She's Gone Country...

I come from Southern USA, Tennessee to be more precise. As a result, my life has been bombarded by country music. I have to admit, for years and years I detested this particular genre, but after I moved to Nashville I found that when you live in that city for a while country music invades your life and you must listen to it. After a few years I came to embrace this genre of music and I listen to it quite often.

I heard a song last night (I live in the UK and came across a country station last night while driving through Wales, which is the first and only station of its kind that I have found, so it was a nice discovery) on the radio called, 'Down the Road' by Kenny Chesney and I listened to an interesting lyric. The song talks about this man's life and how he grows and progresses through its stages. One of the lyrics in the refrain made me have a double-take. It says,

'Her momma wants to know/Am I washed in the blood or just in the water.'

Hmmm? This is a very interesting statement about Mr. Chesney's sacramental theology. I believe I know what he is trying to say, but it made me think more about country music and its theological influence on its listeners. The lyric suggests that one can be baptised but not 'saved', but if I understand correctly, to be baptised one (or one's parents in the case of infant baptism) must first profess a belief in the salvific work of Christ.

There are many lyrics like this in country music and I often wonder how influential the theology in country music is on its listeners.

Any one have any other loaded/theological country music lyrics to share? I know there must be a ton of them out there. Let's see how many we can come up with, Good and Bad.

Peace,
Joseph

'I am the Vine and you are the branches'

Happy New Year to you all and Happy Season of Epiphany for those who care :-) . As a first blog for the year I wanted to share with everyone one of my Christmas presents. It's the icon called, 'Tree of Life', or 'I am the Vine'. The iconographer bases this icon on the passage from John 15 when Jesus says,

'I am the vine, you are the branches. Those who abide in me and I in them bear much fruit, because apart from me you can do nothing. My Father is glorified by this, that you bear much fruit and become my disciples. As the Father has loved me, so I have loved you; abide in my love. If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love, just as I have kept my Father’s commandments and abide in His love. I have said these things to you so that my joy may be in you, and that your joy may be complete.'

To all who read this blog, may Christ be in you and you in Him and may your joy be made complete this new year and every year. Bear good fruit, represent Christ in all things, and most of all Love one another.

Grace and Peace to all of you,

Joseph

Can the Word alone do its Job?

I've been reading Richard Hooker (1554-1600) as a part of my studies, and I've come across an interesting idea that he discusses in Book V of his Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity. Defending the Church of England practice of the Public Reading of the Scriptures, Hooker makes the case that preaching is not absolutely necessary to evangelism. The Puritans decided that the goal of salvation could only be reached through the preaching of the Word, therefore, the public reading of the Scriptures as part of Worship was not needed, or should not be practiced, unless preaching followed. In other words, the only passages to be read aloud in a worship service were the ones that would presently be preached, exposed, and added to with commentary. Otherwise, according to the Puritan way, no public reading of the Scriptures would be allowed.

I found this story quite interesting and contemporary to us today. Many churches today have neglected the public reading of the Scriptures as a part of the worship service, except for the passages that will be preached on the day. Many argue that it is a time issue, that it takes too much time just to read the Bible aloud. Also, some would not see the point of reading a passage if it was not preached in the same service.

A few questions:

Is preaching necessary for salvation (evangelism)?
Must preaching follow the reading of the Word?
Can hearing the Scriptures alone be effectual for salvation (evangelism)?
What are the public Scripture reading practices in your local Nazarene congregations?

And please do not get me wrong. I am in no way claiming that preaching is unnecessary or useless.

The Peace of Christ be always with You,
Joseph

The ecclesiology of blogging...

I've had some interesting back-and-forth recently, and with a few people even going back three years now to the inception of this blog and it's companion, about not simply the value but even the sheer possibility of having healthy conversation, especially about things of a theological nature, in venues such as blogs, social-networking sites, discussion boards and the like. While I fully acknowledge that such "online conversation spaces" (as I like to call them) can turn nasty and inhospitable, and at such a time are usually best disestablished and laid to rest, I've also seen them become a very encouraging and redemptive resource for pastors, lay persons and students of all sorts for the exchange of insights and experiences, for those who seek understanding and sometimes just for the purpose of floating an idea and allowing it to be scrutinized.

On the other hand, I've read my postmodern critical theory, and I know that words, once spoken or written, are orphaned and no longer under my control (as if they ever were or are), and can very easily be misconstrued, twisted, de-contextualized and abused as weapons against me or against anyone else for that matter. Then again, this risk is inherent to all language and therefore any and every form of communication. Which is to say, one might be able to minimize the risk (by limiting oneself to certain forms of communication, and avoiding others, like blogs), but it is ultimately inescapable....whether I publish something in a peer-reviewed journal, or speak it from a pulpit or a lectern in the classroom, or say it to somebody face-to-face, my words take on a life of their own from the moment they are uttered; they control me, not I them. I can seek to explain, clarify, retract - all of which merely increase the risk of further linguistic mis-fire.

