LET US SING POWERPOINT SLIDE 2567

Well, I stuck my foot in it this time. Whether that means my mouth or something else is for you to decide. At a recent clergy meeting, one of the pastors remarked that they had stopped using bulletins and were using a screen instead. This means projecting words on large screen in a church. I just had to say that was too bad because now I wouldn’t be able to go to that church when I retire. I hate those screens in worship. It turns out most of the clergy present either used screens or wished they could or are planning to do so. This desire is in spite of the fact that many of the church’s members dislike the screens as much as I do. I guess this is one more sign that I am a dinosaur in the church. I suppose many are just waiting until I and my species become extinct so they can bring things up-to-date in the church.

Some of my objection to these screens replacing bulletins and hymnals and Bibles is practical. The durned screens are hard for us old fogies to read. I was at a service once where the “praise team” (that’s the neologism for combination worship leaders-musicians) blocked the screen on my side of the auditorium. I couldn’t read anything that was up there. When several of us mentioned this afterwards we were told out inability to read didn’t matter.  I got the sense that our participation was confined to listening rapturously to the praise team’s performance and putting enough cash into the offering plate to pay for the show.

The practical problem is compounded for musicians like me. When we sing something, we like to have the music with the words. We’ve spent a lot of time learning to read music, after all. The screens never have musical notes with the words. And nine times out of ten what we are singing is unknown to us. Once again it seems to me that we are being discouraged from participating.

And then there is the problem of making the technology work right. Computers crash bringing everything to a halt. Or somebody pushes the button at the wrong time and you’ve got the wrong words.

But I have a more deep seated objection to the screens. They are out of place in church, at least churches with a liturgical tradition. Liturgy means the people’s work. It assumes that worship is something that worshipers do as active participants and not passive spectators. As best as I can determine, the use of projection screens for song lyrics first arose in mega-churches which are designed to look and function like theatres. As a matter of fact, it was in theaters as far back as magic lantern shows that words were projected for sing-a-longs. Even I seem to recall a projected version of “Let me call you Sweetheart” being sung in some auditorium with the words projected on a screen. Now as I learned from the book When Church Became Theatre there has been a 200 year tradition in American Protestantism of designing churches like theaters culminating in Willow Creek Church. There is absolutely nothing in that church to make it look like a place of Christian worship. It is devoid of Christian symbols or altar or anything that would suggest a traditional church. Projection screens are a natural for these settings which seemed to be aimed at entertaining or perhaps teaching, but certainly not worship in a context where the Word and Sacrament are central and worship really is the people’s work and not the paid staff’s work.

The picture at the head of this blog shows what happens when a screen is thumped into a liturgical church. The stained glass window is covered over and the altar and cross are overwhelmed. Frankly, it is an eyesore rather than an aid to worship. The screen becomes the focal point.


It’s worth paying attention to the observations of Marshall McLuhan in his book Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man. A medium affects society not by the content delivered over the medium, but by the characteristics of the medium itself. In other words, what is communicated is the video screen itself, not what’s on the screen. What is the effect of putting our song lyrics on the ephemeral medium of  a projection screen? As soon as the image changes to a new lyric, the previous one has vanished, disappeared into cyber space. And what about putting Bible texts up there. At least with a book in your hands or even a piece of paper you can go back over something. But with the screen, it is gone in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye.

"Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and for . . ."  Oops! File deleted.

How different is that from a book that will last 20 years or more? Isn’t it strange that we can read manuscripts from the Dead Sea Scrolls written 2,000 years ago, but the information from the 1960 census is largely unavailable because no modern computer can read the old data formats. I can sing the songs I learned in Sunday School and choir 50 years ago. They are lodged in my memory. I can pick up a hymnal prepared in 1960 and sing anything written there. Anybody out there got a collection of songs on eight-track?  How about a good movie on Betamax?

A good screen and projector would be a wonderful adjunct in teaching, but as a worship aid it may prove counter productive. I think churches are being sold a technological bill of goods. I’m not buying.

May the Lord bless you on your journey and greet you on your arrival.

