 |
|
|
|||||||
|
Volf on WorshipIn an article entitled “Worship as Adoration and Action” the eminent theologian Miroslav Volf offers a model for worship that I think we ought to embrace in the Emerging Church. He argues that we need to move past the false dichotomy between the sacred and secular, the contemplative and active. Luther argued that all Christians have a dual-nature to their vocations: one spiritual (the call to enter the Kingdom of God) and the other external (to serve God and humanity). Volf notes that the Hebrews had one word to designate work, service and worship. Although we have a smattering of postmodern minds in the world today, the dominant culture is still modern, which wants “to know everything in order to predict everything in order to control everything.” Modernity, Volf argues, wants to suppress the contemplative life and restrict worship to the private sphere. To the contrary, Volf contends that worship as purely adoration, without action, is not Christian worship at all. He writes, “A person cannot worship God and suppress his/her neighbor at the same time.” True worship is impossible without doing justice.Volf writes that “Christian worship consists both in obedient service to God and in the joyful praise of God.” (cf. Hebrews 13:15-16) He continues, “As Christians worship God in adoration and action they anticipate the conditions of this world as God’s new creation. Through action they envision a world without Satan’s evil. Through adoration the anticipate the enjoyment of God in the new Creation." There is no separation between the sacred and the secular because God is everywhere--we meet a holy God in the profaned reality of the world. “Turning to God in adoration," Volf comments, "does not entail turning away from the world; it entails perceiving God in relation to the world and the world in relation to God." Both Emergent (reacting against pure evangelicalism) and the Missional Church (reacting against pure liberalism) are committed to the dual axes of evangelism and social justice. If this is true, then our connotation of worship ought to reflect this commitment. Volf ends his article with the significance of such a view of Christian worship. Significance of Adoration for Action 1. By aligning with God’s character and purposes in adoration one aligns oneself also with God’s projects in the world. 2. In adoration a person names and celebrates the context of meaning that gives significance to his or her action in the world and indicates the highest value that gives that action binding direction. Significance of Action for Adoration 1. By participating in God’s purposes we are causing grounds for the praise of God among all people. “Action establishes conditions in which adoration of God surges out of the human heart.” 2. It is sinful to praise God’s mighty deeds in adoration and to participate in neglecting the good or by actively doing evil. “Without action in the world, the adoration of God is empty and hypocritical, and degenerates into irresponsible and godless quietism”the spirit is the source of action (Eph.5:21-6:20) and adoration (5:18-20) Okay, enough theory. How do we make this a palpable reality in the Church today? posted by Jake at 2/25/2005 03:32:00 PM  
16 Comments: |
Friends w/ Blogs
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 My Reading Queue 
 
 
 
 Just Finished 
 
 
 The Looooong List 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Previous Posts Introducing Hermeneutics (Part 2) ------------ McLaren's Soteriology ------------ My New Toy ------------ Read this blog! ------------ Ummm...Ouch! ------------ Introducing Hermeneutics (Part 2) ------------ Ruth Unplugged ------------ Journey to the Cross ------------ Introducing Hermeneutics (Part 1) ------------ It's a Girl! ------------ Archives November 2004 December 2004 January 2005 February 2005 March 2005 April 2005 May 2005 June 2005 July 2005 August 2005 September 2005 October 2005 November 2005 December 2005 January 2006 February 2006 March 2006 April 2006 May 2006 June 2006 July 2006 August 2006 September 2006 October 2006 November 2006 December 2006 January 2007 February 2007 March 2007 April 2007 May 2007 June 2007
|
good stuff jake..
"praise" + "justice" = worship
and of course that's reductionistic but really challenging to many churches, both evangelical and mainline...
praise (including lament) leads us into the world..
justice leads us to praise..
mark
Jake,
As long as evangelism and social justice are "dual axes," I suspect that one or the other will fall by the wayside. Can't we integrate both into one singular vision?
Steve, good point. Any ideas on how one might do this? I myself can only think of one thing at a time so the dual-axes suggested by Volf helps me to conceptuatlize this practically. What might a singular model look like?
I view the church's mission underneath the unified banner of "god's opposition to evil and suffering." To the degree that the church is witnessing to the (ultimate eschatological triumph of god over suffering) through the pursuit of social justice, peace, and acts of empowerment, we can hope and expect that its numbers will grow through conversions. If it's not, then in my opinion, it has failed to understand its own nature and that of God.
I've tried to subsume conversion and growth underneath this larger singular vision here and here. (Forgive the lack of theological sophistication!)
If I were go further theologically, I would do so along these lines: God's active opposition to evil follows from the doctrine of the goodness of God. God's choice to unite God's own agency with human agency in the church, in pursuing this aim follows from theological anthropology, incarnation, and pneumatology.
