Not just “before a fall”

Often on this blog, I pick and poke at specific segments of Christendom — sometimes meandering on side roads, or through suburbia’s labyrinths, and only occasionally venturing into the “urban areas” of Christianity.  This particular post, however, rides a double-decker bus, merges onto an eight-lane superhighway, and screeches into a mega-city:  Here, in referring my readers to the “simple church” blog of Roger Thoman, my aim is to propagate his indictment of a whole bunch of us who dwell in the same vicinity.  The linked essay-ette below is short.  Go ahead — click on it:

Religious Pride

(Thoman also offers a free, pretty short book via his blog.)

In the event that you, like me, don’t take time to read even the short posts that comes your way, allow me to extract a quote from the blog linked above:

“Subtle religious pride is so deeply ingrained in most of us that it’s difficult to wash out.”

Hear, hear.  This word — one of uncomfortably intense judgment — takes as its antidote a humble profession of submissive discipleship, ably worded by A.W. Tozer, and aptly quoted by Thoman:

“Make me ambitious to please Thee even if as a result I must sink into obscurity and my name be forgotten as a dream.”

No matter the particular path we travel, it is inevitable that we will intersect with someone (me? you?) who thinks too much of himself . . . someone who habitually approaches issues and situations pridefully.  Pride doesn’t only “goeth” before a fall; it goeth, period.  (Now, if you read my next post, or a particular one I’m working on for next week, in which relatively minor aspects of the status quo are challenged, please know that I don’t think I have all the answers.  I do like to challenge time-tested, but not necessarily biblically based, traditions.)

Lord, foster poverty of spirit in us as we work in Your kingdom—the greatest reason for boasting ever.

Voices: sufferin’ suffrage

Most Christians, impressed with the gravity of human sacrifice in war, conclude that since people have died for democracy, they must exercise the right to vote.  This logic, quite simply, is not logical.  First:  voting for the next executor or lawmaker-in-district has a tenuous relationship with the prospect of improving “our” chances in the next war.  Moreover, the right to vote is completely a secular notion — one that may safely and thoughtfully, if unpopularly, be passed over by those whose hope is in God’s next world.  I do not advocate apathy about this world, but I do place voting in the category of democratic rights, not that of Christian responsibilities.

Having laid that foundation, let’s think with a denominational historian for a few moments about voting, women, and the home.  This “voice from the past” is not likely to fall on hordes of receptive ears.

One cause of deterioration?

“When Tennessee faced the precedent-setting vote on the Susan B. Anthony Amendment in 1920, J.C. McQuiddy led the opposition to the extension of women’s voting rights,” notes Robert Hooper in A Distinct People:  A History of the Churches of Christ in the 20th Century.  Hooper then quotes McQuiddy:

“God pity the child (sic), when they have a motherless home, when they have a mother who is in politics, campaigning over the states and neglecting the purifying, refining, and ennobling influences which she should be exercising in her home!”

“I do not believe that the good women of Tennessee want the ballot; but even if they did, the question which man must determine is not affected by what women WANT, but what they ought to have.”

- JC McQuiddy, Gospel Advocate, 1919 p. 1073 and 1920, p. 715, quoted in Robert Hooper, op. cit.

Could the seemingly backward-thinking conservative McQuiddy have been right?  I hope that those who know me well and/or have read much of my blog would not suspect that I am devaluing women here, but I do want to counter that possible inference:  I am in no way advocating condescending chauvinism in the political sphere.  I am in no way attempting to reserve the “right” to vote for men.  The voting enterprise is not my concern here.

I am, however, suggesting that women’s traditional roles in the home are more important than voting, and that the effects of any (women’s or men’s) work in the home has more ultimate purpose than any political activity.  Societally speaking, it would seem that the deterioration of morals is related, in part, to a lack of solid families.  While this degradation has many causes, and while absent fathers are even more to blame, upholding “traditional” women’s roles is probably not a bad idea, either.

To no real (good) effect

Consider these human enterprises:

• Intentionally fouling an opposing basketball player when your team is down 10 pts in the last minute of the game
• Arguing w/the ump after an “out” or “strike” call
• Sprinkling an infant in a religious ceremony

I don’t recommend spending time in any of the above activities, because not a one of them will have any real results for the people directly involved.

Kick it

“Kick it with your toes.”  

- advice from bad soccer coach in the movie Playing for Keeps

Even as a non-soccer player, I didn’t think that was right.  A few seconds later in the movie, when my suspicion was confirmed, I thought, “Hmm … advice given by someone who doesn’t know whereof he speaks … welcome to my life in church pews.”

I’ve heard a lot of bad advice given from pulpiteers and other officials.  There is way too much ineptitude manifest by public leaders.  But after my own preachment comes a confession. . . .

Although many are giving advice as bad as telling 8-year-old soccer players to kick the ball with their toes, it is neither spiritual nor wise to do what I’ve done:  I’ve pretty much turned off advice from professional religionists.  Maybe I’d do better not to block the “channel,” but rather, to be discriminating in my listening and viewing.  There are still a few decent coaches out there who not only understand the basics but can even help me move beyond them.

(Ir)reverence, maturation, and heaven

Some weeks ago, while driving, my young son asked about heaven.  With the advice of a book on nurturing faith in children echoing in my head, I more or less steered the conversation away from heaven — a concept probably too deep and too advanced for him, at present.  But before I diverted his attention, a memory or two had surfaced.  I doubt anyone is singing this “camp song” anymore, but it’s still in my head:

Heaven is a wonderful place, filled with glory and grace.
I want to see my Savior’s face.  Heaven is a wonderful place.  

That’s about all there was to it, I think.  The guys had a quasi-doo-wop bass line, and the girls’ melody at “I want to see my Savior’s face” had a matching ascending line.   At the end of a rep, the guys would sing “wanna go there” on sol-la-ti, just before the next go-round.  A bit irreverent in style, it seems to me, but there are worse things than bad style matches, and the longing to see Jesus in heaven is a good thing to sing about.

Another heaven song I learned later, as a teen, was even simpler in terms of text, but strikes me as more reverent, stylistically speaking:

Soprano:  Someday … someday … someday … someday. . . .
Alto and bass:  Peace and joy and happiness; no more sorrow; someday . . . .
Tenor:  Gotta be ready when He calls my name! (3x)  Someday. . . .

I’m still drawn to that kind of mood — a mood created by believers as they sincerely long for the end-times when we will be conscious of nothing else but God and the eternal “place” prepared.  And I’m concerned that Jedd grow up with ample spiritually vibrant experiences that lead him toward such reverent faith.

