9/23/2007

Church Today.

Despite being utterly exhausted, we managed Sunday School and Church today, which was no small feat. Baked potatoes in the oven meant an easy time when we came home, too, and we've pretty much dozed through the rest of the day - it's been one of those weeks.

We had a visiting preacher today, who spoke from 2 Samuel 6, and it struck me how appropriate it was, given the discussion about what is appropriate in worship. 2 Sam 6 is where Uzzah meets his unfortunate end, and it's also where Michal scorns David as he dances before the ark of the covenant.

As we read it, it occured to me that I have always felt rather sorry for these two characters in scripture. Uzzah was only trying to prevent the ark falling in a ditch, and Michal - oh, poor Michal! - unable to marry the man she wanted to, and then unable to bear children because she thought David made a fool of himself.

But, then, looking at the passage today, as the preacher taught on it, drawing out the lessons in it on worship, things made a little more sense. It also made sense why I would have had sympathy with each of these people - because I am as prone to error as any other sinner.

Uzzah and Michal were two opposite ends of the spectrum, and both of them put too much stock in the world's way of doing and viewing things. When the Ark of the Covenant was put on a brand new cart, it was an idea borrowed from the Philistines. It sounded great on paper - new cart, full band going before it, how could God fail to be impressed?

Except He wasn't. The Lord had already laid down the details of what He required from the Israelites in regard to His holiness, and a cart, be it brand-spanking new, or old and extremely venerated, was not in amongst them. The consequences of a cavalier attitude to the Holiness of God are very serious - and in that instance included Uzzah being made very, very dead.

God doesn't appear to be executing people in churches that have borrowed wholesale from the world, but is there actually spiritual life there to begin with? When there is little regard for what God Himself has said, and more concern with techniques and programs, it's at least a matter of deep concern. It's not like there isn't ample instruction in scripture about the day to day functioning life of His body.

Ok, so we're looking to scripture, and we've got it all buttoned up. We know what to expect, and we've been doing it for many decades. Then, in comes some scruffy, unchurched urchin, seeing his need of a saviour. It's lovely that he's been saved, but does he have to be so enthusiastic? He bellows out the hymns, pays no attention to the harmonies, and always comes in 20 seconds too early and holds the last note 20 seconds too long. It's a bit embarrassing.

So says Michal. But Michal is wrong, because, as the text repeatedly informs us, she's Saul's daughter. Following after her father, her sarcasm is sharp as a pin, but she doesn't burst David's bubble. He will worship the Lord exuberantly, secure now that he is following the Lord's instructions. It may not be dignified, and in fact the whole point is that it is humbling, but the scorn of the world is an irrelevance to the worship of the Most High God.

We worship in Spirit and in truth, and we mustn't concern ourselves with the world's advice or it's censure when it comes to the worship of God. We have the Holy Spirit, and we have the Scriptures - let us be wise and and follow neither Uzzah or Michal into error.

Note: Please read David Reimer's comments in the thread - they're very interesting and add another viewpoint to the passage, which I found very worthwhile.

11 comments:

donsands said...

" The consequences of a cavalier attitude to the Holiness of God are very serious-"


Your thoughts here were very excellent, and very sobering and encouraging. Thanks.

DjR said...

Hi Libbie -- I'm an infrequent visitor to your blog, but I invariably enjoy reading your writing when I do.

You have some interesting thoughts here on 2 Samuel 6 from yesterday's sermon. I wonder, however, if we sometimes read this story a bit carelessly. We are pretty quick to condemn Michal, and "St Matt of Redman" has enshrined this reading of the story for many in his song "Undignified".

There are cues that there is more going on than meets the eye. Consider...

- David is, no doubt about it, scantily clad. Are we intending to approve approaching worship this way, since we approve of his protest in v. 22? (It seems in any case he's just as worried about what the ladies make of him, as he is about what God does.)

- God commands "decency" from his fallen creatures. He clothes them in the Garden of Eden. "Nakedness" (i.e., exposure) defiles his altar (Exodus 20:26).

- Michal is childless, yes. But tellingly, we do not read that the Lord "shut her womb" (as with Hannah in 1 Samuel 1:5-6). Rather, Michal "had no child" ... that is, David ignored her. Her momentary (and justifiable) reproof (and disregard) is more than matched by David's lifetime of cold retaliation.

