Worship and such truck

A friend asked me to comment on the (new) classic battle of hymns vs. contemporary worship songs. So here are my thoughts in bullet-point format and in no logical order. And now, with little ado and much over-generalization, here it goes.

(From the outset I must confess that this post works as a sort of apologetic for contemporary worship songs. While I personally prefer hymns to contemporary music, I cannot get rid of the latter. Perhaps this post will show you why).


-Hymns are not inherently better than contemporary worship songs (CWS). There are bad hymns as there are bad CWS ('bad' in terms of solid, orthodox content).

-Worship music (both hymns and CWS) can have different functions. Some songs can be more didactic in their purpose (seeking to teach specific truths/doctrines); some are simply scripture passages put to music. Others work to build unity among believers and therefore do not focus solely on God. A mix of worship songs are needed; one 'song type' cannot be used alone.

-Both hymns and CWS are attempts to express biblical truth and/or responses to biblical truth in a particular time in a particular culture. They both use language and imagery of their times to make Christian realities relevant and understandable to their own particular time. Now, on this point I must dwell for a bit. The reason I enjoy hymns more is that hymns (for the most part) employ language and imagery that is drawn directly from the Bible ('thee' and 'thou' notwithstanding). I love 'Guide Me, O Thou Great Jehovah' because of the OT wilderness imagery; I get how the imagery is being used in the song to describe the Christian life. And yet, if I go to the middle of downtown Chicago and tell people about how my wandering in the desert is not a problem because I am being guided by a pillar of fire, and I call them to follow that pillar as well, what is the most obvious reaction. Whatever the colorful language and awkward stares I get, it all points to the fact that the language I used makes no sense! And I'm sure the reaction in most churches today wouldn't be much different (I hate the phrase 'most churches today,' but I used it anyway). That language of wilderness wandering had more significance and resonance with believers from an earlier generation, but now it is lost (this isn't the time and place to explain why, unfortunately). So now we have CWS that uses (*gasp*) contemporary language and imagery to convey similar truths, and that is a good thing. For good or for ill, at least songwriters are striving to worship God using language that our culture understands and resonates with. Christians seeking to understand the times and address it properly is always praiseworthy, although the results may not always be perfect.

As I always end my posts, there is much more that must be said. But my time is short and my attention span is shorter, so good night.

Not by might, nor by power, nor by books, but by my Spirit

Okay, I must confess. I am a negligent blogger. It's a sad fact, but that's how it is.


Feels good to get that off my chest. Now onto the post!


Trinity's bookstore had a store-wide 40% off sale. Needless to say, the phrase "book sale" is my bat signal. So I swooped into action, and here are my little treasures:







These two are simple overviews of the past few decades of study on the OT and NT respectfully. They both average around 500 pages, each chapter written by a specialist on their own specialty. Topics covered (to name a few): textual criticism (OT and NT), linguistics (Stanley Porter writes this for the NT edition), historical issues, and each genre/body of writings (Pentateuch, Gospels, etc.). Each chapter is basically a "here's what people are saying about (insert subject), so nothing new is going to be said in these books. Unless anyone wants to do further biblical study or is extremely curious, I can't really recommend this series. But for my purposes I find them quite useful, maybe even invaluable.



This little number comes from a theology conference a few years ago. I'm not sure why I bought it. I have really enjoyed other things I have read by Markus Bockmuehl, and the opportunity to read an essay of his along with essays by Kevin Vanhoozer and N.T. Wright (and many others) pulled me in. From what I gather so far, the book is based on the popular movement (not sure if that is the right word) of 'theological interpretation of scripture.' And this book uses that foundation to investigate how the NT influences and prescribes theology. So I'm curious. Pray that I'll remain orthodox :]



This book comes highly recommended by a fellow blogger and patristics/trinity buff. This is a wonderful textbook that gives brief overviews of the life and writings of a great many church fathers. Since my familiarity with the fathers/early church history is painfully little to none, this is great for me to be able to taste a little bit of information about a lot of people. And if I find something that interests me, the book's massive bibliographies on each entry provide more than enough direction for future study. If you are like me and need a gentle intro to early church history, go here first.



