Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost. As it was in the beginning, is now and ever shall be. World without end. Alleluia, Amen.
There are three sets of questions that the title of this talk evokes. Let me try to state them as succinctly as possible. First of all, what doctrinal guidance and influence should a Christian worldview have on the content and character of the corporate worship of the church? How can and should the church’s biblically-based, all-embracing vision of life inform the proclamation of the Word and the administration of the sacraments in the church’s worship?
Second, in turn, how might the totality of the church’s worship embody and manifest a scripturally-based, comprehensive account of the cosmos and human existence? How should the liturgy (of whatever kind) inform and shape the essential consciousness and worldview of the Christian community? How should worship help us better understand God, the universe, our world, and ourselves? How should it also articulate the unique identity of the church as well?
Finally, what is or should be the compelling influence of both worldview and worship on the spiritual and moral formation of believers and their way of life in the world? In what way might worldview-based worship be the heart of the church’s paideia (education/training) in transforming the thought-styles, desires, and habits of believers into a God glorifying Christ-likeness? What epistemic assumptions and kind of pedagogy make such transformation possible, so that believers become “constituted differently.”[1] These questions address matters of orthodoxy and orthopraxy, and are of great consequence for God’s kingdom, church, and glory.
An historic way of discussing this dynamic trilogy of worldview, worship, and way of life is found in the classic, ecclesiastical terms of Lex credendi — the rule/law of belief, Lex orandi — the rule/law of prayer, and Lex agendi — the rule/law of action or practice. At the core of this celebrated discussion has been the question of the priority of the first two of these elements — belief or prayer — and the relationship of both of these to the third — on action and practice. In the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox traditions, that priority has been given to prayer or worship and the formula has read Lex orandi est lex credendi et agendi, that is, the rule/law of prayer is the rule/law of belief and action.[2] Prayer or worship is the source of belief and right behavior. In biblical language, the sequence is this: “O taste and see that the Lord is good” (Psalm 34: 8). A worship emphasis looks like the following:
Worship = Worldview + Way of Life
On the other hand, by attributing supreme authority to God’s Word (Sola Scriptura), the Protestant tradition has sought to exercise biblical or doctrinal control over both worship and way of life, and has generated the essential reformational conviction that Lex credendi est lex orandi et agendi, that is, the rule/law of belief is the rule/law of prayer and action. By Scripture, the church is reformed and always reforming (ecclesia reformata semper reformanda). Indeed, the Apostle Paul corrected the liturgical infidelities of the Corinthian church on doctrinal grounds by pointing out that “God is not a God of confusion, but of peace” (1 Cor. 14: 33 ). A doctrinal emphasis may be diagrammed in this manner:
Worldview = Worship + Way of Life
These traditions — Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant — all agree that there is, or at least should be, a harmony and interplay between belief and prayer, as well as way of life. But they disagree over which of these first two should “set the pace,” and both emphases, it seems, contain dangers.[3] The Catholic and Orthodox stress on “prayer” has resulted in questionable “beliefs” (according to some). The Protestant concentration on “beliefs” has negated “prayer” (according to others). In other words, the former liturgical tradition generates doctrinal anxieties, and the latter doctrinal tradition is liturgically deficient. Both, therefore, have something to learn from each other — respectively, the restoration of doctrinal direction to the liturgy, and the renewal of liturgical significance to doctrine[4] — when it comes to this triad of worldview, worship, and way of life.
If I am forced to choose between these two alternatives, as a protestant, I assert my belief in the primacy of Scripture’s authority in all matters of faith and practice. Thus, I advocate that a Christian worldview or what is believed biblically and theologically (Lex credendi) ought to be foundational and determinative on the worship of the church (Lex orandi). At the same time, I affirm their reciprocal relationship, and believe that the liturgy of the church ought to manifest its biblical and theological beliefs and be expressive of a Christian vision of the world. Furthermore, I assert that a biblical worldview and form of worship are central to the formation of gospel Christians, and should have a radical impact on their way of life in the church and world (Lex agendi). Hence, my model is “trinitarian” in nature, involving the “perichoretic” diversity and unity of these three fundamental elements:
- Biblical Worldview (Lex Credendi)
- Way of Life (Lex Agendi)
- Worship/Liturgy (Lex Orandi)
But we have some problems here. First of all, churches understand and impart only a fragment of a biblical worldview. Second, as a result, a biblical worldview is rarely on display in the churches’ worship. Third, this breakdown of worldview and worship authenticity has diminished the discipleship of believers who are also encumbered, often un/subconsciously, by the deadly, idolatrous influences of contemporary culture in them and their churches.
