Among these terms, NT authors most often use ἀναστροφή (anastrophē) in this manner. Bullinger defines the term as “life, as made up of actions; mode of life, conduct, deportment.”¹ The Apostle Paul uses the term to describe his behavior in his former life of Judaism: “For you have heard of my former life [ποτε ἀναστροφήν] in Judaism, how I persecuted the church of God violently and tried to destroy it” (Gal 1:13). Boice says of Paul’s use of the term here,

The word Paul used for his former “way of life” (anastrophē) is singularly appropriate to the Jewish faith. Judaism was not a mask to be donned or doffed at will, as was the case with so many of the pagan religions. Judaism was a way of life, involving all of life, and Paul is correct in describing it as his exclusive sphere of existence before his conversion.²

Paul understood his way of life as flowing directly and necessarily from his religious convictions and values. Because of this perspective, Paul insisted that one’s conduct must change with conversion:

Now this I say and testify in the Lord, that you must no longer walk as the Gentiles [ἔθνη] do, in the futility of their minds. They are darkened in their understanding, alienated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them, due to their hardness of heart. They have become callous and have given themselves up to sensuality, greedy to practice every kind of impurity. But that is not the way you learned Christ!—assuming that you have heard about him and were taught in him, as the truth is in Jesus, to put off your old self, which belongs to your former manner of life [προτέραν ἀναστροφὴν] and is corrupt through deceitful desires, and to be renewed in the spirit of your minds, and to put on the new self, created after the likeness of God in true righteousness and holiness (Eph 4:17-24).

Here Paul distinguishes between behavior of the ἔθνη and the behavior of Christ-followers. He notes that their values (“futility of their minds,” “darkened understanding,” “alienation from the life of God,” “ignorance,” and “hardness of heart”) lead to sinful behavior (“sensuality,” “greed,” and “impurity”). He describes this once again as their “former manner of life,” using the term ἀναστροφή. In contrast, the new values of Christians (“renewed in the spirit of your minds”) produce a new way of life (“put on the new self, created after the likeness of God in true righteousness and holiness”). Paul communicates a similar sentiment to Timothy when he says, “Set the believers an example in speech, in conduct [ἀναστροφῇ], in love, in faith, in purity” (1Ti 4:12). Paul clearly uses ἀναστροφή, therefore, to describe a particular way of life, whether good or evil, that flows from religious beliefs and values. Boice summarizes:

Paul now gives the content of the teaching his readers received, though the verb is not actually repeated. Their previous life style was to be discarded completely. They must forsake their old behavioral haunts (anastrophēn; NIV, “your former way of life”) and indeed lay aside the costume of their unregenerate selves.³

The most prolific use of ἀναστροφή is found in Peter’s writings. Forms of the term appear three times in 1 Peter 1:13-19:

Therefore, preparing your minds for action, and being sober-minded, set your hope fully on the grace that will be brought to you at the revelation of Jesus Christ. As obedient children, do not be conformed to the passions of your former ignorance, but as he who called you is holy, you also be holy in all your conduct [ἀναστροφῇ], since it is written, “You shall be holy, for I am holy.” And if you call on him as Father who judges impartially according to each one’s deeds [ἔργον], conduct yourselves [ἀναστράφητε] with fear throughout the time of your exile, knowing that you were ransomed from the futile ways [ματαίας ἀναστροφῆς] inherited from your forefathers, not with perishable things such as silver or gold, but with the precious blood of Christ, like that of a lamb without blemish or spot.

Like Paul, Peter contrasts a former way of life with a new behavior. Howe says of Peter’s use of ἀναστροφή, “The word “behavior,” which translates ἀναστροφῆ, corresponds to the word “lifestyle” and covers all actions, thoughts, words, and relationships.”⁴ Peter characterizes the former behavior as flowing from ignorance, leading to “futile ways inherited from your forefathers.” The new way is to be characterized by holiness and fear. Here Peter uses the verb form of ἀναστροφή, ἀναστρέφω (anastrephō), to command his readers to live a certain way since they have been ransomed from the former way. Peter also uses a nearly synonymous “behavior”-related term, ἔργον (ergon; “deeds”), to describe their lifestyle.

Later in 1 Peter 2:12 Peter admonishes his readers, “Keep your conduct [ἀναστροφὴν] among the Gentiles [ἔθνεσιν] honorable, so that when they speak against you as evildoers, they may see your good deeds [καλῶν ἔργων] and glorify God on the day of visitation.” Notably, this command is in the context of Peter using race-related terms to call believers in Christ a “chosen race [γένος],” “a holy nation [ἔθνος],” and “a people [λαὸς] for his own possession.” This, then, reveals a connection between the race-related terms and the “behavior”-related terms. Γένος, ἔθνος, and λαός identify groups of people who unite around common ἀναστροφή. This common behavior stems from shared values and beliefs. Christians, according to Peter, are a new race that shares common values and beliefs, which result in a new way of life. This way of life is distinct from their former behavior, the conduct of unbelievers. Indeed, the metaphorical use of ἔθνος in several passages, including 1 Peter 2:9, indicates that the Christian community forms a new “nation” distinct from earthly nations. David Wright explains the significance of the race-related terms in 1 Peter 2:

Each of these four designations is pregnant with suggestiveness of its own, but they all express the important early Christian conviction that Christians in any one place or region belonged to a people, the people of God, which constituted a new corporate presence. This self-consciousness became a significant feature of the remarkable confidence of the Christians in the first three centuries.⁵

Wright argues that the early church saw itself as a “third race,” distinct from other earthly races, and thus they rejected the behavior of those races.

