Good ole Peter

When it comes to disciples mentioned often in the New Testament and in our preaching, it is our dear friend Peter.  I think on some level most of us can identify with Peter.  Too often he is remembered as the disciple who denied Jesus three times or the disciple who after seeing the transfiguration declares that they should build three altars right on the spot, an idea which Luke a few years later decided to make fun of him for.

But in today’s lectionary reading, John 6:60-71, Peter makes good.  John 6 contains Jesus’ highly offensive teaching that to be saved one must eat his body and drink his blood – a teaching that offends many who are listening and causes other to say, “This teaching is difficult.”  However, after much of the crowd as left and only the 12 disciples remain Jesus asks them, “are you going to leave too?”  Then Peter replies with a simply beautiful statement:

“Lord, to whom can we go?  You have the words of eternal life.  We have come to believe and know that you are the Holy One of God”

May the church of Jesus Christ never forget that Peter was right – it is Jesus Christ alone who offers the church life.

Emerging Worship

This week I’ve spent most of my free time devoted to reading Dan Kimball’s book, Emerging Worship. I first got to know Dan’s work last fall at the National Youth Worker’s Convention when I attended two of his seminars and was quite impressed. I especially liked the way Dan handled sticky issues that he raised in the “Emerging Questions: Questions Emerging Generations are Asking” or something along that line. He was honest, straightforward, but fair. I clearly remember him raising the issue about the role of women in worship leading:

Dan: Now how many of you are in churches that ordain women? (about a third of the hands – including mine – go up)

Dan: Now how many of you are in churches that don’t ordain women? (about two-thirds of the hands go up)

Dan: Okay, now one of you is wrong, but regardless within the parameters of your theological understanding of the role of women you need to find ways to have both men and women involved in the leadership of worship at your worship gatherings.

I was impressed. Anyway, part of my job at Hampton is to work with turningpoint, which is our “modern” worship service. It, in both style and content, is different from our contemporary and traditional services and is a service intended to reach out to those who are unchurched or have stopped attending church.

As I read Dan’s work I realize that he is coming at “emerging worship” from a very different perspective than I am. He is “emerging” from a traditional evangelical setting where the form of worship where as I am “emerging” from a more traditional reformed style of worship. While there are some commonalities between these two styles, there are also some major differences. Here are some of the common themes I see

1) Both traditional evangelical and traditional reformed emphasize one-way communication: In both traditional settings it is largely the worship leaders speaking to the people.

2) Both traditional evangelical and tradtional reformed emphasize the people worshipping in unison, albeit in different forms. Traditional evangelical tended to do this through unison singing while traditional reformed uses hymns and liturgical elements (call to worship, unison prayers, etc.)

3) Both traditional evangelical and traditional reformed emphasize up and down motion. In both settings you pretty much were either sitting down or standing up, and that’s it. On occasion, you might come forward to respond to an altar call (traditional evangelical) or taking communion by intinction (traditional reformed)

4) Both traditional evangelical and traditional reformed emphasize the message as the central part of the worship service.

5) Both traditional evangelical and traditional reformed emphasize auditory communication over other forms, although traditional evangelical moved toward limited visuals sooner.

However, there are some key differences.

1) Traditional evangelical did away with many “churchy” elements. Traditional liturgical pieces (call to worship, unison prayers, etc.), the church calendar (Advent, Lent, Ascension Day, Christ the King Sunday, etc.), crosses, pews, communion tables, baptismal fonts, organs, stained glass, candles, processional/recessional, bulletins, robes and vestments, etc. went away. The traditional evangelical worship space looked very similar to a school auditorium rather than what is traditionally thought of as a “church”.

2) My wife pointed out that traditional evangelical worship placed a high value on energy – more upbeat music is maybe the easiest place to see this.

Now one thing I am not doing is saying which of these two forms is better. I grew up traditional reformed and know many people who that form of worship has been essential to the growth of their faith. In the same vein, I know many people who grew up in traditional evangelical circles where that form of worship has been essential to the growth of their faith. So I am not saying one was/is right and one is wrong, I’m just pointing out where I see the differences.

