Jesus is my Girlfriend? LBC Dissertation - Sam Hargreaves

“Jesus is my “Jesus is my girlfriend”? girlfriend”? A critique of romantic imagery in youth orientated worship songs, and a doctrinal framework for intimacy in worship. Sam Hargreaves, C3 (M) Supervisor – Graham McFarlane 21st May 2001 Preface This third year project would not have been possible without the supervision and lecturing of Graham McFarlane. His throwaway jibe about ‘all this Jesus is my girlfriend worship’ in a doctrine lecture started me off on this journey, and I am immensely grateful for the challenge and encouragement received in every email, lecture and meeting. Other members of staff and students at London Bible College have stimulated my brain with conversation and articles. There have been too many chats to mention them all, but in particular I must thank David Peacock and Chris Redgate for their tutoring; Damo, Sunil, Luiza, Wayne, Helen, Ben, Claire, Steve M, and Steve S for their contributions of brain power and coffee. From outside LBC I am grateful to Brian Dodd, Sheryl Shaw, Nick Ashton and James Collins for providing material, and Phil Barnard for proof reading in his own inimitable fashion! I am particularly indebted to both Graham Kendrick and Matt Redman, for their email and verbal responses to my searching questions! It is encouraging to know that those in the front line are grappling with these issues too. Lyn Burnhope deserves special thanks for allowing me to use her material as an example of quality text writing. Sara Johansson, you definitely are my girlfriend! Thank you for putting up with me talking about this for the last year. And finally not only gratitude by all glory and honour must go to the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. May this offering be acceptable in your sight. Word Count – 11,957 Contents Introduction 5 Appendix One – romantic songs ...................................................................................................................................4 1. Why does it matter what we sing? ............................................................................................................................7 Engagement with God ..................................................................................................................................................7 Songs and stories .........................................................................................................................................................7 Songs reflect the community.........................................................................................................................................8 2. ..............................................................................................................................................................Material under scrutiny..........................................................................................................................................................................11 ‘Intimate’ songs ..........................................................................................................................................................12 ‘Revivalist’ songs........................................................................................................................................................13 Sublimated romanticism? ...........................................................................................................................................14 3. ..............................................................................................................................Examples of “romance” in church history............................................................................................................................................................................15 Nuptial Mysticism ......................................................................................................................................................15 4. ..............................................................................................................................................................Is this romance biblical? .........................................................................................................................................................................16 Song of Songs .............................................................................................................................................................17 God’s Bride.................................................................................................................................................................18 Proskynein ..................................................................................................................................................................18 New Testament immanence? ......................................................................................................................................19 5. ..................................................................................................................................Romance and intimacy in youth culture............................................................................................................................................................................20 Intimacy......................................................................................................................................................................21 Intimacy and individualism ........................................................................................................................................22 Romance - Compatibility............................................................................................................................................23 Sex ..............................................................................................................................................................................24 6. ...........................................................................................................................................What effect do these songs have?..............................................................................................................................................................................25 Theologically..............................................................................................................................................................25 Ecclesiologically ........................................................................................................................................................25 Psycho-Emotionally ...................................................................................................................................................26 7. Who is God?..............................................................................................................................................................28 The problems of analogy ............................................................................................................................................29 God is Trinity..............................................................................................................................................................30 God is other................................................................................................................................................................32 God is near.................................................................................................................................................................33 8. Who am I? ................................................................................................................................................................34 I am the image of God................................................................................................................................................35 9. What is a love relationship? ....................................................................................................................................37 Mutual fellowship ......................................................................................................................................................38 ”The Desire of Divine Love” .....................................................................................................................................39 Knowing who you love ...............................................................................................................................................40 10. How should we express intimacy in worship? .....................................................................................................42 11. Practical implications ............................................................................................................................................42 Songwriting ................................................................................................................................................................43 Liturgy ........................................................................................................................................................................44 Sacramental ...............................................................................................................................................................45 Epilogue .....................................................................................................................................................................46 We dare not come before your throne.........................................................................................................................57 Appendix One – romantic songs Appendix Two – Graham Kendrick interview Appendix Three – Lyn Burnhope’s songs Bibliography Introduction Introduction Hold me close, let your love surround me, Bring me near, draw me to your side And as I wait, I'll rise up like the eagle And I will soar with you, your Spirit leads me on In the power of your love.1 “Lord I come to you”, has become a very popular worship song in recent years. It typifies a body of material that raises questions over its attitude towards intimacy with God. As Draper notes, “Our songs have emphasised the feeling that Jesus is more of a boyfriend than the second member of the Trinity…”2 Is this kind of language an appropriate way to talk about our relationship with God? Gradually written criticisms are emerging,3 although no thorough discussion of the issue has yet been published. Some may consider that the content of worship songs is not an important enough issue for such research, a point we will discuss below. Perhaps a more pressing reason why these songs have not been seriously critiqued is that they are considered to be fulfilling a valid role: expressing intimacy with God in a way that is vivid and culturally relevant. Such intimacy – the stuff of romantic love - it is argued, is a biblical metaphor, is present in church history, and communicates effectively, especially with young people. These aspects will be discussed in Part One. Part Two will move on to ask how intimacy with God can be better expressed in worship, referring to historical and contemporary theologians who can offer insight into what a love relationship with God means, and helping us to define language of intimacy and love which does justice to the biblical witness, theological tradition and our own cultural setting. 1 Appendix 2 3 1, SH-2000. Brian and Kevin Draper, Refreshing Worship, (Oxford, Bible Reading Fellowship 2000) p. 33. See Martyn Percy, Words, Wonders and Power, (London, SPCK 1996). David J Montgomery, Sing a New Song, (Edinburgh, Rutherford House 2000) p. 68-9. Ian Stackhouse’s MTh thesis The Problem of Immediacy in Charismatic Worship (London Bible College). Steve Nolan’s Oedipal reading of the phenomenon, Carpe Phallum, in Michael A Hayes, Wendy Porter, David Tombs (Eds), Religion and Sexuality, (Sheffield, Sheffield Academic Press 1998) p. 285–311. Article No Titters in the Aisles Please, its a Hymn, (Sunday Telegraph, 23/10/94) p. 13. 