1 Peter 2:12 also reveals another important aspect of a believer’s conduct—it has potential evangelistic impact upon unbelievers: “They may see your good deeds and glorify God on the day of visitation.” Peter reiterates this emphasis in 1 Peter 3:1-2: “Likewise, wives, be subject to your own husbands, so that even if some do not obey the word, they may be won without a word by the conduct [ἀναστροφῆς] of their wives, when they see your respectful and pure conduct [ἀναστροφὴν].” Also important to note is that Peter describes this “pure conduct” in terms of particular ways of adorning themselves in jewelry and dress (vv 3-6). Finally, Peter further describes the importance of a believer’s way of life for its evangelistic impact in 1 Peter 3:15-16:

But in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect, having a good conscience, so that, when you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior [ἀναστροφήν] in Christ may be put to shame.

From this study of NT terms, it is apparent that the group of terms most closely resembling both cultural anthropologists’ and missional authors’ definitions of “culture” is the “behavior”-related terms. While both the “race”-related and “world”-related terms demonstrate relationship to the contemporary notion of culture, they do not identify culture itself. Ethnic groups unite around common culture, and the sinful world-system affects unbelieving culture, but these terms are not the same as culture. Rather, “behavior”-related terms like ἀναστροφή—which describe complete ways of life, conduct, and behavior—most closely identify “that complex whole which includes knowledge, belief, arts, morals, law, custom, and any other capabilities and habits acquired by man as a member of society” (Tylor)⁶ or “the sum total of ways of living built up by a human community and transmitted from one generation to another” (Newbigin).⁷

Next time we’ll look at implications of this argument.

© 2012, Scott Aniol. All rights reserved.

Endnotes:

1. Bullinger, A Critical Lexicon and Concordance to the English and Greek New Testament, 186.
2. Frank E. Gaebelein, ed., The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Volume 10: Romans Through Galatians (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1976), 433.
3. Frank E. Gaebelein, ed., The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Volume 11: Ephesians Through Philemon (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1981), 62.
4. Frederic R. Howe, “The Christian Life in Peter’s Theology,” Bibliotheca Sacra 157, no. 627 (July 2000): 306–07.
5. David F. Wright, “A Race Apart? Jews, Gentiles, Christians,” Bibliotheca Sacra 160, no. 368 (April 2003): 128.
6. Tylor, Primitive Culture, 1.
7. Newbigin, The Other Side of 1984, 5.

Related posts:

1. Are NT “Race”-related Terms Equivalent to “Culture”?
2. Are NT “World”-related Terms Equivalent to “Culture”?
3. On racism, ethnicity, and culture
4. The Missional Philosophy of Culture
5. The Missional Church and Culture

A third powerful shaping influence on a child’s imagination is a family’s routines. Deuteronomy 6:7 says,

“You shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, when you walk by the way, when you lie down, and when you rise up.”

Here God tells Israel that their teaching and talking about loving God (vv4-5) must take place when they sit in the house, and when they walk by the way, when they lie down and when they rise up. On one level, God is simply pointing out how this discipling relationship must take place formally and informally, indoors and outdoors. But in another way, God’s words suggest the rhythm and routine of life. When you sit in the house is the time of day when you are at home; when you walk by the way is the time of day when you go out. When you lie down is the time of day when you sleep; when you rise up is the time of day when you wake from your sleep. Here is a suggestion of a cycle of events, a routine, a rhythm of life – getting up in the morning, going out, coming back, lying down to sleep. Not only are you to teach about loving God routinely, but your routine itself communicates something. Your daily, weekly, monthly, and even yearly routine teaches your family about ultimate dependence, ultimate devotion, and ultimate love.

For the Israelite, his daily routine involved reciting the Shema in the morning and in the evening. When he ate his meals, his restricted diet reminded him to put a difference between the holy and the common and he thought on God. When he worked the land, there were laws regarding the animals, laws regarding sowing, tilling and reaping, which caused him to think on God. If he went to transact business, there were laws about money and equity. When he went home, there were laws about ritual cleanness. Once a week, he was to cease work, for God’s sake.

And if he was anywhere near the Tabernacle, or later, the Temple, he would have seen a routine: a burnt offering twice daily, and a meal offering twice daily – one in the morning, and one in the evening – when the day’s activity began and when it ceased. There would have been a sacrifice every Sabbath, and a sacrifice at the beginning of each month. There were sacrifices at the special feasts of Passover, Pentecost, Day of Atonement, and Tabernacles. He was to go to the Tabernacle or Temple three times a year.

What did this routine communicate to him? God is at the centre of life. God is the ultimate reality. God is the One we love ultimately, because He is ultimate reality.

This is the opposite of secularism which tries to sideline God to the margins of life, relegating Him to a once-a-week appearance. Secularism has a daily routine in which God is essentially invisible, and practically irrelevant. Secularism has a routine which suggests that God does not matter. Many children grow up in ‘Christian’ homes that are practically secular. The routine reflects nothing of the idea that God is that family’s ultimate love.

A New Testament Christian does not exist under the same code as the Israelite. Jesus told us to abide in Him as He abides in us. The word abide just means to dwell, to live. We are to live in Him: live in His presence continually. When His words abide in us, and we are living before Him and in light of Him, then our  routines ought to have Him as the ultimate reality behind all we do.  These routines either have God present when you lie down, rise up, sit in the house or walk by the way or they do not.

Consider your home. How does each day typically begin? Is there anything of God in it? One of the Jewish traditions on Pentecost was to bring the children in early in the morning, and put honey on their tongues just before reading the Scriptures. Does the day start with some kind of reading of the Word and prayer? Is there some equivalent of the morning sacrifice?

What is the habit around mealtimes, particularly dinnertime? Who is honoured for providing – which is, after all, why Dad was out all day – working hard so that God would be pleased to bless the home with provision. What is discussed at the table?

What kind of music routinely plays in the background? What sort of movies or TV programmes routinely play on the screen? Is the tenor of life one of distraction, or one of reflection?

How does the day end? Is there anything of God in it? Is there perhaps some family worship, some thanksgiving prayers before bedtime, or some music played which reflects or reveals or praises God? Is there some equivalent of the evening sacrifice?

