Continued from Part V
The Old Testament Background to Romans 1:4
Having attended to the immediate context of Rom. 1:4, we have only arrived at a very sketchy understanding of what Paul meant by Jesus’ post-resurrection appointment as the Son of God with power. Any explanation of the significance of the title “Son of God” in Rom. 1:4 cannot possibly be complete without a discussion of the Old Testament prophetic/typological foundation. The Gospel of God that Paul has summarized here in Rom. 1:3-4 is “the Gospel he promised beforehand through his prophets in the Holy Scriptures.”
“Through his prophets” ought not to be limited to a particular section of the Old Testament, as if Paul was simply referring to the writing prophets of the latter monarchy. Rather, Paul doubtless designates the entire Old Testament corpus as penned by “prophets” (see Paul’s use of the oJ no/moß as prophetic of the Gospel in Rom. 3:21, 31; 8:4; cf. Heb. 1:1; 1 Pet. 1:10).
Furthermore, by describing the Son’s coming into the word as "of the seed of David," Paul invites us to consider the typological /prophetic links between the Davidic kingship and Jesus appointment as Son of God with power.
And finally, by concluding with the words "Jesus Christ, our Lord," which follow immediately after Jesus’ designation as the Son of God with power, and seem to be placed in apposition to that royal title, Paul concludes his explication of the Gospel by alluding to the common confession of the apostolic church—a confession in which each word savors of profound Old Covenant associations. The Son of God is the Greater Joshua, the Anointed One who now reigns as Lord for us.
Sonship is not a discrete concept or relation in the Scriptures. It is connected with other similar ideas, names, relations, and actions such as father, image, inheritance, maturity, firstborn, paternal intimacy and love, blessing, right hand, house-building, ruling, kingship, Lordship, anointing, Spirit, temple/palace, priest, throne, authority, power, vindication, victory, wisdom, servant, service, and more. As one moves further from the center of the web, the connections attenuate somewhat. Nevertheless, the web will not hold together without these systemic conceptual dependencies. More specifically, one will not understand the concept or relation of sonship without the help of these other attendant concepts. Even though each separate image is profoundly related to the others, we will have to start somewhere and move through these Old Testament images and concepts one by one. It will be best to move from the more obvious to the not so obvious and provocative.
First, there is no evidence that either the singular “son of God” or the plural “sons of God” or “my son” (spoken by God) are used in the Old Testament with anything like technical precision. Sometimes angels are called “sons of Elohim” (Job 1:6; 2:1; Ps. 89:6; Deut. 32:8 ; Daniel 3:25), a designation which is probably evidence of the connection between the concept of sonship and ruling. The angels in Job are God’s advisors and governors. The “heavenly beings” called “sons of God” in Psalm 89:6 are rulers like, but lower than, Yahweh. They anticipate Psalm 89:27 where David cries out to Yahweh as Father, and Yahweh in turn will “make” or “appoint” him (cf. 1 Sam. 12:13; 1 Kg. 1:48; 1 Chron. 12:9) “the first-born, the highest of the kings of the earth.” One should notice here the links between sonship, ruling, and firstborn status, conceptual connections that are important for understanding the Davidic covenant and Jesus’ appointment as the Son of God (Rom. 1:4) and Firstborn Ruler over the kings of the earth (Rev. 1:5). But I digress.
The phrase “sons of God” may also apply to the people of God, and there are good reasons for thinking that this is the meaning in Genesis 6:2 and 4 (the godly line of Seth as opposed to the apostate line of Cain). This usage may be in the background when the appellation “my son” is given to the nation of Israel by Yahweh (Ex. 4:22-23). Although the favor and love of Yahweh as Father may be dominant in these cases, here again we might detect a connection between the privilege of firstborn status and Israel’s sonship, which implies the right to rule and not be enslaved in Egypt. The term primarily designates that Israel has been graced with a special, close filial relation to Yahweh (Deut. 14:1; 32:6, 18; Jer. 31:9, 19; Hos. 11:1, 10). Some commentators have applied this usage to Rom. 1:4, seeing in God’s appointment of Jesus as the Son of God evidence that he is now the true Israel, the eschatological fulfillment of Old Covenant Israel’s typological significance.
