When I became an Anglican (from a background of a different church tradition), I was at first quite puzzled by the choice of Scripture passages that Anglican (that is, Church of England) services kept coming back to—the Benedictus (Luke 1.68–79) in Morning Prayer, the Magnificat (Luke 1.46–55) in Evening Prayer, and the Nunc Dimittis (Luke 2.29–32) at night. For one thing, all these come from one gospel and one section of that gospel. For another, if you were going to repeat a small number of passages again and again, are there not other passages you would choose first? How about the hymn to love in 1 Cor 13? Or the summary of the gospel in 1 Cor 15? Or the ‘Christ hymn’ of Paul in Phil 2? Or John’s magisterial prologue in John 1? (Of course, most of these do find their way into Anglican liturgy in the form of credal affirmations or canticles.)
It took some time for me to realise the importance of the passages from Luke as programmatic summaries of what God was doing in Jesus: fulfilling the hopes of his people Israel in bringing forgiveness, true liberation and peace (the Benedictus); enacting the Great Reversal of God’s grace over against human pride, following the pattern of Hannah’s prayer in 1 Samuel (the Magnificat); and bringing to completion God’s plan not just for Israel but for the whole world, in anticipation of Jesus’ followers being his witnesses in Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth (the Nunc Dimittis).
The other passage that puzzled me was the choice of Psalm 95 (also known by its opening words in Latin, pointing back to the influence of the Vulgate translation), the Venite, and its alternative Ps 100, the Jubilate. But it has slowly dawned on me that Ps 95 offers a comprehensive account of what worship involves.
1. Invitational: ‘Come…’
The repeated refrain of invitation, ‘come let us worship’, has been picked up in both modern (‘Come, now is the time to worship’) and traditional (‘Come let us join our cheerful song’) hymnody. But its importance here reflects the essential direction of travel in the worship encounter. Although there is a consistent theme of the worshipper as the one who seeks (for example in the thirst of Ps 42, the metaphorically interpreted desire of the Song of Songs, Jesus’ teaching on persistence in prayer in Luke 11, and those who seek Jesus throughout the Fourth Gospel), the primary note in Scripture is of God seeking us, rather than the other way around.
It begins with God seeking Adam and Eve in the garden in Gen 3.9, and ends not with us ‘going to heaven when we die’ but the New Jerusalem coming from heaven to earth in Rev 21.2. In between it is expressed in God choosing his people, not they him (Deut 7.7), in his tender longing for his people as they go astray (Hos 11.8), in his seeking and saving the lost (Luke 15, Luke 19.10). Whether faith came to us naturally out of our curiosity, or as a surprise when we were least expecting it, the underlying theological reality is that our worship is a result of God’s initiative, and not ours.
In the antiphon of divine-human encounter, it is God who issues the call and we who offer our response.
2. Corporate: ‘…let us…’
There are plenty of individual psalms, in which the psalmist expresses personal faith, seeking, frustration and questioning of God—faith is at all stages a personal reality. Yet, throughout Scripture, the relationship of God with his people is first and foremost expressed corporately, and the personal flows from this. This is especially clear in the corporate regulations for worship in the Pentateuch, but continues to be evident in the corporate descriptions of life and worship in Acts and the Pauline letters.
Personal experience is rooted in corporate practice, flows from it and is nourished by it. The psalmist anticipates that his personal longing expressed in Ps 42.1 would be met in the corporate experience of Ps 42.4. A similar prioritising of the corporate in our families might reduce the loss of faith in the teenage years; and encouraging corporate rather than relentlessly personal devotions might enable us to engage more effectively with the non-book cultures around us. English used to distinguish between the singular ‘thou’ and the plural ‘ye’, but since we have shifted to the ambiguous ‘you’, we lose our awareness of this essentially corporate nature of faith (though it can be regained by reading in another language that retains such distinctions).
3. Physical: ‘…shout aloud…bow down…’
There is no mistaking the physical nature of worship that is envisaged here at every stage. The first invitation is to ‘shout’, and the Hebrew term is used both of the cry that calls the people to war and of the great belly-roar of triumph over one’s enemies when victory is won. It suggests a kind of visceral roar of celebration, and makes us wonder why the frisson of physical experience that we find on the football terraces Saturday by Saturday isn’t also present in our worship Sunday by Sunday. Though the presence of God might at times lead us to awed silence, most often it will call on all our physical skills of music-making, and involve physical actions of ‘bowing down’ and ‘kneeling’. One of the great recoveries of the charismatic renewal movement was the importance of bodily experience and expression in worship, and this should be a feature of all Christian worship.
I was particularly struck by this physical element last week when attending an in-person service (when did we ever anticipate having to make this kind of qualification?!). Because we could not sing together (even though there is no evidence that singing presents any risk of infection), we listened to singing from the front—and it was beautiful. Listening to a real person singing in your physical presence is quite different from listening to something on the radio, the computer or the television; as John Leach has pointed out, there are multiple physical, bodily aspects to the experience of singing.
And so these opening three points about worship offer a particularly poignant challenge to our current situation, since they all depend on understanding ourselves not as brains (or souls, or spirits) on sticks, as it were, as though our bodily reality was merely incidental—but as body-soul unities, in which our bodily coming together corporately, to express our worship to God in gesture, is a physical expression of spiritual truth.
4. Theological: ‘The Lord is a great King above all gods…’
There is, in the first half of this psalm, a constant interplay between large theological claims and exultant affective response. There are three massive theological ideas around which the response of worship orbits; in reverse order: God as creator; God as the only true god; and God as the saviour of his people.