When the days of rest come around, what is the routine then? Critically, what are the weekly habits of the family when the local church meets? Too many parents miss the fact that regular worship teaches those little hearts through the routine itself. When an adult Christian remembers that ‘we didn’t miss a service’, he is not remembering the glorious preaching. He is remembering a rhythm of life that demonstrated God’s centrality to that family.

What is repeated over and over again is learnt, memorized, internalized, and usually, prioritized. The habits of your home become a kind of rhythm that your children learn to get in step with. Routines say, this is important. This is necessary. This is essential. Routines are a picture of what the cycles of life revolve around. 

If we want our children to believe that the most important thing in life is a reconciled relationship with God, then we need to think about our rising up, going out, coming in, and lying down.

© 2012, David de Bruyn. All rights reserved.

Related posts:

1. The Analogy of Family Roles
2. The Analogy of Parental Piety

Hailing from Alexandria, the formative years of his youth were spent amidst the horrible persecution of Christians instigated by Diocletian. Athanasius wrote the book under consideration here in 318, was present as a deacon at the Council of Nicaea, and became the bishop of Alexandria three years later. He would hold this post, though exiled a few times, until his death in 373. Small in stature, he was great in soul, with an unwearied commitment to defend the true Christian faith.

On the Incarnation was not written in the heat of battle against false teaching. Rather, it was written for a new convert named Macarius to instruct him in the fundamentals of the faith. It is, according to Athansius, “a brief statement of the faith of Christ and of the manifestation of his Godhead to us. This will give you a beginning, and you must go on to prove its truth by the study of the Scriptures.”¹ Athanasius wrote the book to teach that “the renewal of creation has been made by the Self-same Word Who made it in the beginning.”

So I recommend this book to you as a worthwhile doctrinal and practical help to your Christian faith. What is more precious to us as believers than Jesus Christ our Lord? Who among us could not benefit from deeper meditation upon his person and work?

But not only do I recommend On the Incarnation for doctrinal reasons, I recommend it as well as a basic Christian worldview book. The theological disputants of the fourth century were well aware that what they believed about the person of Christ and what they believed about the Trinity were roots from which grew their entire worldview, to use a modern term. As Khaled Anatolios states, “The question that gets closer to the heart of the fourth-century debates is how Christ’s primacy informs the Christian faith as a whole, and, in particular, the Christian understanding of absolute divine transcendence.”²

At the heart of every society is the question, “How does man relate to God (or, if you like, the divine)?” Every structured manner of human relation contains an implicit corollary to that question. What is reality like? How do we know it? How do we participate in it?

One of the deep assumptions of a conservative Christian mindset is that reality is not merely a matter of will. In contrast, a liberal mindset tends to conceive that social reality is constructed by will, whether it is a social contract theory or a pro-choice position on abortion. Throughout his life, Athanasius contended that the Word was not merely a product of the Father’s will but was begotten of the Father. There is a unity of being in the Trinity and not merely a unity of willing. This single fact is momentous in its consequences.

The more the biblical doctrine of God and Christ, hammered out and tested in manifold ways over the course of church history, crashes upon us like a tidal wave, the better prepared we will be to worship him rightly, reverently, and gloriously, in keeping with his character.

You will not find Athanasius a perfect guide on all doctrinal matters, but this is to be expected. Many doctrinal issues had not yet come under intense scrutiny generated by controversy, so we do not see Athanasius speaking with the refinement that we would expect of someone writing today. Yet Athanasius is very important precisely because he does not speak as one writing today would. C. S. Lewis says it this way in his justly famous introduction to this work:

Every age has its own outlook. It is especially good at seeing certain truths and specially liable to make certain mistakes. We all, therefore, need the books that will correct the characteristic mistakes of our own period. And that means the old books….Not, of course, that there is any magic about the past. People were no cleverer then than they are now; they made as many mistakes as we. But not the same mistakes.

So take up and read On the Incarnation. You will be drawn to Christ, and you will be fortified to live faithfully in this present age.

© 2012, Jason Parker. All rights reserved.

Endnotes:

1. All quotations taken from the Popular Patristics Series edition of On the Incarnation (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1977).
2. Retrieving Nicaea: The Development and Meaning of Trinitarian Doctrine (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2011), 156.

Related posts:

1. Insights on the Incarnation, Ancient and Modern
2. Lesser-Known Incarnation Hymnody
3. Incarnation Hymnody: "Angels, from the Realms of Glory"
4. Lesser-Known Incarnation Hymnody – 2
5. Incarnation Hymnody: "Let All Mortal Flesh Keep Silence" and "Come, Thou Long-Expected Jesus"

All the problems of heaven and earth, though they were to confront us together and at once, would be nothing compared with the overwhelming problem of God…

The man who comes to a right belief about God is relieved of ten thousand temporal problems . . .but even if the multiple burdens of time may be lifted from him, the one mighty single burden of eternity begins to press down upon him with a weight more crushing than all the woes of the world piled one upon another. That mighty burden is his obligation to God.

The gospel can lift this destroying burden from the mind…[b]ut unless the weight of the 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.

~from Chapter One of The Knowledge of the Holy.

We hear quite a lot these days about the importance of the Gospel, on being Gospel-centered, on living Gospel-empowered lives, along with much on protecting and preserving the Gospel. I think this is a good thing–my own faith has been strengthened by such teaching. But Tozer here points out a component of the Gospel that may be frequently neglected; that is the hearer’s view of God.

I suspect we would agree that the revealing of Himself to an individual is ultimately God’s business. It is something He does or does not do for reasons known only to Him.

But God uses means. If we took some time, most of us could likely recall a parent, pastor, friend, or (as was the case with me) a professor, who, at key moments in our lives, impacted us toward a more profound and accurate understanding of who God is, thus magnifying the burden of our obligation to Him, and thereby ripening us for conversion.

Likewise we might all recall people who, although being in positions to so influence us, did not, or even influenced us away from such an understanding of God. To paraphrase an idea (the source of which I do not now recall), “One is always discipling those around him toward something.”