Lastly, I had to pick up another book in Carson's New Studies in Biblical Theology series. And what better volume to buy than 'Thanksgiving' by Dr. David Pao (who is also known as 'my academic adviser'). This volume looks at the uses of thanksgiving language throughout the Bible--especially in Paul (as well as extra-biblical/intertestamental literature), and shows the seriousness of thanksgiving (yes, it is serious thanks!). This book is an easy skim-read (unlike other volumes in this series), and Pao's pastoral sensitivity shines through. If you have ever read anything by Paul, read this. I'm not sure Dr. Pao would like me to say that.

I'd like to get back to that wonderful topic of evangelism. However, I'm going to approach evangelism from a different angle. And the angle might be such that I may not even tangentially touch on evangelism. But it's okay; God is good. Let's get at it.

In a conversation between two professing Christians, one fields the question: "I repented and asked Jesus to save me, so why bother reading your Bible all the time and stuff like that? What else do you need?"

Whoa


After hearing about that conversation (and especially that question), I almost collapsed on the floor, Jenga-style. On the one hand, I felt like I had never heard such blasphemy in my life (I've calmed down since then and have retracted the accusations of blasphemy). Come on! Who doesn't want to read their Bible!? That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

Then I stopped. The scales came off, and I realized that that question is simply one of the best questions I have ever heard. One half of me screams "Burn the heretic!" (as previously demonstrated). But the other half marvels at and sympathizes with the question and the question-er. Here's why:

The question itself "Why bother to read the Bible and (insert other Christian practices) when being saved is all that we need?" is so foundational and significant that it deserves its own individual treatment. Then, have that question be asked by a well-churched, well-seasoned, professing Christian and you have a whole new knot in a tangled piece of string. If that question was posed in a vacuum, or even by a non-Christian, then the answer is seemingly simple. But a senior Christian asking that question shows some major holes in their foundational beliefs.

So I've labored the point long enough. And since I've labored over making that point long enough, I'm going to post this little diddy. But, friendly reader, what do you think about this person's question? What does this question reveal? How would you respond? We can't really address the individual in question (pun, unintentional), but we can look at the question and work from there.

Quickie Book Roundup

Here are some books that have been throwing words at my eyes this semester.






David Clark's To Know and Love God has been one of the most enjoyable reads in recent memory. The book is essentially a book on how to do theology, but it isn't as boring as it sounds. With a theological-philosophical focus, Clark gently takes you through competing ideas about theology, the method, and the difficulties surrounding the study of theology. Clark puts a lot into the 300+ pages. His treatment of doing theology in a globalized context shouldn't be missed. It is focused, broadly-evangelical, gospel and God-centered, understandable, and many other words. Books like these make me like theology again. Please don't miss this one.




It's hard for me to review (if you call what I'm doing a book review) Daniel Migliore's Faith Seeking Understanding. From the get-go, this book is a success. It succeeds at being an up-to-date introduction to the major doctrines of Christian theology. Christology, salvation, God, humanity, it's all there in 439 pages (complete with index, biblical citation list, and a glossary of theological terms!). There's plenty of quotations and interaction with feminists, Roman Catholics, liberationists, and Karl Barth. And them some more Karl Barth. 73 Barth citations is what the index tells me. However, for all this outside (read "non-evangelical") interaction, the book succeeds in being a more liberally-minded text, full of statements and conclusions that one can only agree with in part. Take, for example, this quote from his only paragraph on Hell:

Hell is simply wanting to be oneself apart from God's grace and in isolation from others. Hell is that self-chosen condition in which, in opposition to God's agapic love and the call to a life of mutual friendship and service, individuals barricade themselves from others. It is the hellish weariness and boredom of a life focused entirely on itself. hell is not an arbitrary divine punishment at the end of history. It is not the final retaliation of a vindictive deity. Hell is self-destructive resistance to the eternal love of God. it symbolizes the truth that the meaning and intention of life can be missed.

There is so much I'd like to agree with in this quote, but there's so much that is skewed or unsaid that in the end I have to leave it. This still is a very interesting book, for no other reason than to see what others are saying.




