Pics from “The Gathering 2008″ are now available in the gallery.  Check’em out!

In case you missed it… here’s some video from the gathering that someone posted on YouTube.   We’re doing Mighty to Save… Check it out!  It was an awesome time of worshipping together and praying for the church in Ottawa.  I’ll post more pics soon.

I hope to see you all at The Gathering - Saturday Oct. 25 at Scotiabank Place.  It’s my privilege to lead worship at this year’s event.  All the final preparations are being made and we’re looking forward to a great night of worshipping God and praying for the needs of our region.

I hope to see you there!

I’m reading “Beholding the Glory” by Johnathon Begbie. It is a collection of essays on art and incarnational theology. Here are my thoughts on Trevor Hart’s opening essay:

Hart discusses three philosophical views of art.

• Plato held the view that there existed a realm of perfect, eternal, unchanging forms. Anything that existed in the material world was therefore a corrupted copy of one of these forms. Art, therefore, was a further corruption, being a copy of a copy.
• R.G. Collingwood (1889-1943) viewed art as a medium for communicating a concept from the artistic imagination of the artist to the imagination of the observer of the art. In his view the physical medium of the art itself is almost a nuisance.
• Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) developed a view similar to Collingwoods in that the purpose of the physical medium of the art is to affect the observer’s sensibility. The physical art (sound waves, colors, sculpted clay, etc) are of no value in and of themselves – it is the effect that counts.

All of these views favour the non-material world over the material world. The point of Begbie’s book is that the Incarnation – the “enfleshing” of God in the person of Jesus repudiates any such dualistic view. Both physical and spiritual worlds are inseparably combined and both are “good”

How does a dualistic view of art affect how we worship? I think the view of worship as a hyper-spiritual escape from the physical world results from this error in thinking. Our worship must be incarnational – embracing both the physical and spiritual worlds together – in song, action, word, bread and wine.

Sure, Lego robotics can play the blues, but can it feel the blues?

Hey, IWS (where I’m currently finishing up my Master’s degree) got some props from Worship Leader magazine:

ROBERT E. WEBBER INSTITUTE FOR WORSHIP STUDIES CHOSEN AS “BEST OF THE BEST”

Theological graduate school makes magazine’s 2008 Editor’s Pick in worship education

ORANGE PARK, Fla- In the October 2008 issue of Worship Leader Magazine, The Robert E. Webber Institute for Worship Studies (IWS) was featured as one of the top educational programs that influenced Christian worship in the past calendar year.  The designation was awarded by the Worship Leader editorial team and listed in the “Buyer’s Guide: Best of the Best” issue.

IWS was the only degree granting institution to be honored by the publication, which cited its equipping of “pastors and music leaders alike with unique graduate level programs in worship studies.”

IWS President James R. Hart commented, “IWS is honored to receive the Worship Leader Magazine 2008 Editor’s Pick designation.  This award honors the hard work and dedication of the students, alumni, faculty, board and staff of IWS, as well as Bob Webber’s rich legacy in worship education.”

Based in Orange Park, Florida, The Robert E. Webber Institute for Worship Studies is the only graduate school in North America to focus exclusively on worship education. It offers the Doctor of Worship Studies and the Masters of Worship Studies degree programs, using a unique mix of in-class instruction on its Florida campus and distance learning. Since its founding in 1998, over 200 students from more than 40 denominations in the U.S., Canada and eight other countries have graduated from the Institute for Worship Studies.

For more information about the Robert E. Webber Institute for Worship Studies, log on to www.iwsfla.org

Spoiler Alert!  If you haven’t read The Shack and don’t want things spoiled then read no further!

OK, I’ve finally read The Shack.  I certainly understand why this book has had such a huge impact on so many people.  But that doesn’t mean I liked it.  I didn’t.  The first thing that struck me in reading it was the heavily larded prose.  It just isn’t that well written.  It is riven with cliches as well.  Who edited this thing?  I realize it was published independently so perhaps there wasn’t a professional editor involved.

