Three sides of balance

Philosophy usually involves deriving connections or making important distinctions. Bad philosophy is usually over simplifying things or trying to connect unrelated things. Hopefully this will be more of the former than the latter.

It has struck me that the church, in all her beauty, tends to find itself out of balance. Balance is a fun concept, because it presupposes that there is some sort of tension between two or more “poles”, and that it is very easy to teeter towards one or another.

One such area in the church I think is the balance between heart, mind, and action. A phrase that I’ve used a couple of times that I think gets at this is we need more churches with the heart of a charismatic, the mind of a reformed, and the action of an emergent. This is rather simple of a point, but I’ll still unpack it a bit.


A lot of good churches seem to be real strong at one of those three, but rather weak at the others. A really rare church might be strong in one, decent in another, but still weak in the third. I think it is a healthy and biblical goal to pursue a balanced strength in all three.

The heart of a charismatic is pretty straightforward. I naturally am a very reserved and introverted person, but I have experienced a lot of stretching and growth when in the presence of more charismatic corporate worship. There is a sense of passion, love, joy, and desire for God that is so thick and authentic it is almost palpable.

In the same way, the mind of a Reformed is often very developed and biblical. I have always been both humbled and impressed with the amount of biblical literacy in Reformed churches, and how deeply some of the average members can interact on theological discussions. More importantly, and uniquely, it seems that most people in the church have a strong sense of biblical literacy, and a well developed ability to think well within biblical categories.

The latter is an area I’ve experienced the least, but still cannot help but be impressed with and respect. The reality is that a lot of churches don’t “do” very much outside of their 2-3 services a week and a few small ministries. It is the younger, more emergent churches that seem to more often emphasize missional living. They often are the ones with a deep passionate heart for suffering, the poor, and social injustice in the world.

I need to qualify this last point some. I do not think that a majority of American churches have lost the call of the heart of evangelism or missions. In my limited experience, I haven’t seen evidence to this effect (although I have seen a few churches that invested more time and money into the church “experience” than these). What I am stressing is the deep heart ache for the suffering and injustice in the world. The Gospel isn’t just about spiritual salvation, but Jesus’ kingdom is about a holistic redemption of humanity: spirit and body. Further, the promised kingdom Jesus brought was inaugurated in the context of healing sickness and undoing injustice, both were two key areas of promise in the Old Testament. I think that there is a key aspect of living the Gospel is to have a real concern for these things, certainly Jesus did. Further, I do think many Christians (including myself) have fallen into the trap of thinking missions work is for the missionary, and evangelism is for the evangelist. Even though most of us know that these are both supposed to be regular aspects of every Christian’s daily life, at some sub-conscious level we’ve relegated these roles to the “professionals”.

These three absolutely must be the strength of the church, the biblical evidence should be clear enough. I don’t exactly see them as “in tension” with one another, nor can I think of a good structure to explain why these three seem to be opposed to one another, but in some way at some level I think they are.

Naturally having a lot of one and less of the others can lead to abuse. A lot of charisma and not a lot of action / mind can lead to very subjective notions of truth, to a “pick and choose” theology that has no internal coherence, and can also lead to some of the more sensationalized styles of worship where there is lots of visual/auditory production that has strong emotional impact, but very little substance.

If you know me at all, you know that I am very much not Reformed theologically. There are several strengths to it, but I don’t feel that they capture all of the biblical themes in a balanced way. The danger of only having a developed mind can result in a “dead” spirituality where there is lots of understanding, but little spiritual / practical benefit. It can also lead to a very detached theology, where one’s understanding of scripture and God only stimulates the mind and has no real relation to reality, nor does it really affect change in people. Another danger is that an singularly developed mind might try to impose “grids” of thought to bring exact definition to concepts in scripture that are less defined (such as the triunity of God and the relationship of sovereignty and responsibility).

Finally, only having a developed action can lead to good work without purpose. The social Gospel is a prime example of this. Doing the work of the Gospel as divorced from the Gospel is certainly not a good thing. Praxis is not an end in itself: action is how we can be beacons of light to the world, living the Gospel and seeking God’s kingdom. It is very easy to loose sight of this without the balance of the other two.


I’m not sure if there are other models that this triad can fit over, but in the end I think all churches need to always be undergoing the process of examining ourselves and pursuing growth and strength in all three of these. With a lot of things, balance can be difficult to achieve, but when it is found, not only can one be healthier, but fruitfulness and a more holistic outlook and self can be achieved. In both the corporate body and our individual lives we must certainly glorify God in the areas we are strong at, but I think we also glorify God by pursuing him and pursuing growth in those other areas we are week in.

Read more...

Christmas

Tis the season for gift wrap, large adorned trees, long lines, green and red, nativity scenes, church plays, and spectacular displays of lighting genius. Children and Hollywood dream of Santa Claus in many different renditions, Parents sneak away to hide presents, and people stand under mistletoe expectantly. For many Christmas has been special since childhood. It’s not just about receiving nice shinny new toys, but giving to others and good will. Even though we live in southern California most of us can appreciate the beauty and warmth of a white Christmas. Christmas is a time of beauty, anticipation, rejoicing, and time to share love with those around you.

But with so many positive symbols and feelings associated with this glorious holiday, we often can forget the true meaning of Christmas. We easily get buried in all the icing, and forget about the substance, the reality, the truth about why we are celebrating. Even for Christians, we sometimes get caught up in these “myths” about Christmas, and lose sight of the true real meaning of Christmas. As we prepare to celebrate this glorious holiday season, it is important to focus our attention on the truth of Christmas, and not just on the symbols and traditions that we are surrounded with. So what are some of our “myths” about Christmas?



1) The first myth is also one of the most popular symbols of Christmas in the western world: Santa Claus. It is doubtful that many adults would attribute the true meaning of Christmas to the fairy tale of Santa Claus, but he certainly does occupy the majority of our culture’s attention during Christmas. But was there a real Santa Clause? Or is it entirely myth?

Most likely, the story of Santa Claus begins with a famous Bishop of Asia Minor in the 4th century. St. Nicholas was widely renowned for his generosity and good works, for his kindness especially to the poor and children. As the stories about St. Nicholas passed through the ages, many churches were dedicated to his memory, and he became known in the western churches as the patron saint of children.

Although the stories surrounding St. Nicholas did develop some of their own mythology, (such as his ability to work miracles), the contemporary image of Santa Claus most likely began with the famous poet Clement Moore, who penned the classic work “Visit from St. Nicholas” (“Twas’ the night before Christmas”) in 1822. This began the mythos of Santa Claus, his reindeer, and his twinkling eye. This image was further developed in 1863 by the cartoonist Thomas Nast.
We can certainly see how the traditions of Santa Claus and St. Nicholas are rooted in the celebration of generosity and kindness. Unfortunately the popular conception has distorted this into “being good” in order to receive gifts that meet our wildest dreams. St. Nicholas was about giving, Santa Claus is about receiving.


2) In a similar vein, the second myth is that Christmas is that it is all about presents. This myth is all too commonplace, after all the Christmas season is the favorite of retail markets. The pressure can be overwhelming to find the right present for those special to you, especially worse for those who procrastinate till the night before. So much of what we focus on is about the gifts given, but what is the story behind this tradition?

The practice of gift giving certainly has its roots in the traditions of St. Nicholas, who’s generosity included giving gifts to children. The practice itself probably originated in the 15th century, and was commonly practiced by the end of the 18th century. A theological basis for gift giving is the reminder of God’s greatest gift of his son. There is also a possible allusion to the Magi who brought gifts from the east to Jesus’ birth.

One of the reasons the Puritans were opposed to celebrating Christmas was because gift giving tended to make Christmas more of a secular holiday about friends and family instead of about celebrating the birth of Christ. While protesting the celebration of Christmas is an extreme reaction, their critique is certainly deserving. In our materialistic culture, Christmas (or “the holidays”) is entirely about purchasing lots of gifts for others, and receiving lots of new “toys”.


3) Third, Christmas is full of traditions and symbols. But what is the origin of Christmas? Why do we celebrate on the 25th? Despite the limited data available in Scripture, early Christians chose to celebrate it on December 25th as early as the 3rd century.