Wayne






12749

MR. ELIOT

Because I do not hope to turn again
Because I do not hope
Because I do not hope to turn
Desiring this man's gift and that man's scope
I no longer strive to strive towards such things
(Why should the agèd eagle stretch its wings?)
Why should I mourn
The vanished power of the usual reign?

So begins T. S. Eliot’s poem Ash Wednesday. I have read it many times. I don’t understand it. I don’t understand most of Eliot, but I keep reading it from time to time. I occasionally purchase books to explain Eliot to me. (I just bought two more of them on sale.) I can’t say I understand it any more. A good friend in seminary, Dennis, tried to explain it to me. I’m just too dense to get it. Or maybe the poetry is too dense. I try reading it any way.

My first experience of Elliot was in high school English class where we read The Hollow Men. (Goodness, that was so long ago. Eliot was still alive the first time I read his poem.)

We are the hollow men
We are the stuffed men
Leaning together
Headpieces filled with straw. Alas!
Our dried voices, when
We whisper together
Are quiet and meaningless
As wind in dry grass
Or rats’ feet over broken glass
In our dry cellar.

I love that image “rats’ feet over broken glass.”  Can you hear the sound?

And then towards the end the absurd verse:

Here we go round the prickly pear
Prickly pear prickly pear
Here we go round the prickly pear
At five o’clock in the morning.

And the ending:

For Thine is
For life is
For Thine is the

This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
Not with a bang but a whimper.

Maybe I wouldn’t have continued reading Eliot if I hadn’t run across the beautiful poem Journey of the Magi.

This is its magnificent ending. The Magi who has told the story of going to see the infant Jesus says:

All this was a long time ago, I remember,
And I would do it again, but set down
This set down
This: were we led all that way for
Birth or Death? There was a birth, certainly,
We had evidence and no doubt. I had seen birth and death
But had thought they were quite different; this birth was
Hard and bitter agony for us, like death, our death.
We returned to our places, these Kingdoms
But no longer at ease here, in the old dispensation,
With an alien people clutching their gods.
I should be glad of another death.

Several times I have read that poem to people, but they respond with a grunt “Huh?”  

Maybe it is that conversion that took place in Eliot from atheist (or maybe agnostic) to and Anglican Christian that intrigues me. Scholars can see the conversion in his poetry.  Maybe what fascinates me is that the same man who wrote such deep poems also wrote the humorous Old ‘Possum’s Book of Practical Cats which became the basis for the musical Cats. Maybe it is that someone who hobnobbed with great thinkers like Bertrand Russell was also a friend of Groucho Marx. Maybe I keep reading what I don’t understand because I believe in the old adage that a man’s reach should surpass his grasp.

Maybe I just have Eliot on the brain lately because Eugene Peterson (see the blog on him) read this quote form Eliot’s poem Little Gidding:

What we call the beginning is often the end
And to make an end is to make a beginning.
The end is where we start from . . .

May the Lord bless you on your journey and greet you on your arrival which just might turn out to be where you started from.

Wayne





12718

NEW TESTAMENT

A very intelligent friend of mine noting that so many books in the New Testament are credited to Paul asked: “Were there other things written besides what we have?” My answer: yes, and a little bit no. Like most Biblical questions, it’s complicated and it depends. So here is a more detailed reply.

For the first generation of Christians, Scripture mean roughly what we call the Old Testament. There’s complications to that, but one problem at a time. There probably wasn’t anything written by Christians in the first 20 years after death and resurrection of Jesus (around AD 30), at least nothing that has survived. During this time stories about Jesus and his sayings were probably passed on by word of mouth. There is a strong likelihood that a collection of sayings of Jesus was written down around the year 50. We don’t have a copy of that collection, but a lot of the material was probably used in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke.

About 50 Paul wrote the first letter to the Thessalonians. This is the earliest piece of writing we have by a Christian. Paul wrote more letters between the years 50 to 64 of which we have ten (or maybe only seven or maybe thirteen, there is a debate) in what becomes the New Testament. Paul didn’t think he was writing Scripture. He was writing letters, most of them to people in churches he had started. Certainly Paul was a man of profound faith and we could say that he was inspired in writing these letters. His recipients must have thought so because they kept his letters and even circulated copies of them.  It’s possible that somewhere about the time Paul was writing, the books of James and 1 Peter were written and maybe Jude.  These are trickier to date since they aren’t addressed to anyone in particular and might not be letters at all.

