Men's Bible study circle this morning at 7 totaled 10. That's a lot for a 4 person round table! After last week's run-up to Jesus in Luke, and the week before in Matthew, we took John's perspective. The big words and subtle meanings seem to speak to a specialized and knowledgeable audience, probably ones able to read and write.
On the subject of literacy, among the disciples probably only Matthew (tax agent) and Thomas would be most educated and literate. Of course, too, Jesus was considered a rabbi, whether formally credentialed in the Old Testament, or not.
Whereas the synoptic gospels of M, M, L are descriptive of the events, John goes beyond this to weigh the significance of those events and interpret what they may mean to those who come later. So much of the annual cycle of church events dwells on the advent of the christ (Christmas season) and then the closing chapter (Easter season; passover/pesach), that the smooth flow of events before His time and after His time is out of focus. Yet this is when John is writing: very likely the religious and governmental authorities will have considered the hubbub disposed of with the execution of The Nazarene, but events continued to develop with followers of this rabbi growing in the hinterlands and in Jerusalem itself the Zealots were becoming bolder against the Roman authorities. Finally, the insurrection culminating with the massacre at Masada and the destruction of the Temple in A.D. 70 resulted in the end of Temple Judaism and rise of synagogue worship instead. So those Pharisees and Sagicees from the days of Jesus will have lost their prominence in the civil society of the time. In this setting John composed his gospel for learned readers and listeners.
Nov 29, 2011
Nov 25, 2011
worshipping outside one's routine church
Tuesday before Thanksgiving a neighboring church was this year's host to the annual Community Thanksgiving Worship Service.
Even though it is mainstream Protestant like the place I normally attend, the differences in music style, the order of service, and the community-pitched style (ecumenical) caused me to pause and briefly examine each novel element to the service.
It occurs to me now that the old question of Form versus Content is present here: while the experience of expressing praise and thanks to God should be the same anywhere, anytime, in fact our mortal minds dwell on the small things on of the surface details. Things like the meter and mode of music, the lighting of the worship space, how the mix of strangers and acquaintances are dressed and exhibit worhiping behaviors, the manner in which the clergy speak to the Word and to the congregants --all these things crowd the senses and distract from the purpose and the message. And so there is an good argument to be made for routine and familiarity that lets the mind concentrate instead on the message and work of expressing praise and thanks as unselfconsciously as possible. There is another interpretation of my estrangement experience in the flow of this ecumenical service in a space I've attended just a few times before. Instead of concluding that familiarity is a good thing; that Form should be subordinate to Content, the other lesson could be that it is precisely this comfortable routinization that we look for each Sunday. When things are routine, then we feel content and can refresh ourselves to face the next 6 days of the week. So which is it: we desire routine or we require routine in order to reach greater heights of spiritual wondering, growth and commitment? Perhaps both at the same time: comfort and challenge?
Even though it is mainstream Protestant like the place I normally attend, the differences in music style, the order of service, and the community-pitched style (ecumenical) caused me to pause and briefly examine each novel element to the service.
It occurs to me now that the old question of Form versus Content is present here: while the experience of expressing praise and thanks to God should be the same anywhere, anytime, in fact our mortal minds dwell on the small things on of the surface details. Things like the meter and mode of music, the lighting of the worship space, how the mix of strangers and acquaintances are dressed and exhibit worhiping behaviors, the manner in which the clergy speak to the Word and to the congregants --all these things crowd the senses and distract from the purpose and the message. And so there is an good argument to be made for routine and familiarity that lets the mind concentrate instead on the message and work of expressing praise and thanks as unselfconsciously as possible. There is another interpretation of my estrangement experience in the flow of this ecumenical service in a space I've attended just a few times before. Instead of concluding that familiarity is a good thing; that Form should be subordinate to Content, the other lesson could be that it is precisely this comfortable routinization that we look for each Sunday. When things are routine, then we feel content and can refresh ourselves to face the next 6 days of the week. So which is it: we desire routine or we require routine in order to reach greater heights of spiritual wondering, growth and commitment? Perhaps both at the same time: comfort and challenge?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)