to liturgy or not liturgy...

So I've been thinking a lot lately on liturgy, whether to have it or not to have it.  I started realizing that there really is no not having liturgy, even the more contemporary churches who don't do a traditional liturgy have a liturgy as this video expresses:

 

So upon coming to the conclusion that this contemporary style is a liturgy I began debating on which was better, the traditional liturgy or this "new" liturgy.
The pros of the traditional liturgy is that it is wrought with symbolism, its centered around meaning in absolutely everything even the most minute details; now I'll admit there are details lost on me and I have no idea what some things symbolize, but I would like to know nonetheless.  The symbolism gives this liturgy its power, the way the worship area is set up down to how the service proceeds.  If you could get tap into that symbolism and get people to "get it" then the experience of worship becomes amazing.
There are cons though, and ultimately churches, in my opinion, have done a down-right crappy job of helping people get it and because of that the service doesn't explode with meaning, but gets staid, tired and old.  The service drones on because people aren't emotionally involved.  Sure you can spice it up with some good songs and some good words and phrases in the right places, but if the people don't connect with the meaning behind everything then its all for naught and you have simply hit an emotional nerve.  Which is why people seek out the new liturgy, it taps into their emotions.

So the pros of the new liturgy are that they do indeed touch our experience and emotions, they seek to connect with us in that way because the symbolism and ritual, all wrought with meaning, is lost on these worshipers.  Thus, they set up the worship setting and service in a way that enables people to connect... a rock concert.  Don't deny it, you don't go to a concert/show/performance of some band/artist you love and don't get totally caught up into the songs/lyrics/moment.  So as I was saying with the symbolism, you tap into people's experience of things and they get caught up into it and it moves them.  This can connect with people, its why a lot of traditionally traditional churches are moving to it.  They want to reach the unchurched and dechurched who are turned off and repulsed by the perceived deadness of traditional churches because the symbolism didn't connect with them.
But there are cons to this too.  Where is the meaning?  Its essentially flip flopped from the old liturgy, it hits people's experience, but by purely emotional means and not by the power of ritual and symbolism.  There's a reason traditional churches look completely different than the boxes of new churches, one is built around symbolism and ritual, and the other is built around experience.  So I am frustrated by the lack of symbols and ritual.  They reach these unchurched and dechurch and get them caught up in the experience of joy found in a relationship with Christ, and yet they don't get at the nuances and the beauty of the minute things, which are actually big things, in Scripture that the symbolism gets at.

So the conclusion that I have come to is, well, I prefer neither or I prefer both.  They both have amazing strengths, but those strengths become their weaknesses. We need a mix of both, and that has been done, I've experienced it.  Unfortunately, that experience after a while became staid and dull as well.  Ultimately, I would prefer to some how mix the two, but it can be just one type of mix.  I love having the experience of a church rock concert every now and then just as much as I enjoy having the experience of a high church service every now and then just as much as I enjoy the experience of a blended service, so long as they are done well.

I guess what I am trying to get at is what we don't need is a liturgy that we can plug in because it works well and then forget about it except for changing the songs and prayers each week.  Nor do we need a service that we use because it gets across what we want it to get across without somehow inviting people into what we want the liturgy to do and what it means.
Liturgy needs to be dynamic, because God is dynamic.  One set of symbolism and ritual doesn't get at the complexity of God and it never can get at it unless we load it with so much stuff that we need to make a reality show of it on A&E.  We should not only be willing, but needing to change up how we do church more frequently than we do.  We need to change it not because membership is dropping or because we want a new format, but because we need to, want to express the glory of God in a new way.  Heck do it every week if you can, but don't even do it on a time table, make it haphazard, cause really that's how we experience God, and that's kind of how God revealed himself, in crazy ways that we look at and are like "huh?"
Liturgy also needs to be done well.  It can be the most dynamic, amazing, symbolic, emotional experience ever and still be terrible and isolated from the congregation.  We can't just do it and hope people get it.  We need to invite people into it every step of the way, with a sentence or paragraph at the beginning or at every point in the service that we do something.   And it needs to be done IN the service, not have a class on it, or a Wednesday night study on it.  It needs to be able to invite long time members as much as first time visitors from other traditions or lack of tradition.

