The focus of worship

I've been being annoyed by the lyrics of worship songs in church on my most recent few visits there.

Increasingly, I've become aware of the rather large number of worship songs which say, in essence, "I thank you God for making me immortal". The emphasis is not, as many Christians probably think, on what God has done, but rather it seems to be increasingly on what God has done for me. And what he has done is dealt with my sin (so, nothing left for me to do), removed my guilt (so, nothing to worry about) and given me eternal life (so, death is not an issue). 

The supposed focus of Christian worship is on Jesus, but I'm noticing more and more that the real focus is rather more selfish. Its pretty distasteful actually.

Its nothing new either. Think of the words of Amazing Grace...

Heart or head?

For some reason I've been reflecting on the idea of believing something 'in your heart' compared to believing it 'in your head'. What happens when heart and head don't agree on what they believe? Can your heart-belief cause your head-belief to shift, and vice versa?

Fundamentally, and this is an issue I've been struggling with for several years now, what happens when you believe something passionately with your heart, yet become convinced that it can't be true in your head? What happens, as far as I can tell, is that the heart simply has to follow the head eventually.

Christianity makes emotional sense to me. So many things that are done in church seem to work on an emotional level. And not just on an emotional level, but on a practical level too. When the church gets it right, being part of that church is a real blessing, it provides real community, real emotional and practical support, real companionship, conviction in unity, a reason to be altruistic, for some a reason to keep living at all, it gives a real sense of the presence of God and an apparent pathway into transcendence which is almost impossible to convey to someone who has never experienced it.

Put simply, as I have said on this blog before, worship works. Church works. Corporate prayer works. All of this can be a great and life-enhancing experience. Put together, it is more than enough evidence to make the heart believe in the truth of Jesus and the claims of Christianity.

But. Is there a reality beyond the psychological experience? Christianity makes promises for what you can get in this life, and in the life to come. Indeed, Christianity promises a life to come. For a great many people in 'good' churches, Christianity delivers on its promise for this life. But, of course, what it can't do is demonstrate - at all - that it can deliver on its other promises. Good feelings now cannot imply anything about whether there is a post-mortem existence or reveal any aspects of that existence, good or bad. This disconnect is a problem for my head.

Meanwhile, my head has been looking at the evidence for the historical reliability of the claims in the bible. And the claims are simply not historically reliable. Indeed, the more I think about it, the more it seems to me that there is just as much of a disconnect between the historical claims of Christianity and contemporary experience as there is between contemporary experience and the promise of life to come.

To summarise, Christianity seems to work in practice in the present, but it is wrong about the past, and it cannot demonstrate that it knows anything about the future.

Inevitably, the shifting beliefs of my head have pulled my heart into a disconnect with its former emotional beliefs. I no longer feel the unity of church or feel the transcendence of worship. But to get that back would mean having to simply switch off all my critical reasoning and reject or forget what I believe to be true about reality.

If you've never been at this crossroads in your life, you really can't know what its like. Any comments from confirmed atheists about it being a clear and obvious choice are irrelevant. Because they don't know. I can totally understand the situation of that character in the original Matrix movie who chose to opt back into the Matrix system, because he wanted the taste of the food there, even though he knew it was false. I've taken the red pill, I've seen what the outside is like, yet the fiction of the inside is very appealing still. 

No conclusion to all this. Not yet... Even if the end is inevitable, there's still some wrestling to be done.

Bluegrass Worship

Listening to "Bluegrass Worship" on Spotify. Its excellent. Really uplifting.
And if you don't have Spotify, you can get it on Amazon.

Zap!

The First Christians

Acts 11v26b

It was at Antioch that the believers were first called Christians.

I must have read that verse loads of times. It always struck me as an interesting footnote in history, but nothing worthy of major study.

But I listened to a sermon from Mars Hill Bible Church the other day on Acts 11 and the preacher (Doug Pagitt) dug into it a bit deeper and asked the one question that I'd never really asked before:

Why?

The disciples had a collective name already before this time, they appear to have been known as followers of 'The Way'. Why should they suddenly gain a new name?

The thing that I'd never really thought about was that there must have been something distinctly different about the disciples in Antioch from the others to merit the use of a new name. These guys were culturally different from the church in Jerusalem, perhaps they did things in a different way from the church in Jerusalem. Perhaps what we see here is the first denominational divide...

The word 'Christian' is based on the word 'Christ' which is a Greek word. Not a Jewish word. There is a cultural difference here. These guys viewed the world in a different way from the Jews, is it too much of a leap to wonder if they did Church in a totally different way? Hence the need for a new name. Hmmm.

But for all that, the next interesting thing is that the first recorded act of this new denomonation was to send aid to the other denomonation. We don't really see this today - sometimes denomonations appear to be rivals rather than simply different parts of the body.

Survivor Digital Songbook Gripe!

I got the Survivor Digital Songbook last week. Basically its the complete score, guitar chord sheets and full text for all songs in all 4 'Survivor' music books on one handy CD. Its only £20 for the printable music for almost 700 songs. Great value.

