Just last night, I was reading a book recommended by dear members
of one of the churches where I serve. It comes from the Evangelical
tradition, written by a highly influential minister that I've been
mostly unfamiliar with. I haven't avoided his work purposely; I just
don't enjoy listening to Evangelical sermons on the radio, watching them
on television, or (usually) reading their materials. Part of my problem
is that I have a considerable library of excellent theological writing
that I still need to read through for the first time --- including
Luther's Works.
Because of the recommendation, I began reading this book last night and
found it rather easy to read. Most of what is written there so far is
edifying. My only criticism is that the author seems to have little
appreciation that our Christian growth and identity are rooted in
Law and Gospel, the basic messages of holy scripture through which God
acts upon us. Instead, he (so far) has expressed that our experience
as Christians in cognitive contact with the events of Jesus' life is
what provides our growth in the faith.
One thing gave me pause, since I had never noticed its use before. The
author described the worship of his congregation as "authentic." On the
surface, it meant little to me. Then I wondered what the alternative
would be. Inauthentic, false worship? Still, it made little sense,
because I could only think of false worship as that which focuses upon
false gods. On the other hand, the Bible is replete with examples of
people who want to worship and express their spirituality in a way of
their own choosing instead of God's way. Could the author simply mean
that his church worships as God has directed in Holy Scripture, instead
of incorporating the spontaneity that characterized the Israelites'
decision to bow down before a golden calf, or the independence that
characterized the sin of Jeroboam? I was skeptical.
By a happy coincidence (if there is such a thing), Gene Edward
Veith calls attention today to an article in
Touchstone by Michael Horton, which sheds light on the term "authentic
worship." "Authentic" is paired with "spontaneous" and contrasted with
"predictable and disciplined." In other words, it's pretty much the
opposite of worship in the churches I serve, where the attendees always
know what sort of things will happen before they arrive. Yet I still
wonder if the author of this book and I are still understanding his
expression in the same way. Is his "authentic" worship also predictable
and disciplined? Is it spontaneous? I wonder.
The Horton article contains a lot of other food for thought. Since he
is a bit closer to the Evangelical world from which this book comes, I'm
inclined to believe that he understands its language better than I do.