Second, as is evident from the brief survey above, although sonship as a distinctive concept and relation does not originate at the inauguration of the Davidic covenant, it arguably does attain its most prominent place in Old Covenant redemptive history in the revelation associated with David and the era of the kingdom. The Davidic son has both the favor and authority of his divine Father. As we discovered in our analysis of Romans 1:1-4, Paul himself makes the Davidic connection with his reference to the Son being born” a descendent of David” (Rom. 1:3). In other New Testament passages Paul (especially the Lukan account of Paul’s preaching, Acts 13:22-23; 32-34; but see also 2 Tim. 2:8) and others link Jesus as exalted Son of God with certain key Old Testament passages pertaining to the Davidic covenant (Matt. 1:1; 20:30-31; 21:9, 15; Luke 1:27, 32, 69; 2:4; 3:23-41; Acts 2:30; Heb. 1:5; Rev. 5:5; 22:16). Therefore, the Davidic covenant seems like an appropriate place to begin our discussion of sonship in the Old Covenant.
We'll move on to sonship in the Davidic covenant next time.
Thursday, October 11, 2007
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
Academic Chicanery With Deadly Results
Few things are more demonstrative of the sad state of affairs of modern academia than the increasingly fictionalized portrayals of the founders of the two largest religions in the world: Jesus and Mohammad. Though the same dubious methods are used for both — ignore the most historically valid texts and documents, build ponderous theories atop evidence of the most tenuous kind — the goals are markedly different. In academia today, we find Jesus, far from the Son of God, portrayed at once as a wandering “magician” and a hippie-like philanderer inclined to homosexuality. Mohammad, whom the most authentic Muslim sources portray as, among other things, a warlord who had entire tribes executed and plundered, their women herded into harems, their children sold into slavery, appears as a peaceful and altruistic ruler whose governance ushered in, among other improvements, a sort of seventh-century “feminism.”
Read Raymond Ibrahim's entire essay here.
Read Raymond Ibrahim's entire essay here.
Monday, October 8, 2007
Will Work For Food
This guy really meant it.
Or he's a hunter whose license has been revoked.
Man, that doe has got to be heavy!
Or he's a hunter whose license has been revoked.
Man, that doe has got to be heavy!
Saturday, October 6, 2007
The Son of God - Part V
Continued from Part IV
In the last post I offered the first two of five arguments against the "two-natures" interpretation of Romans 1:4. The first was my observation that for many commentators any other interpretation of Romans 1:4 might open the door to Adoptionist or Arian theological sympathizers. The second argument was that translating 'orizo as "declare" or "manifest," although possible, does not get at the root meaning of the word. Translating this as "appoint" should not be abandoned by orthodox commentators and theologians simply because it threatens to be theologically suspect or troublesome.
Third, I will discuss in later posts the rich web of associations and images connected with the concept of sonship in the Old and New Testaments, but for now it ought to be enough to recognize that the meaning of the designation “Son” even when applied to Jesus cannot be determined before the immediate context is consulted. Even in the space of two verses Paul uses "son" in two different, but not unrelated ways. "Son" occurs twice in verses 3-4: once at the head of the peri clause in verse 3, and then again in verse 4. The gospel is “from” and “about God” but it is further marked off as the "gospel of/concerning his son" (v. 3).
