Article VII: Of the Church.
1] Also they teach that one holy Church is to continue forever. The Church is the congregation of saints, in which the Gospel is rightly taught and the Sacraments are rightly administered.
2] And to the true unity of the Church it is enough to agree concerning the doctrine of the Gospel and 3] the administration of the Sacraments. Nor is it necessary that human traditions, that is, rites or ceremonies, instituted by men, should be everywhere alike. 4] As Paul says: One faith, one Baptism, one God and Father of all, etc. Eph. 4, 5. 6.
I would remark this concerning the liturgical practices that fall under the category of human traditions: They can, to a greater or lesser degree, conform to and manifest the doctrine of the Gospel. Likewise they can be a more or less appropriate matrix for the sacramental ministry of the Church.
The question is what might be the standard of conformity and appropriateness? Von Balthasar writes, “The sacramental event ought to unfold visibly in as beautiful and worthy a form as possible.” (Exploration in Theology II: The Spouse of the Word) I would make a distinction here between aesthetic sensibilities and something I will term Christian beauty. Christian beauty is conformity to and harmony with the Glorious Word, for “we have beheld his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father.” (Jn 1:14) This harmonization, however, can and does take many forms just as there are many possible harmonies to one melody. This is because it is made manifest in aesthetic sensibilities which reflect the diversity of human sensibilities over time and space. Some historical traditions have been deemed worthier and more lasting than others – Gregorian chant, the Lutheran choral tradition (Bach, whose “Mass in B minor” is in my stereo as I write this, being the greatest exemplar), and Byzantine iconography come to mind. All three of these bear witness to that Christian Beauty mentioned above, but also the fact that true art has a transcendent value that appeals to a diversity of aesthetic sensibilities in different ways in and in different times.
Is the continual use of these forms of worship ironic? Yes and no. Yes because a proper appropriation of past is, as Clint indicated, one that goes beyond innocent traditionalism. Irony is characterized by an incongruity between what is expected or intended and what actually occurs. This incongruity is necessarily present in such a trans-temporal/trans-cultural experience. However, it is not ironic in the sense that the substantial conformity of the liturgical practice to the Word remains the same in our appropriation.
Traditionalism can be characterized by one of two contradictory perspectives concerning history; one is fundamentally static and the other, dynamic. The static position would appropriate a practice as hermetically sealed and wholesale – a form bequeathed from a Golden Age, in opposition to and superior to the present. Similarly, the static mindset might reject a liturgical practice as hopelessly dated and forever embedded in the past. The dynamic perspective would be more open to a dialogue with the past that involves a mindful/ironic appropriation of its forms of worship as a sign of unity and common goal. Unity in Christ is not simply a matter of the here and now, it involves the dynamic history of the Body of Christ, enlivened by the Spirit and directed eschatologically to communion with the Father. Liturgical appropriation of the past is a sign of the dynamism which characterizes the Church of our Lord. It is, as Clint wrote, “ancient-future” in scope and simultaneously a principle of the unity and diversity we enjoy in the Body.
Sunday, November 09, 2003
Friday, November 07, 2003
Shooting from the Hip
Below I'm reprinting the basic content of an e-mail I sent recently. It is very possible that my thoughts here are slapdash, but my suspicion is they are not, but represent the general direction of my thinking on the question of contemporary worship. I welcome all comments and critiques!
Very well said. Here's a quote I've been pondering that I think applies to
our decision about worship on Saturday evenings.
"The postmodern reply to the modern consists of recognizing that the past-
since it cannot really be destroyed, because its destruction leads to
silence- must be revisited; but with irony, not innocently."
Umberto Eco, postscript to The Name of the Rose
As a pastor trying to be true to the tradition while at the same time doing
something new in the present, I've been struggling with what is appropriate
to the gospel in terms of worship. I think Eco's quote holds much truth.