That's my conclusion, now the problem is.... how do I get this to "work?"  How do you get a church in on this and what are the practicalities?  Personally I have never seen a church service done like this except here at Candler, but that's only during the non-communion services and I kind of wish they could figure out a "new" way to do communion than just going between different traditional liturgies.... So I guess I have more to think on for now.

Further thoughts on agrarian

So I have had a particularly interesting discussion with my brother, of course, I don't know if you can't have an uninteresting discussion with him...
He made the comment that agrarian is fine and all, but that I shouldn't expect it to feed the world.  I think its a good point, if I am going to propose a way that is a more ethical treatment of the land, it should also be an ethical treatment of the people the land feeds.  In this case, ethical in that it actually does feed everyone and not force people into starvation simply for the sake of ethical land practices.
I agree with that, and if agrarian farming can't feed the world then we have a whole different ethical issue on our hands... which I'd love to, but won't, get into... right now.

I do disagree with him on the facts that he's using and the land ethic such a conclusion comes from.  No one can claim that agrarian farming can't feed the world.  We have no model to judge it by, agrarian farming is completely different from small scale, family farming.  It is an ethical practice that informs farming practices, it is not a farming operation type.  Agrarian farming can cut across all sorts of operation sizes and produce; therefore we have no agrarian model to compare to the current corporate farming model.  The green revolution wasn't changing an agrarian system that couldn't feed populations to a corporate system that could; it was the import of technology that enabled the small farmers to get bigger and produce more.  Any one that argues that agrarian farming can't feed the world is coming from the same place as I am when I say it can, a reasoned hypothesis.  I do not doubt that corporate farming looks like it can feed the world, but I also do not doubt that it looks that way simply because it is the way that we have known for so long that we don't know how any other way would work.
I am not an advocate of getting back to the "good ole days" of farming prior to corporate take over.  That won't work, because the purpose then was the same purpose as now, and that's evident of the dust bowl.  The dust bowl was the result of unagrarian farming practices: using the land to get produce.  I could be able to say that most of human history has farmed in similar ways, but I don't want to because I don't want to justify the statement!  So instead I will go on... Corporate farming is just fine, I have no problem with the ideas of corporations owning and running big farms, I do have a problem with how they run them, and why.  This is where agrarianism, at least as I see it, cuts across all farming operations, a corporate farm can be agrarian, it can farm the land ethically, it can treat the land as God's gift to man and rule over it as God rules.

Perhaps agrarian farming can't feed the world, but I would also say that neither can corporate farming.  Agrarianism might not be able to do it because its practice won't produce enough yield; Corporatism won't be able to do it because it is unsustainable and will eventually farm the land to a point to where it simply can't produce enough yield.  But I think the underlying issue here is the idea of the land's purpose to serve us.  So long as the world views land in that selfish light it will never be able to feed the world; the population will continue to live beyond its means by way of over-population with the idea that they can force the land to keep up, leading to over-production.   This is why I mention the creation story's idea that humanity is created to exercise dominion how God does, and the perfect picture of how God does that is Christ.  There is nothing selfish about God, he does not demand things from us, instead he seeks only to do everything for us.  There is a difference between how God desires fellowship with humanity, and how humanity demands produce from the land so that it can live how it wants to.

Christians should be organic.