1. Why does it matter what we sing? Why should ‘traditional’, ‘patriarchal’ or ‘academic’ notions of God dominate worship when he can be addressed in ways that are relevant and meaningful to the worshipper? Germane to such arguments is the belief that God can be addressed in any way, thus allowing for a purely anthropological perspective. We can counter this attitude on three grounds. Engagement with God Peterson argues that, “The worship of the living and true God is essentially an engagement with him on the terms that he proposes and in the way that he alone makes possible.” 4 God is not to be approached arbitrarily, but in divinely initiated ways. This suggests that there are appropriate, and therefore inappropriate, means of addressing God. This corresponds to the biblical picture of God who engages with his people, giving them names to call him (Ex 3:14; Jn 14:6; Rev 22:13), cultic or liturgical activities to carry out (Lev 1-7; Lk 22:19-20; 1 Cor 14:26), indications of what their attitude should be (Gen 4:7; Is 58:6; Jn 4:23) and above all his presence to meet and empower them in worship (1 Kgs 19 :12; Jn 14:26; Acts 4:31). The accompanying danger is that if we do not worship God on his terms we begin to worship a God made in our own image, a projection of ourselves - not the adoration of the Holy, all-powerful and worthy God. Songs and stories It is not a new thing to say that songs are remembered long after the sermon is forgotten. However as we move from the ‘modern’ emphasis on systematic, rational 4 David Peterson, Engaging With God, (Leicester, Apollos 1992) p. 20. knowledge, to the idea of worldview based on narrative, the influence of song lyrics becomes even more prominent. Stories are a way of explaining life. Wright terms them a lens through which we view the world.5 In our post-Christian culture the world’s stories are competing with the biblical master story for attention. Hopewell talks of the story of the congregation, and the story of God, and suggests that they are, “united though in tension... The stories are blended in worship... In the crossfire of symbols, the members represent Christ’s body, the manifestation of God within signs of their own flesh and culture.”6 Thus as we meet for worship we should not only hear but also interact with the story as found in the Bible. Walker asserts that, “Liturgy is the regular, unceasing dramaturgical re-enactment of the story.” 7 If our worship songs are so influenced by stories of love and intimacy brought in from the world we may find ourselves once again worshipping God and living our lives from a non-biblical script. Songs reflect the community Traditionally the theological health of a denomination or movement is tested in relation to its creeds or statements of faith. However with the predominance of churches that downplay traditional theology in favour of a more subjective understanding of God, a methodological shift occurs: we may be better to analyse the doxological dimension. This happens at a pragmatic level: a churchgoer may attend a particular church because the worship ‘is good’. Draper states the populist opinion, 5 NT Wright, New Testament and the People of God, (London, SPCK 1992) p. 124. 6 James F Hopewell, Congregation – Stories and Structures, (London, SCM Press 1987) p. 165. 7 Andrew Walker, Telling the Story, (London, SPCK 1996) p. 194. “The way we worship – the language, imagery, metaphors, music and even the layout and design of the buildings and ‘worship spaces’ - says a lot to people outside the church about our God.”8 Academically, different doxologies are being analysed to discern the underlying beliefs of their communities.9 The content of such doxologies may not be stated publicly but are, nevertheless, assented to by the congregation in their worship. Percy critiques the charismatic ‘revivalist’ movement, for instance, by analysing its worship songs, justifying his method thus: “It is the worship of a community which provides it with its primary religious experience, and thus its certainty and ideology.”10 If this is so then we cannot take lightly the songs we use in worship. They affect the way we relate to God, how we understand the world, and how the world understands us. 8 Draper, Refreshing, p. 18. 9 For example Sandra Sizer, Gospel Hymns and Social Religion, (Philadelphia, Temple University Press 1978). Percy, Words. 10 Percy, Words, p. 60. PartJesus One . . . is my girlfriend? 2. Material under scrutiny At this point we need to identify both the songs in question, and their origin. The former is problematic but vital. No particular book or school of songs has a universally ‘romantic’ theme, and no scholarly work has yet identified such a particular group. For the purposes of this project I have assembled a body of material 11 which contains the following criteria: A) It talks of God using metaphors, themes, or modes of address, which can be associated with romantic love between humans. B) It is a song likely to be used in a youth worship setting. It is vital to recognise the generalising nature of these criteria. A) needs to be understood in reference to a 20th century, popular, teenage view of romance, influenced by the media of film, music and literature. The analysis of metaphors, themes and modes of address is borrowed from Sizer’s work.12 B) assumes a ‘typical’ British youth worship event, which makes use of the best selling Stoneliegh 2000-2001, Spring Harvest 1998 and 2000 and Soul Survivor – Led to the Lost music books. This project looks specifically at youth worship, further study would be required to see the cultural factors effecting adult worship. Furthermore there is insufficient room to undertake a full analysis of all the metaphors, themes and modes of address present in these books. It should be noted that the overtly romantic does not represent the majority of the material in each book. However the focus of this project is to analyse the genre’s validity per se, not its size. The more generalised approach seeks to produce an analysis that is specific yet overarching, and needs to be applied with reference to particular songs and cultural situations. The material ranges from that which contains one or more overtly romantic metaphor, Come to me, like a lover, returning in the night,13 to songs which take a romantic theme throughout: 11 Appendix 12 1. Sizer, Gospel Hymns. 13 Appendix 1, ST-10. You are my passion, love of my life, Friend and companion, my lover. All of my being longs for your touch, With all my heart I love you. Now let will you draw me close to you, Gather me in your arms. Let me feel the beating of your heart, Oh my Jesus.14 The mode of address in the songs are important to note, for, as Sizer reminds us, “not only what the hymns say, but how they say it, reveals something about the way the relations among human beings or between humans and deities are conceived.”15 Such songs are usually written in first person singular, suggesting a relationship that is ‘one-on-one’. They generally address ‘Lord’ or Jesus’, often the more ambiguous ‘you’. Frequent anthropomorphism allows talk of God putting his arms around the worshipper (ST-14-63; SH98-15-49-62-159; SH2000-67-79), touching them (SH98-159; SS-73), kissing them (ST-10; SH98-64), showing his face (ST-63), or even the worshipper holding him (ST-72). Some talk of falling in love (ST-78-80; SS11) and others turn love into a substance, surrounding them (ST-10, SH98-64) or touching them (SH98-22). Some are included not simply for their lyrics, but for the romanticising effect of the music (ST-71). ‘Intimate’ songs Recently amongst Christian young people ‘intimate’ has become a watch word thanks mostly to the songs and teaching of Matt Redman, Britain’s premier youth orientated 14 Appendix 15 1, SH98-159. Sizer, Gospel Hymns, p. 26. songwriter, recording artist,16 and worship leader at the Soul Survivor church and conferences.17 He has avoided sexual language, but recognises that his material can err on the side of closeness at the expense of transcendence, ”I’ve not paid enough attention to the reverence of the Lord... its easier to write the personal words.”18 He points to the use of Proskuneo, ‘to come towards to kiss’ yet with the reverence of a dog licking its master’s hand. He also cites Song of Songs as an example of intimacy, and the idea of friendship and fear seen in Ps 25:14 and Rev 1:15-17 as justifications for worship which celebrates God’s transcendence and imminence.19 ‘Revivalist’ songs Redman states: “The Vineyard really strongly influenced me especially in terms of the whole expectancy to meet with God thing... and the whole intimacy in worship aspect.”20 Thus we can trace this attitude back through Soul Survivor’s parent church St Andrews, Chorleywood to the movement which most influenced it, John Wimber’s Vineyard. The Toronto Blessing has also done much to promote the Vineyard model as perhaps the most prominent form of charismatic worship in this country. Liesch describes the Vineyard model as one of stages, where, “The psychological dynamics of worship operate much like the dynamics of lovemaking.”21 16 Solo albums Wake Up My Soul, Passion For Your Name, the Friendship and the Fear, Intimacy, The Father’s Song (all on Survivor Records). 17 Royal Bath and West Showground, every August since 1993. 18Lecture, London Bible College, 24/04/01. 19 Magazine interviews, Worship Together, issues 13 (1995) p. 24-26, and 23 (1998) p. 8-10, and Renewal, issue 283 (1999) p. 10-11. 20 Worship Together, 23, pg. 9. 21 Barry Liesch, People in the Presence of God, (East Sussex, Highland Books 1990) p. 91. Worshippers are taken through five stages of Invitation, Engagement, Exaltation, and Adoration, to reach what Wimber calls ”a zenith, a climactic point, not unlike physical love making”,22 a time of intimacy with God. This emphasis and the texts themselves cause Percy to claim that, “Charismatic renewal is in some ways configured around a sense of sublimated eroticism.”23 He points to the use of “smoochy” music, an emphasis on passion and passivity, the metaphors of water and heat, and the immediacy of God as key features. Although at times he may be overly Freudian in his analysis, and some would call his social exchange theories ‘reductionist’24, it cannot be denied that there the romantic element plays a large part in the traditional Vineyard model, and that this has had a huge influence on current trends. We can trace the family line back further to nineteenth century Gospel Hymns. Here Sizer notices the first major shifts in song writing. She uses them to analyse the American Social Religion movement. “All the hymnals portray Jesus as a deity of love... the relationship has become much more intimate – although Jesus may be stronger, he is not higher... he enfolds the poor sinner in his arms, and to be in his presence is heavenly bliss.”25 It is this sense of intimacy and romantic love that has passed through the last few centuries and gives us the basis of today’s romantic worship songs. However it would be a mistake to see this as a definite movement to ‘put the romance back into worship’. One of the most interesting points is that this is largely subliminal. Sublimated romanticism? One key reason why this sort of worship is rarely critiqued is that its adherents promote 22 J Wimber, Worship: Intimacy With God, in Worship Conference Resource Papers, (Mercy Publishing 1989) p. 8. 23 Percy, Words, p. 141. 24 Graham Cray in Craig Bartholomew and Thorsten Moritz (Eds), Christ and Consumerism (Cumbria, Paternoster Press 2000) p. 153. 25 Sizer, Gospel Hymns, p. 35. subjectivity over objectivity. Theology, from the Social Religion movement, through Wimber and into present day Charismatic churches is usually placed second against feelings.26 Bible teaching may be prominent, but academic study has been discarded, leaving a primarily experiential understanding of God, unchecked by tradition or doctrine. Another reason is the assumption that love means romantic love. As Percy comments about revivalist worship, “The most frequently used configuring scenario to describe the ideal form of relationship with God is that of a teenager in love.”27 It is not only Charismatic Christians who have this notion of ‘love’, it is possibly the most common presupposition in our culture. ”Songwriters who have been soaked from their earliest years in the lyrics of ! romantic pop songs via the radio, TV and their CD collections, are drawn ! disproportionately to romantic imagery just because it is so familiar to them.”28 Whether this corresponds to the biblical understanding of love will be discussed later, after we have looked from a historical angle. 