In related memories with less apparent reverence . . . I suppose I didn’t die spiritually from hearing others add the childish “king-ki-dink,” like a rhythmic ta-da, at the end of the chorus of that ridiculous arky-arky song . . . or from asking God to “give me gas for my Ford.”  I suppose my child will also be able to avoid immune system shutdowns when he hears silly music attached to deep concepts of the Lord.  Still, I will try to steer him clear of “Father Abraham” and the like!

In the meantime, I’m OK with Jedd’s periodic questions about eventually being “up with God in heaven.”  Even though “up” is not exactly how I think of heaven’s “location,”  in the 1st century, hoi ouranoi seems to have meant “skies” as well as a more spiritual “heaven.”  It’s probably just fine that Jedd has this childlish, elevated, “other” concept of heaven at this point.  God, keep developing His precious soul.

Rant on a gun-rant

License plate in a Bible Belt parking lot

The message above represents what’s wrong with the NRA or militia mindset.  Maybe there’s an appreciable difference between those two, but from where I stand, it’s about the same.  (I’m like a monkey looking at two books — say, a biblical commentary and a Beatles fake book — the books look basically the same to a monkey, although if you’re a Bible scholar or a Beatlemaniac, the comparison is a trifle offensive. Anyhew….)

Two things not found in the Bible:

1. the (mis)conception that a Christian has the right to kill in certain circumstances
2. the (mis)conception that, in order to be a Christian in the U.S., one has to be a Republican

On the first point: I’m well aware that there are a couple lines of thinking that would lead to the justification of killing.  I don’t subscribe to those lines and believe they are misguided, but they do exist.

On the second point: I’m not encouraging aligning with the Democratic party, either.  Both major U.S. parties seem pretty messed up, inasmuch as I know what they’re all about.

I would point out to all my Republican-card-carrying Christian readers that it doesn’t help their conservative causes when such slogans as the above are touted by_____ . . . .  (I must admit that I almost typed the word “idiots” there, but the fact is, the people who a) manufactured and b) bought that license plate thing are people for whom Jesus died.  Even though I don’t know their identities, it’s better if I stop and consider them worthwhile souls instead of calling them names.  ”Rednecks” might be accurate, but I’ll just leave the blank as is.)  It’s rather ridiculous to assert the “right” to own a gun illegally; scofflaws cannot be helpful in resolving conflict or in living peacefully, insofar as it depends on them.

A quasi-slogan asserts this axiom:  ”my country, right or wrong.”  On the surface — and I mean very shallowly — someone espousing that one could be seen as “loyal” (albeit imbecilic) on some level.  But Christians must hold to higher standards.  If a denomination, or a country, or a club, or whatever entity moves down a wrong path, we must be individually courageous enough to buck the misguided trend.  Whether it manifests itself as a stubborn refusal of Christian fellowship to someone of a politically different mindset, or a mouthing off about the right to own a gun even if it is illegal, wrong is wrong.

There are quite a few subsections of the “conservatives” in the U.S. at present.  These sub-sects, which may overlap, include NRA folk, the rich and super-rich, and most evangelical Christians.  I hope that the person who had that license plate on his/her car does not currently claim Christianity.  Surely not. . . .

======

This post also (sadly) deals with the topic of guns and Christians.

This one deals with Newtown and violence in general.

Worship: spiritual, timeless, chosen

[The following is excerpted, adapted, and expanded from my reply to a reader's comment on this prior post.]

Generally, under the New Covenant, I see the trends as having moved away from the physical, toward the spiritual.  (For more, please see this post on the Old and new.)  I tend to support and resonate with emphases on the spiritual over the physical.

In the realm of worship, I did go through a phase, some years ago, in which worship needed to be more physical, but I’m not altogether sure my “need” was of the Lord.  These days, I’m more interested in what’s going on beyond the physical.  Physical manifestations of worship may not be entirely immaterial, but the seen should at least be subservient to the unseen.

Under the Old Covenant, God prescribed certain physical acts of sacrifice and priestly temple service.  Although prescribed details — or legislated specifications, if you will — are certainly present in any lucid consideration of the relationship between the divine and the human, I take some exception to an analysis based outright on prescription (either under the Old or New).  As one considers Joseph, Enoch, Abraham, David, Elijah, and others with hindsight, there seems to have been more than legislation at work as they related to God.

Based on the examples of worship in, e.g., Psalms, John, Revelation, I take stronger exception to any suggestion that all worship, as an act of the spirit and/or body, was somehow eradicated with the coming of Jesus.  The worship of believers in Jesus Christ, like immersion and basic meals and the assembly of Christians, seems to me to have been something they simply, naturally did (a lot), without the need for the apostles et al to write about it at every turn.

Adoring, worshipful response is natural — and, I would say, anticipated and desired and right. (Personally, I’d stop short of saying worship is “commanded” or “demanded”; I hear those words as needlessly negatively charged in this age.)  I do think God continues to seek worship of the proskuneo sort.  Note Ps 69:32, Ps 70:4, and 2 Chron 16:9.  While the “seeking” of the last verse may be understood variously, as seen in various translations, attributing to God the notion of “seeking” doesn’t for me render Him heavy-handed.  I don’t think we paint God as some sort of tyrant or egomaniacal being when we understand Him as desiring worshipful response.

Until He moves me on, I’m content with exploring the ways and means of proskuneo — because it seems good for me, and because I’m convinced it pleases God.  Worship may ultimately be pleasing to Him specifically because it is something I choose, whether I want to think of Him as asking for it or not.

Probably not merely incidentally, I take Revelation (after chapters 2 & 3) as primarily presenting a timeless picture of the eternal kingdom, and I hang some of my worship “hats” on the hooks shown in chapters 4, 5, and 19:6ff. I presume that the active proskuneo occurring there indicates that worship is a timeless assumption for the believing community.

In the meantime, I’m not at all content with my efforts or with the corporate worship I experience most often (yesterday’s prayers seemed either presentational or flaccid, and the songs rather lethargic and uncommitted) . . . but I keep trying to worship, as I believe I will eternally.

Worship: affirmation or action?

Living, glorifying, worshipping        Vertical/horizontal redux

After reading the above recent posts on worship, John, a reader from Texas, wrote, in part:

Jesus himself identifies the worship which God desires from us.  And in identifying it he contrasts it with the worship which the woman had in mind when she asked him to tell her the proper place to perform it.  . . .

Jesus . . .  stated that the time was coming, and now was, when true worship would not be performed in either of those locations but would be done in spirit and in truth.  In spirit and in truth is in contrast with the worship the woman inquired about.  The truth part rested in the nature of the sacrifice contrasted with the shadow of the truth that was represented in the woman’s worship, and also in that performed in Jerusalem.  Various animals were sacrificed. . . .  Jesus himself was the truth that those animals only represented.  The worship the woman asked about was performed by humans’ physical acts of slaying the animals and then performing the required work on them.  The worship God desired and still desires, is not physical but is spiritual.  It was done for us, by Jesus, and all we can do is accept it as being full recompense for our own sins.  The worship God desires has nothing to do with our actions.  It is not in some mysterious way related to the way we treat others or how we live daily.  It is spiritually accepting Jesus’ redeeming work as being imputed to us in place of our own soiled righteouness.

