I resolve to treat Asian people as persons from now on.
It was really nice to have Lynton stay Friday Saturday.
I read the first four chapters of Michael King’s Penguin History of New Zealand in my brother James’ bed. So far, it is very excellent.
I think I might attempt to engage the author of the recent Faith in Focus article on twice-a-Sunday church attendance in dialogue.
34 responses to “”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
why and how did you used to treat asians?
I forget, I am a new creation, the old has passed away.
What’s horrible about the Faith and Focus article, Matt?
History of New Zealand penguins? BORING
Matt, glad to hear that you are a new creation, did not release that reformatting the hard drive and/or amnesia was a part of regeneration. I assume you have written to the editor of FinF expressing your distaste for the article about coming to church twice, hopefully you have included a fuller critique than you have posted here. ;-)
Ha.
Haven’t written. Am considering writing to the author. Possibly our perspectives are too far apart to produce useful synthesis.
Have you read said article?
Was really nice to spend Friday night with you
Matthew, I have made a start on the article. We sang the part of Psalm 94 that is misquoted by the WCF fellow in the article. In the psalm we have a beautiful statement of Gods faithfulness, am reminded of theomorphism, made me glad I was in church. Did not occur to me that the passage could be turned into a rule. Paul does exhort Timothy, did not occur to me that an exhortation to a preacher implies a directive to church members. Not sure I will have the time to read further, you are to be commended for your saintly perserverance.
Mwahaha “saintly perserverance”.
I think there is a big theme in the Bible of prophets getting angry at God’s people for being chuffed with themselves for having the solemn assemblies all sorted out nicely, but neglecting/oppressing the poor etc in the rest of the week. The author in my view makes second-service-attendance a magic bullet in a way foreign to scripture.
What is it that you like about King’s book?
Matt, you are right about the solemn assemblies theme in scripture. What I find really hard though, is that our Lord wants us to do the solemn asemblies as well as the social justice, it is not a binary issue or dichotomy for Him, note well the last phrase in this quote from Matthew. “Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin , and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.
Amen to #11, Hans. Our solemn assemblies should be encapsulations and symbolic expressions of the judgment, mercy, and faith we have and do as the body during the 6 days. True worship, then, is not the rule-bound ‘sacred’ half of the sacred-profane dualism, but the summary of all of life given in response to God’s faithfulness.
The problem many of us have with ‘church worship’ – the problem that Mr. Milne does nothing to address and everything to perpetuate – is that our sunday services seem alienated from the rest of life. They don’t express anything that we actually do.
Even Lord’s Supper is this extremely odd, infrequent solemn ritual with tokens that aren’t a meal and people whose lives we know nothing about during the week – much less those with whom we ordinarily break bread or with whom we have actually become, in daily life, God’s new version of humanity.
This is why worship tends to become either an intellectual exercise for the ‘fundamentalists’ or a desire to feel emotionally uplifted for the ‘evengelicals’. We’ve lost the heart of it, rooted in the life-changing exercise of judgment, mercy and faith during the week.
amen, aaron.
Now, are you going to tell Mr Milne that?
if he asks
but seriously…I’m not sure. It’s possible that I will make an attempt. But I’m aware that (1) I’ve only got so much time, (2) it’s unlikely I’ll be able to communicate with him effectively, (3) the best way to counteract his views is not to argue with him in private, but to present better views in another, more widely-read forum – such as this blog. Perhaps someone who knows Rev. Milne will point him to this discussion of his article.
Aaron, I am not sure that Mr Milne would see worship as the sacred half of a sacred/profane dualism and I am confident that he would be surprised that he is alienating worship from real life. I really like the first sentence of post #12. I also like your last paragraph showing the extremes of dysfunctional worship. Where to from here? Expand on what worship should be, God seeks worshippers, I know of no other object of His seeking so worship in all its aspects ought to be central to our lives, individually and corporately. LS reform would be good, detailed work needed, this prolly not the forum. I think that some type of feedback to Mr Milne would be good for all concerned, we are people, not abstract propositions, unless you are John Robbins.
Hans, I feel like a boy still learning what to think, and how to express it. For me, that’s what blogging is about. But if Wellington were so foolish as to give me the task of elder, I might feel a sense of appointment to speak about worship with Rev. Milne. I might also feel it my place to gather and direct the young men thinking about these things, knowing that I had the ability to explore and perhaps effect the changes they speak of at the local level. In other words, I would be the one to ‘go from here’.
But as one of those young men, I feel very out-of-place being called to the front line, as it were – to go from here. I feel the need to defer to those whose task it is to lead. Strange as that may sound. ;)
The part I can play is to discuss these things with my peers and elders – hopefully gaining wisdom for my own future responsibility as elder. As such, I have on my list of ‘things to do’ a series of studies on ‘Preparation for Worship’ – by which I mean the activities and attitudes of the 6 days that find ritualised expression on the 7th.
I suspect this sounds either terse or pompous or both. I don’t mean it!
