I took the test, and came out strongly charismatic in belief and mildly charismatic in [...]]]> Adrian Warnock is working on a spectrum for determining just how charismatic one is in belief and practice. His initial test seemed to make people more charismatic than they actually are, or perhaps than they consider themselves to be.

I took the test, and came out strongly charismatic in belief and mildly charismatic in practice. Some of my negatives include “I have prophesied” and “I have asked God to give me the gift of prophecy.” These two questions are legitimate measures of charismatic belief, but while I believe that the gift of prophecy continues in theory, I am very hesitant to point to any particular person I would regard as a prophet. In other words, God could call someone to be a prophet, but I have not identified one.

Another interesting one was regarding speaking in tongues. Under beliefs I indicated I believed this gift was available in modern times, and under practice that I have spoken in tongues, by which I refer to what is commonly called “praying in the Spirit,” though I don’t prefer that title. As closely I can describe the experience, it’s a bit like meditating. But that is for another article. But under practice, I had to note that I had never prayed to receive the gift of tongues, and in fact never desired it. It just happened. That is a valid distinction. If I believed that receiving the gift of tongues, or more specifically a prayer language, was a required, singular evidence of the baptism of the Holy Spirit, and that the baptism is an event always or most commonly separate from conversion, then I’d presumably be answering ‘yes’ to all of these.

On the positive side I checked off praying for or receiving healing, raising and clapping my hands during worship, and getting emotional during worship, amongst others.

After presenting some results, he followed up with some questions that needed to be reworded. Amongst these he changed the question on healing to include the word “supernaturally.” On dancing, raising, and clapping hands, the questions indicated a biblical requirement rather than simply whether it is acceptable.

I really have little problem with the spectrum in general, but I would note the difficulty I have in answering these questions. In fact, I thought of some of these issues when responding to the questionnaire the first time. How closely do my definitions of these terms match the ones Adrian is using in asking the questions. When he added the word “supernaturally” to the healing question, the definition question came back to me.

I’m willing to answer supernatural healing positively, if that means that through prayer healing occurs that would not have occurred in the natural order of things. But there are two issues. First is the definition of “supernatural.” I don’t make as clear a distinction between supernatural and natural as some do. Yes, there are natural laws, but I see God in everything, so I consider all healing (and all truth) to come from God. I think also that most of what God does in the world is subtle and generally mediated through His people. This isn’t because God cannot act. I do not deny miracles. It is because God likes the way he designed the universe, and for the most part it works by natural law.

Then there’s the issue of a biblical mandate for particular acts of worship, whether singing, clapping hands, raising hands, or dancing. There would be two levels of distinction here. The first is whether such things are permitted. Many churches would reject the idea that people should dance in the church service, or even raise their hands or clap. Then there are those that consider this a valid part of worship, but wouldn’t require everything to do it. Then there are

others who think that if you don’t dance, you aren’t truly worshiping.

Neither set of questions truly distinguish all this, so I’m not sure how well the spectrum works. It’s especially difficult for someone who is a moderate or liberal charismatic. In that case, one would probably be open to many different approaches to worship, and might define various gifts (prophecy and healing, for example), in different ways, and still believe that the same gifts are available to the church today as ever were.

Finally, while I consider this spectrum interesting, since I hold only a very small set of beliefs as essential (saying the Apostles’ Creed without crossing one’s fingers!), I see such a spectrum as more for interest and entertainment than to be taken seriously. Any spectrum examining just one belief set is likely to obscure some differences and overemphasize others.

Our pastor, Geoffrey Lentz, was preaching the final sermon of his Summer in the Psalms series, this time from Psalm 150. He talked about [...]]]> At today’s church service there was something I wish I had caught on camera. I’m not really quick, even though I have a reasonably good camera in my cell phone.

Our pastor, Geoffrey Lentz, was preaching the final sermon of his Summer in the Psalms series, this time from Psalm 150. He talked about exuberant praise, and suggested that if we could really get a vision of God’s grace we would doubtless be ready to sing and dance ourselves. He’s been using musical styles with his sermon, and today’s style was jazz.

As is our custom, the offering comes immediately after the sermon. The offertory was jazz, with quite a catching rhythm. I was sitting near the back and looking across a congregation sitting quietly in their seats while the band rocked the house; well, would have rocked it had it been movable. And no, this is not about me. I was sitting in my seat like the rest.

But a few rows ahead of me, close to the center of the sanctuary, there was a little girl, perhaps two years old. She was quite noticeable in a bright red dress. She was standing on her chair, dancing, waving her hands above her head, and clapping (mostly) to the music.

I think she was the only one who got it!

I have several objections to the idea of a broadcast sermon:

From Pensapedia.com / Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike License v. 2.5

The description of the ICON service at my home church, First United Methodist Church in Pensacola, FL, states that the service is:

This worship service just celebrated its second anniversary, and I was happy today [...]]]>

From Pensapedia.com / Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike License v. 2.5

The description of the ICON service at my home church, First United Methodist Church in Pensacola, FL, states that the service is:

• Cutting Edge
• Tradition Rich
• Art Embracing
• Christ Centered

This worship service just celebrated its second anniversary, and I was happy today to see that the sanctuary was largely filled. It has been both amazing and gratifying to me to watch the success of this particular worship service as it has been the entry point to church fellowship for a large number of people, especially young couples. I must confess that I often feel a bit old attending.

Today associate minister at First UMC, Geoffrey Lentz, preached on cutting edge. He noted the things that make people think the service is cutting edge–large, high-definition screens, state of the art sound, and the embrace of social media. But he said that wasn’t what makes it really cutting edge. The one genuinely new thing under the sun, with due apologies to Qoheleth, is Jesus Christ. He told us that the most cutting edge thing we could possibly do is to follow Jesus Christ.