For example, it is probably an innocent move to simply say, "Well, the Roman
Rite prior to the 14th century was the perfect form of worship, so let's
just go back to that and appropriate it without any real changes." It is
also innocent, and somewhat Romantic, to say, "Well, we finally figured out
how the ancient church worshipped, generally, we put that in the LBW, so
let's just use that." But it is probably a modernist tendency- what you dub
the 60s phenomenon- to want to simply dump the past. A lot of
"contemporary" worship has tended to do that, to embrace the new for the
sake of the new without faithfully attending to the long history of faithful
worship in the church of Christ.
I'm not convinced that the blue worship book (the ELCA's supplemental worship book title With One Voice)is "in the box", for example.
It's very contemporary, because it tries to do multi-cultural worship, it
tries to embrace ecumenical worship styles, etc. Plus it's only eight years
old! I think any worship book that is only 8 years old can't yet be called
entrenched, yes? Lots of the songs we do that are praise songs are much
older and traditional than that! Seek Ye First is 40 years old, for
example. WOV is contemporary also in its tendency to not use Lutheran and
Trinitarian hymns. That's a radical break with the history of Christian
hymn singing. It isn't contemporary in the sense that it doesn't use praise
choruses (ala the Worship & Praise book), but that style of song, the praise
chorus, is very culturally limited. It's done in white boomer congregations
and not much elsewhere. WOV is also not contemporary in that it also
doesn't have much in the way of Hispanic or African-American music, which is
why our church more recently came out with worship materials for those
communities.
So, if we are going to be faithful in our worship, but also postmodern,
we'll need to eschew innocent appropriation of the past on the one hand, and
and destruction of the past on the other. The middle road, according to
Eco, is to revisit the past, but with irony. What would that mean?
For St. John's Lutheran Church, I think it would mean the following things.
1) Make our Saturday evening worship more multi-sensory. Lighting might
change throughout the service. We would use more candles, and per Gudie's
suggestion, for example, more incense, or other smells. Music would be
diverse in nature, and as participatory as possible, so that the band, the
congregation, and the pastor all sing together and do different actions.
There might be dance, or movement around the sanctuary.
2) The service would be faithfully laid back. I know a lot of people like
Saturday worship because it is less formal. I think you can have it be less
formal while at the same time remaining beautiful and liturgical, but that
would be hard to do. It would take a lot of thinking and work and planning
on the part of the worship team.
3) We would ironically appropriate ancient forms of liturgy. I think we
already do that by using Holden Evening Prayer. Vespers is an ancient form
of worship, but Haugen has made it accessible, singable, and beautiful for a
modern audience.
4) The sermons would be longer, not shorter, because in the post-modern
situation, like in the pre-modern situation, most of our congregation
members get their information and insight into the faith not by reading, but
rather by listening, and the sermon may be the main place where that
happens. The sermons would be more participatory, though, with people
actively bringing their Bibles, reading along, taking notes, etc.
5) We would continue the central things of the faith, the reading and
interpretation of scripture, communion, and baptism, because these are the
places and ways Christ has promised to be present for us, and not otherwise.
6) We would not let aesthetics divide us. Everybody has their opinions and
tastes re: music. If our aesthetics dictated whether we believed a worship
service was faithful and spiritually uplifting or not, we would be in
trouble. All of us (including myself, a liturgical snob who likes chant
more than praise choruses- including you, a 60s guy who likes folk music)
would attend worship not for the style, but because Christ has promised to
be there in His Word & Sacrament. We would always teach and lead worship in
this way, so that style does not trump substance, but rather become the
vehicle through which substance is communicated.
We could probably all add to the list. But I do believe that the new people
moving out to Oregon, the generation now coming to Dane County, is less like
the Boomer generation who helped build churches like Willow Creek, and are
actually more ancient-future in their faith, interested in a post-modern
appropriation of the tradition. In fact, Community Church of Joy, a church
that flourished during the Boomer boom, is now holding a conference on
Ancient-Future faith that presents some of these main ideas. This is the
direction I'd like to see our worship go at St. John's.
Below I'm reprinting the basic content of an e-mail I sent recently. It is very possible that my thoughts here are slapdash, but my suspicion is they are not, but represent the general direction of my thinking on the question of contemporary worship. I welcome all comments and critiques!
Very well said. Here's a quote I've been pondering that I think applies to
our decision about worship on Saturday evenings.