3. Examples of “romance” in church history Nuptial Mysticism Looking further back for examples in church history of a notion of ‘romance’ with Jesus, the most obvious example is the ‘nuptial’ mysticism seen in medieval writers like St Bernard and Julian of Norwich, and in the 16th century Theresa of Avila. Evelyn Underhill, perhaps the 20th century’s most respected voice on mysticism, is quick to point out that this language for them was mere image of their experience, “The great saints who adopted and elaborated this symbolism... were essentially pure of heart; and when they ‘saw God’ they were so far from confusing that 26 Percy, Words, p. 60. 27 Martyn Percy, Power and the Church, (London, Cassel 1998) p. 149. 28 Graham Kendrick, email interview, Appendix 2 p. 1. unearthly vision with the products of morbid sexuality, that the dangerous nature of the imagery which they employed did not occur to them.”29 We should note that Underhill sees a contemporary danger in this imagery, which was not present at the time. However, here she also betrays the underlying problem of this form of mysticism. If, as she suggests, mysticism is an escape from the world of the sensual to an ‘unearthly’ spiritual experience of the Absolute, then it is a far cry from the earthly spirituality of the Bible. The basis of this kind of mysticism can be called Apophatic, the unknowablility of God through human means, introduced by Pseudo Dionysius, a 6th century spiritual writer. The negative elements of his writings were taken by the unknown author of the Cloud of Unknowing, claiming, “God unites the contemplative to himself in the perfect love of mystical marriage through the naked love of blind contemplation... through transforming union, the contemplative actually becomes God, by participating in his very own life.”30 Contrastingly, the biblical story of creation, the dealings with the Israelites, the incarnation and finally the arrival of the new heaven and new earth all indicate that God is in the business of working with the whole of the created order, to redeem it to its original state, not to rescue the spiritual from the clutches of the material. The problem with the nuptial mystics is not that they use the language of ‘morbid sexuality’ – sex is a gift from God. The issue is that in denying physical sexuality they misplace it, spiritualising it, and locating it in their relationship with God rather than a member of the opposite sex. We were not created for ‘union’ with God, but to become fully human. 4. Is this romance biblical? We have reached a stage where we need to look more closely at the Bible’s use of romantic imagery. If it is justifiably found here, our conclusions about historical uses must be radically rethought. 29 Evelyn Underhill, An Introduction to Mysticism, (London, Methuen and Co. 1911) p. 163. 30 Harvey D Egar, Christian Mysticism, (Minnesota, Pueblo Publishing Co. 1984) p. 95. . Song of Songs Perhaps the most common biblical justification is an analogous reading of the Song of Songs.31 This holds that the ‘deeper’ meaning is the relationship between God and Israel, and/or Christ and the Church or the individual believer. This view, which began with Origen and is perhaps most prominent in the sermons of Bernard of Clairvaux, can be see in a worship song like SH98-39, which quotes chapter 2 verses 4 and 16 directly, with reference to God. Although this has been the dominant reading of the book throughout church history, it is refuted my most scholars today.32 “These modes of interpretation… do not explicate the primary level of the text, which is explicitly about human love and nowhere mentions God.”33 Most of these readings have been route to explaining away an otherwise embarrassing and troublesome book, which contradicts much of the church’s unhealthy and nonbiblical teaching on sex. “Underlying most of this sort of handling of the text is an implicit acceptance of the Platonic or Gnostic belief that physical things, particularly related to sexuality, are intrinsically evil, and are to be shunned by those who are seeking the spiritual life.”34 Contrary to these ‘spiritualised’ readings, this Old Testament book is unashamed to talk about the joy of human sexual union. Another approach is to accept that the original meaning was human love poetry, but read back a typological significance about the divine-human relationship. Textual evidence is claimed from the wedding Psalm (45:6,7), used in reference to Jesus in Hebrews 1:9. Yet Carr argues that the Psalm is a very different issue, because there is 31 See Wimber, Worship, p. 8. Montgomery, Sing, p. 68. 32 Roland E Murphey, Canticle of Canticles, in Raymond E Brown, Joseph A Fitzmyer, Roland E Murphey (Eds), New Jerome Bible Handbook, (London, Geoffrey Chapman 1992) p. 152. 33 Marcia Falk, Song of Songs, in JL Mays (Ed), Harper’s Bible Commentary, (San Francisco, Harper and Row 1988) p. 525. 34 G Lloyd Carr, Song of Solomon, Tyndale Old Testament Commentary, (Leicester, IVP 1984) p. 23. New Testament evidence of the “typological basis of the Davidic kingship.”35 Song of Songs itself has no such justification for a “Christological interpretation or application.”36 God’s Bride Romantic imagery can also be justified from the notion of Israel as God’s wife (Ezekiel 16; 23; Hosea 1-3), and the Church as the Bride of Christ, (Eph 5:22-33, Rev 19:6-8). Two points must be made. Firstly all these examples are based around corporate expressions of relationship with God. Israel’s dealings with God were seen in terms of his covenant with the people, not with an individual per se. This continues into the presuppositions of the New Testament writers, who talked of the Church as the body and bride of Christ. Kendrick comments, ”If the Bride of Christ is corporate could it not be argued that the experience of ! intimacy with God should also be very much a corporate thing?”37 Secondly, this image is used to refer primarily to faithfulness. The Old Testament prophets used it as an image of God’s covenant faithfulness, compared to Israel’s harlotry. The Ephesian’s passage compares Christ’s sacrificial love to that of a good husband, mixing the metaphors of marriage and one body. Revelation celebrates the church as the faithful bride, compared with those who have been seduced by Babylon the Great (Rev 17,18). Both points draw a marked difference between this biblical image and a 20th century understanding of romantic love. Proskynein This Greek word which we translate as ‘worship’ has its etymological roots in pros, meaning toward, and kynein, which means to kiss. Thus it has been a popular 35 Carr, Song, p. 26-27. 36 Carr, Song, p. 31 37 Kendrick, Appendix 2, p. 2. justification for a sense of intimacy and ‘romance’, in worship.38 However, Peterson warns that, “Old Testament usage, rather than any supposed etymology of the word, must be the interpreters guide.”39 As a contemporary example, imagine someone two thousand years from now looking at our word ‘holiday’. They could assume that we meant a single day set aside for a religious purpose. Although this may be the root, it is not what the word means in contemporary speech! Peterson’s survey of the way prosknein is used to translate the Old Testament Hebrew into the Septuagint’s Greek reveals that although the word may have its roots in a notion of bowing to kiss, it came to indicate a physical or spiritual prostration, “an expression of awe or grateful submission – a recognition of his gracious character and rule.”40 New Testament immanence? Another common argument stems from a dichotomy of the Old Testament God being distant, but with the new covenant “we no longer worship a God far off”.41 The New Testament does proclaim that we may now have confidence to enter the Most Holy Place by the blood of Jesus (Heb 10:19). However, we must be careful. Firstly, the people of God are called to ‘draw near’ in the Old Testament, the Septuagint uses the same words proserchesthai and engizein that we see in Hebrews (Gen 18:23; Ps 148:14).42 Wenham points out that in Leviticus the Israelites recognised the presence of God their daily lives. Furthermore, “On special occasions his divine glory appeared in cloud and fire, so that all the people could recognise his coming.”43 38 Matt Redman, Worship Together, 13 p. 26, and 23 p. 10, and Renewal, issue 283, p. 11. Graham Kendrick, Worship, (Eastbourne, Kingsway 1984) p. 23-24. Carl Tuttle in Robin Sheldon (Ed), In Spirit and in Truth, (London, Hodder and Stoughton 1989) p. 148. 39 Peterson, Engaging, p. 79. 40 Peterson, Engaging, p. 73. 41 Tuttle, In Spirit and in Truth, p. 147. 42 Peterson, Engaging, p. 257. 43 Gordon Wenham, New International Commentaries on the OT, Leviticus, (Grand Rapids, Eerdmans 1979) p. 16. These manifestations of God’s glory were not to be taken lightly. Since God was Holy any humans in contact with him would die, as God warned Moses (Ex 33:20), and as unfortunate Israelites discovered (Lev 10:1-20; 1 Sam 6:19). Thus clouds and fire covered theophonies to protect the Israelites, and to communicate the inaccessibility of the Divine. Secondly, whilst there is a sense of increased intimacy in the New Testament, this is by no means an easy transition, as if God has suddenly changed to become immanent. The presuppositions of Levitical holiness and mediatorship remain in the thinking of Jesus, Paul, and the writer to the Hebrews. Peterson argues that Hebrews is not rejecting these notions, but reinterpreting them in the light of the incarnation. “The people of God may now draw near without the aid of a human priesthood, but only because they rely on the priestly mediation of Jesus Christ.”44 It is vital that we understand the dogmatic and doxological structures arrived at in scripture and historical theology that serve to hold transcendence and immanence in tension. “Given the loss of a sense of transcendence in our culture generally, we will have to work harder to make sure it is present in our worship.”45 Thus before we turn to these structures (Part Two), let us unpack the issues as they are found in our culture. 5. Romance and intimacy in youth culture A primary justification for ‘romantic’ songs is that they communicate to young people the love of God in a language they understand. However, without the biblical master-story as a basis, romantic songs will be understood through the interpretative glasses of secular youth culture. Ward, in his work with unchurched young people, encourages contextualisation, yet warns, 44 Peterson, Engaging, p. 239. 45 Liesch, Presence, p. 26. ”Our attempts to make Jesus come live within a culture by ‘picturing’ him in new ways carry with them the problem that every picture has several meanings already.”46 Intimacy Intimacy is a buzz word in sociological as well as ecclesial circles. And it can have a confusingly broad range of meanings in both camps. Jamieson explores the popular notion of ‘disclosing intimacy’, concluding, ”‘disclosing intimacy’ is not becoming the crux of personal life as it is lived, despite a much greater emphasis on this type of intimacy in public stories about personal life.”47 These public stories range from the proliferation of self help manuals, to magazines, popular films and music, which encourage a kind of intimacy based on ‘knowing’, with friendship as the primary model. This gap between public stories and people’s lived experience that causes what Storkey terms a ‘crisis of intimacy’. She points to a newspaper describing a rapist ‘being intimate’ with his victim, as an example of this confusion.48 Stafford’s controversial article in ‘Christianity Today’49 critiques what he terms a purvading ‘Ethic of Intimacy’. This is a social structure for organising sexuality which ”is not love exactly”, but instead values intimacy as the aim and justification of sexual relationships.50 He sums up this dominant ethic in seven points, 1. A positive view of sex within intimacy 2. The independent individual 3. Compatibility 4. Sex as a private matter 46 Pete Ward, Youth Culture and the Gospel, (London, Marshall Pickering 1992) p. 38. 47 Lynn Jamieson, Intimacy, (Cambridge, Polity 1998) p. 158. 48 Elaine Storkey, The Search for Intimacy, (London, Hodder and Stoughton 1995) p. 4. 49 Tim Stafford, Intimacy: Our Latest Sexual Fantasy in Christianity Today, (January 16th 1987) p. 21-27. 50 Stafford, Intimacy, p. 22. 