Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2000 17:06:47 -0600
X-Sender: gbutterf@iglobal.net
To: Joyce Deckler <jpdeck@dallas.net>
From: wdockery@iglobal.net (Wayne Dockery) (by way of George Butterfield <gbutterf@iglobal.net>)
Subject: Re: (1) What is central to our worship?
Status:

Joyce,

I am going through my email materials and finding an email of Wayne's here and there that might be of interest. I'll send them to you. The following was part of an email discussion by the Worship Committee at Singing Oaks. Wayne is responding to a message by Dorothy Koone.
George B

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Dorothy,

For the last couple of days I've been getting two of most of your messages. Are you feeling especially strong about the feelings you express? Or has your browser been taking fertility treatments?

At 09:24 AM 12/3/97 -0600, Dorothy Thompson Koone wrote:

(snip - the jist of which is that it would be a mistake to dispense with scripture, sermon, prayers, communion)

And I heartedly agree. It has been seriously suggested to me across the years and from time to time that scripture readings are boring, the sermon outdated, and "no one knows what bread and wine are about" and all should be chucked so that we modern people can chose a path more suited to us.

So the question you raise below, "Why?", seems to me a good one.
>George:
>I think you could probably have a service > without any of those and a lot
>of folks not get too upset. But what do *we* > believe are the important
>things we do in worship, important enough to do > them all the time?
>
Dorothy:
>I think a more basic question than that is, what drives our choices? (1)
>Is it scriptural fiat or example? Shall we take Acts 2:42: "They devoted
>themselves to the apostles' teaching and to the fellowship, to the
>breaking of bread and to prayer," or I Cor. 14:26: "When you come
>together, everyone has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a
>tongue or an interpretation," or some conflation of these two? (2) Is it
>tradition, whether recent or ancient? ISTM that our WC has always been in
>a certain amount of tension between those who want to go with the ancient
>traditions, so far as we can discern them, those who favor the more recent
>traditions (such as the "five acts of worship"), and those who would
>rather make what seems to me a rather futile attempt too throw all
>tradition out the window. From my observations this fall, most Churches of
>Christ--and I think at least half of our own congregation--favor (2), but
>they think it is (1).

Wayne:
Our ministry group has been called to guide the worship of this congregation. Thus it is important to provide good guidance. Part of that guidance might be in reflecting deeply on your "why?" or "what will drive our choices?" (I understand your question to be in part, what are the resouces placed by God at out disposal for the shaping of our worship - a place to start at least)

I'd appreciate reflections on these thoughts:

To me, following the guidance of God requires a triune focus, on scripture, church tradition, and the current leading of God.

These three are intertwined, even convoluted, when each is considered carefully. Since I am expert at convoluted prose, let me take a stab at representing some of the entangled interrelationship among the three:

scripture: a collection of certain writings of people following God which has been discerned, selected out, and declared *by the church* to be God-breathed and normative for our faith and practice at the leading of the Spirit. This collection is not to be interpreted privately, but in the context of the community of God's people, present and past, an activity in which we believe the Spirit as Living Word is active.

tradition: the flow of behavior, values, teachings and practices etc. discernable in the life of the people of God across time in response to scripture and the leading of the Spirit. Tradition is to be tested alongside scripture, by reference to the wider faith and weighed as to its faithfulness to God's leading in the present.

the current leading of God: the mystery of Divine impetus moving the current church, through scripture, tradition, and divers other means, to be tested by the current church through reference to canon, to the faith and experience of those who have gone before, and to the insights of the current community

The three seem inseparably interlinked.

[An aside: The Roman tradition has at times elevated the second in a way whereby it was used by unscrupulous persons for purposes of coertion and eclipsed the other two. The Protestant tradition in reaction has tended to discard the second and either elevate the first or the third. Our own tradition has at times butchered the first, denied the third, and despised the second, but, hey, we were young. The modern world has dumped most kinds of authority of any kind, but particularly that of the past, and ties its hopes to human progress; it's what's new that rules. If I understand the thrust of post-Modernism, one might say that each person (or community) discerns his own inner direction, tested by intuitions, and whatever he/she might discover to allure - including possibly scripture and tradition, or some other words or experiences, all equally seen as potential resource.]

It seems to me that all three are gift of God, Spirit-moved and are both

1. Ways that God actually directs and moves his people (a descriptive statement)

2. Should be found useful in helping to discern healthy ways and unhealthy ones (a prescriptive statement)


How do you find this as a place from which conversation might move?


Wayne Dockery

Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2000 17:10:57 -0600
X-Sender: gbutterf@iglobal.net
To: Joyce Deckler <jpdeck@dallas.net>
From: wdockery@iglobal.net (Wayne Dockery) (by way of George Butterfield <gbutterf@iglobal.net>)
Subject: Re: worship service
Status:

Joyce,

Another email from Wayne responding to a person who asked about the length of our services.

George B

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Rhonda,

My computer has been messed up for a week, so I only just got to your note. Thanks bunches for the thoughtfulness it reflects in at least two ways.