So what it seems that Dan is suggesting is largely a recapturing and transforming of some traditional reformed elements (greater emphasis on the sacraments, a return to the church calendar to give a sense of history, crosses and other visual symbols of the faith) meshed into a shift in values toward a community planned and driven worship gathering. Also, Dan suggests a big emphasis on multi-sensory elements that engage all the senses. So, more visuals, taste, touch, etc.

I guess what I find so interesting about the emerging conversation is how a lot of it appears to be traditional evangelicals reclaiming that which we’ve (traditional reformed) have always had and reinventing it into something fresh and newish. This isn’t to say that what is being done and suggested in emerging circles is just traditional reformed with a new face (that’s not true – the multi-sensory piece isn’t not part of traditional reformed worship)

The question that I wrestle with is what those of us emerging from traditional reformed circles do with those things that to so many have become symbols the past which is marked by dry and rote worship.

Thoughts?

Summer is over….

Today summer officially ended for me, as it was our last youth event for the summer at church.  The next major youth event is the kick-off of SWAT (our Jr. High Youth Group) on September 12th.  What an incredible summer this has been, and it promises to be an incredible fall.

Barth for Armchair Theologians: Summary/Review

When I set out on this short adventure of reading and blogging about a book I said that my comments and review would not be “ojbective” in any sense of the word because I am a fan of Barth’s theology and count John Franke as one of my friends… so take my comments with a grain of salt.

Overall, I really enjoyed Barth for Armchair Theologians.  Its length makes it very digestible  and it’s style, a cross between biographical story and analysis creates a nice balance to read.  Particularly helpful is that this can be desribes as “theological-historical” biography as at every point John seeks to show how the historical content in which Barth was living and writing impacted what he wrote.  My ability to tell whether something is accessible to the average chuch goer is completely shot, but my guess is that most people with an interest in theology would be able to handle it.  I found the last part of Chapter 7, where John discusses the neo-orthodox/postmodern interpretations of Barth to be a little higher grade of discussion, but nothing completely over the top.

What the book helped me to was understand myself better actually.  While my thinking has been shaped by Barth directly (via his books) my thinking has also been shaped by Barth indirectly through the people he has influenced such as professors that I’ve had and authors that I’ve read.  At numerous points in the book I was reading and then went, “Ah ha!  That’s where that came from!”

What did suprise me a bit was that there was no mention of Barth’s highly controversial assisant, Charlotte Von Kirschbaum.  It seems that shortly after the discussion of Barth begins someone brings up the strange mysterious relationship between Barth and Von Kirschbaum and its something that wasn’t even mentioned in this book.

My final assessment is that Barth for Armchair Theologians is well worth reading, especially if one is interested in getting a grasp on his thought prior to diving into the Church Dogmatics which will literally take a person years to read….

Barth for Armchair Theologians: Chapter 4-7

So I got a little behind on my blogging about Barth for Armchair Theologians mainly because I was reading it so fast to the point where I finished the book today. So I’m going to summarize the last four chapters in this post and then post my summary thoughts.

Chapter 4

Chapter 4 is entitled “The Impossible Impossibility” which traces Barth’s rise to popularity as he shifted from Switzerland into Germany and began his time there. What I found most ironic was that Barth was actually throughly unqualified to teach what he had been called to teach (Reformed dogmatics) and thus spent much of his time lecturing in order to teach himself. It’s interesting that he highlights the Heidelberg Catechism which is something that Barth references a great deal in the Church Dogmatics. Franke also highlights Barth’s understanding of Reformed Theology as theology that is constantly reforming, hence for Barth reformed theology has never “arrived”. Finally, this chapter brings to light Barth’s rediscovery of John Calvin and the ultimate impact that that had on his development.

The next section of the chapter highlights Barth’s reference to the “impossible possibility” of theology. Basically, as humans we are inherently unable to speak of God but because God acts in revelation we thus can attempt to speak of God. This is one of many dialectical tensions that emerge in Barth’s thought, but this is perhaps the most central.

Chapter 5

Chapter 5 is entitled, “Bearing Christian Witness” which, given the impossibility of speaking about God is all that we can do. This, along with the belief that Dogmatics was ultimately to serve the church led him to undertake “The Church Dogmatics” rather than his previously attempted, “Christian Dogmatics”.   The final part of the chapter highlights Barth’s engagement with the Nazi Party in Germany, the Barmen Declaration, and his ultimate dismissal for refsing to sign an oath of faithfulness to the German government.