5. Sex with no necessary consequences 6. No double standard [regarding gender] 7. Sex requires maturity His analysis is insightful into the way society uses intimacy as a social script, and he offers Christian counter arguments to refute its validity. We can use elements of his critique to further analyse society’s presuppositions. Intimacy and individualism Ward explains, ”on the one hand some young people form very tight groups which could be seen as a starting point for Christian community, but on the other hand young people can be very individualistic in their lifestyles and values.”51 We live in an increasingly self-centred society. Industrialisation and then Thatcherism spawned a Britain of consumers, primarily seeking satisfaction and identity through buying. ”In the dynamics of our culture, consumption has become the dominant faith and individualism...serves it.”52 In this context intimacy is a self-fulfilling consumer choice, more about seeking to know oneself, than knowing another. Giddens charts a Transformation of Intimacy,53 where people enter into relationships for no other reason than the relationship itself, ”which is continued only in so far as it is thought by both parties to deliver enough satisfaction for each individual to stay within it”,54 and can celebrate a ‘plastic sexuality’ of pure pleasure, devoid of ‘care’. Thus when we talk about intimacy with God we can be advocating an approach which simply panders to the consumer’s ‘I want’, Christianity as, ”Something to be chosen or discarded, not on the basis or truth, but only on the basis of its perceived value in the process of self-construction.”55 51 Pete Ward, Worship and Youth Culture, (London, Marshall Pickering 1993) p. 65. 52 Alan Storkey in Bartholomew and Moritz, Consumerism, p. 100. 53 Anthony Giddens, Transformation of Intimacy, (Cambridge, Polity Press 1992). 54 Giddens, Transformation, p. 58. 55 Craig M Gay, The Way of the Modern World, (Carslile, Paternoster Press 1998) p. 211. Yet this is far from the biblical model, and Jamieson concurs, ”Concern with self satisfaction or self protection renders impossible the necessary compromise involved in commitment to one another.”56 Romance - Compatibility Hollywood presents an ideal, where love is based around the ‘click’ of compatibility. This can also be linked back to individualism: ”The self becomes in effect, a very personal god or spirit, to whom one owes obedience. Hence ‘experiencing’ with all its connotations of gratificatory and stimulative feelings, becomes an ethical activity, an aspect of duty.”57 Thus in the film, ‘You’ve Got Mail’ (Nora Ephron, 1998) Tom Hank’s character uses immoral means to secure the closure of Meg Ryan’s small independent bookshop in favour of his multinational conglomerate, and yet they still end up together! This happens not because of any change in his character, or repentance, but simply because she ‘falls in love’ with him, based on emotional attraction and immediate personal fulfilment. In this ideal, love is instantly turned on but as quickly turned off. Consumerism has created an immediate, ”instant free credit”58 culture, characterised by MTV, McDonalds and the internet. The question of the post-modern is not ‘is it true’ but ‘does it work’, and most often ‘will it work now?’ Feelings change, people start to lose their potential to ‘fulfil’ one another, and so this kind of love is ephemeral. In using romantic imagery we are in danger of saying that this is the kind of love God has for us, and we should have for God. God’s love is cheapened. In contrast Stafford asserts that, ”The Christian places the person’s will (not emotions) at the centre: Love is work to be done, and intimacy is to be created through persistent self-sacrifice.”59 56 Jamieson, Intimacy, p. 41. 57 Colin Campbell, Romantic Ethic and the Spirit of Consumerism, (Oxford, Basil Blackwell 1987) p. 285-86. 58 Thorsten Moritz in Bartholomew and Moritz, Consumerism, p. 76. 59 Stafford, Christianity Today, p. 25. The biblical picture of love involves not just the emotions but also patience, covenant, and sacrifice. It is this holistic appreciation which we need to foster through our doxology. Sex The use of ‘erotic’ or at least ‘sensual’ language in worship could also be potentially confusing because of the commodification of sex prevalent in our culture. Pornography is available to all via the mass media and the internet,60 making sex a purely individualistic and immediate act. Although restrained by social constructs as outlined by Stafford, for many sex is basically nothing more than an animal instinct: You and me baby ain’t nothing but mammals, So let’s do it like they do on the Discovery Channel.61 These presuppositions must be challenged by a biblical view of appropriate relationship boundaries. Stafford concludes that the Ethic of Intimacy is damaging for the weakest in society; responsible for under age pregnancy, STD’s, single parent families and ”on the whole less intimacy than ever before.”62 We live in what Coupland calls the ”cult of aloneness”, ”The need for autonomy at all costs, usually at the expense of long term relationships. Often brought about by overly high expectations of others.” 63 To conclude Part One we will sum up the effect of songs that use language more influenced by contemporary culture than the biblical witness. 60 Bartholomew in Bartholomew and Moritz, Consumerism, p. 7-8. 61 Bloodhound Gang, The Bad Touch, from the album Hooray For Boobies, (Geffen 2000). 62 Stafford, Christianity Today, p. 25. 63 Douglas Coupland, Generation X, (New York, St Martin’s Press 1991) p. 69. 6. What effect do these songs have? Theologically As we have seen, there is no biblical precedent for an individual to address God in romantic terms. This in itself should be fair reason to avoid using and writing such material, but the potential impact on the worshipper’s theology reaches much further. Such immediate language about God loses the biblical sense of mediatorship, so vital to our understanding who God is, who we are, and therefore in whom the incarnation and atonement happened. It denies the distinction of persons in the Godhead, thus the historical doctrine of the Trinity. This makes God the Father less than holy and transcendent. It makes Christ’s life and death a mere event that facilitates salvation, rather than an ontological relationship into which we participate. It denies the Spirit as the person by whom we are empowered and sanctified to participate in Christ’s life. Furthermore it ignores Christ’s life and death as the primary demonstration of the love of God, vastly different from the 20th century understanding of romantic love. As we have seen love and sex today are often much more about the lover than the beloved, a want for emotional gratification more than a self sacrificing commitment. The genre betrays a move towards the kind of dualism we have seen in the nuptial mystics. By denying the importance of the physical world we distort the biblical anthropology. Christ’s work becomes a means to escape our humanity, rather than allowing us to become fully human. Thus we spiritualise that which should be fulfilled in the material. Ecclesiologically At the level of the church fellowship, a focus on songs which use romantic imagery has the potential to assert individualism, seeking self fulfilment not self sacrifice. As we have discovered this is highly prevalent in our consumer society, and is a hallmark of romanticism. Addressing God in primarily the first person singular loses the biblical sense of the body of Christ worshipping and experiencing him together, with and through one another (1 Cor 12:12-30). It is together that we are the bride of Christ, frail humans but being sanctified by the Spirit for the return of Christ (Rev 19:6-8), not empowered with some emotional feelings of our own. The romantic image also, as we touched on above, robs us of our requirements to comfort and support one another. In his work on Christian singleness, Hsu points out that it is the church body who should provide fellowship and family for the alienated and lonely.64 Unfortunately, romantic worship can become another therapy in a world where problems are solved by individual, private emotional releases. We deny our community’s responsibility of honest sharing, friendship and discipleship by looking for these emotional needs to be fulfilled in a spiritual sense. Psycho-Emotionally In this area it can be argued that when worship is based around the subjective and anthropocentric, it builds up people’s emotional expectations, that when they meet with God they will ‘feel’ certain things. Whilst the emotional is an important aspect of worship, it should not be this alone which we rely on. Emotions can vary with our mood, temperament and the effect of music and leadership style, but the love of God and his intimate presence with us is constant. Furthermore, single people can be led down the path that Jesus is the equivalent of a spouse, that he will fulfil all their needs. Thus worshippers have the potential for a spiritual crisis when the expected emotions of being ‘loved’ in a romantic sense are not aroused. Married or courting couples may be encouraged to create a false dichotomy of choice between their beloved and their God. Male worshippers can feel unnecessarily uncomfortable with ‘erotic’ lyrics. All these notions reflect confused ideas of who God is, who we are, and how we should have a love relationship with God and each other. Yet they are at least an attempt at a justifiable aim; earthing the Christian relationship in a physical and immediate way. Thus as we move into section two we will need to address these questions, to discover appropriate boundaries for expressing intimate, love relationships in youth worship. 64 Al Hsu, The Single Issue, (Leicester, IVP 1997) p. 131-153. Part Two . . . The return of the Trinity To discuss an appropriate expression of intimacy, it is vital that we avoid the methodological pitfalls of appealing to isolated words or texts in the Bible, citing supposed historical examples, or pandering to contemporary culture. Instead we turn to the constructive task of Christian doctrine. Gunton asserts, ”Theology does not spring ready made from the mind, the text, nor the Christian community, but takes shape as questions from within and without are raised and as answers given in one generation are seen by another to require supplementation and correction.”65 Doctrine is not mere academic speculation nor static tradition, but the outworking of experience, and the reaction against heresies which threaten that experience. As Torrance explains, ”If out of the confessional (kyrigmatic) statements of the Bible, come doxological statements, Christian dogmatics unfold from reflection on doxology.”66 Doctrinal language is, then, the articulation of that which was presupposed and implicit. A church or youth service which puts little or no emphasis on doctrine leaves its worldview unchecked, its presuppositions can be far more worldly than Christian. Thus, we will take a step back to the fundamental question of theology; asking who is God? It is from there that we will be able to discern an anthropology; asking who am I? Then we will be in a position to discern the relation between the two; what it means to have a love relationship with God. 7. Who is God? We can postulate that there are two basic perceptions of God for the contemporary young person to choose from. The first is the transcendent God, far away from the world, and either harshly judgmental or disinterested. This perception of God was handed down from the Apophatic theology of the middle ages to the philosophers of the Enlightenment. He is typified, in young people’s eyes, by the worship and architecture 65 Colin Gunton, The Triune Creator, (Edinburgh, Edinburgh University Press 1998) p. 51. 66 Torrance, Worship, p. ix. of the Catholic church, and reflects the Western theological stress on the unity of God.67 The second choice is the immanent God, close and personal, who is deeply involved in your life. He is typified by the Pentecostal and Charismatic movements, and mocked in the film Dogma (Kevin Smith, 1999) by the image of the ‘Buddy Jesus’. He is the result of the enlightenment stress on a psychologically-known God, and fulfils the post-modern pluralistic, therapeutic and consumerist desires.68 This is the God we have met in the ‘romantic’ worship songs. These two extremes are expressed in the popular, Ben Elton novel Inconceivable. Elton’s lead character considers praying for the results of her IVF treatment, and begins by deciding that ”the universe is a mystery and we shall call the author of that mystery God.”69 Yet she rejects the sort of God referred to on daytime television. ”If I'm going to have a God I want a great and terrible God, a God of splendour, mystery and majesty, not one that spends his time chatting to whingers about how stressed they are.”70 These dichotomies of immanence and transcendence, the one and the many, angry and caring, reflect the confusion of the post-modern world. Can a biblical doctrine of God enable us to hold them in tension? The problems of analogy In the midst of the following discussion, we must keep in mind the difficulties of our task. Language we use to talk about God will always be that of analogy, it is blasphemous to think that this side of the parousia we will ever do more than ‘see through a glass darkly’ (1 Cor 13:12). Modernity has failed, 67 Colin Gunton, The One the Three and the Many, (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press 1993) p. 138. 