This way I only need to print out the songs I want and never have to flick past pages and pages of songs I don't want. All good so far.

But I would like to print out the index for the thing - 13 pages of song titles (and composers) arranged in alphabetical order. But on the PDF they have included the index in white text on a black background! 13 pages which are probably over 95% black ink! The thing is designed to be printed out at home, that would use up almost one entire (£15) black ink tank on its own. What idiot had that idea? Aaaaargh!

(any hints on how to invert the colours of a PDF file before printing would be appreciated...)

Hell freezes over!

I was at the evening service in the church that I grew up in last night. The church is a 'conservative evangelical' Church of Scotland (Presbyterian) and quite traditional. When I was there, a 'modern hymn' was considered to be anything written after the first world war, and modern 'choruses' were really considered as only fit for the children in the Sunday school to be singing.

When the 'new' minister was inducted in the mid/late 1990s, I predicted that the congregation would be singing 'choruses' within 5 years. It turns out I was wrong. Five years after he took the charge, the music was still firmly grounded in the 19th century. Hymns, organ, that's it.

Imagine my surprise last night to discover not one but three 'choruses' being sung. One of them as even less than 15 years old! (Matt Redman's "I will Offer")

OK, so they still sung them as if they were hymns, but its a step in the direction of the 21st century - and they were even played by a band (piano, guitar, sax, trumpet and even vocals (gasp)).

But for all that, I still felt that the church has a long way to go. The music and sermon were fine and were God centred, but there was no sense of meeting with Him, no sense of an interaction with the Spirit. Which is a shame.

Did God ever want sacrifices?

Its amazing what you notice when you read a different translation of something for a change.

I have read the (whole) bible several times through, but most of this has been using the New International Version (NIV). So probably every time I have read Jeremiah 7v22 before, I'd have read these words:

For when I brought your forefathers out of Egypt and spoke to them, I did not just give them commands about burnt offerings and sacrifices, [23] but I gave them this command: Obey me, and I will be your God and you will be my people. Walk in all the ways I command you, that it may go well with you.

However, I read that verse in the Revised Standard Version (RSV) today and it says:

For in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, I did not speak to your fathers or command them concerning burnt offerings and sacrifices. [23] But this thing I commanded them, saying, Hearken unto my voice, and I will be your God, and ye shall be my people; and walk ye in all the way that I command you, that it may be well with you.

What? The apparent meaning is totally different! The NIV translation implies that God gave the Israelites the command to obey Him AND instructions about sacrifices, while the RSV clearly states that God did NOT give instructions about sacrifices, but only gave the command to listen and obey ('hearken').

So I had a look at several other translations (NASB, NKJV, ESB, NLT, ASV,... isn't the internet really useful sometimes?). Almost all of them agree with the RSV; God did not give instructions or commands about sacrifices ('in the day [that they came] out of Egypt').

I know that it is a joke that 'NIV' stands for 'Nearly Infallible Version' but I had always been lead to believe that it was a good translation.

Anyway, all this by means of introduction...

While all the translations (except NIV) say that God did not give instructions about sacrifice 'in the day', it seems to me (from context) that the meaning of the prophecy of Jeremiah here is that God never gave any instructions about sacrifice to the Israelites - because God doesn't want sacrifice! (see also 1 Samuel 15v22, Psalm 40v6, Psalm 51v16, Hosea 6v6).

But if God doesn't want sacrifice and He never gave instructions or commands about sacrifice, then who on earth wrote all the stuff in Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers & Deutoronomy?!

Damning with faint praise...

I went to a church I'd never been to before last night. It was fine. There was a good number of folk, the music was well played and all the congregation sang along. The sermon was fine too, reasonable points, well made and fairly interesting. The folk were friendly and welcoming. I really can't find any particular faults in it. But I won't be going back again.

Just as there was nothing specific in the service which would drive me away, there was nothing particular that would make me want to go again. While I might have looked like I fit in on the surface (most of the congreagation were in jeans & a jumper, just like me), I didn't feel like I would fit in in practice.

Maybe some places are just 'not me'.

Having said that, there was a period of 'open prayer' in the service and I really appreciated that - I haven't been to a church where they do that in a very long time. It was one of thise things that I didn't realise I'd missed it until I saw it again.

The search for a church where I 'fit' continues...

The Most High God

Deuteronomy 32v7-9
Remember the days of old; consider the generations long past. Ask your father and he will tell you, your elders, and they will explain to you. When the Most High [Elyown] gave the nations their inheritance, when he divided all mankind, he [Elyown] set up boundaries for the peoples according to the number of the sons of Israel [or 'sons of God' in several of the earliest manuscripts]. For the LORD's [Jehovah's] portion is his people, Jacob his allotted inheritance. (NIV)

If you read this passage from a modern monotheistic perspective, the meaning of the text is clear; God divided the nations but kept Israel as his own.

However, if you read the passage at face value, with no presuppositions, the meaning is totally different. Here you read of one character 'Elyown', the Most High God, who splits the nations of the world and gives each to one of his (many) sons. 'Jehovah' is only one of those sons and it is he who gets the nation of Israel as his inheritance.