Sometime between about 66 and 70 Mark writes his Gospel. I am convinced this is the first Gospel ever written. Matthew is probably written around 75-85 and Luke about 80-85 with the book of Acts shortly after. Matthew and Luke knew about Mark’s Gospel since they copied parts of it, but they don’t seem to have known each other’s books. John’s Gospel is from about 90-100 with the letters 1, 2, 3 John a bit later.

What else? Hebrews, anytime between 65 and 80. Revelation around 94-96. 2 Peter–any date is controversial, but I go with those who think it could be as late as 110.

Now it gets complicated. Ten of Paul’s letters (not counting 1, 2 Timothy and Titus) were probably put together as a collection before the end of the first century. That suggests they received special regard from people. They were mentioned by other Christian writers. Maybe they were being regarded as like the (Old Testament) Scriptures.  Something similar began to happen maybe in the middle of the second century with the Gospels. Christians writings were being treated as having a degree of authority for Christians. But which ones? What could you read at church like Scriptures? On this there was no agreement.

Late in the second century many Christians regarded the four Gospels, Acts, the letters of Paul, 1 Peter and 1 John as being authoritative books. There was disagreement over whether Hebrews, James, Jude, 2 Peter, 2,3 John, and Revelation were authoritative. Furthermore, some regarded additional books as being authoritative. Commonly mentioned were 1 Clement (written about 96), the Didache (about 100), The Shepherd of Hermas (150), The Epistle of Barnabas (130-140),  The Apocalypse of Peter (130-150), and the Acts of Paul (180-190) . Although none of these books are in the present New Testament, you can still get copies of most them.  Personally, I find the Didache the most interesting.

Then there were dozens of writings that people produced that a few people liked, but were generally rejected by most Christians such as, The Gospel of the Egyptians, The Gospel according to the Hebrews, the Gospel of Thomas, and on and on. Some of these we have, some only exists as quotes in other writers. A lot of it sounds absolutely nutty.

And just for good measure, there were some writings from near the time of the New Testament writings that were never considered scripture, but were widely read as good, edifying material. These include the Letters of Ignatius, the Epistle of Polycarp, and the Martyrdom of Polycarp.  They are very helpful in understanding early second-century Christianity.

In 367 Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, gave a list of the books that matches what is in the present New Testament, nothing omitted, nothing added. That didn’t mean, however, that everyone, everywhere agreed. So how did the final decision get made? It didn’t. Over time there came to be widespread acceptance of what constituted the New Testament. We have to believe that the same Spirit that inspired the writing of these books also inspired the selection process.

Well, that’s all for now. Don’t forget February 17 is Ash Wednesday.

The Lord bless you on your Lenten journey and greet you on your Easter arrival,

Wayne




The picture is of Oxyrhynchus Papyrus 654 which contains a portion of the Gospel of Thomas. Reconstructed, it begins: 'These are the secret sayings which Jesus the Living spoke and Didymus Judas Thomas wrote.” The Gospel of Thomas was a collection of sayings of Jesus, many of which are nothing like the real words of Jesus. The collection reflects a twisting of Christianity into the religion of Gnosticism.





12689

Eugene Peterson

Just back from a three day conference. I’m exhausted since the middle day ran from 9 a.m. to 9 p.m., but it was a great time. The presenter was Eugene Peterson–pastor, professor, author–of whom I have written before. He is without doubt one of the most important teachers of Christian Spirituality in modern America. Almost everything he says gives you enough to think about for a month or two. I won’t go into any depth because for those of you who attend Our Saviour Church, I will be speaking on Peterson the first Wednesday in Lent, February 24. But here are a few golden nuggets from his talks.

“Birth receives more attention in our society than growing up. For parents growing up in marked by work and anxiety. Birth is easy. Growth is endlessly complex. . . . American churches know everything about being born again and nothing about growing in Christ.”