!!Terse pomposity is an interesting concept! Aaron, you and Matt have offered critiques of many things, which I think is great. I have been concerned at times to ask “and then?” because it seems that we have a duty to grow and progress. The tone, tenor and purpose of criticism is crucial to the determination of outcome. I hope and pray for growth and strength for us as a body of believers. Most of the contributors to this blog will be an integral part of that fellowship. Aaron, you mention reluctance to be called to the front line, we are by definition at the front line, called there not by grumpy ex-elders but by our Lord and Saviour. I suppose we need to reflect on what is being engaged at that front line. There are a range of front-line activities that we can pick, which of them will give most glory to God and most help to our covenant communities? We are called to live and serve, preparation time is short, needs are great.
Az, Hans – maybe we could invite Mr Milne to dinner/drinks sometime with a view to talk about these things.
Now that sounds like a good idea Matt. Hans, while discipline is unpleasant at the time… ;) your examination of tone, tenor and purpose is molding us, I’m pretty sure.
Deb: I aim to post some impressions of the History of NZ when I get a chance to steal it back from Dad/Richard.
Matt/Az/Hans:
Maybe when Mr. Milne gets out of hospital you can bag him for his article.
thus literally adding insult to injury.
Read a good two part article in FinF on new perspective, also read an interesting one on the arts that was topical and balanced. Often find it a little bland and miss letters to the editor, but don’t think it is a lost cause. Haven’t picked up the latest edition with article on second service attendance, but expect it will be better than comparable articles in the Trowel and Sword (for which the sword disappeared a long time ago, and the trowel is blunt and rusty). Just be thankful we don’t have something of that toilet-paper grade caliber.
Commend the idea of some new writings (as suggested by Aaron on his blog) but don’t like the reactionary context in which it has been suggested and the distinct loathing of any peer or authority review before publication.
Richard: I don’t get it.
Richard, I am am unsure where I have bagged Mr Milne. What is the hospital connection with him?
Here is an idea, you could use this blog to disseminate useful information……..
John – cheers for your comments; it’s true that not all in FiF is useless. I found it hard to appreciate Michael Flinn’s paper on the NP, mainly because I’d heard it when originally given and (despite being very fairly presentated) it hadn’t improved to the point where he argued for the assumptions he was making to form his rebuttal. However, I did recommend Don Capil’s recent article on the arts to someone.
I’m at a complete loss to know where you got the idea that we loath peer or authority review for new writings. Before I deleted it as superfluous, I had an additional comment on #21 to the effect that we need exactly that. But even what I left in the comment is enough to deny your assertion – which I think is grossly unfair.
Actually John, the more I think about it the more ridiculous your comment appears. How do you suppose we were going to get an insert put in Wellington’s bulletin? Guerrilla tactics on Saturday night?
sorry with brevity comes lack of understanding, and probably also from me reading things and then doing a post at a later time.
Your insert in bulletin idea (good idea) was discussed in the same context as a new publication that was to stand in contrast to FinF? – this is what a mean by reactionary context – the idea appears to arise out of dissatisfaction and criticism of FinF, rather than as a good idea in itself.
and one of your complaints about FinF was about some sort of editorial oversight committee? – this is what I was talking about as loathing peer/authority review (don’t know what or who this committee is). maybe I should rephrase that as mild distaste or annoyance rather than loathing?
Aaron
My apologies, just read your post again, and see that you weren’t talking about an oversight committee at all, but the combination of Editorial and Theological publication roles in one committee. So my whole loathing of peer/authority review point is misguided, so ignore. I am sure that, like the centurion, you are a man under authority.
ok, thanks for the clarification (and the support). The idea has actually been around for about 5 years, and I’ve discussed it seperately with Jonathan Marinus, Matt, Tim, Jono and Ben Hoyt. It’s got nothing to do with FiF as such. But when the obvious question ‘why not work with what we have?’ is asked, something has to be said why FiF doesn’t fit the bill. But that doesn’t mean we are simply reacting against FiF.
You are quite right, I do have a complaint about the editorial oversight committee or whatever its name is. But it’s most unfair to extend that to any sort of distate (much more, a loathing!) for peer/authority review in general. And that’s what I am objecting to. There are many more routes available for peer/authority review than those used by FiF!
Now, having said all that, perhaps you’d like to be a contributor to said enterprise? We could do with some short commentary on legal developments or reflections on political events from time to time. :)
ha – John, once again we’ve cross-posted. I think I see where the confusion came. I was orginally talking about the current setup of FiF. It has an Editor who must be a minister (but not necessarily skilled in editorship), and a Theological Publications Committee, which has applied some very odd reasoning to publication decisions.
My complaint is against that specific setup, and the situation is has produced, not oversight or editorship in general. I apologise that I was unclear on the point.
Here endeth the re-analysis of the analysis.
hans/matt:
the point is you can’t have dinner and/or drinks with someone who is having his prostate operated on.
well, you can, he just wouldn’t eat much.