Scan barcode
drbobcornwall's review against another edition
4.0
It is no secret that many of our mainstream Protestant denominations are struggling. We can see it in declining membership and attendance, the disappearance of younger generations, and financial struggles. We struggle to make sense of this, and if we're honest, this is an issue of identity. Who are we? What do we stand for? What is the theological foundation for our faith in light of an increasingly pluralistic context?
Ronald Byars seeks to "reposition" mainstream Protestantism. By that he means recovering our theological nerve. He's concerned that the embrace of Tillich's Protestant Principle, which embraced a hermeneutic of suspicion, that has called into question much historic doctrine and liturgical practice, has undermined the ability of the churches to find their way in a new reality where they no longer have cultural hegemony. There is much to like here, as well as aspects that are troubling. At points he comes across as a theological curmudgeon, seeming to pine for a different era. At the same time he wants us to reflect on our roots, and not be afraid of "orthodoxy." That is, not everything goes theologically. Then there's the issue of liturgy. What is appropriate as an expression of worship?
Byars' book is divided into two parts. Part one focuses on authority (especially biblical and creedal), and orthodoxy. As to the former, he invites us to consider what is our authority? How do we decide what is right and good? Then he takes us into a conversation about orthodoxy. By orthodoxy, he means that since Christianity is communal and not private (despite our current state of affairs), some things should be seen as settled. That is the role of the creeds; they lay out parameters for the church. Here is an area that will need exploration, especially for non-creedal communities. Are boundaries necessary. Byars suggests that they are needed, though not drawn too narrowly. What we might want to say here is that theology matters, and that it shouldn't be overthrown to quickly. We usually think that the opposite of orthodoxy is heterodoxy, but Byars suggests that it is instead "trivaility." This is a good point. How often do we find ourselves drawn into trivialities.
Well, with this foundation we move into part two, which deals primarily with liturgy and worship, as well as attentiveness to the poor. Byars was a professor of preaching and worship at Union Presbyterian Seminary in Virginia. So, this is an area of deep concern. He's concerned about what he calls "mid-American generic Protestant worship." He's concerned that without deep roots, we end up with banal, boring, trivial worship. We end up with calendars defined by secular holidays rather than the story of God's engagement with the universe. He speaks of preaching being a sacramental act, that is more than a lecture on a religious topic or a moralistic diatribe. Preaching is intended to manifest Christ in the assembly. He counters the idea that ritual is bad, and that everything must by new and spontaneous to be of value. These are Enlightenment/utilitarian values, not spiritual ones. He's suggesting that the churches pay more attention to longstanding liturgies, rather than trying to come up with new and exciting alternatives. Personally, I like some creativity, but I get his point. We can be too cute in our desire for novelty, and miss the boat theologically. His point however is that form matters, so that we might be formed as people of God by the liturgy. He devotes a chapter to what happens on Sunday, reminding us of its importance, suggesting that both word and sacrament are essential. Here he pushes back on the typical Protestant aversion to weekly communion (something I heartily agree with), while also suggesting that we pay attention to the wording of our eucharistic liturgy, rooting it in tradition. He recognizes the importance of local inculturation, but is concerned that there is form to be inculturated. My concern here is that I'm not sure he is as clear as he could be as to how this takes place. There is, it seems, a privileging of more European understandings of liturgy that are assumed rather than explicated.
Finally, in the concluding chapter, Byars makes clear the importance of caring for the poor. He uses as a vehicle a conversation about the offering and stewardship. He reminds us that going back to the early church the bringing of offerings was not to subscribe the budget but to provide for the poor. This is an intriguing chapter, both in its word about stewardship and its emphasis on the caring for the poor. While at times I found him to be theological curmudgeon (even when I was in agreement), I found him in this final chapter to be prophetic. He even encourages direct action, or what some call community organizing, as an expression of worship. He challenges the typical application of the "Protestant Work Ethic," which he suggests has been unfortunately reworked to remove the Protestant part, so that the poor are blamed for their poverty, rather than encouraging the value of labor. Again, this rooted in conversations about theology, about orthodoxy, about accountability.
I'm not sure Byars has all the answers. As one who is part of a non-creedal community, some of what he suggests is not workable, but we an attend to our theology, which in my case is rooted in Scripture. At least, that has been our orthodoxy. For more Progressive Christians this might seem old hat and restrictive, but sometimes we need to be called back to our roots. I believe that is what Byars wishes to do, even if we need to push on those boundaries he lays out, asking good questions about what it means to hear the polyvalient voices present in the church.
