TBTM20091008


Word count: only about 700 more than it was last time I said (end of last week)! The sabbatical is starting to take effect; I’m beginning to relax more fundamentally than I have in many years; and right now I don’t think trying to “achieve” the book is what God wants me to do – so I’m spending a lot of time just fiddling, watching TV, reading books (for myself and to the kids) playing Bejeweled Blitz(!) and stuff like that. I’m sure I’ll come back to hard work before too long but for now, this seems like the right and holy course. It means I can write a bit more on the blog as well, which is fun 🙂

Some thoughts on Worship (iv): worship is useless

(An extra one prior to one about Greenbelt, in response to comments)

Sam’s first rule of worship: worship is useless, and as soon as worship is used for something else, it ceases to be worship.

In other words, worship must be centred upon God with all our heart, mind, soul and strength. As soon as we say ‘let’s do worship this way, in order to achieve X’ (where X is anything other than ‘worship God more effectively’) then we are no longer loving God with all that we have. We have allowed another priority to intrude, we have slipped our moorings and begun to drift with the tides.

Examples:
– Mission and evangelism. Where a service is geared around bringing people to faith through what is expressed and achieved in a service, then worship is compromised. That is not to say that people don’t come to faith through worship – clearly they do. Nor is it to say that we should take no account of how people experience worship when planning services – clearly we must but that is because we must be concerned with what will enable people to worship. There is an ultimate difference between asking ‘what will enable people to worship’ and ‘what will enable people to come to faith’. The former is legitimate (and might achieve the latter); the latter is, in the end, an abandonment of worship. When the Reformers introduced worship in the vernacular, that was something that enabled worship. It probably also enabled a deeper conversion in people, and was missionary and evangelistic, but those were the healthy byproducts, not the main outcome sought.
– performance (especially in music but also in sermons, sometimes also in the intercessions). When the pursuit of excellence in musical performance becomes an end in itself, and has become separated from the spiritual activity of the community as a whole, then worship is compromised. The achievements might be immense, the music might be breathtakingly beautiful or stimulating, but where the spirit isn’t right then worship is no longer present. God is much more honoured by something imperfect but sincere and heartfelt than by something highly polished and accomplished that is oriented away from Him. This is not to say ‘don’t pursue excellence’ – OBVIOUSLY we pursue excellence – but we pursue excellence within the larger framework that in the end all we can offer to God is dross. ‘Only by grace can we enter…’ and all that.
– liturgical correctness and formality. When those involved in all the formal elements of a service have become excessively focussed on doing things ‘correctly’ then worship is compromised. Yes, all things must be done decently and in good order but church is not a military operation and it is most essentially a human endeavour. So insisting on perfect right-angle turns, inhibiting any human contact eg between priest and servers (or between priest and people), insisting that those serving must wear highly polished black shoes (and being scandalised if a young server happens to be wearing trainers) – these all risk missing the point.
– political correctness. I have often worried about whether it was right for me to criticise Tesco in a sermon, not because I don’t think what I said was true but because it didn’t leave much room for people to disagree. Perhaps I am wrong. I do think that it is legitimate for Christians in general, and clergy in particular, to be politically engaged, so long as they are not party-political, eg saying ‘Vote Labour’ or ‘Vote Conservative’ from the pulpit but the danger with becoming too specific with political points is that it overwhelms the worship. What is the difference between a service of worship and a political rally? Allowing God to be God, and acknowledging and praising God for being God – which means accepting things like: we are all sinners, we must not stand in condemnation against other people, we must not think that our actions are the most important actions, which lead to the equal temptations of giving in to despair or an excess of hubris. There is a clear Scriptural mandate to be politically controversial in terms of Christian life and witness; I am not clear how far it is legitimate to be specifically controversial in Christian worship. Preach and sing about God’s bias to the poor, yes, but saying that the tax rate should be raised to 50%? Probably not.

I’m sure there are other ways in which the priority of worship can be distorted, and the power of worship prostituted to human will. Worship is useless, and must remain useless, it is a divine waste of time.

Other posts in this series:
Intro
What makes worship distinctively Christian
Participation and Performance
Greenbelt 09

Some thoughts on Worship (iii): participation and performance

I think there are two ways in which Christian worship can fail: one is that it fails to approach God properly (so it breaks the first great commandment); the second is that it fails to enable the community to approach God properly (so it breaks the second great commandment).