As Douglas Moo observes, this assertion in verse 3—that God’s son “has come” or “was born”—assumes the pre-existence of the Son. There are other passages from Romans (8:2, 32) and in the New Testament that also refer to the mystery of Jesus’ pre-incarnate life as the Son of the Father (Heb. 1:2; 1 Cor. 8:6; Gal. 4:4; Phil. 2:6ff.; Col. 1:13, 16-17; John 3:17; 1 John 4:10). It was fitting for him to become the incarnate Son because he was (or is) the eternal Son/Image of the Father (see Philip Edgcumbe Hughes, The True Image: The Origin and Destiny of Man in Christ [Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1989], pp. 213-223). John chapter 1 describes the coming of the Word into the world as the manifestation of the glory of eternal Son of the Father (John 1:14), the “only begotten” or “unique” God who is in the bosom of the Father. John evidently understands Jesus’ Sonship to imply a state of existence that refers beyond temporality (John 8:58; 12:41).
Fourthly, in Romans 1:2-4, there is evidence of an historical or linear movement: the eternal Son becomes a descendent of David according to the flesh and then subsequently, upon his resurrection, is appointed as the Son of God with power. Apparently, then, he was ontologically the Son of God even before he became man in the economy of salvation. The “sending” spoken of in John 3:17 and Gal. 4:4 and implied in Rom. 1:3 cannot merely refer to a “prophetic sending” as some have argued, but presuppose pre-existence as the starting point of Jesus’ mission. So let's just clear the air right now: I'm not denying the eternal sonship of Jesus.
If, as I will argue, “Son of God” has a “theocratic” meaning in verse 4, then Paul adds something to his earlier use of "son." Just as the assertion that the Son “became of the seed of David” implies that the Son came into a new mode of existence, so to speak, kata sarx, so also with the resurrection, the eternal Son as man has been appointed the “Son of God with power” according to the Spirit of holiness. This comparison between the Son’s existence kata sarx and kata pnuema does not contrast his outward or external physical life with his internal, Spirit-perfected vitality, which then qualifies him to be the Son of God in power. Nor, as we have seen, does the contrast distinguish between the human and divine natures of Jesus.
Rather, the contrast between sarx and pneuma “is part of Paul’s larger salvation-historical framework, in which two “aeon’s” or eras are set over against one another: the old era dominated by sin, death, and the flesh, and the new era, characterized by righteousness, life, and the eschatological gift of the Holy Spirit” (Douglas Moo, The Epistle to the Romans [Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1996], p. 50). This essay is not the place for an extended discussion of Paul’s eschatological use of the sarx-pneuma contrast. Nevertheless, as a redemptive-historical contrast it supports the interpretation that we have been arguing for here—that Jesus was appointed by the Father as the Son of God with power upon his resurrection from the dead.
Fifth, Paul says that the incarnate Son has been “appointed Son-of-God-with-power” or possibly “Son-of-God-in-power.” I understand "in power" to modify "son of God" (RSV) and not the verb "to appoint" (NASB; NIV). What we have here, then, is a clear distinction between the eternal Son’s assumption of human nature ("who was descended from David according to the flesh", v. 3), indeed his entrance into the “old age” of dominated by sin and death, and his post-resurrection appointment as “Son of God with power” Douglas Moo explains:
In the last post I offered the first two of five arguments against the "two-natures" interpretation of Romans 1:4. The first was my observation that for many commentators any other interpretation of Romans 1:4 might open the door to Adoptionist or Arian theological sympathizers. The second argument was that translating 'orizo as "declare" or "manifest," although possible, does not get at the root meaning of the word. Translating this as "appoint" should not be abandoned by orthodox commentators and theologians simply because it threatens to be theologically suspect or troublesome.
Third, I will discuss in later posts the rich web of associations and images connected with the concept of sonship in the Old and New Testaments, but for now it ought to be enough to recognize that the meaning of the designation “Son” even when applied to Jesus cannot be determined before the immediate context is consulted. Even in the space of two verses Paul uses "son" in two different, but not unrelated ways. "Son" occurs twice in verses 3-4: once at the head of the peri clause in verse 3, and then again in verse 4. The gospel is “from” and “about God” but it is further marked off as the "gospel of/concerning his son" (v. 3).