First, you'd be surprised how little feedback is given to those who serve the congregation in this ministry. But you took the time to say thank you and to say it in ways that show you care about worship, and that you appreciate hard work and thoughtful preparation. Second, when you had a question and a concern, you addressed it directly to the persons involved. That shows tremendous maturity and Christlikeness on your part, trusting as you do that others who are in Christ share the same ultimate concerns. May your spirit grow and multiply among us! And may you be a model to others in our congregation. I wish there were a whole lot more direct conversation among us like yours. Thanks.

>From my own perspective, John responded honestly and well. A couple of notes:

Note #1. It might be helpful to share some of the thoughts bounced around among the elders on the matter about a year or two ago: The general expectation is that services will begin at 10:15 and conclude around 11:30 (That's an hour and 15 minutes). It is also understood that services will be longer and shorter than that. There is considerable nervousness when many services exceed that substantially, not because it is felt that to do so is inappropriate, but rather there is awareness that some members are especially sensitive to service length. Above and beyond all this, there is an understanding that our worships need to glorify God and contain ample opportunities for our congregation to see him more clearly, give thanks for what we see, confess our unworthiness and sin, and know we are forgiven and called to serve.

I believe this is a pretty fair description of the general expectations of elder-types on the matter. Is this of any help in knowing what in general to expect?


Note #2. It's really hard to control service length. A good example is this last Sunday. The service was planned to end at 11:30. We concluded at about 11:40. We did not expect Mike White's prayer to be 10 minutes in length. But neither would we go to him afterward and ask him to pray more briefly; his was a thoughtful and heartfelt offering. Also, you never know how long an elder will speak ... (ahem) ... and 4 of them did Sunday ... plus we had a response. So from my perspective, given all the variables, a pretty good job was done in arranging the service to fit within the general expectations of the congregation. But we were indeed 10 minutes longer than planned.

Another example. About 6 weeks ago we had the longest service ever. It ended at about 11:50 (thus it was an hour forty minutes in length, 20 minutes longer than our target). That Sunday, George preached that powerful sermon on repentance. Most of his sermons are about 20-30 minutes in length, but this one was 45 minutes, plus we had a response that Sunday, Michael Todd. (Between the two, that's the 20 minutes). But I would never ask George to curtail that lesson or any other. And taking plenty of time with Michael was very appropriate.

Does this help understand why the services vary in length? There's just alot going on in our services. Also, the planners are trying to include lots of our members in all kinds of roles within worship, and individual participation is not real predictable. Too, let's face it, worship planners are "mortal and prone to error". Sometimes they just need patience and forgiveness like everyone else.


Note #3. This is a more personal note sparked not so much by Rhonda's questions, but by the ongoing conversation about worship length.

When we talk along these lines there is something that nags at the back of my mind. I have this vague notion that our forefathers in the faith - many of whom died for their Lord - would not understand the conversation at all.

For 3000 years and more, followers of God (Jews and Christians) have regarded one day of the week as set aside wholly for rest and worship of God. Followers of God have closed their shops, set down their plows, laid aside diversions, and gathered together in his name for worship, fellowship, singing, eating together, studying the Bible together, visiting those who were ill, imprisoned, or lonely and other ministry. Sermons were often hours long. The entire afternoon might be given to studying Torah. They devoted the whole day in this way. This awareness sparks some reflections.

Could it be that we are missing something by completely abandoning the discipline implied in saying, "This is the Lord's Day"?

Could it be that our filling Sundays with other things and our impatience with worship length (and ALL of us Americans would have our limits) betray something about us that we might want to examine?

What does it mean when we and our children will pay money to go and sit completely still and passive in movies for 90 minutes and up, or will sit at home in front of the TV for four hours a night, never complaining, but feel put upon should worship intrude beyond whatever our various expections might be?


Again, I really appreciate the spirit of Rhonda's inquiry. Also of John's honest reply.

To summarize for the record, I think:

*the congregation can usually expect the services to conclude in the neighborhood of 11:30 or somewhere thereabouts

*the congregation can expect us not to have a heart attack if the service ends several minutes on either side of that (and it has been both longer and shorter than that in the last few weeks)

*that heart attacks will be reserved for serious invasions of that sacred time that would somehow jeopardize arriving at Lubys behind the noon-departing Baptists. Therein lies the real anathema!!! I know, I know, scripture says, "The first shall be last and the last first," but surely that doesn't apply to the question of racing infidel Baptists and Bible churchers to dinner!
Rhonda, be sure to stay engaged in this conversation. Write back to say, "Now this made some sense ... while that seems malarky to me ... " and other such thoughts as these reflections spark in you. After all, Christians ain't made One by agreeing on everything. I've been to lots of elders meetings and worship committee meetings, and I will assure you that differences in points of view ABOUND in all those settings. Thankfully our unity doesn't depend on lockstep agreement ... so we don't have to be afraid of expressing our frustrations, hopes, disappointments, and sometimes flat out disgust. And my experience is that when Christians talk together - even pointedly - good things happen.

Blessings, and see you guys at the Habitat house. I'm shining my hammer already. And I got a shovel for Christmas to replace the two that some blackguard member(s) of that Singing Oaks Church of Christ bunch took home with them. (I've discovered that shovels also come in handy in dealing with email and have been missing mine).