"The postmodern reply to the modern consists of recognizing that the past-
since it cannot really be destroyed, because its destruction leads to
silence- must be revisited; but with irony, not innocently."
Umberto Eco, postscript to The Name of the Rose
As a pastor trying to be true to the tradition while at the same time doing
something new in the present, I've been struggling with what is appropriate
to the gospel in terms of worship. I think Eco's quote holds much truth.
For example, it is probably an innocent move to simply say, "Well, the Roman
Rite prior to the 14th century was the perfect form of worship, so let's
just go back to that and appropriate it without any real changes." It is
also innocent, and somewhat Romantic, to say, "Well, we finally figured out
how the ancient church worshipped, generally, we put that in the LBW, so
let's just use that." But it is probably a modernist tendency- what you dub
the 60s phenomenon- to want to simply dump the past. A lot of
"contemporary" worship has tended to do that, to embrace the new for the
sake of the new without faithfully attending to the long history of faithful
worship in the church of Christ.
I'm not convinced that the blue worship book (the ELCA's supplemental worship book title With One Voice)is "in the box", for example.
It's very contemporary, because it tries to do multi-cultural worship, it
tries to embrace ecumenical worship styles, etc. Plus it's only eight years
old! I think any worship book that is only 8 years old can't yet be called
entrenched, yes? Lots of the songs we do that are praise songs are much
older and traditional than that! Seek Ye First is 40 years old, for
example. WOV is contemporary also in its tendency to not use Lutheran and
Trinitarian hymns. That's a radical break with the history of Christian
hymn singing. It isn't contemporary in the sense that it doesn't use praise
choruses (ala the Worship & Praise book), but that style of song, the praise
chorus, is very culturally limited. It's done in white boomer congregations
and not much elsewhere. WOV is also not contemporary in that it also
doesn't have much in the way of Hispanic or African-American music, which is
why our church more recently came out with worship materials for those
communities.
So, if we are going to be faithful in our worship, but also postmodern,
we'll need to eschew innocent appropriation of the past on the one hand, and
and destruction of the past on the other. The middle road, according to
Eco, is to revisit the past, but with irony. What would that mean?
For St. John's Lutheran Church, I think it would mean the following things.
1) Make our Saturday evening worship more multi-sensory. Lighting might
change throughout the service. We would use more candles, and per Gudie's
suggestion, for example, more incense, or other smells. Music would be
diverse in nature, and as participatory as possible, so that the band, the
congregation, and the pastor all sing together and do different actions.
There might be dance, or movement around the sanctuary.
2) The service would be faithfully laid back. I know a lot of people like
Saturday worship because it is less formal. I think you can have it be less
formal while at the same time remaining beautiful and liturgical, but that
would be hard to do. It would take a lot of thinking and work and planning
on the part of the worship team.
3) We would ironically appropriate ancient forms of liturgy. I think we
already do that by using Holden Evening Prayer. Vespers is an ancient form
of worship, but Haugen has made it accessible, singable, and beautiful for a
modern audience.
4) The sermons would be longer, not shorter, because in the post-modern
situation, like in the pre-modern situation, most of our congregation
members get their information and insight into the faith not by reading, but
rather by listening, and the sermon may be the main place where that
happens. The sermons would be more participatory, though, with people
actively bringing their Bibles, reading along, taking notes, etc.
5) We would continue the central things of the faith, the reading and
interpretation of scripture, communion, and baptism, because these are the
places and ways Christ has promised to be present for us, and not otherwise.
6) We would not let aesthetics divide us. Everybody has their opinions and
tastes re: music. If our aesthetics dictated whether we believed a worship
service was faithful and spiritually uplifting or not, we would be in
trouble. All of us (including myself, a liturgical snob who likes chant
more than praise choruses- including you, a 60s guy who likes folk music)
would attend worship not for the style, but because Christ has promised to
be there in His Word & Sacrament. We would always teach and lead worship in
this way, so that style does not trump substance, but rather become the
vehicle through which substance is communicated.