Worship can be oriented correctly to God, yet not engage the worshipping community – then it is no longer worship but performance. On the other hand, worship can engage the community but not be oriented to God – that is simply self-congratulation.

I believe there is a ‘sweet spot of the Spirit’ where a community is enabled to worship God fully; where excellent worship is offered and where everyone shares in this process. Most of all, I believe that as the community grows and develops, so too does the sweet spot migrate and the community as a whole must change with it. The Spirit blows where it will.

To say that ‘everyone shares’ is not to say that all things are done by all people. There are all sorts of ways in which elements of worship are carried out ‘on behalf of’ the worshipping community as a whole. For example, when one person reads the intercessions, or one person reads the Scriptures, or one person recites the Eucharistic prayer. Such actions do not necessarily fail to engage with the community as a whole. It is the same with music: there are ways in which the sung elements of a service can be undertaken so as to alienate the community or to enable a sharing in what is being offered (this is why the singing of an anthem as such is not problematic). This pursuit of excellence must, however, be tempered by the element of service. The community has to be carried along together.

There must also be an element of transcendence involved – some element of challenge and invitation to spiritual growth. This transcendence can be found throughout the service – in the set prayers of liturgy, in the sermon, in the intercessions, in the sacrament. It can also be found in the music, in general hymnody or in choral pieces (it is particularly important for choral pieces to be beautiful). Where this element of transcendence is absent then there is no worship as such – we are in the realm of football stadiums, rock concerts and Nuremberg rallies. These can be uplifting experiences which unite and solidify a community – but they do not on their own bring that community closer to God.

The aim in worship is excellence, that what is offered up to God is the best that it can be. This is not always easy, and sometimes, with the best of intentions, worship ends up being a more or less glorious failure, which brings me to Greenbelt, the prompt for this series as a whole.

Other posts in this series:
Intro
What makes worship distinctively Christian
Worship is useless
Greenbelt 09

Some thoughts on Worship (ii): distinctively Christian

I think there are three things that make worship distinctively Christian.

1. What is done is done explicitly in the name of Christ, the Great High Priest. This can either be done formally (with a signing of the cross whilst saying ‘in the name of the Father…’) or informally (‘we have gathered together in the name of Christ…’). Yet I believe it crucial to do this, not least on grounds of spiritual warfare.
2. That the Scriptures, especially the gospels, are read out loud in the midst of the assembly. Christians are a people constituted by a particular story about a particular person, and to retell the story is a way of recognising that the assembly lies under the authority of Scripture.
3. That there is something sacramental in the worship. Normally this would be the Eucharist but it could be Baptism; more broadly it might include anointing and the laying on of hands, or be a marriage. I see this as essentially Christian as it reflects the logic of the incarnation: Jesus wasn’t just a teacher, he embodied the truth. In the same way Christian worship is not simply about speaking or hearing truth, but about being formed to perform the truth. Sacramental worship achieves that.

There are many facets of Christian worship – such as creeds, confession, intercession – that help to fill out the nature of Christian worship but I believe that where these three elements are present then we have fully Christian worship. This is why Holy Communion is ‘the source and summit of Christian life’ and ‘the richest and fullest expression of Christian faith’.

It is certainly possible for worship to miss one or two of the above and still remain recognisably Christian (eg Morning Prayer). However, where a community does not have regular access to the full expression of Christian worship then it begins to drift away from the fullness of the faith. This has happened, I believe, with organisations like the Salvation Army (however highly esteemed they deserve to be on other grounds).

Where worship lacks all three of the above elements then I doubt whether it qualifies as Christian. This is one reason why I was so disturbed by the worship offered at New Wine; it was, at best, sub-Christian.

Tomorrow I want to say something about the participation of the believer in worship.

Other posts in this series:
Intro
Participation and Performance
Worship is useless
Greenbelt 09

Something brief on Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW)

Ian has asked “why that one source (Yamal) is so important to your overall belief in this subject”.