68 Gay, Modern World, p. 182 69 Ben Elton, Inconceivable, (London, Black Swan 1999) p. 254. 70 Elton, Inconceivable, p. 255. ”because it has its basis in an impossible quest for absolute truth, whose demand for certainty and omniscience displaces God and generates a quest for what is humanly unrealisable.”71 Conversely we must avoid the opposite post-modern trap of relativising and pluralising to the point where the revealed truths of the Bible are obscured. Instead we must stand with Barth’s conviction that, ”while human speech is in itself utterly incapable of representing God, in revelation God ‘seizes’ words and makes them capable of meaningful God talk.”72 This issue is highlighted in the problem of God’s economic action and immanent being. We are forced with theologians down through the centuries to admit that whilst God is ultimately a mystery, his revelation to us in our history must take the shape is does because this reflects something of his essential being. It is because of their absence from revelation that we rejected ‘romantic’ words for God. Now we must ask which words are ‘seized’ for God talk in the Bible, and how they shape our perception of God. God is Trinity The historical basis for God talk is the doctrine of the Trinity. This was the systematic expression of the New Testament experience; one God interacting with his people as Father, Son and Holy Spirit. ”It arose from the Church’s participation in the life of God, a participation granted by the Spirit and therefore requiring both the divinity of the Spirit and his distinction from the Father; and from her sending out into all the world, a mission deriving from the mission of the Son.”73 This ancient doctrine, asserted in the ecumenical creeds, is desperately absent from our contemporary worship and discourse, although enjoying something of a renaissance in 71 Gunton, The One, p. 131. 72 Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics I/I p. 430, in the words of Paul S Fiddes, Participating in God, (London, DLT 2000) p. 30. 73 British Council of Churches, The Forgotten Trinity, 1 The Report, (London, BCC 1989) p. 9. scholarly writings.74 Most of these reject the mathematical puzzles and less than helpful analogies and instead focus once again on the ontological aspect of the doctrine; how it helps us understand being, and thus the way we relate. Gay asserts that we need the doctrine, ”For a better understanding of God as a covenant not a contract-God; for a biblical understanding of worship; and for a less individualistic anthropology”,75 whilst the British Council of Churches’ report goes as far as to say, ”the difference between the life and death of Christian worship depends on its recovery of a Trinitarian dynamic.”76 Father language – pitfalls At this point it is right to address the concerns over the use of Father language. Firstly we assent that God is Spirit (Jn 4:24), neither male nor female, all humans are made in his image (Gen 1:27). Furthermore we cannot ignore that, ”Thoughtless and careless use of male imagery about God has an actively oppressive effect, and leaves many people feeling that they cannot love or cannot be loved by such a God.”77 However, it also cannot be denied that this is the primary way in which God chose to reveal himself through Christ in the Spirit. Other modern reinterpretations such as ”Source, Wellspring and Living Water”78 , or the Augustinian idea of ”subsistent relations”,79 reduce the vital personal element of the Trinity, all to prevalent in Western theology.80 It is true that we need to reinterpret ‘person’, as we do ‘Father’ and ‘Son’, and 74 See David Cunningham’s annotated bibliography, These Three are One, (Oxford, Blackwell 1998) p. 339-342. 75 Gay, Modern World, p. 84. 76 BCC, Forgotten 1, p. 28. 77 Jane Williams, The Fatherhood of God, in Forgotten 3, p. 91. 78 Cunningham, These Three, p. 80-82. 79 Fiddes runs this risk with his ”persons as relations”, Participating, p. 50. 80 BCC, Forgotten 1, p. 21. just about any word we use in relation to God. But this ‘seizing’ is the very stuff and matter of the theological task. So as Williams rightly points out, the key to ‘Father’ is understanding the original content of the biblical metaphor.81 She shows that in neither Testament is Father used of God in a ‘power’ or ‘sexual’ sense. Jesus radically reinterpreted the patriarchal nature of the phrase, calling attention to his own intimacy and conduct as the image of Father God; ”Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father” (Jn 14:9). Furthermore, the doctrine of the Trinity itself, with the correct pneumatological focus, is a safeguard against anthropomorphic readings.82 So here we must turn, to begin exploring our understanding of God as Triune. God is other The Cappadocian Fathers have an essential place in the history of Trinitarian thought because of their innovative answers to the problems of their time. They were theologising in a climate where the philosophies of Plato and Aristotle both held the notion of a united cosmos, in which both God and the world were a part.83 The Cappadocian’s biblical appreciation of God as other, separate from the world, creating it ex nihlio, meant that the world was the product of personal freedom. Furthermore, personal freedom itself was ontological, the basis of God’s being. They achieved this in their dictum ”one substance, three persons”, by relating the word prosopon, a relational term, with the word hypostasis, which, thanks to Athanasius,84 was equal to ousia, being. By daring to reflect on the imminent Trinity in such a way, this step had the effect of making person an ontological term, or as Zizioulas terms it ”Being as Communion”. ”If God exists, he exists because the Father exists, that is, He who out of love freely begets the Son and brings forth the Spirit. Thus God as person as the hypostasis of the Father - makes the one divine substance to be that which it is: the one God.”85 81 Williams, Fatherhood, p. 93-98. 82 Williams, Fatherhood, p.99. 83 John D Zizioulas, Being as Communion, (London, DLT 1985) p. 35. 84 GWP McFarlane, Christ and the Spirit, (Cumbria, Paternoster Press 1996) p. 29. 85 Zizioulas, Being, p. 41. This God is not dependant on his creation, he is truly other and complete within this network of divine relations. They are not three gods but one God, the Father, who begets the Son and from whom the Spirit emanates. ”This God is, first, transcendent, but the function of this concept is still to express something of the relationship between creator and creation.”86 Thus we move on to the way in which this Holy, other God relates to his creation. God is near The primary example here is St Irenaeus, battling against the Gnostics. He understood God as relating to creation by the Son and the Spirit, God the Father’s ‘two hands’, mediators in the unified act of creation. ”Because God creates by means of his own Son and Spirit, he is unlike the deities of the Gnostics and the one of neo-Platonism in that he does not require beings intermediate between himself and the world.”87 Trinitarian language allowed Irenaeus to show how God could be both other and personally involved in the world. All his works are the will of the Father being done by the Son, in the Holy Spirit, so that they are unified in their purpose but diverse in their relationships. This Trinitarian mediator (2 Tim 2:5) is revealed in the Incarnation. ‘The Word’ in John’s prologue is a concept which links God’s agent in the Old Testament, by whom he created the world and revealed his purposes as Wisdom, and the incarnate Son we meet in Christ, by whom creation is redeemed and the true nature of the Father is revealed. ”For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. No-one has ever seen God, but God the Only Begotten, who is at the Father’s side, has made him known.” (Jn 1:17-18) The Spirit is intrinsically involved in this revelation as the one by whom Christ is conceived (Lk 1:35), who anoints his baptism (Lk 3:22), who leads him to the desert (Lk 86 Francis Watson, Text, Church and World, (Edinburgh, T and T Clark 1994) p. 144. 87 Gunton, Creator, p. 54. 4:1), and not only raised him from the dead to glory, but enlightens and empowers his followers (Eph 1:17-21). This Triune action of the Son doing the Father’s will by the Spirit is how we can hold together the dichotomies which seek to reduce God; his transcendence and immanence, his oneness and threeness, his static nature and dynamic relationships. This has a vital role in the way we approach a doctrine of humanity. 8. Who am I? Today, for most young people, a ‘person’ is seen primarily as an individual. Gunton argues that this is a development of the Western stress on the unity of God, and his act of creating us as individuals.88 Coupled with the modernist displacement of the functions normally attributed to God, this has led to a primarily self centred attitude towards the human person. ”We have too one sidedly interpreted the individual as someone with rights, duties (Thomas Jefferson), as the thinking self (Descartes), as endowed with reason (Botheus), as a self legislating autonomous ego (Kant) as a work ethic, as someone with physical, economic, social, emotional, sexual and cultural needs.” 89 Social interaction amongst young people is fuelled primarily by the image given to them by consumer commodities.90 This is the attempt to create oneself as an individual, not in relation to others or God, but in the image chosen from catalogues, television screens and internet sites. ”The broader result is that post-modern consumers constantly ‘try on’ not only new clothes, new perfumes, but new identities, fresh personalities and different partners.”91 88 Gunton, The One, p. 22 89 Torrance, Worship, p. 28-29. 90 Alan 91 Tomlinson, Consumption, Identity and Style, (London, Routledge 1990) p. 9. David Lyon, Jesus in Disneyland, (Cambridge, Blackwell 2000) p. 79. Yet in the midst of this seemingly creative and pluralistic country we experience unprecedented homogeneity and intolerance; youth culture which is enslaved to fashion, and political correctness which reduces everyone to the same and denies any truth claims, rather than celebrating true diversity. Postmodernism is ”an imperious claim for truth which abolishes all truth by a process of homogenisation. It is, despite appearances, a form of universality.”92 Can Christian doctrine revive the much needed doctrine of the person, which takes into account both individuality and society, distinction and unity, freedom and responsibility? I am the image of God ”Our anthropology is entirely dependant on our theology... the subjective and anthropocentric bias of modern thought has encouraged us to imagine that our concept of God is necessarily only a kind of logical extension of our own self understanding. The reverse is actually true.” 93 What it means to be made in the image of God is vital to our concept of who we are. Watson argues that the creation narratives alone do not paint the full picture of what it means to be human, ”It is impossible to explain how we are created in the image of God without explaining how the image of God is Christ.”94 Asserting that the incarnation is the true revelation of the Father means that in Christ we see the image of God (Jn 8:19). Thus the incarnation does not only reveal God, but also what is means to be truly human. This is worked out in the theology of Edward Irving, who, according to McFarlane, developed a robust trinitarian Christology.95 This meant the reassessing traditional Christological categories which based the sinless life of Jesus on his identity as the divine Word. Irving took the view that the Son assumed a fallen humanity, not Adam’s pre-fall perfection, in line with his Irenaeical position that Adam 92. Gunton, The One, p. 131 93 Gay, Modern, p. 281. 94 F Watson, Text and Truth, (Edinburgh, T and T Clark 1997) p. 282. 