This is ought to cause us to soberly consider just how we influence others. Do people get the sense that our religion is more than rote exercise? Does our reverence toward God and His word help them understand the majesty of God? Or does our haphazard approach to family devotion or flippant use of scripture degrade the gospel to our children and students? Does the way we conduct corporate worship, despite the technical truth of what is said and sung, communicate to the congregation that God is not truly high and lifted up?

In what ways might we casually contribute to the destruction of the gospel?

© 2012, David Oestreich. All rights reserved.

Related posts:

1. A. W. Tozer on the Church in His Day
2. Defending the Gospel
3. Being Committed to the Gospel
4. Contextualizing the Gospel, Part 3 – The First Principles of the Gospel
5. Contextualizing the Gospel, Part 5 – The Power of the Gospel

The first is John 17:14-16:

I have given them your word, and the world [κόσμος] has hated them because they are not of the world [κόσμου], just as I am not of the world [κόσμου]. I do not ask that you take them out of the world [κόσμου], but that you keep them from the evil one. They are not of the world [κόσμου], just as I am not of the world [κόσμου].

Here κόσμος is being used to identify an ordered world-system. In this context it is not necessarily positive or negative; all that is indicated is that (1) Christ is not “of” it, (2) believers are not “of” it, but they are “in” it, and (3) the “evil one” is in some way related to it. While this seems to have a connection with the contemporary idea of culture, this ordered system includes the values and orientation that create culture but does not appear to identify culture itself.

A related passage is 1 John 2:15-17. Here κόσμος is treated decidedly negatively:

Do not love the world [κόσμον] or the things in the world [κόσμῳ]. If anyone loves the world [κόσμον], the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world [κόσμῳ]—the desires of the flesh and the desires of the eyes and pride of life—is not from the Father but is from the world [κόσμου]. And the world [κόσμος] is passing away along with its desires, but whoever does the will of God abides forever.

Barket notes that John uses κόσμος here far differently than he did in John 3:16: “Here, however, the world is presented as the evil system totally under the grip of the devil (cf. 1 John 5:19; John 12:31; 14:30). It is the ‘godless world’ (NEB), the world of ‘emptiness and evil,’ the world of enmity against God (James 4:4).”¹ Once again, however, this world-system does not appear to be the same thing as what anthropologists call culture. Not all of what mankind produces is godless, empty, or at enmity with God.

The final passage is Romans 12:2. This time the term in question is αἰών and once again this “world”-related term is treated negatively:

Do not be conformed to this world [αἰῶνι], but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect.

The term appears to be used nearly synonymously here with how John used κόσμος in John 14 and 1 John 2; it describes a world-system to which believers are not to be conformed. But once again, the term appears to signify an ordered system of values alienated from God rather than signifying culture itself as defined by anthropologists.

© 2012, Scott Aniol. All rights reserved.

Endnotes:

1. Frank E. Gaebelein, ed., The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Volume 12: Hebrews Through Revelation (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1981), 321.

Related posts:

1. Are NT “Race”-related Terms Equivalent to “Culture”?
2. Common Missional Definitions of Culture
3. "Culture touches upon the deepest things that a people believe about the world and about man's place in it."
4. The Missional Understanding of “Culture”
5. On racism, ethnicity, and culture

But let’s not allow the hollow platitudes of Claudius over King Hymnal’s death be permitted too quickly. David’s article suggests five good reasons for considering life support on the hymnal:

1. Hymnals identify a local congregation with the catholic (in a good sense) church.
2. Hymnals teach you how to worship from the example of the catholic church.
3. Hymnals are a collection of the church’s best devotional literature. Take them away, and we lose our best expressions of Christian piety.
4. Hymnals require deliberate selections from informed persons.
5. Hymnals include printed music which better facilitates an understanding of the whole business of worship.

These are good points, and I’d like to interact with and add to them.

On the first point, I’d add that hymnals that appropriately include the universal church’s songs demonstrate to us that our faith is one in a powerful way. I am not saying that there is some one feeling that makes Christianity what it is. In fact, quite the contrary. The hymns of the universal church demonstrate not just an affective response to Christian truth, but the Christian truth itself. I may have some important disagreements with Ambrose, but I can both the truth of his hymns and the affections he so well illustrates.  In so doing, good hymnals show us that we today in the 21st century do, in fact, share a “mystic sweet communion with those whose rest is won.” We ought not be parochial, and hymnals help protect us from this.

I want to add to the second point that if or when hymnals really do begin to disappear, it will be a sad day for the church. There is a sense in which we pass along what we know. We have been characterized by not knowing enough hymns of the church. If it were not for printed hymnals, I’d never know hymns “off the reservation” like If Thou But Suffer God to Guide Thee; Whate’er My God Ordains is Right; Christ Jesus Lay in Death’s Strong Bands; Jesus, I Will Ponder Now; Come, Thou Redeemer of the Earth; All My Heart this Night Rejoices; and Behold the Great Creator Makes. The list goes on.

My point is that I didn’t get these hymns from our parts of the Christian world. I picked them up from other hymnals. If those other hymnals were not published, or ceased from being easily obtained and devoured by young great-old-hymn-addicts like me, then I’d probably never know about them. I don’t buy for a moment that if hymnals were to die these hymns would be still available. The internet doesn’t work like that. Anyone who has tried to serious work and research on the Internet knows how monolithic and stilted it is. The internet gives the appearance of an expanse of information (thanks to Google’s marketing, I suppose), but it is more often than not a mere house of mirrors.¹ The best resources are not available on the Internet easily. And if we stop producing hymnals–if tomorrow no other hymnal was ever produced–many hymns would all but vanish from Christian use. Even when a Christian is exposed to only one hymnal, he can more easily find the lost treasures never sung in it as he flips through it before the prayer service some Wednesday night during some momentary down time. Flipping through the hymnal is easier than flipping through the hymnary.org. The Christian tradition of devotion to God would be hindered, and this would not be a good development. I am not arguing here that great hymns would in fact vanish, but that finding them would become much more difficult, especially in evangelical traditions where hymnody has soured and curdled, and that’s the majority of evangelical traditions. This point could be developed further, but I have to leave it there in the interest of time.

