Etymonline describes the word theology as thus:
theology (n.) Look up theology at Dictionary.com
mid-14c., "the science of religion, study of God and his relationship to humanity," from Old French theologie "philosophical study of Christian doctrine; Scripture" (14c.), from Latin theologia, from Greek theologia "an account of the gods," from theologos "one discoursing on the gods," from theos "god" (see theo-) + -logos "treating of" (see -logy). Meaning "a particular system of theology" is from 1660s.
Encounter is defined as:
ncounter (v.) Look up encounter at Dictionary.com
c.1300, "to meet as an adversary," from Old French encontrer "confront," from encontre (see encounter (n.). Weakened sense of "casually meet" first recorded in English early 16c. Related: Encountered; encountering.
I actually thought that encounter just meant 'to meet'. Isn't it interesting that the word originally meant more than a casual meeting?
I've been involved with worship music since I was seventeen. As part of a worship team, and also in the classes I attended in Bible college, I was privy to many views on the purpose of worship. You'd have to go back and study the history of church music to get a full understanding of how it has evolved; I don't want to get into it here. Suffice it to say, it's usually just an argument of old vs. new, hymns vs. choruses, etc. I think one side is always arguing that one kind is holier or more accessible to the congregation.
One of the observations that have been expressed is that many of the songs written today have little theological depth, or even worse, flawed theologically. This is true for many songs. Both hymns and new worship alike. But there are several factors we need to examine instead of deeming something theologically fluffy.
For example, have you read President George Washington's State of the Union address and compared it to President Barack Obama's? I haven't. I've only read excerpts. But the disparity of the language is immense. Today's second grade level verbiage hardly compares to yesteryear's intense, weighty and verbose rhetoric. Some of this is because we are all more stupid. Really. Some of it is because we have found simpler ways of conveying heavy topics. Just because something is more wordy doesn't mean it's saying more. Like this blog. ;)
Theology is just the study of God and His ways. Studying doesn't necessarily lead to KNOWING. I could read a biography about my husband but in no way can that be compared to being his wife and knowing him through close relationship.
I don't mean this to be offensive in the slightest, but for us academic types, studying is the easy way out. It is so easy to sit down with a book, take notes, think a bit and then write a paper. I have read and studied the Bible. I have read countless books written by Bible scholars from centuries before. At the end of the day, my mind has just been filled with words and opinions. I am as close to knowing Him as I would have been reading a biography of my husband.
What are people talking about when they refer to theology? For most, they are talking about an intellectual, cerebral grasp of the God and His ways. Theology doesn't have to be intellectual. I can learn about God through experience. When I experience His goodness, and then read about it in Scripture, it has been confirmed that Goodness is one of the attributes of God. I KNOW it.
I can't KNOW something intellectually. In the sense of belief. What convinces a person that something is true? Is it logic or reason? Or is it a feeling? I can argue for and against the existence of God and achieve a rational argument for both sides. But it is my EXPERIENCE that convinces me that God is real. Feelings aren't supposed to be separated from thought. From a neurological standpoint, feelings are actually hormonal flags supporting other thoughts. We cannot separate them. You can tell me till you are blue in the face that God loves me, but if I have no frame of reference, if all I have known is hardship and abuse, this means nothing to me. Love is only an idea until it is felt. Once it has been experienced, one can start structuring reason on top of it. If it is not experienced, your mind can be changed be a better argument. The structure of truth on top of experience is crucial however, because once the experience has past, your present feelings can influence your mind.
From a worship leader's standpoint, should I lead the people in songs that are theologically accurate? Of course. Should I teach them about God through the songs? Of course. Should they have theological depth? Come on, what does that even mean? Does that mean we should get out our pens and paper and take notes and look into the Greek and perhaps delve into commentaries to see the different opinions of the (supposedly) more learned scholars?
One cannot convey depth academically. Words merely convey thought. Not heart.
What they can do, is open a door. Words are an invitation; depth is a process of walking further in.
Not everyone learns academically or intellectually. In fact, spiritual depth can be communicated simply. In a sentence, spoken over and over. How is that?
Revelations 4:8 Each of the four living creatures had six wings and was covered with eyes all around, even under his wings. Day and night they never stop saying: "HOLY, HOLY, HOLY IS THE Lord GOD ALMIGHTY, WHO WAS, AND IS, AND IS TO COME."
For infinity past and infinity to come, they sing the same thing. Why? I personally think that every time they circle around the throne they are aware of a new aspect of His holiness. Now that's depth. Ever closer, further in, higher up.
I feel that leading the Body in worship should be a combination of three things;
1. Know your flock. Understand where they are spiritually. Neither discount the immature or the mature.
2. Create an atmosphere that blesses God. God inhabits the praises of His people, and He shows His presence in the place where people are hungry for Him. Make God and His agenda foremost.
3. Choose songs that invite. You can't lead people into a place you haven't been. Seek His face. Spend time in private worship. The songs don't have to be theologically complex to teach. Simple is best.
Last but not least, we cannot separate theology from encounter. If encounter is first, it needs to be followed with knowledge. If knowledge is first, it must be followed by encounter. Being a friend of God doesn't mean being a bookworm. ;)
No comments:
Post a Comment