In response, I would again state up-front that a general misconception of worship has done inestimable damage to the theologies and belief systems of countless believers.  This misconception has worship a) consisting in a sequenced event/”service” and b) existing solely within the confines of a church edifice.  Worship is primarily a verb, not a noun that we go to, or sit through, waiting for others do it for us.  It is quite possible to go/attend “services” for decades without ever truly worshipping.

Certainly, I track with John (quoted above) on the radical difference Jesus was ushering in.  Yes, the location-bound model was to be eradicated:  ”in spirit” stands in contrast to “in a specific location,” i.e., Jerusalem.  But why would the “truth” aspect be encapsulated in a faith-acceptance of Jesus’ sacrifice when that acceptance doesn’t involve proskuneo?  I think it is more logical to assume that “in truth” = “truly.”  In other words, worship “in truth” is not something else done or felt “in truth,” but it is still worship, with one new emphasis on genuineness or  actuality.  Truly worshipping, then, would be the same as actually worshipping.  Put yet another way:  in John 4, Jesus did not say, “No longer will the Father want worship” or “Instead of worship, the Father will now want _____.”  Rather, He said, “The Father desires worship in new/renewed ways.”

So what is this worship?  The antecedent word is “proskuneo,” and proskuneo connotes action, or at least action of the spirit (the latter may be more preferable to some, for reasons of personality preference, or for reasons of distinction from Jewish practice) in relation to God.  Bringing the theologically charged word “work” into this discussion by calling attention to “work performed” on the animals seems tenuous, but it is appropriate to draw some distinctions been New-Covenant worship and that of the Old.  Under both major covenants, though, worship is an active-verb thing that appears more closely related to adoration and homage than to mentally/spiritually affirming the Ultimate Sacrifice.

By no means do I intend here to minimize the value of the inner faith-response to our Messiah’s Sacrifice — far from it.  It could very well be that one who is spiritually affirming Jesus’ death as the finished, atoning work of God is, in fact, engaging in proskuneo of the spirit.  In other words, the vibrant human spirit in tune with God’s grace is probably energetically worshipping spiritually whether she thinks she is or not.

Here’s an additional, larger-context thought — something I learned from a deeply committed disciple who also happens to have a doctorate in missiology.  (If I had read more of John’s gospel in large chunks, i.e., more contextually, I could have picked up on this myself, because it’s not embedded very deep.  The above-quoted friend John has also alluded to it.)  Simply put, it is that, in John’s gospel, Jesus is truth.  So, worship “in truth” (John 4:24) might be, to some extent, worship “in the truth that is personified in Jesus.”  This would still seem to speak of an action, not merely a mental or spiritual acknowledgement of Jesus’ sacrifice.

Our worship — our proskuneo — could be said to be made more full, more intimate, more relationally meaningful because of the grace and truth expressed in Jesus and the New Covenant.

========

Addendum:  If I might go out on a limb here … I don’t think the worship “baby” should be thrown out with the time-clock-punching, “accuracy”-driven “worship service” bathwater of the CofC (or of any similar group).  Some of us, myself included, may be inclined toward framing worship in terms of a response to information – which would seem Campbellite (rational) in orientation.  But just because certain church groups have been incorrectly handling aspects (when they thought they had “right” worship down pat) doesn’t mean that anyone, as s/he is evolving, should shed the essence of worship.  It just means we keep trying to enact the core idea, without all the shadowy stuff from the intervening decades/centuries.

Living, glorifying, worshipping

In reference to this post on the distinction between “vertical” and “horizontal,” a longtime friend and reader wrote,

Perhaps the concept that we “go to worship” is a part of the problem.  Our life is to be “worship.”  “So whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God.” I Cor. 10:31.  Those who leave “worship” in the building and go about as though God is not their Father … well, yes, as some people say, “That is between God and me.”  That’s really The Problem — not willing to surrender to God, but lay out the guidelines according to what they want.  God will have something final to say about that.

My friend’s emphasis here — that our lives should be lived for God – is right on.  And I would agree that the conception of worship as A) a sequenced event/”service” B) in a church edifice has done inestimable damage to the theologies and belief systems of countless believers.  Worship is primarily a verb, not a noun that we go to, or sit through, as others do it for us.  We can go to the assembly for a lifetime of Sundays — and I do believe heartily in assemblies of Christians — but, sadly, it is quite possible to go/attend for decades without ever truly worshipping.

Being a disciple of Jesus — and living seven days a week for the purposes of God’s Kingdom — now that’s what it’s about.  I generally reserve the term “worship” for vertical communication with God, wherever it occurs.   But being an ambassador for God and seeking to live each hour as His child, bringing attention and glory to Him — that deserves just as much attention as vertical adoration and reverence (“worship” proper).

Eulogizings and ponderings

“Isn’t it amazing how those songs went right along with the sermon?  And the song leader and preacher didn’t even talk beforehand.”

I’m not normally one to get too excited about such apparent confluences of thought.  If I’ve heard the above line 100 times, probably 85 of the instances could be discounted, because, after all, nearly everything in a Christian assembly can be related to love or faith or Jesus.  The actual dovetailing doesn’t end up being all that miraculous most of the time.

Aside:  it’s no sin for worship/song leaders and preachers not to communicate beforehand.  A sermon, if used, can obviously stand on its own; any songs, readings, prayers, and comments need not jibe with the sermon or even with each other.  Worship and edification may stand on their own, without needing to be tied to a message or lesson.

Anyway, after all that preface! …

1. Recently, I came across a brief Christian Chronicle article that mentioned black¹ evangelist Marshall Keeble’s²  having eulogized a parrot, on request, before laying it to rest for his great-granddaughter.
2. Not one hour before, I had read a forwarded e-mail with sweet, gentle thoughts about dogs as friends and gifts of God.  
3. The above two occurrences reminded me that my granddaddy had been prayerfully thankful, following the death of the family’s long-loved collie Frisky, for “the comfort of our animal friends.”  

So, while not attributing the confluence of the dog e-mail, the article about Keeble and the parrot, and the recollection of my granddaddy to the Spirit of God, I thought all this was worth mentioning here.  The fact that I had all three thoughts (some might call them “promptings”) in a brief span might mean nothing to you, but it was quasi-noteworthy my thought-world.  Surely both Keeble and my grandfather were both men of influence, men of inspiration, and men who were willing to recognize many of God’s gifts, including animals.

