Tuesday, October 19, 2004 AD
Sydney Worship
I'm currently studying the Christian Worship module of the correspondence course run by Moore Theological College in Sydney which I've been doing for the past couple of years. My reason for doing the course is just personal interest, rather than any qualification, since basically the course only qualifies me to become a lay reader in the Diocese of Sydney. In other words, a type of ministry (unordained preacher) which I don't really hold with, in a denomination of which I am no longer a member, in a diocese on the other side of the world.
On the plus side, some of the actual material has been pretty good (certainly streets ahead of the equivalent courses for laypeople in the Church of England), and the examiners are quite tolerant of Lutherans: my best marks have come in the exams where I most let rip with dodgy Lutheran views on, say, the sacraments. For example, in the exam on Romans - yes, that's right, an entire module just on Romans; now you see why I'm still doing this course - they asked, "What does Romans 6:1-4 teach about baptism?" So I told them. :-)
However, the current module is the most "difficult" so far: not because it is academically more challenging, but because the issue of "worship" - what it is, and how we are to worship God - is precisely the issue on which I ended up parting company from "Sydney Anglicanism". In particular, the course content reflects the "horizontalising" tendency among Sydney Anglicans and their followers elsewhere in the world, in which the sacraments and liturgy are downplayed, and worship is seen primarily as being about obedient service in our daily lives, with church gatherings being principally for the purpose of edification and mutual encouragement, rather than "worship" as such.
I've described before my experience of attending a few services - oops, sorry, gatherings - at a very Sydney-influenced Anglican church near my home last year. That experience left me feeling I had no home left in Anglicanism. I subsequently discovered that that was because I'd actually been turning into a Lutheran without realising it :-)
But all this does make the Christian Worship course rather a trying experience at times. A particular low-point came on p.52 of the course book:
So anyway, my approach to this part of the course is basically to grit my teeth, get through it and move on to the next module, which looks a bit more encouraging ("Doctrine 2: An entire term on the centre of our faith, Jesus Christ. Who was He? What did He do?"). However, there is some positive material in the Christian Worship module - courtesy of Herr Doktor Martin Luther of blessed memory - and I'll cover that in my next post (which, in contrast to my recent lamentable record of actually completing follow-up posts, has already been written).
On the plus side, some of the actual material has been pretty good (certainly streets ahead of the equivalent courses for laypeople in the Church of England), and the examiners are quite tolerant of Lutherans: my best marks have come in the exams where I most let rip with dodgy Lutheran views on, say, the sacraments. For example, in the exam on Romans - yes, that's right, an entire module just on Romans; now you see why I'm still doing this course - they asked, "What does Romans 6:1-4 teach about baptism?" So I told them. :-)
However, the current module is the most "difficult" so far: not because it is academically more challenging, but because the issue of "worship" - what it is, and how we are to worship God - is precisely the issue on which I ended up parting company from "Sydney Anglicanism". In particular, the course content reflects the "horizontalising" tendency among Sydney Anglicans and their followers elsewhere in the world, in which the sacraments and liturgy are downplayed, and worship is seen primarily as being about obedient service in our daily lives, with church gatherings being principally for the purpose of edification and mutual encouragement, rather than "worship" as such.
I've described before my experience of attending a few services - oops, sorry, gatherings - at a very Sydney-influenced Anglican church near my home last year. That experience left me feeling I had no home left in Anglicanism. I subsequently discovered that that was because I'd actually been turning into a Lutheran without realising it :-)
But all this does make the Christian Worship course rather a trying experience at times. A particular low-point came on p.52 of the course book:
It is tragic that the Lord's Supper, which ought to be an expression of Christian unity, has been the source of so much division and conflict amongst Christians throughout the centuries. One reason for this is that too much significance has been given to this rite, also known as the Eucharist, the Mass and the Holy Communion.But then, certain Moore College theologians have apparently been known to argue that Jesus never instituted such a thing as "the Lord's Supper" in the first place: when Jesus spoke what we call the "words of institution", at the Last Supper, He was simply talking to the disciples present at the time. "Take, eat" meant "Take this now, eat this now". Not "Take this every Sunday for the next 2000 years".
So anyway, my approach to this part of the course is basically to grit my teeth, get through it and move on to the next module, which looks a bit more encouraging ("Doctrine 2: An entire term on the centre of our faith, Jesus Christ. Who was He? What did He do?"). However, there is some positive material in the Christian Worship module - courtesy of Herr Doktor Martin Luther of blessed memory - and I'll cover that in my next post (which, in contrast to my recent lamentable record of actually completing follow-up posts, has already been written).
