Theological Musings

or those of you who don’t regularly read Michael Spencer’s Internet Monk blog, I wanted to point you to an interview Michael recently did with me.

The topic was “Worship and Music” and Michael gave me four very insightful questions on which to share my thoughts. You can read the interview on Michael’s blog here.

There are already some good responses over there, and you can feel free to join the discussion there (I think you have to register for Michael’s blog in order to comment) or provide responses here.

Thanks for the fun interview, Michael! I hope that the discussion is productive.

Until next time,

steve

ecently, I linked to a thought-provoking post by Bill Kinnon called “The People Formerly Known as the Congregation“. Understandably, there have been some mixed reactions to this post, and it has sparked something of a small phenomenon around parts of the blogosphere. There have been other “Formerly Known” posts written, all with varying degrees of controversial thoughts.

I haven’t been mentioning them here or linking to them, mostly because it didn’t seem to fit the flow of this blog to continue discussing it. This blog has a very eclectic audience, and I have been making a concentrated effort this calendar year to address a wider variety of topics.

However, today I read a “Formerly Known” post that literally stopped me in my tracks. In fact, I read it while sitting at a computer in a computer lab at the University, and was honestly afraid I would break down crying right there in front of the students. It affected me that much.

Please be aware that the post I am about to link to may not strike you the same way. It may offend some. There’s a great preamble to the post that addresses this already, so I won’t make a big deal out of it.

But I would strongly encourage each of you to go read this post. We can discuss it here, or you can discuss it over there. Either way, I would love to get some thoughts on it from my readers.

Why did it move me so much? Well, I’ll let you read it first, and then I’ll share my thoughts either in the comments here or in a later post.

Please go read “Formerly Known” by Brother Maynard (not his real name) at Subversive Influence.

Until next time,

steve

s most of you know, I’m a musician. And my “day job” during the school year is with Appalachian State University’s School of Music. I’m an accompanist there, mostly working with vocal students, but also occasionally with some instrumentalists.

This semester, I had the opportunity to participate in two concerts of chamber music. For those of you unfamiliar with classical music, the term “chamber music” usually refers to groups larger than two and up to about a dozen.

The two performances I was a part of were a piano trio (piano, violin, cello) and a piano quintet (piano, 2 violins, viola, and cello). Chamber music is rather different from most of the work I do at the University because it’s not “accompanying”. In chamber music, every instrument is equally important, and at any given point in time, any one of the instruments could be predominant in terms of playing the melody, etc.

This was the first time that I ever had the experience of working in this type of setting with chamber music, and I found it exhilarating! But it also made me think in terms of metaphor.

In July, 2005, I wrote a post called “Symphony or Cacophony” where I drew the parallel between a symphony orchestra becoming unified under one conductor and the Body of Christ being unified under our Conductor, Jesus Himself. And I believe that metaphor still stands.

But there is another facet of the body of Christ that I saw in my chamber music experiences. Specifically, I want to draw on examples from the quintet performance. (For those interested in these things, we performed Antonin Dvorák’s Piano Quintet in A Major, Op. 81.)

In a chamber music setting, there is no conductor. Rather, each player is responsible for being unified with the rest of the group. This plays out in various ways.

There are several ways in which the group coordinates with itself. One of these is the method we affectionately refer to as “The Sniff”.

It works like this: If the first violinist is responsible for starting a particular piece, he will make sure everyone is ready, and then he will sniff loud enough for the rest of the ensemble (and, depending on the hall, the audience as well!) to hear. This sharp inhalation functions in precisely the same way as a conductor’s “prep beat”. In other words, this is the one beat prior to the start of the music which instantly communicates when the piece is to begin, and likewise the tempo with which the piece will be played.

I will use “The Sniff” as my first example of how this played out in our performance. In the first movement of the Dvorák, the piano starts by itself and the cello comes in with a gorgeous solo in the third bar. For this reason, there was no need for a sniff from anyone. I merely made sure everyone was ready, especially the cellist, and I began playing.

The same was true of the second movement. However, the third movement started with the four string players minus the piano. In this instance, it was necessary for the first violinist to give “The Sniff”. And the quartet came in based on that cue.

The fourth movement started with all five of us. The difference was, however, that the piano hit the first note, and the four string players had to instantly respond on the second half of that first beat. In this case, because it was the piano that began, it was I who was responsible for “The Sniff”.

I illustrate all of this to demonstrate how I believe leadership can, and should, play out in the body of Christ. There are times when one or another person needs to “take the lead” on something. However, this is done in coordination with the rest of the body (in my metaphor, making sure the others are “ready” to move). And this leadership is sometimes just a gentle lead in the right direction.