95 McFarlane, Christ, p. 4. was perfect in the sense of becoming perfect, reliant on free choices to follow God’s will.96 The perfect life of Christ, then, was lived out by the Son, doing the Father’s will, by the empowering of the Holy Spirit. This pneumatological focus is a rare occurrence, particularly in Western theology, and is only really close to that of John Owen. Both theologians are able to draw the vital link between atonement and sanctification Christ’s taking on a fallen humanity and our potential to follow in his footstep - because they recognise the Spirit’s role. ”The work of the Spirit in the sanctification of believers... he not only cleanses our natures from the pollution of sin, but he communicates the great, permanent and positive effect of holiness to their souls, where by he guides and asserts them in acts and duties thereof. ”97 The Christian life is not merely an imitation of Jesus’ life, nor an imitation of the divine relationships, but a participation in that communion of the Son and the Father; the Spirit empowers us to know and relate to the Father as Jesus did. So against the consumerist, individualist notion of personhood we assert that being is, for us as it is for our creator, in communion. This relational perspective sheds new light on every aspect of our lives. It gives us the double mandate of freedom and responsibility. This ontology underlies our call to dominion over the earth. As Irving puts it, ”Man only is the responsible creature... all the rest are subject to him, and look up to him; not to God directly, but to man directly, and through him their offering is to be presented to God.”98 We are not ‘nothing but mammals’, slaves to our emotions and desires, nor autonomous egos, but creatures with a high calling to be the image of God and relate by free choice to him, his creation and one another responsibly. This leads us on to the nature of our love relationship with God and one another. 96 McFarlane, Christ, p. 98. 97 J Owen, The Holy Spirit, (Michigan, Kregal Publishing 1954) p. 278 98 Edward Irving, The Prophetical Works of Edward Irving Vol 2, p. 382, cited in McFarlane, Christ, p. 87. 9. What is a love relationship? As we have discussed at length in section one, the primary contemporary understanding of the word ‘love’ is in a romantic sense, based on an emotional, experiential relationship. This is the love of the ‘immanent’ God for the individual, and can be traced back to the Courtly tradition. Lewis’ study states that, ”French poets, in the eleventh century, discovered or invented, or were the first too express, that romantic species of passion which English poets were still writing about in the nineteenth. They effected a change which has left no corner of our ethics, our imagination, or our daily life untouched.” 99 This tradition exalted love between a knight and his superior lady, a love which could not exist between a married couple, because, as a courtly writer put it, ”Lovers give each other everything freely... but married people are duty bound to give in to each other’s desires and to deny themselves to each other in nothing.”100 This system arose partly from the feudalism and partly from the Christian ‘sexology’ of the times that deemed passion a sin, even between married couples.101 If marriages had nothing to do with love, adultery became the respectable way to idealise love, until it became a kind of religion. Lewis later stated that, ”I was blind enough to treat this as an almost purely literary phenomenon. I know better now... [Eros] always tends to turn ‘being in love’ into a sort of religion.”102 99 CS Lewis, The Allegory of Love, (London, Oxford University Press 1936) p. 4. 100 Countess Marie of Champagne, quoted in Vincent Brummer, The Model of Love, (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press 1993) p. 91. 101 Lewis, Allegory, 13-18. 102 CS Lewis, The Four Loves, (London, Fontana Books 1960) p. 102. Can Christian doctrine, and in particular our doctrine of atonement, help us to avoid this trap of emotivism, whilst retaining a true relational focus rather than a ‘contract God’, and direct us to a more appropriate expression of this love in youth worship? Mutual fellowship Brummer’s study of the ‘Model of Love’ for our relationship with God suggests two forms that this might take; ‘rights and duties’, or ‘mutual fellowship’. The former is a contract which both parties gain from and yet are replaceable. The latter suggests that, ”I do not merely recognise your interests and the claims you make on me, but I identify myself with you by treating your interests and your claims as my own. In serving these interests as my own, I love you as myself.”103 It is this sort of relationship evident in the Cappadocian’s talk about the Godhead. The Father in love freely begets the Son and emits the Spirit, the Son in love freely does the will of the Father by the Spirit, and the Spirit in love freely enables the Father’s will through the Son. Their relationships are freely loving, serving and self giving. Furthermore, our love relationship with God must be one of fellowship, evident with Adam and Eve. They had free choice, yet God showed them his will as guidelines for the continuation of that relationship (Gen 2:17). Sin and the fall, looked at in this light, are not the breaking of a contract, but the breakdown of a love relationship. God’s covenant with Abraham was a relationship of fellowship, and God’s concern for Israel in giving them the law was that they would continue to do his will and thus not turn from their fellowship. Yet turn they did, again and again. Into this situation comes Jesus, and according to the Bible, restores this relationship by the ultimate expression of love (Jn 15:13; Rom 5:8). Yet how does this come about? 103 Brummer, Model, p. 164. ”The Desire of Divine Love” In his atonement theology John McLeod Campbell, reacting against the contract God of Federal Calvinism, stressed that the cross was not primarily about the ”demands of the law, not the guilt of the sinner, not the offended honour of God.”104 Instead, ”The atonement is to be regarded as that by which God has bridged over the gulf which separated between what sin had made of us, and what it was the desire of divine love that we should become.”105 Forgiveness in fellowship requires two things to ensure reconciliation; repentance from the offender, and acceptance by the offended. This acceptance can never be cheap resignation, it is always costly, and given the enormity of our relationship breakdown, God’s forgiveness is has to pay the ultimate price: death. ”On Calvary, God reveals to us the cost of his forgiveness.”106 Not only do we need forgiving, we need to repent. Yet our sinful situation means that we cannot, we are so estranged from God that we are incapable of making the sort of confession necessary. As Lewis articulates, ”Only a bad person needs to repent: only a good person can repent perfectly.”107 This is our predicament. It is here where Irving’s trinitarian Christology plays its most vital hand. It is only one who has taken on the fallen nature of humanity who can repent in true identification for humanity. And yet it is only one who has lived it perfectly by the power of the Spirit who is able to repent in this way. Thus, McLeod Campbell taught that, ”In solidarity, Jesus bore the full impact of divine judgement on sin by his perfect repentance."108 104 Leanne Van Dyk, The Desire of Divine Love, (New York, Peter Lang Publishing 1995) p. 40. 105 Van Dyk, Desire, p. 51, my italics. 106 Brummer, Model, p. 201. 107 CS Lewis, Mere Christianity, (London, Fount 1952) p. 47. 108 Van Dyk, Desire, p. 55. Knowing who you love It is primarily in this way that the incarnation and atonement are the revelation of God’s love for us, and the model of our love for others. God’s love was prepared to identify with us to the point of death, in his desire that we might be able to once again be in relationship with him. This love relationship is in our free choosing to do his will (Jn 14:15),109 and to be empowered and sanctified by the Spirit as Christ was to identify with others, accepting them as ”irreplaceable individuals”.110 It is in this sense that love for God must not be the exclusive love of romanticism, which is subject to emotions and forsakes all others. We cannot concur with Augustine that we must love only God, and others only in the sense that we love God through them.111 Christ loved others, identifying with them to the point of suffering; on the cross, and for Lazarus and Jerusalem. He could do this whilst remaining in a love relationship with his Father because he was able to differentiate. We have different love relationships with different individuals. Brummer states that, ”No-one else can fill the position in my life which belongs to my (romantic) beloved – not even God. To argue with Abelard and Kierkegaard that we need to choose... is to misconstrue not only the unique nature of romantic love but also that of loving God.”112 Thus, Jesus is not my girlfriend! The relationship-categories which differentiate the persons of the Godhead ensure their diversity within unity. In the same way we need to be very aware of the relationship categories which we and the people we love fall into, that each is unique and irreplaceable, to ensure that our love for each is appropriate. 109 See Kendrick, Appendix 2 p. 3. 110 Brummer, Model, p. 209. 111 Brummer, Model, 118-126. 112 Brummer, Model, p. 211. Part ThreeConclusions ... 10. How should we express intimacy in worship? This study has intended to demonstrate that not only is a trinitarian focus vital for the health of our worship, but that it is in the very participation of the Triune life of God where we understand and experience true intimacy with the transcendent Father, through the immanence of the Son in the eschatological drawing of the Spirit. Intimacy is not primarily an individual, emotional feeling, but a sharing of Jesus’ relationship with Father God as we are enabled by the Holy Spirit to be Church, the body of Christ on earth. This is a love relationship in the light of the incarnation the ultimate, intimate identification of Christ with our humanity, living a life of free obedience to the Father’s will by the Spirit. The cross represents for us the supreme revelation of God’s self giving love. The resurrection marks our redemption from our fallen, broken relationship to be adopted into that same relationship with the Father as Christ had, sanctified by the Spirit to live lives of loving obedience and fellowship with God. Furthermore we are redeemed into the community of God’s people, the Church, that by the Spirit we might love others as Christ did, as irreplaceable people in community, respecting the myriad of differing relationships and growing more into the fully human people we were created to be. 11. Practical implications The rise of ‘romantic’ worship can and must be countered by a return to a trinitarian understanding and practice of worship. The prominence of the romantic genre, as discussed in Part One, is dangerous for our liturgical, spiritual and theological health. We must be careful not throw out the baby - corporate, bride of Christ imagery - with the individual romantic bathwater; trinitarian language will help us to do this. This final section will address the practical question of ‘how?’ Cunningham warns that many a trinitarian solution becomes abstract and unspecific113. There is certainly a danger that all academic theology can become detached from the Sunday service, thus we must open up the lines of dialogue between scholars and youth worship leaders, which will mean hard work and compromise on both sides. Yet there is an inherent flaw in trying to force the doctrine to become ‘practical’ as Cunningham 113 Cunningham, These Three, p. 42. does, because the doctrine primarily addresses our presuppositions and worldviews. A pair of glasses have little ‘practical use’; they do not cook the dinner or solve pastoral problems, and yet they effect everything you do because of the way you see things. Thus the doctrine should not be used in this ‘practical’ sense, for example as a justification of having lots of things happening during a church service at one time, or homosexuality.114 Instead there is a call for youth worship leaders to examine their own and their congregation’s worldviews, questioning whether they are looking through adequately Trinitarian glasses, and then making practical changes in the way they worship. These practical changes can be seen in the areas of Songwriting, use of Liturgy, and our attitude towards the Sacraments. Songwriting The recent explosion of worship songwriting has yet to embrace a fully Trinitarian doxology.115 If a serious attempt at refocusing our doctrine of God is to be made, it will require both grassroots and professional worship songwriters studying, wrestling with and applying the language of the Trinity into our worship songs. This does not mean using the Father, Son and Spirit exclusively, ”Our concern is not that Trinitarian words and phrases should be incorporated in hymns and liturgies in a merely cosmetic way, but that worshippers should be drawn celebrate and be drawn into the life and relationships of the Triune God. It is from this reality that liturgical forms should take shape.”116 A mediatorial focus will thus allow talk of relationship and intimacy that is biblical and appropriate.117 An example is found in the songs of Lyn Burnhope, which are as yet unpublished, but can be found in Appendix Three. After studying doctrine at London Bible College, she wrote these songs as expressions of worship. Her trinitarianism shines through, as she is able to express intimacy through doctrinal language. 