One theory is that it was chosen to correspond with the Roman celebration of the winter solstice: “day of the birth of the unconquered sun”. This Roman festival celebrated the rebirth of the sun, as the sun reverses its southward movement, proving that it is “unconquered”. The reason early Christians would have chosen this date is the parallels with the significance of Christ:

"O, how wonderfully acted Providence that on that day on which that Sun was born...Christ should be born" -Cyprian.
"They call it the 'Birthday of the Unconquered'. Who indeed is so unconquered as Our Lord...?"
-John Chrysostom.


A second theory is based on the early Christian association of the spring equinox with the date of creation. On the fourth day of creation God created light, and some early Christians possibly derived from this that Jesus was conceived four days after the spring equinox, on March 25. Consequently, he would have been born 9 months later on Dec. 25. Despite the ambiguity of the actual day of Jesus’ birth, the early Church chose to celebrate his birth on December 25 as an alternative to the pagan celebrations of the new sun: as a profound affirmation of the birth of the son who would bring light to the world.


4) Finally, what were the circumstances surrounding Jesus’ birth? Luke gives us the most vivid account. Mary and Joseph went to Bethlehem for the infamous census. Bethlehem was Joseph’s home town, and being in the line of David he certainly would have had a lot of family there. Unlike the popular conception, they most likely did not stay at an inn, but at a local family residence. Luke uses the term kataluma in 2:7, which more often refers to the place of lodging or dining area of a home, (such as in Luke 22:11, or Mark 14, note Luke’s use of a different term in 10:34 in the story of the good Samaritan).

Most Jewish homes at that time had two levels. People would sleep upstairs (usually the roof), whereas animals slept in the back of the lower level, (or a cave just outside). The image still evokes the humble circumstances of Jesus’ birth: Mary was in labor, but the upper area of the home was too full of relatives. The newborn Jesus was laid in a feeding trough in the back area of the lower level. These feeding trough’s were usually large hole’s dug in the ground.

----------------------------------

As Christians, the true meaning of Christmas is about Jesus Christ. But even though we celebrate such a profound truth for this holiday, it is very easy to get side tracked by all the festivities, purchases, and gatherings. It is important that we remind ourselves that Christmas is about celebrating the birth of our savior, the God-man Jesus who is the Messiah Christ that brings the peace of God. Peace is an important message, especially in an era of conflict and sin. Peace is the promised King bringing his kingdom of peace on earth. Peace is the promised Prophet coming to announce God’s intensions to save mankind from sin. Peace is the promised Priest coming to restore a broken relationship between God and humanity.

So this Christmas, let us not get caught up in the traditions and gifts. These are good things in their own right, but let us keep Jesus and his mission of peace at the center. Let us celebrate as a community God’s work of peace on earth through his son, the promised Messiah and author of peace, Jesus.

Read more...

Music Influences

Just been listening to some different styles of worship music today....

Worship genre has always been a bit of an issue for me... I rarely like most stuff musically. This poses a bit of a challenge being on a worship team. It certainly has forced me to grow in many ways....

For this blog I want to reflect on some of our "boundaries" in what is appropriate and inappropriate styles of music for corporate worship.


I think my biggest influence growing up (and even still) is much heavier music. Growing up I listened to a lot of grunge/alternative and some metal, and the last 10 years I've listened to a lot of prog rock. I've always wanted to bring this influence to worship, but have found very few opportunities because there is a lot of unspoken (and some spoken) opposition to this, especially in a church environment. (I'm certain ppl who like rap are in the same boat).

I've been listening to some Hillsong United today, (realizing that a lot of Biola's worship is from them) and I envy them... I can sense a clear influence of emo / indie styles, and can see how they've avoided falling strictly into those influences, but still utilizing them. I wish I could do this w/ my musical influences!

Its weird how we have these "traditions" of sorts of how we define boundaries for "acceptable" corporate worship styles... For more contemporary churches, the goal is something more like Hillsong, for more emerging churches, Hillsong United. I can respect qualities in both, but I'm not sure where these come from. I mean, why is it that almost everyone in the congregation reacts at a song that is pushing the edges of "acceptable", when certainly there is hardly consensus among their individual musical preferences? Where do these "notions" come from?

We could also try to define worship in a Biblical way first.... something like "music that stirs the body to a heart of reverential, authentic, fearful, and submissive worship of God as a community". (This is very much shooting from the hip). But even with that sort of definition, we really aren't setting up any boundaries for genre.