Chapter 6

Chapter 6, entitled “The Church Dogmatics” is by far the longest and therefore its going to get the shortest summary.  It traces the outline and shape of the Church Dogmatics and then summarizes each volume.

Chapter 7

The final chapter traces Barth’s legacy and his post-retirement legacy.  Franke devotes considerable time to outlining two interpretations of Barth – the neo-orthodox interpretation and the postmodern interpretation.  Franke argues that each interpretation of Barth ultimately fails to account for Barth’s dialectical style.  The neo-orthodox side diminishes the “God as wholly other” emphasis, while the postmodern interpretation neglects God givenenss and revelation.  Franke ultimately argues that is Barth’s dialectical style that must govern our reading of Barth.

Suprisingly Accurate…

So normally when I take “Blog Quizzes” I find them to be junk… but this one actually came out pretty accurate:

Your Five Factor Personality Profile

Extroversion: You have low extroversion. You are quiet and reserved in most social situations. A low key, laid back lifestyle is important to you. You tend to bond slowly, over time, with one or two people. Conscientiousness: You have high conscientiousness. Intelligent and reliable, you tend to succeed in life. Most things in your life are organized and planned well. But you borderline on being a total perfectionist. Agreeableness: You have high agreeableness. You are easy to get along with, and you value harmony highly. Helpful and generous, you are willing to compromise with almost anyone. You give people the benefit of the doubt and don’t mind giving someone a second chance. Neuroticism: You have low neuroticism. You are very emotionally stable and mentally together. Only the greatest setbacks upset you, and you bounce back quickly. Overall, you are typically calm and relaxed – making others feel secure. Openness to experience: Your openness to new experiences is medium. You are generally broad minded when it come to new things. But if something crosses a moral line, there’s no way you’ll approve of it. You are suspicious of anything too wacky, though you do still consider creativity a virtue.

The Five Factor Personality Test

The Heart of the Missional Church

Registration for The Heart of the Missional Church is now open… don’t miss this event!

Semi-major announcement…

… Renee will be starting seminary (part-time in the fall) @ PTS.

Barth for Armchair Theologians: Chapter 2-3

In Chapter 2 of “Barth for Armchair Theologians” John Franke continues to trace the biographical developments of the young Barth as he began his time as a Swiss pastor.  As someone who has read mainly the later Barth (Church Dogmatics III.3-IV.2) some of the statements that Franke recounts are quite stunning, but helpful to understanding Barth’s beginnings.  Most notable has to be Barth’s comment regarding the Chalcedonian definition of the nature of Jesus Christ: “If Jesus were like this I would not be interested in him” (Pg. 22)  Franke also highlights Barth’s involvement with Christian socialism and his involvement in the struggles of his parishoners.  This all leads to the most illuminating part of the chapter, where Franke describes Barth’s break with liberalism.

Franke points out that Barth’s break with liberalism began in the midst of World War I, when many of his teachers had given their stamp of approval to the German war effort, much to the chagrin of Barth.  “For Barth, the fatal flaw in the liberal approach to theology was it limited ability to speak about God in ways that challenged the assumptions and presuppisitions of a particular culture… Hence, the God of liberal theology appeared to Barth to function as one who simply sanctioned the values and norms that society had established and certified them with a divine seal of approval.” (Pg. 31)

What we might ask led to Barth’s shift?  It was a return to the bible, and a new way of reading the bible.  “The bible is not primiarly about history, religion, morality, and the like, but rather God.  God is the content of the Bible.  It is not right human thoughts about God that make up the content of the Bible, but rather right divine thoughts about human beings…. it <the Bible> stands over against our knowledge and will as something Wholly Other.