As Douglas Moo observes, this assertion in verse 3—that God’s son “has come” or “was born”—assumes the pre-existence of the Son. There are other passages from Romans (8:2, 32) and in the New Testament that also refer to the mystery of Jesus’ pre-incarnate life as the Son of the Father (Heb. 1:2; 1 Cor. 8:6; Gal. 4:4; Phil. 2:6ff.; Col. 1:13, 16-17; John 3:17; 1 John 4:10). It was fitting for him to become the incarnate Son because he was (or is) the eternal Son/Image of the Father (see Philip Edgcumbe Hughes, The True Image: The Origin and Destiny of Man in Christ [Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1989], pp. 213-223). John chapter 1 describes the coming of the Word into the world as the manifestation of the glory of eternal Son of the Father (John 1:14), the “only begotten” or “unique” God who is in the bosom of the Father. John evidently understands Jesus’ Sonship to imply a state of existence that refers beyond temporality (John 8:58; 12:41).
Fourthly, in Romans 1:2-4, there is evidence of an historical or linear movement: the eternal Son becomes a descendent of David according to the flesh and then subsequently, upon his resurrection, is appointed as the Son of God with power. Apparently, then, he was ontologically the Son of God even before he became man in the economy of salvation. The “sending” spoken of in John 3:17 and Gal. 4:4 and implied in Rom. 1:3 cannot merely refer to a “prophetic sending” as some have argued, but presuppose pre-existence as the starting point of Jesus’ mission. So let's just clear the air right now: I'm not denying the eternal sonship of Jesus.
If, as I will argue, “Son of God” has a “theocratic” meaning in verse 4, then Paul adds something to his earlier use of "son." Just as the assertion that the Son “became of the seed of David” implies that the Son came into a new mode of existence, so to speak, kata sarx, so also with the resurrection, the eternal Son as man has been appointed the “Son of God with power” according to the Spirit of holiness. This comparison between the Son’s existence kata sarx and kata pnuema does not contrast his outward or external physical life with his internal, Spirit-perfected vitality, which then qualifies him to be the Son of God in power. Nor, as we have seen, does the contrast distinguish between the human and divine natures of Jesus.
Rather, the contrast between sarx and pneuma “is part of Paul’s larger salvation-historical framework, in which two “aeon’s” or eras are set over against one another: the old era dominated by sin, death, and the flesh, and the new era, characterized by righteousness, life, and the eschatological gift of the Holy Spirit” (Douglas Moo, The Epistle to the Romans [Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1996], p. 50). This essay is not the place for an extended discussion of Paul’s eschatological use of the sarx-pneuma contrast. Nevertheless, as a redemptive-historical contrast it supports the interpretation that we have been arguing for here—that Jesus was appointed by the Father as the Son of God with power upon his resurrection from the dead.
Fifth, Paul says that the incarnate Son has been “appointed Son-of-God-with-power” or possibly “Son-of-God-in-power.” I understand "in power" to modify "son of God" (RSV) and not the verb "to appoint" (NASB; NIV). What we have here, then, is a clear distinction between the eternal Son’s assumption of human nature ("who was descended from David according to the flesh", v. 3), indeed his entrance into the “old age” of dominated by sin and death, and his post-resurrection appointment as “Son of God with power” Douglas Moo explains:
What Paul is claiming, then, is that the preexistent Son, who entered into human experience as the promised Messiah, was appointed on the basis of (or, perhaps, at the time of) the resurrection to a new and more powerful position in relation to the world. By virtue of his obedience to the will of the Father (cf. Phi. 2:6-11) and because of the eschatological revelation of God’s saving power in the gospel (1:1, 16), the Son attains a new, exalted status as “Lord” (cf. V. 4b). Son of God from eternity, he becomes Son of God “in power” . . . . the transition from v. 3 to v. 4, then, is not a transition from a human messiah to a divine Son of God (adoptionism) but from the Son as Messiah to the Son as both Messiah and powerful, reigning Lord (Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, pp. 48-49).