Recognising that Yahweh is ‘our maker’ focusses on the creature/creator divide, and the fragility of human existence in contrast to the power of God. But the theme also includes God’s sovereignty over the created world; it is worth noting the binary contrasts (depths/peaks, sea/land) which both function as merisms that take two extremes to include everything in between, and also reflect the theme of separation in the creation account of Gen 1.
Recognising God as king makes explicit an idea which is implicit in the earlier parts of Scripture but which become increasingly visible in the period of the monarchy and reaches its full flourishing in the preaching of Jesus of the coming ‘kingdom of God’. Although here expressed in henotheistic terms (God amongst the gods), the contrast easily moves into the absolute monotheism that we find in Isaiah (‘There are no other gods beside me’, Is 45.5; compare the similar movement in 1 Cor 8.4–6). In the NT, the kingdom of God is contrasted with the kingdom of this world, and the two are in eschatological contrast. And in a world of competing spiritual powers, it is the God of Israel who saves his people.
There is no divide here between understanding and affective response, between thinking, feeling and acting. Worship is rooted in theological understanding, and theological understanding inevitably leads to a response of worship.
5. Dialectical: ‘extol…bow down…hear his voice…’
The first half of the psalm includes some striking contrasts which we might have missed because of our familiarity. The first note is one of celebration, exalting in the salvation that he brings to his people and rejoicing in his mighty power. If this feels like a move upwards, then the contrast comes in the move downwards, bowing in humility and awe in verse 6. Both the upward movement and the downward are essential in worship—God is the source of our joy, but God is no mere celestial chum with whom we party.
What is most fascinating is the way that these two movements are aligned. We mighty expect a response of awe to God’s power—but in fact this leads to celebration, since the psalmist is convinced that God is for his people and (essential) on their side. What leads to wonder is the fact that this mighty God, in all his power of creation, salvation and defeat of his enemies, a God not to be trifled with, is the tender shepherd of his people, one who knows their needs and meets them with his provision. This God is not vulnerable instead of being mighty; he is both, and the wonder comes in the holding together of the two convictions.
6. Repentant: ‘Do not harden your hearts…’
The second major dialectical tension in the psalm is one that Anglican liturgy can barely cope with, and only manages by making the ending of the psalm optional in liturgical recitation. There is the sharpest of contrasts in the unfettering joy and commitment expressed in the first half, and the stern warning of judgement that awaits us if we do not repent and belief in the second. It is the kind of contrast we also struggle with in the teaching of Jesus, when reports of calamity provoke Jesus’ response: ‘Unless you repent, you too will perish!’ (Luke 13.3, 5). Not exactly gentle Jesus, meek and mild and inclusive.
But this tension points to the reality of respectable Christian leaders who end up being abusive, congregations with good biblical teaching who are oblivious to the world around them, and all of us as we come to God with distinctly mixed motives. Worship services which focus on celebration and find the downbeat of confession of sin too stark a contrast with the upbeat of feeling good about God ignore this tension at their peril. The language of the BCP in describing sin as an intolerable burden to miserable sinners needs to be recovered.
7. Canonical: ‘…as your ancestors did…’
The psalm begins with a hint at the story of God’s dealings with his people in the mention of the ‘rock of salvation’, but this story become clearly (and uncomfortably) explicit in the second half. Worship of God by the people of God is rooted in the particularity of God’s dealings with his people and their response to him. Indeed, some psalms, like Ps 136, are entirely structured around the story of our experience of God as his people. The general refrain ‘His love endures forever’, which on its own is in danger of becoming a theological slogan, only makes sense when understood in the light of the particulars of God’s action.
In a similar way, it is striking that Paul assumes that the story of God’s dealings with his people Israel has become the story that now belongs to the mixed Jewish-gentile group of followers of Jesus in Corinth, so that they are all inheritors of this canonical story of faith (1 Cor 10.6). Reading Scripture when we meet, and thus locating ourselves in this story, is not something that leads to worship—it is a constituent part of the worship itself. Christian worship will understand Jesus as the climax and fulfilment of this story—but it will not ignore the earlier episodes.
G K Chesterton commented (in Orthodoxy):
Tradition means giving votes to the most obscure of all classes, our ancestors. It is the democracy of the dead. Tradition refuses to submit to the small and arrogant oligarchy of those who merely happen to be walking about.
For our Christian worship, ‘the dead’ are the saints who have gone before us, in whose footsteps we follow.
Responding to God’s initiative, confessing our sins, celebrating in song, locating ourselves in the story of God’s people, reflecting on theology, living with tensions and contrasts, and expressing all this in bodily action as we meet together—all these are essential parts of our worship as we meet together. If any of them is missing, God is reduced, our worship is diminished and we are the less for it. (Published previously.)
Buy me a Coffee
Thank you, Ian, for this piece. It’s so very helpful.
I like the invitation in Common Worship Morning Prayer to say the ‘alternative’ canticles, some of which are mightily refreshing and deeply meaningful, especially #62 ‘A Song of Redemption’. It draws on the passage in Dick Lucas’s series on Colossians nearly 50 years ago that caused the ‘penny’ of faith to drop for me. And it’s also the passage set for my funeral!
All I would say, don’t throw in an alternative canticle at short notice. Stories of an archdeacon doing this one morning in the cathedral and the bishop scrolling through his device trying to find it whilst everyone else simply turned to page 620!
I echo the issues around singular and plural personal pronouns. I would add my feeling that far too much contemporary worship song is written in the first-person singular for when worship is clearly a gathered occasion. It’s shame because in English both first-person pronouns are monosyllabic (‘I’/’we’) and writing in plural would make no difference to the scansion.