David’s third point is exactly right. If hymnals were taken away, the family worship in our church’s families would be stilted. Take hymnals away, and it is even more difficult to pass down widely our tradition.

And I think the fourth point, about the value of hymnal editors and their selections is probably David’s strongest. Now, I have serious antipathy toward most the hymnal editors in the popular American evangelical “tradition.” Hymnal editors, who have a serious obligation before God to give the faithful the best diet of Christian song available, have been too often driven by market forces. Hymnals, they think, have to sell. As a result, I was for a long time cheated of the best hymns in the Christian tradition in exchange for songs like “In the Garden” and “I’ve Got a Mansion.” This mindset is kind-of like the seeker-sensitive mentality applied to what is for most Christians nearly the second most important book. Woe to us! We have traded the best for what is most easily sold. (Let the reader consider.) Of course, I do not speak universally, and I do not indict casually. But editing hymnals is a most serious and high obligation with severe responsibilities. And we could be better at it. And, thanks be to God, not every hymnal is so captive by these motivating factors. But we simply do not have in slide shows and Internet searches the ability to edit and suggest a certain diet of Christian song in the same broad way a hymnal does. This would be the biggest problem if we all went to projectors tomorrow. The state of the church’s taste in matters of Christian song is at an all-time dearth. And now we want to take their four slides per Sunday, each slide being used four to five times per year, as the new canon of Christian hymnody? How would anyone ever find the greener pastures, if not for hymnals? Now it is the random searcher’s even more random mouse click that determines what’s in and what’s out. The blessing and the curse of hymnals is that there is an editor involved. Though, as I state above, this is not always a good thing, I’d take it above no informed editor at all. Say what you want about Hymns for the Family of God, at least it has “The God of Abraham Praise!”! We may have choice words for Soul-Stirring Songs and Hymns, but it still has “Come, Thou Almighty King”!

On David’s fifth point, I only add that Christians ought to be people who are serious about music and reading music and singing well. I’m reminded of the words of Jonathan Edwards:

Second, do you not live in sin, in living in the neglect of singing God’s praises? If singing praise to God be an ordinance of God’s public worship, as doubtless it is, then it ought to be performed by the whole worshipping assembly. If it be a command that we should worship God in this way, then all ought to obey this command, not only by joining with others in singing, but in singing themselves. For if we suppose it answers the command of God for us only to join in our hearts with others, it will run us into this absurdity, that all may do so. And then there would be none to sing, none for others to join with.

If it be an appointment of God, that Christian congregations should sing praises to him, then doubtless it is the duty of all. If there be no exception in the rule, then all ought to comply with it, unless they be incapable of it, or unless it would be a hindrance to the other work of God’s house, as the case may be with ministers, who sometimes may be in great need of that respite and intermission after public prayers, to recover their breath and strength, so that they may be fit to speak the word. But if persons be now not capable, because they know not how to sing, that doth not excuse them, unless they have been incapable of learning. As it is the command of God, that all should sing, so all should make conscience of learning to sing, as it is a thing which cannot be decently performed at all without learning. Those, therefore, who neglect to learn to sing, live in sin, as they neglect what is necessary in order to their attending one of the ordinances of God’s worship. Not only should persons make conscience of learning to sing themselves, but parents should conscientiously see to it, that their children are taught this among other things, as their education and instruction belongs to them.

If we need to learn to sing, it is a good thing for us to learn the customary method of reading music in our civilization. This is not a “cultural thing,” given the universality of Western notation and classical music (Bach Collegium of Japan, QED). We ought to sing our best for the glory of God. Part of singing our best is learning to sing well. And so the broader culture of music ought to be something we as believers are generally accustomed with. Because of our interest in song for the glory of God, I believe that Christian churches ought to be above all one of the places where the heritage of singing music well is passed down. As David de Bruyn cautioned, this does not mean that reading music is  necessary for vital Christian piety, but only to say that it really helps, and, broadly speaking, an ability to read music ought to be a part of our culture. And we don’t do well, I don’t think, to remove those alleged “distracting elements” (i.e., musical notation) from our corporate worship. Truth be known, I find it nearly always distracting to be asked to sing a song, the (rather quaint) tune of which I do not know, from seeing the words only. This simply does not work. And I find that I make mistakes in singing the tune even after repetition. Not so with printed music. In that sense, it’s much less distracting.

In conclusion, I want to add one more point to David’s. I think hymnals ought to be preserved over projected texts for at least one more reason. I believe that it is not healthy for the church today to be so enslaved to technology. Christians are bombarded by technology at every turn (keep in mind that I say this as I write on my laptop while listening to streaming Haydn via Spotify connected by Bluetooth to my stereo). Technology is not a bad thing, but I don’t think we’ve yet got a handle on how to use it wisely. For that reason, I think we ought to be very cautious about implementing it in our services and on our facilities. In a certain sense, I think it is an important thing for a church to exercise great discernment with how it uses technology. Just because we can doesn’t mean that we should. And for this reason, I think it behooves us to use projected songs very cautiously. It communicates that we rush in like fools where angels fear to tread. I appreciate the church with whom I worship, for technology is sparingly used. It has become for me a much needed break from the world of ever advancing and attention-consuming technology. It reminds me that God is eternal, and not bound by the latest trends. Yes, we use technology (lighting, microphones, speakers, a powered organ, heat, cooling, etc). No, I am not a Luddite. But I appreciate a congregation of believers where the latest, most cutting-edge technology is not Lord. Our services can easily continue, whether or not there’s power.

Clearly, all of this is a matter of wisdom. But I’m with David. I’ll keep my hymnal.