Friday, October 5, 2007
Summer Concert
This summer we had Jamie Soles come to our church to do a little concert for the kids (and adults!). Here's a short video from that concert. If you go directly to the YouTube site, you'll find a few more.
If you don't know about Jamie's songs, you should. They are some of the best, most biblical songs out there. Check out Jamie's website and order a few of his CD's.
If you don't know about Jamie's songs, you should. They are some of the best, most biblical songs out there. Check out Jamie's website and order a few of his CD's.
Thursday, October 4, 2007
Great T-shirt
My favorite T-shirt says "I LOVE ANIMALS: they're delicious." But it's getting old and ratty, so I need a new one. I think I just found the prefect replacement.
But it looks like they are out of stock, so everyone sign up for them to reprint a new batch in size XL.
HT: Barlow Farms
But it looks like they are out of stock, so everyone sign up for them to reprint a new batch in size XL.
HT: Barlow Farms
Wednesday, October 3, 2007
The Son of God - Part IV
Continued from Part III
Against this two-natures interpretation of Romans 1:4 at least five broad arguments will be offered.
First, the divine-nature interpretation of “Son of God” seems to be advocated most often by those who are concerned to avoid any explanation that might lend credence to Adoptionist or Arian theological sympathizers. Apparently, if we allow any other meaning for “Son of God,” we open the door to those who would deny Jesus' divine nature as the eternal Son of the Father. The title "Son of God" must therefore be reserved as a technical term that denotes the Son’s essential divinity. Reymond, for example, argues that
Without putting too fine a point on it, Paul does not use the phrase “son of God” in his first “bracket” as Reymond suggests; rather, Paul says “God sent his Son.” Paul introduces the phrase “Son of God” in v. 4 to designate that status and title to which Jesus was “appointed” by the Resurrection from the dead. By not allowing for the possibility that the word “Son” in v. 3 and 4 has two different nuances, those who advocate the two-natures interpretation are forced to reduce the significance of the resurrection in these verses to a noetic function with reference to Christ’s divine nature. His resurrection simply made evident his divinity. As Richard Gaffin notes, this is an odd, even foreign notion not found anywhere else in Paul. “The resurrection of Christ is the resurrection of the firstfruits, the firstborn, the second Adam. It has no meaning apart from the solidarity between Christ and believers, apart from what he has in common with them. With reference to Christ’s person, for Paul the resurrection concerns his human nature, not his divine nature" (Richard B. Gaffin, Jr., The Centrality of the Resurrection: A Study in Paul’s Soteriology [Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1978], p. 104-105). As Paul says in Romans 1:2-4, it is the Son as man that is raised from the dead and appointed to be “the Son of God with power.”
Second, the two-natures interpretation does not do justice to the passive participle tou 'oristhentos by translating it as “declared” or even “marked out.” Each time it occurs elsewhere in the New Testament (Lk. 22:22; Acts 2:23; 10:41; 11:29; 17:26, 31; Heb. 4:7) the verb orizo means “to determine, appoint, or fix.” John Murray explains “that Jesus was ‘appointed’ or ‘constituted’ Son of God with power and points therefore to an investiture which had an historical beginning parallel to the historical beginning mentioned in verse 3” (The Epistle to the Romans [Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1959], p. 9). This meaning should not be abandoned by orthodox commentators and theologians simply because it threatens to be theologically suspect or troublesome. It becomes a theological burr only if one fails to acknowledge that when biblical authors speak of Jesus as “Son” and “Son of God” the meaning is often broader and more varied than its common usage in systematic, dogmatic, and polemical theology. Unfortunately, failure to appreciate differences in usage and a desire to defend a high orthodox christology drive many orthodox commentators to insist that orizo cannot here mean “appoint” or “determine” because Jesus was the Son of God from all eternity! John Murray’s comments are helpful:
To Be Continued
Against this two-natures interpretation of Romans 1:4 at least five broad arguments will be offered.
