Sunday, October 30, 2005

Yesterday Julie and I went to the A.S.L.A.N. Prolife conference in Westlock. It was quite an interesting one. Our speaker was Wendy Lowe, director of a crises pregnancy care centre in Calgary. We learned all kinds of stuff about the consequences of 'sleeping around' and abortion. I think a lot of the stuff she said would work pretty good for someone going to highschool or something, but I have never even met a pregnant teenager, let alone been the confidante of one. I guess the information and ideas will probably be useful later, though.
She talked for awhile about how my generation, 'Generation Y,' has a different mindset than the previous ones. We pay more attention to how we feel about something than to whether it can be scientifically proven. She called it the 'I feel, therefore I am' worldview, as opposed to the 'I think, therefore I am,' which has been the general mindset of the North American population for several centuries now. She also told us we tend to respond better to images and experiences than to facts. Which pretty much means that the way crises pregnancy centres have been run may have to change entirely soon. Ultrasound helps a lot, because it means more to the mother to see her baby than to just be told it's a baby. I thought it was interesting.
I have been thinking about something else she said in connection to something Pastor Schissel said in the sermon from Hebrews we listened to today. Wendy mentioned that because of the influence image, experience, and participation has on my generation, the branches of the church that are growing fastest are the Roman Catholic, Greek Orthodox, and evangelical churches. This is because, (according to her), God is much more touchable in those churches. He's more tangible and real when there is ceremony and ritual involved in His worship. This morning Pastor Schissel was talking about how we can now go straight to God ourselves, without priests and ceremonies and rituals between us any longer. It is such a blessing to us. But I suppose that those types of churches are appealing because people want to know God, but they don't feel comfortable getting too close, and also because it makes us feel good to have to do something for God.
I would never say that the people in those churches don't have saving faith, but compared to the Reformed/Presbyterian/Protestant faith, it seems like a poverty-stricken kind of faith to me to feel that you must have some kind of thing between you and God still, even after Jesus came. It makes me so glad that I was brought up in the richer and more dangerous Reformed tradition. :-D

12 Comments:

Blogger RickCapezza said...

Emily,

As someone who grew up outside of the Reformed/Presbyterian culture, I have a cmpletely different perspective.

Wendy's points about how our culture is more experience, participation, and image-centered than word-centered note the shift from modernism into postmodernism. All three of those are features of postmodernism.

This isn't necessarily a bad thing. We have God's Word, but Christ also came in the flesh. We experience Him through a relationship bonded by the Holy Spirit. We participate by being in Him through the covenant. There's a balance you have to strike.

Now there are those within Roman/Orthodox circles that worship images instead of God. This isn't a good thing, but that number is very few.

Most of those Christians just find images helpful as devotional aids. And there's nothing wrong with that. In fact, I think we need to worship with all of our senses: sight, touch, taste, sound, and smell.

That doesn't mean that we don't go straight to God. What it means is that we believe worship should be adorned because Jesus is indeed a king.

Rituals are unavoidable: brushing our teeth, eating meals at a table with our families instead of snacking alone, kissing, shaking hands, prayer, the Lord's Supper.

It's just a matter of what you acknowledge as rituals. Rituals exist in every culture, and every person has them.

Rituals aren't between us and God. They facilitate our relationships.

30/10/05 2:35 p.m.  
Blogger Emily said...

thanks for giving me something to think about again. :-D i see your point about Jesus being King and so you worship Him with 'adornments.' i still like my tradition better though, possibly becuase it's less distracting. but as they say, each to his own, and i would totally go with you to your church even though you use extra frills. :-D

30/10/05 8:16 p.m.  
Blogger fiona said...

I quite agree with Rick's comment...
It is unfair to judge someone else's faith to be "poverty-stricken" because they are from another church background than yours. Having been raised in a Baptist church (classed as an "evangelical" church by you - btw - it is also a Protestant church...) and knowing lots of people of various denominations, I wouldn't say that all people in those churches need ceremonies, rituals, objects etc to feel closer to God, particularly not in the evangelical churches - their focus is on the personal relationship between you and your Saviour, and not on what you can do for God. There are people in ALL churches who are very ritualistic (including yours, I dare say), but I don't think you should generalize. From my experience, "evangelical" churches are actually less focused on "...priests, ceremonies, and rituals..." than the Reformed (Canadian, United or Christian Reformed) churches. Besides that, symbols are not necessarily bad - Christ Himself told us to take the Lord's Supper (symbol!) in remembrance of Him. I do not understand how you can say that your church upbringing was richer than any other believers. As if the rest of us Christians are less Christian than you because of our which church we are from. Who are you to judge my level of faith? I am thankful that I was raised in a Christian home, and have come to believe through God's grace, non-withstanding the denomination that God placed me in! As you seem to acknowledge, salvation is through faith no matter which denomination the believer comes from, however, you seem to think your faith is stronger merely because of your "traditions"... which implies rituals... No matter how plain or adorned they may seem to you.