© 2012, Ryan Martin. All rights reserved.

Endnotes:

1. I know this is a debatable point, but I believe it is defensible.

Related posts:

1. Thanks, But I’ll Keep My Printed Hymnal
2. "God, I am praying because I know I should, but the truth is I do not want to pray. I am bored with the whole thing!"
3. A Hymnal endorsing the worship of Ra?

However, the family unit is far more than a set of exemplars of piety. The family is also a collection of living symbols. The home is an extended role-play, and an ongoing metaphor. Each member plays a role, and with that role comes corresponding relationships. These roles have analogues in ultimate reality. Husband, wife, father, mother, and child take on particular roles that illustrate invisible, moral realities.

In the home, the children observe this role-play for more or less twenty years. Though the mundanity of life hides it, family is teaching the children about ultimate reality. It is teaching about authority, and how it should be exercised. It is teaching about obedience and disobedience, the reasons for obedience, and the consequences of obedience and disobedience. It is teaching about love: that there are different degrees of love, and different kinds of love. It is teaching about gospel realities: sin, righteousness, sacrifice, service, grace and mercy, forgiveness, and trust.

Before your child has pronounced the word “God”, he has an idea of authority. Before your child has ever heard about hell, she has learned whether or not selfishness has negative consequences. Before your children have ever memorized John 3:16, they have observed some kind of love in the home.

Two areas are of particular importance to the religious imagination: the portrayal of the loving authority of God which inspires and expects both obedience and reverence, and the portrayal of the sovereign grace that both nourishes and cherishes the beloved. In other words, children need a vision of both God’s greatness and His goodness, His transcendence and His immanence.

Fathers (and mothers) aim to be pictures of a God who rules justly and fairly, but regards rebellion as a deep perverseness that must not be allowed to continue unchecked. The kind of obedience  God expects from us (immediate, cheerful, wholehearted) is the kind fathers aim to inspire and expect. Likewise, the father in particular wants to be a picture of a God to be revered, honored and esteemed and who regards irreverence with the same deep concern. The kind of respect which a child will show to his Ultimate Authority must at least begin in seed-form with his honoring of his parents (and I might add, his grandparents, pastors, teachers, policemen, governors, and so forth). And, we hasten to add, there is a kind of deportment that inspires reverence  (Tis 2:2-3). Ideally, children will see a model of submission and reverence when they behold their mother in her role as a wife (Eph 5:22, 33).

Mothers (and fathers) aim to be pictures of a God who seeks to sacrificially meet the needs of those He loves, and regards them as precious. This nourishing and cherishing is to be true of husbands towards wives, and of fathers and mothers toward children (Eph 5:29, 1 Thes 2:7, 11). For that matter, biblical masculinity and femininity are more than biological realities or practical arrangements, they are shadows of unseen truths. When rightly lived out, children see copies of the true (Heb 9:24).

Shelves have been filled with books written on how Christian parents are to go beyond dealing with mere outward behavior, and aim instead for the child’s beliefs and heart desires. These books commendably exhort child-training to push a child to the gospel itself. Let us push further. Our goal is more than acquaintance with the facts of the gospel. It is for our children to imagine all the realities connected to the gospel properly, and to feel rightly towards those realities.

If we do our best to be obedient to the biblical roles in the power of the Holy Spirit, we fill our homes with something quite extraordinary: an ongoing, albeit imperfect, picture of the Creator who rules, but who also redeems and restores. Once again, children will learn not just that they are commanded to love God, but that loving God is good. They learn that if a relationship with Christ is like their parents’ marriage, then loving God is desirable. If God cares for them like their mother, then it is safe trusting God wholeheartedly. If God is as just and strict as their parents, then they need their sins forgiven. If God is a Father like their father, then they owe Him deep and joyful respect.

Preachers’ hyperbolic statements about Satan’s intentions to destroy the family are probably not far off the mark. To ruin the analogy is to ruin the child’s chance of picturing ultimate reality properly, robbing him of a right view of the gospel’s realities. To give a fairly appropriate portrayal of who God is, what He is like, what obstructs knowing Him, and how we come to know Him is to provide, in the words of J. Gresham Machen, favorable conditions for the reception of the gospel, which the Spirit may be pleased to use.

© 2012, David de Bruyn. All rights reserved.

Related posts:

1. The Analogy of Parental Piety
2. Transmitting Imagination to our Children
3. The Imagination and Knowledge
4. A Call to Family Worship
5. The Family Worship Book

In an era of affordable projectors, Powerpoint and similar software, surely insisting upon hymnals is like insisting on horse-drawn buggies for transport or quills for pens?   What conceivable reason could there be for putting expensive, bulky, hardcover books into the hands of individuals, who will sing into them and not out, instead of a clear, colorful presentation that results in everyone looking up and forward, and probably singing louder? I suggest five reasons.

1) When you hold a hymnal in your hands, you hold something of your Christian heritage. A good hymnal has hymns spanning the ages, from the first centuries into the present.  In a balanced hymnal, there will be hymns from Christians of all stripes – Church Fathers, medieval mystics and monks, Reformers, Puritans, Methodists, Presbyterians, Baptists, Moravians, and so forth. Importantly, these contributions are found in one place. The physical nature of a hymnal has the effect of communicating a collection of the work of the church triumphant. Since a projection is not a collection (except on the laptop), it cannot convey this sense, or communicate that collective heritage. When you pick up a hymnal, you identify with the church triumphant, and you sing her experience into yours.

2) When you hold a good hymnal in your hands, you are holding the distilled affective responses of hundreds, if not thousands, of believers. A hymnal is more than a songbook; it is a record, a testimony of how Christians collectively have responded to the various truths of the Christian life. Thumb through a hymnal, and it will usually be organised according to themes: God, Christ, the Spirit, the Church, Salvation, Heaven, Submission and Trust, and so forth. A hymnal is not systematic theology, it is doxological theology – the testimony of the church’s affections. With a hymnal in hand, one can peruse how the church has responded to these various truths, and compare it with contemporary responses. Certainly, you could do that by clicking through your collection  on your PC, but most of the parishioners don’t have access to that.  The sense of cohesive, collective Christian sentiment is profoundly weakened when Christians only access a few slides a week, one slide at a time.

