Most of the commentators here come from the stone age branch of traditionalism. They are traditional Christians… believing (and tiving) what has been called the old, strong religion. Now, we have considerable differences, but as we live in a fallen age the practical issues that exist around keeping a family together and holy mean that the Catholic housewife is talking with an Orthodox steel worker… and the reformed. Now, on some things, it does not matter. My congregation uses the lectionary, has candles, and sings modern songs. But the teaching is reformed and quite Scottish: we look at Iona as well as the auld Kirk.But as James MacDonald says, that is no reason for woolly thinking.
Candles and bells, paintings and sculpture, incense and chanting–great! Let’s bring back the best of all those offerings of worship, but let’s not confuse style and substance. According to Jesus it’s still truth that sets you free, not artistic expression. Wearing suits and ties is certainly not necessary and it can be contrived and unnatural, but wearing jeans and sandals is not a means to the revealed presence of Christ. John 14:21 teaches that obedience to the substance of Christ’s teaching brings His “manifest presence,” not forms–old or new. In most of these discussions we are simply inserting an ancient-dead form in place of a modern-dead one
Now this is the second attempt to do this. The hotel ISP destroyed the first draft at around 7 am when I tried to post it in Wellington, it’s now around 10 pm and I’m in Dunedin. What I want to look at a bit is the Hebrews text from today.
11And every priest stands day after day at his service, offering again and again the same sacrifices that can never take away sins. 12But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, “he sat down at the right hand of God,” 13and since then has been waiting “until his enemies would be made a footstool for his feet.” 14For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are sanctified. 15And the Holy Spirit also testifies to us, for after saying,
16“This is the covenant that I will make with them
after those days, says the Lord:
I will put my laws in their hearts,
and I will write them on their minds,”
17he also adds,
“I will remember their sins and their lawless deeds no more.”
18Where there is forgiveness of these, there is no longer any offering for sin.
19Therefore, my friends, since we have confidence to enter the sanctuary by the blood of Jesus, 20by the new and living way that he opened for us through the curtain (that is, through his flesh), 21and since we have a great priest over the house of God, 22let us approach with a true heart in full assurance of faith, with our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water. 23Let us hold fast to the confession of our hope without wavering, for he who has promised is faithful. 24And let us consider how to provoke one another to love and good deeds, 25not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another, and all the more as you see the Day approaching.
It is fairly obvious that there are three points I want to discuss.
Where there is forgiveness of these, there is no longer any offering for sin. My Catholic readers may wonder what the stumbling blocks are for the reformed in their doctrine. If I ignore the fact that I frequently praise God that he is not a canon lawyer, there are two big ones: the immaculate conception of Mary and transubstantiation. Jesus died once. for all. And he is our priest. There is no other, and since in him our sins are ablated there is no need for sacrifice. Now, the reformed do state clearly that communion is a sacrament by which we proclaim the death of Christ and his saving grace… which we do in obedience to him. But we use symbols. Now, although I have not highlighted the text, only Christ has been a perfect human. Mary, his mother, is to be honoured for her courage and her obedience, but she, like us all, sinned.
Let us hold fast to the confession of our hope without wavering. This is what I am afraid the emergents have lost. The gospel is not theatre, it is not technique, but it is the power of God. Here we can learn from the orthodox and catholic… hold onto that which is essential. Hold onto the creeds. The liturgical churches make you read set psalms and bible readings. The reformers did not… but there was a tradition of expository preaching through the bible. And then publishing polished notes as commentaries — that had been tested in real life. We need the bible proclaimed, not a commentary on the latest movie or magazine article.
And let us consider how to provoke one another to love and good deeds, 2not neglecting to meet together… Over the last few months I have blogged the lectionary… and occasionally snarled about other topics. That has led to arguments and discussions. All to the good. We need a Christian blogosphere that critiques not accommodates our society in cyberspace. But I still need to meet in real life, with a real congregation. Even though I hate, hate gathering with people and force myself to do it. Because there is something much more powerful and direct about being confronted by a brother… than a comment here.
In the end, we are supposed to be different; here and in the other aspects of our life.
Well-argued, Brendan; fair enough. I can now better see the appeal to Eastern Orthodox / Roman Catholics, of such things. I still don’t hold they’re necessary, but then, being Reformed, I would say that.