The Lord is in our midst. May his spirit continue to increase among us. Amen.

Wayne Dockery


Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2000 17:20:40 -0600
X-Sender: gbutterf@iglobal.net
To: Joyce Deckler <jpdeck@dallas.net>
From: wdockery@iglobal.net (Wayne Dockery) (by way of George Butterfield <gbutterf@iglobal.net>)
Subject: Mothers day.
Status:

Joyce,

Following is an email in which Wayne responds to a member who wondered why Singing Oaks had not done anything special on Mother's Day. Some names have been omitted for obvious reasons.
George B

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[name],

I wasn't here, so I'm not sure what did or didn't go on. I value your sensitivities and would suspect that they would be shared by at least some others. At the same time, maybe I'm wrong in coming out at a little different place. I'm willing to share my personal perspective in the interest of conversation.

Since you talked particularly about scripture texts and what might be chosen, let me make these observations based on my experience.

I've heard lots of Mother's Day sermons. This Sunday I was in Winslow, Arkansas. A cousin of mine preached, a young man who just graduated from U of A with a MA in history, bright and eloquent. The text was the birth of Moses. The message: 1. Mothers hold love in their hearts. 2. Mothers work with their hands. 3. Mothers teach. A few years ago I heard a Mothers Day sermon on Rizpah, the woman who for several days drove the buzzards off her sons after they were killed in battle, ah ... a mother's love. For me, the one thing most persuasive against celebrating Mothers Day would be Mothers Day sermons, and the abominations committed on the texts of scripture in the name of motherhood.

I wonder if the reason preachers come up short -- when they go a-scavenging for texts for Mothers Day -- is because Mothers day, as uniquely celebrated in America, is not really Christian? It elevates "motherhood" as a virtue per se, a concept not in scripture, unless one wants to try to endorse and elevate the Petrine "shall be saved through child-bearing", and that is not what "motherhood" as lifted up in America is all about, and most would find that notion abhorrent if preached. Shopping through the testaments for texts which elevate the American ideal of Mother ("M is for the many things you ...."), one will come up short every time, because the texts thus used are not intended for that use. An exegesis of the narrative of Moses' birth could bring powerful testimony to bear about living faithful to God, counter to the prevailing culture, in faith that He will act as deliverer, but the narrative lifts up God, not motherhood. It lifts up faith in action, not "a mother's love".

On the other hand, most if not all scripture texts may inform any life circumstance, including that of those who have children, but usually through lifting up God and avocating that those who follow him should emulate his ways and find courage in his faithfulness whatever their station in life. Here, what I'm suggesting is that no special text selection is necessary to address what it means to be a Christian mother (father, child, etc), and attempts to be relevant that I have observed have been counter-productive.

In sum, I wasn't here, so I don't know what was or wasn't said. I would be for mentioning in some fashion the national observance. Also, I would think appropriate some recognition of the season as the text for the day is interpreted -- after all, preaching has a component of contact with what is going on in the minds of people. But I would be leary of a service (or sermon) planned around Mother's Day. We are Christians, living in the family of God where all human attachments are relativized and superceded by our adoption as children of God. That's why the Gospel is good news also to those who had abusive mothers, who are barren, who have lost children, who are single for whatever reason. (There is something of substance being said in the Roman Catholic habit of referring to "mother church").

I suppose we could pass out carnations on Sunday to mothers, red and white; it's become all the fashion. But lifting up the cross in the Supper seems so much more germaine to what we are about in the family of God (and to mothers on Mothers Day).

At the same time, it is always appropriate to express gratitude. That's what Roberta and I were about in travelling to both sets of parents this last weekend, even though it was special trouble to do so. We both recognize in our mothers and fathers the presence of God's grace. I think our presence meant far more than an event in which a church might have distributed flowers to those who stood. In other words, we honored our mothers by taking each of them out to eat and spending time with them. I'll bet you found a way to honor your mother, too, even though she lives some distance away, and the mother of your children, [name].

I didn't find much edifying (and I'll bet my mother didn't either) in the struggle of a young male to say something nice about mothers. Nor would Mom have been particularly thrilled with receiving a flower at church, though she would have tolerated it and been gracious about it. I think such actions might say more about the needs and goals of the giver than about the desires of the recipient. Now if the church planned for every woman in the congregation who was away from family to be taken out for dinner with a family for conversation and sharing ... now that might be something indeed! Then she would have gotten something she really needed. Anyway, that's my strange take on things.

Wayne Dockery

Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2000 17:24:57 -0600
X-Sender: gbutterf@iglobal.net
To: Joyce Deckler <jpdeck@dallas.net>
From: "Wayne Dockery" <wdockery@iglobal.net> (by way of George Butterfield <gbutterf@iglobal.net>)
Subject: "Standing" in Worship
Status:

Joyce,

The following was said as part of a Worship Committee discussion of the role of "standing" in worship.

George B

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

About the rest of the conversation, my response is "Good grief!" What is this stuff about high church? We are about as high church as the Pentecostals. Making standing a theological event through interpreting it as such is a part of what it means to help our congregation worship. It's infinitely better than our transitional statements that consistently have no theological function at all and instead are wholly utilitarian.