I have eulogized my grandfather before, and probably will again.  I have never written a word, to my recollection, about Marshall Keeble, but have heard about him often.  He predated my grandfather by a generation but lived 90 years.  My parents once heard Keeble speak.  He was a man of note.  

Called an “Uncle Tom” by some of his black contemporaries because of his willingness to play into white conventions, he is said to have had an infectious, irresistible style of preaching.  Not unexpectedly, he was also conservative in terms of issues and emphases, and was given to relatively narrow, elementary hermeneutics in his scruples and sermons.  Keeble’s preaching resulted in the immersion of thousands — some estimates run as high as 40,000 of these initiating steps in the Christian walk.  To have been Marshall Keeble, especially in his prime in the first half of the 20th century — was to make observable, eternally significant history.

To have been Andy T. or Kathryn Ritchie was not as visible in terms of numbers, but they also made significant history in their Kingdom work, moving on to the “land of the eternally living” in the 1980s.  The likes of Ken Neller, Neva White, Kyle Degge, Judy Barker, and Jeannette Baggett have died within the last year and are also worthy of note in Kingdom service — sometimes in the simplest of gestures, and in other ways touching scores of souls at a time.

Recently I visited a cemetery and thought about what has gone before me.  So many have done so much for the Lord.  While I’m not supportive of every word or opinion voiced by some of those named above, my support clearly isn’t the crux:  God can use a lot of variety in His service.  And who really knows how much has been done in the spirit-realm that was never observed physically?

In remembering the gifts and devotion of those who have worked devotedly for the causes of the Kingdom of God in the past, we may be spurred in the now.

=====

¹ I use the adjective “black” for several reasons:  a) it is more common, and therefore less jarring than the more apt “brown,” b) it is less historically charged than “colored,” c) it is much less awkward than “person of color,” and d) I have no knowledge of whether this man, or even his parents or grandparents, were actually “African-American.”  In fact, I just listened to a sermon archive and heard Keeble proclaim that he wasn’t from Africa.  Neither do I find it necessary to proclaim that I am an Irish-Swiss-English-Welsh-Scottish-German-American.  I guess “mutt” would do just fine for me.

² http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Keeble

Memories of Segregation/Oppression of Blacks (1)

On the heels of this year’s M.L. King Day, and as we come into what is known as Black History Month, it seems a good time to speak of race relations.  A few months ago, when I wrote about relatively minor, conflicted feelings related to race (here and here), Sally Clark, a dear family friend, responded.  Since she had some very rich experiences through the years, I invited her to write a guest post.  This is the first of her reflections, and I look forward to sharing another of her mini-memoirs in the future.

======================================

Memories of Segregation/Oppression of Blacks

Guest post by Sally Clark

As I was growing up in Oklahoma City in the 40s and 50s, my world was totally white. Everything was segregated: schools, neighborhoods, churches, colleges, friendships, busses, water fountains, movie theaters, swimming pools, restaurants, bathrooms, marriages, etc.  It didn’t dawn on me until I was a teenager that things should not be that way.  I’m not sure exactly when it hit me. I do remember a chorus from Southwestern Christian College (a black college in Terrell, TX) coming to perform in a park for our congregation.  (I think the performance was probably held in a park because blacks were not allowed in our church building, but I’m not sure of this).  As I sat there listening to the wonderful voices, it hit me that “they” were people just like us….but NEVER would we “mix.”

I can remember riding the city bus and seeing the sign, “Rear seats for colored.”  It might be very crowded at the back, and there might be empty seats in the front, but the blacks did not dare sit down in the front.  They stood crowded into the small space at the back … and if the bus was very crowded with whites, the whites could even take the seats reserved for blacks.  When we went to public places, there would be two water fountains; one said “white,” and the other said “colored.”  Mother and Daddy used the word “nigger” in reference to blacks.  When they were being “polite,” they used the word “nigra.”  Over the years I really hated this; I couldn’t stand to hear them say these words.  But in even later years, I had to realize that that is the way they were brought up. They did not hate blacks; they just thought black and white were two different worlds.  They were good to the people who worked for them, but still considered them inferior.  One story that I heard about Daddy, I did not learn until after he died. In the early 1950s (long before the days of fast-food), people might eat out at a nice restaurant (I can’t recall that we ever did; we just didn’t eat out!) or in a cafe. Daddy was a contractor, and his best worker was a black man named Henry Dorsey.  One day at noon, they decided to go to a cafe.  When they entered, the owner said to Daddy, “You can come in, but that nigger boy [he was not a boy; he was at least 40 years old!] has to go around to the back door.”  Daddy said, “If you don’t serve my friend, you don’t serve me!” and walked out!  I was so proud of him when I heard that story. (I wish I had known it while he was still alive.)

1954 (the year that I started college) was a very important year regarding segregation.  That fall, it became the law that public schools must be integrated.  There were all sorts of protests and violence during this time.  Whites did not want their world “polluted” by blacks.  They especially did not want their neighborhoods to be invaded by blacks.  And the worst thing of all was the idea of racial intermarriage.  It was just unthinkable.  (It was actually illegal in most states!) There were protest marches, killings, bombings, etc., by people who did not want “race mixing.”  Harding College was totally white, of course, and this didn’t seem right to several of us “socially aware” students.  I remember (probably my junior year, when the Little Rock schools were integrated with much protest and violence!) that the Student Council president, Bill Floyd, wrote up a petition, which was very mild; it said something like, “We the undersigned wish to let it be known that IF someday in the distant future Harding decides to integrate, we will be in favor of it.”  Pretty mild.  As I recall, something like 80% of the students AND faculty signed it.  Well, the Harding president, Dr. George Benson, didn’t like this at all.  When he heard about the petition, he got up in chapel and made his famous “black birds, blue birds” speech.  He said that Harding would NEVER be integrated; it just wasn’t expedient, and it wasn’t natural to have races mix.  He said, “Just look at nature.  Even the blue birds stay with blue birds, and black birds stay with black birds.”  It was several years later that it became “expedient” to admit blacks, but for many years, there were still rules against interracial dating.

In 1964 when I was on my way to Miami to get a plane to Peru, my friends Jeanette Read, Gloria Shewmaker, and Eunice Shewmaker were with me as we drove along through Mississippi, Louisiana, Alabama, and Georgia (from Texas, where we had all gotten together).  We were in a car with NJ license plates (since that is where we were all teaching at the time), and we were sort of scared.  It was very dangerous for “outside agitators” (people who came down south from the north to help with civil rights, helping blacks register to vote, etc.).  Just a few days before we drove through Mississippi, there had been a murder of three northerners—Cheney, Schwerner, and Goodwin (I think those were the names)—who had come down to help.  When we entered our motel room that night, we wondered if the car would be vandalized—or worse—while we were sleeping.  Nothing happened to us, but we were glad to get away from there.

