jubilant song

Today I read an article about the styles of music that is used in evangelical worship.  So, here we go again with the internal debates and wars over the mode instead of the message.  Normally, I would have rolled my eyes and declared that I have moved past such discussions . . . but I haven't.  To be more accurate, I haven't been allowed to leave all of this behind.

This morning our church gathered together for community worship, as is our custom.  As our worship leader was making his way to the stage he was confronted by one of our 'fussier' older men.  The message was simple, "The music is too damn loud!"  Although I was unaware of this until after most fo the congregation had dispersed for the day, I was somewhat aware of why the morning worship was not becoming more than the sum of its parts.

It is difficult to constantly face the internal opposition and would-be discouragement that is continually lobbed at those who have accepted the call to lead the church.  It is easy to stand on the sidelines, contribute nothing, and constantly offer criticism and pessimism in the house of God.  That is the failure of divinity to overcome our humanity, for the only force in all creation that can stop the Holy Spirit is the human heart.

There comes a point at which there is nothing more that can be said.  Of the many responses that could be offered to such a statement, none would serve to soften such a hardened heart.  Such statements can be disruptive, hurtful, and worse.  So perhaps the battles over music are going to continue, but not as they have been fought before.  For it is time for the church to move on and stop wasting time arguing over that which yields no fruit.  The simple fact of the matter is that no one is bound to a particular congregation, which means that you may feel free to come and go as you please.  But no Christ-follower should ever feel that it is his or her place to distract the congregation from the work of building the kingdom.

So much could be conveyed and avoided if God's people would do more to speak and act like Christians rather than church-gathering culture-ites.  The primary purpose of the assembly is to offer praise and worship to God.  There are many passages that declare that this should be loud and joyous, meditative and quiet, and any other expression that is fitting to bring as the best of who we are.  Scripture speaks of shouting, crying, strings, drums, horns and cymbals to express a new song fitting for a new life and a new creation.  I have yet to discover where old music is required, and the Bible never once mentioned an organ.

In my estimation, over 90% of planning and implementing worship is appropriateness, which means that various groups (and even individuals) are free to express in ways that are appropriate for them. I have been in churches where David Crowder would be wholly inappropriate, and others that would find no expression in even the greatest of ancient hymns.  And I am quite certain that God doesn't care about the mode of our expression, but rather the heart which offers it.  Just as he was not more into meat than he was into fruits and vegetables when he sent away Cain's offering with displeasure.

Mostly, I think that more people in our churches today simply need to have a personal encounter with the risen Christ.  He can change more than any of our own thoughts, rhythms or rants.

review: ff bruce - a life

Tim Grass. F. F. Bruce: A Life. Milton Keynes: Paternoster, 2011.

Few scholars have had the impact on contemporary biblical studies as  The Dean (F. F. Bruce).  This biography offers many of us (especially those who entered the world of biblical studies post-1990) the opportunity to understand the life and influence of this top scholar.  Hopefully, a good number of people - academically involved or otherwise aware - will take the time to consider one of the greats.  In any field or endeavor, such is an important task to know who and what has gone on before us.  And since, I believe, we stand on the shoulders of such giants as Bruce in more ways than one.

Although the book was well-written and engaging, one aspect that made it more personally enjoyable was the sense of how accessible Bruce was to a broad range of people.  Additionally, I personally had the sense that in many ways he and I were cut from the same cloth in our perspectives on the world of biblical studies (he obviously from the brighter end of said cloth); there were numerous times when I chuckled at the way he would respond to questions, address issues and controversies, or spoke about the endeavor of biblical scholarship.

The book progresses more or less along the lines of a traditional biography, beginning with an account of Bruce's family, birth, childhood and early life.  One of the hallmarks of his life is the association to the Brethren throughout his life, often leaving him to navigate a sea of in-betweens - he was often seen as too 'liberal' by the Brethren and too 'fundamentalist' by the academic community, a perception that he consistently broke through by his commitment to the text and to his faith.  He worked to broaden evangelicalism, defining the Christian faith in the simple Pauline understanding of possessing faith in Christ.  He thus became self-identified as an "unhyphenated evangelical" based on his belief that the term evangelical included "every one who believes in the God who justifies the ungodly" (152).