I think the most positive thing about the book is the way that it expands the view of God’s love for us.  For many readers it must be revolutionary to see how God’s love is portrayed.

I confess that I read the book quickly so here are my thoughts:

• How audacious of the author to put words in God’s mouth.  I much prefer C.S. Lewis’ approach in Narnia of constructing a complete fantasy world and working through the allegory of Aslan.  However instead we have the three persons of the Trinity bantering back and forth in dialogue that is very ordinary.  A whole lot of saying how much they love each other and people and then laughing.  Ummmm I kind of expected that they’re dialogue would be a little more compelling, what with being God and all.
• The book is very anti-authority.   We learn that all authority and hierarchy are results of the fall and that there will be no hierarchy in heaven.  Ummmm… Is that really true? I guess so, since God said it.
• The book is pretty weak on the importance of Scripture.  Scripture makes only a few appearances in the book and is never quoted by Papa, Jesus or Sarayu (unless I missed something, if so, please correct me).   In fact Mack’s only encounter with scripture has him falling asleep after reading a few verses.

The most maddening thing for me is the weaselly equivocating that Young does.  For instance:  On page 182 “Jesus” says “Those who love me come from every system that exists.  They were Buddhists or Mormons, Baptists or Muslims, Democrats, Republicans, and many who don’t vote or are not part of any Sunday morning or religious institutions… I have no desire to make them Christian, but I do want to join them in their transformation into sons and daughters of my Papa, into my brothers and sisters, into my beloved.”

AHA!  This is a smoking gun!  Willian P. Young is a universalist!  Right?  Not so fast.  In the next line Mack asks “Does that mean that all roads will lead to you?”  Jesus replies “Not at all. Most roads don’t lead anywhere.  What it does mean is that I will travel any road to find you.”

OK… so Young isn’t universalist.  Or is he?  You just can’t tell.  It is so ambiguous that you can read anything you want into it, except perhaps traditional orthodoxy.  I mean, what are we supposed to think about Jesus not wanting to make people Christians?  Or that some people who love Jesus used to be Baptist?  Does that mean you can’t be Baptist any more if you start loving Jesus? Passages like the one I’ve described are a blank screen upon which you can project anything.  This is one example of the “blank screening” (or deconstructing) that Young does. Scripture, the Church and morality receive similar treatments.  It is maddening because you cannot agree or disagree and you can only guess what the author really thinks.  It is intellectually having your cake and eating it too.

Anyway, sorry to be such a buzzkill for everyone out there who loved the book.  I think it’s great strenght is showing power and dept of God’s love in the midst of tragedy.  Unfortunately when it strays from that it misses the mark badly.  I think if the book is harmless and possibly helpful to some if it is read as a fable and not taken too seriously.

In honour of Thanksgiving – A tractor playing Sweet Georgia Brown.  Just because.

Here are more thoughts on Ancient-Future Worship.

Webber describes the two pronged approach that many of us are accustomed to when dealing with Scripture: The first prong is the literary and historical criticism approach which leads us to a defensive reading of the Bible.  With his approach we put the Bible under the scrutiny of evidentiary practices to prove that it is true.  Webber suggests that this approach misses the point of the scripture as God’s narrative.  Rather than using subjecting scripture to this scrutiny we ought to read scripture from “within the story itself” and allow yourself to be transformed as you are caught up into God’s story.  This is quite a shift for a rational modern thinker like me!

The second prong is the experiential approach to Scripture.  “What does this say to me?” This approach can get dangerously close to total deconstruction of the scripture by abandoning the author’s intent and focusing only on self.  This approach allows one to take verses out of context and view them as separate from God’s grand narrative.  This also leads to an overly therapeutic hermeneutic (rhymes!) which reduces the power of scripture to that of a self-help book.

The antidote that Webber describes is to take the apostles and the ancients view of scripture.  To view it as a narrative in which we play a role, and allow that grand narrative of creation-incarnation-recapitulation to shape us.

Here’s a little sample of the CD release concert from last July: