The image inset left is a calligraphic ikon of the Lord's Prayer in Arabic. The islamic prohibition of ikons resulted in a culture just as permeated with calligraphy ikons as the Christian East is permeated with graphic ikons, such as the Pantokrator above. To bridge the gap—and infuriate islamic clerics—Arab converts to modern Christian churches produce calligraphy ikons of bible verses like this one. It even mimics the general layout of the Orthodox ikon. But that's not my topic.
I started watching a music video of an Arab female vocalist singing Psalm 51 in Arabic, but I couldn't get past the instrumental introduction and her singing of the first few verses. Just as I do not attend concerts of Byzantine chant or other music associated with Orthodox worship, I don't attend or watch concerts of any kind of worship music, not even Christmas carols. However, this is just me.
I started watching a music video of an Arab female vocalist singing Psalm 51 in Arabic, but I couldn't get past the instrumental introduction and her singing of the first few verses. Just as I do not attend concerts of Byzantine chant or other music associated with Orthodox worship, I don't attend or watch concerts of any kind of worship music, not even Christmas carols. However, this is just me.
Worship is worship, and music as the expression of worship belongs only in the home and in the temple of God, nowhere else. If you carry the temple with you into the world, when you are evangelizing, reading the scriptures and singing the prayers publicly, that is still the temple. When you are teaching the chants and preparing people for worship, that is the home. Really, there is only one place where worship belongs, and it is in the home; the temple is the macro and the family ikon corner the micro, and everything else is in between.
So people were rejoicing that Arab people are finally turning from Islam and finding Jesus, and are now able to worship the true God and sing all those wonderful new pop Christian songs in Arabic, even Psalm 51 can be sung in Arabic by a beautiful female vocalist.
Modern pop Christianity, especially pentecostal, makes huge claims for bringing the world to Christ, but the work of evangelism is done by Christ in us, as we witness for Him one day and one person at a time, with attention, care and commitment.
Arab Orthodox Christianity exists in both Greek and Coptic forms, and I have heard Psalm 51 chanted in Arabic by priests and cantors in the Church. Yes, it's beautiful when chanted in the traditional style, but more than beautiful, it calls the heart to prayer, to pray the words as they are heard being chanted.
This is all there waiting for the Arab peoples to rediscover, but many will have to go through the pasteurization process of pop Christianity, and when they're ready, by the mercy of God may they find out who and what the Church of Christ really is. Until then, they're still on a shaky foundation, trusting in human beings and exulting in the flesh while saying they are in the Spirit, and not realizing how they have been misled.
The greatest lies come in the flashiest wrappers and are bought by the most self-centered customers. The choice is always still out there, though, waiting to be made, no matter how we start out in our belief in Christ. You can't be Christ's and the world's friend at the same time. You can't serve two masters. The stronger desire always wins.
Desire nothing but Jesus.
5 comments:
By the way, the photograph of the Orthodox bishops and monks used in this post has to be my favorite picture of all time: Pay attention, brothers! Bishops can sit on the floor in their stocking feet, smile and be jovial with one another, not worrying about 'what they look like' to others. These are pastors, shepherds, of the Church of God: Holiness does not hide under wrappings; it is enhanced by them. And if we, all of us, cannot be children before the Lord, we will never enter His Kingdom.
It is interesting that the Protestants are the ones who seem (or always used to seem) to revere the Bible as holy, as the word of God, and as the ultimate authority. And, I respect them for that--for that particular sense of holiness which permeated their worship and their homes.
Yet, it is also the Protestants who developed "Christian rock-n-roll," some of which contains scriptural verses (or partial verses). And, I really never thought of this as inappropriate until I read your post today.
I do not like Christian rock. I prefer the old-time hymns (did these also contain sciptural verses?). Anyway, my feeling is that if you want to listen to rock, then listen to rock. Do not try to Christianize it in order to make it acceptable. It seems to me that their goal is double: to reach out to the unconverted, but also to indulge in something which they enjoy (rock or pop music) but feel it is unreligious.
Anyway, the Protestants reach the masses. I might disagree with you a little here--you probably know better than I--but I wonder what would happen if the Orthodox held revivals or went door to door and evangelized. Jesus Christ spoke to crowds....
I am not making the point that Christian rock-n-roll is a bad thing, but that worship does not, or should not, consist in 'lavishing ourselves in applause' and being carried along in the currents of the flesh, justifying it because we claim we are 'in the Spirit.'
I too like the traditional English hymns and have many of them memorised to sing at will, and yes, many of them are simply metrical versions of the psalms or other verses from the bible.
The Protestants may 'reach the masses', but what really is happening? Yes, Jesus spoke to crowds, and what did they do? Where were they when He was crucified? And even later, where were these crowds when at most, 120 people were gathered in the upper room on the day of Pentecost? The 3000 who accepted Christ on that day came from the preaching of the apostles filled with the Holy Spirit, and it was not at a revival—revivals are tent meetings to re-evangelize and revive Christian life in people who already know that there is a Jesus.
No one in scripture, no one in the history of the Church, ever went 'door to door' evangelizing. The plan that God has for the evangelization and salvation of the world is simpler than that. It is just 'go, and make disciples,' a naked commandment followed by only a brief instruction. It's all found in Matthew 28:19-20.
All Christians are, simply put, witnesses. We can testify only to that which we know. This is not about which church does it better, or which is more valid than another. These are not the kind of questions that interest Jesus, and they shouldn't interest us either. What this is about, is realising that the human constructs are unworthy of us: only Christ is worthy. The nets we fashion to catch the fish must not become ends in themselves, for the fish were not made for the nets, but the nets for the fish. And when caught, fish will only spoil and rot if they stay in the nets.
This post is about not settling for anything less than Jesus. The Orthodox have a saying, ‘We know where the Church is, but we don't necessarily know where she is not.’ I have a saying of my own, that mirrors it, sort of its flip-side, ‘We know where Jesus is, but we don't necessarily know where He is not.’
Why can both these sayings be true? And if they are true, who or what is being excluded, and by whom?
Thanks, sister, for your comments.
I think I understand what you are saying. But maybe I used the wrong word when I said "revival." I probably should have said "crusade," such as in Billy Graham's crusades where people would go forward and accept Christ (supposedly people who were formerly unbelievers or perhaps ambivelent).
Regarding, "Where were they when He was crucified:" does that automatically exclude speaking to the crowds from that point onward? Because, even Peter denied Christ and Judas betrayed Christ: and they had personal experiences with Christ different from those of the "crowd" or the "masses" to whom Christ spoke.
Are you saying that "go and make disciples" is a post-crucifixion form of evangelism? That speaking to the crowds was no longer a valid way (and was not totally effective to begin with)?
I am not challenging your comments; just trying to get this clear in my own mind.
You're starting to lose me. I'm not quite sure what you're getting at, or if we are even talking about the same thing. There is no form of evangelism that can be excluded by anyone, except perhaps evangelism by force, which is what we see portrayed in films like "Agora" or "The Other Conquest." Forgive me, but I don't understand the question. Perhaps, I am just tired.
Post a Comment