We could probably all add to the list. But I do believe that the new people
moving out to Oregon, the generation now coming to Dane County, is less like
the Boomer generation who helped build churches like Willow Creek, and are
actually more ancient-future in their faith, interested in a post-modern
appropriation of the tradition. In fact, Community Church of Joy, a church
that flourished during the Boomer boom, is now holding a conference on
Ancient-Future faith that presents some of these main ideas. This is the
direction I'd like to see our worship go at St. John's.
Friday, October 31, 2003
Article XXI: Of the Worship of the Saints.
Of the Worship of Saints they teach that the memory of saints
may be set before us, that we may follow their faith and good
works, according to our calling, as the Emperor may follow the
example of David in making war to drive away the Turk from his
country; For both are kings. But the Scripture teaches not the
invocation of saints or to ask help of saints, since it sets
before us the one Christ as the Mediator, Propitiation, High
Priest, and Intercessor. He is to be prayed to, and has
promised that He will hear our prayer; and this worship He
approves above all, to wit, that in all afflictions He be
called upon, 1 John 2, 1: If any man sin, we have an Advocate
with the Father, etc.
And this from Melanchthon's apology:
"Granting that the blessed Mary prays for the Church, does she receive souls in death, does she conquer death [the great power of Satan], does she quicken? What does Christ do if the blessed Mary does these things? Although she is most worthy of the most ample honors, nevertheless she does not wish to be made equal to Christ, but rather wishes us to consider and follow her example [the example of her faith and her humility]."
It seems clear that the emphasis is on saints as examples. Saints do not propitiate for us, for this is the proper work solely of Christ. Although they may pray for us, we are not to invoke them because there is no command to do so. The problem, in essence, is that invocation for the saints immediately becomes confusion with looking to them as intercessors.
Another related question though, is this- where are the blessed saints? Melanchthon grants that the blessed Mary prays for us, which is no small thing to find its way into our confessional documents. It certainly seems to put her in a different place before God than those who have entered into sleep and are awakened at the resurrection. But here again, M.'s allowance is for the sake of lifting up Mary as a saint, not as a mediator. Her proper work is not to do Christ's work, but to point to Christ, in all humility. Our belief in her praying for us is not related to mediation, but rather is a model of the faith, that which the saints do before God, which is they pray to and through the one who hears us, Jesus Christ.
This doctrine of the church lacks some of the conceptual coherence of other doctrines, but rightly, because we speak of those things we see by faith and not by sight. Nevertheless, we can claim these things, quotes from my good friend and confessor, Greg:
Death cannot separate a community that has at its center one who has death in His past.
Clint, you and I will spend an eternity together in Christ.
And finally, an emphasis for preaching this week, when we forget about death and its coming, we forget also the one who died for us.
For the one who conquered death has indeed died, only then to be raised by the Father.
Of the Worship of Saints they teach that the memory of saints
may be set before us, that we may follow their faith and good
works, according to our calling, as the Emperor may follow the
example of David in making war to drive away the Turk from his
country; For both are kings. But the Scripture teaches not the
invocation of saints or to ask help of saints, since it sets
before us the one Christ as the Mediator, Propitiation, High
Priest, and Intercessor. He is to be prayed to, and has
promised that He will hear our prayer; and this worship He
approves above all, to wit, that in all afflictions He be
called upon, 1 John 2, 1: If any man sin, we have an Advocate
with the Father, etc.
And this from Melanchthon's apology:
"Granting that the blessed Mary prays for the Church, does she receive souls in death, does she conquer death [the great power of Satan], does she quicken? What does Christ do if the blessed Mary does these things? Although she is most worthy of the most ample honors, nevertheless she does not wish to be made equal to Christ, but rather wishes us to consider and follow her example [the example of her faith and her humility]."
It seems clear that the emphasis is on saints as examples. Saints do not propitiate for us, for this is the proper work solely of Christ. Although they may pray for us, we are not to invoke them because there is no command to do so. The problem, in essence, is that invocation for the saints immediately becomes confusion with looking to them as intercessors.