What we need, therefore, is fresh insight into the grandeur of the biblical vision of reality, its impact on the church and in her worship, and how this renewal of vision and worship can reinvigorate the catechetical development of the saints and transform their walk in the world. We begin, then, with a look at a biblical worldview and its theological implications that may inform and guide the church as its rule or law of belief — its Lex Credendi.
Lex Credendi
I believe in God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth.”Apostles’ Creed
As an alternative to “worldview” definitions that are rather bookish and even uppity in tone, I propose what I believe is a biblical and more human understanding of this notion. Since in Scripture, the “heart” — in its deep connection with the human body — is the seat and source of thought, affection, volition, and worship, it seems to me that life proceeds “kardioptically,” out of a vision of the embodied heart. That’s what I think a worldview is: a vision of God, the universe, our world, and ourselves grounded corporally in the human heart. So conceived, worldview is not just an intellectual construct, but involves the world engaging powers of the whole person as imago Dei in the mysterious interplay of spirituality, thought, emotion, will, and body, focused and unified in the heart. While the whole process of worldview formation is something of an enigma, such an embodied vision is utterly determinative for every person individually, and for the course of human history collectively. It is imperative, therefore, for followers of Jesus and for the church corporately to find its cosmic bearings through an immersion and fluency in the master narrative of the canon of Holy Scripture and its graciously revealed account of truth and reality.
From my own experience and observation, however, I detect that many churches and believers lack a cohesive, comprehensive, and holistic worldview orientation. A bits and pieces syndrome where biblical faith is known and experienced in a fragmented, piecemeal fashion shatters the cohesiveness I have in mind. A fundamental disconnection between the Old and New Testaments and its unified theological message from creation to new creation damages a needed canonical comprehensiveness. An egregious dualism and religious compartmentalization fracture the sacred wholeness of human existence which, as Dietrich Bonhoeffer asserts, is the most “colossal obstacle” to genuine faith.[5]
These three problems — one illogical (bits/pieces), another un-canonical (OT/NT disconnect), and the other heretical (dualism) — are responsible for a severe diminishment of biblical faith and an impoverished ecclesiology. However, if with G. K. Chesterton, we affirm that “Christianity even when watered down is hot enough to boil all modern society to rags,” just think about what it would be and do if it were mixed to full strength and filled to the brim?[6]
Is there, then, an alternative that is more maximalist than minimalist when it comes to the substance of a Christian vision and its ecclesiastical and spiritual implications? I believe that there is, and for better or worse, I call it the worldview-driven church.[7] Churches, I propose, ought to be “driven,” that is, informed and guided by the Christ-centered metanarrative of Scripture with its fulsome themes of creation, fall, redemption, and consummation and their radical consequences in every department of life. In this I am striving to recover what has been known traditionally as the “catholicity” or wholeness of genuine biblical religion under the sovereignty and blessing of the triune God.
Since people rarely seem changed by routine expository preaching or moral exhortation, but might, indeed, be altered significantly by a “transformed imagination,”[8] at the heart of my proposal is the need for a radical enhancement and grasp of God’s greatness and His larger creative and redemptive purposes for the world stirring us up at the center of our souls. Such an expanded perspective can purge our spiritual sight of the “film of familiarity,”[9] renew our “heartset,” and enable us to picture things anew.
“Glory be!” said C. S. Lewis’s old London cabby who was turned inside out when he witnessed the founding of Narnia unexpectedly. Its unspeakably beautiful music and thousand glorious stars in the night sky shook him to the core. “I’d ha’ been a better man all my life,” he said, “if I’d known there were things like this.”[10] The cabby’s imagination was affected profoundly by this new revelation, and his life would have changed drastically had the disclosure not come too late.
The church’s ministry and the lives of believers, I contend, can experience a similar kind of revolution in consciousness and conscience if and when they encounter a coherent, canonical, and holistic presentation of God and the total cosmos that transfigures the imagination and causes it “to fly beyond the stars!”[11] This new, expanded, vigorous “kardioptic,” or vision of the embodied heart, consists of several basic theological and ministerial components.