First, the divine-nature interpretation of “Son of God” seems to be advocated most often by those who are concerned to avoid any explanation that might lend credence to Adoptionist or Arian theological sympathizers. Apparently, if we allow any other meaning for “Son of God,” we open the door to those who would deny Jesus' divine nature as the eternal Son of the Father. The title "Son of God" must therefore be reserved as a technical term that denotes the Son’s essential divinity. Reymond, for example, argues that
while it is true that the verb oJri÷zw can also mean ‘appoint’ or ‘constitute,’ Paul cannot mean that Jesus was ‘appointed’ or ‘constituted’ the Son of God at the point of or by reason of His resurrection from the dead inasmuch as he had already represented Jesus by the first ‘bracket’ phrase as the Son of God prior to and independent of not only his resurrection but also His birth in Bethlehem of the seed of David (Robert L. Reymond, Jesus, Divine Messiah: The New Testament Witness [Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1990], p. 207).Reymond seems to be chained to a technical definition of “Son of God” such that he cannot allow another dimension or meaning to arise other than the one that designates Jesus as the eternal Son of the Father. The argument appears to be something like “if Paul uses ‘son’ in one sense in v. 3, he cannot use it in another sense in v. 4.”
Without putting too fine a point on it, Paul does not use the phrase “son of God” in his first “bracket” as Reymond suggests; rather, Paul says “God sent his Son.” Paul introduces the phrase “Son of God” in v. 4 to designate that status and title to which Jesus was “appointed” by the Resurrection from the dead. By not allowing for the possibility that the word “Son” in v. 3 and 4 has two different nuances, those who advocate the two-natures interpretation are forced to reduce the significance of the resurrection in these verses to a noetic function with reference to Christ’s divine nature. His resurrection simply made evident his divinity. As Richard Gaffin notes, this is an odd, even foreign notion not found anywhere else in Paul. “The resurrection of Christ is the resurrection of the firstfruits, the firstborn, the second Adam. It has no meaning apart from the solidarity between Christ and believers, apart from what he has in common with them. With reference to Christ’s person, for Paul the resurrection concerns his human nature, not his divine nature" (Richard B. Gaffin, Jr., The Centrality of the Resurrection: A Study in Paul’s Soteriology [Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1978], p. 104-105). As Paul says in Romans 1:2-4, it is the Son as man that is raised from the dead and appointed to be “the Son of God with power.”
Second, the two-natures interpretation does not do justice to the passive participle tou 'oristhentos by translating it as “declared” or even “marked out.” Each time it occurs elsewhere in the New Testament (Lk. 22:22; Acts 2:23; 10:41; 11:29; 17:26, 31; Heb. 4:7) the verb orizo means “to determine, appoint, or fix.” John Murray explains “that Jesus was ‘appointed’ or ‘constituted’ Son of God with power and points therefore to an investiture which had an historical beginning parallel to the historical beginning mentioned in verse 3” (The Epistle to the Romans [Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1959], p. 9). This meaning should not be abandoned by orthodox commentators and theologians simply because it threatens to be theologically suspect or troublesome. It becomes a theological burr only if one fails to acknowledge that when biblical authors speak of Jesus as “Son” and “Son of God” the meaning is often broader and more varied than its common usage in systematic, dogmatic, and polemical theology. Unfortunately, failure to appreciate differences in usage and a desire to defend a high orthodox christology drive many orthodox commentators to insist that orizo cannot here mean “appoint” or “determine” because Jesus was the Son of God from all eternity! John Murray’s comments are helpful:
It might appear that this encounters an insuperable objection; Jesus was not appointed Son of God; as we found [in v. 3], he is conceived to be the eternal Son, and this sonship had no historical beginning. But this objection has validity only as we overlook the force of the expression “with power.” The apostle does not say that Jesus was appointed “Son of God” but “Son of God in power.” This addition makes all the difference. Furthermore, we may not forget that already in verse 3 the Son of God is now viewed not simply as the eternal Son but as the eternal Son incarnate, the eternal Son subject to the historical conditions introduced by his being born of the seed of David. . . .The apostle is dealing with some particular event in the history of the Son of God incarnate by which he was instated in a position of sovereignty and invested with power, and event which in respect of investiture with power surpassed everything that could previously be ascribed to him in his incarnate state (Epistle to the Romans, p. 10).
