p.17: “This . . . prohibits us from performing, from glorying merely in the holiness of the beauty we produce, rather than the beauty of God’s holiness.  The former is mere aestheticism for its own sake; the latter is beauty in order to display the splendor of God.”

This seems to be such a subtle distinction, but it is vital.  So often in avoiding the worship of beauty, we run to the opposite end of the spectrum and encourage mediocrity.  We say things like, “it doesn’t matter how the music sounds, as long as our hearts are right.”  This is a true statement, but when we glorify God, it is pure joy to do it with all our might and all our musical excellence.  I don’t think I really have a question this week.  I just wanted to say that.  Take it or leave it : )

on pg 173 it says that we are all part of the body and if one person isn’t doing there part then the body suffers. I defintley agree with that. on the drama team I’m on God has equipped each of us with gifts and talents. Its like when we all come together with our gifts and talents the pieces of the puzzle fit.  We have had alot of times when someone would backslide and not be able to bring there gifts and talents the drama team, which would effect us as a ministry emotionally more than anything, but we would also realize that our anointing was off or very dry. However when that person is sat down God always finds away to anoint us which just goes to show that our anointing is not controlled by just one person.  I say all this because i don’t totally believe the body will suffer  if one person is isn’t doing their part.  When one person isn’t doing there part on the drama team its our job to stand in the gap for them.  Which means God can and will equipp us to do there part as well as ours. It kind of reminds me of the parable of the one who had 1 talent and he hid it so the Lord gave his 1 talent to the one who had 10 talents. I think of that as the Lord equipping the one with 10 to handle his 10 talents plus the other mans 1 talent. He is feeling in the gap for him. So i guss my question is does this make sense to you? Do you agree? If I’m wrong please show me how.

“Does everyone in this congregation know that if he or she is not here for worship the body suffers?” (p. 175)

I began to think about this rhetorical question and decided to ask a non-rhetorical question .  Is this true?!  The whole congregation needs to be there for the body to worship?  If you think about the ‘body’ it does suffer if it is missing it’s arm, leg or eye.  And following this passage the writer talks about a persons spiritual gifts and how if the person is not contributing them the body suffers.  However, I don’t think a body should be affected that much when it comes to worshiping and whether or not everyone is using their spiritual gifts in worship with the congregation.  A physical person missing an eye, leg, or arm can still worship!  Sometimes even more than people who have there eye, arm and leg.  This is because of the lack of.  

I’m not saying that we should not use all the spiritual gifts in a congregation when we’re worshiping, but I am saying that I think we should not let our worship be greatly effected or even dependent on these things when we’re in lack of.  I guess I see it as a person who has every part of there body and they don’t think anything of it.  It’s not until they are missing their thumb do they realize how much they needed it, but they still don’t stop going on with life.  They adjust to the thing that is lacking.  

It is important for there to be a body for the body to worship.  However, I don’t think it is critical for a body to have all it’s parts to continue to worship at a certain level.  Does worship even have a level?  If we sit and confine worship to a certain level than worship becomes something that we’ve boxed up.  And I don’t see why God would want to accept something that is boxed up.  I think of giving someone flowers.  When you hand flowers to someone there is an immediate reaction to the flowers for what they are.  However, if you hand someone a box with flowers in it then the person is surprised to have a box and then they have to open it to see what it is that the person is actually giving.  Worship shouldn’t be something that we hand to God and Him have to open up, it should just be there opened and uncovered!

“…God cannot be contained in what we already know.  There is always a need for…new expressions of the infinitely incomprehensible God” (p. 16, par. 4).

This quote stimulated several thoughts for me.  The first was an ashamed recognition of the truth of the first part.  Ashamed because until now I had not really thought about how limited even the sum of knowledge from the ancients until now really is.  Ashamed because I was shown to still be placing too much confidence in man’s understanding.

The second was excitement about the potential for new expressions to enrich, teach, and admonish each other without ever saying “the last word” about God.  King Ahasuerus had wise men who “understood the times” (Esther 1:13).  In a way, it is based on our “understanding of the times” that we can communicate what we understand of God to other people in a relevant way.  The times are constantly changing, and so there is always a need for people to express the same truths in different ways.  And since God is infinite, we will never with our finite contributions fill up all there is to say about him.  This excites me!

Does this excite anyone else (please tell why or how)?

In the first reading, “a royal waste of time”, I found some disturbing feelings welling up.  Have I been indoctrinated into believing that music really is a waste of time, icing on the cake, enjoyable but not necessary?  I am trusting you, my beloved class, to not take offense, but to hear my struggle within myself.  I have been afraid to be a music major because it seems self-indulgent.  I have many things that I really, really enjoy, including teaching and counseling.  To me, those seem so much more important to the kingdom than my love of singing.  (again – these are tapes playing in my head – not what is true).  So, how do I reconcile the truth that what I want is for music-time to take priority over all the other choices?  That I am never more at peace with the world than when I am singing or playing?  I know I don’t put in the time needed to really improve my skills, I make a hundred excuses for “more important” things.  There seem to be recordings in my head always telling me to stop drawing attention to myself, stop being happy about frivolous things, and most damaging – don’t really try, because if you fail, it will be a true failure of who you are.  Dang, doesn’t this get better in your forties?

Two sentences in this article have given me some relief.  “We waste our time so that others in the Christian community can be more profoundly immersed in the Word, can become more deeply formed, can more thoroughly join us in praise.  Others in our churches might not be ready to waste their time, that is why you musicians have to be here – to help them give up control and become immersed in Christ.” (p16)

If God gives us the desires of our hearts, could that mean that what makes us happy is because He decided it should make us happy?  Instead of the desires of our hearts being “God answered my request for what I wanted”  perhaps it means “God put this love of singing into me, and it isn’t selfish or meaningless, because God put it there”.  When I get excited about a new style of music, or a fresh word presented in song, I can and should see if it is something I can bring to the congregation.  I can and should stretch them and help them find joy in worship. I need to be okay with this, because I need to be okay with who God made me to be.  So you can pray for me as I try to let down some walls.  Thanks for listening.