"Introducing" the holy kiss, the passing of the peace -- an event in Christian worship since the very beginning -- should hardly be beyond the understanding of a people who claim to do Bible things in Bible ways. Besides, we've been doing all these things for years at Singing Oaks. From whence all the namby-pambyishness and talk of being disorienting? Both would seem to me to be orienting events, in the sense that they tell us who we've always been, and help us live it out in the present.

Of course, these are the words of a person who will be enduring some triumphalist Easter cantata at a Baptist church in South Louisiana. Now that'll be low church; I garontee ...

Blessings to all

Wayne Dockery

Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2000 17:30:00 -0600
X-Sender: gbutterf@iglobal.net
To: Joyce Deckler <jpdeck@dallas.net>
From: "Wayne Dockery" <wdockery@iglobal.net> (by way of George Butterfield <gbutterf@iglobal.net>)
Subject: Position of the Choir
Status:

[Name] writes:

>
>On a separate, but related note, for Easter Sunday Night, I wanted to have
>the chorus stand on the steps in front of the pulpit throughout the
>service. Since we will be taking an active roll in leading the service, I
>think this is justified. Also, when I lead the congregation in songs, the
>chorus will be all together to bolster the sound. Does anyone have any
>reservations or concerns about doing this? I've asked this question in the
>past, but Easter is approaching and I don't want anyone to be surprised.

It's not great matter with me either. You do need to be aware that we (the worship committee) some years ago drew up a kind of theological statement about the use of special music in worship, one of the conclusions of which involved the positioning of the chorale in worship. This related to the importance of trying to avoid the misunderstanding of special music as performance rather than seeing it as offering, ministry, service, etc.. for the purpose of exhortation, edification, etc.. At that time it was felt that spatial positioning communicated strongly. It was concluded that the position that best avoided miscommunication (though there were some trade-offs in effectiveness of communication) was a historically practiced position behind the worshipers. I've forgotten the form of this document, but I think I remember it as a kind of commitment to the leaders of the church as well as interpretation. That might mean that they need to be given a heads-up. I would expect no serious objection.

In terms of communication, I would observe the following. During the Christmas offering by the chorale at the party, we were singing the most joyful songs, but the faces communicated something quite different. I have noticed this to be yet the case among us as we practice for Easter. I think that this has to do with a habit of focusing most (out of sheer desperation on my part) upon the technique of mastering the music, and far less upon the meaning of the words and the feelings expressed through the means of the musical phrasing, rhythm, and tonal movement. I would hate to stand in front with a group who sound happy about the resurrection of our Lord while looking utterly otherwise. "Pained" comes to mind.

About the positioning, I, personally, would avoid front and center in any case and would opt for some spatial statement that would say with utter clarity "We are here because we love God and believe he has called us to be a servant to you tonight. May you be blessed and encouraged. And may you focus not a moment upon the messenger, only upon the One who is announced ... for this is the joyful Good News from the Lord" That positioning might be to gather on the stairs slightly off-center to the podium. Or it might be something else entirely. Also, there needs to be awareness that what is said to introduce the service and each musical statement speaks loudly toward creating the "setting" within which the offering is understood. (And whatever is done or said needs to be clear enough to overcome -- or at least question -- the various settings that exist in the minds of the listeners which might detract from experiencing the word of God through the voices of brothers and sisters). Each song represents proclamation -- not the re-presentation of a work of some past musician for purposes of musical interest, or for purposes of titillation.
I think we all know this already. But not everyone seems to.

Wayne Dockery


Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2000 17:33:01 -0600
X-Sender: gbutterf@iglobal.net
To: Joyce Deckler <jpdeck@dallas.net>
From: "Wayne Dockery" <wdockery@iglobal.net> (by way of George Butterfield <gbutterf@iglobal.net>)
Subject: Worship Forms
Status:

Is there some compelling reason for a congregation to find it's purpose in reducing the number of worship forms which it uses? On the other hand, is there some compelling reason for a congregation to expand the repertory of worship forms with which it is acquainted and which it is "good at"? What are those reasons? And, by what criteria(on) might those choices be guided?

[Name], you seem to be suggesting a limited "canon" of forms, namely those in use when you were growing up (with the possible exception of praise songs, which you have come to enjoy-- but which are clearly outside our tradition, originating as they do in charismatic worship). Is that what you are suggesting? Why would you make those limitations? It appears you are talking about congregational comfort or peace. Would it be your belief that the best way for a diverse group to find comfort or peace would be to reduce the number of forms used until you could find no one who complained? What if some people found that reduction itself to be offensive and constricting? Is seeking the lowest common denominator in general the best way to lead a group?

However, you also talk about "tradition". Is there some compelling reason in your mind for a congregation not to benefit from worship forms found to be beneficial in the past? Or from those found beneficial in other cultures? Or from other Christian traditions in our own culture? What would those reasons be?

