Had a lovely welcome at St. Davids in Hamilton this morning. It was great to catch up with everyone after three years since the last visit. It’s an Anglican church that we have always enjoyed visiting (actually it’s the church we got married in). It’s a great example of how some old traditions can be revitalized and given new meaning in the context of a more culturally relevant worship service. As a child I “did my time” in a very high Anglican church of the bells and smells variety. I didn’t exactly enjoy it back then, but in the meeting this morning I found that speaking portions of the liturgy and singing a hymn were powerful reminders of my childhood and how God was at work in my life back then when I didn’t really know him or acknowledge him.
We shared communion together at the “altar rail” – another Anglican tradition which has been kept but reinterpreted. The “altar” has become a simple table, the “officiating vicar” a brother whose service to the body involves leading around the table. The rail no longer separates “priesthood” from “laity”. These traditions have not been part of our children’s experience up till now, and they probably wondered what was going on. But in this country the custom of churchgoing, although in decline, still lingers on in the collective conscience. I can really see the value of keeping certain traditions in the church, as long as we don’t confuse them with the gospel. Their familiarity can be a comfort to some, a reminder of a childhood connection with God for others. For still others they may be incomprehensible and should be dropped in favour of other means of communicating the message. It’s up to us to reinterpret the symbols and traditions for today, so that they point the way for our generation to the ultimate reality which never changes: Jesus!
Technorati Tags: communion liturgy traditions altar
I’m finding your blog interesting. I think I got here through Andi Wolf’s blog. This post in particular interested me. I am a Greek orthodox with high church Anglican history behind me, trying to make sense out of why we have the ancient human construct of the visible Church with all its “stuff.” I am a practicing member of my church, but I live my life in Christ as a Christian without denominational boundaries. The Bible is central to my belief, and I witness as a Christian, not as an Orthodox Christian. My best friend, prayer partner and co-missionary is a young former Baptist (he does not “go to church” nor accept the denominational label “Baptist” anymore). We see eye-to-eye on every issue of importance, and so the Lord uses us as a missionary pair, making use of our complementary strengths.
Thinking about the notion of traditions—and I’m still thinking it through—I’m inclining to the view that the Orthodox Church with all its externals is a necessary construct, something always there that guarantees by its very existence and faithful guardianship of gospel truth, that the true faith will exist till Christ’s return. But it doesn’t appear to guarantee much else—but it doesn’t pretend to. It seems to be very much a do-it-yourself form of Christianity. We are all expected to live a life in Christ, and are expected to do it on our own (working in synergy with Christ), and the church as an institution just gives us the background scenery and a sort of toolbox of props to get us through when we sometimes get disconnected from the true vine.
[...]
The visible church, even the most ancient and venerable had mixed results in my own family, my sons even having me as a Dad, who gently encouraged them all, but who basically follow Jesus no matter where He takes me, and not caring what people think. Orthodox Christians are pretty tolerant and respectful of others, as long as “mere Christianity” isn’t being subverted.
I just notice that young evangelical Christians are raising their kids sometimes without structure, “tradition,” and I wonder if the way some of them are grasping for “traditions” (in the Roman Catholic direction unfortunately) isn’t going to land them in a worse place than they fear they’re falling into.
My final thought about church and tradition is that I would not have come to a high level of certainty about the truths of faith without the Orthodox Church and its tradition, but it’s not the church that’s going to help me pass that certainty on to my natural and spiritual heirs, but my willingness to live for and (if need be) suffer with Christ, which is my testimony. I think for myself too, it has been rubbing shoulders with real saints that has made me willing to follow Jesus as they did.
Thanks for your thoughts, Romanos.
I’m reminded of a conversation I had recently with a former pastor who grew uncomfortable with some of the dysfunctions of his church tradition. Through that time he rationalised that the tradition was a “tool” that God was using, and it is true that many of us have come to Christ in a “traditional” setting - and all church movements have their traditions, even (especially?) the more recent ones.
I am still left wondering, though, if we set aside the extra-biblical forms, and planted the seed of the gospel in soil that had not been “fertilised” by our traditions, what would spring up? My church traditions are meaningful to me, but completely incomprehensible to many of my contemporaries. Is it really so impossible for them to meet Jesus without them?