Now I like many of the elements of worship in ICON. I think many of those elements, and the way they are blended, has helped make the service successful. But if you had asked me before this service why I think First UMC is growing, I would tell you it is because the pastors are preaching the gospel and making every effort to put it in practice. If you attend First UMC, you’re going to hear a gospel message.

I don’t say this to belittle any other accomplishments. I just don’t think those are the key things. Large, high-definition screens showing well-produced videos can help bring people into the room. Well-done contemporary music can catch their attention. But if the message behind those things is not Jesus Christ and him crucified, there will be nothing to keep people in church. And if you don’t get there, you also don’t get them into ministry, and I would say that if one doesn’t get into ministry (or more directly stated mission), then one hasn’t really brought that person to Christ.

I was glad to hear Geoffrey make that point. While I have just argued that the worship service is worship, even though everything we do is to be worship, I also believe that a major test of the success of a worship service is whether or not it gets us engaged in those acts of service–and worship–that are to go on all week.

Related articles

• Who is Jesus Christ? A Meditation on the Gospel of the Second Sunday of the Year (adw.org)

Hallelujah Chorus -Quinhagak, Alaska Related Posts: Hillary Clinton and the Black Knight Great Evolution Sunday Video Congressman Ron Paul in the Debate Ezra Levant and Cartoon Publication KJV Only and Pisseth Against the Wall Powered by Contextual Related Posts ]]> Some friends of ours sent a link to this video. They have worked in the area and know many of the places.

Hallelujah Chorus -Quinhagak, Alaska

What I have been coming to realize over the years is that there is simply no one way to do church. …

You need to read the whole post at Parchment and Pen to get the real drift of what he’s saying, complete with evangelical discomfort with a [...]]]> From C. Michael Patton:

What I have been coming to realize over the years is that there is simply no one way to do church. …

You need to read the whole post at Parchment and Pen to get the real drift of what he’s saying, complete with evangelical discomfort with a seeker sensitive service, a discomfort I share to some extent. I do think he makes some excellent points for people on both sides to consider.

On the one hand, advocates of seeker sensitive worship should take to heart the points about discipleship. Christian discipleship is not really all that seeker sensitive!

On the other, many do well to consider why people come to hear the gospel under some circumstances, but not others.

He first notes that from the early liturgies to the Westminster Confession there is a certain common pattern in worship, one which is dropped by what he calls “low church evangelicalism.” Amongst the elements he includes [...]]]> I find this an interesting question. But before I comment, let me summarize and quote Scot McKnight’s article.

He first notes that from the early liturgies to the Westminster Confession there is a certain common pattern in worship, one which is dropped by what he calls “low church evangelicalism.” Amongst the elements he includes the multiple scripture readings (Psalm, OT, Epistle, Gospel) that would be familiar to those who follow the lectionary, sharing of the word, and some sort of conclusion, such as the creed.

He concludes:

… Low church evangelicalism is too often theologically shallow, frequently chaotic in its order of worship, nearly always lopsided in which parts of the Bible it preaches and teaches and knows, and inexcusably ignorant when it comes to the history of God’s people called the Church. These are marks that it has wandered from the gift of the Reformation. These are marks of groups that are not Protestant.

Having come from a rather low church background, and then having experience even lower liturgy in charismatic circles, I come at this from the opposite end. My wife was raised Catholic, and I as a Seventh-day Adventist. We came together in a United Methodist congregation with a distinctly charismatic tilt. I tend to find much more value in the form of the liturgy, and particularly in the scripture readings. I’m disappointed that we do not read four full scriptures.

The general complaint I hear in charismatic and other low church circles is that high church worship is just dead ritual. From my high church friends I hear that low church worship is shallow, and so are very many of the worshipers.

There is some truth in both accusations. In many cases I have found that charismatic believers will not meet without the expectation of some manifestation of the presence of the Spirit, i.e. without an emotion-engaging spiritual experience. They will forgo any other element of worship in order to get there. So often a worship service can consist entirely of singing, with the expectation that there will be people around the altar or whatever one calls the area at the front of the church weeping, on the floor, or in some other way making it known that the Spirit is there.

High church folks quite often don’t want to be interrupted in their liturgy by anything, and often I think this includes being interrupted by the Spirit. While they are likely to refer to the emotional manifestations as the kind of thing they wish to avoid, they may also wish to avoid discussion or testimony, or just about anything that makes the message current.

Now both of my last two paragraphs paint an extreme, and I can point to any number of exceptions. For example, the ICON worship service at First United Methodist Church which I attend has the historical order of worship, but is quite lively. I feel the presence of God there each and every week. I would be delighted to hear more scripture read, but we do get three of the four scriptures worked into the service. I also know any number of free-wheeling charismatics who are quite serious about studying their Bibles.

My hope would be to find a balance that connects us to history, roots us in scripture, and challenges us to Christian living all in one.

Having said all of that, I really don’t know the answer to Dr. McKnight’s question. First, I have always used the term “protestant” for any movement that grew out of the protestant reformation, even though I’m aware that some groups and streams are very different. Second, I’m not sure what specifically the title “protestant” should prove. I have avoided calling myself “evangelical” because I’m not all that sure what it means and how precisely it differs from simply being “Christian.”

One note I would add is this: Was liturgy a defining element of the protestant reformation? Is it not possible that the reformers stuck with the basic liturgy not because it was defining, but because it was not–it was simply an element of their tradition that they didn’t see any immediate need to reform. If that is the case, I would have a hard time seeing how the word “protestant” should be defined in part by liturgy.