3) A good hymnal remains the best devotional literature we have. Hymnals grow, stretch and shape one’s affections beyond what they would be if the choice is simply that of remembering a likable song and Googling it. Devotional literature is formative. Certainly devotional “literature” does not have to be printed, and can make use of the many gadgets available to us, but once again, at least the defined collection contained within a hymnal helps the church, family or individual to not be blown to and fro by every wind of competing Christian songs.  Every Christian should have a hymnal (or several) to have at home for personal and family worship. The Reformers fought and died for the privilege of singing to God in your own language in a hymnal you could read.  Hymns ought to be contemplated, understood, and sung to the Lord outside of church gatherings. At the very least, when hymnals are entirely replaced by projections, this becomes more unlikely.

4) Since hymnals require more time and money to produce, there is at least the possibility that the editors of those hymnals will sift through the chaff to include the very best of Christian hymnody. While every hymnal represents some theological bias, it at least represents a kind of canon, a settled standard of Christian hymnody in the eyes of its editors, from which a congregation can select appropriate hymns. On the other hand, a collection on a PC or laptop can be edited as quickly (and whimsically) as the laptop-owner desires. Copy and paste, or select-delete. Forget about the consensus of the ages; a mouse-click and a song is in or out.

5) And yes, hymnals still contain musical notation, unlike most projections. No, musical education is not the sole goal of corporate worship, and arguments in favor of musical education in church hardly make such a point. The point is simply that the more we understand what we are doing, the more meaningful the worship, and the better we can judge if what we are offering is appropriate. The more we understand the significance of the whole deal – the music as well as the lyrics – the more we are able to offer that sacrifice of praise. (Having spent a bit of time in Taiwan, when I see the bare lyrics on a screen, I can’t shake the association that the music is a backing track for my personal Christian karaoke. That’s probably just me, so pay no heed.) Since we believe the music itself has a message, and is inseparable from the lyrics, it seems to me that only printed music properly communicates this relationship.

No, you don’t need to be literate to understand the Bible, and obey God. But it sure helps when you are. No, you don’t need to be able to read music to sing sincerely and worship God in song. But it sure helps when you can.

I am not saying that churches that use only projections aim to produce musical illiteracy, ignorance of historical Christian sentiment, radical devotional eclecticism, chronological snobbery, or devotional impoverishment. I am saying that given the needs of the hour, I’m keeping my printed hymnal.

© 2012, David de Bruyn. All rights reserved.

Related posts:

1. A Hymnal endorsing the worship of Ra?

The first grouping includes terms translated with the English words “race,” “tribe,” “nation,” “people” or “languages.” These ideas are probably the most commonly cited by missional authors who are seeking to imply cultural neutrality. For example, Driscoll equates “race,” “nation,” and “culture,” alluding to Revelation 7:9 when he insists that “God promised that people from every race, culture, language, and nation will be present to worship him as their culture follows them into heaven.”¹

The term representative of this group that Christian anthropologists mostly cite is ἔθνος (ethnos). For example, in commenting on the Matthew 28:16-20, Christian cultural anthropologists Paris and Howell say that “the word translated ‘nations’ here (ethnos) refers to the culture of a people, an ethnic group.”² They directly equate ἔθνος with culture and insist that “cultural anthropology helps us fulfill the Great Commission by preparing Christians to go to all ethnē and speak and live effectively.”³ Additionally, the popularity of terms such as “enthnodoxology” among missional worship advocates reveals the assumption that this NT term proves the necessity of a multicultural approach to worship.

Of the 164 times it appears in the NT, the ESV translates ἔθνοςas “Gentile” 96 times, “nation” 68 times, “pagans” three times, and “people” two times. Lexicons⁴ define the term as “a multitude (whether of men or of beasts) associated or living together, . . . a multitude of individuals of the same nature or genus, . . . a race, nation, people group,”⁵ or even specifically link it to the idea of culture: “a people, a large group based on various cultural, physical or geographic ties.”⁶ Lexicons do not define ἔθνος as culture itself, however, but rather identify culture as one element that unites an ἔθνος, as in Bullinger, who defines the term as “a number of people living together bound together by like habits and customs; then generally people, tribe, nation, with reference to the connection with each other rather than the separation from others by descent, language or constitution.”⁷

Therefore, the term is used to designate groups of people who identify with common values. Cultural anthropologists assume that NT authors use ἔθνος as a parallel to “culture,” yet this correspondence falls outside the common usage of the term. An ἔθνος may be united by shared culture, but it is not the same as culture. Hiebert agrees: “Nation (ethnos) means a community of people held together by the same laws, customs, and mutual interests.”⁸ The term refers to the group of people, not to the culture around which the group unites.

We’ll look at a second possibility next week.

© 2012, Scott Aniol. All rights reserved.

Endnotes:

1. Driscoll, Radical Reformission, 100.
2. Paris and Howell, Introducing Cultural Anthropology, 23.
3. Ibid.
4. While lexical definitions of terms are helpful in determining their meaning and use in the NT, it is important to recognize that authors of lexicons themselves often fall prey to contemporary reorientation of ideas. This is especially a potential problem in this area of cultural neutrality. If authors of a lexicon have been influenced enough by cultural anthropology such that they embrace each of its conclusions about culture and race, their definitions of terms such as ἔθνος may reflect a colored interpretation. Vern Polythress exposes this very sort of influence in “How Have Inclusiveness and Tolerance Affected the Bauer-Danker Greek Lexicon of the New Testament (BDAG)?” (JETS 46:4 [Dec 2003]: 574-587). He argues that differences in the third edition of BDAG from previous editions “raise questions about political influence on lexical description” (574). Danker himself addresses the issue in the preface of the third edition:

   Also of concern are respect for inclusiveness and tolerance. But a scientific work dare not become a reservoir for ideological pleading, and culture-bound expressions must be given their due lest history be denied its day in court. It is an undeniable fact that God is primarily viewed patriarchally in the Bible, but translation must avoid exaggeration of the datum. “Brother” is a legitimate rendering of many instances of the term ἀδελψός, but when it appears that the term in the plural includes women (as in a letter to a congregation) some functional equivalent, such as “brothers and sisters,” is required (BDAG, viii).

