Worship as Communion...

So I'm sitting here in a first class seat on a train going from London to St. Andrews and trying to prepare a presentation that I was asked to give at a conference on Christian Worship being organized by the University's CU (Christian Union). I had an overnight flight last night from D.C. to London and I really didn't get any sleep and seeing as how I have to have something to say tomorrow to students who want to know all about worship, it doesn't look like I'll be getting any sleep on the train ride home. Luckily for me first class passengers get free wireless internet and as much coffee and shortbread they can handle. In times like this coffee can be a real blessing. I think I'm on my fifth cup and I'm feeling much more awake now. I re-read part of a book that I had come in contact with years ago by James Torrance called 'Worship, Community & the Triuine God of Grace' and I'm using much of what he says in this book to frame my talk on worship tomorrow. The basic premise of the book is that it is crucial the we understand the trinitarian nature of the God we worship and that this doctrine is indespensible to the Christian's life of worship. (So all you out there who are part of the church but don't really understand what the fuss is about talking about God in trinitarian terms should make a start at comprehending this great truth of the Christian faith. In fact, the way you worship may be changed when you come to terms with the trinitarian nature of the object of your worship).

As I sit here on this train looking out at the gloomy grey skies of Britian I find myself having a more difficult time describing what worship is than I expected. I'm a worship leader, surely I must have a handle on this!?! It seems to me that one way of talking about worship is 'worship as communion.' What I mean by this is that through the Son's role as intercessor for us we are drawn into communion with God by the work of the Spirit. When we find ourselves in this communion we are in worship. This begs the question, though, whether we are the ones who do the worshiping. I'm beginning to see worship as more of a gift. Perhaps, the ability to worship, or even the worship itself, is the Spirit's doing as he draws us into communion with the Father. Of course, he is able to do this because Christ's vicarious work on our behalf. Hence the connection between the trinitarian nature of God and our understanding of worship.

If this is the case then we enjoy the worship which the Spirit enacts in us as we are drawn into communion with God. Worship=communion? Don't worry I'm not going to spring all of this on the students tomorrow but hopefully give some hints in this direction.

Ted Haggard and the 'Cause of Christ'

A friend of mine loaned me a copy of this month's Newsweek International and recommended I read it. I was also told by someone else that the cover story was on American Evangelicalism and that it was probably the best article on the religious scene in America that has been written in a while. I thought the article was very good and because I have been out of the country for almost five years now I suppose I found it particularly interesting. As I was reading the article I came across a quote from James Dobson concerning the tragic Ted Haggard events of the past weeks. Dobson was quoted as saying that the cause of Christ would be greatly affected by these revelations. Now I have to say that I think I understand what he meant and of course I would want to give Dobson as generous a reading as I would any other author I come across but I instinctively wanted to yell at the magazine article, "What are you talking about? The cause of Christ is NOT going to be affected!" I suppose this reaction is indicative of a hobby-horse I ride often. It seems to me that the cause of Christ is just that 'of Christ.' I have to believe that God is the kind of God who is able to accomplish his purposes (or in this case his cause) regardless of my failings. Since when did we start putting our faith in man? I didn't feel particularly stumbled by Haggard's announcement and I think that is particularly because I am very aware of our fallen nature (Christian or not). Dobson's comment (maybe I should say comments like Dobson's because I wouldn't want to assume his intentions) presupposes that non-Christians should look at the life of Christians as evidence for the truth of Christianity. I think this is a mistake. We ought not believe because our religion works (even though I believe it does), we believe because God has met us in such a way that we can't help but believe (after all isn't faith a gift?). If our faith isn't founded on the evidence of other Chritians' good works, then when they stumble our faith is not compromised. It seems to me that if we were more honest with unbelievers about our own sinfulness and the fact that God is gracious to us despite this, then the 'cause of Christ' would not be hindered when Christians mess up (as they will do). Sanctification doesn't happen over night but takes at least a life time. We live in hope that God will continue his sanctifying work so that we are continually being made more into the likeness of his son day by day.

In Christ Alone

Today I had a discussion with a colleague of mine about a particular song we sang at church this last Sunday morning. Some of you may know the Newsboys version of this song. Its title is: In Christ Alone. My friend was telling me about a particular conversation he and his wife had about one of the lines in this song and as a result of him telling me about their conversation we in turn had a conversation about it ourselves. The line states, "'Till on that cross as Jesus died, The wrath
of God was satisfied". We both seemed to find comfort in these words but our discussion seemed to revolve around whether our experience of the evangelical church was consistent with the affirmation of this part of the song. Are we ever receivers of God's wrath or judgment or has Christ truly satisfied all of God's wrath meant for us on the cross? We both could think of instances where bad things were inerpreted by the church as results of God's wrath. For instance, the idea that HIV is in some sense God's punishment for a certain kind of lifestyle that is unpleasing to him. This is a drastic example but I think it illustrates the point well. Are there times when we rightfully see God's wrath enacted toward his creation, post cross and resurrection? If so, can we really sing that the wrath of God was satisfied as Jesus died on the cross?

