Showing posts with label expression. Show all posts
Showing posts with label expression. Show all posts

Sunday, March 23, 2008

A Good Bit of Ceremony

Last night I had the immense privilege of going to the Easter Vigil service at the local cathedral.

I really enjoyed it - it was a great service. Lots of incense and robes and powerful liturgy and a sermon that taught Scriptural truths well, and at the heart of it all the great affirmation that Christ is Risen! (He is risen indeed, Hallelujah!)

And the fact I thought it was such a good service got me thinking again about the role of ceremony and so on. Normally, I prefer a fairly light liturgy; none of the churches I usually frequent uses robes very often, and I think if we have that sort of thing every week it is easy to get distracted from Jesus and from being forced to confront the truth for oneself by the ceremony. But ceremony can work very well on occasion, particularly when done on special occasions.

It's easy for evangelicals to reject all the ceremony, but we often overargue our case and end up seeming to say that the physical world doesn't matter and all that matters is feeding brains in jars with more information about God. (I'm a conservative evangelical - I'm allowed to say things like that about conservative evangelicals). But it isn't. We're human beings, with bodies and senses and minds that are not as rational as modernism likes to think they are.

So time for an Easter quote from Richard Hooker:

The end which is aimed at in setting down the outward form of all religious actions is the edification of the church. Now men are edified when either their understanding is taught somewhat whereof in such actions it behoveth all men to consider or when their hearts are moved with any affection suitable thereunto; when their minds are in any sort stirred up unto that reverence, devotion, attention and due regard which in those cases seemeth requisite. Because therefore unto this purpose not only speech but also sundry sensible means besides have always been thought necessary and especially those means which being object to the eye, the liveliest and most apprehensive sense of all other, have in that respect seemed the fittest to make a deep and a strong impression...

Friday, August 17, 2007

Martyn Lloyd-Jones on Joy

My general impression is that most of our services are terribly depressing. I'm amazed that people still go to church. Most who go are female and over the age of forty. The note missing is this joy in the Holy Ghost. There is nothing in these services to make a stranger feel he is missing something by not being there. The main trouble with evangelicalism today is its lack of power. What do our people know of joy in the Holy Ghost? Without this joy in the Holy Ghost the situation in this country is hopeless.
Dr Martyn Lloyd-Jones, cited in Greg Haslam, Preach the Word

Friday, February 23, 2007

Annoying Songs

One of the songs I least like singing in church can be found here. I'm ok with the first two sections, but the third one is very distracting...

Oh, I feel like dancing -
it's foolishness I know;
but, when the world has seen the light,
they will dance with joy,
like we're dancing now.

(from Over the mountains and the sea (I could sing of your love forever) by Martin Smith)

*stops*

*looks round*

*realises that actually no-one is dancing, even when it's in a fairly charismatic church*

*realises that what people are singing is actually therefore "when the world has seen the light, they will be so overjoyed that they won't be dancing at all*

*doesn't agree with that sentiment*

*decides not to sing*

*tries not to laugh at all the silly people*

*wonders why either they are singing something they so blatantly don't mean or why they aren't at least trying to dance with joy at that point*

Monday, February 05, 2007

Songs in Church

There seem to be two main schools of thought as regards songs in church, and two things people are fussy about.

The first is theological soundness. This is something I am very fussy about. I find it very distracting when I realise I don't agree with what I'm meant to be singing. For example, on Sunday I was subjected to this offering:

Gonna shout out loud,
Gonna deafen the crowd,
Gonna send my praise to heaven.
...
When you’ve got such a lot,
When you’ve got not a lot,
What?
Be happy!
from "I'm gonna jump up and down (Be happy)" by Doug Horley

I couldn't escape the implications that:

  1. singing louder means it's more likely that God will listen to you (which kind of goes against what Jesus says)
  2. it's important to be happy in every situation (rather than joyful even through the tears, which is very different)

The second thing people tend to look for is legitimate emotional expression - the singing should be joyful when it's praising God, sorrowful when lamenting our sin, etc. I find it distracting when they get this wrong too, but nowhere near as distracting as with the soundness.