On the offering of beauty and response to God in worship, although it’s far from everyone’s cup of tea, as a Catholic Charismatic, all the bling and holy smoke, as well as swinging from the chandeliers, and for those physically able to prostrate themselves, all add to the drama and devotion involved in worshipping and waiting on God.
“The primary note in Scripture is of God seeking us, rather than the other way around.”
Yes! Sermons and literature are awash with their references to Jesus as king—but kings don’t generally seek a people.
In contrast, I suggest for its depth and breadth, the marital imagery is the Bible’s dominant conceptual metaphor. God reached out to Israel, took her as a ‘wife’, and Jesus arrives on the pages of the NT as a bridegroom seeking a bride.
In comparison the kingdom imagery is more two dimensional—Jesus says he has prepared a place for us so where he is we can be also, but in most cultures the vast majority will only ever see their king on television and will probably never go into his home.
Despite this the marital imagery is neglected —as far as I am aware my treatment of it is the only comprehensive analysis of it in the academic literature.
Incidentally, God repeatedly said that he loved Isarel, but apart from Jeremiah 2:2 am not aware this was ever said to be reciprocated.
Hi Colin,
If you have something on-line I can read on Jesus as Bridegroom I’d be interested. I read Revelation as on long marriage ceremony and so would be interested in others who take the same or similar view.
Thanks.
Steve
Hi Steve,
There is a free download link below. It might be a bit much but you can pick the bits out that are relevant.
https://chesterrep.openrepository.com/handle/10034/607240
There is a an extract from that study and written for a broader market on Amazon for £3.70:
The Bridegroom Messiah: The Cross: Love’s Greatest Story
https://amzn.eu/d/5IFzBDQ
Thank you for replying so promptly!
Ian references Eden and specifically Genesis 3:9.
A Jewish bridegroom was obligated to provide his wife with food clothes and a relationship (Exodus 21:10 —a home is not mentioned but assumed). All the Jewish marriage certificates found from NT times affirm this.
So, in Eden, God provided a home, food, and a relationship (Genesis 3:8) —and then just before they leave Eden he reaches out and clothes them (Genesis 3:21).
The remarkable parallels between Eden and the promised land have been pointed out by others (e. g., Seth D. Postell, “Adam as Israel: Genesis 1-3 as the Introduction to the Torah and Tanak”) —thus Adam typologically prefigured the relationship with Isarel as God’s ‘wife’ —and ultimately that of the church.
“The primary note in Scripture is of God seeking us, rather than the other way around.”
So, just as God takes the initiative with us, despite decades of feminism, women still tend to want the man to take the initiative.
Thus even the Bumble App has ditched its biggest selling point – which was that only women could initiate the conversation.
“So, just as God takes the initiative with us, despite decades of feminism, women still tend to want the man to take the initiative.”
A. That totally depends upon context
B. God isn’t a man. Isn’t masculine. Isn’t male.
Hi Andrew,
In the Bible’s marital imagery God is always portrayed as masculine.
And always takes the initiative.
“In the Bible’s marital imagery God is always portrayed as masculine.”
And you don’t think that was anything to do with the culture in which that portrayal was written?
Andrew,
“And you don’t think that was anything to do with the culture in which that portrayal was written?”
Yes. God was using the cultural understanding—an understanding common to most of the ANE—to illustrate something about himself.
That is how metaphors work, and the marital imagery is a metaphoric (non-literal) imagery. If contemporary marriage did not represent a truth about himself I suggest, as an evangelical, that Scripture would not have employed it.
Andrew,
“Oh well if it’s in The Times then obv it has to be true”
Bumble clearly thought the stats were true otherwise they would not have changed their strategy.
“If contemporary marriage did not represent a truth about himself I suggest, as an evangelical, that Scripture would not have employed it.”
And that’s fine. But as a classical Anglican I also understand that tradition is a guide and not a strait jacket. God is not limited by the culture of a particular time. It does represent a truth. But not the whole truth. The whole truth is never going to be available to us.
Andrew,
“And that’s fine. But as a classical Anglican I also understand that tradition is a guide and not a strait jacket. God is not limited by the culture of a particular time. It does represent a truth. But not the whole truth. The whole truth is never going to be available to us.”
I think you have misunderstood my point? A metaphor can be tricky concept to handle.
A metaphor has two conceptual domains —we can call them A and B. The metaphoric statement is A is B —when it is not true.
An example is Jesus is the son of God. Here the conceptual domain human sonship—conceptual domain A, is illustrating Jesus’s relationship with God — conceptual domain B.
In other words, the nature of human sonship in NT times, domain A, was thought to illustrate the relationship with God, domain B.
If in subsequent generations or cultures the nature of sonship changed—it would not mean that the relationship of Jesus to God would change to match that. Thus, if shepherding in 20th century Britain was taken over by robots and they also slaughtered their sheep—it would not mean that Jesus as the good shepherd is now a robot who slaughters his sheep. The culture at the time the metaphor was given illustrates an eternal truth.
So, as I believe the Bible writers were inspired by God—when they selected a culture-specific domain in their time, it was chosen by God to illustrate what he is like—and as we are told that God does not change—he will not change if the culture changes.
Of course, if we do not believe that the word of God is inspired, we could argue that the Bible writers imagined that God was just like the human marriage they knew—and so projected that onto God.
But once you believe the Bible is not inspired by God, you can of course believe whatever you like.
Thanks Colin, I understand how a metaphor works.
“The culture at the time the metaphor was given illustrates an eternal truth.”
It can. It might. But it isn’t necessarily so. It still has a cultural element.
And one can still believe the bible is inspired but not have to accept that it is the only or final word that God speaks.
How fundamentalist of Andrew Godsall to take the crucifixion and resurrection scriptures literally!
… and I did say ‘tend to’ – which I think means usually.