Once the violinist or I gave that indication to the rest of the group that we were about to start, we then immediately resumed our position as “one of the gang”. I didn’t maintain “leadership” through the entire fourth movement. In fact, only about eight measures or so into the fourth movement, it was necessary for the first violinist to once again take the lead.

Another form of leadership that happens in chamber music such as this relates to subtle moments of leadership within a phrase of music. There are moments where the tempo is “pushed” or “stretched” in response to the musical ideas. Sometimes this is planned out in rehearsal, but other times, it “just happens” in performance.

One such example was in the second movement. This movement features the viola throughout most of the movement in a slow and passionate melody in the very dark key of f# minor. After a brief introduction by the piano, the viola takes over, and the rest of the quintet pretty much follows the violist’s lead.

There was one particular unrehearsed moment in our performance, however, where I saw not only organic leadership, but a shared leadership between me and the violist. I’ll try to explain it to make my point.

At a particular point in one phrase, I felt the urge to “stretch” a particular beat. Because the violist was technically in the lead at that point, I had to make sure not to step on her toes. I glanced over at her to see what she was going to do. She happened to glance my way at the same time, and so we were able to watch each other and feel the stretch of the beat together. The rest of the quintet followed perfectly.

The moment was very small. And the glance was very short, but just enough for us to incorporate the musical expression in conjunction with each other, and in so doing, lead the rest of the quintet together for that moment.

I call all of this “organic leadership”. The idea that leadership is fluid within the group, and that it sometimes moves from one to another as the need requires. There was not one set leader in the group, and when we were finished, it was a corporate bow by all five of us with none recognized more highly than the rest.

And what happens when that leadership doesn’t quite work? At another point in the second movement, the first violinist accidentally took the lead a measure earlier than he was supposed to. Instantly, the rest of the group figured out what had happened, and adjusted their playing to once again bring the entire quintet into unity. It happened so fast and without any of us actually having to say or do anything other than adjust our playing (skipping a few notes) to “catch up”.

The first violinist was not demoted as a result, nor was he forbidden from taking the lead in the other areas he was supposed to. Instead, the group organically worked to “cover” the fault, and together we continued in unity.

I think these are all ways in which the body of Christ can work together as one body. And I hope that, even for my readers who are not musical, the metaphor has been explained well enough to make the point. Your thoughts in response?

Until next time,

steve

n the recent discussion about the conference we attended (Original or Not: The Last Twelve Verses of Mark), there were some questions in the comments about whether or not wrestling over the validity of a relatively small snippet of Scripture mattered. And in some ways, I would argue that it does matter.

But ultimately, like so many questions regarding theology, doctrine, canonicity, etc., we must realize that our major pursuit must be Jesus. It doesn’t matter how many of our theological ducks are lined up, or how fine-tuned our textual criticism skills are, or how much we know about church history, or what creeds we can recite, or what church roll our name is on, or what seminary we graduated from, or who endorses our books, or who reads our blogs — if we aren’t living the way Jesus told us to live, it means nothing.

We cannot afford to separate our life from our beliefs. Jesus calls us to a life that is far greater in scope than theological expertise.

Recently, one of the many blogs I read in my feed reader (and I wish I could remember which one so that I could tip the hat to them — if it’s someone reading this, please let me know, and I’ll give you credit) mentioned a recent interview with Tony Campolo.

OK, wait. I see some of you rolling your eyes. I know what you’re thinking, because I was always led to think that way about Campolo, too. Stop it! Let’s hear the guy out.

It’s about a 10 minute video, found here. And in it, Tony is sure to ruffle some feathers. But he made some pretty strong comments that I think we must reckon with and not dismiss so easily. For example, his concluding remark:

If your enemy hungers, feed him; if he’s sick, care for him; if he’s naked, clothe him. Its radical stuff, but until we start living the way Jesus has called us to live, we ought not to call ourselves followers of Jesus.

I don’t know about you, but that hits pretty hard in my book. Now, please don’t misunderstand me. I’m not endorsing every single thing that is said in this interview. (For example, there’s a bit of a misquote regarding Jesus’ statements regarding “An eye for an eye”. Jesus did not say that he was giving us “a new commandment.” However, Jesus did say, “But I say to you” which could be easily taken, then, as a commandment. And the point that Jesus was making is still quite valid, with or without the misquote by Campolo.)

