Startling news from Rome

The Anchoress has the roundup: the Vatican has decided to respond to the influx of orthodox folk from the Anglican Communion by creating what amounts (as best as I can tell) to a new type of diocese, within which they’ll be able to keep the Anglican liturgy and married priests, under their own bishops. Indeed, it sounds like married Anglicans who convert to Catholicism within one of these “personal ordinariates” will be able to become priests, though it also appears that married priests will not be eligible to become bishops

.Major, major concessions by Rome in the interests of church unity, giving serious weight to the concerns and convictions of conservative Anglicans. The effects of this will bear watching.

Sticks, stones, and poisoned arrows

How great a forest is set ablaze by such a small fire! And the tongue is a fire, a world of unrighteousness. The tongue is set among our members, staining the whole body, setting on fire the entire course of life, and set on fire by hell. For every kind of beast and bird, of reptile and sea creature, can be tamed and has been tamed by mankind, but no human being can tame the tongue. It is a restless evil, full of deadly poison. With it we bless our Lord and Father, and with it we curse people who are made in the likeness of God. From the same mouth come blessing and cursing. My brothers, these things ought not to be so.

—James 3:5b-10 (ESV)

When you were young, and someone insulted you or made fun of you, did your parents tell you to say, “Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me”? You know, most pieces of folk wisdom, I can see where they came from, but I have no idea why that one showed up; whoever came up with that one must have been someone who never heard a negative word in their life—or who was too thick-skinned and thick-skulled to notice. Honestly, that’s the dumbest famous saying that ever got famous; to borrow a line from Mark Twain, it’s “the most majestic compound fracture of fact which any of woman born has yet achieved.” Granted the harm that sticks and stones can do, it’s generally a lot easier to heal the body than it is to heal the spirit, if only because we can see what we’re working with; and often, it’s a lot easier to wound the spirit than it is to wound the body. Sticks and stones can break my bones, but only words can break me.

This is why James describes the tongue so starkly—it’s a restless evil, a poisoned arrow, a small fire that can set the whole forest ablaze; but though we might find his picture bleak, it’s hard to argue with. Yes, we also say many good things, and yes, we do much good with our words; but as he says, with our tongues we bless God, and with the same tongues we curse those he made in his likeness, and that should not be. For all the good we may do, we can undo many good words with one ill one. Winston Churchill famously said that a lie can be halfway around the world before the truth has finished putting on its pants; or to go back to Twain again, “the history of our race, and each individual’s experience, are sown thick with evidences that a truth is not hard to kill, and that a lie well told is immortal.” We might also say that for many people, self-confidence is a fragile flower, but self-doubt is a weed; sow a few seeds of the latter in the garden of their soul, and they may take years to recover. It is far easier for us to speak evil powerfully than it is to speak good powerfully, just as it’s easier to roll a boulder down a mountainside than up it; this is why Shakespeare could write in Julius Caesar, “The evil that men do lives after them; the good is oft interred with their bones.”

(Excerpted, edited, from “A Greater Judgment”)

Christianity and the wild

My previous post, reflecting on some of the things I’ve read about Spike Jonze’ movie adaptation of Where the Wild Things Are, was largely sparked by Russell Moore’s post on the movie. Part of that was the paragraph I cited in that post, reflecting on what is good about the original book. Part of it too, though, was Dr. Moore’s comment about Christians who object to the movie on the grounds that it’s too scary—something which he seems to think (and I agree) is rooted in the tendency of so much of the church to sanitize our faith, and with it our worldview, to make it nice and safe.

I’m amazed though by the way some Christians react to things like this. They furrow their brow because the Max character screams at this mother, and bites her, even though this is hardly glorified in the movie. They wag their heads at how “dark” the idea of this wild world is. Of course it is “dark.” The universe is dark; that’s why we need the Light of Galilee.

Where the Wild Things Are isn’t going to be a classic movie the way it is a classic book. But the Christian discomfort with wildness will be with us for a while. And it’s the reason too many of our children find Maurice Sendak more realistic than Sunday school.

Too many of our Bible study curricula for children declaw the Bible, excising all the snakes and dragons and wildness. We reduce the Bible to a set of ethical guidelines and a text on how gentle and kind Jesus is. The problem is, our kids know there are monsters out there. God put that awareness in them. They’re looking for a sheep-herding dragon-slayer, the One who can put all the wild things under His feet.

