lex orandi lex credendi

 

  Internet Monk aka Michael Spencer said something quite provocative on his Internet Monk Podcast number 93 (available off Itunes or off his site – click on the Internet Monk Radio tab at the very top) where he talked about the product mindset of evangelicism that produces a spirituality that is ‘product oriented’ and has adopted an industrial mindset heavily influenced by revivalism , techniques and methodologies . One thing Spencer said got me (mainly because it rings  true) ’You really are a product  of certain things that evangeliciasim wants to promote, you are not a person so much shaped by the spirit of God as you are a product shaped by certain processes ‘  By processes he means going to church, having a quiet time etc. This is not something new for Spencer to say indeed he has been saying it for a while. However I wonder how many Christians have really considered their belief structure from this perspective that indeed as much as many Christians want to believe that they are charting their own course that their their theology and worship has actually a long history that has to a large extent boxed them in.

Spencer’s podcast tied into something I had been reading about this week – lex orandi lex credendi – The way you pray determines what you believe. This line basically means that your theology and worship interact. It is kind of like the chicken and the egg argument, you know the one – which comes first the chicken or the egg –  and theologians being the type of people they are debate which comes first and to what extent one affects the other. In short what we believe determines how we worship and how we worship determines what we believe.

In 1984 Roman Catholic theologian Kavanagh argued that worship was the primary source and stimulus of Christian theology. He saw worship as primary theology and theological reflection as secondary theology. Thus if we are going for the whole chicken and the egg argument Kavanagh would definitely be in the worship camp.

On the other hand Methodist Geoff Wainwright 1980  says that the liturgy of the church has always had intellectual stuff in it and is not just about raw emotion and that the two are more like an organic thing rather than two separate entities – an interesting idea especially if you go to some pentecostal services.

 Some things to think about

1) Does theology have a role in limiting worship? Or vice versa

2) If one never analyses their theology does this mean that their worship and growth is likely to remain stagnant or is it possible for such a person because of the lex orandi lex credendi principle to be oblivious to this?

 

Dispenser of tissues

When I started watching this clip i thought it was just another one of ‘those interviews’, you’ll know what i mean if you watch the start of it, the one with the politician talking to the media….. but then when i kept watching I became absolutely captured by Len Brown and by the fact that the media seemed oddly quiet during the whole thing. 

Brown talks candidly to the media not just about Faith in the midst of trial but where he says something to the affect of ‘i came to dispense tissues’.  This is what Philip Yancey is talking about  (in Where is God when it hurts) when he says that God is there when we as a Christian community are helping and carrying each other.  The Elim and wider Christian community of Auckland and NZ has really embodied and personified this. 

Light shines out of darkness.

 

 

Sunday stories

What we do with our children – and what we do to them – is a worryingly accurate indication of what we think about the world, God, and ourselves. To many adults, children are just a nuisance. But the point is that they’re a nuisance (if they are) because they matter. They disturb our organized adult world because they are real people. – NT Wright. Matthew for Everyone: Part two

 

I always love it how God shows the Kingdom of God in action through children.

 

I love it how kids don’t have hooks up on worship like adults and are oblivious to social graces such as standing still at crucial times, in fact sometimes I think they get it much more than adults. Today one small child was heard calling out ‘Hello?!, as much to say… Is anybody out there?!’ when the adults were meant to be solemnly praying (or something similar… I was too busy trying not to laugh) others were also very keen on crawling around places they shouldn’t be and getting looks of exasperation from tired parents chasing them around the church and ushering them back into line.

 

Two children sitting in front of me from different families had been given foods to distract them from crawling and talking at inappropriate times. Child A about 2 and a half had finished nibbling for a while back and her food was on the floor too far for her to reach and was sitting gazing at Child B two seats over who did have some food… Child B (aged about 2) had some crackers and quietly walked on  over to child A and offered the crackers to new found friend. child B then walked back to seat and both sat down  quietly.

 

This is what I like about God everytime I try to come up with a deep theological reason or argument for something he always simplifies it. Many times through the faith of children.

 

Destiny’s plan for world domination

Okay I lie, but now that i have your attention, I thought you may be interested in this little diagram from our bretheren (nice word that) at Destiny. Does anyone see anything wrong with this diagram….

Last time I checked Destiny (or any church) did not have a monopoly on the Salvation stakes. In fact any church that thinks that people can ‘only get saved’ ‘find jesus’ (because he was evidently lost!) etc by entering their most sanctified of warehouses has honestly got to be kidding me. I mean really.