But even without endorsing everything in it, I think there is much validity in what is being said. Another point that resonated with me was the following (perhaps not exactly quoted — it went by fast, and the host was jumping in at the time):

[On judgment day] its not going to be “Virgin Birth … strongly agree, somewhat agree…” Its gonna be “I was hungry, did you feed me? I was naked, did you clothe me? I was sick, did you care for me? I was an alien, did you take me in? … because I’m not up in the sky somewhere, I’m waiting to be loved in people who hurt.”

Now, I know the response I have received here on my blog before when I ventured into the areas of talking about what doctrinal points are absolutely necessary to agree on. But for those who have questioned me on this, I would pose this question: How do we view the words of Jesus in this regard? Why does Jesus seem to put so much emphasis on how we treat one another, and especially those less fortunate than we?

There’s a lot of talk these days in circles identifying with “the Emerging Church” (which I’m still not sure how much, if at all, I would be considered part of, or how much I even want to be considered a part of it) regarding being “missional”.

As far as I can tell (correct me if I’m wrong, emerging readers), “missional” refers to the concept of actually living out our faith in the world around us by seeking to meet needs, build relationships, and love the people around us. In short, it’s the idea of living the same way that Jesus taught us to live.

I’ve felt a lot along these lines for several years. I previously shared on this blog some thoughts about ways I used to reach out to homeless people in Austin, TX, when I lived there.

So what am I doing now? Well, one of the things in the works for Christy and me is a move toward being licensed for foster/adoptive care in our county.

We have no idea what this will lead to. We have heard reports from other foster parents (who have come to speak to the class we’re taking as part of the process) who have had over 50 kids go through their home in the years they have been fostering. I don’t know if that’s where we’ll be.

Our primary motivation for being licensed is a desire to adopt a young child. But we’re also seeing the possibilities of fostering and seeking God’s direction in that. If that’s what He wants us to do as we seek to live like Jesus, then I want to be completely on board with His plan!

Pray for us as we finish up the licensing process. We could be licensed by the early part of the summer, and from there, who knows what will happen?

All I know is that I want to live like Jesus. If I don’t, I agree with Campolo that I really have no right to call myself a follower of Jesus. Go watch the video and see what you think.

Until next time,

steve

s I have already mentioned here, the past two days, Christy and I had the opportunity to drive down to Wake Forest, NC (the town, not the University) to attend a conference at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary. The conference was entitled “The Last Twelve Verses of Mark: Original or Not?” and presented a fascinating look from five different scholars at the question of whether or not Mark 16:9-20 were part of the original Gospel According to Mark.

I already mentioned last night that you can see reviews of each of the sessions on Alan’s blog and on Lew’s blog. (The links will take you to search results for “original or not” on those two blogs, since there are multiple posts on each blog.) It is in no way my desire to duplicate the efforts of these two fine live-bloggers. However, I would like to give my overall reaction to the conference and my opinions on the topic.

First of all, I must say that the conference itself was quite wonderful. SEBTS, and especially Dr. Black, did a terrific job of organizing and coordinating the conference. The seminary has a beautiful campus, and the weather was perfect for our time there.

As I mentioned last night, we also had a terrific time fellowshipping with some friends that we previously had never met in person. Alan and his wife Margaret (apparently, second only to my wife as the most wonderful wife in the world), Lew, Maël and Cindy, Theron and Cheryl, Rob and Brandi, are all people I have gotten to know a little bit through blogging. It was a pleasure to meet with them, and spend time together both Friday night after the first part of the conference and Saturday for lunch.

I also would like to give an especially big “thank you” to Ed and Leah for so graciously allowing us to spend the night in their home. Unfortunately, we did not get to meet Ed because of our schedule, but we enjoyed spending time with Leah Friday evening as part of the fellowship time with the people mentioned in the previous paragraph.

Now, on to the topic of the conference.

Presenters, with the position defended, were (in order of appearance):

1. Dr. Dan Wallace of Dallas Theological Seminary, defending the position that the Gospel According to Mark ends intentionally at the end of Mark 16:8.
2. Dr. Maurice Robinson of SEBTS, defending the position that Mark wrote all the way to Mark 16:20 in his original writing.
3. Dr. Keith Elliott of University of Leeds (in the UK), defending the position that Mark originally did write past 16:8, but that it was lost, and what we now know as 16:9-20 was added later (by someone else) to replace the lost portion.
4. Dr. David Black of SEBTS, defending the position that Mark wrote 16:9-20 himself as a conclusion to the remainder of the book, which was a record (by Mark) of what Peter was publicly preaching. (This idea of Mark recording Peter’s teaching, and then adding his own conclusion is to account for the different style and syntax of 16:9-20 from the rest of the book.)
5. Dr. Darrell Bock of Dallas Theological Seminary, summarizing the four positions presented, and giving his thoughts and reactions (while also supporting Dr. Wallace’s position of ending the book at 16:8)

Overall, I came into the conference without even knowing the issues at hand, so not having formed any opinion one way or the other. I came away leaning toward Wallace’s position that Mark intentionally ended the book at 16:8 and that the later verses were added by scribes.