It appears to me that the "canon" of many in our congregation is made up of those forms of worship which they happen to like or have been exposed to. Should individual taste and individual range of life experience be the main arbiter in discussion of worship? If that would lead to only a battle of preferences to see who wins out, are there other more significant bases for deciding? What are the standards which might appropriately be used by a congregation to establish its "canon" of worship forms?
Wayne Dockery

Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2000 17:35:16 -0600
X-Sender: gbutterf@iglobal.net
To: Joyce Deckler <jpdeck@dallas.net>
From: "Wayne Dockery" <wdockery@iglobal.net> (by way of George Butterfield <gbutterf@iglobal.net>)
Subject: Re: Strong objection
Status:

[Name] writes:

>The "high-church" discussion suffered, I think, from a lack of definition
>of terms. When I think of "high-church," I think of sung Eucharist. I
>think of robes, processions, and ornamentation. I think of string
>ensembles playing Vivaldi and Bach. I think of a priest with his back
>turned to the congregation. Which ones of these things would it be
>unscriptural for us to borrow? IMHO, the priest is the only one
>(whichever way his back is turned). But which of the others would it be
>expedient for us to borrow? That's where I think we must be careful, and
>where the judgment calls come in. We must hammer out our own
>congregation's answers to that, carefully and prayerfully. And BTW, what
>is your own definition of "high-church"?

I take your description to be accurate to the way the term is more commonly used, but you left out the "smells and bells."

My point has been that the high church/low church distinction is not very helpful in our discussion. For example, some 10 years ago unison and responsive readings of scripture were regarded by some at Singing Oaks as "Catholic" or "high church". Of course that was never the case, such readings being a part of all kinds of traditions, some that predate Christianity. People were simply reacting out of ignorance. To that there is a solution, namely helping to inform and helping people to receive and welcome a new form.

Further, even if these forms had been high church or Catholic, that would have been no reason not to use them, because they were good and helpful in using scripture in our services. And they have proven to be so. "High Church" is not a bad term. Neither is "low". Faithfulness cuts across that false dichotomy. That's why I object when people say this or that is "too high church" or "liturgical". To me, to say that (even when true) says nothing of any consequence about whether the form is helpful or not or should be utilized or not.

Toward more perfect praise,

Wayne

Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2000 17:36:52 -0600
X-Sender: gbutterf@iglobal.net
To: Joyce Deckler <jpdeck@dallas.net>
From: "Wayne Dockery" <wdockery@iglobal.net> (by way of George Butterfield <gbutterf@iglobal.net>)
Subject: The History of Worship Renewal
Status:

WORSHIP RENEWAL IN THIS CENTURY
AND SINGING OAKS


There are two movements of worship renewal in the century, both still on-going. Both rooted in a desire to move beyond a sterile, lifeless prosaic worship, toward one which was more powerful in its impact.

One of these grew in the charismatic movement, taking its main power from a theology that required internally experienced religious proofs; one must "feel" the presence of God in order for his presence to be real. (This notion has it's roots in later Calvinism which required a "conversion experience" as proof that one was part of the Elect).

Worship is often modelled on Isaiah 6, with the operative image being of entering the temple, the holy place, then the holy of holies, i.e. moving closer closer into the presence of God in worship. Music (and preaching, but particularly music) functions among Charismatics as a vehicle for stirring the emotions to a climax. Though we may not recognize it, much of the "praise music" that we sing was born out of this movement and has this particular function within it.

Parallel with this movement was another press for worship renewal, born out of a rediscovery of the wealth of worship forms practiced throughout the history of Christian worship, and in other cultures. It was discovered that there had been far greater variety than most congregations were aware, and that these offered a resource to be mined in churches tired of their own ideas. This sparked a whole revival of interest in the study of early Christian worship and worship through the centuries. A part of the theology driving this movement was that God's Spirit had been at work for years in guiding his people in worship, and that the church would do well to listen to those who had gone before.

One of these two movements looked more to the work of the Spirit in the present, the other toward respecting and drawing upon the Spirit's work in the past.

For many years, these two movements worked in isolation from one another and in considerable tension, spreading throughout like-minded churches. However, (as Robert Webber pointed out in a recent seminar several of us attended), these two movements have nearly converged, with all churches recognizing more and more the value of each of these movements and drawing from them. Roman Catholic masses frequently include the songs that one might call praise songs. Charismatic churches are becoming increasingly persuaded of the worth of the historical traditions of the church (in the process, drawing them to value baptism and the Lord's Supper more, for example). "Worship and praise" and "seeker services" are morphing as they discover the depth of the past.

Singing Oaks (likely without realizing it) has benefited from both of these movements, and is continuing to do so.

I could comment more on some of the ways each of these movements of renewal shares points of contact with our own historical roots, heritage, and theological foci (as well as stands in tension). But perhaps that will rise in other discussions. Suffice it to say that a part of the reason we have been touched by these movements is because they touch some deeply rooted needs and traditions among us. (And, I believe, we are seeing the hand of the Spirit who continues to lead and guide his children).

Next Time: Worship in the Churches of Christ: Moving from Focus Upon Performing "Five Acts" to a Recognition of and Response to the Presence of God

Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2000 17:40:42 -0600
X-Sender: gbutterf@iglobal.net
To: Joyce Deckler <jpdeck@dallas.net>
From: "Wayne Dockery" <wdockery@iglobal.net> (by way of George Butterfield <gbutterf@iglobal.net>)
Subject: May 9, 1999 Worship
Status:

Elders and Worship Committee,

Here is the proposed back of the order of worship for Sunday. My plan is at 10:10 to ask the congregation for silence and to meditate on the following. Please send your comments about this today or tomorrow, whether editorial, theological, practical etc.