Sorry, but here's one more blurb I wrote on this theme:
For Church Growth
Steve,
I think I could get behind the slogan of the church being "God's opposition to evil and suffering." But I wonder if pursuing "social justice, peace, and acts of empowerment" is really the best way to get this done in people's lives. In my mind, Christ's eschatalogical reign, though it has broken in upon us now, remains yet to be consumated until his return. Social justice in the here and now points toward that reality, but remains yet a sign - a type and shadow of what is to come.
In my mind, post-evangelicals need to be careful that they do not seek the shadow at the expense of the substance.
What good does it profit a man to gain the social justice/peace/empowerment of this whole temporal world yet loose his soul (and thus real social justice in the age to come)?
In as much as only those who are "of Christ" (whatever that may mean to you) will participate in that final eschatalogical social justice, it seems that the Church makes better use of its time by preparing people to live in that final reality. Even Lazarus died again.
We pursue social justice then, for the reasons that Christ did - because he was full of compassion (and not as a bait and switch tactic - I hate that). But even Christ walked away from social needs in order to preach "Repent! For the kingdom of heaven is at hand"
And Jake, I think this provides (at least for me) a way in which the pursuit of social justice and evangelism finds a singular focus. In converting those to Christ, I am being used by God to usher them into the final eschatological reality of social justice.
Steve, I read your articles, very nice by the way. I still don't see the distinction you are trying to make from my own suggestion following Volf's article on worship. You write,
"This activity takes the shape of a social movement. The social movement that is the Church is not merely social, however; it is a spiritual/social movement. It is unfortunate that our language is limited in that we have to distinguish between the spiritual and social, as if spirituality and sociality were two different things. Human beings are both spiritual and social, and neither aspect of our nature can be isolated from the other. Any attempt to reduce Christianity to purely social pursuits, on the one hand, or to individual piety on the other, is a perversion of the teachings of Jesus. The spirituality of the church is social, and its sociality is spiritual."
To that I offer a hearty "Amen!"
When I first read your comments on my blog I was wondering why you were not hanging with the liberal protestants for, in my mind, many of them reduce the gospel to social justice. After reading your articles it seems to me to be about semantics. The point that Volf is trying to make is that we ought not reduce Christian worship to the interior, spiritual life (vis-a-vis Evangelicals), nor should we reduce it to social action. The dialectical tension must remain. Practically, it requires pressure upon the bourgeois apathy to the plight of the poor and oppressed by those advocating a "spiritual worship". It also requires resistance to the liberal tendency to ignore the adorative aspects of worship for social justice alone (one need not be Christian to advocate for the oppressed or work in a soup kitchen).
Jake, I don't feel like I can respond adequately to your questions w/o reading the Volf piece. I hope I have the opportunity to do so, you've definitely piqued my interest.
Gerald, I feel like you are drawing too thick of a line of discontinuity between the present age and the age to come, by making the primary concern as to "who is of christ." I suppose we'd have to go into a more in depth discussion of soteriology to see how that plays out. In my approach, the Christian commitment to the eschaton and to the God who will realize it entails a commitment to work, here and now, to create states of affairs that more closely resemble that eschaton. Otherwise, our commitment to the eschaton reveals itself as deceptive. To me, that is the singular focus, which plays out in three different dimensions: (A) the work for social justice in the wider societal sphere (expressing our commitment to peace and justice by working for those ideals in the world), (B) forming a community, an alternative polity, that embodies peace, justice, and worship, and to the extent to which those two are occurring, (C) intentionally working to expand that community. If the first two dimensions aren't in place, then I have little excitement for activities towards the third. Or, to put it more strongly, I think they are a perversion of evangelism.
In terms of who gets to participate in the eschaton and who doesn't, I don't think that is for us to know, and I don't think it is a motive in our witnessing activities. I'm not a universalist, and I think the bible consistently presents physical death as the paradigmatic expression of god's judgement. I take such death to be final. But, in God's mercy, I see three images of those for whom god graciously overcomes judgment: those who are characterized by "good works," those who are "in Christ," and the poor and oppressed, the Blessed, for "theirs is the kingdom." I do not try to reduce any of these images to any one of the others, but allow each to stand in tension and promise.
Steve,
Thanks for the response. Unlike you, my interpretation of scripture does reduce the three categories of whose "in" down to the one fundamental qualification of spiritual regeneration via ontological union with the divine nature (i.e. being "of Christ"). We approach this issue from such divergent sotieriological starting points, that finding substantial continuity is probably not real likely. Appreciate your thoughts though, and your comments help me understand your perspective - particularly coupled with some of the posts on your blog. Three more questions for you, if you felt like answering…
1) Am I correct in understanding your conception of conversion to entail more of a conversion to a social agenda/ideology (albeit God's) rather than essential/ontological change (i.e. the healing of original sin/corruption)?