Hallelujah! Amen.

Where are the wild things?

The first I heard that Spike Jonze was making a movie of Where the Wild Things Are was when David Kavanaugh (whose work I’ve posted on a bit here) raved to me about how great the trailer was, calling it the best thing he’d seen on film all year. It was a pretty good piece of work, though I didn’t think it quite merited the praise he gave it, but it didn’t do what a trailer is supposed to do: make me want to see the movie. Rather the opposite, actually, as it gave me significant misgivings about what Jonze, Dave Eggers et al. were doing with the book; it really didn’t look like a movie I wanted to see.

From the reviews and early reactions, it appears to me that—to steal a line from my brother-in-law (on the Lord of the Rings movies)—the movie is almost but not quite completely unlike Sendak, even if Maurice Sendak himself disagrees. Indeed, it sounds like the movie falls short in ways I didn’t even see coming; I would hardly have thought to find a reviewer writing,

Where the Wild Things Are ultimately is not wild enough. Despite their extraordinary costumes, these ordinary characters fail to transform Max’s journey into something approaching magic.

To be sure, as io9’s reviewer notes, “Spike Jonze is known for making uncomfortable films”; that was part of the reason for my misgivings (on an abstract level, I admire Being John Malkovich and Adaptation as conceptual exercises, but I can’t say I enjoyed either of them or have any desire whatsoever to rewatch them), but it’s not necessarily a bad thing. Some might think that a movie based on a children’s book ought to be a comfortable film, but I’m not among them, especially when it comes to this particular book. That same reviewer writes,

Wild Things is not a movie about a little boy who wants to be wild, traveling (in his fantasy, or via magic) to a strange land full of monsters who make him their king and let him be as wild as he wants, until he gets homesick. Rather, Wild Things is a movie about the terrors and insecurities of childhood, and the monsters we all have inside of us. It presents an unnerving portrait of childhood as a stormy, exhilarating time, in which play is intensely serious and important, and loneliness is the biggest nightmare of them all.

Insofar as that’s true, that’s a good thing, because that’s very much in line with what the book is about. The problem seems to be, though, that Jonze made a movie that’s adult in all the wrong ways; the io9 review perhaps has the best statement of the common complaint:

At times during the main body of the story, I felt like I was sitting on a particularly long therapy session in a group home, or a Seinfeld episode with fewer jokes.

What seems to be missing is an actual childlike perspective. I was struck by Russell Moore’s post on the movie, and particularly his analysis of why so many children love the book:

Children, it turns out, aren’t as naive about evil as we assume they are. Children of every culture, and in every place, seem to have a built-in craving for monsters and dragons and “wild things.” The Maurice Sendak book appeals to kids because it tells them something about what they intuitively know is true. The world around them is scary. There’s a wildness out there. The Sendak book shows the terror of a little boy who is frightened by his own lack of self-control, and who conquers it through self-control, by becoming king of all the wild things.

The problem, I think, is that too many adults “grow out” of that awareness of the wildness of the world—perhaps it fades as the common illusion of control, over our own lives and over the world around us, grows. Only adults can wax philosophical about how evil is an illusion and people are really basically good; children aren’t yet capable of that sort of folly. Perhaps that’s why Jonze seems to have take a children’s book and turned it into a movie about adult issues and problems.

Obama media strategy: control the message

This is an absolutely fascinating presentation by Anita Dunn, the White House Communications Director, on the media strategy of the Obama campaign—and by extension, the Obama administration. Her analysis is, I think, critically important for anyone who wants to understand the relationship between politics and the media in the current environment, and the approaches that politicians who want to be successful will need to adopt going forward.

From what I’ve seen, most of the blogospheric reaction has followed the tone of this WorldNet Daily piece:

President Obama’s presidential campaign focused on “making” the news media cover certain issues while rarely communicating anything to the press unless it was “controlled,” White House Communications Director Anita Dunn disclosed to the Dominican government at a videotaped conference.”Very rarely did we communicate through the press anything that we didn’t absolutely control,” said Dunn.