A Meditation for our Mothers

Today is a day we honor our mothers. For those who know the good news, this is not an exercise in nostalgia. We honor the Christ-like love involved in receiving children and rearing them.

Mary is the model for all mothers: "A sword will pierce her heart." Loving involves risk, the certain knowledge that there will be pain. Yet Mary -- and all who are her daughters -- in courage accept into their hearts a child as a gift of God, giving up self, they give full attention to its nourishment and nurture, finding joy therein.

Then, they are required to let these cherished ones go. And they must watch. The world is hard. And, sometimes, so are grown children. Mary watched them crucify her son. Other mothers have been crucified by their children. Nothing hurts quite so much as loving.

This year our hearts go out to mothers in the Balkans. In Kosovo and Albania ... we grieve with those whom violent men have stripped of spouses, children, or decency, and those who shiver hungry in muddy tents. In Serbia ... we tremble with those huddled in basements hugging terrified children while sirens blare and bombs fall. And more than this, for mothers throughout our world, and here in our assembly ... we pray for those mothers who are suffering loss and harm and heartache because the ways of the Prince of Peace are not followed.

Our praise of God today lifts up the good news that our Lord is powerfully present, not only where there is joy; but where the risk of loving has led to darkness and pain. There, especially there, he brings light, hope, and the strength to endure until his deliverance appears.

Today you will have the opportunity to offer light and hope and deliverance in the name of Christ to those mothers suffering in Albania: through proclaiming the God who comforts the oppressed, through pledging anew to follow the Prince of Peace, and through your gifts and offerings.

All gifts placed in the pink envelopes will be sent to the unified effort of several relief organizations of the Church of Christ who are working together in the refugee camps of Albania. The Prince of Peace is present there! Let us join him in honor of our mothers. They'll be so proud of you.


Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2000 17:44:16 -0600
X-Sender: gbutterf@iglobal.net
To: Joyce Deckler <jpdeck@dallas.net>
From: "Wayne Dockery" <wdockery@iglobal.net> (by way of George Butterfield <gbutterf@iglobal.net>)
Subject: Eucharistic Prayer reflections
Status:

[Name], et.al.

I read eucharistic prayers all week last week. I came to believe with more certainty that this is the road to the recovery of joy in our service of the supper. Permit four brief observations:

To have a period of thanking God, with specifics, is a great blessing for the church. This is in part what is yearned for in the "praise and worship" format, but which cannot carry the freight which prayer to God himself can. To have a time each Sunday when we rehearse together how blessed we are in Jesus Christ cannot but heighten our sense of thanksgiving throughout the week. My sense is that thankfulness is the greatest missing ingredient in those for whom worship is a drag. (including especially the history of God's goodness as recorded in scripture, but also his actions in our present and future).

It finally came to me why the "Holy, holy, holy, Lord God of might and power, the whole earth is full of your glory" is present in most all celebrations of the Supper. It is a powerful reminder that the hosts of heaven think what God has done (is doing and will do) in Jesus Christ is absolutely fabulous. The song with which we are familiar actually follows, too, the tradition of the church in reminding all that the apostles and martyrs also are singing his praises. SO ... what are we doing so glum?

The invocation of the Holy Spirit is a very needed part of our Supper celebration, the request that Christ be present in power to transform and renew us. (epiclesis - literally "the calling upon")

Tying our immediate experience with the actions and promises of Christ himself (through the Words of Institution) is not only the unbroken tradition of the Church, but is a key to recognizing our rootedness in him and his actions. We are not on our own in this matter; in sharing a covenant meal, we are acting out in our very midst (as Body of Christ) the actions of Jesus on the very night in which he was betrayed.

So, in sum, I'm all for all our communions having at their center a eucharistic prayer, full of thanksgiving, complete with a reminder of the joy of the host of heaven, an invocation of the Holy Spirit, and the words of institution. In these ancient insights, carried faithfully into the present by most churches, is found the key to that for which we are searching in all our floundering to make our supper more "meaningful."
What do you think?

Wayne

Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2000 17:52:05 -0600
X-Sender: gbutterf@iglobal.net
To: Joyce Deckler <jpdeck@dallas.net>
From: "Wayne Dockery" <wdockery@iglobal.net> (by way of George Butterfield <gbutterf@iglobal.net>)
Subject: A Blessing
Status: O

Joyce,

The following was a benediction Wayne attached to an email message that discussed worship matters that were controversial and divisive at Singing Oaks.

George B

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Toward better understanding,
an end of these new adversarial patterns,
So that
replaced by a shalom
that grows in our relationship together,
modeled before the whole church,
We might lift up our voices
in one accord
to the glory of God,

That's one of the most important theological considerations in this whole matter.


Wayne Dockery

Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2000 17:54:19 -0600
X-Sender: gbutterf@iglobal.net
To: Joyce Deckler <jpdeck@dallas.net>
From: wdockery@iglobal.net (Wayne Dockery) (by way of George Butterfield <gbutterf@iglobal.net>)
Subject: Re: Baptism as a Process-Don't Delete too quickly!
Status:

Dear Brothers,

Let's all take a deep breath and look at where we are in this discussion:

I.