And I am of course talking specifically about dating—the Times had an article which included some stats which they thought were behind the Bumble decision.
Oh well if it’s in The Times then obv it has to be true!
Andrew Godsall writes:
“A. That totally depends upon context
B. God isn’t a man. Isn’t masculine. Isn’t male.”
Four (genuinely open) questions on this, Andrew.
1. We know from the Holy Scriptures that ‘God is spirit’ and does not have a physical body.
But do we know for a fact that ‘God isn’t male’? Where is our Scripture on this?
Is maleness essentially a physical, creaturely thing?
2. Why does Scripture universally speak of God as male? Why does Jesus, whom we acknowledge as God Incarnate, always speak of God as male and as Father? Was Jesus mistaken (culture-bound) or pretending? What language is the Church (the Bride of Christ) authorised to use in speaking about God?
3. Why do we speak of the Son begotten of the Father rather than the Daughter born of the Mother? Is the Father-Son relationship declared in the Trinity a projection onto God of human biology (Feuerbach’s critique of Christianity) – or is it an eternal, divine fact that precedes creation?
4. ‘Classical Anglicanism’ (= the consensus of Western and Christian faith on the Trinity and Incarnation before the Reformation) affirms the Father-Son relationship as ‘generation’ and the Father-Spirit relationship as ‘procession’. How are they different if Fatherhood is not an essential ontological fact about the First Person of the Trinity?
Is there some sense in which, following the incarnation, that God is in fact male, at least as pertains the Son? If the Son became a literal human male, and continues to be so, even with a resurrection body, does that mean that God, in a very real sense, is male?
Probably, but just remember that the ‘bride’ is actually made up of both men and women. That may colour our understanding of the bridegroom/bride imagery.
Peter
And at the eschaton just as Adam married his own body – Eve – so Christ ‘marries’ his own body – the church, the ‘body of Christ’ thus bringing the imagery in a full circle back to where it started.
Thankyou Ian, a timely exposition on Worship following on from our meditations on Pentecost.
At the centre of any Bible is a Prayer and Praise Book
God’s service stands not in dead ceremonies, but chiefly in the sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving.
We bring the sacrifice of praise into the house of the Lord.
The first act[ion] of the church newly born was to Magnify God
ACTS 2 V 11 Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God.
The wonderful works of God.—Better, the great things, or the majesty, of God. The word is the same as in Luke 1:49.
The word points, as has been said above, distinctly to words of praise and not of teaching.
[the wonderful works] More literally, the great works of God. So (Acts 10:46) of the first Gentile converts on whom the Holy Ghost came it is said, “They heard them speak with tongues and magnify God.” And of those to whom the Spirit was given at Ephesus (Acts 19:6), “They spake with tongues and prophesied.”[ Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers] et al
[The essence of the prophetic was to declare the heart and mind of God.]
Paul exhorts the Colossians
2:6 As ye have therefore received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk ye in him:
2:7 Rooted and built up in him, and stablished in the faith, as ye have been taught, abounding therein with thanksgiving.
2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.
To take us beyond espousals Paul then speaks of marriage then he exorts the individuals I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service ROM 12 V1
A living sacrifice.—“How is the body to become a sacrifice? Let thine eye look upon no evil thing, and it hath become a sacrifice; let thy tongue speak nothing filthy, and it hath become an offering; let thy hand do no lawless deed, and it hath become a whole burnt offering. But this is not enough, we must do good works also; let the hand do alms, the mouth bless them that despitefully use us, and the ear find leisure evermore for the hearing of Scripture. For sacrifice can be made only of that which is clean; sacrifice is a firstfruit of other actions. Let us, then, from our hands, and feet, and mouth, and all our other members, yield a firstfruits unto God” (St. Chrysostom)
Thus we do not belong to ourselves but by His and our acquiescence,
1 Cor 6:20 For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God’s
Paul and the Mystics , Job, Joseph, David etc worshiped God in whatever place conditions or adversities they were placed; as Bunyan, Rutherford,
Brainard etc.
2:6 As ye have therefore received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk ye in him:
2:7 Rooted and built up in him, and stablished in the faith, as ye have been taught, abounding therein with thanksgiving.
2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.
Worship is not just for Sundays! It needs lots of exercise and patient, reinforced training. “I will bless the Lord at all times”
Thank you Ian for an edifying article.
Previously published but no less edifying, Ian. A really helpful piece in very many ways.
Somewhere Jim Packer has written that he had memorised the BCP Morning Prayer and that he said it to himself (and to God) as he did his morning walk, as his daily devotion. Packer went on to say of Psalm 95 that true worship is only possible when it is preceded by true repentance. I often think our Sunday worship would be a little more real if we did the confessing and repenting part a bit more deeply.
Quite so James [10:13]
I had long pondered what the nature of this “Power” was that Jesus promised.
The first facet was obviously worship [He will glorify me -Just as Jesus glorified the Father]
Paul hammers this out in Ephesians
5:16 Redeeming the time, because the days are evil.
5:17 Wherefore be ye not unwise, but understanding what the will of the Lord is.
5:18 And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit;
5:19 Speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord;
As a youth I was puzzled how the Psalmist would/could praise God seven times a day
Or Daniel prays three times a day; I naively felt that one needed to be some kind of monk. However, Pentecost was the answer.
ROM. 15:8 Now I say that Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers:
15:9 And that the Gentiles might glorify God for his mercy; as it is written, For this cause I will confess to thee among the Gentiles, and sing unto thy name.
15:10 And again he saith, Rejoice, ye Gentiles, with his people.
15:11 And again, Praise the Lord, all ye Gentiles; and laud him, all ye people.
James5:13 Is any among you afflicted? let him pray. Is any merry? let him sing psalms.
Ian has broadcast some good seed; one wonders what grounds it will fall on?
Some questions from above for Andrew Godsall (in case this was missed):
Andrew Godsall writes on the Bible’s language and imagery for God:
“A. That totally depends upon context
B. God isn’t a man. Isn’t masculine. Isn’t male.”
Four (genuinely open) questions on this, Andrew.
1. We know from the Holy Scriptures that ‘God is spirit’ and does not have a physical body.
But do we know for a fact that ‘God isn’t male’? Where is our Scripture on this?
Is maleness essentially a physical, creaturely thing?
2. Why does Scripture universally speak of God as male? Why does Jesus, whom we acknowledge as God Incarnate, always speak of God as male and as Father? Was Jesus mistaken (culture-bound) or pretending? What language is the Church (the Bride of Christ) authorised to use in speaking about God?
3. Why do we speak of the Son begotten of the Father rather than the Daughter born of the Mother? Is the Father-Son relationship declared in the Trinity a projection onto God of human biology (Feuerbach’s critique of Christianity) – or is it an eternal, divine fact that precedes creation?
4. ‘Classical Anglicanism’ (= the consensus of Western and Christian faith on the Trinity and Incarnation before the Reformation) affirms the Father-Son relationship as ‘generation’ and the Father-Spirit relationship as ‘procession’. How are they different if Fatherhood is not an essential ontological fact about the First Person of the Trinity?
James: the early Christian fathers – of course they were all fathers – made the point that words were helpful for us rather actually being descriptive of God. The cultures in which all of the scriptures were written were patriarchal. Likewise with the Creeds. It would have been unthinkable to use any other language. But words are helpful to use rather than actually being descriptive of what God is fully like.
We could go to the extreme and embrace the apophatic tradition. It’s venerable. But if we choose not to do that we must use words BUT be aware of the limitations they hold. Speaking of God as father has a long tradition, of course. But I don’t for a moment believe God is specifically gendered. And of course Jesus the man could speak of God as his father. A Jew would not do anything else. But I see no evidence that this means God is limited to being Father.
Andrew, thank you for responding. Are you a Patristics scholar? I’m not, my expertise (such as it is) is in Old Testament theology. I note the following;
1. You don’t actually quote any of the Church Fathers (and pace your comment, some do talk about ‘the Church Mothers’ today, and the Patristic Era is a ve-er-y long one, from the second century until maybe the sixth), so who are you referencing in your claim that ‘words were helpful for us rather than actually being descriptive of God’? Who made this claim? It is not one that Thomas Aquinas in the 13th century would have recognised, at any rate. (Thomas recognised of course that biblical language about God is not univocal or equivocal but analogical, overlapping with language about human beings.)
2. Why was it “unthinkable” for Scripture and the Creeds to use any other language than their “patriarchal culture”? This sounds like a very severe limitation on the power of the Holy Spirit and the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. Your words can only mean that the Holy Spirit is not the Sovereign Lord but is rather human thinking (= cultural ideas) projected onto God, and that Jesus, instead of speaking as the Incarnate Word from heaven directly communicating what he knew from the Father (John 17) was instead speaking simply as a Jewish man 2000 years ago. This is not ‘classical Anglicanism’, this is Feuerbachianism – and sadly it’s implicitly agnostic. It’s easy to see how Marx could adopt Feuerbach in his attack on Christianity.
3. ‘Speaking of God as father’ is not just a long tradition – it is the EXACT COMMAND of Jesus Christ. It isn’t ‘one of the options’, it’s the very heart of Christian faith. You missed my point about the language which the Church, as the Bride of Christ and the recipient of revelation, is allowed to speak of God.
4. You completely failed to interact with my first question, whether maleness was physical and biological (and thus part of the material created realm) or whether it had a spiritual and metaphysical dimension to it as well. I think you will find some of the Church Fathers had some views on that.
5. You completely failed to interact with my fourth question about the nature of the relationships in the Eternal Trinity (Father-Son; Father-Spirit; eternal begottenness vs. procession). A bit of time spent with the Cappadocian Fathers (or even Karl Barth) would help with this. (See Barth on Ephesians 3.14-15.)
James:
1. I can’t recall off the top of my head. I can see the book in which this is written but no longer have it in retirement and won’t be buying it again. If I can find the reference at some point I will post it.
2. Scripture was written to be understood for the intended hearers. Paul would have been astonished to know his letters written to specific churches at a particular time were still being read as if they were written to very different churches now. We always need to ask ‘what did they believe then that made them express themselves as they did?’. Would you prefer the St Matthew Passion of JS Bach to be performed in German or English? Bach used German so that his listeners would get the story. And getting the story is what it is all about. The meta narrative is that God is parental. I agree, the Holy Spirit isn’t limited in power etc. but the recipients of it surely are!
3. Oh yes it may have been the exact command as understood by those who wrote it down then. The question is, would it be the exact command to every culture and time? I guess we differ in our answers to those questions. So do scholars.
4. The Church fathers had views about all kinds of things! Some are hopeful and helpful. Some now seem downright laughable. Is maleness purely biological or also metaphysical? I guess those who argue in favour of the possibility of transgender take specific interest in that question. So would Carl Jung with his work on anima/animus.
5. I’m apophatic on that one!
Andrew, again, thank you for responding – but again, your responses fall very short of actual engagement with my questions.
1. So you can’t actually cite any Church Father for your claim that “they” said ‘words of Scripture are helpful rather than actually being descriptive of God’. I’m not surprised, as this sounds like nothing I have ever read in Irenaeus, the Cappadocians, Athanasius, Augustine, Hilary of Poitiers, or John of Damascus – quite the reverse! All the works of the Church Fathers can be found for free on CCEL.
