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15236146088484883943noreply@blogger.com0