Though that presentation is not inaccurate, it’s designed to support the title of the piece:

White House boasts: We ‘control’ news media

and that title is inaccurate, in two ways. In the first place, Dunn nowhere claims to control the media; what she’s actually talking about is manipulating the media to control the message, to set things up in such a way that the story they have to report is the story you want them to report, so that your message gets out the way that you want it to get out. It’s not about controlling the media but using them for your purposes. (This was, of course, made a lot easier for them by the generally lap-doggish attitude of the major media toward Barack Obama.) And in the second place—and this is more important than it sounds—Dunn wasn’t boasting. She was simply reporting: “This is what we did, this is why we did it, and this is why it produced the result we wanted.”

What Dunn is essentially talking about here is the ways in which the development of the Internet has weakened and is eliminating the long-held power of the legacy media to filter reality, to decide what the culture in general will be broadly aware of—and the ways in which, in consequence, politicians can use that development to control their message. Indeed, she’s laying out a blueprint for doing so, and explaining why it was essential to her campaign’s success.

The fact that the Obama campaign understood this intuitively, and thus was able to use that intuitive understanding to do just that to an unprecedented degree, while the McCain campaign was completely clueless is one of the reasons Barack Obama is now sitting at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. The fact that Sarah Palin understands this, and in consequence has turned her Facebook page into a potent political weapon, is one of the reasons she is in my judgment the most important and effective political force in the Republican Party at this moment despite the best efforts of the legacy media to filter her right into impotence and irrelevance. Anyone who wants to compete with them in the future on anything approaching a level playing field is going to need to be smart enough and tuned-in enough to do likewise.

That is the real meaning and significance of Dunn’s presentation; rather than mistaking it for hubris on the part of the Obama administration and using it as one more cudgel with which to beat on the President, the Right needs to recognize her analysis of the political-media landscape as correct and her prescription as essential, and learn to go and do likewise. And the media had best do the same, and figure out how to adapt and respond, lest their current posture of lap-doggish servitude be institutionalized and rendered permanent.

HT: Janet McGregor Dunn

(Cross-posted at Conservatives4Palin)

Short-term stimulus

There have been a lot of claims made about jobs “saved or created” by the so-called “stimulus” (and how you measure a job “saved” when you don’t know the might-have-beens, I have no idea); but has it occurred to you to wonder how long those jobs have lasted? Apparently, not very long in some cases:

How much are politicians straining to convince people that the government is stimulating the economy? In Oregon, where lawmakers are spending $176 million to supplement the federal stimulus, Democrats are taking credit for a remarkable feat: creating 3,236 new jobs in the program’s first three months.

But those jobs lasted on average only 35 hours, or about one work week. After that, those workers were effectively back unemployed, according to an Associated Press analysis of state spending and hiring data. By the state’s accounting, a job is a job, whether it lasts three hours, three days, three months, or a lifetime. . . .

At the federal level, President Barack Obama has said the federal stimulus has created 150,000 jobs, a number based on a misused formula and which is so murky it can’t be verified.

When even the AP is noticing that Democratic politicians are playing games with the numbers, you know it’s hard to ignore. (Though it’s worth noting that the AP appears to be trying to hide the story, judging by the fact that this link is down.) It should of course be pointed out that Oregon’s behavior here is uniquely egregious:

Oregon’s accounting practices would not be allowed as part of the $787 billion federal stimulus. While the White House has made the unverifiable promise that 3.5 million jobs will be saved or created by the end of next year, when accountants actually begin taking head counts this fall, there are rules intended to guard against exactly what Oregon is doing.

The White House requires states to report numbers in terms of full-time, yearlong jobs. That means a part-time mechanic counts as half a job. A full-time construction worker who has a three-month paving contract counts as one-fourth of a job.

That said, the response from the state to that criticism is telling:

Oregon’s House speaker, Dave Hunt, called that measurement unfair, though nearly every other state that has passed a stimulus package already uses or plans to use it.

“This stimulus plan was intentionally designed for short-term projects to pump needed jobs and income into families, businesses and communities struggling to get by,” Hunt said in a statement. “No one ever said these would be full-time jobs for months at a time.”