     This is a relatively new view for me.  I mean I've always leaned toward the green perspective due to my parents leaning that way, but I've always kind of seen the whole organic thing as a healthy diet type of thing, not really as a way of viewing the world.  And so discredited it.
     Perhaps a better way to say it isn't so much Christians should be organic, but be agrarian.  Scripture, Culture and Agriculture has opened my eyes more to this perspective.  I've been telling everyone that I have been wanting to read a book like this; one that looks at Scripture with an environmental hermeneutic, not simply pulling out verses here and there and then pulling them together for some sort of exhortation.  Finally in this book I have it!  Also, in some of my classes is an individual who majored in organic farming and shed light on the fact that its not about a healthy diet but how to treat the land, unfortunately most people don't look at it this way.
     Like I said, I've always leaned green; I've viewed the creation story in Genesis 1 as saying, among other things, that we should take better care of this planet.  God has given us the task to "subdue the earth" and "rule over" all of the animals, but just before that it tells how God created humans in his own image.  It says quite obviously that we are to subdue and rule in the way that God would.  So the question I ask is, "How does God rule?"  And the place that  am brought to most easily is how God exercises dominion over humans... by serving them, doing everything he can for them to give them all of his glory and riches by going to the cross and suffering in their place.
     The amazing thing about this book is that it goes way beyond that, it gets into Leviticus, among others books, and all the dietary laws and other laws that seem haphazardly put together and looks at them through this agrarian perspective.  Most of what I have read so far I have really enjoyed reading.  I'll admit in some places I feel like she's stretching the analogies and perhaps reading into something that's not there, but the overall view really works well.  I would and I am recommending this book to people to gain a new perspective or develop one they already have.
     The view that we should be living on this earth, by ensuring its well being and not ours.  After all the world is God's and he has entrusted us to take care of it, unfortunately we mostly look at it as full of resources to be had, which s reflected in the way we farm, raise cattle, mine, etc.  Christians should be intent on caring for this world better.  Let's just thank God that he exercise dominion over us far better than we do over creation.

On the road again...

Or at least it feels that way.  One thing about this whole life circumstance right now is that I feel totally unsettled; it seems like the biggest, most drawn out transition.
Of course graduating college into the worst job market in recent history felt that way as well, but at least I was living with 3 unemployed guys who shared my misery!  Eventually though I was able to find some footing and get settled, to an extent I guess you could say, but then seminary comes.  So this is where I am now and I look ahead  to June and I am getting married.  In the span of 3 years 3 major life changes have happened.  And all I want to do is get settled, but I feel like I won't be able to for another 7 months!  This is definitely frustrating, especially when I feel like my grades and thus scholarships are hanging in the balance.
When I was in my extended transition after graduating UNCG I was frustrated but only because I didn't know where I was going or how I was going to get there and pay for it.  That sort of looking out and seeing yourself on the edge of the cliff and not knowing how and where to go is more scary than simply frustrating, so I was frustrated because I was scared.  Now I'm frustrated again for partly the same reason, paying for Seminary when you have money tied to grades and then the fear of not being able to make the grades and not being able to make them because you have so much to attend to.   It's definitely frustrating, not knowing and then also not being where you want to be.
I must keep telling myself the love Christ has for me.  Which I don't like, primarily because I feel like I should know it by now.  Not because I don't like it though, I assure you!  It's just the first thing I seem to forget, and the easiest thing I seem to forget is the love of God for me.  He is far more concerned with me than I could even know and that, because of this, everything that I go through is all for my good for his good purposes.  It seems so hard to believe sometimes when you don't know what the heck is going on and you're just trying to make it through the next paper, test, weekend, etc.  Yet it is also comforting, especially comforting is how often I am reassured by everyone that I am meant for this.  Because often I forget that too, but the people who love me most and are the most willing, at least I would hope, to tell me when I am going the wrong direction, tell me that I am at the right place and doing the right thing, going in the right direction.