Sad to say, people in charge of singing seem to come in two categories as well. The type who are very good about soundness and don't care about the tunes or the emotion and the kind who are good with the tunes and emotion but aren't fussy about the lyrics. Both are necessary.

Sunday, December 03, 2006

British Culture

Imagine two quite different people meeting. Maybe one of them is a bit taller than the other, and the other a little heavier. But their facial features look similar, although they use them differently. Maybe they were twins, separated at birth and brought up in very different families. One of them might be a public school university educated respectable middle class person (and there are plenty of them round here), and another person might be a dissillusioned state-school educated (but left at 16) working class person who has difficulty holding down a job. Neither of those people has necessarily consciously chosen to be the way they are, and they'd probably disagree on many things simply because of background. Both might well be able to give a partial critique of the other person's culture - whether pointing out one person's arrogance or the other's lack of aspirations, but both would find it hard to give a good critique of their own.

Most cultures have at least some good aspects in. Many of the aspects of most cultures are fairly neutral. Most cultures also have some bad aspects, and it's often difficult to point those out, either because we share them, or because we'd risk being accused of arrogant racism if we did. For example, some aspects of working class Afro-Caribbean culture in the UK are good and commendable. It also is notorious in educational circles for being frequently strongly anti-intellectual with boys, which leads to very poor grades for pupils in that group. This is widely recognised among educationalists, but they are afraid to say so openly because it goes against the idea of multiculturalism and so the problem sadly goes unaddressed.

What I'm going to try and do here is to criticise some aspects of my own (white, heavily educated, fairly traditional, middle class) culture which I think are bad, as measured against the Bible.

1. Intellectual Arrogance

We tend to place a high value on intellectual achievement and education, which is good. However, that sometimes spills over into valuing the intellectual achievers and the educated more than those who are not - those who conform to our stereotype of a successful person more than those who conform to a homeless Jewish manual labourer.

Of course, the Bible does tend to suggest that while God loves everyone, he especially values and cares about the poor and the weak, and that he uses those who seem foolish to humble the wise.

[God's] mercy extends to those who fear him,
from generation to generation.
He has performed mighty deeds with his arm;
he has scattered those who are proud in their inmost thoughts.
He has brought down rulers from their thrones
but has lifted up the humble.
He has filled the hungry with good things
but has sent the rich away empty.
Luke 1:50-53, NIV

2. Emotional Detachment

We tend to follow the Stoics in thinking that

self-control, fortitude and detachment from distracting emotions, sometimes interpreted as an indifference to pleasure or pain, allows one to become a clear thinker, level-headed and unbiased.
Wikipedia, Stoicism

Yes, self-control, fortitude and the ability to keep going however bad the situation is are important and valuable skills. But emotional detachment is not a price worth paying for it. Emotional detachability, quite possibly. In some ways we remind me of Michal daughter of Saul in 2 Samuel 6

So David went down and brought up the ark of God from the house of Obed-Edom to the City of David with rejoicing. When those who were carrying the ark of the LORD had taken six steps, he sacrificed a bull and a fattened calf. David, wearing a linen ephod, danced before the LORD with all his might, while he and the entire house of Israel brought up the ark of the LORD with shouts and the sound of trumpets.

As the ark of the LORD was entering the City of David, Michal daughter of Saul watched from a window. And when she saw King David leaping and dancing before the LORD, she despised him in her heart.

2 Samuel 6:12-16, NIV

Not only do we detach ourselves from our emotions too much, we teach others to do so too. Those who are reading who are from similar backgrounds to me, how often do we look down on little children dancing in church? How often do we expect or require that when people grow up, they lose their exuberant enthusiasm for Christ (or indeed for anything else)?

In many African cultures, they don't seem to discourage dancing (as just one example) at all. Are those cultures less healthy for that? No.

Even Paul wrote

Never be lacking in zeal, but keep your spiritual fervour, serving the Lord.
Romans 12:11, NIV

Quick application to the whole question of musical styles. If our musical styles don't allow the kind of expression of passion that David showed, then they're probably being unhelpful. Are we keeping our spiritual fervour? Are we allowing and encouraging others to do the same?

3. Pharisaism

Closely linked to this is the whole area of Pharisaism, both in making and in keeping rules.