At the theological level, it begins with the incomparable majesty of God the Trinity and the intention to recover the church’s central purpose of worship — to glorify, love, and fear Him in order to insure that the means of the church’s ministry (e.g., evangelism and discipleship) are not substituted for her final end. Biblically, as we have already suggested, it recovers the church’s whole canonical story as creation, fall, redemption, and consummation — “the dogma is the drama,” as Dorothy Sayers said — and understands her theological identity and purpose in the world in the context of the whole counsel of God. Christologically, it is committed to a view of the person and work of Jesus as the Cosmic Christ — the Creator and Redeemer of all things, the One in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge (Col. 1) — in an effort to counteract the unfortunate effects of a limited, pietistic, and sentimental conception of our Savior. Soteriologically, it emphasizes the centrality and redemptive focus of the kingdom/reign/dominion of God in Christ in its confrontation with evil, both as a present mystery and future hope with transformative significance for the whole of life to offset the confusion and neglect surrounding this crucial theme. Anthropologically, it consists of an embrace of the dignity and wholeness of the human person in body and soul as God’s image and likeness in order to overturn diminished perspectives on personhood and activity, and what it means to be either male or female. Ecclesiologically, it maintains that Christ’s church is the new, spiritual Israel in substantial continuity with the people of God in the Old Testament from Adam to Abraham to David to Jesus, showing the unity of God’s purposes in redemptive history from creation to new creation, thus thwarting unwarranted discontinuities. Eschatologically, it understands the church as the community of saints upon whom the last days and the ends of the ages have already come (1 Cor. 10: 11; Heb. 1: 2), and contends that she lives “at the hyphen”[12] between present kingdom redemption and the second advent which terminates history in resurrection and judgment and brings the descent of the new Jerusalem to the new heavens and earth where God will abide with His saints forever.
At a ministerial level, this proposal for a worldview-driven church begins with a liturgical reinvigoration of the ministry of Word and sacraments, and a call to consider the historic worship practices of the church (e.g., Christian calendar) as an ancient and yet fresh way of remembering God’s mighty deeds and edifying believers. Homiletically, it encourages the church’s preachers and teachers to rediscover the Christ-centered focus of Scripture (Luke 24: 27, 44), and to adopt the theological themes of creation, fall, and redemption as the guiding hermeneutical principles for interpreting and proclaiming God’s Word. Socially, it emphasizes the importance of cultivating Christian community — serious koinonia or what Dietrich Bonhoeffer called “life together” — as a redeemed form of human relations and alternative to contemporary uncharitable selfishness and radical individualism. Catechetically, it recommends the classical vision of Christian humanism as the goal of sanctification and Christian discipleship, undercutting Gnostic and legalistic interpretations of spirituality and the Christian life that tend toward dehumanization. Vocationally, it urges congregations to promote the biblical doctrines of giftedness and calling as the basis for service, valuing the roles and contributions of all believers who are making a difference in the church and the world with a resolute sense of purpose. Evangelistically and as the culmination of the preceding theological and ministerial components, it advocates the proclamation of the whole gospel for the whole person for the whole world in the whole of life as the basis of evangelism, mission, and cultural transformation.
How utterly idiosyncratic is the church’s divinely revealed account of reality! Its Trinitarian ontology, its “engraced” cosmology,[13] its epistemology of revelation, its distinguished anthropology, and so on establish adherents in a unique way of knowing, seeing, and being in the world. For these and other reasons, then, the church and her worldview must NOT be regarded simply as another world religion or spiritual option, but rather as a glorious new estate — a villanova, new city or polis — with a culture, form of community, and politics of her own.
At this point, my worldview church proposal intersects significantly with the work of contemporary biblical scholars, ethicists, and theologians and the escalating movement known as radical orthodoxy.[14] As leaders in these disciplines point out, the church not only offers an alternative mythos or story (canonical gospel), a new set of rituals (Word and Sacraments), and a distinctive manner of life (cruciform discipleship),[15] but also that an alternative language, history, literature, psychology, economics, aesthetics, and semiotics, etc. are essential to her constitution and countercultural vision of the world. In general, how different are the theology and practices of the biblical church to “ Babylon ” or the ruling “culture of seduction” in any age.[16] In our day, how she stands (or should stand) in marked contrast to the prevailing assumptions of liberalism’s sovereignty of the individual, conservatism’s veneration of history and tradition, capitalism’s hope in science, economy, technology (and its therapeutic, narcissistic, hedonistic, consumerist ethos), nationalism’s deification of the nation-state, democracy’s exaltation of the sacred voice of the people, socialism’s salvation in common ownership, and so on.[17] The church’s immersion in these divergent environments makes perception of her own theological-political identity and unique civitas (citizenship) difficult to discern and practice.
