From: Mark Horne
Subject: Rich’s missional question
Grist for the mill:
Why is it important that a congregation, no matter how tiny, begin their worship service ON TIME? I would suggest, that a pastor explain to the congregation that they are not a private group but a public embassy. They are not simply meeting at a private dinner but responding to a summons from the Prime Minister of the Cosmos. Furthermore, in principle, (as creatures, not as heathen) everyone is *supposed* to be present. This means that honoring the publicly stated time in which worship is to begin is an important kingdom matter.
Is not “religious speech” causing great damage in our circles? “Salvation,” “redemption” are words that are not only not part of the pagan’s experience, but which have become incredibly specialized and, for the purpose of understanding the Bible, virtually misleading. They are keys to a modern age which needed reference to the mythical noumenal realm where God is safely locked away in private. In my opinion, we would be well-served to use terms like rescue/deliverance and liberation respectively. Vindication rather than justification should be the term of choice. Our vocabulary should come as much as possible from modern politics, with the exception of the needful royalist titles.
What is the value of archaic verbal endings and pronouns? I think we can keep much of Cranmer’s or Bucer’s liturgy, but I don’t see the point in leaving them untranslated.
More later maybe.
Mark
Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2005 10:33:38 -0600
From: burke
Subject: Rich’s missional question
What is the value of archaic verbal endings and pronouns? I think we can keep much of Cranmer’s or Bucer’s liturgy, but I don’t see the point in leaving them untranslated.
What dost thou mean? Thy words leaveth me in a quandary, I thinkest. Nay, I am quite sure that thou has spokenest againsteth the highest order of Christian language imaginablest.
Shame!
Burketh
Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2005 13:25:44 -0600
From: “James B. Jordan”
Subject: Rich’s missional question
At 09:40 AM 2/8/2005, you wrote:
Grist for the mill:
1. They are not simply meeting at a private dinner but responding to a summons from the Prime Minister of the Cosmos. Furthermore, in principle, (as creatures, not as heathen) everyone is *supposed* to be present.
I wonder. Those who are baptized are King’s Friends, council members, advisors. It is they who are summoned. What are all these other people doing there?
If the call is to the baptized, the other people should NOT be there. “Sorry, but the President will meet with you later. Right now, He’s conferring with His cabinet.”
In our churches, we fence the table by saying unbaptized people should not eat of it. But the entire service from call to commission is “table.” It’s not something else. It’s table from start to end. If the unbaptized should not eat, they should not be present.
Otherwise, we’re back to a divided service, and the worship service is not a covenant renewal. In that case, covenant renewal is just the “sacrament” part, and the rest is something else. Well, maybe. I’ve spent 15 years arguing against that notion, but I could easily be wrong.
The very privacy and closed-dooredness of this event IS a witness. It was in the early church. It created rumors: cannibalism, incest, and other cool stuff.
The closed door tells the unbaptized that we have an inside track with the Creator. They can, too, if they will be baptized.
2. Is not “religious speech” causing great damage in our circles? “Salvation,” “redemption” are words that are not only not part of the pagan’s experience, but which have become incredibly specialized and, for the purpose of understanding the Bible, virtually misleading. They are keys to a modern age which needed reference to the mythical noumenal realm where God is safely locked away in private. In my opinion, we would be well-served to use terms like rescue/deliverance and liberation respectively. Vindication rather than justification should be the term of choice. Our vocabulary should come as much as possible from modern politics, with the exception of the needful royalist titles.
This is cool. Yes, of course, those words were common coin in the ancient world situation, and our specialized versions are mystifying. I no longer know what is meant by “justification” at all. :-( When I hear the word, my brain shuts off. |-O I agree: we should eliminate those terms and use translations that link up with the modern situation, which is not any different from the old. With all the trial lawyers and lawsuits in our society today, anybody knows with vindication in court means.
After watching the fights over the last 5 years, I’ve about come to the conclusion that conducting theology in classical WCF terms is about as useful as doing it in Latin. =-O If you want to do it in Latin, have at it. And if you want to do it in WCF, have at it. But, frankly, I have absolutely zero interest in either one. :-| Listening to people talk in Latin confuses me.
3. What is the value of archaic verbal endings and pronouns? I think we can keep much of Cranmer’s or Bucer’s liturgy, but I don’t see the point in leaving them untranslated.
The only value I see is that a lot of great hymns are poetically set up using them. But nobody knows how to use them, as Burke’s ignorant and unlearned post shows. >:-} In fact, most people don’t know how to pronounce it. They say “sayith” for “saith” (pronounced “seth,” like “said”). But, disfortunately, (a) without “thou” we have no singular form, and (b) “eeyoo” is not a pretty sound, like “thou.”
PLUS, as grist for the mill: liturgical speech is not under the same rules as theological and evangelistic speech. The Hebrew Bible itself is an archaic language, hieratic, intonational, etc. A high cadential and somewhat poetically specialized language for liturgy is desirable, especially since people should NOT be walking in off the street to encounter it. (And if they so, it is good for them to realize that what is going on in the liturgy is different from anything they are used to!)
So, one might argue that some archaic forms, where genuinely beautiful and expressive, are proper for liturgy in ways they are not proper for other forms of Christian speech.
JBJ
Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2005 14:27:44 -0600
From: Mark Horne
Subject: Rich’s missional question
On point 1, even so, we are in fact dealing with many backslidden or negligent baptized. And I still think we are on display. I get to go watch the changing of the guard at Buckingham Palace even as an American.
On point 3, I’m not in favor of dumping hymns. There are other considerations beside the ones I mentioned. On “heightened speech” I realize the precedent set by the Hebrew Bible, but I simply don’t see that sort of cultural construction as a realistic goal right now. It is like preaching from a throne. I simply don’t think I’m going to try that because it will be perceived as weird.
I guess my point is, how many of us can really afford to be siphoning off the remaining number of Evangelicals and getting them to be a better church? I think we’re running out of construction materials.
Mark
