Here's an interesting article (though not from a very orthodox perspective) that illustrates the impossibility of returning to the primitive church. What results is 1) confusion 2) heterodoxy and 3) division over petty instead of important issues.
Again, our feeling is that the best we can do is to try to remain in the stream of what sprang truly from the teachings of scripture (so sparse on so many of these topics) and from the practices of the early church.
1) We will not move against scripture in any way. It comes first and is the Word of God.
2) Next, we respect the processes that the church went through in history to come to doctrinal and practical concensus, though in the case of Rome these practices became increasingly heavy-handed and we do believe that corruption occurred. (The best evidence of this is the prevalance of evil "fruit" in the lives the spiritual leadership at various times in RCC history.)
3) Therefore we also respect the Reformers. We respect their judgment concerning what to keep and what not to.
4) The question is ultimately one of authority. It is not enough to say that the Bible is our only authority. The fundamental Baptists are good illustrations of this. They claim that the Bible is their only authority but they hold to orthodox doctrines. In order to do this they almost have to pretend that they came up with them. Does the church have authority? If so how do we submit to it in these times of division and lost history?
3 comments:
I read all of these posts together, so my comment is because of a whole picture I'm trying to fill in better-- you said something about the tendency to make things an 'ought'. I agree. I was wondering on what Scriptural basis liturgical worship becomes an 'ought', as you indicated that you are at present unwilling to submit to a different form of worship. You point out that the Bible doesn't address what what I understand to be 'circumstance' (as opposed to 'element'). Does it give the church authority in its tradition to declare, where God has not, what 'should' be done? How much of that authority resides in the 'available' church?
To partially answer one of your questions, I think that tradition plays at least the part of showing whether there is a precedence for our beliefs/actions, and in what context of theology, piety, etc. it has generally arisen. Also, as in my case, the reformed tradition is the one that I believe to be most faithful to Scripture -- to its authority, its content, etc.- I ought to be very careful to stay within her borders; except where I cannot, in conscience submit to her teaching as the Word of God. Of course that reservation is part of the reformed tradition (and one reason I believe it to be most biblical): the reformation would not have happened if Luther and others had not made the same reservation....
I don't make liturgical worship an "ought" in terms of forcing it on others. I do think that in our present condition, with the church in such decline, we need to remember what people thought in days past about the relationship between worship and orthodoxy. Liturgy was always there first and foremost to preserve orthodoxy. At least, that is the impression I'm getting from reading The Oxford History of Christian Worship. Although I'm uncomfortable with the role the state sometimes played in inventing or enforcing liturgy, as well as with the heavy-handedness of various heads of various churches at various times, I think the overall lesson remains. If we (as a group) are not brought to feel or sense what we say we believe, we will not continue to believe it for long.
At the very least worship that is crafted and planned is usually going to be a worthier offering to God than the by-the-seat-of-your-pants variety. (As I tried to point out but was perhaps not so clear on, every worship service except those of the Quakers demonstrate a belief in this fact to some degree.) It's also going to create more of a group expression (since everyone knows ahead of time what they are going to say and that it has been approved and subscribed to by the church as a whole) rather than merely a collection of individual efforts, and that speaks to the soul of corporate worhsip.
When I talk about liturgy, I'm talking about using a historic literature of pious expression as the substance and shape of that crafted and planned service. I think it's good to do so, and that's my main point.
I'm also talking about a phenomena that I see in so-called liturgical churches which is that the shape and craft of the service tends to be more centered on worship than practicality.
So maybe instead of an "ought" in terms of being equal with the commands of God, I should say that Josh and I feel the need for liturgy so strongly that it amounts to believing in it. This is more about what we are looking for ourselves, and what we do not want to judged for, than it is about what we are trying to press on others.
By the way you had something to do with all this as you talked to me once about the experience of proceeding through your service, mentioning particularly the part where it is declared that God forgives our sins. I visited a Presbyterian church a few months back and while I wasn't impressed with a lot of things, they did preserve that and I got a chance to see what you meant. It's one of the most moving experiences I've ever had and it changed my perception of my relationship to God, not as an individual, but as a member of the body.
Our unwillingness to submit to other worship is not so much that we refuse non-liturgical worship as such. It is more that we refuse to take part in the impoverished worship of our past experience. These posts were about our growing conclusion that to get out of that unworthy worship the first step is to find a church that uses a liturgy.
I do agree with you about the reformed tradition. In fact, if it weren't for the credo-baptism part (not that we mind, but they do) and the fact that everything we've looked at so far has mixed silliness with tradition in a way that shows they don't appreciate the tradition they do have, we would probably be heading straight for a Presbyterian church.
"It's one of the most moving experiences I've ever had and it changed my perception of my relationship to God, not as an individual, but as a member of the body."
Yes, that's very much what it did for me as well. Thanks for clarifying: it's easy to confuse the language of 'ought' and desire.
Post a Comment