But wasn’t that the implication? After all, when the President talked about “3.5 million jobs saved or created,” he didn’t add the caveat “but only for a little while”; an extra week’s worth of work is not nothing, to be sure—I’ve been a temp, I know the drill—but if that’s the best the government can do, your job hasn’t been saved, your job loss has just been delayed a bit. And when most people talk about “job creation,” temp work is most certainly not what they have in mind.

The truth is, this story from Oregon highlights how fuzzy and dubious these job claims are even when the politicians aren’t playing games with them. As the Reason Foundation’s Anthony Randazzo points out,

The problem remains that there is still no good way of counting exactly the number of jobs that wouldn’t have been lost because of the savings, and there is no way the government is going to track the number of jobs that have been lost because of stimulus spending (such as lost jobs in traditional energy because of green spending).

Put another way, all such claims depend on a knowledge of the might-have-beens—if we hadn’t done this, what other things might we have done instead, and what results would they have produced? And what would have happened if we hadn’t done anything at all?—and that’s knowledge we don’t actually have in any reliable way in most cases, and particularly when you’re talking something as complex and interconnected as the national economy.

HT: David Riddle

A bit o’ the genius o’ the Celts

to brighten your Sunday evening. My wife set me off looking for a video of a particular piece by the Irish pianist, composer and scholar of world music Mícheál Ó Súilleabháin; I didn’t find that particular one, but I did find a few other videos of him performing, including the one below. That set me off wandering from video to video (since everyone knows YouTube videos are like Lays potato chips—no one can eat just one), and I added a couple others to the post just for fun.

Mícheál Ó Súilleabháin and Mel Mercier (not sure of the tune)

Silly Wizard: Donald McGillavry

Kate Rusby: Sir Eglamore

A Greater Judgment

(Ecclesiastes 5:1-3; James 1:17-20, James 3:1-12)

When you were young, and someone insulted you or made fun of you, did your parents tell you to say, “Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me”? You’ve all heard that? You know, most pieces of folk wisdom, I can see where they came from, but I have no idea why that one showed up; whoever came up with that one must have been someone who never heard a negative word in their life—or who was too thick-skinned and thick-skulled to notice. Honestly, that’s the dumbest famous saying that ever got famous; to borrow a line from Mark Twain, it’s “the most majestic compound fracture of fact which any of woman born has yet achieved.” Granted the harm that sticks and stones can do, it’s generally a lot easier to heal the body than it is to heal the spirit, if only because we can see what we’re working with; and often, it’s a lot easier to wound the spirit than it is to wound the body. Sticks and stones can break my bones, but only words can break me—and they can, make no mistake about it.

This is a truth I know well from my own family. Several years ago now I flew home from Colorado for my Nana’s funeral, my maternal grandmother. She was a great woman, someone who accomplished a great deal through a long and fruitful career in ministry, and I loved her very much. She was also self-righteous, extremely strong-willed, and a naturally dominant person who expected to run the show, and thought she deserved to; and she had a barbed tongue, which she wielded quite carelessly. She would say things and move on without a second thought, leaving them embedded in the souls of others to rankle and fester. Nana is gone, but the barbs she left in her children and grandchildren, and no doubt others as well, still remain. She never got me—nothing she ever said to me stuck in that way—but I’m unusual in that respect. Just to give you one example, she would say, “The first child is expected, the second is understandable, the third, you should have your head examined.” My mother was her third child; you can imagine how that made her feel.

Now, Nana was a blunt sort, and practical to a fault—and being practical can be a fault, if you carry it too far, which a lot of people do; they’re the sort of people who tell you, “Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me,” and think they’re being helpful. There’s a wiser sort of practicality, though, that recognizes and understands the damage words can do; this is what we see in James. If there’s anyone who never fails in their speech, he says, that one is a perfect person, because if you can control your tongue, you can control your whole body—but no one can do it. No one can tame the tongue, no one can keep it bridled and checked. We can steer great ships, taming wind and wave to our purposes. We can tame wild animals; maybe not every species, but go see Ringling Brothers the next time they come around. Watch kids riding elephants, watch the guy dominate a cageful of tigers—he makes them bunny-hop on their hind legs, for crying out loud!—and you’ll realize that James isn’t that far off. We can train bears to ride unicycles, we can train predators to sit at our feet and eat table scraps, we can turn swift, powerful animals into beasts of burden—and yet we cannot tame our tongues. Whatever else we might be able to control, we can’t control that—which is to say, really, we can’t control ourselves, and our baser impulses.