Actually, Chris, in my church tradition, we sing hymns as well as Psalms. But overall, yeah, we’re a bit more hardline than yours.
Pingback: Righteous acts, not nice words. | Dark Brightness
The issue is one that is general. Heck, my church uses candles and a school hall. But many churches are tolerating sin, particularly financial and sexual, among their leadership, and will not preach against cohabitation, or children out of wedlock, or divorce (allowing it reluctantly on but a few grounds).
Teaching on the ecology and social justice is much, much easier than looking at what is going on among the congregation.
Hi Brendan.
Grant comes from the same background as I do, and that is what is probably best described as the plain church. Neither of us have issues per se with the liturgical vestments and candles… but they are not needed. You can do it plain. Will is more hard line… he worships in the most plain reformed group who stick to the psalms… some without instruments.
This is where we need charity. My upbringing is within the low church Presbyterians (with choirs singing in Tongan one week and Samoan the next, but that is another issue). However, the one year I lived in Christchurch (which was two decades ago) I went to the closest church… which was St Micheal and All Angels (and fell in the earthquake and there I learnt to love the book of common prayer, tolerate incense, and love evensong.
Every church has a liturgy, but it may not be written down.
There are significant differences in content teste David cum Sybilla in the Dies Irae … how did the Pagan Sybillic Oracle get in (and yes, I know it was a medieval poem first). This is an area that I generally don’t touch, but it is an area where we need to really be the critics of our church.
And it is a reason that I remain in the reformed branch of the Presbyterians. We still adhere to the creeds, like all reformed groups do, and we need that plumb line. I have seen (as Grant alluded to) churches fall into error as their leaders pander to the spirit of the time, either with the prosperity gospel, the holiness movement, or a move to bring back a “spirituality” that would be seen as false by the mystics themselves.
Okay.
If we’re going to discuss this frankly, we need to be frank.
If candles are distracting, this can only be the result of a misinformed catechesis (not casting personal stones). Candles are “symbols” of Christ, as the prologue of John describes Christ as the light. From the very earliest times, Christians associated the light of a taper with Christ. From the Gospels and from the Apostles.
But more importantly and more broadly, candles and incense and music and vestments and wine and so on are simply the ever-present manifestation of the divine goodness in our lives. Christ became flesh, and in our baptisms, our flesh becomes the flesh of Christ, which we “put on”. This is not an intellectual endeavor, it is a holistic one. We glorify God in our bodies — with our noses, our eyes, our ears, our tongues — Oh taste and see the goodness of our Lord. These are not “reminders” of God, they are the experience of God’s love and grace in our own flesh, justified and sanctified (I am stretching here in trying to express this in some kind of way that fits into Knoxist/Calvinist terms) in our flesh — in the perfume and fragrance of God, in His taste in sanctified wine, in the beauty of his light. It is all worship, and if it is distracting, then your worship is frankly too un-physical.
Note that I am being restrained here, and dealing “only” with liturgics (although as an Orthodox, litgurgics are never “merely” litgurgics) and leaving aside the intra-Western debates about the IC and so on.
Hi Chris,
I think we probably agree that there is a distinction between truth, which is permanent, and cultural expression and practice, which changes. Jeans, suits, kilts, dresses, trouser suits etc are not important per se. But why should we assume that “emerging” churches are missing that point? My guess is that some do and some don’t.
Some will abandon truth and probably disappear pretty quickly. I am reminded of a quote I read many years about Student Christian Mission in the early 20th century – they started by building bridges to various popular movements of their time (Marxism, Modernism etc) and then they crossed over them
. There is little future being a mere half-way house for people exiting or recovering from fundamentalist/evangelical/pentecostal churches.
But other emerging churches will not make that mistake. And maybe we can learn from them.
All the best, Grant
Greetings from Wellington. Just wondering which emerging churches in NZ you are referring to.
we use candles a bit but more because fluros are so hard on the eyes. i spose they look better also.
Agreed that we won’t change each others mind will stop trying.