Here's a (heavily adapted) version of some of Matthew 23. In the original, it was Jesus speaking about the Pharisees. Here, I've made it more of a personal corporate confession.

So much of what we do is done for men to see: We make our Bibles large and our public prayers long; we love people to think that we are intelligent and know our Bibles well; we love to be greeted at church and on the street and to have people respect us.

When it comes down to it, we recognise that we only have one Master and are all brothers, we know that we all only have one spiritual Father - and he's in heaven. Likewise, there's only one who is really qualified to teach the truth about God. It's not us; it's Jesus. We know that the greatest among us is the one who is the servant. For whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted. But we don't live like that.

We shut the kingdom of heaven in men's faces. We ourselves do not enter, nor will we let those enter who are trying to because we expect them to become like us before they become like God.

Even if we travel over land and sea to win a single convert, when he becomes one, we make him twice as much a son of hell as we are.

We elevate trivial issues like styles of music to top priority, while completely ignoring the whole purpose of music - to praise God with everything that we are.

We make sure not to fiddle our tax returns, yet we completely ignore the whole idea of giving ourselves completely over to God. We give to Caesar what is Caesar's, but we try holding onto what is God's. We should have done both, but we only bothered to do the less important one.

We make a huge effort to look respectable to other people on the outside, but inside we are sinful, compromised and failing. What hypocrites we are, what whitewashed tombs! We look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of dead men's bones and everything unclean. In the same way, on the outside we appear to people as righteous but on the inside you are full of hypocrisy and wickedness, which we often don't even admit to ourselves.

We respect and honour great Christians who have gone before, without realising that if they were here today, they would slate us for our materialistic, arrogant, passionless, unloving, worldly pretence at faith. We fail to see that it was people just like us who opposed the great Christians of the past, who crucified and murdered Jesus. How on earth do we think we can escape?

And yet, we recognise that you still love us, that you still long to gather us together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but all too often we are not willing.

May God open our eyes and turn our hearts back to him!

Monday, September 25, 2006

Singing

One of the distinctive things Christians seem to do a lot is singing. Yesterday, I went to two churches with two very different approaches to singing.

Why Sing?

Because the Bible tells us to:

Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly as you teach and admonish one another with all wisdom, and as you sing psalms, hymns and spiritual songs with gratitude in your hearts to God.
Colossians 3:16

Because singing expresses joy in a way that words without singing don't seem able to:

Come, let us sing for joy to the LORD; let us shout aloud to the Rock of our salvation.
Psalm 95:1, NIV

All the lands are at rest and at peace; they break into singing.
Isaiah 14:7, NIV

Sing, O Daughter of Zion; shout aloud, O Israel! Be glad and rejoice with all your heart, O Daughter of Jerusalem!
Zephaniah 3:14, NIV

Because it is a good and pleasant thing to do:

Praise the LORD, for the LORD is good;
sing praise to his name, for that is pleasant.
Psalm 135:3, NIV

Praise the LORD.
How good it is to sing praises to our God,
how pleasant and fitting to praise him!
Psalm 147:1, NIV

So basically, the point of singing is largely to express gratitude and joy at our relationship with Jesus.

Now when I think about the way that singing has often been done in churches I've been to, I find that it doesn't seem aimed to do that at all. The "hymn sandwich" model (hymn then something else then hymn, then something else, etc) seems designed to express a bit of joy, then get on with something else, then express a bit more joy, as if it was somehow wrong to express lots and lots of joy and actually get excited about Jesus as we express our joy in him.

And don't even get me started about hymn singing in school - I'm still not sure what the point of that is. Why should people who don't have a relationship with Jesus be excited about it?

Now I think there are things we've still got to be careful of. We've got to be careful that we don't sing stuff that isn't true or that we don't believe, coz we don't want to be hypocrites any more than we already are; we should be careful that everything is done in an ordered way rather than chaotically.

However, I think it's important that if we're singing to express joy, then we should express joy in our singing - in the way that we sing, in what we sing, in the way that we put songs together. And the way that people work, it seems that it's somehow easier to express more joy by singing for 10 mins at once than it is for singing for two chunks of 5 mins with a 5 minute break in between to sit down in silence and listen to some boring notices.

Just a thought...