That is the meaning that would have been understood by most readers in the polytheistic times that the words were originally written in.

Archeology has uncovered several ancient artifacts which clearly show that the ancient Canaanites worshipped Jehovah as one of many gods, not as the only God, and combining this text with that evidence suggests that there was believed to be a God even higher than Jehovah - 'Elyown' - the Most High God.

So who do we worship today?

Is 'God the Father' really 'Elyown' and 'God the Son' (Jesus) really 'Jehovah'? What about the other 'sons of God', what happened to them?

Ministry time

Over the last week, for various reasons, I've been in three different churches, with three different styles of 'doing church'.

The most noticeable difference between the three approaches was in the way each of the three offered ministry - that is, the opportunity to have someone pray for you or pray with you.

In the first (the most traditional), the opportunity 'to have someone pray with you' was offered right at the end of the service. As most of the congregation went to get a coffee, three folk remained near the front, one who wanted to be prayed for, the other two to pray for her. The 'prayer ministry' was carried out seated, with the lady who was to be prayed for explaining what her need was before the other two proceeded to pray for her.

In the second, after the sermon, the pastor said 'we want to pray for you' and explained how, in the next section of the service, the various (badged) members of the prayer team would circulate round the congregation and pray for everyone - if you didn't want prayer you should make your way to the back of the room where a couple of rows of chairs were designated as a 'no go' zone for the prayer team. During this ministry time the band played quiet worship songs, but the words were not up on the screen, so it was clearly not intended for the congregation to join in the singing, even though several folk did. During this time members of the prayer team would approach people (of the same gender) and simply start praying for them - they didn't ask for any particular need, they mostly prayed that the person would experience the Spirit more. There was quite a lot of shaking going on, some falling over and other external phenomena. At the end of this time the pastor asked if anyone who wanted prayer hadn't had it yet, and those folk were prayed for before the band returned to leading the congregation in worship.

In the third, after the sermon, the pastor simply said (with no explanation for outsiders) that it was 'ministry time' and asked the congregation to stand. He then 'invited the Spirit to come' and made a few (brief) comments about 'the Spirit of God drawing near' and about receiving from Him. Shortly after this, a few members of the congregation went to the front and spoke, quietly, with the pastor. After a moment of silence the pastor named two folk in the congregation that he 'sensed the Spirit was resting on'. Then the six folk who had gone to the front, in turn, explained the 'pictures' they had been given and suggested an explanation which may be relevant to one or more folk in the congregation. The pastor then invited folk from the congregation, who felt the 'words' might be relevent to them, and the two folk he had named, to come forward for prayer. The folk at the front prayed for those who came forward, standing. There was no significant external phenomena (shaking, tongues, etc.). Then the pastor declared that the service was over, although several remained at the front in prayer for a while.

I have mixed feelings about each of these approaches. In many ways, I prefer the latter two because they both have an expectation of God's presence and an expectation that he will actually do something, whereas the first seems to want to distance most of the congregation from actually interacting with God - prayer ministry is only for the few, and only for those with specific needs. But I'm not sure how I would feel about taking a non-believer into either of the latter two settings. Without a lot of pre-explanation (which would probably be off-putting) I don't think a non-believing visitor would be particularly comfortable in either setting.

In the third church, the clear expectation was that 'God will have something to say to us (through the medium of 'pictures' or 'words of knowledge') at every service'. But what if God said everything he wanted to through the preacher? And how can we know if the 'pictures' or 'words' expressed by the members of the congregation came from above or simply out of an active imagination. Indeed, one of the 'pictures' shared this week was of a car advert - one that is on tv fairly regularly - it wouldn't take the involvement of the Spirit to bring that picture to mind, merely an aimlessly wandering thought process. If God wants to speak in such a way to that group of people on a weekly basis, does he also want to say such things to the first church, but they're not listening? Or is He not speaking loudly enough?

I'm not totally trying to dismiss seeing pictures or having words of knowledge - I have experience of receiving both myself - but not on demand or on a weekly basis. How can we be sure of the origin of these words?

Words and pictures were also shared in the second church (indeed, I have heard them occasionally shared in the first church too, but not every week or even every month) but there they seemed more like an added bonus rather than an expectation. The attitude there was much more 'we expect to be filled with Your Spirit, and if You choose to speak to us we will be listening'.

One of the things about the third church that was notable was that there was no music or other emotive thing going on during ministry time. People were not coerced into any particular state of behaviour. I liked the fact that nothing was forced, but I actually found the silence uncomfortable. In the second church it is much easier to claim that there is some emotional manipulation going on in the environment (gentle music, dimmed lights) and that some of the phenomena could be a purely emotional response, although there is certainly real stuff going on there too. Here, at times, the noise was uncomfortable.

Having recounted all this, I don't think I really have a point to make. I certainly am not saying that one way is 'right' and the others are 'wrong'. All three have some value, but I can see negative aspects of all three too. I couldn't even say which style I preferred (although I might incline slightly towards the second, due to the fact that everyone is prayed for and due to the music). This is just me thinking out loud. If anyone reading this has any insights I'd love to hear them.