There is a post-script to all this in 2 Samuel 21. Ironically, perhaps, David's refusal to procreate with Michal protected the Davidic line from being "crossed" with Saul's, and ensured that Michal was spared the tragic grief of having her children handed over to the Gibeonites to be executed.

My sense is that if we learn something valuable from David about abandonment in worship, we learn something equally valuable from Michal about right constraints.

IMO, YMMV, etc., etc.

David Reimer

DjR said...

P.S. :) It seems to me that the standard applied against Uzzah ("The Lord had already laid down the details of what He required from the Israelites in regard to His holiness", you wrote) could equally be applied to David's "exuberance". Hmmmm....

David Reimer

Libbie said...

David, thankyou for your comments. Very intriguing thoughts - particularly about Michal's womb. I'd forgotten about the song 'Undignified' (and I'm a bit annoyed that it's probably going to go round in my head all day now! :-D)

You make a good point, and I'm going to direct people to the comments you've made, because they make a lot of sense.

donsands said...

"David is, no doubt about it, scantily clad."

"David was girded with a linen e-phod". v.14
"And David was clothed with a fine linen robe, .. David also had upon him and e-phod of linene." 1 Chron. 15:27

Seems this was some sort of covering which David wore.
So why does Michal say he was uncovered?

BTW, I appreciate your thoughts on this.

Dyspraxic Fundamentalist said...

Libbie, those are good thoughts.

DjR said...

@Libbie - sorry about the tune-locked-in-head thing! I sympathize! ;)

@Don - some of this is by inference, as the biblical evidence is not plentiful. But it is adequate, I think. We have the phrase "linen ephod" in only four verses: 1 Sam 2:18, where it is the clothing of the boy Samuel (except that Hannah still makes him an outer-garment [v. 19], so that suggests something about the nature of this "linen ephod"); 1 Sam 22:18, where it is the garment of serving priests (so a priestly garment); and 2 Sam 6:14 // 1 Chron 15:27 (as you note), where it is what the dancing King David wears in the procession of the Ark to Jerusalem.

Combining these passages with some other threads (ahem!) of evidence, this "linen ephod" was a light undergarment (see, for example, Exod 28:42; Lev 6:10), possibly a loin-cloth, covering front and rear from waist to thigh (= two square cloths, joined at the hip).

So ... covering, yes. Discrete? Seems unlikely!

donsands said...

"And David was clothed with a fine linen robe"

What are your thoughts on this robe?

For the verse says David "also" wore the e-phod. So he would have a robe, and a e-phod, wouldn't he?

I suppose I see David as a true worshipper of the LORD.

He was angry with God for killing Uzzah, but soon after he feared the LORD again.

Once he was back to fearing God, then he brought the Ark to his city and was overwhelmed with rejoicing.
Was there an ego problem? I'm sure, to a point.

Thanks for the thoughts your have shared. You could be right on the money, but I need to think on it a bit more.

DjR said...

@Don - you're asking some good questions! I've probably said enough for one comment thread and don't want to wear out my welcome! :)

So, brief as I can, on your last commment: (1) no doubt 2 Samuel and 1 Chronicles give us different glimpses of this event, and my notes relate to 2 Sam 6 itself. (2) My own take on relation of the 1 Chron 15 passage to 2 Sam 6 is that (a) the "Chronicler" regularly sets aside David's foibles -- and sins. (Compare 2 Sam 11 to 1 Chron 20:1-3, for example.) And (b) Chronicles is written later than 2 Samuel, and it is possible that by this point "ephod" has come to be understood as the elaborate garment of the priests, rather than the light linen summer-wear of 1-2 Samuel.

Hope that helps......

(@Libbie - sorry for rambling!)

David Reimer

donsands said...

Thanks David. Good stuff to consider.

JP said...

Hi,

Been enjoying the comings and goings on David and Michal's conduct, and must admit I'm never sure, I've heard it preached both ways....I think the one that attracts me most is one that would view Michal as being too conscious and indeed ashamed of David's exuberance....but eternity will tell!

As for the Uzzah incident this above all else is a condemnation of pragmatism in the worship of God and in church life generally...the cart "worked" for a while anyway, but it finally and tragically failed, because God had been specific in how the ark was to be moved...and it wasn't the cart, something much more "old fashioned".

The lesson is we disobey God and indulge our own ideas at our peril, and especially so, as you point out Libbie, when our ideas come from Philistea.

JP

And p.s. ta for opening up the comments to a wider group of folks!