Trust sucks.  I'll admit it.  Trust sucks because it's hard, especially trusting God.  It doesn't mean that I don't love it, it just means that I have to depend on not knowing and going totally on faith in trusting God.  That's scary for me, I am such an analytical, understanding based person and the thing I am called to most in my life and relationship with God is to not know and just take a, seemingly, giant step off this cliff into the abyss of the unknown trusting and totally depending on God's love and call for my life.  Which for now is into school debt and ridiculous busyness trusting that not only will God pull me through, but that God has some sort of prosperity on the other side, be it freedom from debt or, and even better I would say, a deeper more real knowledge of his trustworthiness, faithfulness and love.
Though I would totally get the last part if it was freedom from debt.... haha!

My favorite band... for right now

For right now being key.
Primarily because it could literally change in like a split second.
I will say that favorite is determined primarily by what I have been wanting to listen to mostly lately, and mostly lately I have been wanting to listen to Caedmon's Call.  Why might you ask?

I am so glad you asked!

They are amazing!
But the two things I enjoy about them are that they have a folk sound and a theological message that I not only enjoy hearing and agree with, but its not presented in a stupid cheesy way.  I love things that have a folk sound to it, like Paul Simon and Nickle Creek or Mumford and Sons and Fleet Foxes.  It's just something about the sound of acoustic guitars layered over each other, or even the use of folk sounds from other parts of the world.  My favorite song by them is "There's Only (Holy One)".  It is on their album Share the Well, which was produced during and after they spent time traveling Ecuador, Brazil and India.  So there is a world folk sound to the whole album, and I think it's really evident in this particular song primarily because it's played in DADGAD tuning or D modal tuning, which was popularized by Davey Graham.  (I love to play in this tuning, if you never have I suggest you should, it's so much fun just to jam in it, and relatively easy to do so.)  This is evident in a lot of their other songs though, some have like a poppy folk sound, others not so much, some have a really world folk sound, and some sound as if though they were made for radio, but all I think exhibit a Singer/Songwriter feel. Which is very different from a lot of the music you hear on Christian radio, or other Christian sources.  A lot, not all, is either cheesy Christian pop/adult contemporary or teen-angst fueled, alternative rock; at least half of it, though, isn't even good.  I don't want to throw out examples, but if you are familiar with Christian radio you know what I mean, or if not, oh well.  There's just not depth or meaning to it, Bob Dylan's "Hurricane" tells such a brilliant story about social injustice and in such a musically pleasing, appropriate way, but you rarely hear such adept story telling tied to good, appropriate music on Christian radio.
Thus, their other greatest asset is their ability to translate a Christian theology and perspective into music and lyrics. I'm not gonna lie, very many artist trying to be Christian Contemporary are terrible at it and terrible for the industry.  I'm not a huge fan a Bruce Springsteen (please don't hate), but I have a huge respect for his ability to translate American ideas into appealing lyrical form.  Heck, I could go on and on about amazing classic rock acts who are amazing lyricists, Led Zeppelin, Tom Petty, The Beatles, Pink Floyd, John Mellencamp, etc. those are just the ones that pop into my head, I'm sure you could name plenty more yourself.  I'm not saying that Caedmon's Call is equal to them, at least not yet, but Derek Webb is pretty dang good at it, as well as the rest of them.  They are able to capture the emotions of the Christian trying to live out Christian ideology and at the same time able to capture the ideology and don't bank on the poppiness to make it stick.
I'll admit I'm very biased, as you can probably tell.  But if you are one of those Christian music cynics like me who actually likes substance to their music then I suggest you check them out.

Mohler on Yoga and I disagree

http://www.albertmohler.com/2010/09/20/the-subtle-body-should-christians-practice-yoga/
http://www.albertmohler.com/2010/10/07/yahoo-yoga-and-yours-truly/