2) If so, would you see a need to convert distinctly non-Christian groups (Hindu, Muslim, etc.) that are already pursuing a social agenda that reflects God's future eschaton, even though they may be simultaneously rejecting/not adoring Christ?
3) Do you even maintain a need for essential change?
Jake (or Mark), I would be interested in your response to these questions as well, as it seems from your final statement above that you might not want to validate, without qualification, the pursuit of a distinctly non-Christian social agenda.
Gerald, I just don't find ontology to be a helpful analytical category and I think it generates sloppy thinking. Unless one is using it in a manner unlike the way it's been used in the history of philosophy/theology. And even in that case (i.e., Heidegger or Tillich), it's then most useful to translate out of ontological categories and into other ones.
I personally find social/practical categories the most fruitful, but that's my thing.
There is a real danger, and a frequently occurring one, that people who use ontological categories wind up making claims so abstract, so divorced from everyday reality, that they generate at best, irrelevant, at worst, self-deceptive discourse (I have Milbank primarily in mind). If you can't talk about salvation in terms of its practical effects in the social sphere, then why bother talking about it?
So for me, the soteriological center of gravity is the full realization of the age to come, and the "already" component is derivative from that future "not yet" component.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Steve,
I’m not sure the extent to which you feel compelled to ground your basic theological/sotieriological conclusions in historical precedent (i.e. the things that all Christians, everywhere, at all times have affirmed). The sense that I’m getting here and on your blog is that this doesn’t play a real significant factor in your theological formation. If this is indeed the case, my following comments will probably carry little weight with you but may be of interest to some of Jake’s other readers.
As you are probably aware, a view of conversion that denies essential transformation is decidedly unhistorical. Clearly from Augustine on – and it can be found prior to Augustine in the church Fathers – essential/ontological grace was a necessity of salvation. And without labeling you, in as much as your concept of conversion/salvation seems to deny (dismiss?) the need for any kind of essential transformation, I find it difficult to distinguish your concept of salvation from outright Pelagianism. To be sure, the language of social justice, empowerment, etc. is foreign to Pelagius, but you both seem to be suggesting that it is possible to fulfill God’s ideal apart from ontological grace. Not even the semi-Pelagians maintained such a position. Not looking to be argumentative, just looking for clarification.
And I agree that salvation must break into the social sphere (though we would differ here as well, I’m sure), but for me, my embracing of ontological grace is the means by which I am able to impact the social sphere in an altruistic and generous capacity. Ontological salvation that fails to result in benign volition is not ontological salvation.
Gerald: Sure I want to pay attention to historic Christian beliefs and formulate my own in conversation with those. But there is nothing that all christians, everywhere, at all times have believed, unless you define in advance, on your terms, what a christian is and then exclude all self-identifed christians who don't match with your definition.
I'm also very aware of the manner in which Platonism has infected christian thought through the ages and still today. Ontology, Augustinian and otherwise, is a prime example of christianized platonism. I reject Platonism and its attendants ontology and essentialism, so I don't get terribly excited about platonic concepts in christian thought. I certainly don't feel any responsibility to see Platonism, christian or otherwise, as authoritative.
But, as I said, the soteriological center of gravity for me is the consummating events of the eschaton: the second coming of christ and the general resurrection. Obviously, that's nothing any of us can earn or accomplish on our own behalf, it's strictly an act of god's grace and mercy. So i don't see how I could be a pelagian.
Steve,
Sorry if I characterized you farther to the left than you really are regarding your affinity to historic Christian beliefs. But I would still challenge your assertion that it is not helpful to ask what all Christians, at all times, have everywhere believed. If I arrived at a definition of Christianity with nothing but my bible and my own presuppositions, I think your critique would be valid. But that’s quite a different thing than allowing the greater Church (Prot, Cath, and Orth) to establish this definition for me.
And even if the language of such a statement is too absolute, surely there are certain things that the (vast?) majority of Christians, throughout the majority of Church history, have in the majority of places believed (Apostles Creed, Nicene Creed, historical reality of the resurrection). Even granting this qualification, I think that an affirmation of essential/ontological grace (either implicitly or explicitly) would fall into this category. Your movement away from it, in my mind at least, seems to be a significant departure from the wider (not just evangelical) historic understanding of salvation. Only in as much as you maintain that a God pleasing life (you mentioned good works above) can be achieved without the help of essential grace, did I suggest an affinity between your sotieriology and Pelagianism. But I won’t throw that term around lightly, and it would be unfair of me to make sweeping assessments of your sotieriology without more clarification.
And I am not as leery of Platonic thought as you are, though I confess that my understanding of philosophy is minimal. Mostly I find the realism useful in understanding original sin, imputation and justification. Beyond that, I am by no means an authority on the subject. And, I might add, I see this realism in Hebrew thought, arrived at quite independent of Plato. But your philosophical sword in this area seems longer than mine, so I submit (for now).