Now, some of you out there may be saying to yourselves, “That’s not true—I can”; and certainly some people are better at this than others. But before you sprain your shoulder patting yourself on the back, take another look at yourself: can you really say that? Can you really tell me that you’ve never said anything hurtful to another person? Intentional or unintentional, it doesn’t matter. Can you really say that you’ve never told a lie? Indeed, the people who are best at controlling their speech are often the best liars, because they’re the best at being convincing. Can you really say that you’ve never complained about someone behind their back, or shared a bit of gossip, or undermined someone you didn’t like? Can you really say that you have never used your words to bring someone else down, or to advance your own goals at someone else’s expense? Because if you’ve ever done any of these things, then it is true of you, too, that your tongue has helped to set the world around you aflame with the fire of Hell.

Now, obviously, James has a very pessimistic view of this whole matter—the tongue is a restless evil, a poisoned arrow, a small fire that can set the whole forest ablaze; but though we might find his picture bleak, it’s hard to argue with. Yes, we also say many good things, and yes, we do much good with our words; but as James says, with our tongues we bless God, and with the same tongues we curse those he made in his likeness, and that should not be. For all the good we may do, we can undo many good words with one ill one. Winston Churchill famously said that a lie can be halfway around the world before the truth has finished putting on its pants; or to go back to Twain again, “the history of our race, and each individual’s experience, are sown thick with evidences that a truth is not hard to kill, and that a lie well told is immortal.” We might also say that for many people, self-confidence is a fragile flower, but self-doubt is a weed; sow a few seeds of the latter in the garden of their soul, and they may take years to recover. It is far easier for us to speak evil powerfully than it is to speak good powerfully, just as it’s easier to roll a boulder down a mountainside than up it; this is why Shakespeare could write in Julius Caesar, “The evil that men do lives after them; the good is oft interred with their bones.”

This is also why James begins this section by saying, “Not many of you should presume to be teachers”; his reason is blunt and to the point: “we who teach will be judged more strictly.” For those of us called to teach the church—really, for any of us called to a position of leadership, because we all lead by our words as well as our actions, and there is always a teaching component to what God calls us to do—the power of our words is amplified, both for good and for evil; as leaders in the church, everything we say takes on extra weight and force, and often not in the ways that we intend. And since there is great peril in the tongue—and since all of us make many mistakes—this is a perilous place to be, and puts us in line to receive a more severe judgment, indeed.

You can see the truth of this in the ways leaders are judged by the church; our mistakes reverberate in countless ways (some harmless, some not so much), and the judgments come apace. Take me, for example; if I misstate myself from the pulpit, or if I phrase something carelessly, I’ll usually have someone come up to me afterward and ask about it—because it matters, every word matters. Those are usually fairly minor points, easily clarified; but still, they need to be clarified. Similarly, things that other elders say carry extra weight, and can have an effect beyond what is intended; one ill-considered or thoughtless word, one small lie, one place where anger escapes us when it shouldn’t, can have devastating effects. And beyond that, there are times when it seems like people are looking for reasons to judge their leaders; sometimes, in fact, people are. In those cases, every time we open our mouths, it gives them an opportunity.

As real an issue as this is, however, it isn’t James’ main concern. He isn’t primarily focused on how people will judge those who step up to teach, but rather on how God will judge us, on the fact that God necessarily holds us to a higher standard. We saw the reason for this in 1 Timothy as we considered the damage the false teachers did to the church in Ephesus. When those whom the church has entrusted as leaders and committed to follow say things which are not from God, the church is weakened and turned aside from the purposes God has for us. When we preach or teach that which is not true, when we communicate a vision for the church which is not in line with God’s will, when we insist on getting our own way, when we shout down those who disagree with us, then the church is harmed—and God will hold us accountable for that harm.

There is much less room for error on the part of preachers and teachers and other leaders in the church than there is on the part of others in the congregation, because when we fail to control our tongues, when we fail to say only that which is true and honorable and just and pure, our failure has much greater consequences; it doesn’t only harm us, it harms the whole body. This is one of the things we need to understand before stepping up to take on the responsibility of church leadership; as leaders, because of this, we will be held to a higher standard, and judged accordingly.