As a point of interest I was just wondering whether anyone could help me understand how the first 3 boxes fit together. I mean to say, if ‘Destiny begins’ after one gets salvation, then what is point of the church? Or is that box meant to mean that Destiny ‘begins’ for the new convert…..  

The rest of it I am not mortally concerned about, although it always interests me how churches insist on getting new christians into the meetings/seminar/education line.

As always I want to remind the faithful (usual quiet) reading and commenting public that this post is about the diagram above and theology pertaining to the diagram and not about your opinions on Brian Tamaki’s hair, his harley davidson, his relationship to TD Jakes or what an amazing person he is for Maori before we get side tracked and all jump on our favourite band wagon.

 

Syncretism

This post is a reply to Nathanael Baker’s recent post on Syncretism, which I very poorly replied to on his blog site, due to in part the drugged up stupor (all legal – anti biotics and pain relief) I was in and the late hour of the day I was replying.

Nathanael has raised the issue of Syncretism on his blog. Which while sounding like a modern hip ad agency is actually something that dates back to the time of Plutarch. In short Syncretism as it is understood in the modern Christian theological scene is ‘the incorporation of non-christian elements’ into Christendom. Every Christian culture in every epoch has done it. The western church does it, the eastern Church do it, they do it in Africa and Asia, they probably do it at your church (and with that I have now cut my readership).

Syncretism can be found in the Bible and while not mentioned by name (but hey neither is the word Trinity) it is still has a Biblical basis. When I think Syncretism the first thing that popped into my mind was The New Testament Church Jewish Christians who tried to force their laws on gentile Christians in order that they could become ‘real christians’. Other examples of syncretism in the Bible include Israel in the Old Testament who did a pick and mix exercise with God and opted for God and witchcraft/oracles/golden calves.

Syncretism is not just a finger pointing exercise (although my above paragraph makes it look like it is!) Take for example some Western churches fascination with materialism and the way this is incorporated into church worship practices. To get to the bottom of this syncretism and distortion of the Gospel one has to

1) Uncover and Identify the syncretism properly – e.g. name exactly what the syncretism is and how it conflicts with the Gospel ( i.e. this can’t just be a personal dislike campaign because the church doesn’t play your type of funky Gregorian hymn chants)
2) Understand why the syncretism happened – i.e. did this syncretism replace something? What symbols go with it? What has been the wider Church’s part in contributing to it?
3) Restoration or in the words of Mirsolav Volf – ‘exclusion (of the toxic) and embrace (of the good)

Of course Christianity (or any religion) always interacts with Culture. However the issues lies in how much which influences which and in what ways. For example a ‘Christian’ population who are more likely to read Playboy then their Bible are likely to have a dilution of the truth of the gospel, just as a Christian population who only have access to one or two books of the new testament (say gospels) on an irregular basis due to persecution and accessibility may also have some syncretism issues as they do not have access to the full Bible. On the other hand someone in Africa whose heremutic of the bible is from a Word of Faith perspective is also going to have syncretism issues.

What I am saying is that this issue can not be simply solved by everyone racing down to their local Christian store and grabbing a copy of the Bible and reading it from cover to cover. Nor will it be solved if we make a long list of rules of things we can and cannot do (the Pharisees tried that and look what happened there) Nor can it be solved by some huge authority (such as myself) declaring what is right and wrong. Although I am pretty bloody sure the prosperity doctrine is a load of crap.

Local communities have to take some responsibility for their own doctrine by looking at
• scripture, (The Bible)
• the universal Tradition of the church, (including looking at things like creeds)
• theological reason
• experience of God including the transformation he has had on the individual (think Holy Spirit here people!). For some Christians this of the four is what their theology is built on – which does mean syncretism is much more likely to occur.

and weighing them all up.
What we find in cases of syncretism is that normally one of these 4 is taken way out of proportion at the expense of the other 3 (or the other 3 are manipulated to fit the
Favoured 1) The church in the past has had some huge syncretic mind explosions. E.g the Dutch Reformed church and Apartheid which if looking at the four aspects above mainly revolved around the misinterpretation of tiny selected bits of scripture e.g. darkness not mixing with light this of course resulted in tactfully ignoring things like the creeds.

As Nathanael quotes in his post – simply declaring ‘Jesus is Lord’ means nothing if our practice does not line up with this. The responsibility lies with every committed Christian to live out ‘loving God with heart, soul, mind and strength.’ For those in leadership the bar is even higher (as stated in James) and one must make sure ones congregation/members/people being ministered are given access to the full breadth and width of Jesus and his Gospel be they culturally favoured topics or not.