Never mind that the author makes the common mistake of confusing the spelling of "etymologist" and "entomologist," this is a very salient angle on the economics underlying Dickens' classic, A Christmas Carol.
Monday, December 23, 2013
Sunday, December 8, 2013
Would that the design of the RCL and the committee that designed it were more inclusive
In light of the comments Steve Thorngate's recent article in The Christian Century has generated from those defending the RCL, a couple of thoughts spring to mind:
(1) The insistence that RCL has a specifically eucharistic aim does not square with a theology of Scripture that views the whole of the written revelation as nourishment for the people of God (which is the point I am driving at in Chapter 3 of Year D); in other words, we should ask, what makes a text sufficiently eucharistic? A proper answer should recognize the broader sense in which the word of God as such is life giving when it is preached in such a way that leads us to Christ, but the selectivity of RCL does not evince such an inclusive theology of the word.
(2) One wonders if the composition of the Consultation on Common Texts over the years is, or has been, part of the problem. From its own website, the consultation is described as: "an ecumenical consultation of liturgical scholars and denominational representatives from the United States and Canada, who produce liturgical texts for common use by North American Christian churches." My question is this: Where are the Bible scholars, the systematic theologians, the church historians (other than liturgical historians), the ethicists, the pastoral counselors, the evangelists, the missiologists, the Christian educators, and the homileticians? Would the broader church be satisfied with a calendar of readings designed by a committee composed of denominational leaders and a group of experts chosen solely from one of these other disciplines, say, Old Testament scholars? No. Why should they? So—I say this as one who teaches worship and produces liturgical texts—what the CCT can boast in terms of ecumenical inclusiveness does not seem to be matched by a corresponding inclusiveness where different fields of study are concerned.
(1) The insistence that RCL has a specifically eucharistic aim does not square with a theology of Scripture that views the whole of the written revelation as nourishment for the people of God (which is the point I am driving at in Chapter 3 of Year D); in other words, we should ask, what makes a text sufficiently eucharistic? A proper answer should recognize the broader sense in which the word of God as such is life giving when it is preached in such a way that leads us to Christ, but the selectivity of RCL does not evince such an inclusive theology of the word.
(2) One wonders if the composition of the Consultation on Common Texts over the years is, or has been, part of the problem. From its own website, the consultation is described as: "an ecumenical consultation of liturgical scholars and denominational representatives from the United States and Canada, who produce liturgical texts for common use by North American Christian churches." My question is this: Where are the Bible scholars, the systematic theologians, the church historians (other than liturgical historians), the ethicists, the pastoral counselors, the evangelists, the missiologists, the Christian educators, and the homileticians? Would the broader church be satisfied with a calendar of readings designed by a committee composed of denominational leaders and a group of experts chosen solely from one of these other disciplines, say, Old Testament scholars? No. Why should they? So—I say this as one who teaches worship and produces liturgical texts—what the CCT can boast in terms of ecumenical inclusiveness does not seem to be matched by a corresponding inclusiveness where different fields of study are concerned.
Thursday, December 5, 2013
Twenty-three-years ago today ...
I went in to the studio (Woodland West) to record this track, " … And They Were Given Seven Trumpets."
The rest of the album was recorded in two additional sessions, though I don't remember the exact dates. For more on this track, see the background comments at the link.
The rest of the album was recorded in two additional sessions, though I don't remember the exact dates. For more on this track, see the background comments at the link.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)