Frank Lambert's Inventing the 'Great Awakening has awakened the sleeping historian within me. This book is written against those who in the past few years have argued that the Great Awakening of the 18th century didn't really happen. They say reports about the awakening were blown out of proportion and used by 19th century revivalists to justify their claims to a revival. So Lambert goes through the historical context of the 18th century colonies and the data to see if the Great Awakening was in fact Great. I'm still in the beginning of this one, and so far I have been blown away by Lambert's clarity and slow treatment of the material. I was intimidated by this book, not being a historian of any stripe, but I am loving it now.

"Many of the restaurants in Valdosta (Georgia) will take a dollar off the price of your Sunday dinner if you can produce a bulletin as proof that you attended church that morning."

-Randall Balmer Mine Eyes Have Seen the Glory


This is the best quote I've read all year.

Making Christians, Making Christians, La La La

The title of this posted is warmly adapted from the song "Making Christmas" from "The Nightmare Before Christmas." This change has been made without permission from the original creators. I apologize if this gets anyone mad.

After watching the movie "Nightmare Before Christmas" back in October, I was struck with the desire to write a well thought-out and edifying blog post about it with some reflections. However, the study of the Hebrew language laid seige to my schedule and made several demands upon me so that I was unable to put out the post as I originally intended. (Note: And I got engaged over Christmas break, so don't hate) But here at last is the blog post, but I can't guarantee that it will be well thought-out or edifying.

I intend to use the film "The Nightmare Before Christmas" as an original illustration to make an un-original point. To summarize the movie quickly: There is Halloweentown, where monsters, vampires, goblins, and skeletons live and move and have their being. All they know and live for is Halloween. However, Jack the Pumpkin King is tired of Halloween, and he wants something else/new/more. He goes on a strange journey where he ends up in Christmas Town, where he sees and experiences the joys of Christmas. He returns to Halloweentown, intent on bringing Christmas to everyone in Halloweentown.

Then this is where I started to think and smile. To continue summarizing: Jack returns from his 'conversion experience' to Christmas, determined to celebrate Christmas in Halloweentown. He begins his process of 'Christmasization' by explaining to the Halloweentown folk what Christmas looks like (decorations, lights), what is done during Christmas (singing carols, giving presents), and other generic bits of Christmas faith and practice. And the town goes out to orchestrate their first Christmas.

But, as you can remember, Jack's Christmas fails miserably. In fact, their version of Christmas is really just Halloween but wrapped up in boxes with bows. All the presents are monsters that frighten and attack the children; same with the decorations. There are bats, spiders and skeletons in the decorations. This isn't Christmas!

Enough summary, time for my reflections. This movie made me think about the nature and content of contemporary Christian evangelism.* As Christians, we try to explain God and the gospel to others, much like Jack tried to explain Christmas to Halloweentowners. Yet, people have such a limited/skewed/nonexistent understanding of God and the Bible that they take our message and interpret it through their cultured preunderstanding (the $2 phrase of the day). The Halloweentown folk heard Jack's message of Christmas and by it simply reproduced Halloween because Halloween is all that they knew.

What the movie encouraged me to do is to work harder at giving a wider Christian worldview when sharing the gospel. Having come out of the "Grace-Man-God-Christ-Faith" style of evangelism, I want a full view of the Bible to drive my evangelism. That way I hope I would not only be able to share the gospel, but to re-orient the hearer's understanding of biblical truths and concepts.

Okay, I've said too much for one post, but not for just one post. I'll try to start a series of posts of my reflections. Pray for me.



*Confession: Whenever I see the phrase 'contemporary Christian _______' (or other similar forms) on a blog, I cringe. I do that because oftentimes the blog writer will follow that phrase with a series of unqualified and uncalled-for attacks/critiques that do more harm than good. I don't want to be like that. I don't want this post/possible series to be me taking my guns to my home team. Just because I'm in seminary to get a bigger debt doesn't mean I get a bigger mouth.

Notice from the Management

I promise at least 2 new posts after finals are over and before the next semester begins.