Ronald Byars seeks to "reposition" mainstream Protestantism. By that he means recovering our theological nerve. He's concerned that the embrace of Tillich's Protestant Principle, which embraced a hermeneutic of suspicion, that has called into question much historic doctrine and liturgical practice, has undermined the ability of the churches to find their way in a new reality where they no longer have cultural hegemony. There is much to like here, as well as aspects that are troubling. At points he comes across as a theological curmudgeon, seeming to pine for a different era. At the same time he wants us to reflect on our roots, and not be afraid of "orthodoxy." That is, not everything goes theologically. Then there's the issue of liturgy. What is appropriate as an expression of worship?
Byars' book is divided into two parts. Part one focuses on authority (especially biblical and creedal), and orthodoxy. As to the former, he invites us to consider what is our authority? How do we decide what is right and good? Then he takes us into a conversation about orthodoxy. By orthodoxy, he means that since Christianity is communal and not private (despite our current state of affairs), some things should be seen as settled. That is the role of the creeds; they lay out parameters for the church. Here is an area that will need exploration, especially for non-creedal communities. Are boundaries necessary. Byars suggests that they are needed, though not drawn too narrowly. What we might want to say here is that theology matters, and that it shouldn't be overthrown to quickly. We usually think that the opposite of orthodoxy is heterodoxy, but Byars suggests that it is instead "trivaility." This is a good point. How often do we find ourselves drawn into trivialities.
Well, with this foundation we move into part two, which deals primarily with liturgy and worship, as well as attentiveness to the poor. Byars was a professor of preaching and worship at Union Presbyterian Seminary in Virginia. So, this is an area of deep concern. He's concerned about what he calls "mid-American generic Protestant worship." He's concerned that without deep roots, we end up with banal, boring, trivial worship. We end up with calendars defined by secular holidays rather than the story of God's engagement with the universe. He speaks of preaching being a sacramental act, that is more than a lecture on a religious topic or a moralistic diatribe. Preaching is intended to manifest Christ in the assembly. He counters the idea that ritual is bad, and that everything must by new and spontaneous to be of value. These are Enlightenment/utilitarian values, not spiritual ones. He's suggesting that the churches pay more attention to longstanding liturgies, rather than trying to come up with new and exciting alternatives. Personally, I like some creativity, but I get his point. We can be too cute in our desire for novelty, and miss the boat theologically. His point however is that form matters, so that we might be formed as people of God by the liturgy. He devotes a chapter to what happens on Sunday, reminding us of its importance, suggesting that both word and sacrament are essential. Here he pushes back on the typical Protestant aversion to weekly communion (something I heartily agree with), while also suggesting that we pay attention to the wording of our eucharistic liturgy, rooting it in tradition. He recognizes the importance of local inculturation, but is concerned that there is form to be inculturated. My concern here is that I'm not sure he is as clear as he could be as to how this takes place. There is, it seems, a privileging of more European understandings of liturgy that are assumed rather than explicated.
Finally, in the concluding chapter, Byars makes clear the importance of caring for the poor. He uses as a vehicle a conversation about the offering and stewardship. He reminds us that going back to the early church the bringing of offerings was not to subscribe the budget but to provide for the poor. This is an intriguing chapter, both in its word about stewardship and its emphasis on the caring for the poor. While at times I found him to be theological curmudgeon (even when I was in agreement), I found him in this final chapter to be prophetic. He even encourages direct action, or what some call community organizing, as an expression of worship. He challenges the typical application of the "Protestant Work Ethic," which he suggests has been unfortunately reworked to remove the Protestant part, so that the poor are blamed for their poverty, rather than encouraging the value of labor. Again, this rooted in conversations about theology, about orthodoxy, about accountability.
I'm not sure Byars has all the answers. As one who is part of a non-creedal community, some of what he suggests is not workable, but we an attend to our theology, which in my case is rooted in Scripture. At least, that has been our orthodoxy. For more Progressive Christians this might seem old hat and restrictive, but sometimes we need to be called back to our roots. I believe that is what Byars wishes to do, even if we need to push on those boundaries he lays out, asking good questions about what it means to hear the polyvalient voices present in the church.
More...