This is a view I published recently on my “Inspiration” page. I thought it was relevant to your question. Bless Cor
Unobstructed Christianity
Like many of you, I’ve heard and read it countless times!
I know this story already for more then fifty years! Then one day as by a divine touch, the real meaning of this rich deep story hit home, at least it shook up my life.
This divine touch can leave you potentially confused, excited, reassured or, as in my case, with a glorious revelation experience!
I am talking about the story of the Samaritan woman at the well in the Gospel of John 4.
By many preachers, she has always been painted as the lady with a questionable past, who went through five husbands, and the one she was living with was not her husband either, according to a very reliable source: Jesus!
Surprisingly, Jesus does not turn away from her in horror and disgust, but He choses to do the opposite…to teach her!
She becomes one of the first human beings to be taught the miracle and principle of the Kingdom.
Here she is, a woman belonging to the despised Samaritans, a human being without any credibility according to the Jewish laws and attitude of the time.
Even the disciples were at least “mildly” disturbed, when they found Jesus talking to her by their return to the well.
Their behaviour gives us some insight in their preconceptions and ways of thinking regarding situations like these.
The disciples had no idea that they were about to go through a life-changing experience that would absolutely shatter their pre-conceptions about religion and human relationships, and would add inevitably a new level to their spiritual maturity.
First, Jesus paid attention to the person, whom He knew had more spiritual depth then many of His own people.
He looked past the five husbands which could easily have been a dramatic run of illnesses in that family, and that she was therefore cared for by a certain man according to the laws at the time.
We find a similar situation in the case in the old testament of the prophet Elijah and the widow of Zarephath with her son.
This Samaritan woman turns out to be very knowledgeable about the religious environment of the times. Yes, she even knew about the Messiah who was about to come.
She rises far above the mediocrity of her fellow villagers, reaches out, absorbs and processes the words of life, provided by Jesus.
This exhibition of faith puts her on a similar level with Simeon who was waiting for the Messiah as well.
There is plenty of reason and evidence to believe that, instead of the perceived impression of a lady with a past, she was in fact a lady with a future and leadership, as she was evidently a highly esteemed prophetess (Revelation 19:10… for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.) and well regarded by her own people.
This explains her obvious gift of perception, the ease and authority by which she gets her fellow villagers to listen to that strange Jewish teacher: Jesus.
She was clearly steeped in religion as she new the conditions of worship in her own culture as well as the Jewish, and was most likely familiar with the “theology” surrounding it.
She had all her religious facts lined up in a row and nothing would surprise her.
Yes, apart from an underlying yearning for more, she was content with it, despite the obvious “enslavement” aspect.
Little did she know about that glorious spiritual glowing fire that was brooding under her feet, a fire that would free, purify and cleanse her for the rest of her life.
In His short teaching-session, Jesus gets straight to the point by exposing the center-core truth about the Kingdom, which is the Spirit of God in man, thereby heralding the coming demise of the known formal type of worship, including the use of the buildings dedicated to that purpose.
The emphasis in His teaching is on the walk of a human being by the government of the Spirit of God.
This Spirit is the bread of Life, and the Living water, which will quench every need and directs the receiving person into a lifestyle which is worship in itself.
When the Spirit of God directs a life into a life of worship, Truth is the result, and as the truth is the person of Christ, it is easy to see that a Spirit governed life is a life lead by the living Christ.
Is it not wonderful that Jesus entrusted the principle of the Kingdom to these despised people. They invited Jesus AND the disciples to stay in their village and Jesus accepted.
They stayed for two days and reading their responses and reactions, Jesus’s time in their midst changed these people involved dramaticly, including the disciples. They all went through a real-life seminar/workshop and all must have come out on the other side as changed people.
Understanding that this Kingdom-blueprint was also meant for the believers in the following ages, for us, raises in me the question; what on earth have we done with the Kingdom teaching!
Jesus always taught the Kingdom power, never the church principle, only the English translation Bibles do.
Perhaps we are called to choose again for the Kingdom, in order to experience unobstructed the Christ of Christianity?