114 Cunningham, These Three, p. 272-303. 115 Percy, Words, p. 61. 116 BCC, Forgotten 1, p. 28. 117 See Kendrick’s example, Appendix two, p. 5. In addition, our songs need a better incarnational focus. As Ward points out, ”The chorus books we used every Sunday hardly ever talked about the earthly life of Jesus. In almost every song Jesus was pictured as the risen Lord on the throne of the people’s praises.” 118 This takes our attention from Jesus’ costly identification with out situation, moving towards triumphalism and Gnosticism rather than worship which deals with our everyday struggles.119 This is one explanation for our reticence to admit lamentation into our corporate worship. A good example of this sort of writing comes from the Iona Community, who draw influence from the strongly incarnational Celtic tradition, and avoid the ‘romantic’ trap. These songs are aptly able to express the full range of human emotion, including their essential book for sorrow and bereavement.120 Liturgy Alongside songs, it is vital that youth worship leaders rediscover the wealth of material in spoken liturgies. These not only ground us in the historicity of our faith,121 but also act as theological benchmarks to assess contemporary worship writing. The lectionary or something similar needs to be rediscovered, to soak us in the story of our faith. ”Narrative Bible-reading performs an indispensable role, in which the use of mere sentences or short allusions cannot be an adequate substitute.” 122 Similarly, historical creeds provide us with clear confessions of what we believe, in formative Trinitarian language.123 They must be rediscovered for use in contemporary worship settings, creatively presented with multimedia124 or simply recited and discussed so that young people can own them. Liturgy allows young people to be expressive in 118 Ward, Youth Culture, p. 40. 119 Percy, Words, p. 79-80. 120 John L Bell, Graham Maule, When Grief is Raw, (Glasgow, Wild Goose Publications 1997). 121 John Leach, Living Liturgy, (Eastbourne, Kingsway 1997) p. 51-55. 122 AC Thistleton, Language, Liturgy and Meaning, (Nottingham, Grove Books 1975) p.32. 123 Stackhouse, Immediacy, p. 76. 124 See Draper and Draper, Refreshing, p. 38-44. their own cultural media, Walker talks of ‘baptising’ the material to give it an iconic value, pointing heavenward. ”We are on the way to postmodernity... where are our candles, smells and electric bells? Where are our images of light and shade, our music of splendour, our divine dramas, the sacred dance? ”125 Repentance and assurance of faith need to be reintroduced, for it is here that we enter into Christ’s repentance for us on the cross, and are able to go on into our lives by the sanctification of the Holy Spirit. Once again traditional forms from historic prayer books can be vital resources, or new material can be written so that worship continues to be the expression of the people. The Taize community126 has fine examples of setting historical and biblical liturgical texts to meditative music, which has a strong appeal for young people, and can be adapted for limited musical resources or contemporary bands. Sacramental Vital to our reclaiming of trinitarian worship must be the central placing of the Eucharist. This celebration has been moved to the edges of our worship and separated often as an act of remembering, which of course it is, but at the expense of its dynamic ontological nature. John 6:25-59 points us towards the understanding that our participation in eating the body of Christ and drinking his blood constitutes us as the community of God’s people (Acts 2:42). ”It is the life of communion with God, such as exists within the Trinity and is actualised within the members of the eucharistic community.”127 In taking the sacraments we are accepting the full humanity of the incarnation, that as Christ took on fail human flesh (Jn 1:14, Heb 4:15-16) to be broken for our cleansing, we also eat and drink material, historical elements. And yet we also are drawn up by the Spirit to the ascended Christ’s place at the right hand of the Father, where he is 125 Walker, Telling, p. 197. 126 Music From Taize Volumes 1 and 2, (London, HarperCollins 1982). 127 Zizioulas, Being, p. 81. ”The leader of our worship, the pioneer of our faith, our advocate and High Priest, who through the eternal Spirit presents us with himself to the Father.”128 (Heb 10:19-22, Eph 2:6). So it is by the Spirit’s presence with us at the table that we are drawn towards our intimate, eternal and eschatological destiny in God’s presence. Equally the sacrament of baptism needs to take on its full Trinitarian significance as a central act of worship. Jesus’ own baptism was a primary example of the united yet distinct Triune work being achieved in the incarnation (Lk 3:21-22), and we baptise in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit (Mt 28:19). But once again this is not merely a commemorative act, by going down into the water we participate in the death of Christ (Mt 10:38), his full identification with us, and our coming up marks our new resurrection life in the Spirit (Lk 3:16, Rom 6:3-10). As church we share in the one baptism (Eph 4:5), sons and daughters of God, equals in communion with Christ and one another (Gal 3:26-27). Epilogue “You asked for a loving God: you have one. The great spirit you so lightly invoked, the ‘lord of terrible aspect’, is present: not a senile benevolence that drowsily wishes you to be happy in your own way, not the cold philanthropy of a contentious magistrate, nor the care of a host who feels responsible for the comfort of his guests, but the consuming fire Himself, the Love that made the worlds, persistent as the artist’s love for his work and despotic as a man’s love for his child, jealous, inexorable, exacting as love between the sexes.” 129 128 Torrance, Worship, p. 77. 129 CS Lewis, Problem of Pain, (Glasgow, Fount 1940) p. 35. Appendix 1 Romantic songs Key: ST – Stoneleigh 2000/2001 SH98 – Spring Harvest 1998 SH2000 – Spring Harvest 2000 SS – Soul Survivor - Led to the Lost Appendix 2 Graham Kendrick interview Note: These responses came too late to be featured significantly in my work, yet they help to illustrate the significance of the issues. As the UK’s most experienced worship writer, Kendrick is able to give a frontline perspective, and whilst he brings out some new angles much of his analysis helpfully underlines what has been discussed. Received Monday 7th May 2001 1 What are your opinions on the use of "romantic' imagery in worship? (eg, "put your arms around me", "more intimate than lovers", "you are my passion... my lover"). I firmly believe that God invites his children into a close personal relationship. However, I am not a great fan of the use of romantic imagery in worship song lyrics except where the scriptural context is clear, for example the Song of Songs. Just off the top of my head, my reasons for caution include the following: (a) In the context of contemporary culture the imagery of romantic love carries many associations which are not always consistent with the purity and faithfulness of divine love. Therefore along with the positive associations there are negative ones to be contended with such as fickleness and selfishness etc. (b) This is compounded by the similarity of contemporary worship choruses with romantic pop-songs which has the effect of reducing the value of the imagery when it is applied to a Holy God. However, this is not a good enough reason to reject such imagery altogether, because in its purist form romantic love remains as a picture of the love within the Godhead, and between Christ and his Bride the Church. (c) Because romantic imagery is often addressed to Jesus, this can be a particular problem for the male category of worshippers, in that whenever physical images are used like kissing, embracing, lovers etc. you have to ask the question, is the author of these words wanting the male worshipper to call to mind these kinds of images in relation to Jesus. I have spoken to both men and women who struggle to know quite what is expected of imaginations at this sort of point. (d)Popular trends can often be identified in the subject matter of worship songs, and though it is valid to argue that on occasions these are the result of a prophetic emphasis originating with the Holy Spirit, we cannot exclude the possibility of being influenced by what just happens to be popularised at a certain time, in successful songs which are then emulated. It is also possible that songwriters who have been soaked from their earliest years in the lyrics of romantic pop songs via the radio, TV and their CD collections, are drawn disproportionately to romantic imagery just because it is so familiar to them. From the point of view of musical form and style a large number of praise and worship songs are based very closely on the pop song genre, therefore it should not be surprising to us if the imagery of romantic love fits very naturally, perhaps one might say even too easily. Q2. Do you think that there is a biblical concept of intimacy with God? Undoubtedly there is, but the nature of that intimacy needs to be defined, particularly with regard to how much it fits the romantic kind. There are many kinds of intimacy which are not sexual in nature, for example between parent and child, brother and sister, comrades in arms, and simply friendship. David and Jonathan were intimate friends but there was nothing sexual in their relationship. In fact, David's own description is of a love "greater than the love of women". The biblical use of romantic imagery seems strongest in the context of the church looking forward with longing to the completion of God's purposes in Christ as he prepares a Bride, the Church, for the Bridegroom, Christ. There is powerful resonance between the Song of Songs and the book of Revelation. A popular snippet of teaching to worship leaders has been the Greek word PROSCONEO defined as 'to come to towards to kiss'. I have observed this being presented in a romantic way, whereas a more complete exposition would show that it is more accurate to picture the humble approach to a great king, kissing the hand rather than the lips! This could be another factor. My main concern would be if intimacy were to be interpreted individualistically, and this I suspect can happen all too easily in an individualistic culture where we are constantly encouraged to seek personal fulfilment and subjective experiences. If the Bride of Christ is corporate could it not be argued that the experience of intimacy with God should also be very much a corporate thing? An image that may be conjured up when we talk of intimacy in worship might be that of an individual with eyes closed, hands raised, very intense, seeking what seems to be an interior experience with God. The problem would be if this were to be emphasised to the detriment of the horizontal dimension of worship, the exhortation to "speak to one another in Psalms, hymns and spiritual songs" precedes the exhortation "making melody in your hearts to the Lord". Perhaps the more objective test is to look at the fruits of a community of Christians who emphasise intimacy in worship, because genuine gazing upon the Lord will result in being changed into his likeness / from glory into glory, which has to be measured in outward behaviour. How can a man say that he loves God whom he has not seen if he hates his brother who he has seen etc. Jesus' measure of our love for him was made clear in the words "if you love me keep my commandments". The supreme example of worship intimacy surely has to be looked for in Jesus Christ and his relationship with the Father, from Jesus' baptism when the Father spoke over him the words: " This is my beloved son with whom I am well pleased" through to the drama of Gethsemane where Jesus' love is proved by his obedience even to the point of death on a cross: "Not my will, but yours". I feel that the concept of being "in love with God / Jesus" has been over-used in worship songs and also