Another related question though, is this- where are the blessed saints? Melanchthon grants that the blessed Mary prays for us, which is no small thing to find its way into our confessional documents. It certainly seems to put her in a different place before God than those who have entered into sleep and are awakened at the resurrection. But here again, M.'s allowance is for the sake of lifting up Mary as a saint, not as a mediator. Her proper work is not to do Christ's work, but to point to Christ, in all humility. Our belief in her praying for us is not related to mediation, but rather is a model of the faith, that which the saints do before God, which is they pray to and through the one who hears us, Jesus Christ.
This doctrine of the church lacks some of the conceptual coherence of other doctrines, but rightly, because we speak of those things we see by faith and not by sight. Nevertheless, we can claim these things, quotes from my good friend and confessor, Greg:
Death cannot separate a community that has at its center one who has death in His past.
Clint, you and I will spend an eternity together in Christ.
And finally, an emphasis for preaching this week, when we forget about death and its coming, we forget also the one who died for us.
For the one who conquered death has indeed died, only then to be raised by the Father.
Tuesday, October 07, 2003
[This exists as a comment to Clint's writing below; since I can post normally I thought I'd do that]
This fine paper, seen by this reader for the second time around (!), addresses many of the fundamental issues. However it lacks the following, which would augment the demand for the end to filioque:
1. Relations of origin. Persons in basic Eastern trinitarian theology are defined by whence they come. Thus the Son is so defined by being the Son of the Father and the Spirit likewise. This is a one way definition reflecting the majority report on the relationsihp between time and eternity. Filioque is part and parcel to this definition and does not, as Clint's essay suggests around the edges, view the Spirit's all together new role vis-a-vis the Father and Son. In other words, the action towards the other persons is not from eternity to eternity but from the eschatological life of the future of God. God has time and God has time as God the Spirit.
2. A one-sided objection to the filioque as an imposition on the East denies the truth it does have. Moltmann's formulation makes me unconfortable because it points to a way that the Son and the Spirit's eternal action is detached from the action and identity they have in time. In the biblical witness the Spirit is sent by Christ. Thus, there is no easy symmetrical order as Moltmann would wish. Rather, the diversity of actions and "sendings" should be respected. How could Moltmann understand the sending of the Spirit by the Son? Such an action in the economy does not correspond to an eternal action of God. After all, it is my convication that there is no divine being or action that is evangelically valuable (everything else is the hidden God) outside of the gospel action of the persons in the biblical witness and thereofre in history
Thus, even though the West's view is an innovation and should not have the sort of authority that the original creed does, the West's views should be valid local interpretation. Thus, the filioque is recognized and limited and expanded with thinking like Clint's view if my caveat is valid.
This fine paper, seen by this reader for the second time around (!), addresses many of the fundamental issues. However it lacks the following, which would augment the demand for the end to filioque:
1. Relations of origin. Persons in basic Eastern trinitarian theology are defined by whence they come. Thus the Son is so defined by being the Son of the Father and the Spirit likewise. This is a one way definition reflecting the majority report on the relationsihp between time and eternity. Filioque is part and parcel to this definition and does not, as Clint's essay suggests around the edges, view the Spirit's all together new role vis-a-vis the Father and Son. In other words, the action towards the other persons is not from eternity to eternity but from the eschatological life of the future of God. God has time and God has time as God the Spirit.
2. A one-sided objection to the filioque as an imposition on the East denies the truth it does have. Moltmann's formulation makes me unconfortable because it points to a way that the Son and the Spirit's eternal action is detached from the action and identity they have in time. In the biblical witness the Spirit is sent by Christ. Thus, there is no easy symmetrical order as Moltmann would wish. Rather, the diversity of actions and "sendings" should be respected. How could Moltmann understand the sending of the Spirit by the Son? Such an action in the economy does not correspond to an eternal action of God. After all, it is my convication that there is no divine being or action that is evangelically valuable (everything else is the hidden God) outside of the gospel action of the persons in the biblical witness and thereofre in history
Thus, even though the West's view is an innovation and should not have the sort of authority that the original creed does, the West's views should be valid local interpretation. Thus, the filioque is recognized and limited and expanded with thinking like Clint's view if my caveat is valid.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)