A. Most (if not all) the participants in the discussion have virtually identical understandings of baptism, its nature, meaning and purpose. I know that I see eye to eye with Phil on this.

B. Too, Phil and I come to the discussion with concerns about what we regard as a tendency toward devaluing baptism's meaning.

C. This discussion is not new. The reason the discussion we are having continually recurs is that there exists a major unresolved problem in our (the American Churches of Christ) theology. This problem is presented every time we drive down a major thoroughfare: there are millions millions of believers in Jesus Christ practicing the faith worldwide who, according to our understanding of scripture's teaching on baptism, have a faulty understanding and practice of baptism. How are we to regard these other believers?

This issue presents itself in so many pastoral dimensions (church mission, fellowship, marriage, to name a few) that the discussion simply cannot be avoided. It cannot NOT be talked about. Without resolution of this one question, a thousand others stand waiting ...


I believe the above to be a correct understanding of the situation in which we find ourselves, is this generally agreed?

II.

Now, what are the solutions presented to the above? I see only two ways for the problem to be resolved:


A. The issue can be resolved in the doctrine of baptism.

Understanding of the meaning of baptism and it's function soteriologically has historically taken various shapes. Some among us have gone to considerable lengths to support various solutions from scripture. I do not find this exercise to have been fruitful, but others do. (Hence my concerns in B above). Indeed, I believe that certain aspects of our understanding of baptism constitute one of our most important contributions as a people to the understanding of the faith.


B. The issue can be resolved in the doctrine of God.

Personally, I believe that this is the area in which the discussion has always taken place, though we did not recognize that we were really talking about who God is when we have discussed these particular issues concerning baptism.


I know of no other ways for this problem to be addressed. Does anyone else?


III.

Currently our discussion centers around the doctrine of God, his nature and his desires. The discussion is impassioned, for here we are moving to the dead center of our faith. I do not think we could talk about anything more important.

Rather than characterize anyone elses point of view, let me summarize my own.

GOD'S NATURE - Who God is, as revealed in his history with his people.
1. God is the maker of heaven and earth; he made them good and desires only the good of his creatures.
2. In his dealings with mankind, God has proven himself (and revealed himself to be) good, just, faithful, merciful, and loving. 3. God is holy, i.e. he vows to reserve himself to behaving only in the above ways, covenanting with the people he chooses as his own to act with them in only those ways.


GOD'S DESIRE - and the seriousness with which he pursues it.
1. God dreams of a world in which all his creatures follow his good, just, faithful, merciful, and loving ways, a world wherein (because of this) shalom prevails, wherein there is no hurt and harm. 2. God creates a people to live in these ways, as a light to the nations, as salt upon the earth, that his ways may be seen and spread abroad. 2. God demands of his children that they hallow themselves to living only in these ways, for these are his ways with them 3. When God's children act toward one another (and thus toward him) with injustice, unfaithfully, without mercy and compassion, his anger burns at the harm occasioned thereby, at the ingratitude reflected thereby. 4. God acts in history to correct injustice, unfaithfulness and mercilessness, punishing wrongdoers, setting things aright, disciplining his children, returning them to his holy ways, strengthening and empowering them to live as children of righteousness, blessings to the world. 5. God will ultimately and surely act in history so that his dream of a world in which all follow his ways and shalom is established.


It is my understanding that the great narratives of scripture all contain these affirmations as their main themes.

IV.

What does all this have to do with the problem at hand? THE QUESTION IS, HOW DOES *THIS* GOD REGARD AND RESPOND TO THE MILLIONS OF PEOPLE WHO PLACE FAITH IN HIM YET WHO UNDERSTAND AND PRACTICE BAPTISM AMISS?

(Note to Phil: this is a distinctly different question than how SHOULD we and all God's children understand and practice baptism. On that we agree. It only clouds the issue to say something other than this is being "recommended". It's not so).


To me the resolution of the question is clear, based upon two kinds of evidence.
1. Scripture's revelation of God's nature and desires. 2. The observable presence of the work of the Spirit of God within these believers.

To say it in other words, I believe that scripture is clear on God's root interests. I can see no way that people who place their trust in him (yet misunderstand baptism) violate (thereby) God's root desires that justice, mercy, faithfulness, and love reign.

However, baptism is the way God has chosen to mark, set apart, cleanse, and empower his people. Does this fact prevent him from acting through some other means if he so chooses? (I don't think anyone currently in the discussion would claim this; all affirm the sovereignty of God). But might he choose to act in this way and no other, leaving those who trust in him (yet misunderstand this rite) to damnation? Here is where we disagree. My faith is steadfast, that the God revealed in scripture who gave his only Son has clearly demonstrated the lengths he will go for the vilest sinner. It is unimaginable that this one would turn his back on those who truly place their trust in him.