I'm sure cultural values play a roll here, but even those are more ambiguous than some might at first think. For example, we could make the point that genre could be distracting. But I can speak from personal experience that if your desire is to worship God, you can get over it. In fact I've heard many times that people being exposed to worship music "outside of their comfort zone" was actually a growing experience. The first few times I was at a black gospel worship service, I was very uncomfortable and turned off. But as I started to develop an appreciation for it (both for the musical skill and the great passion that the music stirred), I've found it to be one of my favorite genres of worship music.

I think a good case can be made that one important boundary is the emotions that the music stirs up. Some genres naturally stir up anger, which really doesn't have a place in a corporate worship experience. Awe, love, praise, joy, humility, even sorrow all have a place I think, because these are all right responses to God. This doesn't necessarily exclude a genre of music as worship, but it definitely limits some genres more than others.

Another good boundary is the degree of performance. Prog rock is very technical music, and having a 10m long instrumental in the middle of a worship set may be stepping across the line of watching the musicians and worshiping God. But this certainly does not mean worship music must be simple: in fact, I've seen several examples of Latin, jazz, and gospel worship sets that were very technical, but still maintained a very real worshipful environment.

I can appreciate that another boundary for some is something that has the widest appeal, something that positively affects the greatest percentage of the body. The problem here is that, often this criteria only produces bland music. I also think that there is a good place for taking people a bit outside of their comfort zones. After all, if we only want to worship God corporately when we are comfortable, could this not reflect a similar attitude in our spiritual lives? I don't think there is a necessary correlation here, but definitely a point worthy of some reflection. After all, how many Sunday mornings are already uncomfortably bland and comfortable?

I'm not sure if I've really come up with any conclusions, more just rambled a lot in this blog.... but I think at the very least, as worship leaders we need to strive to pursue excellence. After all, we are attempting to lead part of God's church in the very important act of offering praise to Him. Music is a tool, a medium, and the worship that flows through it must come from a genuine heart of worship that is already present. This means we need to pursue authenticity in our own lives of worship, but also excellence in wielding the tool of music.

The reality is our culture is saturated with media in all forms, and perhaps that is the reason that we respond so half heartedly to "bland" worship. Its a delicate balance, because its important to teach a true biblical heart of worship, but also use music to stir people's emotions to a point of worship. I'm not entirely sure what this looks like, but I suspect that challenging some of our assumptions about worship music and challenging people's comfort zones (in moderation) can help, at least they've helped me. Certainly finding a place where we can express worship to God through a wide variety of music is a good thing too. God is the source of diversity in our creation, and I doubt that he ever planned for there to be only one, exclusive form of response in musical worship.

Read more...

Approaching Theological Difficulties

Good theology is a difficult endeavor. After all, it is the assimilation of inferences from occasioned documents, (not to mention the historical distance involved). The authors themselves make a lot of assumptions about the knowledge of their respective audiences. It is understandable then that there are several important “tensions” that arise in theology between the various emphasizes of authors.

Today, I want to reflect on thinking more seriously about these tensions in our formulation of theology.


One great and classic example is our doctrine of the Trinity. Scripture is strongly monotheistic, and there is little evidence that the early church saw themselves diverting from this core Jewish belief. Yet, in the New Testament there is a clear distinction between the members of the Godhead, both in their action and in how they relate to one another. Another good example is the relationship of Christ’s humanity and divinity. The church recognized these as tensions early on, (as can be seen by the numerous councils and debates). With such central definition about the nature of God, the church took great care to preserve both “poles” of such tensions. In fact, whenever a particular theology would loose sight of this balance, it was quickly refuted as heresy.

Despite the countless pages of thinking recorded on these questions, no real solution is ever offered. No theological grid is able to be imposed on the poles of the doctrine of the trinity. The truths of scripture are taken at face value, and using principles of logic and reason within the context of scripture, boundaries are placed around these truths. The only theological “structure” that works seems to be the one that doesn’t actually solve how God can be both three and one, but only defines as closely as possible the barriers around those two truths that scripture allows. This isn’t an elegant process, but it really is all we have to work on.