2. St Paul was clear that he was an Apostle of Christ, granted revelation from the Ascended Lord and he possessed ‘the mind of Christ’. He didn’t think his teaching “came from his culture”, as moderns might say, but was ‘apokalupsis’. The ‘meta narrative’ is not that ‘God is paReNTal’ but that God is paTeRNal – ‘mother’ and ‘father’ are not interchangeable. As for St Matthew’s Passion, I prefer it in German as a former German teacher, but the Bach Choir only sings in English. But it doesn’t matter much. ‘Vater’ = ‘Father’ = ‘pater’ = ‘ab’. Languages are capable of adequate translation, across the Indo-European and Afroasiatic (Semitic) language families, without significant loss.
3. You punt the question ‘is maleness/femaleness physical and biological or does it have spiritual and ontological sense?’ You don’t have an answer to this question and fail to see the connection with the Trinity – which Barth understood. (Jung’s ideas are irrelevant.)
4. ‘apophatic’ doesn’t mean ‘agnostic’ or ‘I don’t understand.’ You have failed to grasp that the Trinitarian theology taught in John’s Gospel and in Paul’s letters make it clear that the Father-Son relationship is eternal and divine, and not the projection of human biology and psychology – which is what Feuerbach taught, and the germ of this is in Schleiermacher, who really psychologised the nature of faith into ‘Gefuehl’.
In short, Andrew, your understanding of Scripture, language and the teaching ministry of Jesus (and of Paul) isn’t ‘classical Anglicanism’, it’s really 19th century liberal Protestantism, filled out with 20th century psychology.
James: the answers engage with all of your questions. You just don’t like the answers.
1. Yes, I can provide a reference. I just don’t have it to hand and when I do I will post it. That was clear in my answer.
2. The meta narrative is that God is parental. I agree, the Holy Spirit isn’t limited in power etc. but the recipients of it surely are! I’m not sure why you missed that bit, but you obviously did.
3. You clearly don’t think it has anything to do with Jung. Jung obviously had views about it. And so do you. Tell us what they are?
4.i know what apophatic means. It means we choose to be silent in the face of knowing that God is way beyond our understanding. If you think you understand God fully, then you are clearly super human. (In the literal sense of that phrase).
5. I don’t think you know what classical Anglicanism means. I recommend Stephen Neill.
Andrew:
1. What is asserted without evidence can be denied without evidence. What you *think some nameless ‘Church Father’ said counts for nothing – and disagrees with the consensus of Catholic thought that I mentioned.
2. You are wrong: God is paternal, not ‘parental’. God is never called ‘Mother’ in Scripture; He is consistently called ‘Father’. You are ignoring the words of Christ.
3. I am not convinced that maleness or femaleness is purely physical – as you seem to think. I am trying to understand what m/f means spiritually and ontologically. Atheists think m/f is just a biological fact related to animal and plant reproduction. But the fact that God is *eternally Father, Son and Holy Spirit makes me doubt this reductionist assumption. (I have no interest in Jung – I think he speaks occult nonsense.)
4. We may be apophatic about the meaning of the divine nature or substance (the issue that Palamatism grapples with) but we cannot be apophatic about the reality of the Eternal Trinity, viz. that God is Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Do you actually believe in the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit? There is no ‘God behind God’. No creature can claim to know God fully (only God knows Himself ontologically) – least of all me. But we *do know God *relationally and truly. This is what covenant-knowledge means. You seem to doubt that we know God truly, if you think the ‘Father, Son, Holy Spirit’ language is not really true but just a cultural metaphor, then you are asserting we don’t really know.
5. I am pretty sure what classical Anglicanism means: the 39 articles, the Catholic Creeds, the first four ecumenical councils, Cranmer, Hooker and the BCPand the Book of Homilies, and John Jewel’s apology for the Church of England. Stephen Neill was essentially a magisterial evangelical (as well as a troubled soul). I don’t think you would have agreed with Neill on sexual morality or on the nature of the Scriptures or on language for God.
Oh dear. Maybe you are a troubled soul also?
Aren’t we all, Andrew? You may know that according to Richard Holloway, Bishop Stephen Neill was given to beating priests in India and this is why he was recalled to England and given a new post there.
I’m not sure that’s what you mean by ‘classical Anglicanism’. No safeguarding then, of course, and bishops are above reproach.
James: you seem to be another who wants to bring everything back to the same subjects in every debate. Paul was a troubled soul but wrote about sublime things. I’m sure Stephen Neill was a troubled soul but he wrote a very impressive book about Anglicanism and in that book I believe he captures something of the spirit of what it meant to be
Anglican. If you don’t fancy reading that, then I think Anglicanism- an answer to modernity, Edited by Duncan Dormer is a fine collection of essays also exploring the idea.
Yes, I believe firmly and truly in the eternal trinity. I am apophatic about how it works. I don’t need to know about that mystery.
I don’t at all think that maleness and femaleness are purely physical, and I have no idea where you get that from. I think the concept of anima and animus is helpful for our understanding. Which is why I mentioned Jung.
I’ve explained why scripture consistently uses the word Father. I don’t need to explain it again. You disagree. That’s fine, and I think disagreement is quite healthy. You seem troubled by it.
And for the nth time, I will find, in due course, the reference to words being helpful to us rather than being fully descriptive of God. I have other things to do at present than hunt for one reference that says something so obvious that a 16 year old can understand. I mention that only because I was taught it and given the reference when I first started studying theology aged 16. I am pretty sure it was cited in New Essays in Philosophical Theology but I could be wrong about that location. Be patient, please.