The short and direct answer is that the Yamal data underlies much of the advocacy surrounding AGW, specifically that it seems to be the major grounds for believing that our present climate is warmer than it was in the Medieval Warm Period (MWP). This is the graph accepted by the IPCC in 1990 to show the change in temperature over the last thousand years. Note that the MWP is warmer than the present.

This was replaced after 1998 with the ‘hockey stick’:

The principal scientific source for the ‘Hockey Stick’ relied on data from Yamal (see this wikipedia page for more background).

Now, it could well be the case that even without the Yamal data, the evidence for the late twentieth century being warmer than the MWP is robust. I’m open to that being the case. My concerns are different, because, in the end, I’ll believe what scientists tell me on matters of scientific fact (in other words, when they stop using words like ‘consensus’ and just say ‘this is how it is’ – after all nobody talks about a consensus when discussing, eg, gravity, or the sun being at the centre of the solar system.)

I think that:
a) the science supporting the AGW hypothesis, and the alarmist predictions built on it, is not as robust as it is claimed to be. I think this because i) the IPCC does not take into account the peaking of fossil fuel resources; ii) the (on-going) Svenmark research exploring solar/cosmic ray influence on climate; and, yes, iii) the sort of arguments that McIntyre makes;
b) in other words, I think that scepticism about AGW is not illegitimate, I believe that it is intellectually respectable;
c) because I think this, I find the attempts to repress debate (either by suppressing the data, eg with Biffra) or by ridiculing, scorning and doubting the moral fibre of sceptics to be distinctly lacking in virtue. If the science is robust then it will stand up to the most virulent of partisan criticism, and will emerge all the stronger for it (this is not to say that some criticism isn’t simply partisan and deserving of scorn, only to ask for discrimination);
d) because of the prevalence of c) I have come to see that there are aspects of idolatry involved in the AGW consensus. In particular I believe that many people accept AGW because it fits into a wider picture of belief about what is wrong with the world today. As it happens, I share that wider picture of belief (basically, the ‘Limits to Growth’ argument), I just don’t believe that we can build a better future on the back of c) – that is, I really do believe that it is the truth that sets us free and that fear paralyses us (and I think the AGW consensus is trying to force change by amplifying the fear. I see this as morally wrong and spiritually unsound);
e) my motivation in sharing information like that about Yamal, therefore, is much more to do with wanting to combat that idolatry than wanting to object to the bigger picture, and all that it entails. The difference in personal behaviour required in responding to AGW or responding to Peak Oil is pretty small.

That ended up being less brief than planned. I should add that for some time (eg in my early LUBH talks) I accepted the AGW consensus. Two things started to shift me on it: first the IPCC ignorance of Peak Oil, second reading this book. I became more sceptical the more I studied the question. Now I would class myself as an agnostic/mild sceptic on the specific AGW issue, but definitely a critic on the ‘wider aspects’ of what is involved.

Some thoughts on Worship (i)

I’ve been thinking about Banksy’s post on Greenbelt, and the discussion that the Sunday service generated on Greenbelt’s own website. I was going to write some further comments about what I thought was bad about it (and some about what was good) but the more I’ve pondered, the more I want to go back to first principles. So a short (three or four post) sequence on worship, to put my criticisms of GB in context.

This post is really some ground clearing thoughts.
a) Worship doesn’t have to involve God. That is, something can be worshipped without being God – money, power, celebrity and so on. Worship is essentially about giving worth _to_ something, praising it and celebrating it.
b) The claim of the believer is that the worship of the living God gives life, whereas worship of anything else (dead gods/idols) bleeds life away.
c) Worship (good worship) normally requires some form of ecstasy, which is not a comment about little yellow pills, rather that the person sharing in the worship should be in some way taken ‘out of themselves’. Ecstasy in this sense doesn’t have to be an awe-inspiringly joyful and eye-popping flashes of light (though it can be those things); it can be the ‘still small voice of calm’.
d) Another way to describe this is to talk about a sense of transcendence, that those sharing in the worship become aware of something bigger than their own preferences and concerns. That ‘something bigger’ may or may not be God.
e) An example of worship which is transcendent but not necessarily ‘of God’ is this:

In the next post I want to talk about what makes ‘worship’ into ‘Christian worship’.

Other posts in this series:

What makes worship distinctively Christian
Participation and Performance
Worship is useless
Greenbelt 09