It was this view of the bible, coupled with his intense study of the Epistle to the Romans that led to the “bomb that went off in Switzerland” (to quote one of my former professors); Barth’s commentary on Romans.  The new central piece of Barth’s thinking became the idea that God was “Wholly Other”.  I personally had never made the connection between Barth’s frustration with seeing God’s blessing too easily pronounced over World War I with his emphasis on God as “Wholly Other” who could not be co-opted to affirm human interests.  Rather, according to Franke Barth argued “… that the Bible legitimatizes only one truth, one store, and one kingdom, the kingdom of God.” (Pg. 46)

Franke then attempts to explain Barth’s “dialectical approach” to theology.  Even as someone who is familiar with this I was highly suspicious that this section would come across as being at all readable.  However, I am happy to report that I think it’s clear and readable.  “He <Barth> speaks of the revelation of God in Jesus Christ as the center of human knowledge of God yet also asserts that human beings do not have the ability to understand what has been revealed.”  To put this into my own words, God’s revelation through Jesus Christ is something we know happened, but within the frameworks that we have we cannot understand and comprehend it.  It is the “Wholly Other” acting in our world. There is a simply beautiful paragraph that I was going to try and summarize but it simply cannot be done

Barth’s dialectical approach to speaking about God meant that standard assumptions concerning theology in both liberal and conservative traditions, had to be rethought and reconstructed.  Hence, Barth tended to be wary of straightfoward propositional statements about God, revelation, and truth which would suggest that we as human creatures are in a position to speak knowingly about things that are of neccessity, because of the Creator-creature distinction, known only to God in spite of revelation.  Propositions are too static for speech about God.  Yet he also wanted to affirm, indeed felt compelled to affirm, that God had indeed been revealed and made known in Jesus Christ.  Hence it was neccessary to do two things: first, to recognize and acknowledge the inadequacy of human langauge with respect to God; and second, given the necessity and responsibility of human beings to bear witness to their Creator, to rethink and redeploy patters of theological speech that were dynamic and more reflective of a God who cannot be pinned down, contained, or put in a box” (Pg. 48)

Yes – go back and read that again.  It’s that beautiful.

Franke wraps up chater 3 by introducing the Lambech lecture, which Barth was invited to give in Germany to a group of Christian Socialists.  In it, Barth actually argues against that which he used to support and says that in the end God alone can save the world and put things right.  Another quote:

“In light of the resurrection, human beings can no longer live under the illusion that we can change the world for God or on behalf of God, but we can live in the assurance that god can and will overcome and transform the world and bring about the Kingdom of God.  This is our hope” (Pg. 55)

Needless to say, thus far I am impressed and enjoying Barth for Armchair Theologians.  As I said in a post a few days ago my review is far from objective (no review really ever is) as I’m a huge fan of Barth and count John Franke among my friends.  However, it is helpful to see the care in which John has focused on Barth’s early life instead of diving directly into the Church Dogmatics and that this book is approached as a biography.

Chapter 4/5 to come tomorrow…

Barth for Armchair Theologians: Intro/Chapter 1

John Franke opens his introduction by asserting, as many would, that when all is said and done Karl Barth will be considered the giant of the 20th Century, and in all likelihood one of the giants of Christian theology period. The irony, as Franke points out, is that despite this he is one of the least read theologians, in part due to the sheer mass of his Church Dogmatics. Franke points out though that this was not what Barth intended. In fact, Barth himself never completed his doctorate and saw his role as a theologian as assisting the church in its proclamation.

Franke then outlines what the book will be. “This little book tells the story of Barth’s theological journey from liberalism to a new form of theology” (Pg. x) Franke points out that in the end, Barth traced a path of theological thinking that drew the ire of the “conservatives” for being “too liberal” and the ire of the liberals for being “too conservative”. But John invites us to “… enter into the story for themselves and come to their own conclusions”

Chapter 1 is a brief biography of Barth’s childhood, followed by a clear and concise introduction to the three main figures (Schleiermacher, Ritschl, and Herrmann) and in theology who preceded Barth himself and thus shaped Barth’s early thinking. A few things stood out to me from this chapter that I thought were significant

• I was unaware that Barth had grown up in a deeply pious family with a father who valued religious experience over “orthodoxy” and viewed “orthodoxy” as something that sometimes hindered faith
• Franke offers a nice introduction to the enlightenment as well as summaries of Schleiermacher, Ritschl, and Herrmann – not too technical or in-depth, but adequate.
• I think its helpful that Franke starts with a historical introduction and allows the story of Barth’s life to unfold in story form.

Chapter 2: “Breaking with Liberalism”