suffers from pop song associations which fail to adequately describe the qualities of divine love. I also observe that there are a lot of songs which seem to celebrate our love for God more than his love for us. It is God's love for us that is most worthy of celebration and in contrast our love is very weak and poor. Moses spoke with God face-to-face. Elijah's longing was that he should see the glory of God. These great men of God are examples of those whose greatest desire was to know God. They had both seen His miracles but they were not satisfied; they wanted to know the God who did the miracles. It is easy to focus on the moments of intimacy in the tabernacle or in the cleft of the rock when God revealed himself to them, and to forget how these men spent most of their time, exercising leadership, fighting enemies, interceding, dealing with rebellions, death threats and no doubt routine administration, settling disputes or building college premises. The Old Testament temple is a rich source of typology for worship and it has been very popular to emphasise 'entering his gates with thanksgiving and his courts with praise' with the destination being the Holy of Holies where intimacy is enjoyed in the manifest presence of God. Whilst this is true, the impression can easily be given that an individuals private and personal intimacy with God is the whole point and climax of this journey of worship, whereas the temple holds many illustrations of what proceeds from true intimacy, not least that blessing goes out to the nations. Also the New Testament weight is heavily on the side of corporate experience of God as opposed to individualistic. When the first apostles prayed as reported in Acts 4:22-31 there was a directness and immediacy in their relationship with God as they engaged with him in prayer concerning the conflicts that they found themselves caught up with as the Kingdom of God clashed with the world's kingdom. To my mind there is abundant evidence here of intimacy with God but not of the mystic abstract kind. Rather they were intimately involved in the outworking of God's purposes in their immediate situation, which was to proclaim the kingdom with signs and wonders. The result of their encounter was that "the place where they were meeting was shaken and they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and spoke the word of God boldly" (Acts 4:31). Daniel wrote, "but the people who know their God will display strength and take action" (Dan 11:32 NASV). Q.3 How do you express intimacy with God in your own song writing? This question made me think quite a lot, because I don't think I've ever consciously set out to write a song about intimacy with God. However thinking about it, if a large part of intimacy in a relationship is gaining knowledge and understanding of the other person, then it is through insights into the character and nature of God that I have drawn nearer to him. The most moving and memorable moments for me personally in the process of song writing, are when a truth is uncovered, and like a newly discovered gemstone in the rock, it begins to sparkle in the light. Hence I think it is the Holy Spirit beginning revelation through the word of God that takes me deeper in my knowledge of him. Q.4 Have you ever considered the doctrine of the Trinity as a model for intimacy in worship? Yes I have, although would not claim to have gone very far or very deep! A recent example would be the song 'What Grace'. v.2 Deep is the joy that fills your courts above While angels wonder at your redeeming love And as you gaze with joy upon your Son Your eyes are on the ones his love has won What grace to be found in him Heaven’s glorious King Father what grace raising us to life Choosing us in Christ Father what grace Appendix 3 Lyn Burnhope’s songs O perfect Son of God who came from heaven’s eternal throne; embracing frail humanity to make your Father known. Although you knew the pull of fragile flesh you did not fall became the perfect sacrifice, overcame in death for us, now risen and exalted over all. O perfect son of man who came, a vulnerable seed; through anguish, suffering and pain, surrendered every deed. Because you know our failures, and our weaknesses and need; became the perfect sacrifice overcame in life for us, our great high priest who lives to intercede. This is grace so rich, This is grace so true, Precious Jesus, I follow you. This is grace so rich, This is grace so true, I surrender my life to you. Your name speaks of inheritance, which you have shared with me. your life speaks of obedience, in true humility. Your death shows a Father’s oath To redeem humanity. Your blood speaks of a justice where the condemned can be guilt free. Your promise says we’ll reach our destiny. Copyright Lyn Burnhope 2000. In brokenness, our Saviour dies, so that we might live. In brokenness, our Saviour cries, his very self to give. But praying that we might all be one, just like the Father and the Son, in unity. In brokenness, our old self dies, so that we might live. In brokenness our old self cries, whilst struggling to forgive. But knowing that we may all be one, just like the Father and the Son, in unity. And now I am strong when I lift up the weak, Am clear when enabling others to speak, Made whole when I give myself away, Brokenness is here to stay. Though valued for the things we give, we are not our own. Forgiven when we can forgive, his endless mercy shown. And nothing we do secures our place, nothing to qualify but grace, in him. Copyright Lyn Burnhope 2000 May your way become my path, obedient to the very last. To share your suffering and shame, to share the honour of your name. May your truth become my goal, transforming heart and soul. Consuming compromise and doubt – releasing fear, and speaking out. May your life become my aim. to be ‘in Christ’ my richest gain; empowered by the Spirit’s rule, in Father’s hand a useful tool. For in this world of grasp and greed, Lord Jesus, you have met my need; and nothing more must I possess than your pure gift of righteousness. Copyright Lyn Burnhope 2000 We dare not come before your throne assuming rank or worth our own – whether King, or slave or free; through grace bestows a worthy price a saviour’s love and sacrifice has paid for me. Oh the Depth of the riches of the wisdom of the knowledge of God. Who has known the mind of the Lord? Who has ever given to him that he should repay? For him and through him and to him are all things. And I hear wisdom’s gentle call as on my knees I gladly fall; and thought the love begins with fear, its love that draws me tenderly; I shun a fool’s complacency as I come near. No greater treasure could there be than knowing you Lord – Christ in me. Please help me live a life that’s true and faithful to your Spirit’s power, wise to the evils of the hour – worthy of you. Copyright Lyn Burnhope 2000 Bibliography Bartholomew, Craig, and Moritz, Thorsten (Eds), Christ and Consumerism, Cumbria, Paternoster Press 2000. Brelecki, Tessa, Teresa of Avila, Tunbridge Wells, Burns and Oats 1994. British Council of Churches, The Forgotten Trinity, London, BCC 1989. Brown, Raymond E; Fitzmyer, Joseph A; Murphey, Roland E (Eds), New Jerome Bible Handbook, London, Geoffrey Chapman 1992. Brummer, Vincent, The Model of Love, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press 1993. Campbell, Colin, Romantic Ethic and the Spirit of Consumerism, Oxford, Basil Blackwell 1987. Carr, G Lloyd, Song of Solomon, Tyndale Old Testament Commentary, Leicester, IVP 1984. Carson, DA, Worship: Adoration and Action, London, Baker Paternoster 1993. Clissold, Stephen, Teresa of Avila, London, Sheldon Press 1979. Coupland, Douglas, Generation X, New York, St Martin’s Press 1991. Cunningham, David, These Three are One, Oxford, Blackwell 1998. Draper, Brian and Kevin, Refreshing Worship, Oxford, Bible Reading Fellowship 2000. Egan, Harvey D, Christian Mysticism, Minnesota, Pueblo Publishing Co, 1984. Elton, Ben, Inconceivable, London, Black Swan 1999. Fiddes, Paul S, Participating in God, London, DLT 2000. Francis, Leslie J; Kay, William K; Kerbey, Alan; Fogurill, Olaf (Eds) Fast Moving Currents in Youth Culture, Oxford, Lynx Communications 1995. Gay, Craig M, The Way of the Modern World, Carslile, Paternoster Press 1998. Giddens, Anthony, Transformation of Intimacy, Cambridge, Polity Press 1992. Gunton, Colin; Hardy, Daniel W (Eds), On Being Church, Edinburgh, T and T Clarke 1989. Gunton, Colin, The One the Three and the Many, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press 1993 Gunton, Colin, The Triune Creator, Edinburgh, Edinburgh University Press 1998. Hayes, Michael A; Porter, Wendy; Tombs, David (Eds), Religion and Sexuality, Sheffield, Sheffield Academic Press 1998. Hopewell, James F, Congregation – Stories and Structures, London, SCM Press 1987. Hsu, Al, The Single Issue, Leicester, IVP 1997. Jamieson, Lynn, Intimacy, Cambridge, Polity 1998. Jantzen, Grace, Julian of Norwich, London, SPCK, 1987. Johnson, Arthur L, A Faith Misguided, Chicago, Moody Press 1998. Kendrick, Graham, Worship, Eastbourne, Kingsway 1984. Leach, John, Living Liturgy, Eastbourne, Kingsway 1997. Lee, Phillip J, Against the Protestant Gnostics, Oxford, Oxford University Press 1987. Lewis, CS, Mere Christianity, London, Fount 1952. Lewis, CS, The Allegory of Love, London, Oxford University Press 1936. Lewis, CS, The Four Loves, London, Fontana Books 1960. Lewis, CS, The Problem of Pain, Glasgow, Fount 1940. Liesch, Barry, People in the Presence of God, East Sussex, Highland Books 1990. Lyon, David, Jesus in Disneyland, Cambridge, Blackwell 2000. Mays JL (Ed), Harper’s Bible Commentary, San Francisco, Harper and Row 1988. McGrath, Alistair, Christian Spirituality, Oxford, Blackwell Publishers 1999. McFarlane, GWP, Christ and the Spirit, Cumbria, Paternoster Press 1996. Montgomery, David J, Sing a New Song, Edinburgh, Rutherford House 2000. Owen, J, The Holy Spirit, Michigan, Kregal Publishing 1954. Parker, Richard; Aggleton, Peter (Eds), Culture, Society and Sexuality, London, UCL Press 1997. Percy, Martyn, Power and the Church, London, Cassel 1998. Percy, Martyn, Words, Wonders and Power, London, SPCK 1996. Peterson, David, Engaging With God, Leicester, Apollos 1992. Porter, Stanley E, The Nature of Religious Language, Sheffield, Sheffield Academic Press 1996. Roche, Jeremy; Tucker, Stanley (Eds), Youth in Society, London, Sage 1997. Sheldon, Robin (Ed), In Spirit and in Truth, London, Hodder and Stoughton 1989. Sizer, Sandra, Gospel Hymns and Social Religion, Philadelphia, Temple University Press 1978. Smail, Tom; Walker, Andrew; Wright, Nigel (Eds), Charismatic Renewal, London, SPCK 1995. Stackhouse, Ian, MTh thesis, The Problem of Immediacy in Charismatic Worship, London Bible College. Storkey, Elaine, The Search for Intimacy, London, Hodder and Stoughton 1995. Thistleton, AC, Language, Liturgy and Meaning, Nottingham, Grove Books 1975. Tomlinson, Alan, Consumption, Identity and Style, London, Routledge 1990. Torrance, JB, Worship, Community and the Triune God of Grace, Carlisle, Paternoster Press 1996. Trueman, Carl, The Claims of Truth, Carlisle, Paternoster 1998. Underhill, Evelyn, An Introduction to Mysticism, London, Methuen and Co. 1911. Van Dyk, Leanne, The Desire of Divine Love, New York, Peter Lang Publishing 1995. Walker, Andrew, Telling the Story, London, SPCK 1996. Ward, Pete, Worship and Youth Culture, London, Marshall Pickering 1993. Ward, Pete, Youth Culture and the Gospel, London, Marshall Pickering 1992. Watson, Francis, Text and Truth, Edinburgh, T and T Clark 1997. Watson, Francis, Text, Church and World, Edinburgh, T and T Clark 1994. Wenham, Gordon, New International Commentaries on the OT, Leviticus, Grand Rapids, Eerdmans 1979. Wimber, J, Worship: Intimacy With God, in Worship Conference Resource Papers, Mercy Publishing 1989. Wright, NT, New Testament and the People of God, London, SPCK 1992. Zizioulas, John D, Being as Communion, London, DLT 1985. Resource Books Bell, John L, Maule, Graham, When Grief is Raw, Glasgow, Wild Goose Publications 1997. Music From Taize Volumes 1 and 2, London, HarperCollins 1982. Soul Survivor Songbook, Led to the Lost, Soul Survivor Trading, Watford 1999. Spring Harvest 1998, Uckfield, Spring Harvest 1998. Spring Harvest 2000, Uckfield, Spring Harvest 2000. Stoneleigh 2000/2001, Eastbourne, Kingsway 2000. Magazine Articles Matt Redman interviews, in Worship Together, issues 13 (1995), and 23 (1998). Renewal, issue 283 (1999). Stafford, Tim, Intimacy: Our Latest Sexual Fantasy in Christianity Today, (January 16th 1987) Walpole, Andrew, No Titters in the Aisles Please, its a Hymn, in The Sunday Telegraph, (October 23rd 1994)