Along with his perspective on evangelicalism, perhaps the second most influential fact of his scholarship was his commitment to the biblical text.  Such a comment should not be striking, but Bruce's dedication to Scripture still presented a challenge to much of the work being done (in both his day, and times before and afterward).  Bruce defined tradition as the family memory of the church and warned that the notion of sola Scriptura "had all too often meant allegiance to Scripture as our tradition has interpreted it."  Further, "He suggested that the essential principle of canonicity was witness to Christ; this was what gave the biblical documents their unity.  And since the Spirit's task was to bear witness to Christ, the supreme evidence for the authority of the Bible was the inner witness of the Spirit" (159).

Such a position gave Bruce an interesting voice in discussions regarding Inerrancy v. Infallibility, the role of women in ministry, the millenium questions, biblical inspiration, along with others.  Time and again he would return to what he found in Scripture, mostly repeating the refrain that he saw emerge from the Pauline epistles - freedom.  Once, when asked if there was any scriptural support for the idea of a secret rapture of the church he replied, "There may be, but I have yet to find it" (179).  Such was his approach to many topics, and often brought him to a place of scrutiny among the Brethren with whom he continued to minister and worship.

The author also includes a chapter on Bruce's writings, providing good summaries of the major content and their impact.  Here is a helpful overview in its own right, providing those who are less familiar with F. F. Bruce to get a better sense of his influence on biblical studies.

The legacy of F. F. Bruce is given consideration in the final chapter, as the author looks at the impact made on three communities: "Brethren, evangelicalism generally, and the world of academic biblical studies" (212).  Throughout his life, Bruce sought to broaden the notion of evangelical by appealing to the text of Scripture over and above any particular tradition or vantage point.  I believe movement such as this greatly enhanced (and still continues to push today) the experience of being Brethren.  (As part of a Brethren community - slightly different than Bruce's particular thread of Brethrenism - there is much for us to learn in order to grow.)

As for being an academic, Bruce's uniqueness is also seen in the lack of 'one big idea' that can be identified (223).  In fact, there is not a heavy emphasis on originality so much as there is on understanding the biblical text.  Moving exegesis to application was the heartbeat of Bruce's life, ministry and academic career.  How did he become so influential?  Through faithful engagement and exposition of the text, making it accessible to the evangelical community.  Here again is a point of agreement between myself and Bruce: the perceived need to become novel in our studies does not necessarily make us more intuitive or accomplished, but often runs the risk of moving us from faithful interpretation for the sake of attaining something new.  Bruce refused to go this route yet still made his impact on the world.

Here is a great mind, a committed evangelical, and a fearless scholar.  F. F. Bruce was 'old-school' in many ways: his choice of church, his opening of doors for other people (even young students), his refusal to work with a computer or electric typewriter, and his lack of interest in an ever-changing popular culture, choosing instead to work for the gospel.

soiled and sterile in sardis

One of the great benefits to those of us who work in the church, especially as teachers and preachers, are the (quite popular) lay commentaries on the New Testament produced by The Bishop (NT Wright).  They are known as the for Everyone series and, if you have yet to encounter one of them, seeks to make the text of the New Testament accessible to folks who would otherwise not open a commentary on Scripture.  Based upon Wright's own translation of the text, there is a dynamic presentation of both the original meaning and contemporary application that many have used for personal study or small group settings.

Wright has recently completed the publication process for the New Testament (John Goldingay is embarking on a similar quest for the Old Testament), appropriately saving Revelation for the final volume.  Although I now possess all of the volumes (I went on a blitz to finish out my set), I confess that I have only read straight through two of them.  The rest I have jumped in and out of as situations arise, mostly when I am looking for ideas of how to present a passage of Scripture to a particular group.  Having been a student of Revelation (as an academic hobby, I suppose) and currently leading a Sunday school group through the text, I have decided to read through Revelation for Everyone along with the material from week to week.

Whenever someone has written as extensively and in-depth as The Bishop, it is a matter of time for even his bigger fans to find areas of disagreement.  I openly admit that I'm a fan of Wright's scholarship, but have had those times when I think he isn't quite on target with a particular thought or idea.  But this time I think he's simply wrong on the facts.

In presenting the Letter to the Church in Sardis (3:1-6) Wright reads v. 4 ("You do, however, have a few people in Sardis who haven't allowed their clothes to become dirty and polluted") as part of a two-stage criticism of the church from the risen Christ.  Let's look.

