I am somewhat strangely teaching a master's course at IWU right now called "Theology of Holiness." It seems to be a crash course of sorts in theological anthropology, harmartiology (doctrine of sin), and soteriology (docrtine of salvation--in this case with a special interest in sanctificology, a word I just made up). It's an 8 week evening course.
To me, one of the most interesting things we discussed this past week was the matter of "holy things" and contemporary culture. For example, I love the "Green Room" venue of College Wesleyan Church, mainly because it's dark and I can get up for coffee in the middle of the sermon (I actually don't attend it right now because I lead the "cathedral service," a more high church venue where we partake of the Eucharist each week). The Green Room does not have as non-chalant an atmosphere as some emergent services, but clearly the space doesn't come off as holy as the cathedral space or even the main sanctuary space.
We were reflecting this week on Uzzah getting fried for touching the ark, of cows being stoned if they touched Mt. Sinai while its "holiness fence" was turned on because the mountain was plugged into God, of Isaiah falling on his face before God in Isaiah 6. I am not one to pine for the "good old days" when we didn't eat under the same roof as the sanctuary. I accept cultural change.
But what if it is important for every generation to set aside something, not necessarily the same things as their parents, but something that is holy. Does every generation need at least a few "holiness zones" so that they can remember what it means for God to be God?
This was one of the questions we pondered this week.
Ken Schenck signing off here, now 13 days since Asbury's board could have been called and its crisis would have been over.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
18 comments:
Perhaps I'm wrong, and I generally am, but seemingly there are "emergents" who are clammering for "sacred space". They want something different than the basketball gym sanctuaries of the boomer-generation.
I myself and divided on this. I personally love the "sacredness" of a sanctuary, but I am also thrilled when someone so unchurched walks in that they don't take off their hat and bring in a bottle of water.
I am the pastor of a church where 60-70% of our body is under 30. Whereas I don't theologically walk with all emergent thought (after all, I was an Asbury grad and one of Ken's students), in many ways, we are an "emergent congregation" (whatever that means.)
I see what Ken is writing about a lot. Young people who hunger for more than the basketball court and "me and Jesus theology." We do "contemporary" worship as well as Creeds, Hymns, symbols, etc. And a good 1/3 of our congregation, this is their first church experience. So hats are often on and water bottles/coffee are in hand.
But it is interesting to watch them take communion. The reverence by which they hold the bread.
We all long for mystery... and God is a lot bigger than what they "contemporary worship" movement has made Him.
Ken, love your blog. Thanks for writing.
Aaron and Paul--I wasn't meaning to take on emergent. I should have been more careful with how I put things. Yes, there is definitely one stream of emergent culture that is all over icons and neo-sacramentalism (hey, I just made that word up). Here's my question in this case: how does emergent Christian worship draw different "holiness lines." My question is whether the important thing is that every generation set apart something as holy, not so much what those specific things are.
I think some emergent worship contexts have something like "centers" where you can go. Could your art, a place to light candles to symbolize prayers, or a place to put water on your forehead to remind you of your baptism serve as something like holiness zones?
I think the answer to your final question is "Yes." And I would rather believe that these holiness zones ought to be BOTH individual AND corporate, not exclusively personal. To remind us that we are God's holy people together, and not just God's holy persons.
Seriously, when did the "Emergent" become something that we can offer like a contemporary service or traditional service or what not?
Often peoples approaches to sacred space seems to be correlated to their view of creation. We as evangelicals have tended to have a very poor view of creation. Maybe thats partly why we as evangelicals have for so long raped our God given charge. But thats for another day.
Anyhow so ok I think a clue from the Tractarians could do some good. They tended to have a fairly positive view of creation. "... things animate and inanimate, as being the works of God... bear in themselves some likeness to their Maker, and traces of his Hands."
Creation, our charge, was for them something that was in part to be didactic and admired for its beauty. It possessed a sacramental quality where we could come to have as Pusey called it 'the visible part of adoration.'
There was a guy by the name of Keble who emphasized that the items we create, such as a building, could be transformed into something that heightened and empowered worship. It became a symbol of the truths of God and truth in general.
For example the gothic ceilings that stretched so high emphasized and reminded people of the transcendance of God. The wooden beams of some churches are to remind that we are carried in Christ just as humanity was carried by God in the ark.
These things were to bore evidence of the kingdom inbreaking now, and point towards the kingdom that is to come.
"My question is whether the important thing is that every generation set apart something as holy, not so much what those specific things are."
I think we struggle with this a lot. I think every generation SHOULD do this... I'm just not sure that there is this universal "thing" that all of us agree on. (Does this make sense?). It used to be that the altar area of a church building was sacred. Some generations thought the physical bible was "set apart" (in that they wouldn't write it in, for example).
But we live in the world of the common. (Jesus is our buddy.) And so sometimes, in our attempt to make "church" "relevant" or "approachable," we downplay the need/desire/importance of sacred space.