I remember a “bus incident.”  It was probably in 1956 shortly after Rosa Parks (black maid) was arrested for not moving to the back of the bus.  (She was arrested in 1955, and bus segregation became illegal in 1956.)  It was after working at Rothschild’s one day, and I went out to catch the bus home.   It was VERY crowded with lots of whites standing.  There was one empty seat; it was on the aisle next to a black woman sitting in the window seat.  NO ONE (white) would sit by her … but I did!  As I sat down, everyone was staring at me, and giving me the “hate stare.” A favorite expression to describe people who did what I did was “Nigger lover”… and I’m sure that that is what the people were thinking.

As the years went by, I became more and more interested in equality and saw the total ignorance of people who thought that whites were superior to blacks.   A book which made a HUGE impact on me was Black like Me by John Howard Griffin.  The book was published in 1961, two years after he learned what it was like to be black.  John Howard Griffin was a white Texan reporter, who in 1959 took some capsules (prescribed by a dermatologist), exposed himself to ultraviolet light under a sunlamp, and stained his skin to make himself appear darker.  In this condition, he traveled in the Deep South and “passed” as black for a month, experiencing what it was like to be perceived and treated as a black.   It was just unbelievable!   It really opened my eyes.  So many things were horrible for him—for just one month—and I could only imagine how it would be to live that like all the time.   As I write this, it makes me want to read the book again; I just went to my bookcase to get it out, but it’s not there; I guess I gave it to someone.

Many more things happened in my life as I got more personally involved in interracial life, but I’ll tell more about that when I write about interracial adoption.

To be continued . . .

=========

Special note:  since Ms. Clark authored this mini-memoir, a widely publicized article was posted by an Arkansas journalist.  For this even more informative (although less personal) treatment of the same topic, click here.

These articles may also be of interest:

USA Today article on the healing of racial divides in the Church of Christ

Feature blog on two men in the center of black-white integration at Abilene Christian University

Full-length article on the above men (move to p. 51)

MWM: anyway

“Anyway.”

“Praising God anyway” is a believer’s theme that resists obsolescence.  Nevermind the ubiquity of Osteenist suggestions that God supposedly just wants me to be happy and successful, or of Robertsonesque calls to take back the U.S.A. for Christendom, the theme of praising anyway, despite life’s events, is compelling.

Spontaneously, last night, our living room was the scene as 7 committed believers sang together before beginning a study of 1 Thessalonians.

1. Fernando Ortega’s “I Will Praise Him Still” was actually bypassed last night — in part, because it was just too obviously a fit for various circumstances in our lives.  I don’t think many of us wanted to dwell too much in thoughts such as “the Lord our God is strong to save from the arms of death, from the deepest grave.”
2. The very next song suggested was Beth and Matt Redman’s “Blessed Be Your Name,” which is perpetually on CCLI’s favorites list (#4 on the list most recently tabulated).  The following excerpted words ring clear and true, not to mention calling us to faithfulness and worship “anyway”:

When I’m found in the desert place
Though I walk through the wilderness
Blessed be Your name

. . .

When the darkness closes in
Lord still I will say,
“Blessed be the name of the Lord” …

. . .

On the road marked with suffering
Though there’s pain in the offering
Blessed be Your name

. . .

You give and take away
You give and take away
My heart will choose to say
Lord, blessed be Your name

“Blessed be Your name.”  Has there ever been a more biblically based, Job-like thing to say to God in the throes of disappointment,  uncertainty, and anxiety?

3. We also sang another Redman song — “10,000 Reasons,” which is also up there on the CCLI list these days.

Whatever may pass and whatever lies before me
Let me be singing when the evening comes

I’ve recently learned of a development in the life of someone I know that could have far-reaching, negative effects.  During hard times, we stand together in the resolve to “praise Him still.”

Some news tends to remind me of other gut-punches from posses of the past.  There was a little one in the Heartland, and an envious, downright dishonest one in the mid-Atlantic.  One in Arkansas that might have initially had reasonably good intent but that ran roughly over a missionary family’s life years ago.  Another one in NH has in some ways coursed through an entire, extended family for years.  Long after the fact, I learned of another posse in Texas that involved a shotgun meeting with top-level administrators.  Some of these occurrences prove reminiscent, in hindsight, of posses from biblical times.

The Psalms,collectively Israel’s and the early church’s song book, are full of “anyway” resolve and exhortation.  Something within the in-tune human soul is drawn to the faith-filled response that soulfully sings, “Knowing that this life is temporal, I will worship You anyway, my eternal Lord.”

We humans are unable consistently to manifest this kind of faith, in our ocean of “anyways,” but it is a consuming, familiar call, and one whose echoes are heard through the millennia.

[This is an installment in the Monday Worship Music series.  Find other, related posts through this link.]

Voices: using the label “Christian”

If a journalist in the Middle East says “Christian” in reference to an area, we might assume she means the non-Muslim, non-Jewish part of the city.

If a liberal politician says “Christian,” he might mean fundamentalist rightist or maybe that which is to be avoided at all costs in order to get elected.

If a Roman Catholic says “Christian,” he probably means Roman Catholic.

What do you mean when you say “Christian”?

Voices: friendship evangelism

“Voting is not the ultimate exercise of the Christian witness to the world.”  - J. Kingcade

Right on, Mr. Kingcade.  Sometimes the more superficial, equally hyped-up believers would have us think that a political vote is tantamount to a testimony to the world.  Nope.  Whatever a Christian voice is, it isn’t the vote.

I don’t pretend to be exercising genuine Christian witness to the world very often — I’m not really even in the other world very much.  But I do think about how I appear, how I influence . . . whether I am “salt and light.” . . .  And if the following constitutes what some call “friendship evangelism,” then I guess I’m for it. . . .

Several months ago, I stopped in to see a town merchant I’ve befriended.  I invited him to our Sunday night Christian gathering.  (He had been on my mind for a while, so I finally took the step of making an overt invitation.)  Then, on a later visit to this guy, I was able to help him with something, with no strings attached.  He has made friendly gestures to me on several occasions.  He’s a very nice guy.

Pause.  I don’t believe for a moment that I have anything like the so-called “gift of evangelism.”  I see evangelism much as I see sales, actually, and the sales profession is one that generally repels me.  I don’t think I’d work in sales if it were the 2nd-to-last job on earth!  The word evangelism rings in my ears as though it were pushy salesmanship, and I retract from that kind of thing in revulsion.

Incidentally, I am amused that the voice dictation function on my smartphone substitutes “vandalism” for “evangelism.”  Some so-called evangelistic efforts have been barely above the acts of vandals, in terms of damage done.