So Mohler recently wrote these articles on Yoga and how its unChristian, and how Christians who practice it are either teetering on the brink of post-modern pluralism, or teetering on the bring of apostasy, or they aren't really Christians.  Maybe he wouldn't necessarily agree with the last two, but I think that he some what leans that way.
I do not disagree with what he says about yoga's background, indeed it is an historical spiritual practice, and everything about it that we practice is only based off of that.  In that sense we are simply taking part in the religious practice of it, albeit ignorantly and not fully giving ourselves to it.  I would also say his conclusion is correct, because of yoga's religious/spiritual nature Christians who practice it are taking part in another religious practice that directs its worship to another god(s).  However, I disagree with his premise that because yoga and Christianity are in service to two different truths, that they are forever diametrically opposed.
Christianity has it fair share of ascetics, Simeon the Stylite for instance.  Prayer and fasting are ascetics, they are simply means that we use to assist our focus on God.  So, yoga as an ascetic practice is completely and totally viable, simply using the body and certain movements to clear one's mind to better meditate and focus on God.  The whole idea of ascetic discipline is to train the body to allow one to clear their mind.  We are created as physical beings; we should not abandon our physicalness for a solely mental spirituality. That to me sounds too much like gnosticism.
Therefore, I applaud the efforts of Christians who seek out some sort of physical discipline to help them focus and relax, I myself hike/backpack,do yoga, lift weights and sleep. (Ha! So maybe not the last one as a discipline, but it is an area of weakness and I wouldn't doubt my ability to serve God would be enhanced if I got more.)  Humanity, Christians included, have a problem of letting life get in the way causing us to cast our eyes downward.  So we need a time of solitude to disengage our attention on the world and enable us to focus our eyes up back on God.  Of course reading Scripture is a great way to do this, prayer is as well, but those things alone are often very mental.  Our Western, Greek Philosophy influenced, culture leaves out our physicalness, which is obviously important to our creatureliness, so luckily we have this connection to this eastern religious practice of yoga that can help.
Yoga, like fasting, I would say depends mostly on natural revelation, where as bible study and prayer depend mostly on special revelation.  Now granted natural revelation without special revelation can be distorted and twisted.  Of course special revelation itself can be distorted and twisted too without insights from natural revelation.  But if I am to go through life dependent solely on one or the other, something is gravely missing.  I am unable to truly experience God in all things if I do not take to heart natural revelation, and I am unable to experience him truly if I do not take to heart what special revelation says about natural revelation.  All this to say, ascetic practices like yoga, hiking, fasting or running are ways to experience God through the body, they are diving into natural revelation, and through this one can fully rest in the Truth that comes through special revelation.  When I hike I let go, I rest; I experience the Triune God in his glorious creation and it frees me (my mind and my body) to rest in my knowledge of his love and my redemption.
The primary point of contention as I see it, and I am pretty certain in this, is not so much of the physical aspect of yoga, it is the practice's historical direction to whatever other god that wasn't Yahweh, not to mention its tantric aspect.  One cannot really practice yoga without diving into some aspect of this, if they do not dive in, then it simply becomes a workout.  However, its not that black and white; one does not have to dive into this to fully appreciate the practice of yoga.  Yoga's whole spirituality can be redeemed, after all it was created by man.  It is simply the longing of individuals to reach out to something that which they know is there; they know it because they sense something in their heart, and they know it because they sense something in nature.  Unfortunately, it was only directed to something other than God.  Now, if one wants to say that once yoga becomes "redeemed" it no longer becomes yoga, but becomes something else entirely, I might say they have a point.  Although, I could in turn say that this opens the door for saying that once humans experience the finality of their redemption then they are no longer human, but something else entirely because their sinful past has been done away with.
I cannot find fault for people who are trying to find a divine experience with the God they know from church through yoga.  Yes, they may be diving into it not truly knowing what they are getting into, nor truly knowing what they could be opening themselves up to.  But I do not find fault with them, I find fault with the staid, dull churches that pushed them there.  We do not need to be cutting off the people who are trying to experience Jesus through yoga by telling them its not Christian to do so.  No, what we need to be doing is fixing the Christianity that's not enabling them to experience "life abundantly".  Perhaps they think church is dull and boring because they have sin and that inturn is making them deaf to the "words of life" they are hearing at church, but if their sin issue isn't being competently addressed by the church then where really is the problem?

