After several delays, we are finally to present this edition of the Pulse!
This one has the theme Resurrecting Tradition.
You can read it all by clicking here!
You may take the following statement as an endorsement:
Some of our staff reported that it was tough to proof this one, because they got carried away reading the content!
I want to mention that we are returning to print for the next version of the Pulse. (We’ve started working on the process for this one.) If you would like to subscribe, please alert us of your intentions, by sending us an e-mail.
We’ll need at least your name and mailing address.
We are still putting final details together for this, but we’re looking at a cost of $25/year.
12 Comments
What a timely debate for our denomination, and for me personally. God has recently called me to teach Spiritual Disciplines at one of our Bible Colleges here in Saskatoon. Because I have had to develop my own curriculum for this course I have been knee-deep for the past few weeks in both historical and critical research on the issue — and what a tour it’s been. Having grown up in the Evangelical Lutheran Church, I have something of an appreciation for the richness and fullness of liturgical worship and Synod stuctures. While I abandoned it as a young man for the drier road of Baptist (and eventually Free Church) circles, in my middle years I have come full circle again and am finding myself increasingly hungry for a deeper visual and oratorical expression of my faith. During my sabbatical last year I often attended a local Lutheran church, and was deeply blessed by it. So I have sympathy for both Mr. Rattray and Ms. Wiebe’s positions. I think they must both be considered.
As for me Gary Thomas’s wonderful book “Sacred Pathways” has reminded me that we all worship in different ways: enthusiastically, traditionally, contemplatively, intellectually, etc…..and that we must leave room for these differences in worship leadership. Most of us personally -and many Free Churches corporately- have a mix of several worship pathways to God. I believe that the wise churches in our denomination are the ones who seek to meet those many differences with a variety of worship expressions, all the while teaching one another to appreciate, embrace, and not condemn each other for being different, lest we draw the lines so wide again that “enthusiasts” can only worship in Pentecostal churches and “sensates” (to use Mr. Thomas’s terms) can only worship at Anglican churches.
Thanks for a great article!
Thanks for the comment, Al!
I love the variety we can explore as we each express our awe and worship of a very big God! :-)
“….I think they should both be considered” Sometimes, this can be a reflection of a lack of discernment. Although I have no reason to believe that about Mr Harstone, I do whole heartedly agree with Mr Rattray’s comments. The ‘doctrine’ in the New Testament should be our focus – not the liturgical traditions of the Roman or other ‘high’ Churches that have ‘liberalized’ their doctrines in spite of liturgy and tradition.In fact, “Sacred Pathways” is evidence of the new ‘emergent’ liberalism.
Yes, I would concur that sometimes dualism can reflect a lack of discernment. But then again, it can also be the reflection of maturity that brings a person to the realisation that their own preferences are no better, and no worse, than anyone else’s. Indeed, where it does not interfere with an essential, the “I think they must both be considered” attitude is very Free Church.
I haven’t read Sacred Pathways, but it strikes me that anything that opens people’s minds and hearts to a God who transcends human restrictions, thought patterns and worship styles can’t be all that bad. :-)
I was particularly appreciative of Michelle’s expression. While I enjoy the enthusiasm, spirit and vitality of contemporary worship, Michelle conveys what I also long for … a connection through language that bridges God’s Word & my soul’s reflection and my needed response.
I think ultimately that’s pretty consistent across all people. We want as tangible a connection as possible to the God we worship. The meanings which come with most clarity and nuance are through words. But as a communications geek, I know that impressions are also delivered visually, and through all of our other senses too, and those can perhaps generate, and certainly shape the meanings we glean. Consecrated art in all of its forms accesses the hope that we can perceive God’s presence.
Ron, I know that painting is very important to you, and has become more so since you retired — do you ever view your painting as an expression of worship? Is that a different kind of expression of language to you? Just curious.
Yes, I do view my art as one of my means by which I express my worship of God to God and others as a witness. When I paint, because I choose to be a representational/realist painter, my subjects whether figures or landscapes reflect God’s artistry. Upon occasion I have used my art to illustrate sermon content as I preach. TWU art prof is a member of our Fort Langley Church and she has spirited the use of art within the context of worship and the facility itself. I would welcome a revival of art as integral to our worship forms.
Me too — I would welcome that kind of revival as well! :-)
Man, now I want to sit down with you and record a podcast with you about worship and art, and your opinion of how worship factors in realism vs impressionism vs (for example) cubism. And high art vs pop art. And a bunch of other stuff.
Oh, that great Canadian attribute “tolerance”…sometimes to the point of intolerance. Read the book…while keeping the Gospel in mind – in context.
Which book are you referring to, Dick?
Is it D.A. Carson’s The Intolerance of Tolerance (Eerdmans, 2012)?
Carson’s book is a really good study of the what ‘tolerance’ means in the postmodern era, and how this differs from the historical idea of tolerance.
This might be what Dick is referring to.
I found a summary from Carson on this topic, and it’s a reasonable presentation. Essentially his point is that it used to mean “accept the existence of” and it has changed to “accept”. On face value, his case is clear (though even in Carson’s treatment, he cautions that we Christians are susceptible to assuming that our truth claims make us superior, which is unacceptable).
So with that out of the way, and assuming that we’ve guessed Dick’s intention right, now I just need to understand to what matter Dick would have us apply this caution.