The critique of Sardis is not good.  Caird once said that this is "perhaps the perfect model of inoffensive Christianity."  They are pronounced dead, yet with the summons to wake up (perhaps only mostly dead).  The sense that there are a few people, "however," that have not soiled their clothes seems to indicate a contrast to those who are not keeping awake, waiting for the coming thief (v. 3).  Yet, Wright takes verses 4-5 as "the second charge" against this church (30), perhaps indicating that these are believers who have demonstrated spiritual laziness and have not allowed their clothes to become dirty from working on behalf of the gospel.  They are likened to people who don't regularly wash their clothes, becoming slack in their spirituality.

Still, vv. 4-5 says that this group of people (the "howevers") will walk with Christ as those who have clean robes, along with those who overcome.  Nowhere have I encountered the notion that this image is used as a criticism rather than a commendation.  Lupieri's commentary says it this way, "Throughout the book 'clothes' are to be 'kept' (16:5) from being 'defiled' (3:4), and if they are not yet white or are no longer white they must be 'washed (7:14; 22:14 . . .) or 'purified' . . ." (124).

I'm not sure what happened in the for Everyone series at this particular point.  And perhaps I will have further disagreements as I move forward in the text.  But this is a point on which I felt the need to respond.  In many ways it is a minor disagreement, but it is also the Word of God which should be sought after for the greatest accuracy possible.  This in no way overshadows the power of Wright's handling of the text (notably the seven letters), and the entire for Everyone collection remains at the height of my recommended reading list.

the experts

One of the most disturbing bits of modern evangelical terminology is church expert.  We have been convinced that we need a class of the superchurched who can lead us along the path of ecclesiastical prosperity.  In our ongoing quest to discover the placard map which will not only tell us "You Are Here" but also the right path to get where we want to be, we seek out canonical gurus that can guarantee our success.  Or so we have sometimes told ourselves.

My problem with this line of thought is that I strongly disagree that there are any modern church experts.  That's right, I deny their existence.  At first, you might think this is a near-incoherent rambling of someone who has been burned in the catacombs of church leadership.  You are right on some regards, but my decision to question the existence of church experts was not made on the basis of emotional reaction.  Instead, I come to this as a theological determination, reflective of what our larger narrative context ought to be.

Sure, there are programs and degrees which confer on ourselves the perception that we have attained some expertise in the life and health of the church, though we must be reminded that true wisdom and understanding is the growing acceptance of the knowledge that we are aware of far less than our arrogant youth assumed.  That is to say, if we are truly wise we know that there is far too much knowledge that we are not experts - not in any sense of superiority - for learning is lifelong and truth holy and profound.

But there is a sea of books, audio lectures, seminars, consultants, curricula and, yes, degree programs that capitalize on our sense of having mastered the science of church life and health.  We believe that we can create for ourselves a class of spiritual physicians, headed up by a team of specialists and surgeons for when those difficult situations arise.  And maybe we are not so far off in asking for help from those who have been there before, or seeking the counsel of those who display godly wisdom,  But how does that become its own trek of Christian discipleship, that we should sit at the feet of those who program church as though it were a corporation?

It seems to me that the church has already identified a group of church experts, and that they have served as the foundation for how the body of believers will move in faith and practice upon God's word.  Indeed, we rest upon Apostolic Authority, not only in the determination of how the canon was assembled but also in the message we have received regarding our path of discipleship.  The Early Church Fathers understood this and sought to build upon the work of the apostles, some of whom were the disciples of these twelve disciples.  The same could be said for the Reformers and many other moments in church history.

But I fear that it is far too common for church leaders today to give more credence to the fleeting whims of publication and trendiness than we will to the work of the apostles.  In other words, we are trying to find our faith in the systematized techniques of modern organizational theory than we are reading and learning and memorizing our Scripture.  There are far more answers for the church in its sacred canon than in all of the leadership treatises combined.  Many would echo that statement, but few will be innocent of it; many will walk the wide path, few will choose the narrow.

How many church experts have you encountered?  I haven't seen too many, but from what I have seen there is nothing new under the sun, and there is often a lack of spiritual or scriptural depth to what I have seen presented.  One particular piece of correspondence chided the congregational leadership for lacking in credibility, though never once in a multiple page document did they make an appeal to Scripture (or even a scriptural principle), personal character or ethics in God's kingdom (that context didn't appear at all) . . . but did make reference to the appropriate fee structure that could be arranged for any assistance that was given.

I am beginning to wonder about any of this taking money for ministry (even though it is my vocation), as I see how it can be a strong internal motivator against the people of God.  For with such a set of parameters, both truth and love are certainly taking hits for the sake of retaining a position, an income, or a reputation . . . all three of which should have been crucified with Christ and no longer living.