And I must admit that when I first began to hear a voice that used the term “friendship evangelism,” I was repelled.  It seemed potentially disingenuous and sneaky to me — being someone’s friend for the sake of later hitting him with a ton of evangelistic bricks, that is.  The best face of “friendship evangelism” is surely far above such hypocrisy — if it’s being a genuine friend and communicating the good news of Jesus Christ with that friend in love and without strings attached, that is.  May I always do that, but may I never attempt to become someone’s friend with an agenda.  That might drive a perceptive friend further from Jesus rather than drawing the two together.

I don’t put an ICHTHUS (Christian fish) emblem on the back of my car anymore.  I’m a little afraid I will do something on the road that annoys another driver, and that s/he will then have some further reason to keep Christians and the Christ at bay.  No, no gospel paraphernalia for me.  But let me be a friend, and let me be open to those opportunities that arise naturally for communicating Jesus to and with friends — as Francis of Assisi reportedly advised, sometimes using words.

Voices: righto wackos, past prophets

I thought I’d heard it all.  Put a couple of these down in the record books. . . .

• On Veterans’ Day, a church in Pennsylvania sang the national anthem in the regular Sunday church assembly.  Then they paraded military veterans in front of the church to have them tell military service stories.
• A “church lady” (apparently otherwise rational, not the old SNL kind) carries a handgun in her purse, as a matter of habit, and isn’t even slightly embarrassed about it.
• This woman’s husband actually placed a target in his front yard with the sign “You are now in open range.”  (Wanna bet he thinks the “Great Commission” applies missiologically to everyone, for all time?  Wanna subsequently guess how he would reconcile his stark threats to shoot trespassers with his belief that everyone else is going to hell?)

All pretty solidly “Republican” things to do, those.  In response, the relatively involved, moderate-Democrat Christian who told me about this asked, “Will we have to start bringing voter registration cards for validation at church, before we’ll be allowed in?”  What a great question!  I, too, have sensed the palpable, divisive effects of political stances’ being articulated within the church.

Allow for a moment — as I allow always — that politics has no place in the church gathering, and that U.S. political parties are exceptionally conceptually divisive.

Can you see that the man who (in his hyper-NRA enthusiasm) threatens to shoot all passersby in the name of the right to own a gun, has become imbalanced in the name of political conservativism?  I’d go further and say his political affiliation has run amok, to the point of potentially dividing the Body of Christ.  (In other words, he’s a righto wacko.)

Hear now a different voice — one from the distant past.  In 1889, David Lipscomb wrote, “Human government had its origin in the rejection of the authority of God.”  I think Lipscomb spoke prophetically.  Not miraculously so, but he spoke for God.

There are those who might think Lipscomb was too focused on the slippery slope — i.e., on what happens when the worst governmental extents become realities — and not enough on God’s ability to use a human government.  But think again.  Think about the Christian people you know and love who are on the other side of the political fence from you.  How annoyed, how incredulous are you with them for not seeing politics the way you do?  Nothing may rightly divide believers.  Not gender, not ethnic background, and not political party (to re-appropriate Galatians 3:28).

This is not about a lack of trust in God, Who can obviously use, or not use, human government as He pleases; it’s about not pitting allegiance to one political system against another.  Christian siblings, we must not let rightist (or any other political) agendas destroy the unity that the Spirit of Deity created.

For another post on the topic of patriotism in church gatherings, see here.

Voices: a New Year’s Eve meditation

That’s what he said.  He said it — or wrote it, actually — and I wish he hadn’t.  (I gathered that several people wished he hadn’t.)

Many years ago, he wrote it, and it sticks with me.  This voice from the past has haunted me more than any single remark I can remember.

Whether or not there is or was any morsel of truth in what he said, the fact that he said it at all is embarrassing — so much so that I won’t repeat it here.  (I like being transparent, but this is over my line.  Aside:  I have a couple of licensed-counselor friends who may read this post.  They may want to therapeutize me!)

And what caused him to say this?  On the surface, a lack of tolerance and understanding?  Or, more ironically, a lack of lovingkindness?  Maybe a sustained vehemence for something he disagreed with, beyond anything even I can imagine (and yep, I can muster vehemence on occasion).  Had he any idea how much he was piercing?  I think so, probably. . . .

~ ~ ~

A few months ago, he died.  Quite “early,” too.

Despite years of lack of connection, I would ordinarily have reached out to his family.  I feel for them — for more than one reason.  But I did not contact them, and I honestly believe this would have been their choice, at least for now.

I’m not one to pander to popular notions of propriety when there are deeper or higher values at stake.  Resultantly, I have very little interest in a mere “respect for the dead” here.  He is where he is, and I trust that is a place of comfort, until the final denouement, because he was nothing if not a man of intense faith in the Lord Christ.  Yes, he was deluded by his own intensity at times, and arrogance would boil over every now & then, and he would run over people sometimes.  (Speaking as one whose words are also sometimes clouded by his own intensity, I can understand this.)

The fact is, he did a lot of damage in this life, along with all the good.  The same could be observed about most of us.

“RIP” (often a dismissive speech crutch) is not exactly what I want to say here, but I do want to put to rest a thing or two as 2012 passes away.  I doubt this man’s eternally living soul has any consciousness of my thoughts now, because there are far more significant aspects of existence in which to dwell eternally.  I do not disrespect the good memories associated with him — and there are some — but neither do I let the undesirable, un-Christlike elements pass without recognition.  He was boorish at times, but he trusted God and was one of His children, and that makes all the difference.

And now, as the year in which he died passes, I write (speak) forgiveness — not for his benefit, because he has no human consciousness now.  I forgive, ironically selfishly, for my own benefit, and also for the Lord’s honor.

Since God chose you to be the holy people he loves, you must clothe yourselves with tenderhearted mercy, kindness, humility, gentleness, and patience.  Make allowance for each other’s faults, and forgive anyone who offends you. Remember, the Lord forgave you, so you must forgive others. (Col. 3:12-13, NLT)

There are things I never understood about him, but I ought to put the hurtful stuff to rest.  As a side note, I suspect this type of mental/spiritual activity will be a somewhat bigger part of my life for a while — let’s call it “more readily available opportunity to ‘forgive, for they know now what they do.’”

Yes, better to put each wound-inducing memory to rest, in order to train my eyes more frequently on the One who, when He suffered, “did not retaliate and made no threats. Instead, he entrusted himself to him who judges justly.”  (1 Peter 2)

Violence and psychosis

This post comes two weeks after yet another, large-scale national tragedy related to killing.  This subject is not my typical fare, but I so appreciated a newspaper column I read recently that I decided to weigh in.  I think the topic of violence in our society deserves continued, deeply thoughtful treatment.

Below is a comment from syndicated columnist  Charles Krauthammer of the Washington Post.