Now, some of you might be wondering why I’m talking about this. Partly, of course, it’s because James talks about it; but more than that, do I think our congregation has a leadership problem? Do I think we’re particularly bad at controlling our tongues? No, I don’t. Actually, for a congregation our size, I think we’re remarkably blessed in the quality of the leaders we have. We have a very small group, and I worry about overworking them, but they’re an excellent group of people—and just as importantly, they work well together, and in a godly spirit.

No, I say this for two reasons. The first might seem counterintuitive: I say this because we’re coming to the end of the year, and it’s time for the nominating committee to start looking for people to serve as elders and deacons. Is this my idea of a recruiting pitch then: “become a leader in the church so you can be judged more strictly”? No—although I would note, if the standard of God’s judgment is higher, so too are the blessings, because just as leaders have the ability to do greater harm, so to we have the ability to do greater good. If God has given you a vision for what this congregation can be, then this is a role you need to step up and step into, because it means he’s calling you to lead; and if he is, then yes, you’ll make mistakes along the way—all of us do—but God will use even your mistakes to accomplish his purposes. It’s a noble task, and an honorable calling, and I trust that there are folks sitting out there right now whom God is prodding to step into leadership. I just want to make sure that you take that step with your eyes open, understanding that God takes those responsibilities very seriously.

Second, I want to say a closing word about grace. To each of us, James tells us how impossible it is for us to control our tongues—and so it is; it’s only by the power of the Spirit of God at work in us that our tongues begin to come under control. To those of us called to lead, he says, this is an especially grave danger, because leadership gives our careless tongues even more opportunity to do harm. Implicitly, too, though, he reminds all of us that this is just as true for others as for ourselves—that just as we struggle to control our tongues, and sometimes fail, so too others are going to fail sometimes, for we all stumble in many ways; and just as we need the grace of God when we do fail, so too do others need his grace—which means they need us to show them grace.

If you say something you shouldn’t, it may be my responsibility to correct you, but it’s my responsibility to do so with love and grace; if I do so harshly and gracelessly, am I not as much at fault as you? Yes, I am. Or if something I do upsets you, and you speak harshly to me, what is my responsibility to you? Because you spoke without grace, is it okay if I respond in kind—or do I need to show you grace anyway? Yes, I need to show you grace anyway; I need to control my tongue whether you’ve controlled yours or not. It’s not my place to decide whether you deserve grace—none of us deserves grace. Grace doesn’t come from what we deserve, it comes from the love of God; and it’s only as far as the love of God fills us and motivates us that we’ll be able to control our tongues and show his grace to others. Which means that the bottom line here isn’t “try harder,” it’s “submit yourself to God, draw close to him, and let him do in you what you can’t do in yourself.” The only way to live in grace is to live by grace.

The presidency and self-definition

A couple weeks ago, I noted Sarah Palin’s pointed comment in her RNC speech that “the American presidency is not supposed to be a journey of ‘personal discovery,’” and spent a while musing in light of that comment on our enigmatic President. A few days later, the Anchoress added a few comments of her own on that, which I’ve been mulling since:

The Office of the Presidency can either make a man great, or break him, but it will not allow him to coast and remain undefined.

But a lack of definition is what Obama has cultivated throughout adult life. From what little we know of his college days to his Inaugural speech, others have defined Obama for him, going mostly by what they saw—which was usually a reflection of themselves. He has kept himself safely tucked away, voting “present,” both early and often.

The forced definition of the American Presidency is sitting very uncomfortably with Barack Obama. There is nowhere to hide; there are no further personae to be invented and presented. The Jekyll and Hyde who has been singing endless encores of “This is the Moment” to America for nearly three years, has finally come upon a real moment, an authentic crossroad: he must now materialize into a defined entity with a known vector. Will that entity choose to define himself by a willingness to help a nation of free and energetic dreamers sustain the most exceptional and productive dream in history? Or will it choose to remain the poorly-marked outline of an aching, light-consuming void, delivering nothing but silence?