30/10/05 10:17 p.m.  
Blogger Emily said...

fiona-
i'll respond to you later when i have more time to think out my arguments. but i did not class baptists as evangelicals.

31/10/05 8:31 a.m.  
Blogger lilshortbread said...

Emily~

Almost everyone knows the Baptist church is classed as evangelical. This is not a faux-paux...
Many times in the past you have referred to "…those evangelical churches- Alliance, Baptist, Pentecostal..." and although I think the term evangelical is often miss-used, confusing it with charismatic (yes, there is a difference: ‘While some churches promoting charismatic teaching include themselves under the broad label of evangelicalism, many that regard themselves as traditional evangelicals do not accept charismatic teaching.’) Fiona's comment was not entirely putting words in your mouth, as that is what you (and many others) have labeled Baptists.
In your post you do group the “Evangelicals” with the "Liturgical" churches, (which frequently are so far from each other it is almost laughable,) and then you proceed to say "…Reformed, Presbyterian, Protestant...” so without actually saying it, you grouped the Baptists as Evangelical and NOT protestant...

yeah….

more later… I’ve gotta finish up here at work. :-)

31/10/05 5:17 p.m.  
Blogger Steve said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

2/11/05 6:49 p.m.  
Blogger Emily said...

Fiona and Alison-
I had actually thought of you as Presbyterians and not really thought of you or anyone in particular while writing this. I'm sorry if I hurt you. Alison, I do not recall having ever talked about Baptists, let alone labelled them as evangelicals. They are. I agree with you that what I really should have said was 'charismatic' instead of evangelical, but I just quoted Wendy and didn't really think about the difference, an all-too-common mistake. Fiona, I have never encountered a Reformed church in which we are focussed on 'priests, ceremonies, and rituals.' We have a set order for worship that has been carefully thought through to see how we can best honour God, but I do not think that can be classed as ceremony or ritual. I did not say that Christians other than Reformed Christians are less of Christians. I do believe we have a better understanding of how God is best pleased in worship, but that is just common sense. I would not be Reformed if I didn't believe that. I also did not claim that Reformed Christians have stronger faith because of our method of worship. I know of some Roman Catholics who have the strongest and most obvious faith I've ever seen, in spite of their extremely ceremonious manner of worship.
I hope that I have explained myself somewhat. If you still would like me to talk to you more about this, please email. I love you both.

2/11/05 9:18 p.m.  
Blogger Emily said...

Rick-
I read through your articles carefully, and it struck me that you seem to want to worship with 'sight, touch, taste, sound, and smell' more because that is the way you grew up than because you've really studied it and know that God wants you to worship Him in that way. I should actually get out my Bible and whatnot and your articles and send you a loooooong email. But I got a much lower score than you on that dumb IQ test, so I have very little hope of convincing you. :P Thanks for commenting everyone. I think these topics are too demanding on me though, and I'm unlikely to post on one again. :-D

2/11/05 9:28 p.m.  
Blogger RickCapezza said...

No no no. Discussion is good for all of us.

I won't deny that there is a certain nostalgia for me. However, this isn't why I believe what I believe about worship. If you take a look at my library over at librarything, you'll find that my number one and two tags are "liturgy" and "worship," and I've read all of those books. If there's anything I've studied, it's worship.

The Reformed regulative principle of worship (i.e. "do not do anything not explicitly commanded in the Bible") is something I believe is really distorted, and well, it's not biblical. If you take a look at Calvin's, Knox's, and Bucer's liturgies, you'll see liturgies that look pretty liturgical by modern standards.

If you were to follow the regulative principle out fully, you wouldn't be allowed to have sermons because they're not commanded in the Bible.

I think Luther's normative principle is closer (whatever is not forbidden is allowed).

I think Schlissel's informative principle (if it's not forbidden, it might be okay. it depends)is right on though I would disagree with some of his interpretations.

I want "sight, touch, taste, sound, and smell" because we're human beings, not just minds.

We can either have a white wall (symbols of gnosticism) or we can adorn it for the King.