   However, Danker clearly begins with an a priori acceptance of the contemporary anthropological notion of culture when he speaks of “culture-bound expressions,” and Polythress reveals several examples where political correctness influences changes in definitions. This is why although the lexical definitions are helpful, investigation into the contextual uses of each term is also very important in determining their range of meaning.

5. James Strong, The Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible: Showing Every Word of the Text of the Common English Version of the Canonical Books, and Every Occurrence of Each Word in Regular Order, Together with Dictionaries of the Hebrew and Greek Words of the Original, with References to the English Words (Hendrickson, 2004).
6. James Swanson, Dictionary of Biblical Languages With Semantic Domains: Greek (New Testament) (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, 1997).
7. Ethelbert William Bullinger, A Critical Lexicon and Concordance to the English and Greek New Testament: Together with an Index of Greek Words, and Several Appendices (London: Longmans Green, 1908), 316.
8. D. Edmond Hiebert, First Peter (Chicago: Moody Press, 1984), 134.

Related posts:

1. On racism, ethnicity, and culture
2. The Historical Development of “Culture”
3. The Missional Understanding of “Culture”
4. Common Missional Definitions of Culture
5. The Missional Church and Culture

Private and public worship are not the same. There is a difference between the regular, ordinary times of worship for a gathered group of Christians organized as a church and the irregular times of worship personally, in our homes as families, and with other groups of Christians. The former is what we call public worship. The latter times fall under the category private worship. Both categories are essential parts of genuine Christian piety. Many American Christians these days overemphasize the private worship, almost to the point where they believe it more important to public worship. In some cases, private worship becomes so emphasized that public worship becomes unnecessary or even, in a certain sense, evil. It is not uncommon to find people today who believe that the heart of Christianity is worshiping by yourself, with just you and your heart and your God. Above and beyond that, it really doesn’t matter what you do. In fact (they allege), public worship tends toward hypocrisy and vain repetition, causing people to worship God only with their lips while their heart is far from him.

For many of the readers of the Religious Affections blog, perhaps this kind of reasoning seems preposterous. It is, but that does not prevent Christians from embracing it, despite the overwhelming testimony of Scripture.

In this series of posts, I have been arguing, to the contrary, not only that public worship is essential, but it is actually more important than private worship.¹ This does not mean that private worship is unimportant or unhelpful to our growth in the grace of Christ. But I believe that public worship ought to get our emphasis, as there are a host of reasons why it is more important than private worship.

The sixth reason public worship is better than private worship is that it is more fitting for believers that our spiritual growth happens in a congregation than for it to happen individually. Put another way, the very fact that God created the church tells us that church is a very good thing, and something to be treasured. It is more fitting and beautiful for a host of Christians together to be growing together into greater conformity with the image of Christ, and this is exactly how God set it up. God instituted local churches for Christians’ spiritual benefit. God didn’t save you to sit alone edifying yourself. He had a better plan for our spiritual development, and so he instituted the regular gatherings of covenanted Christians to have a crucial role in the spiritual development of individual believers. Ephesians 4:7-16.

God has commanded us to worship him for at least two reasons. First and foremost, he is most worthy of worship. God does not need our worship as if there is some kind of deficiency in God. God is independent and free, and is by no means dependent upon us for his glory and self-satisfaction. But it is fitting for us, as a lowly dependent creatures who know of God and his works to declare the truth of that glory and our thanksgiving to God for all that he has done for and given to us. Just as it is fitting for us to praise things that delight us, it is fitting for us to declare the praise of God. The second reason God has commanded us to worship him, and more appropriate to the discussion here, is that worshiping God benefits our soul. The Triune God has appointed to worship, not only because he is due our worship, but because our worshiping the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit helps us grow spiritually. (Incidentally, this is one of the reasons why we should take heed to worship God in the manner in which he instructs us. He knows better how those elements of worship will benefit us.)

The seventh reason public worship is better than private worship is the worship of your local church supersedes that of other gatherings, even of Christians, in that there you can have more confidence that those present resonate with you in your confession and doctrinal beliefs. Sacred concerts can be very helpful. Conferences can be very encouraging. But if I go to some Christian concert somewhere else, I cannot be as confident that I share with those people the same beliefs about God, Jesus, the Spirit, the Bible, the church, and salvation (just to name a few). Even at a Christian camp, I could never be as sure. I love worshiping with those at my local church, because there I know many believe the same as I do, because so many have confessed their adherence to the statement of faith. There is a much sweeter union in Jesus Christ that I share with those at my local church than I share elsewhere. This too, points to the primacy of public worship, especially set against other irregular times of Christian gatherings.

© 2012, Ryan Martin. All rights reserved.

Endnotes:

1. First, the New Testament emphasizes corporate worship. Second, the praise of the congregation is better. Third, public worship is better planned and organized. Fourth, the preaching in public worship is better suited to help you see deficiencies in your Christian life. Fifth, Christians sing more in public worship.

Related posts:

1. Is corporate worship better than private worship? (Part 3)
2. Is corporate worship better than private worship? (Part 2)
3. Is corporate worship better than private worship? (Part 1)
4. A Philosophy of Corporate Worship – Part 1 « spaces between the silence
5. A Philosophy of Corporate Worship – Part 2 « spaces between the silence