Each of the presentations had their strengths and weaknesses, and again I would refer you to Alan or Lew to see the points that were made in each. As a whole, though, I was impressed with the graciousness of each speaker as they presented their views.

The issue of the ending of Mark has little significance theologically, as several speakers pointed out. There are no earth-shattering doctrines revealed in Mark 16:9-20. So, in one sense, the issue is largely academic. But it still allows us to gain insight into the method of textual criticism, and the presuppositions that we bring to any problem of this nature.

Throughout the weekend, there were some really good quotes and one-liners that I would like to mention here. They are in no particular order, and I have mixed in the humorous with the insightful. Also, please bear in mind that some of these quotes are not completely word-for-word. They went by fast, and I don’t write that fast!

• Wallace: “Evangelical scholars must be willing to pursue truth regardless of where it takes us.” (Regular readers of my blog will understand quickly why this quote resonated with me!)
• Wallace, giving an example about presuppositions: (loosely paraphrased) If you hold to the doctrine of preservation, it will not allow you to say that the original ending of Mark is lost.
• Wallace, describing how a book written on a scroll (such as Mark likely was) would not likely get its ending damaged because the scroll would be “rewound”, putting the end in the middle of the scroll: “Of course, there would be some who would not rewind when finished, and they would be fined a denarius at their local Blockbuster.”
• Robinson, talking about issues of truncation, described a situation (and gave us visual example of the same) wherein the seminary library affixed barcodes to books. There was limited space on the label, and so a collection of books from the “Center for Hermeneutical Studies in Hellenistic Literature” got truncated to “Center for Hermeneutical Studies in Hell”!
• Robinson: “And then there’s the ‘intermediate ending’, which apparently nobody believes is original.”
• Robinson, referencing the topic of picking up serpents and drinking poison: “I wish that the Byzantine family of texts [to which Robinson gives priority as part of his position here] did not include the longer ending, because it would do away with most of the theology of Kentucky and Tennessee.”
• Elliott, on speaking third in the conference: “At least I can assume by now that you’re somewhat familiar with the topic at hand!”
• Elliott: “For the next few moments, I’ll be speculating. Lest some of you think that is what I’ve been doing all along.”
• Black (later echoed by Bock): (loosely paraphrased) Regardless of our position on the ending of Mark, the important thing is to proclaim the Gospel of Jesus Christ to all nations. (I say a hearty “Amen” to that!)
• Bock: (loosely paraphrased) Beware of “brittle fundamentalism”. (This is the idea that we hold to a position so tightly that changing one aspect of it causes the whole thing to crumble.)
• Bock, talking about accusing others of “speculation”: Whenever we’re connecting the dots, someone else can easily say, “Oh, that’s speculation.” So, be cautious when talking about others’ views as “speculation”.
• Bock: “The reason this [question about the ending of Mark] is a problem and is difficult to sort out is because it’s a problem. (long pause…) and it’s difficult to sort out.”

There were some ancillary issues that were briefly mentioned in the conference that I wish had been given more attention. For one, Dr. Black passionately argued for the inclusion of the Synoptic Problem as a main element in this discussion. Others on the panel disagreed, however. I think I might agree with Dr. Black on this point, and wish more time had been given by each person to this issue.

Another issue that was briefly touched on by Dr. Elliott which seemed very important to me was with regards to canonicity. Because Dr. Elliott was arguing for the position that Mark’s original ending is lost, he was forced to reckon, then, with the question of whether or not the ending we do have is to be considered canonical. (He argued that it is, in fact, still to be considered canonical because it was part of Mark when the canon was fixed.) I get the impression that, although I was not convinced of his position that the original ending of Mark is lost, I would probably find many areas of agreement with him on questions of canonicity.

I think that the issue of canonicity, definition of canon, etc. is very pertinent to this discussion, and I wish it had been addressed more in-depth. As my regular readers know, this is an area of interest to me, and I think it definitely follows from any discussion of textual criticism.

Well, this is a scattered overview of the events of the weekend, and the discussions that took place. Again, I thought it was a terrific conference, and it caused me to want to delve further into the area of textual criticism, etc.

Until next time,

steve