To Be Continued
Tuesday, October 2, 2007
Worship for Religious Consumers?
Sally Morgenthaler, the author of Worship Evangelism (1999), admits that she was wrong.
. . . a storm had been brewing in my soul for five long years. I remember meeting with the worship leader of a well-known church in the fall of 2000. He had followed my work and respected many of my viewpoints. When we met over coffee, he shared a concern he'd had for a while over my book Worship Evangelism. In his view, Worship Evangelism had helped to create a "worship-driven subculture." As he explained it, this subculture was a sizeable part of the contemporary church that had just been waiting for an excuse not to do the hard work of real outreach. An excuse not to get their hands dirty. According to him, that excuse came in the form of a book—my book. He elaborated. "If a contemporary worship service is the best witnessing tool in the box, then why give a rip about what goes on outside the worship center? If unbelievers are coming through the doors to check us Christians out, and if they'll fall at Jesus' feet after they listen to us croon worship songs and watch us sway back and forth, well then, a whole lot of churches are just going to say, 'Sign us up!' "Read the entire article.
To be honest, I wasn't surprised. The attitude he described certainly didn't fit every congregation out there in contemporary-worship-land, but it matched too much of what I'd seen. The realization hit me in the gut. Between 1995 and 2000 I'd traveled to a host of worship-driven churches, some that openly advertised that they were "a church for the unchurched." On the good occasions, the worship experience was transporting. (I dug a little deeper when that happened. Invariably, I found another value at work behind the worship production: a strong, consistent presence in the community.) Too many times, I came away with an unnamed, uneasy feeling. Something was not quite right. The worship felt disconnected from real life. Then there were the services when the pathology my friend talked about came right over the platform and hit me in the face. It was unabashed self-absorption, a worship culture that screamed, "It's all about us" so loudly that I wondered how any visitor could stand to endure the rest of the hour.
. . .Early in 2005 an unchurched journalist attended one of the largest, worship-driven churches in the country. Here is his description of one particular service:
"The [worship team] was young and pretty, dressed in the kind of quality-cotton-punk clothing one buys at the Gap. 'Lift up your hands, open the door,' crooned the lead singer, an inoffensive tenor. Male singers at [this] and other megachurches are almost always tenors, their voices clean and indistinguishable, R&B-inflected one moment, New Country the next, with a little bit of early '90s grunge at the beginning and the end.
"They sound like they're singing in beer commercials, and perhaps this is not coincidental. The worship style is a kind of musical correlate to (their pastor's) free market theology: designed for total accessibility, with the illusion of choice between strikingly similar brands. (He prefers the term flavors, and often uses Baskin-Robbins as a metaphor when explaining his views.) The drummers all stick to soft cymbals and beats anyone can handle; the guitarists deploy effects like artillery but condense them, so the highs and lows never stretch too wide. Lyrics tend to be rhythmic and pronunciation perfect, the better to sing along with when the words are projected onto movie screens. Breathy or wailing, vocalists drench their lines with emotion, but only within strict confines. There are no sad songs in a megachurch, and there are no angry songs. There are songs about desperation, but none about despair; songs convey longing only if it has already been fulfilled."
No sad songs. No angry songs. Songs about desperation, but none about despair. Worship for the perfect. The already arrived. The good-looking, inoffensive, and nice. No wonder the unchurched aren't interested.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)