The reality is that most doctrines about the nature of God fall short, because a finite being is attempting to define the infinite. God is beyond our perceptible logic. This does not mean he defies logic, because I believe that our notion of reason and logic are derived from the existence of God. After all, God did choose to reveal himself through scripture so that we might at least taste the smallest portion of his infinite nature, certainly enough to know Him and worship Him.

But what bugs me is this whole methodology seems to fall apart when we approach the sovereignty vs. responsibility question. Instead of taking the truths of scripture and trying to zero in and build boundaries around those truths, we try to contort those truths into one of several structures. What should remain “mystery” is fitted into something that is thoroughly logical (to a finite mind). These aren’t arbitrary (though sometimes they seem to be), but rather start with one set of propositions in scripture (such as God’s sovereignty) and work outward.

The reality is that just like the modalist or the docetist, the Calvinist has to redefine freedom in order to preserve his notion of sovereignty. Freedom is more an illusion created in order to meet their interpretation of several key passages about God’s sovereignty. Likewise, the Arminian tries to follow an interpretation of several key passages about the consequences of man’s free choices, but often has little to say about God’s sovereignty, and certainly there is not always a clear distinction made between actualized responsibility and merit.

This is a bit of a different question than the nature of the trinity, because it is inherently personal. It defines our relationship with God, and has far reaching implications. The doctrine of the trinity or the nature of Christ, while very important to our faith, do not have such radical personal effects. They are abstracted, only insofar as they deal with God himself and not specifically us, (though certainly they can affect how we view God and how we approach him).

The problem is further complicated by the fact that a lot of the discussion concerning sovereignty vs. responsibility includes a lot of basic questions to humanity: what is the nature of freedom, i.e. do we really make free choices, and to what degree to outside causes influence us? Even questions such as purpose and existence come into play here.

Here is my thought: is it possible to discard a lot of these structures and instead approach the issue in a similar way to that of the trinity and the nature of Christ? Can we take at face value the fact that God is fully sovereign over creation, but humans remain responsible for their free choices? Carson made the point that any Bible believing Christian must be a compatibalist, and in one sense I agree. If we define compatibalism as that God’s sovereignty is compatible with human freedom then absolutely, (this is not the philosophical definition of compatibalism).

But is it possible to operate this way? Can we begin the same way we begin with the Trinity: take the “basic” assumption of sovereignty being compatible with responsibility (after all both are assumed in scripture) and proceed to narrow in on how scripture limits these two? As attractive as this sounds to me, I seriously wonder if this is even possible with the issue of sovereignty and responsibility for several reasons.

First, there is just so much history of thought influencing our categories. It seems many inherently fall into one of the two camps in their thinking, in how they approach God, and in how they read scripture. This issue affects so much of what we understand in scripture that it can be difficult (if not dangerous) to radically rework the whole system. Great care must be taken to evaluate our own presuppositions, but also to make sure we aren’t throwing out the proverbial baby with the bathwater.

Second, this is dealing with a question of degrees of emphasis, whereas the doctrine of the Trinity was usually polarizing (at least in my understanding of things). I am not certain if this distinction changes the methodology, but it is certainly worth noting.

Third, such a method would be very hard to teach. People need answers that are relatively straightforward, but this method ends up asking more questions and avoiding neat distinctions. This is the greatest appeal of the Calvinist system of theology: it is relatively comprehensive, and it is very neat and organized.

Finally, it might be easy to end up with no real theology, just a collection of unconnected propositions. In an age when logical coherence is already a low priority for most people, this might just foster another grab bag of theological ideas from which people can pick and choose as they please. The reality is that there is no such thing as a Calminian, because both systems have directly opposed propositions. I heard one professor say once he thought that some biblical writers were more Calvinist and others more Arminian. This certainly is attractive, that both systems in some way describe God, but it is also disturbing because it certainly redefines (if not undermines) our understanding of Scripture’s unity.

All these problems are important, but I still wonder if such a method could ever work. Certainly there are important questions that would have to be resolved for it to work, and it would take a lot of work to resolve the implications of any results. But I think what is most important is that in however we do our theology, we always allow scripture to refine us. If even a few verses clearly teach something outside of our theology, then we must rework things. After all, all scripture is inspired and authoritative, and whatever theology we come up with should do the best justice to all of it, not as much as our system allows.

Read more...