Until Barak Obama decides who he is, we cannot know him, and he cannot know America. And until he knows America, he cannot begin to understand the good-faith majority of us, who are longing not for a god, not for a king, but for a president worthy of our trust.

Whatever you may think about the Anchoress’ analysis of our President, what she says about the presidency is spot-on; and as regards Barack Obama, her main point (that he has largely made his way through life by letting others see in him what they want to see) is not a new or stunning observation. I don’t know that we can conclude from that that he himself doesn’t know who he is—one could also see his lack of public definition as a deliberate (and effective) political tactic, and simply ascribe it (as Shelby Steele did) to “a lack of strong political convictions”—but it’s certainly one possible interpretation; and it’s one which does seem perfectly possible in light of his rather unanchored childhood, as it’s the sort of approach to life which a child who has to keep fitting in with changing circumstances, places, and groups of people would be likely to cultivate as a defense and coping mechanism.

If the Anchoress’ read is correct, the President has a major personal transition ahead of him which he’ll have to make if he wants to do well by himself and his country during his time in office; if so, for his sake and all of ours, here’s hoping he’s able to do so.

Liturgy as the gospel form of worship

I’ve been meaning to post on Collin Hansen’s interview with Brian Chappell (the president of Covenant Seminary in St. Louis) for several weeks now, ever since Jared posted a chunk of it on his own blog. The interview is in relation to the Rev. Dr. Chappell’s latest book, Christ-Centered Worship: Letting the Gospel Shape Our Practice, which I have not yet read but definitely intend on reading, and allows him to make some good points on the subject. For instance, I appreciate his note that there is no such thing as “non-liturgical worship”—every church has a liturgy, only the form of that liturgy varies—and his insistence that what matters is whether the liturgy we use communicates the gospel and directs our attention to Christ.

Liturgy is simply another term for the order of worship. Every church has a liturgy, although it may vary from being quite simple to very ornate. Understanding the gospel-shape of worship allows us to make Christ-centered choices about how the aspects of each church’s liturgy—an opening song, a prayer of confession, or a benediction—are furthering the gospel message in our services. There is no “one right way” to acknowledge the goodness and greatness of God. But knowing that the beginning of the service has this goal allows us to make appropriate liturgical choices about the songs sung, the scriptures read, and/or the prayers offered in the opening phases of a worship service. The same will be true for those aspects of worship that involve confession, assurance, thanksgiving, etc.

The key here is that worship is for God, and thus that everything we do in worship needs to serve that purpose. This isn’t just a matter of the content of our worship, either, but also of its form; as Dr. Chappell puts it,

Christ-centered worship is not just talking or singing about Jesus a lot. Christ-centered worship reflects the contours of the gospel. In the individual life of a believer, the gospel progresses through recognition of the greatness and goodness of God, the acknowledgment of our sin and need of grace, assurance of God’s forgiveness through Christ, thankful acknowledgment of God’s blessing, desire for greater knowledge of him through his Word, grateful obedience in response to his grace, and a life devoted to his purposes with assurance of his blessing.

In the corporate life of the church this same gospel pattern is reflected in worship. Opening moments offer recognition of the greatness and goodness of God that naturally folds into confession, assurance of pardon, thanksgiving, instruction, and a charge to serve God in response to his grace in Christ. This is not a novel idea but, in fact, is the way most churches have organized their worship across the centuries. . . .

Just as the sacraments re-present the fundamental aspects of the gospel in symbol, and the sermon does so in words, so also the worship of the church re-presents the gospel in its pattern.

This means that our worship practices need to be based not on pragmatic considerations and personal preferences, but on the gospel. Dr. Chappell puts it well when he says,

If church leaders try to establish a style of worship based upon their preferences or based upon satisfying congregants’ competing preferences, then the church will inevitably be torn apart by the politics of preference. But if the leadership is asking the missional questions of “Who is here?” and “Who should be here?” in determining worship styles and practices, then the mission of the church will enable those leaders to unite around gospel goals that are more defensible and uniting than anyone’s personal preference. These gospel goals will never undermine the gospel contours of the worship service, but rather will ask how each gospel aspect can be expressed in ways that best minister to those present and those being reached for Christ’s glory.

It’s a great interview, with a lot of important insights. Go check it out.