We can use incense, as the psalms talk about it, or we can ignore those Scriptures and say it's an unbiblical innovation.

Modern worship should be modeled on the Tabernacle worship, and that is liturgical.

I don't want to be offensive, by any means, and I hope this is fruitful discussion. I think that you're buying into the Reformed criticisms of other worship styles, rather than trying to see why other people worship the way they worship from their perspectives.

Hopefully you can come to Spokane sometime and I can drag you to some churches outside the Reformed tradition ;-)

3/11/05 7:20 a.m.  
Blogger RickCapezza said...

oh, and I'm ready for that email ;-)....seriously, do it.

3/11/05 7:21 a.m.  
Blogger lilshortbread said...

Emily, I do think it is important for some discussion to be in the open, because the blog post is a very open thing… thus the reactions and results from it should be equally public…
I was not hurt personally by your post, more shocked and disappointed at the audacity and condescension that was implied with your wording (intentionally or not, it was, nonetheless present).
To claim that your church has the best way to please God (in worship or anything) is very ostentatious considering it basically did away with anything extraneous, overly “libral” or that was too akin to “Catholic” (another word that is often misused in the Christian community, chuckle). Your statement, “we have a better understanding of how God is best pleased in worship, but that is just common sense”, is also rather arrogant. I do not think that is true at all. If people used “common sense” they would be looking more at what God says about worship in the Old Testament when worship was first implemented. I think Rick will have a better argument from scripture when all is said and done – no offense to the “Reformed” church intended, however I find that sometimes bare bones is not very scriptural. Look at Creation! Is it bland, random or noncomplex? No. God, in His glorious plan gave his creation details, patterns, intricate beauty, and marvelous splendor. In the planning of His Temple, God also spared no expense, detail or sacrifice. The people recognized God’s greatness and used all that was within them to create a beautiful worshipful place. They did not worship the rituals, splendid fabrics and metals used in the physical presence of the temple, but used their abilities as humans to please God. The worship itself was systematic, detailed and incorporated all senses.
I do not think we NEED all the pomp and ritual now, because of Christ’s death and resurrection for our sins and our ability to now “access” God whenever, however, etc… but I do think we can learn from and not write off the worship described in the Old Testament, especially that we should use what we have to give glory to God. Simply or ornately, I believe God is glorified by our worship, as long as we keep our focus on God Himself and we are sincere. Simply attending church when there is a service is not right and proper worship- it is the heart attitude that pleases God. Remember that. If you disagree, then you will be contradicting yourself and falling into the ritualistic trap that so many have done. ;-)
I heartily concur with Rick: “I don't want to be offensive, by any means, and I hope this is fruitful discussion. I think that you're buying into the Reformed criticisms of other worship styles, rather than trying to see why other people worship the way they worship from their perspectives.” I also think that worshipping with other believers – of all denominations- will help you get a better grasp, background and first-hand knowledge for discussing this topic. Debating without fully understanding the other side is a shaky platform.


For the benefit/clarification of all who may read this blog, author Emily included: Fiona and I are Presbyterians. We were raised in the Baptist church of the NABC stripe, and had an excellent upbringing therein. When I was in my early teens, our parents left the Baptist church for reasons of their own and began attending the Presbyterian Church, of which we are now members. Our opinions are formulated from individual knowledge and experiences (which are quite varied and sprawling as we have attended almost any denomination at least once and have friends in nearly every religion and Christian denomination/sect imaginable…). Though some may frown on this, I find it a blessing.
Sincere apologies if things said here in discussion offended anyone individually or corporately.


:-)

4/11/05 1:13 p.m.  
Blogger CraftyHourMom said...

Wow. I think I've been out of the loop for a while to have missed this one.

Just to add my two bits, I don't think Emily was arrogant when she said "we have a better understanding of how God is best pleased in worship, but that is just common sense". Correct me if I'm wrong, Emily, but I thought you were saying that we worship the way we do because we are convicted it is the way God wants us to. And right after that she says "I would not be Reformed if I didn't believe that" which seems to bear it out.

Anyway,great discussion going. I think it's pretty amazing that people of such widely-varied backgrounds can talk about this sort of thing. It's important however to actually listen to each other when we do, not just read and dismiss or classify - "Ah, I know what his view is, he's a ..."

I think it's also essential to think things through carefully before responding in heat. We know we are friends, and more than that, brothers and sisters in Christ. Let's build each other up.

4/11/05 10:08 p.m.  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Use this to hide the profile in the new template