Have you struggled with music being “a waste of time”.  How has God spoken to you?

Hi boys and girls! As promised, you have a reading assignment!!!! Yay.

The reading comes from Marva Dawn, “A Royal Waste of Time.”

The reading is in three parts:

1. pages 12-17 “A Royal Waste of Time.” A sermon for church musicians

2. pages 169 – 177 “What if we all were an eye?” a sermon

3. pages 178 – 185 “building community in worship”

There are three copies available for you to borrow to do the reading. There is a copy at Martha’s desk, and two copies on reserve in the library at the circulation desk, listed for MUS4810.

You know where I am if you have any questions.

I had a thought when I read the section on Communion.  It wasn’t something that Ashton (with Davis) directly said but it had to do with it.  I caught myself thinking back to four different churches (three of which were different denominations) that I have attended that have done communion in four different ways.

 In my first non-denominational church they had communion in the back of the building where if you wanted to participate in it you could go and take communion at the end or even during the service in the hallway or even take the to-go communion cup and bread home with you (I know someone is going to make fun of the ‘to-go communion cup’, but actually I liked it.  Not so that I could take it home but because our family was able to send it to my grandma who watches church on TV because she doesn’t like to drive to go to church.  She was able to partake in communion at home with the church on TV).  

The next church was also a non-denominational church.  We took communion every week.  However, the way they did it was by passing a plate around the congregation.  Everyone take juice and bread from the plate and sat in silence with God on their own.

The third church was a pentecostalish/baptistish something!  There we just didn’t take communion every Sunday.  I don’t know if they did it at some point throughout the year but I know that within the time span of a couple months they didn’t take communion.

Finally, there’s the anglican church that I’m at now.  Every Sunday we take communion.  Everyone individually gets up and walks to the front of the church to receive bread and wine.  And then continues back to there original seats.  

Ashton mentions that Cranmer did it at a table setting where it was exemplified as being part of a meal. (p. 102)  Also, Ashton refers to a comment by David Peterson: ‘The Lord’s Supper, which has so often throughout church history been understood as a means of deepening the personal communion of believers with their means of deepening the personal communion of believers with their Lord, is clearly meant to focus the eyes of the participants on one another as well as on God,” Ashton goes on to explain that when we take communion we see that it is more than us who Christ died for. (p.105) I think that this is a good point.  However, I don’t think I’m allotted enough time in the communion part of the service to be able to think about everyone who is receiving communion as well as having some personal time with God.

 Do I need to start taking communion on my own so that I can have that personal time with God in remembering what He’s done for me as an individual?  Also, me bringing up the different ways of how communion was presented to a body of believers made me think about whether we should change up how we do communion on Sundays?  Or maybe even if some Sunday’s we shouldn’t do communion as a body?  So is there a certain way we are suppose to partake in communion because of a certain reason?

 Whether we should do communion every Sunday or not is a completely different topic so i didn’t want to get into that.  So DON’T ANSWER THAT QUESTION! Thanks

On page 102 Ashton mentions the garments worn by priests.  I was impressed by the fact that he did not simply bow to his tradition but rather questioned practices that are not biblical.  I appreciated hearing the Anglican priest’s historic explanation of priestly wear on Tuesday.  I agree, however, with this week’s author that a different dresscode for the leader of a ceremony and the laity can promote a mistaken notion: that an elite group exists which has easier access to the Father than the rest of the church.  This runs against the Biblical teaching that there is but one go between man when it comes to God and man, and that is the great high priest, Jesus Christ.  My question to you is this: what reasons can you think of for why a ceremony leader should or should not wear distinctive dress?

The fact that the length of service is even included in an article is refreshing for me.  As you may recall, I grew up in essentially three churches that I remember, and visited very few.  As I have been doing the CIU thing and visiting lots of churches, I have found that people preach a lot longer then I am used to.  I guess my Presbyterian pastor preaches about 20 minutes and my Baptist preacher preaches for about 30-40.  Eddie, the Baptist preacher, is a gifted storyteller and preacher and I rarely lose focus with him.  However, here in Columbia, I have been to lots of churches that preach for 45 minutes to an hour, and I wonder if most of them could have said what they needed to in 15-20 minutes.  Some, like Andre Rogers, have no trouble keeping my attention, but that seems to be the exception to the rule.    I understand that culture plays a huge role in the length of a service, but my gut feeling is that they are preaching for a long time so that it seems what they say has weight and that it is a habit of that Body of believer. How long do the pastors at your churches preach and do you think that is a good amount of time?  Do you have any hints for staying engaged? (in the service, not to Mandy)

The second sample service Ashton gives us is a Guest Service – intended to be specifically friendly to outsiders.  Reading through the commentary, one finds Ashton dissatisfied and critical at many points.  Much of the criticism is directed toward the hymns and songs included.  He comments on the subjectivity of some of the lyric content, the selection of an alternate tune for a popluar hymn, and the need to sing only some of the verses of the last hymn.  He is not altogether negative though, and he shows a great deal of sensitivity toward outsiders.  His concluding comments included, “This service did not work particularly well” (p. 127, par. 3).  In Ashton’s evaluation, a contributing factor to the service’s ineffectiveness was hasty preparation without due consideration of relevant principles for Guest Services.  This honesty is refreshing, and we can often learn much from viewing our failures to plan well or act consistently with good principles.

However, how do we judge rightly whether or not a service “works”?