“I have no problem in principle with gun control.  Congress enacted (and I supported) an assault weapons ban in 1994.  It didn’t work.  (So concluded a University of Pennsylvania study commissioned by the Justice Department.)  Unless you are prepared to confiscate all existing firearms, disarm the citizenry, and repeal the second amendment, it’s almost impossible to craft a law that will be effective.”

The above gets at one aspect of the problem — namely, the incapacity of law.  Being much more interested in God-things than in gun control or lack of it, as I read the above the second time, I began to fancy a parodic version that substitutes “Law of Moses” for “gun control.”  [If you only tuned in because of Newtown, pardon (or skip) this theological aside.]

I have no issue with the Law of Moses.  God enacted it, and I support it, as understood properly temporarily.  It didn’t work.  (So concluded God-breathed documents authored by Paul and by whomever wrote the letter to the Hebrews.)  Unless you are prepared to rid humanity of all existing, potential means of rebellion, and repudiate the “free will principle” inherent in the creation of humankind, it’s impossible to craft a law — any law — that will ultimately be effective.

Many Jesus-believers seem not always to understand (i.e., in the same way I do, at present) the change He ushered in for Jews and for the world, but what do you think about my parody there?  Generically, I would tend to agree that law, in itself, is impotent to curb violence; I would definitely affirm that the Old-Covenant Hebrew Law is impotent, in this day and age, to preserve anyone eternally.  Whether or not you’re on board with a relatively well-delineated, Christian view of Old and New, let’s move on.  Try out this next, hyper-on-target accusation from columnist Krauthammer.

“We live in an entertainment culture soaked in graphic, often sadistic, violence.  It’s not just movies.  Young men sit for hours pulling video-game triggers, mowing down human beings en masse without pain or consequence.  And we profess shock when a small cadre of unstable, deeply deranged, dangerously isolated young men enact the overlearned narrative.

“If we’re serious about curtailing future Columbines and Newtowns, everything — guns, entertainment, and culture — must be on the table.  It’s not hard for President Obama to call out the National Rifle Association.  But will he call out the American Civil Liberties Union?  And will he call out his Hollywood friends?”

Earlier in the column, Krauthammer had asserted that psychiatrists in the 1970s (he was one) could more easily commit psychotic people against their will.   Then he asks, by implication, what if mentally unstable people had fewer “rights” today?  My quoting and commenting here are not intended as a statement of political stance.  No, I have little concern with the perceived conservatism or liberalism of, e.g., gun control or civil rights.  I only want to call attention to what might make a great deal of societal sense.

Going further, the columnist also cites the Jared Loughner (Tucson) situation:  “Just about everyone around [him] sensed he was mentally ill and dangerous.  But in effect, he had to kill before he could be put away -– and (forcibly) treated.”

Having no sociology or criminology or psychiatry training renders me mostly ignorant here, I admit.  But I do have some sense and some insight at times, and I wish to affirm that these are two gargantuan, extensive roots of the problem of violence in society:  1) instantiated, ”entertainment”-based violence, and 2) constraints — ostensibly related to “liberties” — that keep society from protecting itself.

What do I (we) really need?

Years ago, I knew a nice guy named Ed.  I respected him as a somewhat older, kind Christian who was also a thought-provoking teacher.  I remember feeling surprised, upon sharing something from a Christian magazine once, when Ed mentioned he had long since unsubscribed from Christian publications.  What was he missing?

I have a good friend now who grew up not experiencing television, and she plans to perpetuate not associating with televised aspects of culture.  What is she missing?  I mean, the home of my youth limited television, too, and I should surely limit my current viewing more than I do, but it seems that anyone who doesn’t watch TV would be missing something important, right?

In the last 3-4 places I’ve resided, I’ve decided not to have a newspaper delivered to my home, and I do pretty well not even checking online news very often.  Various ones, including my parents, fill me in from time to time, but I’m less than interested in being subject to the same old news, week after week.  Doesn’t matter whether it’s the biased Rachel Maddow or the probably-as-equally biased Sean Hannity.  I’m not convinced that either of their “reports” would add anything of real value to my life.  The relatively balanced USA Today, and more in-depth NPR radio news are sometimes appreciated, but I submit that I do just fine without reading or listening too much.

What I am I really missing?  Do I need the news?  Some would say “yes,” and I recall a man in the church of my youth who would often begin our assemblies by bringing attention to a national or global event.  Being informed was a different enterprise several decades ago.  I actually think that leader was doing a good thing, but I don’t think media brings quite the benefit to the person that it used to.

More broadly, now:  what is it that I might be afraid of missing if I stop checking this, or if I don’t (re-)subscribe to that?  What is it that anyone and everyone really, truly needs in order to be in touch with life?  To live life?

The individual friends referred to above seem to be pretty well-adjusted (perhaps more so than I am).  For my part, I’m having less and less guilt over letting even Christian subscriptions expire — even when they’re cheap or free!  I let the Wineskins magazine sub expire several years ago, and I only read every third or fourth piece of communication from the World Bible Translation Center/Bible League.  Parents Magazine can be helpful, but when the issues stack up, I wonder just how much so.  I don’t know for sure, but I think I can survive just fine without the Christian Chronicle and Worship Leader, another recently expired subscription.

Maybe, just maybe, I can mine more life-giving riches out of the ancient scriptures if I don’t have as much stuff coming in.

Twelve for 2012 (2)

[ ... continued from here]

Inherently, the modus operandi of quasi-prophetic, interrogatory verbalization runs counter to long-practiced norms — and to a good many beliefs tenaciously held by the masses.  For this disequilibrious endeavor I will make no apology, but if I ever seem to be fighting the individual’s independent, sincere pursuit of Almighty God and His eternal kingdom, I sit ready to be corrected.

In my last post, I listed an initial, six things I would do in, to, and for the earthly, western church of the 21^st century, if I had the ability.  These had to do with sects and structures, the clergy role, and scriptural moorings.  The ramifications of some of these items are broad, and I’m fully aware of the audacity of some of them.  In order to be clear about my human fallibility, I am presenting my list of twelve items in half-twelve lists of six, the “number of man.”  The total number — a nice, round, “biblical” one — has more reference to the current calendar year than to biblical completion:  here, although I touch on several matters I consider crucial, I make no claim to being exhaustive.

Below, then, is the second group of six things I would do in, to, and for the earthly, western church, if I had the ability.  These six concern (1-2) relational dynamics, (3-4) concepts of worship and of the Christian gathering, and (5-6) understandings of beginnings and continuations.

