In anthropological mode
Bruce Waltke, in a lecture about Biblical Theology says that in some church services the climactic moment – the thing that everything leads up to – is the decision, existential leap, conversion or recommitment to Jesus. In other churches the climactic high point of the service is Communion, a gift, sacrifice, grace. That made me wonder if our services have a climactic moment. If they do, I think it is probably the sermon. Which I regularly have to fight to stay awake in (by which I mean no disrespect to the Pastor, you know I have to fight to stay awake at parties too). If our worship service liturgy is important, if it moulds shapes directs our lives, how do you think our Reformed way of doing things shapes us?
Thinking a bit further – we’ve got three strands of worship style here, maybe I could call them Contemporary, Sacramental and Reformed. I’ve experienced all three, though the first two only a dozen or so times each, compared to about 2060 times for the last. Looked at from the outside, as a visitor from space with an interest in anthropology might see it, in contemporary services the most important person is the individual who walks to the front and has all sorts of amazing fireworks going off in her heart. In reformed services, the most important person would at first seem to be the man at front centre on the raised podium. The alien listening for a bit would after a while decide that actually, the most important person was actually God/Jesus, whom everyone present should be holding in their minds. In sacramental services the most important person seems to be some bread and wine, which the congregation is eating and drinking, quite bizzarely.
Why does there have to be a ‘climactic moment’?
It’s disappointing when dramas don’t.
So? Church isn’t supposed to be a form of entertainment. It’s a place to solemnly and reverently worship our Creator and Saviour.
why on earth should a ‘drama’ have all the negative connotations of your use of ‘entertainment’, Tim? And why should it not be solemn and reverent as well as being ‘dramatic’?
Isn’t the story in the scriptures one big drama? Aren’t John’s visions in revelation a series of dramas? And, interestingly, his book envisions a heavenly worship service. How is this not appropriate?
It had negative connotations because Matt used the word ‘dissappointing’ as well. Does that mean a church service is a dissappointment if it doesn’t have an exciting, emotional climax?
We were created by our Heavenly Father with the following, in order of importance:
Will (Spirit)
Mind (Intellect)
Emotions (Flesh)
Our enemy Satan will always turn God’s order on its head i.e.:
Emotions
Mind
Will
Whenever I hear that Emotions come first, I *know* who is speaking.
Our Emotions are controlled by our Mind and that is controlled by our Will, not the other way around.
Many churches only seek to stimulate the emotions, leaving an emptiness and hunger for more.
no, not ‘exciting, emotional’ in a consumer-entertainment kind of way.
But yes, disappointing if there is nothing that launches us out into the creation with vision, purpose, identity, and shape.
And the primary way that we humans do that is to tell a story – narrate/act/ritualise a drama – and invite the hearers/participants to join in, be shaped by it, see themselves in terms of it. Which is why scripture itself is one great narrative, why the assembly of Israel was instructed to remember her history (and was often told it), why each gospel is a story that draws the reader in, and why Jesus used parables.
Therefore Christian worship rituals should not be just a flat presentation of a new or alternative ‘moral’ philosophy, or an emotional experience, or a social gathering. Rather, they should be (in some sense all of the above, but primarily) re-tellings of covenant history, and consequently, invitations to see oneself in terms of that ongoing history: and therefore invitation to face history’s God, here and now. When a hearer/watcher/participant does so, they become converted.
Bart, I’m afraid I don’t follow that at all. In the Genesis story it’s pretty clear that spirit came last, not flesh. God formed Adam from the clay, and then breathed into him (the word for breath is the same as spirit). Thus, man became a living soul, a living container of God’s breath.
Now, whatever else you may get out of that, I don’t think you can get your ideas about priority of spirit/intellect/flesh.
Consider especially that the ‘flesh’ Adam bore after his creation was in no sense a bad thing. It was ‘very good’, according to God’s testimony, and was, as above, the holder of the life.
Only after the fall did that flesh become a state of shame, rebellion, and corruption. It became a dead soul. Thus, it could no longer contain the breath of God, the life, and so returned to the dust, while the breath/spirit returned to God who made it.
At Pentecost the spirit was re-given – God breathed out into the creation (and its crown, man) – again, such that Paul could say that in Christ he was a new creation. Our bodies are thus, at the least, no longer a state of shame and corruption, but rather are once again living souls, places of imminent resurrection/restoration to complete cleansing and uncorruption.
But again, none of this supports a tripartite division and heirarchy between will, intellect and emotion, such as you have constructed. All these things are either good or bad, depending on whether they are subject to the flesh or the spirit.
Forgive me if I have misunderstood you.
Tim, the point of matt’s post was to say that there are various climaxes in other traditions – an existential crises/leap (which is usually very emotional) in ‘contemporary’ services, and the feeding of the assembly on the Body, so becoming a body, in ‘sacramental’ services.
Which would you like?
Bart, I should say that I agree with you about what many churches try to do. That’s a good point. The emotions are not the be-all-and-end-all of everything; they are merely one of the ways – the ‘mechanisms’, if you will – in which we humans work. But the same goes for the ‘mind’ and the ‘will’. All of these aspects of man should be brought into submission to the Spirit, so that they become ‘spiritual’.
Bart: I also agree with you in part, the church part. Same as Aaron.
Aaron, I concede your points do mke more sense than my off-the-cuff ramblings.
Tim, Re: Does that mean a church service is a dissappointment if it doesn’t have an exciting, emotional climax?
…you should give us some sort of indication as to whether you are being intentionally stupid or just regular-type.
I heart regular-type stupid.
Richard, in these latter days of the old age you should be trying to score brownie points. Lest you be put aside with the goats.
Yes. And I quote, “unwise”.
hava, nakhila havaaaaa nakhila havaaaa nakhila…..
And eucharist is a fancy word for thanksgiving.
Shut up, repent, worship, do good things in His name. Fags. Stop over thinking it. Theology is for SINNERS!
While I think I know what you are getting at Sam, what I’m trying to do is promote a kind of worship service style which I think does encourage doing good things in his name. At the end of the Substance service, David says: “Go now to love and serve the Lord. Go in peace”, and we stamp our feet answer “Amen. We go in the name of Christ”.
People do works in different ways you see. Some will seem wrong in others eyes just because that would be their personal gripe. The deal is, so long as it for God, in the name of God and promoting God’s message and name, it is the goods. So, what im saying is, should you discourage a brother (or sister, aaron) for telling the good news in his or her own Godly way? (Note, Matthew, none of this is addressed to you.)
Sam, who and what are you addressing yourself to, if not to Matt? To me? Over what? Is there a sister I’ve discouraged or something?
I agree with what you say, and I would say a similar thing myself, so I’m confused.
And aplpying what you say – remember that talking about stuff isn’t wrong. It’s a work like any other, and can be a good one, so long as it’s helpful.
I think our talk, on and off this blog, has produced a lot of good things – real attitude changes, real actions, real helpfulness. So I don’t know what you mean by ‘theology’, but I’m not aware that we’re doing something here that’s for ‘sinners’. If I’ve missed something that’s really obvious to you, I’m sorry – it’s not intentional.
Im just going to call you stupid for the sake of being provocative and lazy.
Stupid.