Romans seems to say the most concerning God's wrath out of any book of the New Testament. Romans 1:18 says, "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness". The reason this wrath is revealed is because no one is blameless before God because all men have been given some kind of evidence of God within them. Obviously, a question that comes up at this point is what it means for God to 'reveal his wrath.' Are we to understand this Christologically? Also something to consider about chapter 1 of Romans is the possibility that Paul is explaining the history of man's sinfulness against God and God's just action in revealing his wrath. Understanding the text this ways allows us to understand Paul's concern at the beginning of chapter 2 about not judging others because we also are sinners. Paul does seem to indicate a Christological turn in chapter 2:16 when he says that God will judge the sectets of men through Christ Jesus. I know that these verses in the opening chapters of Romans are arguably some of the most difficult verses to interpret in the New Testament and I don't pretend to be able to give the full picture of what's going on right now but I'm not convinced that the talk of God's wrath in Romans disallows us from affirming the verse of this song.

Colossians is another place where the wrath of God is mentioned. Colossians 3:6 says, "For it is because of these things that the wrath of God will come upon the sons of disobedience." Part of Paul's concern in these verses is to make sure that the Colossians are aware of how bad sin is and that they are to set their sin aside because it is what brings about God's wrath. Presumably the fact that we are all sinners and that God knows this means that it is possible that God's wrath, which is applied to Christ on the cross, does encompass the future sins that we will commit.

There is no doubt that questions about God's relationship to time and how he sees the creation in time are crucial here. Also, questions of election and predestination are probably unavoidable. However, I will not even attempt to 'clean the glass of its fogginess' on this one. All of this is said in order to conclude that at the moment I don't think I have to stop singing that particular line in the song. Probably more important though is that we should not rush to conclude that God's wrath is happening against particular persons/communities in our contemporary society and that maybe it is possible to see Christ's work on the cross as satisfying all of God's justified wrath toward his creation. I'm sure there are many questions raised by these comments but I'll leave it here for now.

3 Days of Eating Nothing but Sushi

So I heard the funniest comment in a long time tonight. It came while I was talking with my supervisor this evening who was also the evening preacher at our church. I'll give you a second to figure out what his sermon was about. Your clue comes from the title of this post. Figured it out? No? His sermon was on Jonah chapter 1. After his sermon we were talking about some of the things he said and some of the problems Johah had, i.e., not talking with God/responding to His call, etc., and out of the blue Steve said that Jonah also had nothing but sushi to eat for three days, and for some reason I thought that was hilarious. From now on I'll never be able to think about the story of Jonah without thinking about eating sushi for three days (or more accurately sushimi). I thought it was funny and thought you might too.

Scottish Life and the Trinity

Today my friend Allison was the 'preacher.' I met up with her today down by the pier and she was reflecting on the Scottish way of life and how people in our little town spend all day on Saturdays with their families on the East Sands, many of them with thier dogs playing fetch. The pace of life in St. Andrews is a lot slower than what many of us are used to and Allison seemed to be particularly conscious of the pace today. One comment that she made was that she seemed to think that relationships are a lot more important here than back home in the U.S. We both wondered how we could retain the way of life here once we move back to the States. She thought she'd try to live near a park. I had no answer.

I started to think more about why it is that relationships seem to be so important to humanity. It seems to me that Christianity has a particular answer to this question. The answer seems to be that we as human beings somehow reflect the triune nature of God. The technical phrase for this is that we are created in the imago dei, the image of God. One reason that relationships seem to be so vital to who we are as people is because God's very nature is relational. God is being-in-relation. By being made in God's image we are relational beings, hence the importance of our relationships. The way of life in St. Andrews makes it a lot easier to reflect this image.

To post or not to post...

So I've been slow to start a blog and now that my wife seems to have the fever I thougth I might as well give up trying to prevent myself from getting the virus! Actually, I started another blog (acrucesalus.wordpress.com) but was never motivated to write on it (maybe because it didn't have the cool blogger logo!) or it might just be my own laziness. Whatever the reason that particular blog never got off the ground. This blog hopefully will be different. 'What the preacher said' is a topic that came to me one Sunday afternoon a few months ago. I hope that it will be a place where questions can be raised by myself and others about what they heard from the 'preacher.' Of course, the term 'preacher' is meant to be understood as general as possible and will hopefully encompass any theological questions that come up in the course of my day.... Now we wait and see what happens....

Hope to talk to you all soon!