Although commenter ray takes it to absurd almost pagan levels by saying Mary didn’t do the will of the Father, she had perfect obedience at tremendous cost what an ingrate.
from ray
“not only is she not the Queen of Heaven, she wont rise “first in Christ” — as jesus stated, thatll be for those who, like himself, do the will of his Father”
You are over reading the issue of the Ark. The incarnation meant that God would get dirty, be exposed to evil… and redeem us. As Will says, I’m reformed…. and this has been hashed over for years. The big issue is that almost all the churches have been over influenced by apostates… (not always at the top: poor Ratenburger has a huge problem with church discipline at the moment).
And when we have dealt with that, and established the essentials we can discuss areas where we don’t agree.
Immaculate Conception seems easy why would a God who can not stand the presence of sin be born of a sinner.
to show
1. humility before his father
2. his power to overcome ALL of the world, including the mortal stain of his birth to a normal, worldly, flawed human female (who like all females was created from man, not from the breath of God)
How could the Arc of the New Covenant be delivered by sin into sin. The bible makes it clear God chooses not to dwell with sinners for eternity why would he want to be inside one for 9 months?
humility
unsurprising that modern people cant understand this, everybody already knows everything
Mary isnt the Ark of the Covenant, nor the Redemptrix, nor the Mediatrix, nor the Trix Rabbit
Mary was a sinner who is now dead (and quite unable to hear prayers! lol)
not only is she not the Queen of Heaven, she wont rise “first in Christ” — as jesus stated, thatll be for those who, like himself, do the will of his Father
“The bible makes it clear God chooses not to dwell with sinners for eternity why would he want to be inside one for 9 months?”
Nine months is a lot shorter than eternity, dude. Not a good argument; surely you can do better…
“Jesus saying this is my body this is my blood not this is a representation of my blood.”
Saying this, while He was standing before them, in the flesh, and while they partook together, while He was still whole, not sacrificed yet, in the flesh. Seems fairly clearly a metaphor; at least, to non-Lutheran Protestants… Otherwise He would be saying that, while He was amongst them there, speaking, holding up the bread and wine, that He was holding up his very own flesh and blood in His hands, even before He had been sacrificed. Now, of course, He has not only been sacrificed, but resurrected. We Protestants take the meaning of His words now the same as we did when He was still delivering that message before His followers at that time.
Like I said, MK, we Reformed have thought this out as well as you have; we’ve just arrived at different conclusions. I don’t think we’ll convince you, nor will you convince us.
I used to hate incense as a kid due to allergies but believe its place in worship is due to things in the Psalms about it being pleasing to God. It is an ancient tradition and a nice bridge to the old testament. Incense are mentioned in several Psalms including Psalm 141.2 Is it absolutely required? Probably not. Is it a nice symbolic tie to the Old Testament yes.
Immaculate Conception seems easy why would a God who can not stand the presence of sin be born of a sinner. How could the Arc of the New Covenant be delivered by sin into sin. The bible makes it clear God chooses not to dwell with sinners for eternity why would he want to be inside one for 9 months?
Transubstantiation is interesting probably not even a lot of “Catholics” understand or believe it so that is a sad state of affairs for the Church. Its a mystery and like all mysteries tough to satisfactorily explain. Since thats not an acceptable defense of it the defense would be based on the biblical references of:
1. Jesus saying he will be with us always even til the end of the age (this is through the Holy Spirit but also most deeply during Communion)
2. Jesus saying this is my body this is my blood not this is a representation of my blood. The wording is quite clear and was quite clear to the Jews who heard it. Many left because of the words but he did not correct them or beg them to stay if they did not want to accept his teachings that was their right.
3. The last supper tied to #2 where Jesus said do this in remembrance of me.
All three of these together build a pretty strong case plus that was the tradition/belief of the apostles and the early church. When in doubt stick with the ancient traditions since they sat at Christ’s feet.
Good post, Chris.
I have often wondered why the Reformers felt the need to change almost everything about the worship service; e.g. I see nothing wrong with set readings and Psalm recitings, as long as one does so with proper exposition of each text, so that it’s not done blindly, meaninglessly (is that a word?).
I’m not sure I see the need for candles, though, or incense, or the like; why create an artificial atmosphere of mystery? We know our prayers ascend to heaven through Christ, not aided by such things… At best, they are a distraction, far as I can see.