1. create small groups and other home gatherings where they do not already exist
2. inject a more apt understanding of the assembly (for starters, not thinking of it as a “service”)
3. infuse a deeper understanding of the nature and extents of worship — neither a) considering it to be singing or as confined to a musical style preference (e.g., so-called “worship music”), nor b) superimposing liturgical notions of “service,” thus obscuring worship
4. balance reverence with familial informality — establishing a patently respectful, informal (although not a casual) approach to worship and other church activities
5. cause an acceptance of the biblical place of the believer’s immersion in clothing oneself with Jesus as Savior — thus identifying fully with His death, burial, and resurrection (as a result, eradicating residual trust in such items as infant sprinkling, the incantational “sinner’s prayer,” and institutional church affiliation)
6. instill a solid, long-lasting, far-reaching concept and practice of discipleship, as opposed to false security in hereditary church “membership”

Not all the twelve items (the ones above, plus the last six) are of equal importance, but they are all important to me.  They don’t represent the gamut of need within Christendom; there are other areas that need attention, as well.  I don’t claim to be all that circumspect or insightful — only ardent for pure Christianity where I find its current iteration tainted.

While the list of twelve items may contract or expand with the passing years, I have given these enough thought, through enough time, that I expect them to remain with me, to some extent, until I die — or until the Son returns to claim His own.  I do not believe m/any of the items will ever come to pass, in any appreciable measure.  In the circles in which I have influence, however, God giving me life and influence, I am resolved to encourage the absorption of these and other aspects of biblically well-founded Christianity.

Proskuneo and latreian (4)

This post is the 4th (and probably the last, for a while) in a series about worship and service.  Proskuneo and latreian are two key biblical words (Greek antecedents) that can aid our understanding.

A new friend has recently commented, suggesting that Jesus’ depiction of worship in spirit and truth (John 4) is not exactly a positive highlighting, viewed through New-Covenant lenses.  If I’m reading him correctly, he believes that the inner faith-response to the singular act of Jesus on the cross constitutes the only “worship” indicated under the New Covenant.  I’ve never heard this shading before but have been thinking about it.

It appears to me that Jesus, as reported by John, was calling the woman to something a) not bound by location and b) genuine, true.  Both aspects may stand in contrast to Jewish worship of the time, but especially so in the first case.  Since as a Samaritan she was not exactly in the “in” crowd, perhaps Jesus was suggesting to her, by saying “in spirit,” that she could worship despite her lack of Jewish access to the temple.  This worship would not consist in temple service or in Jerusalem at all.  It would be, said He, homage-communication of the spirit, and it would be true — not feigned or dissociated from reality.

The genuine/authentic/true component of Jesus’ statement could also be conceived of as contrasting with then-current Jewish corruptions.  I’m not saying this is THE way to read it — only one possible way to read it.  Subjunctively stated, then, it would sound something like this:

“Woman, your worship doesn’t have to be like that of the Jews:  it could now exist regardless of Jerusalem, and could be engaged in more authentically than is typical, in the midst of the Jewish stuff these days.”

(Aside:  no matter whether I’m on target here, or how much any reader might disagree with me, we must all categorically reject the idea that the “in truth” part of the phrasing has anything directly to do with the CofC’s [or any other group's] views on “correct” acts in the church assembly.  Not that “correctness” isn’t important, but this text has nothing to do with it.)

There’s really not much about worship in the gospels or the letters.  I take it that the early Christians just worshipped and didn’t find the need to write about it so much, but I acknowledge that it’s logically possible for worship to have been less a priority in, or almost absent from, Christian gatherings.  Possible, but not likely, I’d say.

On the horizontal, “priestly service” side, Hebrews certainly seems to corroborate that Jesus’ sacrifice is the true, central replacement for the latreuo or leitourgeia of the Old Covenant.  (No more animal sacrifices!  Jesus — once and for all!)  But this unique honoring of our Lord’s offering doesn’t negate the offering of ourselves described in Rom. 12.  Hebrews passages — taken separately or conjoined with the entire New Covenant corpus — do also place Jesus at the core, philosophically and theologically.

Connections with 1st-century synagogue practices have been used to justify some elements of Christian worship that I don’t find valid in the New Covenant.  Coincidentally, I’ve just reviewed an issue of Worship Leader magazine in which so many assumptions are made along the lines of the “history of Christian worship” that I couldn’t keep up with my own question marks in the margins.  It’s hard to trust the thinking of public leaders and venues when so few seem to be able to distinguish between biblically implied/suggested/commanded things and historically, traditionally practiced ones.

As an example:  there is no biblical blueprint for a corporate assembly, despite the supposed plan propagated by, e.g., the late guru Robert Webber.  According to him and many others, the “authorized way” is something along these lines:

1 – gathering in (or the call into) the outer courts

2 – hearing the Word in scripture and sermon

3 – responding to the word

4 – going out to bear witness

I find no such pattern stated in scripture; to infer this pattern is to superimpose mankind’s tradition.  In any event, almost paradoxically, the above layout seems to emphasize acts that are not, strictly speaking, worship.  The subject treated seems to be “the service,” as developed by institutional Christianity, ant not worship per se.  The four-point structure deals more with overall conceptions for Christian responses and the living of life.  It’s not wrong to use such a pattern for a corporate so-called “service,” but it smacks of the Old Covenant to legislate said pattern.

To any who think worship is contra-indicated in NC scripture (younger believers, these people do exist, and many of them are quite sincere), I would say this:  I don’t see that vertical worship communication (the proskuneo variety) was snuffed out with the cross.  It further seems that some expressions of, e.g., the Psalms are enduring, not obsolete.  Furthermore, doxologies such as those found in Philippians 2, Ephesians 1, and 1 Timothy 1 strongly suggest that first-century Christians were giving vertical, reverent, adoring attention to the Christ.  In addition, the example of the woman of Luke 7:36 appears as a striking example of a very literal act of spontaneous worship (proskuneo is, roughly, bowing and “kissing toward”) honored by Jesus.  Although shedding tears and wiping one’s feet with long hair should not be viewed a paradigm for all time, it is certainly presented positively in the narrative.  If this example were to be scoffed at, I would think Jesus, or Luke (ca. 40 years later) would have framed the woman’s action negatively.

In sum, at this juncture, I believe proskuneo is both assumed and indicated under the New Covenant.  I believe the same about latreia(n).  One is vertical, involving reverent homage shown to a greater being; the other is horizontal, effectively substituting service acts toward others for Old-Covenant animal sacrifices and various Levitical acts.  While there is certainly a spiritual connection between the two (proskuneo and latreian), the concepts are distinct, and we do a disservice to both the ideas of worship and service by amalgamating them.  This is obviously an oversimplification, but I trust that it helpfully delineates.

Below are links to some previous posts on worship and/or service.  Especially if some of the above is muddy, I would invite you to read past essays on related topics, and comment where you find me off-track (or where you agree).

Synagogue Worship as Model

Priorities (Hebrews 13)

Worship and Service: the Worlds of Awe and Anxiety

A Paramount Worship Text — John 4

Truly

Truly and Spiritually

Worship – Ritual v. Relationship