aldenswan.com

As I’ve mentioned recently, I was raised Lutheran. Since leaving the Lutheran Church, I’ve attended and visited a number of different churches, from Greek and Russian Orthodox to Evangelical Free to independent charismatic and “third wave” churches, to post-modern experiments. I can say from experience that there are things to appreciate, and things to challenge, about all of these traditions.

One of the things I have noticed in the more contemporary, freestyle church is that they are made up of people who fall mainly into one of three groups:

1. Those who were raised in the more traditional “liturgical” churches and upon “getting saved,” now despise their former church, seeing it as representative of “dead religion;”
2. Those who were raised in a fundamentalist, anabaptist or other “non-liturgical” type of church, who have no personal experience of “high” church (and who also view high churches as dead religion);
3. And, last but not least, those who have no church background whatsoever, and who more than likely have been given no theological framework for evaluating any church tradition (and who probably assume what they are in is the “best,” which is a normal default assumption).

These attitudes can come from what they have been taught, or simply from the modernist assumption that “newer is necessarily better.” In truth, newer is neither better nor worse, simply because it’s newer. Newer benefits from additional scholarship and historical perspectives; on the other hand, the modernist form of newer often tends to toss the baby out with the bath.

The result is that there is often a misunderstanding about liturgy; views range from seeing liturgy as merely old-fashioned to downright evil. An example is the adage, “liturgy is what you do when the Holy Spirit fails to show up.” Most critics fail to appreciate the historical importance of liturgy, which has served as a crucial teaching tool as well as a theological “rudder” through the ages, especially before the Bible was available for mass distribution.

The other common misunderstanding about liturgy is that contemporary churches don’t have it, which of course is an absurd thought. The Greek word from which we get our word “liturgy” simply means “public works,” or in other terms, “the way things are done.” If you go to church knowing you sing for 30 minutes, take an offering then listen to a sermon for the remainder of the time, you’ve got a liturgy.

What most people mean, however, in their dissing of liturgy is the repeated recitation of creeds, proclamations and prayers. The assumption here is that if it isn’t ad hoc or spontaneous, it’s not valid. I’ll not only disagree with this assumption, but offer this: if this is truly what you believe, then you’d better stop singing worship choruses, too. A song is merely a recitation put to music.

I will also suggest that if you are comparing 30 minutes of worship songs to 30 minutes of responsive readings and hymns, the choruses will come up short on many points. The main one for me is that creeds and responsive reading generally tend to be theologically and Biblically accurate, something which you can’t always say about worship songs.

Be honest: do you really believe what it is you are singing every Sunday morning? If not, you are not only participating in a meaningless liturgy, you might also be a hypocrite to boot!

I am not proposing that the so-called “high” churches are better than your church, or that they are worse. I am merely pointing out - once again - that the freestyle churches’ liturgies tend to lack in sound teaching and theology, and it’s time we changed that. What’s wrong with people learning sound doctrine through worship? I have a feeling that was the thought behind the Orthodox (which pre-dated Roman Catholicism) liturgy to begin with.

Learning in church… what a concept!

As I’ve mentioned before, I was raised Lutheran, which I consider to have been a good thing, even though I haven’t been to a Lutheran church in many, many years. It was a good thing because in this tradition, representative of what many would call “dead” religion, I was taught a very sound, living theology which has survived through waves of trends and movements.

One of the things which I now appreciate about my church and the liturgies as set forth in the “red” hymnal (I can’t speak for the newer ones) is that Scripture was highly valued - the reading of pre-chosen Bible passages from both the Old and New Testaments was given a very prominent place in the service. You may question various Lutheran interpretations of scripture, but that doesn’t mean that Scripture wasn’t shown the respect that it deserved.

One of the other things I now appreciate was that the sermon was only 10-15 minutes long.

For the last twenty-some years, I have been attending various “freestyle” churches which, to varying degrees, will claim to have a more vital and true interpretation and demonstration of the Bible. I will agree in part with this assessment; however, all is not well with the freestyle church.