Andrew, first, give up speculating whether I am ‘troubled’ or not. Don’t make assumptions about somebody you’ve never (consciously) met. That is silly ad hominem psychobabble which Penelope falls into quite quickly when she accuses others of being “queerphobic” etc, instead of objectively dealing with their arguments. Second, your responses:
1. I don’t know, but perhaps I have read more of Stephen Neill’s work than you have. Many years ago I read his ‘Anglicanism’ as well as his ‘New Testament Interpretation 1861-1961’, as well as some of his stuff on the history of Christianity in India. He was a great scholar, as well as a masochist who beat priests and young men in India.
2. You continue to miss my point about the Trinity, which is actually fundamental theology: that God *is* Father, Son and Holy Spirit, not ‘Parent, Child and Spirit’ (or whatever): in other words, Fatherhood and Sonhood are *not* interchangeable metaphors (as modalists old and new imagine) but correctly name the eternal nature of God. Modern feminists have tried to rename God (without Scriptural warrant), claiming that masculine language for God is just ‘patriarchal cultural projection’ – which is pure Feuerbachianism. This feminism is also (inevitably) modalist. You seem to agree with Feuerbach. You really need to read up on the Cappadocian Fathers to understand what I am saying – especially on this Pentecost Sunday.
3. You say now that you don’t think maleness and femaleness are purely physical. I agree – but what does this mean for God? What does it mean that God is eternally Father, eternally Son and eternally Spirit? This is my question which your haven’t grappled with. (Forget that occult rubbish from Jung – he was no Christian and has nothing to add to this question.)
4. You are wrong in your “explanation” of “why scripture consistently uses Father’. It is *not* cultural accommodation or prejudice (“patriarchalism”, as the feminists say). It is because of the direct revelation of the Incarnate Son of God, who received truth directly from his Father. Even young Christians with a modest familiarity with the Gospels understand this point.
5. You have changed your tune from saying initially ‘(biblical) words being helpful to us rather than being *actually descriptive of God’ to ‘being helpful to us rather than *fully descriptive of God.’ That’s progress because there’s a huge difference between ‘actually’ and ‘fully’. ‘Not actually’ means something like ‘not really true but metaphorically’; and nobody has every claimed that the Bible is ‘fully descriptive of God’. Of course it isn’t. But what it affirms about God *is true. Again, you need to grasp the nature of the Bible’s language about God, which is not univocal or equivocal vis a vis human beings, but analogical.
James, I’m not changing my tune at all. I’m changing my expression. Just as words change over time. Father, Son and Holy Spirit are words. Limited and helpful to us rather being descriptive of God. I don’t miss your point at all. But I think you miss mine.
I don’t care whether you are troubled at all. As you say, to some extent we all are. But I am tired of trying to discuss with someone who thinks they have to be right all the time. I respect your difference. And I’m not your enemy because we don’t agree.
I don’t ’now say’ anything regarding male/female different to anything I first said. I don’t care whether or not Jung was a Christian. Christians don’t have a monopoly on helpful ideas. I believe his articulation about the concept of anima and animus is helpful and pertinent to your question. If you don’t find it helpful, fine. Doesn’t bother me if you do or don’t.
I’ve grasped the nature of biblical language. I agree, it’s analogical. And therefore limited. Sometimes imprecise. Offering wonderful insights. But there will always be room to wriggle because of the human element.
Andrew writes:
“Father, Son and Holy Spirit are words. Limited and helpful to us rather being descriptive of God.”
Like I said, Andrew is a Feuerbachian and a relativist – and in danger of modalism. Andrew doesn’t understand that the Father *is the Father and the Son *is the Son. This isn’t human culture (or biology) projected onto God – it is God revealing Himself to us. Complete difference. Even Karl Barth understood this. The Cappadocian Fathers dealt with these problems long ago and showed why they were not the Catholic faith. Andrew needs to read the Cappadocians – as well as St Augustine on the Trinity.
Ahh I see you have now resorted to the ad hominem trick of talking about people rather than to them. Cheap and nasty.
Have a wonderful Pentecost.
Sorry, Andrew – you don’t seem to understand the meaning of argumentum ad hominem, which is to attack a person’s character rather than his ideas. If you can find any attack on your character, please tell me. I thought I had criticised your ideas – but if you need it in the second person, here it is:
Andrew writes:
“Father, Son and Holy Spirit are words. Limited and helpful to us rather being descriptive of God.”
Like I said, you (Andrew) a Feuerbachian and a relativist – and in danger of modalism. You don’t understand that the Father *is the Father and the Son *is the Son. This isn’t human culture (or biology) projected onto God – it is God revealing Himself to us. Complete difference. Even Karl Barth understood this. The Cappadocian Fathers dealt with these problems long ago and showed why they were not the Catholic faith. You need to read the Cappadocians – as well as St Augustine on the Trinity.
James I fully understand the concept of argument ad hominem. There is no need to be condescending yet again.
The approach of talking about someone in a public forum, knowing that they will see, rather than addressing them directly is an attempt to try and devalue their contribution to a discussion. I’ve seen you do it several times now, and not just on this website.
I have offered before to have a longer, private discussion with you. You didn’t take that up.
As I say, just because we disagree does not make us enemies. I respect your differing views. I just don’t agree with them. And I think healthy disagreement is a good thing.
Andrew – you should take James suggestion about ‘The Cappadocians’ seriously. I haven’t read the book, but I’ve seen the movie. It is well worth watching and it does back up what James is saying. There’s Al Cappadocian, the Godfather figure, who is definitely male – and he’s grooming his son to take over the concern (who is also male) ……. Perhaps the Holy Spirit was absent, but there was plenty of alcoholic liquor.