I believe that a sacred space can be produced through time and atmosphere but it takes a lot of work. I living room or a gym or a fellowship hall can be made sacred for a time with the right atmosphere and a sense of God's presence. Maybe we need to think more in terms of Mt Sinai and less in terms of the holy of holies.
Thanks for raising this question Ken. I've been thinking a lot about this lately in the context of our church facility. Our "sanctuary" gets used for some many things because of the lack of facilities that we have. The adults meet there for SS. We then have worship. If there is a potluck, the chairs are pushed away and the tables rolled out so we can eat. The youth meet there on Sunday evenings and do whatever youth need to do. On a whim, I almost pretended to be a less tolerant person with more age with our youth director and express that the church did not appreciate the way the youth were carrying on and detracting from the sacredness of the space.
This idea of holy or sacred space will become more of an issue I think. And not just because all the new average size churches are building sanctinasiums. An appreciation for the transcendant nature of God is being left out in our daily worship of God. An older gentleman expressed this almost verbatim in SS yesterday, complaining that a video clip from "The Jesus I Never Knew" trivialized who Jesus was.
I think it is a good thing that the personal nature of God is receiving emphasis. I do not think we need to "rope off" certain areas of our facility because they are "holy". I believe things of this nature can be a both/and. If we as part of the body of Christ are called to "be holy as I the LORD your God am holy" then there must be a way to balance the personal and the transcendant because as people, we cannot NOT be personal. Can it be possible that the "holiness zone" of today's culture is the person themselves? Isn't that what many of us who really believe in the holiness message say the world is clamoring for?
"My question is whether the important thing is that every generation set apart something as holy, not so much what those specific things are."
oh ... sorry. Yes I do think this is important. I feel like the boomers did their best (yes I'm being general and I'm sorry) at trying to make nothing sacred. Everything was expendable even the cross.
If a generation doesn't draw a line someplace what does it have left?
I think that it scares me when I watch (ok not actually watch but read and hear about) each group getting a bit worse, and defining what is "sacred" more and more narrowly.
Did the boomers go as low as it will go? Are emergents pulling this back?
Believe it or not, at least in my limited experience it seems as if the younger generations (X & Y) are the one reclaining the traditions of their grandparents and great-grandparents. I see more reverence and respect in thair actions on any given Communion Sunday than a majority of older folks. Maybe, just maybe we've somehow done something right by accident. By that I mean we've screwed up to a point that the younger generation is playing the part of bit and bridle. Wresting, gently at first, our heads back to where they need to face. Where the head goes, the body follows.
I pray that the trend continues in ernest. The vigor of this movement of youth is uplifting and a great source of energy for me. I hope I'm not seeing something that isn't there, but maybe I am.
The tabernacle has always been a symbol of "God With Us" and of our set-apart-ness. Truly, as Christians, we are all living tabernacles -- God in The Spirit is with us and we are a people set apart. I believe each generation and age needs a different set of symbols as reminders of this eternal truth. Places are sanctified by the saints who dwell there. Neither inanimate objects nor rituals holds any true power (just as idols hold no true power) - but God, moving through His people, is what we long to remind ourselves of through our symbols and rituals.
daniel,
I agree to a point. The point on which I strongly disagree is that rituals have no power. What about the rituals (Sacramants) of Holy Communion & Baptism. What about the ritual of Ordination? What about the ritual of annointing the sick? I believe that those rituals have a very significant power not only over the recipient, but also those who witness them.
kris,
I humbly disagree with you. The sacramental rituals in and of themselves hold no power. What is baptism but bathing in water? What is communion but eating bread and drinking wine (or grape juice)? What is annointing but pouring oil over someone's head? These actions in and of themselves hold no power. It is God moving through our Faith which gives these things power and meaning. These actions separated from Faith and Love are powerless and meaningless.
Perform this thought experiment - if a wicked man were forced at gunpoint into a baptismal ceremony, would his soul be saved? The ritual without the heart behind it is meaningless. As it is written, "Man looks at outward appearances but God looks at the heart."
oaw,
Thanks! I guess I'm a theological n00b. You totally pwned me. Perhaps you could recommend some good references about the relationship between sacramentology and the doctrine of the Hypostatic Union. I'd really appreciate it. My email is danielml@danielml.com . Thank you for your constructive criticism.
O.K.
Guess I'm a bit outgunned here. I was speaking simply from the gut. I suppose I should become a bit better educated before I post again.
Kris: no, you were fine. You said in less words what many say in thousands.
Dan: Although our frien OAW was right to an extent so are you. If GOd is not in the rituals then they are nothing. If a non-believer takes communion what does it do? The function of the sacrement does not always follow the form. However To say there is no power in the ritual is as OAW said a bit over the top.
OAW:you said:
"If this is true then why should have God given Sacraments? If the really important reality is faith and love in the abstract then let us dispense with the time that the Sacraments take up."
I think we would agree that the sacrements do more than just impart grace. (that makes imparting grace sound trivial and I don't mean it to) There is something about feeling teh water, tasting the bread and wine, that we are worshiping with more than just our ears and voices.
Post a Comment