Comment. This is something I have felt for a long time. When I was confirmed, the pastor laid his hand on my head and said: “The Father in Heaven, for Jesus' sake, renew and increase in thee the gift of the Holy Ghost, to they strengthening in faith, to thy growth in grace, to thy patience in suffering, and to the blessed hope of everlasting life. Amen” Growth in grace is an important idea, but there isn’t a lot of growing that goes on in church. I don’t have time to help people grow in grace. I’m too busy keeping squirrels out of the church building. Maybe I should try confirming them. Most of the time after you confirm a teenager, you never see them again. Maybe if I confirmed all the squirrels they’d disappear, too.

“We pay attention to the good and the true, but not the beautiful.”

Comment: this is a continuation of the growth theme. Peterson thinks the church dwells on dogma (truth) and morality (the good), but ignores the beauty of holiness. This is the hardest concept to grasp for any church. It’s fairly easy to talk about what people ought to believe. We have creeds for that. Although it is controversial nowadays, we can tell people how to behave. It’s hard to get across to anyone (myself included) that there s more to the Christian life than just believing the right things and acting the right way. There is a undefinable, mystical quality of being “in Christ.”  But what exactly is that like? You can’t say exactly. According to some common sense philosophers, if you can’t say exactly what you mean, you don’t mean anything at all. I prefer to say there are something you just can’t talk about precisely, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t important.

Not a quote this time but an invitation. Go through the Gospel stories of the Resurrection of Jesus and note the reactions: fear, joy, wonder, amazement, hearts burning. That’s what an encounter with the risen Christ is like. Now ask yourself if church is like that.

“The most important thing to do on a Sunday Morning is to give people one hour for doing nothing.”

Comment: this reminds be of Marva Dawn’s book on worship A Royal “Waste” of Time. (Marva Dawn has collaborated with Peterson on the book The Unnecessary Pastor. I will also be talking about Marva Dawn this Lent. Worship is an odd event in our goal-oriented society. What does it produce? What is the outcome? Nothing. Worship is worship of God and that is its purpose. Doing it is an end in itself. People have sometimes said to me: “I don’t get anything out of worship.” My reply is, “You’re not supposed to. This leads to another remark by Peterson.

“People are not called to church to be entertained, but to pay attention.”

Comment: Boy, this really seems to take a slap at the so-called “entertainment evangelism” where Sunday worship is supposed to be entertainmening. This is one of the dividing issues within Christianity today. Peterson isn’t saying that worship should be boring or poorly done, but that entertaining the gathering is not the purpose. One of by professors, Frank Senn, once remarked that the problem with entertainment evangelism was that it burdened worship with evangelism because people wouldn’t actually evangelize others. All my life I have been told we should invite people to church, meaning invite them to worship. I have told people to do that. But worship doesn’t make any sense to the non-believer. What we ought to be doing is inviting people to Christ. When they encounter him, worship makes sense.

Peterson is a great advocate of contemplation which requires silence. Does silence have a place in worship? He certainly thinks so. A member of the audience raised a question about this. The questioner remarked that he had been trained in theater where they were taught that there must never be any silence. He followed that practice in his contemporary worship services. Peterson commented:

“I love the theater, but the theater is not worship.”

Comment: I have often looked at worship as a performance–theater, dance, music, art. There is a lot of thought that goes into planning worship as if it were a performance. But in the end Peterson is right. It is not a performance. It is not being done for the sake of the audience, but for God. That means that unlike the theater, sometimes everybody has to shut up so that God can be heard. It was one of the things that drove me crazy during the conference worship. There was never any silence, none whatsoever. Every second was filled with someone making music or talking. It seemed to go on forever.

Finally, Peterson recommended one book as a must for all Pastors: Diary of a Country Priest by Georges Bernanos. I agree completely. I first read the book in seminary at the recommendation of Pr. Richard Neuhaus. I have read it several times since, once a few years back along with Peterson’s own book, Working the Angles. Diary is a great corrective for those who expect the pastorate to be a joy-filled, rewarding experience.

Well, that’s all–from Eugene Peterson’s first presentation. There were five more like it.

May the Lord bless you on your journey and greet you on your arrival.

Wayne










12653