Jock, ‘The Capo-di-cappodocians’ Part II is even better – it tells how Greg Nyssa bumps of his brother Basil aka ‘Fredo’ to take over The Family, helped by a far right politician Greg Nazian. It’s all very patriarchal.
How we worship is incumbent upon how we think of God
I love these thought on-
Why We Must Think Rightly About God
bibletolife.com/resources/articles/why-we-must-think-rightly-about-god/
We tend by a secret law of the soul to move toward our mental image of God. This is true not only of the individual Christian, but of the company of Christians that composes the Church. Always the most revealing thing about the Church is her idea of God, just as her most significant message is what she says about Him or leaves unsaid, r her silence is often more eloquent than her speech. She can never escape the self-disclosure of her witness concerning God.
“Wrong ideas about God are not only the fountain from which the polluted waters of idolatry flow; they are themselves idolatrous.”
What comes into your mind when you think about God?” we might predict with certainty the spiritual future of that man. Were we able to know exactly what our most influential religious leaders think of God today, we might be able with some precision to foretell where the Church will stand tomorrow.
Our real idea of God may lie buried under the rubbish of conventional religious notions and may require an intelligent and vigorous search before it is finally unearthed and exposed for what it is. Only after an ordeal of painful self-probing are we likely to discover what we actually believe about God.
I believe there is scarcely an error in doctrine or a failure in applying Christian ethics that cannot be traced finally to imperfect and ignoble thoughts about God.
The gospel can lift this destroying burden from the mind, give beauty for ashes, and the garment of praise for the spirit of heaviness. But unless the weight of the burden is felt the gospel can mean nothing to the man; and until he sees a vision of God high and lifted up, there will be no woe and no burden. Low views of God destroy the gospel for all who hold them.
Corporate Worship.
. Wrong ideas about God are not only the
fountain from which the polluted waters of idolatry
flow; they are themselves idolatrous. The idolater
simply imagines things about God and acts as if they
were true.
REDEEMING A HIGH VIEW OF GOD
Perverted notions about God soon rot the religion
in which they appear. The long career of Israel
demonstrates this clearly enough, and the history of
the Church confirms it. So necessary to the Church is
a lofty concept of God that when that concept in any
measure declines, the Church with her worship and
her moral standards decline along with it. The first
step down for any church is taken when it surrenders
its high opinion of God.
Before the Christian Church goes into eclipse
anywhere there must first be a corrupting of her
simple basic theology. She simply gets a wrong
answer to the question, “What is God like?” and goes
on from there. Though she may continue to cling to
a sound nominal creed, her practical working creed
has become false. The masses of her adherents come
to believe that God is different from what He actually
is; and that is heresy of the most insidious and deadly
kind.
The heaviest obligation lying upon the Christian
Church today is to purify and elevate her concept of
God until it is once more worthy of Him – and of her. In
all her prayers and labors this should have first place.
We do the greatest service to the next generation
of Christians by passing on to them undimmed and
undiminished that noble concept of God which we
received from our Hebrew and Christian fathers of
generations past. This will prove of greater value to
them than anything that art or science can devise.
Excerpt from the knowledge of the holy, A. W. Tozer
.cru.org/content/dam/cru/legacy/2012/02/We_Must_Think_Rightly_About_God2.pdf.
Thankyou James.
Edifying.
Yes, thanks James for your perseverance
Wriggle-wiggle room, brought to mind, The Bondage of the Will, by Martin. Luther and his contretemps with Erasmus.
Here is a thumbnail intoduction of sorts:
https://www.ligonier.org/podcasts/5-minutes-in-church-history-with-stephen-nichols/the-bondage-of-the-will
What is noteable from its contents is the stance Luther took on being clear and robust on matters of Biblical doctrine; a mark of a Christian is to take delight in asserting matters of doctrine.
“For it is not the mark of a Christian mind to take no delight in assertions. On the contrary, a man must delight in assertions to be a real Christian.
“And by assertion, in order that we may not be misled by words.
“I mean a constant adhering, affirming, confessing, maintaining and invincible persevering.
“I am talking about the assertion of those things that have been divinely transmitted to us in the sacred writings.
“We don’t assert when it come to man -made doctrines, but we must assert when it comes to biblical doctrines…
“Let the skeptics and academics leep well away from us Christians, but let there be among us asserters twice as unyeilding as the stoics themselves.”
Is this worshipping God? By a CoE Bishop? In Wales.
https://www.anglicanfutures.org/post/the-start-of-an-episcopal-free-for-all
Compare and contrast with The Bondage of the Will, or is it corroborative evidence?
Geoff, a very sad and confusing report you mention at
https://www.anglicanfutures.org/post/the-start-of-an-episcopal-free-for-all
Elijah comes to mind
And Elijah came near unto all the people, and said, How long halt [limp]ye between two opinions? if the Lord be God, follow him: but if Baal, [Sensuality] then follow him. And the people answered him not a word. —1 Kings 18:21.
Come close to God and He will come close to you. Cleanse your hands, you sinners; and purify your hearts, you double-minded.
James 4:8
Savonarola attempted to reform the decadent Church and state
His reforms were embraced in Florence but ended in martyrdom
Later Calvin attempted similarly and also to fail.
Luther made a stand and was excommunicated.
Wesley was barred as well as George Fox excommunicated.
Many puritans lost their homes and livelihoods
There comes a point where there must either be a choice and action to be taken. Or a new reformation as Jodocus van Lodenstein posited.
Those who took a stand were not abandoned but became heroes of the faith and had global fruit to the Glory of God.
Is it a time to step out of the boat?[in faith and conviction]