The question, then, is how can the church as a “third race” display in worship her revealed explanation of the world and matchless ecclesial identity through the chief liturgies of Word and sacrament, and thus shape believers as citizens of the Christian commonwealth — the politeuma — who bow the knee, not to Caesar, but to Christ as Lord (cf. Phil. 1: 27; 2: 9-11; 3: 20). How should the worship of the church reveal and echo this? What should it also invert and deny in the process?[18] In other words, of what should the rule or law of the church’s worship consist — her Lex Orandi?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
[1] Debra Dean Murphy, Teaching That Transforms: Worship at the Heart of Christian Education ( Grand Rapids : Brazos , 2004), p. 102.
[2] Attributed to Pope Coelestinus or Celestine I (A. D. 422-432). See Richard A. Muller, Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms: Drawn Principally from Protestant Scholastic Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1985), p. 175.
[3] Geoffrey Wainwright, Doxology: The Praise of God in Worship, Doctrine, and Life (New York: Oxford, 1980), p. 252.
[4] Alexander Schmemann, “Theology and Liturgy,” in Church, World, Mission (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1979), pp. 145-6.
[5] Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Ethics (New York: Macmillan, 1975), pp. 196-97; quoted in Gordon J. Spykman, Reformational Theology: A New Paradigm for Doing Dogmatics (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992), pp. 16-17.
[6] G. K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy, in Collected Works, vol. 1, ed. David Dooley (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1986), p. 323. He continues this thought by stating immediately afterward: “The mere minimum of the Church would be a deadly ultimatum to the world.”
[7] The “worldview-driven church” may be an infelicitous expression, but for the time being, I will stick with this nomenclature since it suggests a “big picture” conception of the Christian faith that is universal and cosmic in scope.
[8] Walter Brueggemann, Hopeful Imagination: Prophetic Voices in Exile (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1987), p. 25.
[9] Percy B. Shelley, “A Defense of Poetry,” Norton Anthology of English Literature, rev.ed., gen. ed., M. H. Abrams, vol. 2 (New York: W. W. Norton and Company, 1962, 1968), p. 497. Here he is actually speaking about the effects of poetry itself, and by proxy, the imagination. Thus he adds that poetry (the imagination) can create “anew the universe, after it has been annihilated in our minds by the recurrence of impressions blunted by reiteration.”
[10] C. S. Lewis, The Magician’s Nephew (New York: Collier Books, Macmillan Publishing Company, 1955, 1970), p. 100.
[11] Francis A. Schaeffer, Art and the Bible (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, L’Abri Pamphlets, 1973), p. 61.
[12] Appropriated for a different purpose from Justo L. Gonzalez, ¡Alabadle! Hispanic Christian Worship (Nashville: Abingdon, 1996), p. 16, quoted in Cornelius Plantinga, Jr., and Sue A. Rozeboom, Discerning the Spirits: A Guide to Thinking About Christian Worship Today (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003), p. 164.
[13] John Milbank, Being Reconciled: Ontolology and Pardon, Radical Orthodox Series ( London : Routledge, 2003), p. 115, quoted in James K. A. Smith, Introducing Radical Orthodoxy: Mapping a Post-Secular Theology, foreword John Milbank ( Grand Rapids : Baker Academic, 2004), p. 122.
[14] Peter J. Leithart, Against Christianity ( Moscow , Idaho : Canon Press, 2003), pp. 7-8, 36. Leithart explains that this understanding of the church as culture, city, nation, etc. is a common theme in recent theology as seen in “New Testament scholars (N. T. Wright, Richard Horsley, James D. G. Dunn, Krister Stendahl), systematicians (John Milbank, George Lindbeck, Oliver O’Donovan), ethicists (John Howard Yoder, Stanley Hauerwas), sociologists of religion (Rodney Stark), historians of early Christianity (Wayne Meeks), and more popular writers (Rodney Clapp, Wes Howard-Brook, Barry Harvey)…” (p. 8). For amplification on this notion, see also Smith, Introducing Radical Orthodoxy, pp. 51, 235-39.
[15] Leithart, Against Christianity, p. 50.
[16] Smith, Introducing Radical Orthodoxy, p. 136. The latter phrase is Graham Ward’s, Cities of God, Radical Orthodoxy Series ( London : Routledge, 2001), p. 76, quoted in Smith p. 245.
[17] See David T. Koyzis, Political Visions and Illusions: A Survey & Christian Critique of Contemporary Ideologies ( Downers Grove : InterVaristy Press, 2003).
[18] Murphy, Teaching That Transforms, p. 106.
From BreakPoint, copyright 2004, reprinted at worship.com with permission of Prison Fellowship, www.breakpoint.org.
Comments