One of the first things you notice when switching from a liturgical church to a more contemporary tradition is that the pastor talks a lot more; sermons can range from 30 to as much as 90 minutes long. That might not be so bad, except that most sermons only have enough quality stuff for about 10-15 minutes, and the rest is, at best, filler. (Hint: unless you’re David Letterman, let’s forget the warm-up comedy bits.)

My main complaint, however, is not the length of the sermon. My complaint is that today’s contemporary sermons do not teach the Bible, or theology; rather, they are merely an opportunity for the pastor or speaker to present their Perspective on Life. As interesting as this may be, there is no place in the Bible where you can find justification for this practice.

The Perspective on Life Sermon can’t honestly be touted as Biblical exposition; in fact, the Bible is often manipulated by quoting partial passages from a dozen different locations to support the predetermined point the pastor wants to make. Often during these speeches, verses will come to my mind which cast at least some doubt on the point being made; however, these are never addressed in the sermon (although I would bet the speaker’s aware of the same verses), for to do so would detract from the pastor’s point. The Point has somehow become inspired, if not inerrant, and the Bible is used to support The Point.

Even in cases where “through the Bible” style sermon series are given, the pastor’s perspective will usually dominate the problem texts of Scripture, if they’re addressed at all. A good speaker can slalom his way down a passage of Scripture without really dealing with it; sometimes the pastor’s need to present his perspective is so great that the Biblical text is almost immaterial. Within the last few weeks I heard a pastor completely abandon his text to insert some personal perspectives which had nothing whatsoever to do with the passage he was speaking on, and present no Biblical basis whatsoever for his perspective. This is not “preaching the Word.” What it is, to varying degrees, is manipulation and deception.

Jeremiah 31, speaking of life in the New Covenant, said:

No longer will a man teach his neighbor,
or a man his brother, saying, ‘Know the LORD,’
because they will all know me,
from the least of them to the greatest,”
declares the LORD.

So… why do we need to pay some guy to give us his perspective on life? (You know, I’ve never heard a pastor speak on this passage…) In my humble opinion, it’s time to elevate the Bible back where it belongs, and to put the sermon back where it belongs - into a supporting role, if we have one at all. And, if we insist on having one, let’s shorten it up a bit.

This is not my planned post for today, therefore a bonus post. Keep watching for the previously announced “the problem with sermons.” 

I read on MSNBC.com today that a new plan by the International Astronomical Union would add 3 planets to our Solar System (or 4, if you are one of the doubters who has already cast Pluto aside).  But why stop at 12? Why don’t they plan for more while they are at it?  Of course, the IAU would probably take offense at the characterization of their proposal as a “plan;” that’s MSNBC.com’s word.   

Rather, this international organization (who has authority from whom? I’m always amazed by these groups who claim to control the “sciences”) is apparently engaging in one of the favorite of post-modern activities, redefining things. The new definition of ”planet” would be:

“A planet is a celestial body that (a) has sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that it assumes a hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round) shape, and (b) is in orbit around a star, and is neither a star nor a satellite of a planet.”

Technically, they are not redefining the term; their complaint apparently was that it was never really formally defined to begin with.  Funny, I always knew what a planet was, since elementary school. I knew their names, and what color they were. We even made models out of styrofoam balls. 

I’m just glad that they didn’t devise a definition that failed to include Earth. That would have been a bummer.  As someone (perhaps Steven Wright) once said, “save the Earth; it’s where I keep all my stuff.”

Science is an amazing thing, it probably deserves a lot more study. I’m thinking that there should be an international agency for the study of science itself (rather than the scientific study of other stuff), the agency being made up of people from outside of the hard sciences (you can’t objectively study yourself).  Maybe they could even come up with a new definition for “science.”

So, keep your eyes opened; the solar system could be changing before our very eyes.