So here's what I wonder, in light of all this: most of us would probably agree that the best place to "do theology" or to have theological discussions is within the church, the ecclesia or "assembly" - not off on my own somewhere; not in the ivory towers of academia; but within a "body" of some sort. Are we who populate this online conversation space a "body"? We are clearly dis-embodied insofar as we are digitally-mediated, separated by geography, time-zones, etc; but might we still understand there to be a sense and a spirit of "community," of ecclesia, about our interaction and conversation? Perhaps not, I don't know. What is at stake, I suppose, is whether or not a venue such as this is a viable space to engage in theological discourse. If not, we best abandon it. If so, is it worth fighting for, and to what lengths?

"You all know that I'm a proud Nazbo..."

Oh. My.

God bless PLNU.

Comfort

I had the chance to read over some of the comments regarding the collar post on our sister blog Sacramental Nazarenes. To be honest I could probably go either way on that issue. However, what stuck out to me was what seemed to be a common thread running through the arguments of the detractors to clerical dress. The argmunent against such a tradition seemed to be based in large part on the perception, and in particular, the comfort level of the congregation and, especially those outside the church, who, it is perceived, would be turned off by such formality.

In my opinion, and it is only my opinion, the most destructive trend to hit the church in it's recent history is "seeker sensitivity." I don't say this because I have no regard for those "seeking the Lord". I wouldn't be in my current job if I felt that way. I care deeply for the lost, however, I take tremendous exception at the idea that the church should change or alter it's practices and/or beliefs in order to make church more comfortable for a "seeker."

Without going into a long diatribe about the idiocy of this notion, (it is my hope that the obvious problem of those on the outside dictating what is going on inside is problematic enough), I would rather raise the question: When exactly are those on the "inside", the regular congregtation, supposed to be comfortable? Are we supposed to be comfortable giving authority to a book that is 2000+ years old? Are we supposed to be comfortable living a life that is different from so many around us? Are we supposed to be comfortable when we claim that a virgin gave birth? Should we be comfortable claiming that Jesus of Nazareth was both fully man and fully God? Should we be comfortable declaring that God died hanging from a tree? Should we be comfortable claiming that He physically rose from the dead? Is it supposed to be comfortable kneeling on an altar and admitting our mistakes? Are we supposed to be comfortable forgiving, loving, and not holding a grudge? Or perhaps we should be comfortable affirming stories about arks, seas parting, giants slain, fire that doesn't consume, water into wine, and feeding thousands from nothing.

It seems to me that there should never come a point in the life of the church that even it's own people are ever completely comfortable. If we reach that point then surely we do not really believe the things that we profess, or even worse, have so corrupted the faith that it looks nothing like the gospel handed down by grace of the Holy Spirit.

To once again paraphrase the great Stanley Hauerwas, "It is the role of the church to be the church and to tell the world that it is the world because it doesn't know that it's the world." Sometimes that means professing, acting and even dressing in a way that makes people feel uncomfortable. If anything we need more uncomfortablilty in the church. I can't imagine that cross we stare at on Sunday morning was very comfortable to hang on, so why should things be comfortable for us?

Grace and peace,
Zack

Episcopal? Presbyterian? Conciliar? Democratic?

A topic of interest has arisen from our latest blog comments of which may be best pursued as its own blog, so as not to take away from the previous topic of Women in Ministry. Also, on our sister blog, Sacramental Nazarenes, this same idea has found its way to the fore on the most recent stream of comments. So here we go. New topic.

It has occurred to me that our form of ecclesial government in the Church of the Nazarene is one that has been formed out of a conglomerate of traditions. We claim Anglican, Methodist, and Pentecostal heritages, but from these different traditions, where did we come up with our structured form of government? From what I gather, we basically have a purely democratic form of government, strikingly similar to the national government of the United States of America. Representation, Elections, Majority Rules, etc.

Here are some questions: Is this form of government biblical/adequate/universal? Does it promote equality? Does it really represent the majority of its 'constituents' (keep in mind the majority of Nazarenes now live outside the USA)? In light of the recent observations we have made, does it promote clerical authority or popular opinion? And finally, does it promote community or individualism? (for those modern, post-modern debaters out there)

I've expressed a bit of my view on the last blog's comments. What are yours?

Joseph