**Further, there is no need for theoretical speculation. When one looks out upon those about whom we are speaking, one can clearly see people who have been given the Spirit of Christ, who exhibit it in their lives, who are faithful, merciful, just, and compassionate, some of whom are willing and have given up their lives for him. God HAS acted. He has voted. He has shown himself to us, in flesh appearing among these about whom we speak. We can look and see for ourselves what he has done. And we can marvel anew at the mystery of his continuing love exhibited even in our midst.


I know, there is another option. God said ... They haven't ... That settles it. That option is very neat and tidy. But the God revealed in scripture doesn't care much for neatness and tidiness; he cares mainly for those whom he loves.

In order to establish this view among us, it became necessary to dredge the corners of scripture for brief narratives never held up as examples by any biblical writer, and to interpret them in ways that transgress the unified testimony of the great narratives about God. When Uzzah and Nadab and Abihu are made the central narratives of the faith, the main window through which to grasp the nature and desire of God (God will annihilate you if you cross him in the least little thing, no matter how pure your heart; what he wants is EXACT replication of his minutest commands), lost is the great revelation of scripture that God is FOR us, that he hallows himself to deal with us not according to our transgressions, but according to his faithfulness, mercy, justice, and love. Then it is possible to interpret the Sermon on the Mount as a demand for strict compliance (rather than the great exposition it is on looking beyond the commands to the will of the one who desires mercy, not sacrifice, who wishes a faithful people who seek to do the Father's will, rather than who monitor and focus on compliance).


To say this is not to loose what God has not loosened as has been charged. It is to see clearly what God HAS done and submit to his judgment in the matter. Further, we need to also recognize that his clearly visible action among other believers constitutes a call, for to remain alienated from others whom he has welcomed DOES violate his root concerns. (As does remaining smugly silent given the insights he has entrusted us to share).

May we be given a clearer and clearer vision of him,
and in gratitude may our will be strengthened
to will what he wills
having been born from above
in the waters of baptism
to rise and live
in newness of life
with all those who in hope
await his coming

Wayne Dockery

Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2000 17:59:14 -0600
X-Sender: gbutterf@iglobal.net
To: Joyce Deckler <jpdeck@dallas.net>
From: (by way of George Butterfield <gbutterf@iglobal.net>)
Subject: Lethal Injection of Karla Faye Tucker
Status:

Dear Fellow Members of the Body of Christ,

Last night a sister in Christ died at 6:45pm. She was only one of a countless host of us in whom the love of God has worked a miraculous transformation. She became a person whose life was given in blessing to those around her, whereas once it had been an unspeakable curse. She callously took two lives in 1983, yet by the grace of God had been transformed and was at last at work in redemptive ways. What blessings are forever lost, because this life was ended abruptly and prematurely by hands working our bidding, God knows.

I have become increasingly distressed - because of events of which I am personally aware in our congregation and out - at how criminal justice now appears to be functioning in our city and state and nation. The word "justice" no longer refers to the complex and redeeming process of setting straight that which is awry. "Justice" has become twisted to mean "retribution" for most of our nation, including here in our home town and home state, perhaps especially here. It is as though in dispair we have given up on making things right. Since that is too hard to do, with fervor and zeal we now embrace punishing wrongs as a substitute and call it "justice."

Do not misunderstand, things may certainly be set aright by wisely administered punishment. Yet when district attorneys and judges and and legislators and governors have become morally confused so as to not realize that doing justice is a much greater vision, when tough words and the slamming of cell doors is seen as the goal of all their work, then even punishment has lost its meaning and ability to serve the purpose of setting things right. It is not even any longer directed toward that end.

One result of this poor trade is that mercy has come to be seen as the opposite of justice. But mercy is not a setting aside of justice. Indeed, the showing of mercy may be a celebration of justice, a recognition that things have been made right! Things have been made right we never thought could be, like the once twisted life of Karla Faye Tucker.

Extending mercy may be a clear and powerful statement of faith that where God is at work, justice can emerge from that which seems irretrievably twisted, that past injustices do not determine the future of a person or a nation. There are times and places when showing mercy communicates great strength, unshakable confidence that justice will indeed prevail, and that good is greater than evil.
I am distressed at the fear and hopelessness that has come to possess our nation. I am distressed that our ears were stone deaf to sane voices in our world saying "For the sake of God, show mercy", that our eyes are blinded to any possibility of goodness emerging from those whom we have ajudged evil, that we will not raise a hand to stay our efficiently functioning "justice" system, even if it is the moral thing to do.

One member of our District Attorney's office said, "The world is divided into good people and bad people, and our job is to put all the bad people away and keep them there." Good church people and many members of our criminal justice system rightly observe that our nation is awash in a sea of wrongdoing because we have lost our moral compass. What we may not noticed is that many of us - in losing hope, and in becoming hard and cynical - have abandoned God's moral compass, too, his vision of living in a just society, a place where wrongs are set aright (and often through mercy and forgiveness). We have settled for an orderly society, and we are becoming willing to act even unjustly if that is what it takes to make life orderly.

Governments in a democratic nation do not act thusly unless the people have willed it so. I am reflecting and praying about my own part in this loss of vision, and asking God to show me how I might work in helping to restore hope. Would you join me in those prayers?

Karla Faye Tucker died at 6:45pm last night, by lethal injection, in Huntsville, Texas. May God have mercy.

Wayne Dockery