The Hypothesis: The Documents

So I just finished taking my first Old Testament exam in seminary; the documentary hypothesis factored into it heavily.  And I have been wanting to get my thoughts down on something, be it paper or computer screen, about it for a while.
So my thoughts on the Documentary Hypothesis: Whatever.  Ha! I guess that's just cause I'm a product if the last 5th of the 20th century.  But in all seriousness, whatever.  I don't think the documentary hypothesis is really that big of a deal, considering it wasn't until later, like the last half of the 20th century, that the literary approach to Scripture made any headway.  If there wasn't an emphasis on a literary approach to reading Scripture in academia before that, then the hypothesis is working in a vacuum.  I would think that working in such a vacuum gave it a lot more power and influence than had it been working alongside other theories, like now for instance.  Not to mention that one of it main proponents was an anti-semite, anti Roman Catholic, so I would assume such a bias throws a little speculation into what he was actually trying to accomplish.  Lets not forget as well that the documentary hypothesis is exactly that a hypothesis, it can most definitely be proven wrong, and with other theories about the formation of the Pentateuch circulating one has to pick which one they want, or how they want it.  The biggest point with the fallibility of a hypothesis is that if it is wrong your interpretation based on that will be wrong as well, and if your interpretation is wrong then your application of that would be wrong.  So essentially your theological framework is "at risk".  (Although I must say, it might be at risk, but I doubt a significant portion would be at risk, and even still its an interpretation based on Scripture. So I would say there is an element of protection there by Providence, or so I would hope.)
Don't get me wrong, though.  The theory has its strong points.  It gives us a way to look at the world behind the writings.  If the first creation account was written by the Priestly source, and the Priestly source was mainly a product of the exile, then we get a glimpse into the thought behind it, and an intended purpose to it.  Or if the Elohist source was a product of the Northern Kingdom it can gives a picture into the why Aaron is cast in such a bad light.  If the hypothesis is wrong though, then of course all the interpretations therein are wrong too.
I would prefer Brevard Child's approach of biblical theology.  It's more of a canonical criticism, we have the Scripture as a whole, and that's how I think it should be dealt with.  Sure insight can be made by the source backgrounds, but ultimately the sources are now together, they are a unified whole and should be interpreted through that lens as much, if not more so than any other.  We have two creation accounts, one from the P source and another from the J, but we don't have them separately we have them together, what does that mean for our interpretation?  We have Sodom and Gomorrah, the conquest of the land of Canaan and what some call genocide, but we also have the prophets, epistles and Jesus, so how do we put these things together in the grand story without becoming Marcionist/ites? (That is saying that the Old Testament God is one of wrath and completely different from the New Testament God of universal love.  Marcion created his own canon and it was essentially Luke and Paul's Epistles.)
Ultimately, in the interpretation of the Scriptures I think its helpful to start from a firm foundation of belief and then pull from many different sources to fill out one's view.  To limit oneself to one criticism or approach would really prevent one from growing and developing new views, or strengthening their own view.  Its really a practice in formal operations, I would think, to put yourself in another hat, or pair of shoes and fully live that out for just a second. Such a practice can help one to grow in their theological understand, as well as their faith.  Interpreting Scripture should be a challenge, and it should seem dangerous and uncomfortable, God is far bigger than one theological thought, or biblical studies approach can handle.
If we really dig into Scripture and only do so to affirm what we already believe what then are we doing?  We are simply using Scripture as a dictionary or encyclopedia, a reference source for our knowledge, is that what we should do?  I do not think so, not if we want to be corrected, trained, rebuked, and taught in righteousness.
One may have their own bias on theology and approach, I for instance like the canonical approach, and prefer Covenant Theology, but I must at least allow all that to be challenged.  I may argue those views to be right, but I must allow the discussion to happen.